Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe 9639911178, 9789639911178

Table of contents :
Foreword / Katalin Wollák, President of Europae Archaeologiae Consilium 7
Introduction / Stephen Trow 9
European Overview
1. Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe / Stephen Trow 19
National and Local Perspectives
2. Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape / Ingrid Smedstad 29
3. Problems and perspectives of archaeological heritage preservation in farmed landscapes in Germany – a survey of federal structures / Andreas Büttner, Jana Esther Fries, Henning Hassmann, Gabriele Schiller, Michael Strobel and Thomas Westphalen 37
4. Shaping the Netherlands / Cees van Rooijen and Guido Mauro 43
5. Raising consciousness: the reconciliation of archaeological heritage preservation and agricultural practice in Hungary / Réka Virágos 51
6. Agricultural changes, ancient mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some field (and forest) notes from southern Burgundy / William Meyer 59
7. Cover is not shelter: archaeology and forestry in the Czech Republic / Zdeněk Neustupný 69
8. Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits / Vibeke Vandrup Martens 75
9. Monitoring and managing archaeological sites on the farmland of Wales / Peter Gaskell and Gwilym Hughes 83
10. Field Monument Wardens in Northern Ireland: working with owners to manage scheduled historic monuments / Claire Foley 87
11. The Field Monument Advisory Scheme in the Republic of Ireland / Rosanne Meenan 91
12. Assessing and managing risk: the Scheduled Monuments At Risk (SMAR) and Conservation Of Scheduled Monuments In Cultivation (COSMIC) projects, England / Jon Humble 95
13. The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and archaeology / Hugh Carey and Ann Lynch 105
14. Archaeology, agriculture and environment on the Burren Uplands, Ireland / Christine Grant 113
15. Heritage stewardship in Flanders: rural development money for rural heritage management? / Karl Cordemans 119
16. Agri-environmental schemes and the historic environment of the United Kingdom: a view from Wales / Mike Yates, with contributions from Victoria Hunns, Rhonda Robinson, and Jonathan Wordsworth 123
17. Ripping up history, sordid motives or cultivating solutions? Plough damage and archaeology: a perspective from England / Stephen Trow 129
18. Mitigation impossible? Practical approaches to managing archaeology in arable farming systems / Vincent Holyoak 135
19. Forestry and the historic environment in Britain: a challenging past and an exciting future / Tim Yarnell and Peter Crow 141
20. Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends / Emmet Byrnes 147
21. Archaeology and forestry in Bavaria (Germany): current ways of co-operation / Joachim Hamberger, Walter Irlinger and Grietje Suhr 157
Looking to the Future
22. Changing the land – the implications of climate-change policies, actions and adaptations for Scotland’s rural historic environment / Jonathan Wordsworth 163
23. The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples / Leif Gren and Peter Norman 169
Contributors 177
Résumés/Zusammenfassungen 179

Citation preview

Some 40 per cent of Europe is farmed and 47 per cent forested. The future of the majority of Europe’s archaeological sites therefore depends on rural land uses that lie outside the spatial planning and development control systems of its various nation states. This volume, produced by the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) and Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC) Joint Working Group on Farming, Forestry and Rural Land Management, examines the challenges posed by agriculture, forestry and other rural land uses in terms of the long-term conservation of Europe’s archaeological sites and the management of its historic landscapes.

EAC Occasional Paper No. 4 ISBN 978-963-9911-17-8

Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe

Edited by Stephen Trow, Vincent Holyoak and Emmet Byrnes

EAC occasional paper no. 4

Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe

Edited by Stephen Trow, Vincent Holyoak and Emmet Byrnes

EAC4 cover.indd 1

EAC occasional paper no. 4

Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe

Edited by Stephen Trow, Vincent Holyoak and Emmet Byrnes

22/11/2010 13:25:15

EAC occasional paper no. 4

Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in1 1

19/11/2010 12:21:53

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in2 2

19/11/2010 12:21:53

EAC occasional paper no. 4

Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe Edited by Stephen Trow, Vincent Holyoak and Emmet Byrnes

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in3 3

19/11/2010 12:21:56

EAC occasional paper no. 4 Heritage Management of Farmed and Forested Landscapes in Europe Edited by Stephen Trow, Vincent Holyoak and Emmet Byrnes

Published by: Europae Archaeologia Consilium (EAC), Association Internationale sans But Lucratif (AISBL), Siège social Koning Albert II-laan 19 Avenue Roi Albert II 19 P.O. Box 10 Boîte 10 1210 Brussel 1210 Bruxelles Belgium Belgique www.e-a-c.org In association with: Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ireland); Department of Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Ireland); English Heritage; European Association of Archaeologists; Forest Service (Ireland) © The individual authors 2010 The opinions expressed in this volume are those of the individual authors, and do not necessarily represent official policy. ISBN 978-963-9911-17-8 Brought to publication by Whimster Associates, UK Typesetting and cover design by Carnegie Book Production, UK Printed by Aduprint Printing and Publishing Ltd., Hungary Distribution by Archaeolingua, Hungary Cover illustration: Meon Hill, a statutorily protected Iron Age hillfort situated in Warwickshire, England. The monument, lying partly within woodland and partly in farmland and with its eastern side levelled by cultivation, encapsulates the management challenges faced by thousands of archaeological sites in Europe. © English Heritage NMR 15369.27

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in4 4

19/11/2010 12:21:56

Contents

Foreword Katalin Wollák, President of Europae Archaeologiae Consilium

7

Introduction Stephen Trow

9

European Overview 1 | Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe Stephen Trow

19

National and Local Perspectives 2 | Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape Ingrid Smedstad

29

3 | Problems and perspectives of archaeological heritage preservation in farmed landscapes in Germany – a survey of federal structures Andreas Büttner, Jana Esther Fries, Henning Hassmann, Gabriele Schiller, Michael Strobel and Thomas Westphalen

37

4 | Shaping the Netherlands Cees van Rooijen and Guido Mauro

43

5 | Raising consciousness: the reconciliation of archaeological heritage preservation and agricultural practice in Hungary Réka Virágos

51

6 | Agricultural changes, ancient mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some field (and forest) notes from southern Burgundy William Meyer

59

7 | Cover is not shelter: archaeology and forestry in the Czech Republic Zdeněk Neustupný

69

8 | Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits Vibeke Vandrup Martens

75

9 | Monitoring and managing archaeological sites on the farmland of Wales Peter Gaskell and Gwilym Hughes

83

10 | Field Monument Wardens in Northern Ireland: working with owners to manage scheduled historic monuments Claire Foley

87

11 | The Field Monument Advisory Scheme in the Republic of Ireland Rosanne Meenan

91

12 | Assessing and managing risk: the Scheduled Monuments At Risk (SMAR) and Conservation Of Scheduled Monuments In Cultivation (COSMIC) projects, England Jon Humble

95

13 | The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and archaeology Hugh Carey and Ann Lynch

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in5 5

105

19/11/2010 12:21:56



EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

14 | Archaeology, agriculture and environment on the Burren Uplands, Ireland Christine Grant

113

15 | Heritage stewardship in Flanders: rural development money for rural heritage management? Karl Cordemans

119

16 | Agri-environmental schemes and the historic environment of the United Kingdom: a view from Wales Mike Yates, with contributions from Victoria Hunns (Principal Specialist, Natural England), Rhonda Robinson (Northern Ireland Environment Agency), and Jonathan Wordsworth (Rural Land Use Advisor, Archaeology Scotland)

123

17 | Ripping up history, sordid motives or cultivating solutions? Plough damage and archaeology: a perspective from England Stephen Trow

129

18 | Mitigation impossible? Practical approaches to managing archaeology in arable farming systems Vincent Holyoak

135

19 | Forestry and the historic environment in Britain: a challenging past and an exciting future Tim Yarnell and Peter Crow

141

20 | Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends Emmet Byrnes

147

21 | Archaeology and forestry in Bavaria (Germany): current ways of co-operation Joachim Hamberger, Walter Irlinger and Grietje Suhr

157

Looking to the Future 22 | Changing the land – the implications of climate-change policies, actions and adaptations for Scotland’s rural historic environment Jonathan Wordsworth

163

23 | The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples Leif Gren and Peter Norman

169

Contributors Résumés/Zusammenfassungen

177 179

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in6 6

19/11/2010 12:21:56

Foreword

Across Europe, the contrasting legislative traditions and administrative arrangements of different countries have given rise to many variations in archaeological conservation practices. Notwithstanding this, all European countries recognise the need to protect the archaeological heritage and, in most cases, the development of increasingly sophisticated legislative and archaeological site management responses have gone hand-in-hand with the growth of archaeology as an academic discipline and each has been of mutual benefit. Increasing understanding of the archaeological resource, led by academic enquiry and informed by the application of practical techniques such as aerial reconnaissance, has led to an increasing appreciation of the ubiquity, complexity, inter-connectedness and vulnerability of the archaeological resource and historic landscape. A number of initiatives, such as England’s Monuments at Risk Survey, have also begun to quantify the threats acting on the archaeological heritage. This development in our understanding has also demonstrated that, although archaeological protection through listing (statutory designation) is an extremely valuable tool, of itself it cannot control all of the destructive pressures acting on archaeological sites. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the context of agriculture and forestry. The impacts caused by various aspects of these extensive rural land uses can be extremely damaging. Furthermore – in contrast to the impacts arising from development, which in many countries is now mediated by the spatial planning system – the damage caused by agriculture and forestry is not compensated for by developer-funded or ‘preventative’ excavations. The losses of archaeology to farming or forestry, whether sudden or gradual, normally occur without any record being made. In addition to these more familiar rural land uses, an increasing area of Europe’s countryside is being used to deliver climate-change mitigation and adaptation measures. These include renewable energy projects, such as wind farms, biogas developments and biomass crops; coastal-realignment projects; flood-relief projects; and programmes to re-create or improve the resilience of threatened habitats. These projects are considered to be so fundamental to national and international interests that they are often seen as overriding other environmental considerations, including archaeological-site and historiclandscape conservation. These issues therefore rank among the most pressing, the most serious and the most intractable challenges facing archaeological-heritage management today. This volume, the fourth in the EAC Occasional Papers series, represents a departure from the previous publications in that it does not contain the papers from an annual EAC Heritage Management Symposium. Instead it disseminates the collected papers from three conference sessions organised by members of the joint Working Group on Farming, Forestry and Rural Land Management, which now represents and advises both EAC and the European Association of Archaeologists. These conference sessions were held at the 10th EAA Annual meeting in 2004 at Lyon; the 15th EAA Annual meeting in 2009 at Riva del Garda; and at the 2008 World Archaeological Congress in Dublin. The volume also includes several additional papers especially commissioned in order to extend its geographical coverage and to examine the situation in countries not represented in the conference sessions. Together they comprise a set of 23 papers dealing with the situation in 13 European countries and address themes that we believe have never previously been considered in detail at the international level. During various meetings of EAC problems of the type considered in this volume have been confirmed by a number our members, whether representing institutions that have been formed recently or those that have a long tradition of heritage management. However, current features of the Common Agricultural Policy do offer member states (including the newest members) some opportunities to address these concerns, for example through the use of the Single Area Payment Scheme to reduce the impact of cultivation on archaeological features within areas of nature conservation. A publication that focuses on these and other pro-active heritage management tools is therefore very timely and desirable. I believe that, by describing the alternative approaches practised in various countries, this volume may inspire its readership to find their own new and increasingly effective solutions. The approaches set out in the published papers are quite progressive – particularly from those countries where current professional practice is strongly influenced by investment-led

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in7 7

19/11/2010 12:21:56



EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

archaeology – and I consider the numerous examples of the positive results of dialogue between related professions to be of particular value. EAC is, therefore, delighted to publish these important papers in its Occasional Papers series, in recognition of the Joint Working Group’s efforts on behalf of both EAA and EAC and to ensure its work is brought to the widest possible audience. We offer our congratulations to both the editors of the volume and to the contributors of the papers and we hope that the volume will stimulate widespread interest and discussion amongst ­archaeologists in Europe and beyond. Katalin Wollák President of Europae Archaeologiae Consilium

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in8 8

19/11/2010 12:21:56

Introduction

Abstract: This volume comprises a series of papers presented at various conference sessions organised and supported by members of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) and Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC) Joint Working Group on Farming, Forestry and Rural Land Management. It also includes several especially commissioned contributions intended to extend the geographical coverage and comprehensiveness of the publication. Together these papers examine the challenges posed by agriculture, forestry and associated rural land uses in terms of the long-term conservation of archaeological sites and the management of historic landscapes.

The EAA EAC Joint Working Group The Working Group was first established under the aegis of EAA at its 2004 meeting in Lyon. The purpose of the group is to improve understanding and management of the impacts on the historic environment that arise from farming and forestry. It also seeks to address other aspects of rural land use, but with a particular focus on those processes that currently lie beyond the effective influence of the various development-control and spatial-planning systems applying at the national level in different European countries. In March 2009 the EAA Working Group was also formally adopted as a Working Group of EAC and its members are extremely grateful for the immediate practical support EAC has provided by agreeing to publish these papers in its Occasional Papers series. At the time of writing, the Joint Working Group includes nearly 30 members representing 13 European countries (Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, England, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, Norway, the Republic of Ireland, Scotland, Sweden and Wales), together with an American colleague working in France, and we continue to seek additional members from other nations. Further information on the group, including details of its membership and Terms of Reference, are available via the EAA and EAC web sites. An important role of the group is to transfer experience between its members and to pool their expertise in order to address common problems. It is a particular strength of the group that it includes not only representatives of national archaeological and heritage services, but also archaeologists working within organisations that are primarily concerned with land management, nature conservation and forestry, and ­ archaeologists working within local government, academic institutions and the voluntary sector. We believe this combination of governmental heritage organisations, represented through their membership of EAC, and a wider range of archaeologists, represented through membership of EAA, makes the Joint Working Group a particularly broad-based and wellinformed forum for international professional exchange. In 2008, members of the Working Group organised and contributed to a conference session held at the Sixth World Archaeological Congress in Dublin. This session resulted in the following formal resolution being adopted by the Congress:

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in9 9

Recognising that land supports both people and their common cultural heritage and that changes induced by globalisation in agricultural and forest land-use management practices have the potential to deplete this resource, WAC calls on those responsible for rural-development policies and programmes to integrate cultural-heritage concerns into their decision-making processes and to ensure that the values and concerns of first nation and indigenous communities are fully taken on board. Research to understand the potential impact of these changes should also be undertaken and underpin decisions. It is hoped that the papers in this volume represent a first step on the road to achieving this goal within Europe. EAC Occasional Paper 4 in context In addressing the topics of farming, forestry and rural land use, this volume complements the three previously published EAC Occasional Papers: • Occasional Paper 1 (Coles & Olivier 2001) addressed the heritage management of European wetlands, examining in detail one particular – and comparatively rare – rural landscape type with special importance for archaeology. • Occasional Paper 2 (Fairclough & Rippon 2002) examined the way that archaeologists are extending their knowledge of the wider cultural landscape and considered how this understanding is to be deployed in attempts to manage the historic environment as a whole. It did so particularly in the context of the then-emerging Florence (European Landscape) Convention. • Occasional Paper 3 (Schut 2009) considered the listing (statutory designation) of archaeological sites and demonstrated how listing is a key part of the toolkit for heritage management and, in most cases, a necessary precursor to effective site protection. The papers in this volume build on the excellent foundations laid by these earlier publications. They extend the scope of discussion beyond the (often semi-natural) landscapes considered by Coles and Olivier, to include other more spatially extensive and more intensively used rural landscapes. They also build on Fairclough and Rippon’s account of the increasing recognition of the cultural landscape and its management by providing additional and more recent perspectives from a wide

19/11/2010 12:21:57

10

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

range of front-line practitioners in archaeological-site and historic-landscape management. The volume also complements Schut’s comprehensive account of the archaeological listing process in Europe by considering land-use processes that, in most European countries, often appear to lie outside the controls imposed by listing. In some countries this lack of effective controls applying to rural land uses derives from the fact that the agricultural and forestry activity is deliberately exempted from national heritage legislations. Elsewhere notional legal controls do exist but are simply not observed or are considered impractical to enforce. Whatever the reason, in many countries agriculture and forestry still present a major challenge to those seeking effectual approaches to the conservation of the archaeological resource in rural areas. In this context it is important to recognise that the listing of archaeological sites tends to be an essentially passive measure in many legislative regimes. While it establishes a general requirement for owners and for other parties to ‘do no harm’ and while it can effectively establish controls in the context of spatial planning and the licensing of construction, listing rarely delivers an effective requirement on land managers to put positive management actions in place or to deliver enhancement. As a consequence, it can be comparatively ineffective where destructive agencies are primarily natural or semi-natural in character or where they relate to agriculture (for example, see Fig. 1). The papers in this volume In broad terms, some 40% of Europe is considered to be farmed in some way and 47% forested. The proportions of forested and farmed land vary significantly across Europe, as does the proportion of its farmed land devoted to arable cultivation, pastoralism and fixed crops (such as orchards, vines and olive trees). It lies outside the scope of this volume to discuss the character of European land use in great detail, but Figure 2 provides a broad indication of the proportion of land dedicated to each of the principal rural land uses for the EU 27 countries; Figure 3 maps the extent of forested and other wooded land in Europe; and Figure 1.1 (see page 20) maps other land-use types, including areas of intensive agriculture. These illustrations, together with the individual contributor’s descriptions of their own particular national situation, should serve to illustrate the great variety of farmed and forested landscapes within which European archaeologists are working.

• regional differences in response to common problems • auditing and monitoring the state of the rural archaeological resource • research to support site management • archaeology in farmed landscapes • the effects of the Common Agricultural Policy • the potential contribution of environmental farming schemes • archaeology in forested landscapes • the relationship between historic-landscape management and nature conservation • the implications of climate change • the need to understand the motivations and pressures on land managers and to work with them more closely. Perhaps the most intriguing of these themes is the divergence between those countries that are engaged – or are seeking to become engaged – in the proactive management of archaeological field monuments in farmed and forested landscapes, and those that are not. The reasons for this divergence of approach are potentially complex. They appear to derive not only from the differing character of each country’s archaeological resource, antiquities legislation and public expenditure on heritage, but also from their differing legal systems of rights in relation to land and from the respective political strength of landowner, agricultural, cultural-heritage and wider environmental interests. In some countries there may also be assumptions that past intensive agriculture has rendered large areas of land archaeologically ‘sterile’, with the apparent implication that management initiatives would be futile (see Büttner et al., this volume).

In addressing the implications for archaeological-site management in the context of Europe’s principal rural land uses, ten distinct, albeit interlinked, themes emerge from the volume’s collected papers, as follows:

Fig. 1  Listing (designation) does not offer ancient monuments protection from a range of rural land uses and natural or semi-natural processes. The important prehistoric ceremonial landscape around Knowlton Henge in Dorset, southern England (under grass centre), is suffering long-term damage from ploughing, scrub growth, animal burrowing and permitted agricultural development, despite being a nationally important designated site. © English Heritage NMR 15326-11

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in10 10

19/11/2010 12:22:07

Introduction

11

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

Arable land

n Po d rtu g R o al Sl m ov a n ak Re i a pu bl ic Sl ov en ia Sp ai n Sw Un ed ite en d Ki ng do m

nd s

Permanent grassland

Po la

ta

rla

M al

he

em

Ne t

ia bo ur g

a vi

Lu x

Lit h

ua n

It a ly

Permanent Crops

La t

Be l

Au st

ria gi um

Bu lg ar ia Cy Cz pr ec us h Re pu bl De ic nm ar k Es to ni a Fi nl an d Fr an ce Ge rm an y Gr ee c Hu e ng ar y Ire la nd

0

Forest

Fig. 2  Relative land areas of EU 27 countries under arable cultivation, permanent crops, permanent grassland and forest or other woodland cover. Sources: EU 2008 and Eurostat 2009

It could also be suggested that a national interest in ancient-monument management develops from and reflects individual countries’ wider intellectual traditions or administrative approaches in the practice of archaeology. It is arguable, for example, that the proactive management of field monuments is a logical extension of the enhanced perception of the extent and vulnerability of the archaeological resource that follows from the development of archaeological inventories and a tradition of active aerial reconnaissance (again, see

Büttner et al., this volume). Equally – although perhaps more contentiously – it can also be proposed that there is at least a partial correlation between those countries with an active tradition of monument management and those that have introduced a developer-funded approach to archaeology. One consequence of this approach (most often based on a private sector model) may be to allow state archaeological institutions to focus some of their attention on destructive pressures over and above those caused by development and construction.

Fig. 3  Forest map of Europe, 8 June 2007. © European Environment Agency

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in11 11

19/11/2010 12:22:10

12

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Whatever the reasons for the differences in approach, an increasing number of countries are exploring the possibilities of managing an ever-greater proportion of their archaeological resource in farmed and forested landscapes. The Joint EAA EAC Working Group therefore has a potentially important role to play in sharing experiences and expertise in support of this. However, even in those countries with a long-established tradition of pro-active archaeological-site management, it can be suggested that the approach still has some way to develop in order to become a truly effective evidence-driven discipline. Until recently, for example, site-management initiatives in most countries were being deployed without the benefit of comprehensive overviews of the state, vulnerabilities and trajectory of the archaeological resource as a whole: information clearly required in order to allow the most effective targeting and prioritisation of investment decisions. Equally problematic is the fact that approaches to archaeological-site management measures are not supported by a compelling body of research to establish the effectiveness of different measures. Instead, they rely on professional judgements that owe a great deal more to a ‘rule-of-thumb’ than to a science-based approach. While this may not be a problem in the majority of cases, it may leave archaeologists poorly placed to respond to the most complex site-management challenges such as the drainage of wetlands, long-term arable cultivation and forestry. The prospects for the effective monitoring of the archaeological resource and the development of innovative research projects designed to support site-management decisions are, therefore, addressed by a number of contributors to this volume. Papers by Foley, Humble and Meenan consider the role of systematic field observations to provide country-wide assessments of the condition and vulnerability of listed (designated) field monuments in England and in the island of Ireland, while Gaskell and Hughes and Smedstadt describe how approaches to monitoring in Wales and Norway, respectively, have been extended to undesignated sites in order to devise indicators for the state of the entire archaeological resource. Meanwhile, Martens’s paper uses a rural case study from Norway to illustrate how an intensive sciencebased approach to the environmental monitoring of sites provides data that go far beyond the quality of the assessments achieved by ‘snapshot’ field observations. Related to this, papers by Yarnell and Crow, Holyoak, Humble, and Büttner et al. describe the development of new avenues of research designed to enable archaeological-site management decisions to be taken on a more systematic and evidence-led basis. It must be hoped that more work of this type will be undertaken in the future and that the potential for European-level co-operation will be explored further. The challenge of managing archaeological sites and areas within farmed landscapes is one of the two ‘core’ themes of the volume and is explored in detail in papers by Büttner et al., Carey and Lynch, Cordemans, Holyoak, Humble, Trow, van Rooijen and Mauro, Virágos and Yates et al. A number of these papers consider the advantages and disadvantages and relative balance of effort and resources being directed to the management of individual ancient monuments and to the management of entire cultural landscapes. This is being actively discussed in

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in12 12

the UK, for example, where initial approaches to active site management addressed individual listed (designated) field monuments, with the aim of maintaining a particular archaeologically benign land use and land cover on the monument, even though the surrounding landscape was subject to alternative and potentially destructive forms of land use. The archetypical example of this in England is the maintenance of grass cover, through a combination of regulation and incentives to farmers, on hundreds of designated prehistoric burial mounds, otherwise isolated in the extensive arable landscapes of southern England (Fig. 4). In more recent years, increasing academic recognition of the archaeological interest in entire landscapes and the need to address the context and interdependencies of individual field monuments has begun to be translated into new approaches to archaeological-site management. This has been coupled with – and enabled by – the development, in some European countries, of environmental farming programmes with holistic landscape management objectives (see, for example, Carey and Lynch and Yates et al., this volume). These schemes offered, for the first time, the real possibility of establishing archaeologically beneficial management on a far larger scale than single archaeological sites and they are able to embrace both listed and unlisted monuments. It is, perhaps, unsurprising that the uptake of these environmental incentive schemes has been particularly pronounced in areas of economically marginal farming, where the incentives they provide can make a significant contribution to total farm incomes. Indeed, some schemes, such as England’s recently launched Uplands Entry-Level Environmental Stewardship Scheme (see Yates et al., this volume), are specifically designed for areas practising traditional extensive pastoral farming. These landscapes are often very important to archaeologists by virtue of the high-quality survival of widespread, articulated and stratigraphically related archaeological remains that they exhibit (Fig. 5). They also have wider importance as cultural landscapes and also because of their close correlation with farmland of high nature conservation value, a topic that is becoming increasingly influential in terms of land-use policy (see EAA 2004). Together this offers the prospect of working for their protection through a broad-based coalition of conservation interests. Notwithstanding the move towards a more extensive approach to archaeological-heritage management, it is likely that both the site-specific and the landscape-wide approaches will have an important role to play in the future: and that both will have strengths and weaknesses from an archaeological perspective. As noted above, landscape-wide management tends to be most costeffective for the state and most attractive to farmers in economically marginal areas. As a consequence, the archaeological sites most likely to benefit from this approach will be a skewed sample, tending to represent only some aspects of the entire regional or national archaeological resource and leaving the archaeology of the most productive farmland underrepresented. In addition, the multi-objective character of these landscape-wide management schemes being means that difficult compromises sometimes have to be reached with other conservation and land-management

19/11/2010 12:22:10

Introduction

objectives. In various extensive grassland areas in the UK, for example, the minimal grazing regimes being delivered by environmental farming schemes in order to benefit biodiversity are potentially problematic in terms of archaeological-site survival. In contrast, the optimum maintenance of discrete archaeological sites in otherwise hostile landscapes where the surrounding land use is highly profitable (such as in areas of arable production) is a far more resource-hungry undertaking. Once established, however, such measures can be very effective in delivering their objectives, but cost means that their deployment has to be highly selective, and protection can be extended to only the most valued sites, rather than to the landscape as a whole. Alternative approaches therefore need to be developed and, in the context of arable land-use regimes, this is considered further in papers by Holyoak and Humble. While resources deriving from the historic environment (cultural heritage) sector can – and in some countries do – make a contribution towards delivering the positive management of privately owned archaeological sites, the demands of managing large numbers of sites or entire landscapes will generally outstrip the limited funding available to archaeological organisations. Consequently the future frequency and effectiveness of large-scale historic-landscape management initiatives depends, in large part, on resources derived from (inevitably far larger) agriculture and rural-development budgets (see, for example, Virágos this volume). For most of Europe this

13

will be determined by the direction and degree of reform of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and by the prominence within it of environmental land-management measures. Reform and future prospects for the CAP are, therefore, another important theme of this volume and are, at the time of writing, the most immediate challenge facing the Joint Working Group. Discussion, advocacy and negotiation on the direction of the CAP from 2014 has already commenced and is likely to be particularly challenging for environmental interests in the face of a renewed political emphasis on commodity production and food security. This will have implications that vary from country to country, including those that have a well-established practice of funding archaeological-site management through environmental farming schemes and rural-development measures (see Yates et al., this volume); those that have made important new progress in this area (see Büttner et al., Cordemans, and van Rooijen and Mauro, this volume); those that have recently entered the European Union and whose landscapes may be affected most profoundly by the EU’s future stance on agriculture and rural development (see Szpanowski 2002 and Virágos, this volume); and even those that are not members of the EU but whose agricultural sector is influenced by it (see Smedstad, this volume). The other ‘core’ theme addressed by this volume, in papers by Byrnes, Gren and Norman, Hamberger et al.,

Fig. 4  Although listing (designation) prevents Bronze Age burial mounds, such as these on the Dorset Ridgeway in southern England, from being wholly under the plough and modest management payments made to landowners can ensure damaging scrub growth is prevented, the high production value of this farmland and the limited archaeological funding available for site management mean the approach to their conservation may only ever achieve the bare minimum. © English Heritage NMR 23800-020

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in13 13

19/11/2010 12:22:20

14

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Neustupny, Smedstad, Virágos, and Yarnell and Crow, is the relationship between forestry and archaeologicalsite management. The distribution of forests and other wooded land across Europe, shown in Fig. 2, covers more than 47% of Europe as a whole and 40% of the European Union, varying from 1% in Malta and 10% in the Republic of Ireland to 77% in Finland. Although forestry lies outside the remit of the CAP, it is a policy area of interest to the EU, which has recently developed a Forest Strategy and Action Plan (EU 2008). Forests are also a very significant aspect of the European cultural heritage but, nevertheless, remain a topic of some ambivalence for archaeologists. This is because while forests can preserve archaeological remains (both the archaeological record of its own woodland history together with evidence for earlier land use) far better than some types of farmed landscape, forestation and forestry operations can be

exceedingly destructive of these remains, particularly when carried out intensively and with an ‘industrial’ approach. Two additional and related topics explored by various contributors to the volume are the relationship between the management of the historic and the natural environment and the implications of climate change for the historic dimension of landscapes. These are both significant issues because, notwithstanding the recent resurgence of food security as a central policy consideration, the mitigation of and adaptation to a changing climate and the promotion of biodiversity have been the key drivers of EU land policy and agricultural reform in recent years. While the promotion of biodiversity may currently be seen as rather less influential than concerns over climate change, it nevertheless retains far greater traction on EU farm policy than concerns

Fig. 5  Environmental farming (agri-environment) schemes, such as the Environmentally Sensitive Area Scheme, allow entire cultural landscapes to be managed, as seen here at West Penwith in Cornwall, southern England, where the field patterns and field walls originated in the later prehistoric period. Future decisions on the Common Agricultural Policy will determine whether this approach can be maintained or extended. © English Heritage NMR 10-1

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in14 14

19/11/2010 12:22:24

Introduction

15

Figs 6a and 6b  Increasingly, archaeologists are understanding and responding to the need to provide advice and information to farmers, foresters, landowners and others with an interest in managing the land. Examples include advice to forestry managers and workers in Bavaria (6a, and see Hamberger et al. this volume) and farmers in England (6b).

for the cultural landscape and archaeological heritage. Close partnership working between archaeologists and the nature conservation sector at both the national and European level should, therefore, continue to be a key aspiration for our profession. Indeed, in many situations (for example in the conservation management of wetlands), the interests of both sectors are mutually supportive and closely compatible. There are, however, situations where differences arise and, as the nature conservation sector becomes rather more muscular in its response to losses of species and habitats, it is increasingly seeking the large-scale ‘re-development’ of landscapes through radical habitat re-creation schemes (see van Rooijen and Mauro, this volume, for example). This, in turn, significantly increases the capacity for conflict and disagreement between natural and archaeological conservation interests and means that a redoubled effort will be required to ensure the delivery of common goals or, at least, mutually agreed approaches to dispute resolution. The tendency for nature conservation objectives to result in large-scale interventions in the landscape is being driven in large part by the need to respond to climate change, which is another theme threaded through this volume and, potentially, the most challenging. While a changing climate will undoubtedly eventually have severe direct impacts on the archaeological resource, at present the principal impacts on archaeology are likely to be the results of adaptation and mitigation measures. As noted above, the need to adapt ecosystems is already causing some tensions between nature and heritage­conservation interests and these look set to intensify. Equally challenging is the need to mitigate carbon emissions and, in some parts of Europe the pressures caused by the use of rural land for energy production – whether through biomass production, forestry, biogas or wind energy – are already manifest. Elsewhere, the process is just beginning, but in all cases the challenges posed for the archaeological profession by these developments are not only practical but also intensely political (see Büttner et al., Gren and Norman, Wordsworth, and Yarnell and Crow, this volume).

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in15 15

One final theme touched upon by a number of these papers is worthy of particular emphasis. This is the need for archaeologists to better understand the factors and ambitions constraining and driving the decisions of farmers, foresters and those charged with the conservation of natural resources if they are to successfully reduce the impact of changing land use, landscapes and climate on the archaeological heritage. Meyer, for example, approaches this from an academic standpoint and discusses the adoption of an ethnographic approach to explore the forces and attitudes driving land-use change in France. However we seek to improve our understanding, it is certainly clear that – if archaeologists wish to clearly communicate their own concerns and ambitions to those who own and manage the land – they need to provide user-friendly advice and information in formats that meet the technical requirements of the land manager, rather than in formats suited to the needs of archaeologists. Byrnes, Carey and Lynch, Gren and Norman, Hamberger et al., Neustupny, Smedstad, Trow, and Yarnell and Crow, all consider this issue further. While they demonstrate that good practice can already be identified in a number of countries (see, for example, Figs 6a and 6b), it is undoubtedly the case that further thinking and development is required. All ten of the themes briefly rehearsed above and considered in more detail in the following papers are current ‘live issues’ in terms of policy development and all are likely to preoccupy the archaeological profession for a number of years to come, particularly as public expenditure across Europe declines significantly. The papers in this volume are, therefore, only the briefest of ‘snapshots’ of the current state-of-play. They will need to be revisited in the not-too-distant future but they serve now to provide a signpost as to current directions of travel. Acknowledgements In conclusion I must express my gratitude to all the contributors who have taken the time to submit papers to the Working Group’s various conference sessions and

19/11/2010 12:22:30

16

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

to this volume, particularly those who kindly ensured the translation of their papers into English. Special thanks must go to my fellow academic editors, Emmet Byrnes, who also co-organised the 2008 World Archaeology Conference session, and Vince Holyoak, who also coorganised the 2009 EAA session, as well as to Rowan and Susie Whimster for their assistance with the editing of the volume. Warm thanks are also due to Jon Humble, who co-founded the Working Group and co-organised the group’s first conference session at the 2004 EAA meeting in Lyon. Finally, I must express my gratitude to President of EAC, Katalin Wollák, and to the EAC Board for their encouragement and guidance throughout in the production of this volume. Stephen Trow Chair of the EAA and EAC Joint Working Group on Farming, Forestry and Rural Land Management [email protected] References Coles, B. & Olivier A. (eds) 2001: The Heritage Management of Wetlands in Europe. EAC Occasional

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in16 16

Paper 1. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Belgium. EAA 2004: High Nature Value Farmland – Characteristics, Trends and Policy Challenges. EEA Report No. 1/2004. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen. EU 2008: The EU Forest Action Plan 2007–2011: Brochure. European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. Eurostat 2009: Eurostat Pocketbooks: Agricultural Statistics, Main results 2007–08. 2009 edition. Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (eds) 2002: Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change. EAC Occasional Paper 2. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Belgium. Schut, P.A.C. (ed.) 2009: Listing Archaelogical Sites, Protecting the Historical Landscape. EAC Occasional Paper 3. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Belgium.Szpanowski, P. 2002: Before and after the change: the social-economic transition period and its impact on the agriculture and cultural landscape of Poland. In Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (eds), Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, 125–132. EAC Occasional Paper 2. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Belgium.

19/11/2010 12:22:30

European Overview

Some 40% of Europe is considered to be farmed and 47% forested. Farmland and woodland at Lea Bailey, Herefordshire, in England’s Forest of Dean. © English Heritage NMR 23322/02

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in17 17

19/11/2010 14:59:39

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in18 18

19/11/2010 14:59:39

1  |  Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe Stephen Trow Abstract: This introductory paper provides an overview of the impacts of agriculture, forestry and other rural land uses on the long-term conservation of the archaeological resource of Europe’s countryside. It does so by reference to European-level land-use data and to detailed audits of the condition of the archaeological resource carried out in a number of countries. The paper then considers progress towards and prospects for ameliorating these impacts through the mechanism of European Union rural development policy.

Introduction Archaeologists have long understood – albeit, perhaps, in a less-than-systematic way – the relationship between the differing uses of land and the condition of the archaeological deposits that occupy it. Permanent grasslands and areas of semi-natural vegetation are, for example, regarded as providing a generally benign environment for the long-term and high-quality survival of archaeological remains. In contrast, the use of land for cultivation and intensive forestation (alongside its use for development) is recognised as causing serious, extensive and irreversible archaeological damage (Darvill 1987; Darvill and Fulton 1998; Proudfoot 1987). The intensification of agriculture and forestation that has displaced semi-natural land and permanent grassland regimes in many parts of Europe during the last half-century or so can, therefore, be regarded as posing a particularly serious threat to the continent’s ­archaeological resource. The intensification of agriculture has been a continuous process in most parts of Western Europe for decades. In these areas, the damage that results to archaeological features can be attributed to a variety of processes. These include the abandonment of traditional extensive farm practices; the cultivation of previously uncultivated areas; the use of bigger and more powerful farm machinery; the adoption of more invasive cultivation methods; more extensive and more aggressive drainage; the increasing use of artificial fertilisers and pesticides; and the removal of historic boundary features such as terraces, hedges and walls. Forests are an important aspect of the cultural landscape in their own right and can often act as important repositories of well-preserved archaeological remains. However, intensive and highly mechanised forestation processes can also pose a serious threat to archaeological remains and some 25% of Europe’s forest area is subject to some degree of intensive production (EAA 2005a, 190). This general intensification of land use is recognised as causing damaging contamination, salinisation and compaction of soils and a significant increase in rates of erosion, now recognised as one of the most urgent and widespread threats to Europe’s soil resource (EAA 2005a, 168). By inference, this can be assumed to be having a seriously detrimental effect on the archaeological deposits for which soils provide a protective matrix (see Holyoak, this volume).

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in19 19

Figure 1.1 shows (in yellow) those areas currently subject to significant and widespread agricultural intensification, among which are eastern England, the Paris basin, northern Germany, Denmark, the Meseta Central and Guadalquivir valley in Spain, and the Po Valley and southern Sicily in Italy. In the future it is anticipated that areas of comparable intensification may emerge in the European Union’s newest member states as they adopt the novel agro-economic frameworks that inevitably follow accession. In eastern Europe the impacts of these may be particularly pronounced in more elevated areas that have generally experienced less collectivisation in the past than lowland areas (EEA 2004a, 30–1). Intensification is not the only challenge to the security of the archaeological resource arising from changing land-use regimes. Problems are also posed by the current trend towards abandonment of active land management in certain marginal agricultural landscapes, which (among other effects) results in the potentially damaging growth of scrub and poorly managed woodland. This phenomenon appears to be increasing over quite large areas of Europe, caused by a major re-structuring of traditional agricultural systems as they adjust to the pressures of global competition, and often associated with depopulation. The European Environment Agency reports that this process is particularly apparent in many of the mountainous areas of Europe, in Estonia, and in parts of Hungary, Slovakia, Portugal, Italy, Germany and Latvia (EEA 2004a, 32; EEA 2005a, 187; EAA 2006, 48). All of these changes – whether agricultural intensification, the abandonment of traditional land management or highly mechanised intensive forestry – threaten not only buried archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains, but also the historic landscapes and buildings associated with the traditional low-input extensive farming and land-management systems that are also considered to have high nature conservation value (EAA 2004b, 4). There is, however, a general lack of systematic monitoring of cultural landscape parameters in Europe (Dwyer 2007, 19) and recent work in England to quantify the loss of traditional buildings as historic landscape features (The University of Sheffield et al., 2009a) appears to be unique. In most European countries, the impacts on the ­archaeological resource arising from construction and

19/11/2010 14:59:39

20

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 1.1  The dominant landscape types of Europe (after EEA 2006, fig. 2.8) produced from a spatial modelling technique based on CLC2000 and CORILIS mapping. © European Environment Agency

development are now routinely assessed and mitigated by requirements attached to spatial planning and development-control licensing systems. In contrast, agriculture, forestry and related land uses lie outside the controls imposed by these systems and their impacts are, therefore, generally neither assessed, licensed or subject to any form of mitigation. This absence of any structured archaeological response, together with the considerable areas over which these land-use changes are taking place, makes it probable that it is these processes, rather than construction, that now represent the greatest threat to the continued survival of the European archaeological resource. However, little quantitative information or empirical data exist about the differential impacts of various land uses at the European scale. This means that archaeologists face a significant challenge if they are to influence rural land-use and agricultural policy as effectively as their counterparts in the nature conservation sector. Nevertheless, it is now possible to offer some tentative views on this and the possibilities are examined further in the next section of this paper.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in20 20

Working towards an understanding of the nature, scale and pace of threats to Europe’s archaeology In 2006 the European Environment Agency published the first systematic attempt to map land use and land-use change at the European level (EEA 2006), using satellitederived land-cover data known as Corine. This stands for COoRdination de l’INformation sur l’Environnement and is a standardised land-cover inventory derived from satellite imagery (see EAA 2006 Appendix 3 for details). Our broad understanding of the implications of different land uses for the survival and condition of the archaeological resource, suggests that these macro-scale land-use data, coupled with data derived from an increasing number of national archaeological audits, could permit us to draw some very broad inferences about the nature of the pressures acting on the European archaeological resource and the scale and pace at which they are operating. The EAA land-use account data suggest that, by 2000 (in the 24 countries for which Corine data was available, as shown in EEA 2006, fig. 2.1), around 5% of the surface area

19/11/2010 14:59:42

1  Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe

of Europe was developed and 95% could be considered to be ‘countryside’. Of the total European land area, 33% was under arable land or permanent crops, 29% was forested, 23% was pasture or grassland mosaics and 7% was seminatural in character (EEA 2006). Between 1990 and 2000 some 9556 km2 of land was developed (urbanised or utilised for economic or infrastructure purposes). During the same period 1029 km2 of wetland was lost and 7533 km2 of land was afforested. While there was a net overall conversion of cropland to newly established grassland, around 9330 km2 of pasture was converted to arable land or to the growing of permanent crops. This loss of grassland to cultivation – covering a total area 100 times greater than Paris – was most marked at the national level in Estonia, Ireland, Lithuania and the Netherlands, and in particular sub-national areas such as the Paris Basin and the Garonne Valley in France and the Vistula delta in Poland (EAA 2006, 44). In some localised areas the rate of loss has been remarkable. In the Atlantic bocage region of Normandy, for example, 10% of all grassland was lost between 1990 and 2000 (EAA 2005b, 96). While the cultivation of previously uncultivated areas may be the most immediately and severely damaging impact for archaeological remains, continuing long-term tillage can also cause significant damage (see Holyoak, this volume). While the Corine data do not provide any means of assessing this impact, it can be argued that emerging quantitative data on the extent and rate of soil erosion at the European scale provide a very crude proxy measure for areas where continuing intensive tillage might be most damaging to archaeology. Reliable measures of erosion are still very limited at this scale (EAA 2005a, 168), but the Pan-European Soil Erosion Risk Assessment (Pesera) model does provide a preliminary estimate of soil-erosion risk by water (rainfall) within the EU-15. This distinguishes two zones of high erosion risk: a southern zone with particularly high risks apparent in southwestern Spain, northern Portugal, southern Greece and central Italy; and a northern loess zone at moderate risk (see EEA 2005b, fig. 6.5). Soil erosion is also recognised as a significant problem in several of the new EU member states, particularly Romania and Bulgaria (EAA 2004a, 20–1). However, considerably more work is required to improve European data sets on soil erosion and the links between the mutual erosion of soil and archaeology

21

before we can fully understand the implications of this trend. In summary, therefore, the pan-European data allow us to suggest that, during the decade preceding 2000, the combined area of land subject to conversion from pasture to cropping and to forestation, together with areas of wetland subject to drainage, was nearly twice the area affected by construction and development. It is, therefore, not an unreasonable assumption that the total damage wrought on the archaeological resource by these rural land-use processes may significantly outstrip the threat posed by development. This different scale of impact is made all the more acute because much of the impact arising from development will have been subject to assessment and mitigation measures imposed by the spatial planning process. In contrast, there are few established mechanisms for mitigating the destructive impacts arising from agriculture, forestry or other rural land uses. These very broad assumptions can be tested by reference to data from a small number of countries that have undertaken detailed audits or periodic monitoring of the state of their archaeological resource. Currently, these include Norway, Wales, the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland, England and the Netherlands. Table 1.1 provides a simplified comparison of the results of these. (The table represents a simplification and re-categorisation by the author of the results of surveys undertaken with a variety of methodologies and land-use classifications; readers should consult the original publications for a proper understanding of the survey results.) • In Norway, a sophisticated programme of monitoring has been established for legally protected archaeological monuments across 16 municipalities. This compared their condition between 1999 and 2004 with that when they were first recorded between 1970 and 1990. A second round of survey was completed in 2009 and a third is planned. The initial results suggest that more than 6.5% of monuments have been destroyed since they were first recorded. Just over half of these losses were due to agricultural processes and just over 40% to various forms of development (Sollund, 2008 and pers. comm.).

Table 1.1  The main risks to archaeological field monuments in five European countries where audits have been undertaken. Note that for presentational simplicity, figures have been rounded to the nearest percentage point and, as the different audit projects use differing methodologies and terminology, the results have been interpreted and aggregated by the author. Readers are therefore referred to the original audit reports for further detail.

Source Agriculture/land improvement/drainage Burrowing animals Development (infrastructure, housing, leisure, minerals) Forestry/trees Multicausal Natural decay and erosion Vegetation Visitors/other human impacts

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in21 21

England English Heritage 2009a 21%

Northern Ireland Norway Rep of Ireland Gormley et al Sollund, 2008 and O’Sullivan et al 2009, Table 29 pers comm 1999 47% 53% 66%

3% 3%

15% 3%

2%

6%

3% 24% 23%

1% 23% 5%

Wales Burnham 2004 14%

42%

11%

6% 7%

1% 4%

5%

1%

18%

37% 25% 10%

19/11/2010 14:59:43

22

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

• In the Republic of Ireland, a sample survey of archaeological monuments was undertaken in 1998 that included both designated and undesignated features. This preliminary work suggests that more than 17% of monuments surviving when recorded in county archaeological inventories have subsequently been destroyed or damaged and that 34% of monuments ever known to have existed in the study areas have been lost. Among those features that have been interfered with or destroyed, two-thirds were vulnerable to land improvement and drainage, 5% to forestry and 11% to development (O’Sullivan et al. 1999). • Within the UK, Wales has a particularly wellestablished monitoring programme for its designated monuments with several episodes of sequential monitoring already completed (see Hughes this volume). This demonstrates that agriculture, forestry and vegetation growth account for 40% of recorded threats to protected monuments and development for only 7% (Burnham 2004). • In Northern Ireland, a condition survey of a 10per-cent sample of all known monuments dating from before AD 1700 has also recently been completed (Gormley et al. 2009). In broad terms this demonstrates that (for recent, rather than historic, damage) some 48% of monuments in the region were damaged by various agricultural processes, a further 23% by scrub and vegetation growth, 6% by tree planting and tree throw, while under 3% were damaged by development. • In England a succession of surveys of undesignated archaeological features has been undertaken. In 1995 a condition survey of a 5-per-cent sample of all inventorised archaeological sites was carried out as part of the national Monuments at Risk Survey (Darvill and Fulton 1998). This suggested that monuments had been destroyed at the rate of one per day since 1945 and that agricultural processes were the single largest agency of piecemeal destruction of archaeology during the 50-year reference period. Between 2000 and 2007 the Scheduled Monuments at Risk Survey (English Heritage 2009) evaluated the condition of all designated archaeological sites in England. This survey identified agriculture as the principal threat to 21% of monuments, forestry and vegetation growth to 32% and development to only 3%. • Finally, while the Archeologiebalans audit of archaeology in the Netherlands (Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 2002) does not provide directly comparable figures, it does identify significant problems of deterioration amongst legally protected monuments and it points to agricultural processes as a major determining factor in this respect. In addition, the Erfgoedbalans report (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed 2009, 77–8) confirms that nearly 60% of all known ­archaeological sites are in farmland. Despite differences of methodology and breadth of sample and the clear bias towards north-western Europe, these surveys provide a very clear message about the pressures on the continent’s archaeological resource. Although designed to illustrate the impacts of different land-management regimes at a site-specific scale they

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in22 22

also allow us to confirm, with some degree of confidence, the inferences drawn from the European Environment Agency’s analysis of Corine data. Taken together, the European land-use flow data and the national survey results suggest that the combined impacts arising from agriculture, forestry and other rural land uses by far outstrip the pressures arising from construction and development. From this it is clear that European archaeologists need to gain some influence on the policy framework governing rural land-use policy – in just the same way as they have successfully gained influence in spatial planning and development-control policy – if they wish to exercise any control over the long-term future of the rural archaeological resource. However, in contrast to spatial planning policy, which tends to be determined at the national level, many key policy decisions on rural land use rest with the European Union and this requires archaeologists to concern themselves with the policy debate at the supranational, as well as the national, level. It is to this we turn next. Reform of the Common Agricultural Policy and its implications for the archaeological historical landscape Since the early 1970s, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) of the European Union has dominated policy on farming within its member states and also significantly influenced it elsewhere (see, for example, Daugstad et al. 2002, for the situation in Norway). In subsequent years European Union influence has also extended to embrace forestry policy and other forms of rural land use, such as the use of farmland to deliver renewable energy. Designed to address the food shortages experienced in the aftermath of the Second World War, the CAP was intended to modernise and boost production within Europe and to protect domestic farm industries. By the 1980s, however, concerns about over-production, the distortion of trade and the environmental damage caused by intensification combined to deliver the first serious attempts to reform the CAP. This environmental damage included not only impacts on the historic landscape of many EU member states (Figs 1.2a and 1.2b), but also a wide range of additional impacts, including the degradation of fundamental natural resources such as water and soil, serious declines in biodiversity and damage to ecosystems and the services they provide. It was these impacts on natural resources that would influence the development over time of a gradually increasing, but still far from fundamental, concern with the environment in CAP policy and delivery. The first rounds of reform during the 1980s and 1990s attempted to address over-supply of farm produce, primarily through production quotas and measures to remove land from cereal production, either as ‘set-aside’ or through forestation. At the same time, a number of EU member states also began to develop a variety of environmental farming (or agri-environment) schemes under which incentives are offered to farmers in return for their delivery of environmentally favourable measures or other ‘public goods’ on their land, such as opportunities for access or nature conservation (see Foley 2002 and Yates et al., this volume, for a description of the UK’s agri-environment schemes). At the turn of the century, the pace of reform increased significantly with the socalled ‘Agenda 2000’ initiative, which sought to redirect a

19/11/2010 14:59:43

1  Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe

23

Fig. 1.2a  Padbury, Buckinghamshire, in 1953, with wellpreserved medieval ridge and furrow under grassland, hedges and field trees. © Ministry of Defence

Fig. 1.2b  Padbury, Buckinghamshire, in 2003, where intensification has led to the destruction of archaeological remains, loss of character and a decline in biodiversity. © English Heritage

significant proportion of CAP funding into environmental objectives and measures to modernise production and economically regenerate rural communities. Agenda 2000 divided CAP expenditure into two notional ‘pillars’. ‘Pillar 1’ remained dedicated to production supports, although further changes introduced in 2005 ‘decoupled’ these farm payments from production. This was intended to avoid environmentally damaging over-production and the distortion of international trade in farm commodities. Thereafter, in order to receive support payments, farmers were simply required to keep their land in good agricultural and environmental condition, through a series of ‘crosscompliance’ conditions. In contrast, ‘Pillar 2’ was dedicated to funding environmental farming and rural development measures, some of which could (in some member states) enable expenditure on the cultural heritage. Although the majority of CAP funding was still directed to Pillar 1, it was intended that funding would be shifted incrementally to Pillar 2. All EU member states were now required to introduce agri-environment schemes and the incremental transfer of funds from Pillar 1 was intended to allow agrienvironment and rural-development measures to expand significantly over time.

landscape features. Historic buildings, historic landscape types and features and archaeological field monuments, may be included among scheme measures. Importantly, in a speech at Cernobbio in October 2001, the architect of the Agenda 2000 reforms, Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, appeared to confirm his support for measures of this type when he said: ‘We must use our rural development policy to make sure farmers farm in a way which is environmentally friendly and which contributes to the preservation of our landscape. This landscape is as much part of our cultural heritage as our historical cities and towns.’

The objectives of the Pillar 2 agri-environment schemes are determined by each member state and vary significantly from country to country (see EAA 2005b, 61–3 and fig. 5.8). In some cases, the schemes focus exclusively on issues such as encouraging conversion to organic farming, reducing inputs, soil conservation or extensification of livestock production (reducing stocking levels). These measures are not intended to deliver direct benefits in terms of the conservation of the historic environment, but occasionally deliver indirect benefits. Elsewhere, particularly in the UK devolved administrations, in Ireland and in Sweden, agri-environment scheme objectives include a significant focus on conservation of the landscape (either for its own sake or as part of nature-conservation programmes) and protection and conservation management of historic

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in23 23

The Agenda 2000 reforms were enacted by means of the EU’s Rural Development Regulation (Regulation No. 1257/1999 and subsequent amendments) and implemented by individual member states’ rural development programmes. The programmes ran first from 1999 to 2006 and then from 2007 to 2013. Depending on the policy decisions made by different member states, these new arrangements presented a number of potential advantages for the cultural heritage: • ‘Decoupling’ of Pillar 1 supports would, at least in theory, reduce the pressure for intensification and deliver broad benefits to the environment, landscape and some historic features. • Protection of specific aspects of the historic environment can be included in the ‘crosscompliance’ conditions attached to Pillar 1 payments. In England, for example, stone walls and designated archaeological sites enjoy protection under these arrangements, with potentially significant financial penalties attached to flagrant breaches of the conditions, and in Northern Ireland all inventorised archaeological sites are protected by agriculture policy. • Archaeological sites (together with historic buildings and other landscape features) can be protected

19/11/2010 14:59:46

24

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

through the positive management measures delivered by some member states’ environmental farming (agri-environment) schemes. These benefits can either arise indirectly, through measures that promote the retention of traditional or modern extensive farming systems in order to protect the nature-conservation values of particular habitats; or directly, where non-intensive farming systems are retained specifically to protect historic features. In some cases, measures will also promote a particular beneficial land use directed towards a specific archaeological feature, distinct from the surrounding land use. An example of this might be the creation of areas of grassland to protect archaeological features situated within landscapes otherwise subject to intensive arable cultivation. During the 1999 to 2006 programming period, agri-environment schemes that permit this possibility were restricted to the UK and Ireland but similar approaches are now being explored in Flanders and the Netherlands (see Cordemans, this volume and van Rooijen and Mauro, this volume). • Pillar 2 measures which fund the forestation of farmland can include safeguards to protect archaeological features, for example, by including conditions to adopt specific planting or harvesting work measures or to leave unplanted reserves in archaeologically sensitive areas. • Several of the community-oriented Pillar 2 rural development measures include specific or general options that can be used to promote the conservation or adaptation of historic features or enhance their public understanding and enjoyment (such as Measure 323 for Conservation and Upgrading of the Rural Heritage and Measure 322 for Village Renewal and Development). This includes projects delivered through the LEADER (Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale) approach (see Büttner et al., this volume and English Heritage 2008). Prospects for the future As noted above, the 2007 to 2013 rural development programmes of several EU member states now include environmental farming or rural-development measures to protect or to positively manage the historic environment as part of wider multi-objective programmes. These include member states where there has been a longerterm tradition of schemes of this type and some that are exploring these possibilities for the first time. In terms of the archaeological resource and the historic environment in general, the future would ideally see further increases in CAP Pillar 2 funding; the expansion and enhancement of those schemes that are already established; and their adoption in countries where they have yet to be initiated. The future is, however, likely to be far more challenging. At the time of writing (January 2010) discussion has already commenced within the European Commission and Parliament, member-state governments and non­governmental organisations about the shape of the 2014–21 rural development programme. It is clear that there will be significant pressure to reduce the size of the overall CAP budget and a strong expectation that the newly acceded member states will receive a greater proportion of funding, with consequent reductions in the

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in24 24

allocations of other member states. The drive, initiated by Franz Fischler, to progressively transfer resources from Pillar 1 to Pillar 2 is also faltering, particularly in those states with a politically strong farming lobby. The future levels of funding for Pillar 2 measures are, therefore, far from clear and the historic environment will probably have to compete with other environmental concerns, better established in terms of EU policy, for resources from a diminished pool. This is leading to discussion amongst archaeologists about whether pressing for greater regulation of rural land-use processes may provide more effective protection for archaeology than incentive schemes. The future is, as always, uncertain. What is clear, however, is that without a better understanding of the nature, scale and pace of the impacts acting on the archaeological resource and historic character of Europe’s farmed and forested landscapes, it will not be possible to make a compelling case for changes to policy, to funding or to regulation. The responsibility for acquiring this understanding and building the case rests squarely with archaeologists and this volume represents one step along the way. [email protected] References Burnham, H. 2004: A survey of the condition of scheduled ancient monuments in Wales. Report on the third round of Field Monument Wardens’ visits, Cadw – Welsh Historic Monuments, June 2004. Unpublished report. Darvill T. & Fulton A. 1998: MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England, 1995: Main Report. Bournemouth University and English Heritage, Bournemouth and London. Darvill, T. C. 1987: Ancient Monuments in the Countryside: An Archaeological Management Review. English Heritage Archaeological Report No. 5. English Heritage, London. Daugstad, K., Ringdal, S., Rønningen, K., & Skar, B. 2002: Agriculture and Cultural Heritage: A State of the Art Report on Research-Based Knowledge. Centre for Rural Research, Report 7/02. Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research. Dwyer, J. 2007: The state of the rural environment in Europe: what challenges and opportunities for future policy? Paper and presentation at the Future Policies for Rural Europe 2013 and Beyond conference. Land Use Policy Group/Bundesministerium für Naturschutz, Brussels. www.lupg.org.uk EEA 2004a: Agriculture and the Environment in the EU Accession Countries: Implications of Applying the EU Common Agricultural Policy. European Environment Agency, Environmental Issue Report No. 37. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. EEA 2004b: High Nature Value Farmland: Characteristics, Trends and Policy Changes. European Environment Agency, Report No. 1/2004. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. EEA 2005a: The European Environment – State and Outlook 2005. European Environment Agency. Office for

19/11/2010 14:59:46

1  Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe

Official Publications of the European Communities, Copenhagen. EEA 2005b: Agriculture and the Environment in EU-15 – the IRENA Indicator Report. European Environment Agency, Report No. 6/2005. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. EEA 2006: Land Accounts for Europe 1990–2000: Towards Integrated Land and Ecosystem Accounting. European Environment Agency. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. English Heritage 2008: LEADER and the Historic Environment. English Heritage, London. English Heritage 2009: The Monuments at Risk Initiative 2003–2008. English Heritage, London. Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (eds) 2002: Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change. EAC Occasional Paper 2. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Brussels. Foley, C. 2002: The contribution of agricultural support measures to protecting the archaeological heritage of Northern Ireland. In Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (eds), Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, 117–124. EAC Occasional Paper 2. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Brussels. Gormley, S., Donnelly, C., Hartwell, B., & Bell, J. 2009: CAMSAR: A Condition and Management Survey of the

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in25 25

25

Archaeological Resource in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Belfast. O’Sullivan, M., O’Connor, D. J. & Kennedy, L. 1999: Archaeological Features at Risk Project: A Survey Measuring the Recent Destruction of Ireland’s Archaeological Heritage, Volume 1. Unpublished report. Proudfoot, E. (ed.) 1987: Our Vanishing Heritage: Forestry and Archaeology. Council for Scottish Archaeology Occasional Paper 2. Council for Scottish Archaeology, Edinburgh. Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed 2009: Erfgoedbalans 2009: Archeologie, Monumenten en Cultuurlandschap in Nederland. Amersfoort. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek 2002: Archeologiebalans 2002. Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, Amersfoort. Sollund, May-Liss Boe 2008: Fornminner i fare – til alle tider (Monuments at risk – not just a modern phenomenon). Viking, 179–192. Norwegian Archaeological Society, Oslo. The University of Sheffield, Forum Heritage Services, University of Gloucestershire Countryside and Community Research Institute, and English Heritage 2009: Historic Farm Buildings: Extending the Evidence Base. English Heritage, London.

19/11/2010 14:59:46

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in26 26

19/11/2010 14:59:46

National and Local Perspectives

Arable cultivation is one of the most destructive farming activities and is widespread in Europe. Cropmarks reveal entire landscapes where archaeological remains survive but are levelled by the plough. Cropmark complex at Foxley Farm, Near Eynsham, Oxfordshire, England. © English Heritage

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in27 27

19/11/2010 14:59:52

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in28 28

19/11/2010 14:59:53

2  |  Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape Ingrid Smedstad Abstract: There is a considerable ongoing loss of archaeological heritage in Norway’s countryside. Reducing the rate of loss is imperative. This article outlines the management system and government policies for cultural heritage management. The causes of heritage loss are discussed, along with various measures that can provide a basis for improved protection and management of the archaeological heritage.

Introduction This article addresses the challenges connected with the preservation of cultural heritage in cultivated and woodland areas in Norway. Here, compared with many other countries, woodland and outfield areas form a very large proportion of the total landmass and developed and arable areas account for only 1.4% and 3.2% respectively. Despite this, a high rate of damage to or destruction of archaeological sites and monuments is occurring. This chiefly results from the fact that settlement areas have remained largely unchanged through time, so that most new development projects impact on either cultivated land or woodland in close proximity to population centres – with a correspondingly large effect on the archaeological heritage in such areas. It should also be recognised, however, that a considerable amount of damage and loss occurs in more remote areas as well. Monument loss falls into two categories: controlled, and uncontrolled, the latter being where removal occurs without permission under the terms of Norway’s Cultural Heritage Act. Sites and monuments situated in areas targeted for development can be protected individually early in the planning process by the establishment of legally defined ‘security zones’, but preservation in situ is frequently not possible, and ‘preservation by record’ by means of controlled removal by excavation is required. Most archaeological excavations carried out in Norway are indeed rescue digs occasioned by development projects. We lack accurate data on the extent of the uncontrolled losses, but everything suggests that much archaeological heritage is damaged or lost annually. This paper therefore attempts to illuminate the challenges we face concerning the loss of archaeological heritage, and to address the following key questions: what kinds of archaeological remains are involved, what causes damage/loss, and what mitigation measures exist to prevent this? Legislation and management Legislation The entirety of Norway’s archaeological heritage predating AD1537 (the Reformation) has been automatically protected by statute – the Cultural Heritage Act – since 1905. The present statute is from 1978, although there have been some minor amendments subsequently. Archaeological and other heritage elements post-dating AD1537 that are deemed worthy of preservation have to be protected by individual decree as either single objects/

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in29 29

sites or part of a larger cultural environment. There are, however, two exceptions to this: the heritage of the indigenous Sámi people, and ship finds, which only have to be older than 100 years in order to qualify for automatic statutory protection. The Cultural Heritage Act’s purpose is formulated thus: ‘to protect archaeological and architectural monuments and sites, and cultural environments in all their variety and detail, both as part of our cultural heritage and identity and as an element in the overall environment and resource management’ (Cultural Heritage Act §1). This reflects a holistic way of thinking, where cultural heritage remains are regarded as part of a larger context, not just as single objects, and are thus integrated into general environmental management. Automatic statutory protection imposes the following prohibitions: ‘No person shall … initiate any measure which is liable to damage, destroy, dig up, move, change, cover, conceal or in any other way unduly disfigure any monument or site that is automatically protected by law or create a risk of this happening’ (Cultural Heritage Act §3). In combination with the Planning and Building Act, the Cultural Heritage Act provides a robust instrument for the management of automatically protected cultural heritage. Management – organisation Paramount responsibility for cultural heritage management in Norway is in the hands of the Ministry of the Environment (MD), which is also responsible for management of the planning aspect under the Planning and Building Act. Cultural heritage management is thereby both an integrated part of environmental and resource management, and at the same time closely bound in with land-use management. It is the responsibility of three administrative tiers: department, directorate, and county council/the Sámi Parliament (SP). In terms of all automatically and individually protected archaeological heritage, the Directorate for Cultural Heritage (RA) is responsible for, among other things, over-arching policymaking and permissions under the Cultural Heritage Act. The county councils and the Sámi Parliament have management responsibility at the regional level and any conflicts with heritage interests should as far as possible be resolved at this level. They are the administrative frontline in all cases relating to automatically protected

19/11/2010 14:59:53

30

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

cultural heritage, and they are among the official bodies that have the right to comment on and raise objections to all municipal land-use plans and all private-sector projects that can affect this heritage; they also have the authority to propose the establishment of ‘security zones’ for archaeological sites and monuments within new land-use plan areas. The county councils/SP lay the groundwork for RA’s subsequent decision-making in those cases where conflict cannot be avoided, and it is they who conduct the necessary preliminary archaeological fieldwork in such cases. The five regional archaeological museums (all attached to universities) together with the three maritime museums and the Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research (NIKU) act as scientific advisers for RA and the regional management apparatus, and carry out archaeological investigations within their respective areas of responsibility. All cultural heritage management and/or fieldwork is therefore placed in the hands of public-sector bodies – with the exception of NIKU, which is an independent foundation. Cultural heritage management is a field that affects many spheres of activity, both public and private sector. Nowadays, the various responsible institutions are required by directives or other provisions to take the archaeological heritage into account in connection with planning, not least in the significant areas of forestry and agriculture. National principles With the above-mentioned legislation and management in place, it could be assumed that satisfactory safeguarding of the country’s archaeological heritage was relatively unproblematic. It is therefore disturbing to discover that loss of and damage to this heritage occur on a considerable scale. In 1999 the government estimated that the annual rate of loss was 1%, and on the basis of this drew up the following national target: ‘The annual rate of loss of cultural heritage and cultural environments … is to be reduced, and by 2008 shall not exceed 0.5%’ (White Paper no. 8 (1999–2000), The Government’s Environmental Policy and State of the Environment). This soon revealed itself to be an unrealistic timetable, and the target-achievement date was later changed to 2020 (White Paper no. 16 (2004–2005), Living with our Cultural Heritage). The realisation of how important it was to start reducing the rate of loss was based in part on the results of control surveys of sites and monuments originally surveyed during the period 1965–97 (Sollund 2008). In addition to quantifying loss and damage, the study showed that one of the most important causes of loss was increased development pressure with subsequent construction activities and land-use changes in areas with a high density of archaeological heritage. A second cause of serious losses was the major expansion of agriculture into previously uncultivated land during the 1960s and 1970s, together with the increasing mechanisation of farming (White Paper no. 8 (1999–2000), The Government’s Environmental Policy and State of the Environment). The government’s goal must also be seen in connection with the international conventions concerned with the preservation of archaeological heritage: the Granada Convention of 1985; the Malta Convention of 1992; the Faro Convention of 2005; and the Florence Convention of

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in30 30

2000 (which deals with the entire landscape – including cultural heritage values). Norway has ratified all four. Our current state of knowledge? Controlled loss – RA’s permissions RA has had power of giving permission from the Cultural Heritage Act for the automatically protected archaeological heritage since 2001. In the course of the period 2001–10 consent has been issued for the controlled removal of altogether around 2,670 monuments and sites (not including the medieval towns). A rough breakdown shows that about 50% of these permissions concern sub-surface archaeology in the form of settlement features (37.7%), cultivation features (4.2%) and cookingpit localities (6.9%). About 30% of the localities where permission has been granted are visible, outfield types of monument such as charcoal-production sites, clearance cairns, pitfalls and so on, the bulk of which are situated in woodland. Permissions for house-building (including holiday homes) account for the removal of some 30% of sites and infrastructure construction for around 25%. After these come various types of industrial developments, with around 10%. Agricultural activities (buildings, roads, and the tilling of new land) cause the removal of only some 4% of the permissions. RA’s figures show that the annual rate of refusal of applications for permission varies between 3% and 8%. Most refusals concern types of archaeological heritage whose preservation in situ can be ensured – most often visible, above-ground structures – and many concern disfigurement of sites by development in their surroundings rather than total removal. Permissions and resultant excavation occur most frequently as a result of development projects in areas close to existing population centres. The history of settlement in these areas can stretch back thousands of years, with a correspondingly high density of archaeological heritage – and therefore a correspondingly high level of conflict between development interests and this heritage. A second area with a large potential for conflict comprises the inland forests and highlands, where outfield sites and monuments are threatened by the building of holiday homes and outdoor-pursuits facilities. Uncontrolled loss and damage – control surveys In 1997 RA commissioned NIKU to undertake a survey project aimed at obtaining an assessment of the extent and causes of damage to and loss of archaeological remains (Sollund 2008). The project essentially entails conducting a new census of sites and monuments originally recorded in the 1960s and 1970s. It is mainly confined to visible archaeological remains, since there were few systematic surveys of buried remains and outfield monuments prior to the 1980s. The project started with 6 municipalities, but the number was increased to 16 (out of a total of 431) in 2000 after the announcement of the government’s rate-of-loss target. Selection of the municipalities was based on numerous criteria, including the following: a representative range of monuments associated with activities carried out in outfield areas as well as in infield areas; geographical location; increasing or decreasing populations; and different make-up in terms of major industries. Control surveys are to be carried out in all the municipalities at five-year intervals, and the project will be concluded in 2014. A national standard was developed for use in connection with the survey work, and the

19/11/2010 14:59:53

2  Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape

31

Fig. 2.1  Cropmarks showing ploughed-out graves in a cultivated field. One grave mound is still visible above ground on the right-hand side of the picture. © L. Forseth, North Trøndelag County Municipality

project has been incorporated into RA’s environmental monitoring work since 2001 (Norwegian Standard 2003). Approximately 5% of Norway’s known archaeological heritage has been investigated in this way (Sollund 2008). However, since the original surveys did not cover much in the way of outfield areas outside of the most productive farming and forestry districts, the control surveys can only furnish us with limited data regarding damage to and loss of archaeological remains in woodland and outfield areas. The project’s results provide no evidence of any geographical variation with regard to damage/loss. Considering the country as a whole, we find that agriculture and forestry are the foremost offenders (Sollund 2008). There are also clear indications that many archaeological remains do not disappear as a result of point-in-time events, but are eroded gradually by the unrelenting attrition of tilling or over-grazing. This contrasts with the 19th century, for instance, when extensive prehistoric grave-fields and many single burial monuments were wiped out following the introduction of new farming methods. Nowadays, damage and uncontrolled loss results more often than not from lack of knowledge and uninformed actions rather than deliberate, wholesale destruction. The study also shows that the establishment of ‘permission zones’ around monuments left standing in new housing or industrial estates by no means always ensures their protection. Many such monuments were found to have suffered some or other form of damage. Surveys in Buskerud County Control surveys similar to those described above have been undertaken independently by several county councils, and all reveal the same picture regarding the extent and

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in31 31

causes of damage to and loss of archaeological remains. In Buskerud County, among others, the municipalities of Lier and Hole were surveyed in 2008 and 2009 (Dahle & Sellæg in prep.). In contrast to the NIKU surveys, the scope of which was restricted to sites recorded prior to the 1980s, the surveys in Buskerud County endeavoured to include all archaeological localities detected right up to the start of the control surveys – even localities that had been surveyed in advance of development projects and subsequently either entirely or partially removed. This means that the statistical base includes both controlled and uncontrolled heritage losses. In Lier, which is a municipality with extensive woodland areas and farming land, and being close to population centres is experiencing relatively severe development pressure, it turns out that 23.5% of the archaeological remains have been either lost or damaged. In terms of visible versus buried archaeology, the figures were 22.4% and 25% respectively. However, 91.8% of the buried remains had been removed as a result of permissions from the Cultural Heritage Act, in complete contrast to the visible remains, all of which had been removed without prior sanction. Put simply, the frequency of uncontrolled removal was vastly higher in the case of the visible remains than the buried. The situation in Hole municipality was similar to that in Lier, though the total loss percentage was somewhat higher, at 29.7% (K. Dahle, pers. comm.). The survey findings reveal that the extent of uncontrolled loss or damage is much greater among the visible archaeological remains than the buried, and it is a fact that a higher number of dispensations for removal is issued for the latter than for the former; RA’s own tally ­corroborates

19/11/2010 14:59:57

32

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

this. There are, however, grounds for questioning the reliability of current estimates of the extent of uncontrolled loss of buried remains, something that is also pointed out in the survey report (Dahle & Sellæg in prep.). There are many uncertainties associated with the destruction of sub-surface archaeological remains in cultivated land, because so few of them have been systematically recorded – which will, of course, distort the statistics. On the other hand, it was clear that it was agriculture that caused most of the damage inflicted on both visible and buried remains. The conclusion is that the amount of damaged/lost archaeological heritage is large – about 25%. Uncontrolled loss is apparently more frequent among visible remains, but there is a strong suspicion that this may well be mainly a product of skewed statistics resulting from the fact that our map of visible remains is much more complete than the map of buried remains. The situation in woodland areas The survey projects in Buskerud County were carried out in relatively accessible agricultural municipalities located within a distance of up to about 50km from Oslo. What, then, do we know about damage to and loss of archaeological remains in woodlands and the more remote outfield areas? Since the 1980s, construction of hydro-electric power schemes, military installations and so on has necessitated

extensive excavation projects that have yielded a great deal of new knowledge about the archaeological heritage in our more remote woodland and outfield areas. The archaeological remains derive from exploitation of the natural resources down through the ages, and they reflect a wide range of activities: iron production, hunting, trapping, fishing and occupation. We now have a relatively good understanding of the distribution of such activities in these areas in prehistoric and medieval times, and the possibility of making accurate predictions about the potential existence of traces of particular activities in a given area is thereby much improved. The major projects have also given us a much clearer awareness of threat scenarios with regard to loss of and damage to the archaeological remains. In connection with the planned development of a military training ground in Åmot municipality, Hedmark County, field surveys covering an area of 230 square kilometres were carried out from 1999 to 2003 (Risbøl 2006). About half the area consisted of productive forest, while the remainder was sub-alpine highland. Prior to the investigations, the known number of automatically protected archaeological remains was 144. By the end of 2003, this number had risen to 2,191. Types and causes of damage to archaeological remains were recorded as a matter of course. It transpired that the majority of cases of damage could be linked to logging activities, with the following five main categories: road construction, tracks, ground preparation, ditching, and miscellaneous. According to

Fig. 2.2  A pit-fall trap cut in two by a forestry road. © Hedmark County Council

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in32 32

19/11/2010 15:00:05

2 Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape

33

Risbøl, the results are in excellent agreement with data from comparable investigations in Sweden.

uncontrolled loss, and the challenges we face in these two categories are somewhat dissimilar.

Road construction accounted for 15% of recorded damage. Quantifying the number of remains that had been destroyed was not possible, but there was no doubt that many had been completely removed as a result of road construction in the survey area. Risbøl points out that construction of logging roads has diminished considerably in recent years. Fresh statistics show, however, that this activity only levelled off around 2005 and is now increasing slightly once more (source: Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB) Skogsveier). This will require monitoring in future.

Woodland and agricultural areas close to population centres are being put under severe pressure and a large quantity of archaeological remains are lost due to a variety of development projects. Re-zoning of land under or suitable for cultivation is increasing, and an ever-larger proportion of such areas is being allocated for development. In 2007 alone, the municipalities rezoned more than 850 hectares of cultivated land. This falls well short of the government’s goal of a halving of land-use changes by 2010 (source: Statens landbruksforvaltning – Norwegian Agricultural Authority). That these are likely to be areas containing considerable quantities of archaeological remains can be inferred from, among other things, the fact that archaeological heritage in cultivated land constitutes a very large part of RA’s consent case load. However, it is not only areas close to population centres that are experiencing development pressure, but also more remote outfield areas as a result of the construction of holiday homes, outdoor pursuits facilities and infrastructure such as roads, railways, etc.

Damage by ‘tracks’ refers to the ruts and scars etc that result from off-road vehicle movement, a category that accounts for 42% of recorded damage. Risbøl has looked at the connection between the level of logging activity and the extent of damages resulting from tracks. Since the statistics show that no increase in production had taken place in the years preceding the termination of the survey work in 2003, he concluded that the damages must be linked to intensified mechanisation (Risbøl 2006). In fact it seems that the annual felling volume has remained relatively stable over the past 80 years (source: SSB Avvirket kvantum). There are no signs that this situation will change more than fractionally during the coming years, which should at least mean that the nature of the threats to woodland archaeological remains will stay more or less the same. The main challenge will therefore be to find ways of reducing the extent of damage inflicted by the activities in this category. Ground preparation accounts for 28% of the recorded damage (Risbøl 2006). It involves the systematic removal of topsoil, either in strips or small parcels, in order to allow natural regeneration or to improve conditions for seedlings. Carried out by machine, the work causes widespread disturbance of the forest floor. Use of this method reached a peak in the 1980s and 1990s but has declined since 2002, despite the fact that afforestation and reforestation have increased since 2005 (source: SSB Markberedning). Ground preparation methods with a more environmentally friendly profile are now being tried out, but there are still extensive areas where traditional methods persist – which means that finding ways to reduce the extent of damage is still an issue. Ditching is another activity associated with forestry but, according to the survey findings, it accounted for only about 2% of recorded damage. Risbøl’s explanation for this is that areas where ditching is necessary would not have been favoured by people in former times. The extent of ditching in woodland tracts and bogs has declined since the 1990s, partly due to environmental considerations (source: SSB Markberedning). It is therefore quite unlikely that ditching will present any significant threat in the foreseeable future. Finally, a total of 13% of recorded damage could be ascribed to natural causes of one kind or another. Challenges By now it should be clear that the situation regarding threats to the archaeological heritage in woodlands, outfield areas and the more centrally located agricultural districts is relatively complex. In the preceding passages I have chosen to differentiate between controlled and

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in33 33

In common with many other countries, increasing abandonment of previously farmed land is taking place in certain parts of Norway. Meanwhile, there is increasing cultivation of new land in other parts of the country. It is mandatory for all cases concerning agricultural expansion to be sent to the heritage management authorities for their assessment of the potential for damage to archaeological remains. We lack figures to show what kind of proportion of the total number of cases concerning new cultivation this represents, but there is reason to believe that a substantial number of cases fail to come up for assessment at the regional level. Only around 60 such cases were received by RA for determination of consent applications in the period 2001 to 2010, while nationwide, around 2,600 applications concerning new cultivation were logged in the period 2005–9 alone (source: SSB Søknader om nydyrking). Figures suggest that the same situation also applies to the construction of new farm roads. The recent control surveys show that agriculture causes the bulk of uncontrolled loss of and damage to the visible archaeological remains in areas close to population centres (Sollund 2008, Dahle & Sellæg in prep.). More often than not this involves a process of long-term attrition, eventually leading to complete obliteration. In the more remote-lying woodland areas it is forestry operations that cause most of the uncontrolled losses of archaeological remains, mainly through off-road vehicle movement and ground preparation. Admittedly, road construction and ground preparation in these areas has declined appreciably in recent years, and the forestry industry has itself initiated mitigation measures in the form of silviculture planning, environmental mapping and investment in the development of more environmentally friendly working methods in order to reduce its impact. For instance, some forestry companies have now installed GPS devices in their machines to enable them to skirt around archaeological remains with known coordinates. Well-intentioned efforts notwithstanding, however, logging activity remains high – and so, too, the uncontrolled loss of woodland archaeological heritage.

19/11/2010 15:10:46

34

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 2.3 Example of a grave field where tree felling has been carried out cautiously without damage to the grave mounds (three large grave mounds are visible). © Directorate for Cultural Heritage, Norway

Discussion How then are we to tackle the challenges we face concerning the continued preservation of the archaeological heritage in our countryside? National and international goals demand a significant reduction in the rate of loss. Numerous studies have shown that archaeological remains in agricultural and woodland areas are threatened. Loss and damage is caused not only by urban, industrial and infrastructure development, but also by energetic agriculture and forestry sectors. The key question is therefore: how best to ensure the survival of the archaeological heritage? The heritage management authorities, the research communities and the various sectors are well aware of these challenges. Various steps have been taken and projects put in motion to furnish us with the fresh knowledge and new methods that we require in order to counter them. Strategy plans and scientific research programmes In 2010 RA will be completing its overall strategy document for the long-term management of archaeological heritage and cultural environments. This plan will form one of the cornerstones of the directorate’s work, and provide regional management colleagues with guidelines. Hand in hand with this, the five regional archaeological museums and the three maritime museums will be issuing their own strategy programmes, which will present these institutions’ scientific priorities, principal areas of scientific activity and overviews of the current state of knowledge (Glørstad 2006; Larsen 2009). These documents will be of great help in, among other things, RA’s assessment of permission cases. RA has also commissioned a scientific research programme for the lakes and river systems in Southern Norway, for use in dealing with applications for things such as new hydro-electric power schemes (Indrelid 2009).

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in34 34

Monitoring Proper management of the archaeological remains and environments depends heavily on detailed information about aspects such as state of preservation, preservation conditions, causes and rate of change in condition, and tolerance levels. This is one of RA’s foremost fields of activity, and the goals are presented in the directorate’s strategy for environmental monitoring, published in 2009 (Miljøovervåkning 2009). The control surveys initiated by RA have already been discussed, and there are other projects besides. Mention can be made of the project that has been monitoring the archaeological deposits at Bryggen in Bergen since 2002. Involving several institutions, the project’s aim is – through the systematic investigation of the area’s archaeology, geochemistry and hydrogeology – to find the best methods for preservation of this world heritage site. Based largely on the results from Bryggen, a documentation standard for the investigation of all types of cultural deposits has been developed (Norwegian Standard 2009). Much of the knowledge and methodology from projects such as the one at Bryggen should be readily applicable also to archaeological situations outside the medieval towns, not least importantly the investigation of preservation conditions for archaeological remains in arable land (The Monitoring Manual). Another monitoring project worthy of mention is the 3Qprogramme, a country-wide effort started by the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in 1998. Its purpose is to map how the cultural landscapes of agricultural areas are developing over time, and it collates information on a wide variety of aspects, including land-use changes, biological diversity, archaeological remains and accessibility (for example, Dramstad 2007; Stensgaard & Reid 2007).

19/11/2010 15:10:49

2 Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape

Planning It is the responsibility of the regional heritagemanagement authorities to clarify potential conflicts with archaeological remains in connection with spatial plans and development projects. It is therefore vital that developers/planners be informed of the presence of such remains as early as possible in the planning process. The county councils usually have to wait until plans have been sent out for preliminary hearings before carrying out their surveys of the targeted areas – by which time it may be too late to make a big difference to the plan’s scope and design. It is one of the new Planning and Building Act’s premises that the heritage management authorities be involved in spatial planning at the earliest possible stage, something that will improve their chances for avoiding conflicts between archaeology and development. This is an encouraging step forwards, but is hampered by the fact that our knowledge of the archaeological remains is still insufficient in many parts of the country. Survey methods It goes without saying that detailed knowledge about the presence and distribution of archaeological remains is the key to reducing damage/loss. One of the big challenges is to ensure better mapping of archaeological remains and to make the data more accessible to all interested parties, public and private alike. It is important that the location of each individual archaeological feature be pinpointed with map coordinates, and the boundaries of larger areas containing concentrations of sites and monuments should be precisely defined. The National Sites and Monuments Record (Askeladden) contains entries for about 100,000 recorded objects, but this is very likely the mere tip of the iceberg when one considers all the hitherto undetected buried archaeological remains. Increased funding for survey work and development of databases is therefore essential. Making this information available to the general public is imperative if we wish to make significant inroads into the uncontrolled loss of archaeological heritage. For practical and financial reasons it will never be possible to carry out a complete and detailed nationwide survey of archaeological remains, but this can be compensated for to a certain extent by the use of new surveying methods, which can build up a much more detailed picture than that currently available – not least with regard to buried archaeology. Aerial scanning is one such method. From 2005 to 2008 NIKU carried out a project using airborne laser scanning (Light Detection and Ranging – LiDAR) (Risbøl et al. 2006, 2008). Partly funded by RA, this project demonstrated that the method is quite capable of detecting above-ground archaeological features in wooded country. Admittedly, it has limitations that need to be worked on, and it can only offer a supplement to traditional surveys on foot, but under the right conditions it is a first-rate tool for the detection of certain types of archaeological remains and potential find spots. Other remote-sensing methods have also provided good results. Satellite monitoring aimed at the detection of archaeological remains in open country has been going on since 2002 (Trier et al. 2009). This is a collaborative project involving RA, the Norwegian Computing Center, NIKU, the

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in35 35

35

Norwegian Space Centre and four county councils. The objective is accurate location of known archaeological remains and detection of hitherto unknown remains in open country – including sub-surface features. In the long term, the idea is to develop the system to enable identification of areas where there is high probability of the occurrence of archaeological remains. Then, as an adjunct to planning, it will hopefully be capable of providing well-founded information about archaeological remains likely to be affected by any given development project at an early stage in the planning process. In addition, aerial photography has yielded some eye-opening results, and under the right conditions can be a marvellous method for detecting archaeological remains in cultivated land (for example, Forseth 2008). Predictive modelling Other methods, such as predictive modelling, are also being developed with a view to identifying areas in woodland and agricultural landscapes where the potential for the presence of archaeological remains is high. Using models of the geographical/topographical distribution of archaeological localities in surveyed areas should make it possible to pick out similar situations in unsurveyed areas (for example, Fry et al. 2004; Stabbetorp et al. 2007). Such models can be useful tools for landowners, management authorities and in spatial planning generally. Conclusion This article has depicted the challenges associated with the preservation of the archaeological heritage in Norway’s woodland and agricultural areas. The various relevant investigations hitherto carried out reveal that the situation regarding causes of damage and loss is a complicated one. What has become clear is that one of the best ways of reducing the attrition is increased research – both ‘pure’ archaeological research, and research that is more management-oriented. It is also vital that mapping and recording of the archaeological remains be as comprehensive and up-to-date as possible. Furthermore, we need to broaden and intensify information distribution to, and collaboration with the different sectors and vested interests. All this will not come cheap and it will take time, but it is already clear that focused research and the development/refinement of surveying methods are taking us step by step in the right direction. If we are to fulfil our responsibilities and goals, all these fields of activity must continue to be given the highest priority for as long as is necessary. [email protected] References Dahle, K. & Sellæg, J. in prep.: Fagrapport. Kommunedelplan for kulturminner og kulturmiljøer. Lier kommune. Buskerud fylkeskommune. Drammen. Dramstad, W. 2007: Et landskap i endring. Viten fra Skog og landskap 2/07, 37–40. Forseth, L. 2008: Flying to the Past in Nord-Tøndelag. ARRGnews nr 35. Fry, G.L.A., Skar, B., Jerpåsen, G., Bakkestuen,V., & Erikstad, L. 2004: Locating archaeological sites in the landscape: a hierarchical approach based on landscape indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning 67, 97–107.

19/11/2010 15:10:49

36

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Glørstad, H. 2006: Steinalderundersøkelser. Faglig program. Bind 1. Varia 61. Kulturhistorisk museum, Oslo. Indrelid, S. 2009: Arkeologiske undersøkelser i vassdrag. Faglig program for Sør-Norge. Riksantikvaren. Oslo. Larsen, J. H. 2009: Jernvinneundersøkelser. Faglig program. Varia 78. Kulturhistorisk museum. Oslo. Lov om kulturminner av 9.juni 1978: (http://www.lovdata. no/all/nl-19780609-050.html) Cultural Heritage Act: http://www.ub.uio.no/ujur/ ulovdata/lov-19780609-050-eng.pdf Miljøovervåkning 2009: (Strategy for environmental monitoring) http://www.riksantikvaren. no/Norsk/Arbeidsomrader/Miljoovervaking/Strategi/ Monitoring Manual. http://www.riksantikvaren.no/ filestore/Veileder_komp.pdf. Riksantikvaren/NIKU. Norsk Standard 2003: Automatisk fredete kulturminner – Registrering av tap og skade. NS 9450. (Norwegian Standard 2003. Automatically Protected Cultural Heritage Sites and Monuments – Registration of Loss and Damage). Norsk Standard 2009: Kulturminner - Krav til miljøovervåking og -undersøkelse av kulturlag. NS 9451. (Norwegian Standard 2009. Cultural Property. Requirements on Environmental Monitoring and Investigation of Archaeological Deposits). Risbøl, O. 2006: Bevaring og forvaltning av kulturminner i skog. In Egenberg, I.M., Skar, B. & Swensen, G. (eds), Kultur – Minner og Miljøer. Strategiske instituttprogrammer 2001-2005. NIKU Tema 18, Oslo, 211–219. Risbøl, O., Gjertsen, A.K. & Skare, K. 2006: Airborne laser scanning of cultural remains in forests – some preliminary results from a Norwegian project. In Campana, S. & Forte, M. (eds), From Space to Place. 2nd International Conference on Remote Sensing in Archaeology. BAR International Series, vol. 1568, 78–90. Risbøl, O., Gjertsen, A.K. & Skare, K. 2008: Flybåren laserskanning og registrering av kulturminner i skog. Fase 3. NIKU, Rapport 22, Oslo. Sollund, M.L. Bøe 2008: Fornminner i fare – til alle tider. Viking, Oslo, 179–191. Stabbetorp, O., Sollund, M.L.Bøe, Brendalsmoe, J. & Norderhaug, A. 2007: Layers of the Past: A Theory and

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in36 36

Method for Historical Landscape Analysis. Landscape Research, Vol. 32, No. 4, 463–479. Statens landbruksforvaltning – Norwegian Agricultural Authority (SLF): http://www.slf.dep.no/portal/page?_ pageid=53,418236&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL &p_d_i=-121&p_d_c=&p_d_v=11302&p_d_i=-221&p_ d_c=&p_d_v=11302 Statistisk sentralbyrå – Statistics Norway (SSB): Avvirket kvantum av industrivirke for salg. 1976/77–1999*. http://www.ssb.no/emner/10/04/20/skogav/ Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB): Markberedning. http:// statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/ Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB): Skoggrøfting. http://statbank. ssb.no/statistikkbanken/ Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB): Skogsveier for motorkjøretøyer. http://www.ssb.no/skogsvei/ Statistisk sentralbyrå (SSB): Søknader om nydyrking http://statbank.ssb.no/statistikkbanken/Default_FR.asp ?PXSid=0&nvl=true&PLanguage=0&tilside=selectvarv al/define.asp&Tabellid=06192 Stensgaard, K. & Reid, S.J. 2007: 3Q – Kulturminner og –miljøer i jordbrukets kulturlandskap. Rapport fra prosjektårene 2004–06. Oppdragsrapport fra Skog & Landskap, 07/07. Trier, Ø. Due, Larsen, S. Øyen & Solberg, R. 2009: Finding burial mounds from space: automatic detection of circular soil marks and crop marks in QuickBird imagery of agricultural land in south-east Norway. AARG News 39, 18–24, September 2009 (http://www. riksantikvaren.no/filestore/AARGnews39-Trier-LarsenSolberg.pdf) White Paper no. 8 (1999–2000): Stortingsmelding nr. 8 (1999–2000). Regjeringens miljøvernpolitikk og rikets miljøtilstand. http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/ md/dok/regpubl/prop/2009-2010/prop-1-s-20092010. html?id=581125 White Paper no. 16 (2004–2005): Stortingsmelding nr. 16 (2004–2005). Leve med Kulturminner. http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/ md/documents-and-publications/ government-propositions-and-reports-/ Reports-to-the-Storting-white-papers-2/20042005/ Report-No-16-2004-2005-to-the-Storting. html?showdetailedtableofcontents=true&id=455066

19/11/2010 15:10:49

3

|

Problems and perspectives of archaeological heritage preservation in farmed landscapes in Germany – a survey of federal structures Andreas Büttner, Jana Esther Fries, Henning Hassmann, Gabriele Schiller, Michael Strobel and Thomas Westphalen Abstract: Due to its federal constitution, the variety of its landforms and the fragmentation of its agricultural infrastructure, the preservation of archaeological monuments in the farmed landscapes of Germany is a complex and protracted challenge. The aim of the Commission for Archaeology and Agriculture in the Association of State Archaeologists in Germany is not only to produce a survey of this confusing situation, but also to represent the interests of archaeological heritage preservation to relevant institutions, authorities and associations and to develop strategies and approaches to archaeological site preservation that can be adjusted to the necessities and problems posed in different regions.

Introduction This article gives an overview of the problems and opportunities relating to preservation of archaeological monuments in agricultural landscapes in Germany with regard to the special conditions of the federal system. At the same time it represents a first attempt to introduce the work of the Commission for Archaeology and Agriculture in the Association of State Archaeologists to an international public. Current situation Federalism According to Article 20 of the German Constitution, Germany represents a union of 16 federal states. Traditionally cultural issues are a matter for the federal states, resulting in 16 different monument conservation laws containing different clauses and varied approaches to implementation. There are federal states whose monument conservation law does not include a ‘polluter pays’ principle (for example Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria). There is no monument conservation law in any state that provides a legal basis for the protection of archaeological monuments on farmed land or in forested areas. In addition, all 16 federal states have their own environment and agriculture ministries, in which the agriculture and environment sections can be combined in one department (for example Saxony) or can be allocated to different departments (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria). For the federal states the implementation of EU directives opens up interpretive leeway, which can be used quite differently. All ministries rely on subordinate agencies, whose structure and responsibility is periodically reorganised. Direct payments and agricultural environmental schemes are generally carried out on this level, whereas laws (heritage preservation, conservation, soil protection, water-pollution control) are executed by the higher federal authorities (regional governments, regional administrative authorities, state directorate, etc) or the local authorities (district offices). As a result, archaeological heritage preservation initiatives require the co-operation of a large number of partners.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in37 37

Administrative reorganisation and staff turnover often complicate professional exchanges and the creation of stable work conditions. History of agriculture Alongside these federal differences the historic development of divergent agricultural structures, in particular varying business size, also intensifies regional fragmentation. In the old Federal Republic of Germany a clear North–South contrast already existed, which has actually intensified in recent years. The smallest businesses can be found in south Germany. The long-term division of estates has also caused fragmentation of property and farmland. The average business size is about 25 hectares. However, in fertile loess landscapes businesses achieve about 60 hectares in size. The size of fields is about 1.6 hectares. On the other hand 50 hectares is the average in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony. After reunification, West–East contrasts added other significant differences to the divergence between North and South. In the former German Democratic Republic – after processes of merger and growth – the so-called LPG (agricultural production cooperatives) were responsible for the cultivation of about 5000 hectares, with an average field size of 20 hectares. Today their successor organisations (agricultural cooperatives) cultivate about 1000–3500 hectares, and there are also ‘re-establishers’ (firms that resumed business after the reunion) and newcomers who work with 400–800 hectares. Accordingly, direct payment rates, which have to be published, are rather high. Farms with 100–200 hectares either cultivate specialised crops (organic food/vegetables) or work as small, economically marginal, businesses. Landforms of Germany The different physical landforms of Germany involve a wide variety of agricultural uses. Unlike the low mountainrange areas or the alpine foothills, which are characterised by grasslands and extensive land use, the loess areas, hill regions, moraine and marsh landscapes pose problems from an archaeological perspective. Mostly these are

19/11/2010 15:10:50

38

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

anciently settled landscapes with a high density of sites, some of which go back to the Palaeolithic. BadenWürttemberg with the Kraichgau and the Heilbronn Area are examples, as well as Bavaria with the ‘Gäuboden’ and tertiary hill regions; Main-Franconia; Hesse with the Wetterau; and finally Saxony with its middle-Saxon loess hill region and Lower Saxony with the Emsland. Regional examples Lower Saxony The Emsland is characterised by extensive marsh areas, which represent an outstanding resource for the cultural, landscape and environmental history of Northern Germany. Industrial peat extraction here threatens settlements and trackways in particular. In the second half of the 19th century agricultural land-take and the reclamation and improvement of huge marsh and moraine areas began. After the Second World War the cultivation of new acreage with public funds culminated in the so-called ‘Emslandplan’. Up to the beginning of the 1990s, 2800 km2 were dug to a depth of 2.5 metres using huge ploughs, with no regard to the impact on archaeological monuments. This area constitutes about 20% of the Weser-Ems district, which nowadays must be regarded as ‘archaeologically sterile’. The land development of the post-war era led to an explosive increase in pig and poultry-fattening farms, which to this day characterise the agriculture of the Emsland and which have developed a strong lobbying force. The consequences of recent energy-related, environmental and agricultural decisions are indicated by the large number of biogas plants and intensive maize cultivation in the area. Schleswig-Holstein Historically, almost the whole of the Eiderstedt peninsula was pastoral in character and numerous medieval elements of cultural landscapes, such as tide-ways, terps (artificial settlement mounds) and dikes were preserved. The extension of renewable-energy sources is currently encouraging the ploughing of grassland and the establishment of pig and cattle-fattening farms, linked to the increase in biogas plants. As a consequence, significant surviving elements of the historical cultural landscape are being irretrievably destroyed. The promotion of these renewable-energy resources therefore poses difficult questions. Should approaches to archaeological conservation be limited to single

monuments or should they – combined with other protection aims – address the whole cultural landscape? Are vital economic, agricultural and energy-related interests irreconcilably opposed to concepts of environmental and archaeological site preservation? In this context the economic impact of tourism for the peninsula, whose attractiveness for tourists relies on its historic landscape, must not be underestimated. Tourism and environmental conservation may turn out to be the natural ally of archaeological preservation, particularly if the designation of large parts of the peninsula as an FFH-Gebiet (a special area of conservation) meets with vehement opposition from agricultural interests. Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Hesse, Saxony-Anhalt, Saxony and Thuringia In these federal states fertile loess-hill landscapes with a high density of archaeological sites extend over about 15% of the territory. The prehistoric, that is Neolithic, settlement goes back to the middle 6th millennium BC. The loss of sites through intensive farming, especially a combination of tillage and water erosion, is very high. The intensified use of aerial archaeology from the late 1970s has highlighted the connection between the visibility of archaeological remains and the threats to which they are exposed. Aerial archaeology – responsive to topography and soil movement – captures the already heavily eroded and erosion-prone archaeological remains on elevated ground, and its development has strengthened both awareness of the problem and pessimism about the likelihood of solutions. As a last resort, the exemplary excavation of seriously endangered monuments has been carried out, particularly in Baden-Württemberg and Bavaria, in some cases providing considerable gains in knowledge. It is certainly the case that, in certain rural areas, archaeological monument conservation has lost the fight against intensive agricultural use and erosion. These landscapes are widely considered archaeologically ‘sterile’ (for example, Straubinger Gäuboden, Kraichgau). Effective aerial archaeological reconnaissance started in the Free State of Saxony only at the beginning of the 1990s. Since then not only has the number of recorded sites increased, but also the worryingly poor condition of many monuments has been revealed. The extent of water erosion became dramatically apparent in August 2002 as a result of the intense rain that led to the ‘100-year flood’.

Fig. 3.1 After the Second World War 2800 km2 were ameliorated with huge ploughs to a depth of 2.5 metres in the Lower-Saxon Emsland. Archaeological monuments especially with damp preservation were destroyed. © Bundesarchiv B145, Bild F-006023-0010, S.Müller, 24.09.1958

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in38 38

19/11/2010 15:10:50

3 Problems and perspectives of archaeological heritage preservation in farmed landscapes in Germany

39

Fig. 3.2 The building of biogas plants in Schleswig-Holstein, particularly on the Eiderstedt peninsula, leads to an increased ploughing of grassland for the cultivation of renewable resources, especially maize. The production of alternative energies happens at the expense of an organically grown historical cultural landscape, which is marked by dikes, look-outs and old land forms. © State Archaeological Department of Schleswig-Holstein, Linda Herrmansen

Commission for Archaeology and Agriculture in the Association of State Archaeologists and their influence within the federal system The distinctive challenges in the various rural areas of Germany have not played a central role in archaeological policy to date, as the focus in all the federal states is on excavation work. The varying arrangements for environmental and agricultural authorities in the different states have also discouraged progress. A Commission for ‘Archaeology and Agriculture’ was therefore founded in 2007, within the Association of State Archaeologists, in order to establish states’ respective interests in archaeological monument conservation in agricultural landscapes, to formulate locally responsive strategies and approaches to preservation, and to introduce these to agricultural policy at a state and European Union level. The Commission had its inaugural meeting in 2008 in Saxony. The second meeting took place in Lohne (Lower Saxony) in Spring 2009. In addition to professional dialogue, these events, which involve field trips, are meant to examine specific problems of archaeological-heritage preservation in German farmed landscapes. Having been invited by the Bavarian Heritage Service, the Commission will next gather in North Bavaria (Castle Seehof near Bamberg, Upper Franconia) but it has already gained the attention of the German National Committee for Monument Conservation at the Federal Government Commissioner for Culture and the Media, responsible for the preparation of laws, regulations and amendments. This introduces new opportunities for influencing future decision-making.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in39 39

Practical solutions are still required at the federal state level and approaches to management have to be designed for the regional or local context. Only methods, procedures and basic strategies are transferable and require continuing trans-regional exchanges of experience and further detailed discussion. Very extensive historic cultural landscapes like the Eiderstedt peninsula require different, integrated solutions compared to regions with more varied topography and land cover, where the preservation of discrete monuments may offer the best prospect for success on a large scale (see the following Bavaria and Saxony case studies). Projects, opportunities and perspectives Bavaria In the biggest federal state, Bavaria, about 42,000 archaeological sites are currently known. Due to strong differences of approach by regions and agencies, rural development measures (for example, construction of farm roads and the restructuring of landholdings) represent the most important options for converting earthwork monuments – especially those in grassland – from purely agricultural use to the purpose of public access and interpretation, which then encourages tourism. Naturally, the reorganisation of landholdings is most successful in areas of low-profit agriculture and in the case of small-scale projects like prehistoric tumuli. However, the creation of an archaeological reserve covering a major Roman fort of more than 36 hectares on the Rhaetian Limes provides a best-practice model for Bavaria.

19/11/2010 15:10:54

40

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 3.3 With LEADER funding by the European Union, large sections of the Roman fort at Ruffenhofen on the Rhaetian Limes were bought and turned into permanent grassland. The fort is represented by the planting of hedges. Thus at least the area of the camp is continually protected and developed for tourism. A future task is to extend the protection area to include the vicus and those parts of the fort which are agriculturally used. © Bayerisches Landesamt für DenkmalpflegeLuftbilddokumentation, Aufnahmedatum 16.07.07, Foto: Klaus Leidorf, Archiv-Nr. 6928/074, Dia 9028-31

planning process and must have a permanent effect. Most of these proposals (in Bavaria and beyond) are still at the planning stage. As part of a rural development project, funded by the EU programme LEADER, 36 hectares of intensively used farmland were acquired as an archaeological park and thus permanently preserved, with the buildings of the fort and vicus represented by the planting of hedges. This park, at Ruffenhofen, represents the biggest ‘archaeotope’ in the South German area. Another potentially promising step on the way towards developing complex area-management approaches is the co-location of ‘compensation areas’, which the Federal Nature Conservation Act requires as mitigation in the case of extensive interventions in the landscape, with archaeological monuments. For this to succeed, archaeological considerations must be involved at an early stage in the

Saxony Funded by the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) the ‘Archaeology and Agriculture in the Lommatzscher Pflege’ project involves different approaches. In addition to the reorganisation of farmland through the purchasing and designation of compensation areas described above, the focus is on agricultural businesses. The basis of this approach is to work with reasonably sized businesses to develop a case-by-case approach involving voluntary commitments, broad-based participation, communication and the setting-aside of restrictions. The integration of further partners (Behörden: Sächsisches Staatsministerium für Umwelt und Landwirtschaft, Landesamt für Umwelt, Landwirtschaft und Geologie; local and regional authorities:

Fig. 3.4 In the 1970s huge fields – up to 100 hectares in size –were created in the former GDR, in the course of which elements of the cultural landscape such as hedges, trees and paths and also archaeological monuments were removed. Nowadays a highly mechanised and productive industrial agriculture benefits from these huge fields. The Slavic fortification near Paltzschen (Lommatzsch municipality, Meißen district) was destroyed during the process of land consolidation. Today it is only visible from the air. © Archaeological Heritage Service Saxony

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in40 40

19/11/2010 15:10:57

3 Problems and perspectives of archaeological heritage preservation in farmed landscapes in Germany

41

Fig. 3.5 In the Middle Saxon Loess Hill Region heavy rainfall triggers massive erosion, affecting crops like maize, potatoes and sugar beets. © Archaeological Heritage Service Saxony

Landkreise Meißen und Mittelsachsen, Stadterwaltung Lommatzsch; Societies: Umweltzentrum Ökohof Auterwitz e. V., Landesverein Sächsischer Heimatschutz) has created a wide stakeholder group. Twenty farmers, who cover the whole spectrum of farm types (farmers’ cooperatives, people who re-established business after the reunion, newcomers, organic farming, wine growing), are involved in the project. The Lommatzscher Pflege is the centre of the Middle Saxon Loess Hill region, which alongside the ‘Leipzig Tieflandsbucht’ and the Dresden Basin is considered the most important ancient settlement landscape, marked by more than 7,000 years of agricultural tradition that began with the Linear Band pottery culture. Some 650 archaeological monuments in an area of about 300 km2 (Lommatzscher Pflege) attest to continuous settlement here. The biggest risk to this archaeological resource undoubtedly arises from intensive agriculture, with impacts arising particularly from the mechanical disturbance resulting from ploughing and sowing and from water erosion. Features are regularly damaged or gradually levelled and whole earthwork complexes were lost as a result of extensive land consolidation measures during the 1970s.

Intensive agriculture had already commenced in the area by the late 19th century, when some inquisitive farmers discovered new sites and became enthusiastic collectors of prehistoric antiquities. The current project relates to this tradition. In order to encourage farmers to cooperate, or at least to inspire them to make some efforts in this direction, it is essential to communicate and give advice to farm businesses, offer guided tours, presentations, exhibitions and encouragement. For example, a farmer was recently given a regional environmental award for the voluntary adoption of a fallow regime on an erosion-endangered slope near an early-medieval settlement. Effective action requires improved understanding of the archaeological monuments, although their large number makes the selection of a representative sample

Fig. 3.6 This fallow area of 0.4 hectares was created on an extremely eroded hill slope and protects a medieval settlement of Zscheilitz (Lommatzsch municipality, Meißen district). The initiative for this remarkable measure comes from the agricultural company, Lempe GbR Höfgen. © Archaeological Heritage Service Saxony, R Heynowski

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in41 41

19/11/2010 15:11:04

42

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

essential. Assessing the state of preservation of sites is an especially important factor for informing future actions. The differences in the state of preservation, depending on relief and other local factors, is taken into account by compiling a detailed survey that of necessity can only be accomplished for a small selection of monuments; three dimensional models reveal the current risks and allow for the simulation of scenarios with changing parameters (rainfall, soil cover, sowing, etc). In addition, test excavations and other pedological analyses give insights into the state of the monument over time. The results of these initial surveys pose some difficulties of interpretation. While only traces remained of an early Imperial Era burial ground near Prositz, originally discovered around 1900 (and supposedly mostly excavated), a richly endowed chamber grave of the early pre-Roman Iron Age from the same site has been well preserved because of its greater depth. Since additional graves are considered to survive, the cemetery deserves protection. Currently, an analysis of a prehistoric and early medieval fortification (Zschaitzer Burgberg, Kreis Mittelsachsen) is being undertaken to inform a protection strategy. Comparison of successive elevation models shows that a rampart, now 3 metres high, has lost 0.6 metres of its height since 1950, constituting a loss of 10 mm per year. In collaboration with the Landesverein Sächsischer Heimatschutz solutions are being sought to permanently protect this site from intensive agricultural use. As a result of this work it appears that (particularly if previously unrecognised sites are regularly discovered in the course of construction) the current inventory and assumptions about site numbers are likely to be misleading and that the whole region can no longer be considered as ‘archaeologically sterile’. Protective measures need to be based on a detailed knowledge of the monument, preferably in its landscape context. Several factors need to be taken into account: changes in cultivation method, tillage and crop rotation can be individually agreed upon with businesses. In contrast, measures that interfere with property rights require intensive archaeological assessment and lengthy dialogue, which will exceed the time frame of the project, due to terminate in 2011. In addition, monitoring and land management measures need to exceed the three-year duration of the project.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in42 42

Acknowledgements Our sincerest thanks to all commission members who provided information and pictures. andreas.bü[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] (Translation: Juliane Bartosch) References Bauerochse, A. & Metzler, A. 2007: Kulturlandschaft Dümmer Geestniederung. In Bauerochse, A., Haßmann H. & Ickerdodt U. (eds), Kulturlandschaft. Administrativ-digital-touristisch, Initiativen zum Umweltschutz 67, 363–382. Berlin. Berghausen, K. & Krause, H. 2007: Dokumentierter Denkmalverlust – Prospektion an der Viereckschanze von Papferding. Archäologisches Jahr in Bayern 2006, 78–81. Göldner, R., Hartsch, K., Oexle, J. & Strobel, M. 2004: Wie lässt sich eine intensive landwirtschaftliche Flächennutzung mit dem Schutz archäologischer Kulturdenkmale in Einklang bringen? Ein Ausblick nach der Hochwasserkatastrophe im August 2002. Archäologische Informationen 27/1, 2004, 25–36. Kühnast, G. 2008: Eiderstedt: Kulturlandschaft in Gefahr. Der Maueranker 27, 4, 5–11. LancewadPlan Schleswig-Holstein 2008: Historische Landschaftscharakterisierung Eiderstedt. http://www. lancewadplan.de/default.asp?M=23&SM=39&Schema= (Zugriff 4.12.2009). Meier, D. 2001: Landschaftsentwicklung und Siedlungsgeschichte des Eiderstedter und Dithmarscher Küstengebietes als Teilregion des Nordseeküstenraumes. Bonn. Pausch, M. & Weinlich, E. 2004: Römerpark Ruffenhofen: Ein neuer archäologischer Park im Aufbau. Archäologisches Jahr in Bayern 2003, 163–165. Strobel, M. & Westphalen, Th. 2008: Landwirtschaft und archäologische Denkmalpflege im mittelsächsischen Lößhügelland. Archäologisches Nachrichtenblatt 13, 2, 142–146. Strobel, M., Vogt, R. & Westphalen, Th. 2009: Die Lommatzscher Pflege – eine sächsische Altsiedellandschaft. Mitteilungen des Landesvereins Sächsischer Heimatschutz e. V. 2/2009, 4–12.

19/11/2010 15:11:04

4

| Shaping the Netherlands Cees van Rooijen and Guido Mauro

Abstract: Virtually the entire archaeological heritage in the Netherlands is under constant pressure. Archaeological sites in wildlife areas are generally well protected but the preservation of those in areas under agricultural use is a major problem. Partly in response to the decentralisation of heritage management, the Cultural Heritage Agency is attempting to improve care for heritage by making information available.

Introduction God created the Earth and the Dutch created their own country. Though this stereotype refers mainly to the lowlying part of the country, where people used dikes, ditches, windmills and pumping stations to reclaim land from the sea, the higher-lying parts of the Netherlands are also entirely cultivated. There has been no real wilderness here for many years. And we continue to shape and create our landscape to this day. The Netherlands is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, and the entire country is more or less flat and fairly fertile, so every square metre is used and reused. This continuous process makes it difficult to preserve vestiges of our cultural heritage.

Landscape and archaeology In terms of the structure of its subsurface, the Netherlands can be roughly divided into two main zones. One is the Holocene part of the country, the low-lying areas in the west and north, which formed over the past 10,000 years as peat formed and clay and sand were deposited. In the east and south we find slightly higher-lying sandy soils and loess that formed during the Pleistocene period. In the Holocene area, prehistoric and also Roman and early medieval remains are covered by more recent deposits (Fig. 4.1). These layers are sometimes very thick, which gives the sites good protection, though this often

Fig. 4.1 Map showing various types of cover under which archaeological sites might occur. © Cultural Heritage Agency

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in43 43

19/11/2010 15:11:22

44

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 4.2 Map showing categories of archaeological monuments (AMK). © Cultural Heritage Agency

also means that no one is aware of their existence. Others are covered by a thin layer. The different periods are often separated in the stratigraphy by layers of sediment. In the Holocene part of the Netherlands, one of the key features of archaeological sites is their low elevation. Many of these sites have a relatively high water table, which makes them good for preserving botanical and zoological material. Since they often contain organic material rarely found elsewhere, this area is also internationally important. Stone-age botanical samples taken here contain a great deal of information about the palaeo-landscape and the food economy of the people who lived there. The area has also yielded some important objects, such as prehistoric canoes. In the Pleistocene part of the Netherlands, the situation is similar to that in the majority of Europe, where sites – from the Palaeolithic to the present day – lie just below

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in44 44

or on the surface. Archaeological remains from different chronological periods are only rarely stratigraphically distinct. In stream valleys, however, some are covered by more recent sediments and, in sandy areas in particular, they tend to be covered by man-made soils (see Fig. 4.1). Some time in the 12th to 13th centuries, farmers began to raise the most infertile sandy soils by adding layers of peat sods and manure. These layers – often referred to as essen or akkers – are sometimes more than a metre thick. These phenomena, which are important heritage features in themselves, often cover landscapes containing remains from the Bronze Age to the 12th century. Archaeological finds in the Netherlands, from isolated finds to entire excavations, are documented in Archis, the central online documentation system. The finds are used to characterise sites and periods. If a site is still more or less intact, it will generally be given protected status.

19/11/2010 15:11:28

4 Shaping the Netherlands

45

Fig. 4.3 Indicative map of archaeological values (IKAW). © Cultural Heritage Agency

There are currently some 13,000 protected archaeological sites in the Netherlands, 13.6% of which enjoy statutory protection under national legislation (Fig. 4.2). Besides these archaeological monuments, there are many historic buildings, such as castles, churches and houses, which also incorporate subsurface archaeological values. They have not been included in these figures, however. This is because, after the Second World War, management of archaeology and the built heritage were separated at central government level, creating a division (not always entirely clear) between the built and the archaeological heritage. Only since the two sectors were merged again in 2006, and cultural landscape added to the new organisation’s portfolio, has all the spatial heritage been overseen by a single body. However, the databases are not yet fully merged. The same applies to the data on landscape and landscape features, as this part of the heritage is generally regarded as separate from archaeology in the Netherlands. To gain an insight into the nature and scale of the issues associated with preserving archaeological monuments, they have been divided here into sites in urban areas, in agricultural areas and in wildlife areas and/or under water. Land use is one of the main factors that define the nature and scale of the threat. Some 26% of the known archaeological heritage is in built-up areas, 15% of sites are under water or in wildlife areas, and 60% are on

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in45 45

agricultural land (De Boer et al. 2009). Agricultural land in the Netherlands mainly consists of arable fields, pasture, orchards and also large areas covered by greenhouses. There is relatively little forestry in the sense of commercial timber production in the Netherlands, as most areas of woodland are managed by nature conservation and landscape management organisations. Preservation The Treaty of Valletta has been implemented in the Netherlands in such a way that archaeological values are mainly safeguarded by means of planning protection. Some 1,500 find spots enjoy statutory protection under the Monuments and Historic Buildings Act 1988. Regulations are based on a careful balance of interests in the planning process. ‘Preservation in situ’ is the key principle for archaeology. To apply this principle, we need information on the nature, position and value of archaeological remains, and also on the likelihood of archaeological remains being found in a particular area. In addition, we need a clear understanding of what the archaeological sources consist of (Deeben et al. 2006). Central government has therefore been working with the provincial authorities since the late 1980s to make information available for planning and other processes, so that the presence of archaeological values can be properly taken into account.

19/11/2010 15:11:30

46

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

The Archaeological Monuments Map 1: 25 000 is just one example (see Fig. 4.2). A number of criteria are used to determine whether a site warrants preservation. Sites that do deserve to be preserved are recorded on digital maps, and classified in one of a number of categories. The highest category is sites that already enjoy statutory protection under national legislation, or would qualify for such protection. These maps also enable provincial and local authorities to protect sites not otherwise protected in their planning procedures. The Indicative Map of Archaeological Values (IKAW) (Fig. 4.3), a map that shows potential for archaeological finds, also plays an important role in regulations implementing the Malta Convention (Deeben et al. 1997). This map is used to determine whether an archaeological survey (comprising either desk-based survey or mapping) should be conducted prior to activities that involve earth removal. Since 2007 archaeological heritage management has been officially decentralised, and a large part of the responsibility now falls to local authorities. All provincial and many local authorities now have their own archaeological policy map, and local authorities are now adding further details to predictive maps. Rules for dealing with archaeological values during infrastructural and other activities, including agricultural and wildlife areas, are based on these maps. The implementation of the Treaty of Valletta in the Netherlands has prompted many archaeological investigations paid for by developers. If the costs of excavation become too great, the developer may qualify for assistance from central government. However, associating the preservation of archaeological values – either in situ or through an excavation – exclusively with physical development and developers, has meant that preservation is less well regulated in other areas. This applies in particular to agricultural areas, where changes of function and physical development are rare. Nevertheless, intensive agriculture, and all the working of the soil it entails, poses a threat to the sustainable preservation of subsurface archaeology. In some situations natural erosion appears to be occurring. It is not possible to clearly identify any single party that is responsible for this type of erosion, so any site affected falls between two stools. There are also lots of sites – mainly on farmland – where gradual degradation is being caused by ‘normal’ land use. Such land use is permitted everywhere, even on sites with statutory protection. Under the Monuments and Historic Buildings Act, preservation of archaeological monuments is a matter for the owner. Though owners must take account of the archaeological values on their land, and may not cause any damage to the monument, they are not obliged to preserve the site, and cannot therefore be forced to do so under the law. The archaeological heritage in agricultural areas Farming poses two threats to subsurface archaeology. The first is that this type of land use and various processes associated with it, such as intensification, the application of fertiliser, ploughing, crop rotation etc, constantly damage buried archaeological remains. The second concerns the unseen erosion that occurs mainly as a result of changes to the water table, often for the benefit of farming.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in46 46

Subsidence and peat oxidation cause the water table to rise relative to the surface. For the sake of farming, the water table has to be lowered again, thus accelerating further subsidence. As a result of these processes, archaeological layers end up closer to the surface, making them more vulnerable, not only to damage by ploughing, for example, but also to desiccation. Water-table management is a particular issue in the Holocene (low-lying) part of the Netherlands, where a lot of originally well-preserved botanical and zoological material is vulnerable to any lowering of the water table (cf Figs 4.1 and 4.5). This is particularly regrettable, since the Netherlands’ subsurface archaeology is so valuable – certainly in international terms – precisely because of those remains (Cuming, Evan and Williams 2001; Van Heeringen and Theunissen 2000, 2001). We have only limited data on the scale and implications of these two types of damage. Some 60% of monument sites are on agricultural land used for a whole range of purposes, from highly damaging asparagus cultivation to grazing, which is much less damaging. As we have said, the archaeology in the Holocene part of the Netherlands is more sensitive to changes in the water table than that in the Pleistocene areas. A random survey of the threat to archaeological monuments protected under national legislation in agricultural areas has shown than some 40% of them are at real risk (De Boer et al. 2009). Very little is done to preserve archaeological sites on agricultural land. Management of sites is generally at odds with farming practices. Owners and users are dependent for their livelihood on the yield from the land, and therefore want the freedom to use it as they see fit. Ad hoc solutions are now being found for the archaeological heritage on farmland. In the province of Zeeland, for example, in the last land-parcelling operation on the island of Walcheren, visible monuments were taken out of agricultural production and given over to the management of the provincial nature and landscape conservation group Het Zeeuwse Landschap. In North Holland province, a pilot is under way whereby owners are paid to take land out of agricultural use in perpetuity, and this fact is recorded at the land registry. Under this scheme, farmers undertake not to plough or drain the land or plant bushes or trees, for example, in exchange for a lump sum. Even if the land is transferred to a new owner or user, the obligation not to engage in these activities passes to them. A fixed-term agreement has, for example, been signed under which the owner has undertaken to take account of archaeology in his decisions as to what crops to cultivate. He has been compensated for the resulting loss of income (Mauro 2004). This range of pilot projects designed to ensure that archaeological sites in agricultural areas really are preserved indicates that, though no solution has yet been found, the authorities – particularly the provinces – are focusing on it. As we have said, owners cannot be legally forced to take physical preservation measures, so their willingness to do so is crucial. It would therefore seem sensible to offer

19/11/2010 15:11:30

4 Shaping the Netherlands

47

farmers as wide a range of solutions for the management of the archaeological heritage as possible, to allow them to choose the option most suited to them. These might include purchase of the land, a lump-sum payment in return for taking land out of certain types of use in perpetuity or temporary agreements, depending on the soil, crop etc.

are now being returned to their original state as part of measures to enhance natural values, and to provide increased water infiltration and storage capacity. The stream valleys are also being widened, so the zones adjacent to the banks are being excavated to create good transitions between biotopes and, again, to increase storage capacity.

Use of such methods must of course comply with European regulations, particularly when they have the potential to distort competition. One possible solution to this problem might be the ‘Green Blue Services Catalogue’ already in use, which has been approved under the auspices of the European Rural Development Regulation. The catalogue contains a range of subsidised nature management activities for farmers. It might be possible to ensure that measures beneficial to archaeology are also included, even if their primary purpose is nature management.

New planting In the Netherlands, whenever woodland and wildlife areas are disrupted for the purposes of construction or infrastructural works, an equivalent area must be replanted. As a result, new woodland has to be planted in many locations. Although, in principle, known archaeological sites and objects are taken into account, the planting of woodland – particularly in the polders of the western and northern Netherlands – has a considerable impact on the landscape, mainly because trees have to be planted not too far from the actual disruption.

From agriculture to nature Alongside residential and commercial building, roadbuilding and other infrastructural works, the creation of ‘new nature’ is one of the biggest interventions affecting the cultural landscape. It is even – aptly – referred to as, ‘nature building’ in Dutch. Major landscape interventions are occurring in the fight against flooding and, paradoxically, against desiccation of the soil, and in attempts to meet the Natura 2000 targets. These interventions fall into three groups, with some overlap: water management, new planting and surface works. Though such activities do take account of sites with statutory and planning protection, they do not take account of as yet undiscovered archaeology.

Surface works The development and conservation of wildlife areas, in particular, has involved moving a great deal of earth. In areas with dry soils this is done to reduce the nutrient content of the soil, in order to create the desired biotopes, especially in Natura 2000 areas. In areas where heathland was fertilised with peat sods, for example, and where drift sand no longer drifts due to the spread of vegetation, the humus and root layer is being scraped off to rejuvenate heathland and allow sand to drift again. Some arable fields, which have often had large amounts of fertiliser applied to them, also have to have the nutrient content of the soil reduced. This involves removing all the ploughsoil and often part of the undisturbed subsoil as well. In addition, earlier fertilisation methods have often left the subsoil highly saturated. In wetlands, too, operations are being carried out to raise moisture levels in certain areas. Though such operations generally leave archaeological remains intact, the raised moisture levels create reed beds. This is, indeed, the intention. The roots of the reeds can grow through archaeological remains, however, damaging them and introducing oxygen into the soil, which causes further damage.

Water management To keep the country safe from flooding, as well as strengthening sea defences and dikes, we also need well-regulated drainage and storage capacity for excess water that enters the country due to rainfall or via the rivers. Major work is therefore under way as part of the ‘Room for the Rivers’ project. The idea is that, following on from earlier work to broaden the River Maas, greater water storage and drainage capacity should be created for the rivers, and overflow areas for use in emergencies. Where major physical alterations are needed to make an area suitable for flooding, this generally involves major earth-moving activities. Huge areas of land – thousands of hectares – are currently being excavated along the Maas. Entire landscapes and their archaeological remains are being converted into bodies of water – albeit after archaeological research – along the river, or in lowlying zones adjacent to the banks. Tellingly, thanks to these excavations, Limburg – the Netherlands’ ‘highest’ province, through which only the Maas and a number of small rivers and streams used to flow – is now one of the provinces with the most surface water. And it seems that the biggest interventions are yet to come. The sand extracted can be used in construction and the water, and the adjacent marshy areas are also good for plant and animal life. As well as these major works on the rivers, the natural meanders of many streams are also being restored. Virtually all stream valleys were straightened after the Second World War, when the land was reparcelled. They

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in47 47

Over the next few years, the scale on which these operations are likely to continue will become apparent. However, there are already plans to restore an island in the province of Noord-Holland that became part of the land as a result of a pre-war poldering operation. The archaeological heritage in wildlife areas Since it is not possible to enforce management and active preservation of archaeological sites under the Monuments and Historic Buildings Act, the Cultural Heritage Agency and major landowners and managers have concluded agreements for the preservation of archaeological sites in wildlife areas. A number of organisations in the Netherlands manage large areas of land. These are generally wildlife areas, including a lot of woodland and heathland. Agreements have been concluded with these parties, including the Ministry of Defence, the nature conservation group Natuurmonumenten and the State Forest Service, particularly in the 1990s. The agreements include arrangements for the preservation of archaeological monuments, both physical measures at some sites and ongoing management. The Cultural Heritage Agency

19/11/2010 15:11:30

48

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 4.4 Risk of erosion in the Netherlands. © Cultural Heritage Agency

advises these land managers and helps with preservation projects. This collaboration has meant that the archaeological monuments on land managed by those parties to these agreements are on the whole well managed. Indeed, special measures are often taken to manage the heritage as effectively as possible, or even to make it more visible, often as part of ‘TRAP projects’. These projects involve the development of cultural heritage trails, in collaboration with the Agency, usually leading from one archaeological site to another. The land manager or local authority will generally renovate the monuments along the route and make sure they are properly cared for. As a result, sites in woodland and other wildlife areas in the Netherlands tend to be well managed. Though European grants and ad hoc funding are available, there are no structural schemes for the preservation of the archaeological heritage. However, a modest scheme for the maintenance of archaeological monuments is expected to get off the ground, under the umbrella of an existing scheme for the preservation of the built heritage (known as BRIM). The scheme will target legally protected sites in wildlife and recreation areas. The BRIM scheme is not, however, suitable for legally protected sites that are in agricultural use, as it can only subsidise 50% of the costs incurred. Farmers are not expected to show much support for such a scheme, so another solution will have to be found. The future Various studies have been carried out and maps produced to identify risks to and problems associated with

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in48 48

preservation of the archaeological heritage in agricultural areas (Lauwerier and Lotte (eds) 2002; De Boer et al. 2009). The map showing areas covered as a result of natural processes and human activity has been published in the Archaeology Report (De Boer et al. 2009). This map can be used to advise on management and priorities based on the biggest threats to subsurface archaeology. The maps of areas at risk of soil erosion (Fig. 4.4) and of areas at risk due to the lowering of the water table (Fig. 4.5) might also prove useful in setting priorities and/or developing policy. All these maps will at any rate improve our knowledge of the issues associated with preservation, and increase the likelihood that a solution will be found. The Archaeology Report, which reviews the current situation concerning the immovable heritage, and also includes the maps shown here, is after all intended in part as a basis for the evaluation and development of policy by central government and other parties (De Boer et al. 2009). Conclusions Virtually the entire archaeological heritage in the Netherlands is under constant pressure, as a result of the growing population, the total usable land area in the country, and the constant drive for development. Archaeological sites in wildlife areas, including most woodland, are generally well protected under agreements with the organisations that manage the land. However, major interventions are occurring in the name of flood safety and nature development. These interventions often involve preparing agrarian land to be returned to nature, which often poses a serious risk both to the landscape and to the archaeology there. The preservation

19/11/2010 15:11:46

4  Shaping the Netherlands

49

Fig. 4.5  Map showing groundwater categories at known archaeological sites in the Netherlands. The map indicates sites where organic remains are likely to be found just below the surface. © Alterra WageningenUR/Cultural Heritage Agency

of ­ archaeological sites in areas under agricultural use is a major problem for archaeological heritage managers. Partly in response to the decentralisation of heritage management, the Cultural Heritage Agency is attempting to improve care of our cultural heritage by making information available (including lots of maps). It is also keen to develop schemes to encourage better ­ archaeological heritage management in these areas. [email protected] [email protected] References Cuming, P., Evan, K. & Williams, J. 2001: The Planarch Project in Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), England, France and the Netherlands: Final Report on Actions Undertaken by the Partners. Maidstone.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in49 49

De Boer, M. et al. 2009: Erfgoedbalans 2009, Archeologie, monumenten en cultuurlandschap in Nederland. Amersfoort. Deeben, J., Hallewas, D.P., Kolen, J. & Wiemer, R. 1997: Beyond the Christal Ball: Predictive Modelling as a Tool in Archaeological Heritage Management and Occupation History. In Willems, W.J.H., Kars, H. & Hallewas, D.P. (eds), Archaeological Heritage Management in the Netherlands, Fifty Years State Service for Archaeological Investigations, 76–118. Amersfoort. Deeben, J.H.C., Groenewoudt, B.J., Hallewas, D.P., Van Rooijen, C.A.M. & Zoetbrood, P.A.M. 2006: In Search of the Archaeological Source. In Van Heeringen, R.M. & Lauwerier, R.C.G.M, Berichten van de Rijksdienst voor het Oudheidkundig Bodemonderzoek, vol. 46, 113–126. Amersfoort.

19/11/2010 15:12:47

50

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Lauwerier, R.C.G.M. & Lotte, R.M. (eds) 2002: Archeologiebalans 2002. Amersfoort. Mauro, G. 2004: Archeologisch vriendelijk boeren, ervaringen met financiële overeenkomst aangepast grondgebruik. Amersfoort. Van Heeringen, R.M. & Theunissen, L. 2000: Preserving the Quality of the Archaeological Landscape at Voorne-

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in50 50

Putten in the Province of Zuid-Holland: Regional Study as part of the European PLANARCH Project. Amersfoort. Van Heeringen, R.M. & Theunissen, E.M. (eds) 2001: Kwaliteitsbepalend onderzoek ten behoeve van duurzaam behoud van neolithische terreinen in WestFriesland en de Kop van Noord-Holland [drie delen]. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten 21. Amersfoort.

19/11/2010 15:12:47

5  |  Raising consciousness: the reconciliation   of archaeological heritage preservation   and agricultural practice in Hungary Réka Virágos Abstract: Having regarded sites as holding a purely academic interest for a long time, Hungarian archaeologists recently have had to face the problem of how to manage and sustain their archaeological resource. In terms of rural land uses, the combination of a growing self-consciousness among landowners and poorly developed approaches to archaeological heritage management resulted in an almost uncontrolled situation: a problem that can no longer be evaded.

The lands of Hungary in the Carpathian Basin in Central Europe, within the temperate zone, are well known for their fertility; the landscape is rich in forests and arable lands, and the country’s tradition of viticulture goes back to the Roman period. Most of Hungary’s rivers have been subject to drainage and flood-control since the 19th century. The land area of Hungary is 93,000 km2, 10% of which is natural or near-natural and more than 8% of which is under legal protection for nature conservation. Settlements, industrial areas, infrastructure and other facilities take up a further 20%. The remaining 70% is agricultural land, of which nearly three-quarters is under cultivation (Kereszty 1998; further details on Hungarian agriculture can be found on the homepage of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development: http:// www.fvm.gov.hu/doc/upload/201001/english_2009.pdf). During the modern historical period, up to the 1950s, agricultural cultivation was determined by a system of – predominantly – privately owned big estates. Subsequently, radical changes happened to the landscape. Socialist production methods required large property blocks to become single units, as a result of which earlier characteristic landscape elements, such as hedges and lanes (typically used to divide the private estates from each other) almost totally disappeared. Agricultural mass production of monoculture goods was accompanied by the need for an extensive use of machines and a more intensive use of the land in general. In recent years a slow transformation in the landscape has been observed. Following the change from socialism to capitalism in 1989, land was returned to predominantly private ownership, its subdivision recommenced and land use has begun to alter on these newly separated holdings. Finally, Hungary’s accession to the EU in 2004 also resulted in structural changes to farming. This primarily relates to the introduction of a system of farm subsidies, but also to the adoption of an environmentally conscious approach to agricultural production, at least at a theoretical level at present (Ángyán et al. 1997; Ángyán et al. 2003). The legislative methods and the system of archaeological heritage protection in Hungary Although Hungary has more than a century-long tradition of heritage protection (notably, monument protection, which means the protection of built heritage), the current 

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in51 51

modern legislation, which also incorporates archaeological heritage, goes back to the beginning of this decade (law LXIV of 2001 on the protection of cultural heritage). This legislation recognises three categories – registered sites, which are protected by law; ‘listed’ or ‘scheduled’ sites, which have additional legal protection through ministerial decree; and archaeologically sensitive areas – and declares that certain activities require a licence. The licensing system is operated by the National Office of Cultural Heritage (NOCH – Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Hivatal), the only institution acting as an authority in cultural heritage. Officially, archaeological sites are subject to controls only when they have been previously registered by the NOCH. Since registration can apply merely to known sites, and does not include the archaeologically sensitive areas, the administrative process and protection protects only a limited proportion of the assumed archaeological heritage. However, there is a procedure that can be instituted by the authority when a previously unknown site comes to light (Wollák 2006; Wollák 2009). Since 2001, the legal system in Hungary has basically complied with the Council of Europe’s Valetta Convention on the Protection of Archaeological Heritage. Consequently, the known part of the archaeological heritage is protected by law: in the case of development proposals a heritageimpact assessment is a prerequisite and, in the case of development, the archaeological site can only be ‘destroyed’ through excavation, and only as a last resort. The estimated number of existing archaeological sites in Hungary is approximately 100,000 to 150,000, out of which 59,930 are currently registered and fewer than 1,000 are scheduled. These scheduled sites are the sites with the most outstanding historic value and get additional protection from the law (Wollák 2006, 75–78). A remarkable number of these archaeological sites lie within protected areas (national parks, landscape protection areas, nature reserves). Additionally, the law on heritage protection offers the possibility of scheduling whole areas as historic landscapes but this has, so far, remained unexploited. Alongside the NOCH, which serves as the authority for archaeological heritage protection, the other national institution is the Field Service for Cultural Heritage (FSCH – Kulturális Örökségvédelmi Szakszolgálat). Its task is to carry out archaeological excavations required as a result of developments that qualify as large-scale investments.

19/11/2010 15:12:48

52

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

There are also other institutions which are entitled to carry out archaeological excavation: the municipal and county museums, the Hungarian National Museum, the Archaeological Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Science, and the archaeological departments of the universities. It is notable that professional field practice and the curatorial administration of archaeology are completely separated. Agricultural regulations The two major institutions that are directly involved in managing agriculture in Hungary are the Agricultural and Rural Development Agency (ARDA – Mezőgazdasági és Vidékfejlesztési Hivatal) and the Central Agricultural Office (CAO – Mezőgazdasági Szakigazgatási Hivatal). ARDA is an institution founded for managing the system of EU agricultural subsidies as well as those provided by the Hungarian national budget. It is also responsible for the allocation of these supports and the implementation of measures for the regulation of the agricultural market. ARDA is an independent legal entity with both national regulatory powers and budgetary responsibilities (see http://www.mvh.gov.hu/portal/MVHPortal_en/default/ mainmenu/about_mvh). CAO is the national authority and the administrative organisation for agriculture. The scope of its duties extends to many areas including farming, forestry, viticulture and soil protection (see http://www. mgszh.gov.hu/en/). Both organisations are supervised by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. Most agricultural activity in Hungary is governed by regulation, and the legislative system relating to agriculture is essentially based on a system of licensing. The law protecting the cultural heritage does not have any particular provisions relating to archaeological sites situated on farmed or forested landscapes, so the two sectors are connected principally through the agricultural licensing system. The importance of this involvement, which NOCH has played since the inception of the licensing system in 2001, is underlined by the fact that the normal approach to impact assessment for the cultural heritage does not extend to any kind of agricultural activity. Nevertheless, where activities are planned that may affect a registered archaeological site, NOCH is part of the licensing procedure, with the ability to grant or refuse permission and to set conditions consistent with legislation. However, the remit of NOCH applies to strategic activities such as land division (where the authority is a third institution, the Land Registry Offices) or forest-management planning, rather than to front-line activities, such as forest or vine plantation or removal; use of the soil for another purpose; or shifting cultivation. In terms of the strategic processes, the involvement of the NOCH provides a workable approach for securing the long-term management of archaeological sites. However, as its remit extends only to newly commenced activities, it has very limited influence over long-established practices, even where these endanger a registered or a scheduled archaeological site: a situation that means that the interests of archaeological-site protection need further promotion. The most damaging rural land uses for the archaeological heritage are those that require particularly invasive soil cultivation methods. Deep-ploughing, sub-soiling, vine or forest plantation (and the planting of fast-growing trees

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in52 52

as a novelty) and earth-moving (especially in forests to construct new ditches or roads) are the most common activities. Problems in archaeological-site management For a long time, rural land use was considered as an inevitable ‘necessary evil’ by archaeologists in Hungary. It was recognised that, from time to time, in the course of deep-ploughing or planting a new vineyard or a forest, new archaeological sites or finds came to light and accepted that (except in unique cases) there was no opportunity to influence the land use to take account of the presence of archaeological sites. Archaeologists were generally resigned to the slow devastation of the archaeological resource by agricultural activities and there was no system to ensure their stewardship. The only practical solution, if sufficient finances were available, was considered to be the archaeological excavation of the affected area. The drastic destruction wrought by treasure hunters and metal-detectorists was considered more problematic and was the centre of archaeologists’ primary interest. It was only after 1998 – when cultural-heritage management was first recognised as a separate discipline from field archaeology and established as a regulatory authority – that the issue gained prominence. Hungarian culturalheritage managers are now facing a situation where the scale of this unrelenting and unresolved problem cannot be ignored and specialists must look for solutions. The range of problems relating to the archaeological heritage and the agricultural sector are complex and diverse. First of all, the theory of the legislative system does not match practice, with the system of heritage regulation effective only for activities requiring a licence. Where an agricultural activity – for example, ploughing – does not require a licence only the general legal requirements on cultural heritage are taken into account. The law states that a licence is required from the NOCH for ground disturbance on a registered archaeological site only if the planned disturbance exceeds 30cm in depth, or where changes on scheduled archaeological sites might endanger the character of the land. Additionally, NOCH has statutory powers to intervene in other licensing processes relating to land-use change, forestry operations and construction. However, the situation is becoming more complex. Continual legal and administrative changes and the uncertainties that result are not conducive to the effective operation of a legally based system of heritage protection. Moreover, some legal provisions that in theory provide effective protection are, in fact, ineffectual. For example, if a certain activity damages the condition of or, in an extreme case, destroys an archaeological site, the activity is prohibited or regulated by statute. However, if this destructive activity is integral to the land use of the area in question, a legal restriction on the activity is possible only if there is a proportional compensation for lost income. Since the budget of the NOCH – as the relevant authority – is insufficient to finance such prohibitions, the protective value of the regulations remains theoretical. Another problem is the registration – or rather the legal system of registration – of archaeological sites. The remit of the NOCH extends only to those archaeological sites that are recorded in the official register. The register does not contain data based on professional predictions and,

19/11/2010 15:12:48

5  The reconciliation of archaeological heritage preservation and agricultural practice in Hungary date 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2001–2009

number of scheduled archaeological sites

number of parcels under archaeological protection

3

26

14 30 38 14 16 36 151

53

number of protected parcels with agricultural land use 5

number of parcels with non-agricultural land use (exempt) 21

232 1044 871 190 100

130 491 359 91 66

102 553 512 99 34

262 2725

197 1339

65 1386

Table 5.1  Statistics on the agricultural land use of scheduled archaeological sites between 2001 and 2009.

forest arable land/corpland pasture/field vineyard orchard/allotment reed plot fishpond forested land joint cultivation

Fig. 5.1  Distribution of rural land uses; calculation based on the 1339 parcels listed in Table 5.1.

since the register derives mainly from data obtained from the museums and NOCH’s predecessor organisation (the Directorate of Cultural Heritage – Kulturális Örökség Igazgatósága), which had no opportunity to check all the previous data, it contains certain inaccuracies (see further details in Wollák 2009, 55–56). Partly for the above reasons and partly because there are only certain sites where land use is systematically recorded in the register, there are no reliable statistics on how many archaeological sites are affected by agricultural land use, although the current unreliable data suggest they number 24,677 out of the 60,000 sites known. Although checking of the registry is in progress, only a small group of sites scheduled between 2001 and 2009 currently include detailed information on land use (Table 5.1 and Fig. 5.1). Updating the registry and providing on-line access to it is recognised to be particularly important to make the relevant data easily accessible for the other authorities and landowners. However, universal free access to the proper data on the location of archaeological sites raises awareness and responsibility at the same time and societal attitudes to the archaeological heritage is a decisive question in this respect. Nature conservation commands public support among Hungarians, although the level of direct involvement is not as high as in Northern and Western Europe. In contrast, people access Hungary’s archaeological heritage primarily through museum exhibitions and, sadly,

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in53 53

through the restrictions imposed by the NOCH. Public knowledge about archaeological features or sites is fairly low, and awareness about the aims and methodology of archaeology and about the fragility of sites on the ground is even lower. The responsibility for this situation partly lies with the profession and its heritage-management institutions. Owners or users of land face several difficulties if there is a registered archaeological site located on their property. They face legal restrictions and an extended administrative burden with virtually no possibility of getting any practical help. In cases where the archaeological site is scheduled, it may further increase the responsibilities of the landowners. Registered sites may also affect the market value of the property. Owners’ attitudes to the registration process – and particularly to statutory protection – are influenced by the perception that it diminishes the value of their property. They feel that the restrictions are inequitable and, inevitably, request compensation or subsidy in exchange. Where these are not options, they want their land to be purchased by the NOCH or the government. At the moment, however, neither a system of eligibility for compensation nor subsidy exists, nor is land acquisition possible in such simple cases. Consequently, the statutory protection of archaeological sites is not popular among the public and, unsurprisingly, the additional general legal provisions protecting cultural heritage (for example in cases relating to agricultural activity) are not widely enforced. The fact that key aspects of archaeological-heritage management (specifically management directed to the physical protection of sites) lie outside the responsibility of any organisation also presents difficulties. The remit of NOCH extends only to certain statutory responsibilities and its duties are limited to registration, licensing and regulation. The FSCH is basically an organisation with a remit for site exploration and excavation. It shares this responsibility with universities with archaeological faculties, research institutes and museums (which also serve as the local places for the presentation of the archaeological heritage). All of these institutions monitor archaeological sites at some level, but whenever a site is threatened by agricultural or another kind of activity, they can do nothing more than report the case to the NOCH.

19/11/2010 15:12:48

54

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Solutions and resumptions There are both practically tested solutions and theoretical proposals for the future of archaeological-site management in Hungary. First, there are opportunities available independently of the NOCH. The Ministry of Education and Culture already has a mandate to use its budget for specific heritage expenditure: to support the management of archaeological sites; to give subsidies to the owners, users or trustees of the protected cultural heritage sites; or for compensation, land acquisition and governmental pre-emption (a legal opportunity given to the state to buy a piece of land, prior to anyone else, if the landowner wishes to sell his property). Although there were resources to cover this expenditure initially, they were gradually eroded and the provisions are no longer used in practice. Financial difficulties likewise prevented the opportunity – offered by the law on cultural heritage – to issue a decree on the sustainable use of archaeological resources. Consequently, there is a theoretical legal framework, which offers possibilities rather than actually being implemented. One other possible solution in current practice relates to land division. Every Hungarian landowner has the right to initiate the division of his or her property. This can be very important, particularly if the property is a large area of land within which an archaeological site occupies only a smaller proportion. As a result of the division, the archaeological site could become a separate parcel, which – since

the administration in Hungary is based on land parcels as the smallest unit recognised by the official land registry – can help to reduce the administrative obligations on the remainder of the original holding. This possibility is, however, optional, and all expenses have to be covered by the landowners. NOCH is involved in finding solutions to the existing problems in many ways. Difficulties in archaeologicalheritage management intensified after the economic boom around the millennium. Land exchange – proposed by NOCH – seemed an obvious solution for achieving sustainable site management, particularly in the case of endangered scheduled sites. A National Land Fund (NLF) has been established to promote the national property policy and to provide land for delivering ‘public goods’. Land in the NLF is owned by the state (its legal representative is the Hungarian State Holding Company Ltd and its manager is the National Land Fund Managing Organisation), but the land is usually passed to local government trusteeship. One of the aims of taking land into governmental ownership in exchange for equivalent land is to create nature reserves of local importance. Building on this example, in 2005 the NOCH tried to organise – as an experiment – the land exchange of a scheduled archaeological site in private ownership in the village of Hosszúhetény, Baranya County. This site, the partly excavated main building of a Roman villa, is situated in arable land and annual heavy ploughing was

Fig. 5.2  The Roman villa at Hosszúhetény (Baranya County) situated in the middle of a ploughed field and overgrown with weeds and bushes. Photograph: Éva Szajcsán, NOCH

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in54 54

19/11/2010 15:12:52

5  The reconciliation of archaeological heritage preservation and agricultural practice in Hungary

regularly damaging the stone walls of the structure and degrading the site in the long term. In order to ensure the sustainability of the site, a change of cultivation method was needed. Since no other form of compensation was available, land exchange seemed a good solution to the problem. However, despite the local authority giving its consent to become the trustee of the land, after a long correspondence with the NLF Managing Organisation it became clear that negotiations would not be successful. As a result, NOCH has ordered the landowners not to cultivate the land area of the villa building (Fig. 5.2), but this regulatory approach should not be considered as the most appropriate way to solve problems of this type in the long term. Another possibility related to land exchange is a programme called ‘arable land for annuity’, for which people aged over 60 with a property not larger than 20 hectares are eligible. The state buys their land for up to 3 million forints, which will be paid as an annuity. Negotiations between the NOCH and the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to include culturalheritage sites within this programme have not met with success. Although the management of cultural heritage and conservation of the natural environment are administratively distinct in Hungary and the registry of the NOCH on archaeological sites and the registry of the Ministry of Environment and Water (MEW) on statutorily protected nature monuments do not have formal interconnections,

55

both sectors have several overlapping interests and often pursue common goals. Certain sites of archaeological, landscape and habitat importance are protected by the law on nature conservation. For example, all visible burial mounds (popularly also called Cuman-barrows or kurgans) and hillforts/earthwork fortifications belong to this category and are protected as nature monuments (Fig. 5.3). With the recent initiative of the ministry to form ARDA, new opportunities were presented to preserve the protected sites through agricultural regulation and, in accordance with the objectives of MEW, land users who would like to receive area-based subsidies are required to preserve certain landscape elements – primarily the above-mentioned nature monuments. Under the direction of MEW, the National Park Directorates in co-operation with the Institute of Geodesy, Cartography and Remote Sensing (IGCRS) are working on refinement of the registry and the spatial representation of the statutorily protected earthworks as landscape features in order to integrate these data into the LPIS-Hu (land parcel identification) dataset. This dataset (supplied by the IGCRS and called MEPAR in Hungarian) provides the basis for paying the area-based agricultural subsidies of the Common Agricultural Policy, particularly the Single Area Payment Scheme. It is intended that digitised spatial representations of landscape features will be included within LPIS-Hu, enabling the land users of eligible land parcels to apply for financial support for conserving

Fig. 5.3  Age burial mounds at Nagyberki-Szalacska (Somogy County), undisturbed by direct land use. Photograph: Csilla M. Aradi, NOCH

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in55 55

19/11/2010 15:12:56

56

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

these features. The legal framework of the project will be connected to the Cross Compliance System of the CAP through the council regulation (EC) No 73/2009. This financial support will affect the regulations on land use and also provide protection for landscape features of archaeological importance. In cases where the current cultivation of the landscape feature is undesirable, the land user will have to change cultivation method or withdraw the affected land from cultivation in order to obtain the support. Thus, archaeological-heritage protection will be indirectly incorporated into the regulation of the agricultural support system. This is an important development from the point of view of NOCH as, since the accession of Hungary to the EU, landowning interests have blamed the agrarian regulations of the EU for their refusal to accept the restrictions on ­archaeological sites. The MEW has also made overtures to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development seeking the provision of additional resources to support changes of land use to protect landscape features. A shift from a destructive to a non-destructive type of land use – for example, from ploughing to pasture – would also benefit the archaeological resource, although pasture is less favoured in Hungary because factory-farming and intensive animalhusbandry do not need large amounts of grazing land. Therefore, the joint efforts of MEW and ARDA could hopefully lead to further developments in the preservation of the archaeological heritage. The medium-term objective of the MEW is to add protection of unique landscape features (some of which have cultural-heritage importance) to the system of farm supports. In terms of the long-term development of archaeological-site management, this direction seems the most acceptable and promising to implement: primarily to make scheduled archaeological sites eligible for subsidy. Should it be achieved, a clear strategy and a reliable registry will be an essential prerequisite for starting negotiations with the agricultural sector. Particular attention should also be paid to forests as areas of special land use, since about 25% of the farmland in the country is utilised for forest management (see http://84.206.26.187/en/specialities/erdeszet). The forestry directorates create long-term cultivation plans on a district basis, providing special regulations for each forest sector. The forestry directorates belong to the Central Agricultural Office and their principal purpose is the facilitation of productive and regulated forest management. According to the recent law on the forests (law XXXVII. of 2009 on the forest, the protection of the forest and silviculture), in addition to economic designations, certain forest sectors can also have protective functions, such as conservation, coastal defence, national defence or heritage protection. This last function can serve to protect a historical monument or site of cultural heritage. Although there are no reliable statistical data on how many registered archaeological sites are situated in forested areas, this new possibility seems a very encouraging tool to ensure that at least the endangered scheduled archaeological sites are protected in future plans. The forestry directorate of Tolna County had already reported to the NOCH a forested site in Mucsi, which was the typesite of the Neolithic Lengyel-culture. The re-evaluation of the forest plan of the district has provided opportunities for possible changes of site management. In terms of

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in56 56

its practical adaptability, the main problem for this new direction is authorisation, as the statute requires the Minister of Culture to initiate (out of public interest) any proposal to change the designation of a forest sector to protect the cultural heritage. In reality, the impetus will need to come from the NOCH, given its duty to regularly monitor archaeological sites, and it will be difficult to implement any such proposals, because the initiator is required to meet the costs incurred by the foresters and any losses which might arise due to the special regulations pertaining to an archaeological site. Nevertheless, it is still a positive development, particularly as the legislation was assessed only by agricultural specialists, without the involvement of anybody from the field of cultural-heritage protection. Returning to the subject of society’s relation to archaeological sites, it would seem logical to try to achieve protection by implementing local initiatives. However, an archaeological site rarely becomes so important to the local community that it makes real efforts to secure its protection. Such ambitions usually arise only when an archaeological site seems to play an important (whether real or mythical) role in the history or sense-of-identity of the community. The approaches available to local communities are very diverse. The local government is allowed to establish local protection (through a decree) for the territory, but is required to find its own way of compensating land users (for example, through purchase, rental, land exchange, etc). Once sites of this type become the property of the local government, they often become exempt from agricultural land use and are usually marked by signboards, statues, memorials or other kind of monument. These sites generally become more incorporated into the life of the local society than any other official archaeological parks or exhibition places initiated by the government or the county autonomies. However, in the field of cultural heritage protection, the previous socialist approach – to draw every activity under direct state governance – slowly gave way to locally conceived ‘bottom-up’ initiatives. Environmental management as a possible approach Environmental and nature conservation are highly dependent on co-operation with the agricultural sector. Similarly, a sustainable and environmentally conscious agriculture also depends on the quality and condition of natural resources (Ángyán 1995). It is nevertheless a very slow process to put agri-environmental management into practice in Hungary. Agriculture does not currently have such a close relationship with the cultural-heritage sector as it does with the environmental and nature-­conservation sector. Making archaeological-site management part of the wider environmental management agenda therefore has great potential (Fig. 5.4), but this requires clear commitments and a more open approach towards archaeological non-specialists. Implementing the provisions of the European Landscape Convention would certainly inspire this process, and initial co-operation between the heritage and nature-conservation sectors has already begun. Although cultural-heritage protection in Hungary has a basis in statute, the legal background is only one of a range of possible protective tools and should not be considered the only, or always the primary, approach

19/11/2010 15:12:56

5  The reconciliation of archaeological heritage preservation and agricultural practice in Hungary Fig. 5.4  The position of cultural heritage in the environmental system (from Belényesy-Virágos 2008, fig. 5).

57

ENVIRONMENT

man-made environment (archaeological sites, historic monuments, man-made edifices and landscape elements)

cultural heritage protection

archaeological resources located sub terrain and underwater

site of monuments

natural environment (natural resources, landscape)

hill forts, barrows, trenches, historic earthen works, landscape

environmental protection (water, air, soil)

(Belényesy & Virágos 2008, 283). Setting archaeological sites within their landscape context and increasing public interest by adopting the agri-environmental route must be the ultimate goal, but in reality it is more important to address a series of small practical steps. Specialists in the field of archaeological-heritage protection have just begun to recognise that, in order to achieve effective physical protection, they must first raise interest and understanding on a variety of levels. Providing adequate information to the agricultural and environmental protection ministries and their agencies is as important as making the information available for local government and the users of the land. This also offers a novel approach for archaeological specialists. The recognition is there, but there is a long way to go in order to see any kind of established and effective mechanism. Acknowledgement I am very grateful to the people who helped me by reading the draft text and encouraged me with their advice, or provided additional data or illustrations for my paper, in particular to Zoltán Árgay and his colleagues in the MEW, Csilla M. Aradi, Marianna Bálint, Levente Nagy, Éva Szajcsán and Katalin Wollák. [email protected] References Ángyán, J. 1995: A fenntartható fejlődés és a környezetbarát rendszerváltás a mezőgazdaságban. A mezőgazdaságtól a vidékfejlesztésig III.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in57 57

Falukonferencia MTA Regionális Kutatások Központja Pécs, 196–206. Ángyán, J., Büttner, Gy., Németh, T. & Podmaniczky, L. 1997: A természetvédelem és a mezőgazdálkodás összehangolásának EU-konform rendszere I: Alapozó vizsgálatok Magyarország földhasználati zónarendszerének kialakításához. Zöld belépő: EU csatlakozásunk környezeti szempontú vizsgálata. MTA Stratégiai kutatási program. Budapest-Gödöllő. Ángyán, J., Tardy, J. & Vajdáné Madarassy, A. (eds) 2003: Védett és érzékeny természeti területek mezőgazdálkodásának alapjai. Budapest. Belényesy, K. & Virágos, G. 2008: Régészet az ezredforduló után: a régészet helye és szerepe a 21. századi fejlett piacgazdaságban és a tudásalapú társadalomban (Archaeology after the millennium: the position of archaeology in the market economy and knowledge-based society of the 21st century). Archaeologiai Értesítő 133, 273–290. Kereszty, A. (ed.) 1998: Zöld tények könyve. Budapest. Wollák, K. 2006: The protection of cultural heritage by legislative methods in Hungary. In Jerem, E., Mester, Zs. & Benczes, R. (eds): Archaeological and Cultural Heritage Preservation within the Light of New Technologies: Selected Papers from the Joint Archeolingua-EPOCH Workshop, 27 September–2 October 2004, Százhalombatta, Hungary, 73–82. Budapest. Wollák, K. 2009: Listing – precondition of protection? In Schut, P.A.C. (ed.): Listing Archaeological Sites, Protecting the Historical Landscape. EAC Occasional Paper No. 3, 53–61. Brussels.

19/11/2010 15:12:57

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in58 58

19/11/2010 15:12:57

6  |  Agricultural changes, ancient mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some field (and forest) notes from southern Burgundy William Meyer Abstract: In this paper, I discuss how agricultural change impacts the Bronze and Iron Age burial mounds of southern Burgundy. Professional archaeology may be ill-equipped to mitigate this impact. I suggest changes to the discipline that might allow for better site protection, including the adoption of an ethnographic approach. Creating effective heritage management plans for the future will involve altering how we practise archaeology, expanding what constitutes archaeology, and recognising the important role played by various stakeholders as allies in the preservation of ­archaeological resources.

In the fall of 2009, I had dinner with a colleague at our project headquarters in southern Burgundy (east-central France). Our conversation shifted to my fieldwork. ‘The old farm roads are becoming less and less passable,’ I said. ‘I often have to park the car and walk to survey locations.’ My colleague smiled. ‘Well, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. You’ve always been a bit cavalier in how you drive the car. The roads you’ve taken me down . . .’ While he may have had a point with regard to equipment management, my friend missed a critical piece of landscape information in this exchange. The farm roads I mentioned, many of which may have been in use since the Iron Age, are often no longer maintained. When they are repaired, holes are often filled with large sherds of ceramic roofing tile and the road remains challenging for anyone in a small automobile. Some roads were allowed to pass into disuse earlier, but this change in landscape management seems to have intensified over the past decade, coinciding with the ever more frequent use of heavy equipment by farmers and loggers. Due to their size, large tractors and machines are likely to cause considerable road damage; damage which, ironically, does not inhibit their own traffic. Changes in the management of farm road systems are just one impact of modernisation on the rural landscape; impacts that threaten the preservation of archaeological and palaeo-environmental remains. Other transformations of rural economies that produce such threats are changes in demography, urbanisation and additional alterations to agricultural practices (Green & Vos 2001). At least one stream of archaeological theory-practice – British landscape archaeology – has developed out of attempts to mitigate the effects of these transformations on the rural landscape (Bender 1998; Johnson 2007). Through the French Project, my colleagues and I have had the opportunity to follow the development and impact of such changes on the landscape of southern Burgundy. Founded in the mid-1970s, the French Project is a multidisciplinary endeavour aimed at understanding the range and complexity of human–land interactions in this region

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in59 59

over the past 3,000 years (Crumley & Marquardt 1987). To accomplish its goal, the French Project has enrolled the expertise of archaeologists, geologists, historians, ethnographers, and ecologists. During the past 30 years, the Project has principally focused its efforts on the lower Arroux River valley, along the western edge of the French department of Saône-et-Loire (71). My own work is a continuation and an expansion of the French Project. I study a group of more than 160 Bronze- and Iron-Age tumuli spread throughout the Arroux and adjacent Somme River drainages (see Fig. 6.1). By comparison to similar burial architecture in other regions (for example, southern Germany), these mounds are relatively small and poor. Rather than focusing on their prehistoric importance, my research addresses recent human interactions with these tombs. During the course of this work, I have observed clear demonstrations of the threats that changing agricultural practices pose to the archaeological landscape. In this paper, I wish to summarise these threats as they apply to the tumuli I study. Aside from simply describing the scope of the problem, I discuss broader historical and geopolitical circumstances that have contributed to it. Recognising these broader factors, I suggest that professional archaeology may be ill-equipped to understand and mitigate the threats posed by agricultural change. I propose a set of ‘course corrections’ that archaeologists should make as we confront these threats, suggesting that we alter our own practice, expand our vision of what constitutes archaeology, and recognise the important role played by various stakeholders in the preservation of archaeological resources. Agricultural change and Burgundian tumuli As above-ground features, tumuli face threats to preservation which differ somewhat from those which impact subterranean features. While features below the surface may be inadvertently destroyed, the visibility characteristic of intact burial mounds means that their destruction is often planned. At the same time, their physical bulk – of which this visibility is a function – may actually invite destruction, as in many cases these mounds represent a barrier to easy movement across the landscape.

19/11/2010 15:12:57

60

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 6.1  Geographic distribution of recorded tumuli within and adjacent to the Arroux and Somme river drainages. © William Meyer

By far, the best-preserved tumuli in my study are those that remain in traditionally managed, mixed forests; that is to say, those that remain in generally low-traffic, isolated areas. The biggest threats to mound preservation arise when such forests are clear-cut and replanted, or when they are cleared for field agriculture. As changes in forestry and field agriculture pose somewhat different challenges, it is worth looking at each in turn to better understand their impact on tumulus preservation. Forestry Historically, the Arroux and Somme valleys have been characterised by mixed hard- and softwood forests, the overall composition of which have varied with slope, aspect, elevation and drainage. These forests continue to exist throughout the area, though they are no doubt smaller and less common than in previous centuries. Traditionally, the management of such forests included pollarding, coppicing and a rotating cycle of selective, staged removal of larger species every few decades. The

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in60 60

product of this kind of management is a generally open forest that, regardless of how long the plot has been kept wooded, remains in a relative state of perpetual ‘youth’. While patches within the forest may appear completely cleared at the end of a staged removal rotation, such places are usually kept small and the growth of a similar forest cover is allowed to begin immediately (Fig. 6.2). As suggested above, traditional forest management has been beneficial to the preservation of tumuli. Trees often grow near by or actually on the mounds, so these sites do sustain a degree of root damage (Fig. 6.3). It appears, however, that the continual maintenance of a juvenile forest reduces the size and number of roots penetrating any single site. The young forest also seems to reduce the chance of considerable disturbance associated with ‘windthrows’ of larger (often older) trees. Windthrow risk is further reduced by the maintenance of relatively stable forest edges, the clearings opened as part of the harvesting process generally being small enough

19/11/2010 15:13:08

6  Agricultural changes, mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some notes from southern Burgundy

61

Fig. 6.2  Traditional Burgundian forest management involves cyclical, spatially confined cutting events conducted over a period of years with limited mechanisation. Thus, the impact of this management system on archaeological sites is relatively low. © William Meyer

Fig. 6.3  Tumuli in traditionally managed forests are generally well preserved, though may sustain root damage as trees grow on the mound or near by. © William Meyer

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in61 61

19/11/2010 15:13:15

62

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 6.4  The debris left over by mechanised logging is bulldozed into long windrows, thereby destroying archaeological features on or near the surface. Such windrows can be more than a metre wide and several metres tall (inset, lower right). © William Meyer

to avoid the creation of new windbreaks out of trees unaccustomed to high winds. By far, the most important preservative feature of traditional Burgundian forest management is that it is relatively ‘low-tech’. While trucks, tractors and chainsaws are now involved in the process, the spatial scale on which traditional harvesting operates means that these machines are usually small and capable of moving around or over mound sites without significant damage. Over the past few decades, mechanised clear-cutting of mixed forest – particularly of hardwood forest – and monocrop re-plantation with faster-growing softwoods has become common. While potentially more productive in terms of certain kinds of forest product, this change from the traditional forest-management system has devastating consequences for tumuli. With the use of larger machines both for cutting and transporting wood, the mounds can no longer be easily circumvented or harmlessly moved over. Instead, many are intentionally destroyed for the emplacement of logging roads; others are impacted as heavy machinery moves near by or over them. During the clear-cutting process, vast areas are littered with the detritus of mechanised extraction. As this litter hinders subsequent planting efforts, the next step after clear-cutting tends to be a bulldozing of the plot. In this cleaning process (which results in the construction of large windrows of biomass and earth), the uppermost soil layers are removed and any surface features often obliterated (Fig. 6.4). While the bulldozer generally spells doom for tumuli that survived the earlier steps of the deforestation process, the disturbance of subsurface archaeological materials continues as deep

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in62 62

ploughs are passed over the plot to prepare it for its new tree crop. In these ways, changes in forestry practice have stripped large sections of the Arroux and Somme valleys not only of tumuli, but also of many other archaeological resources. Field agriculture The removal of forests in this area has traditionally served another set of purposes: the establishment of open pasture for the grazing of herds and for the expansion of tillable agricultural land. The maintenance of tumuli in pasture seems to pose minimal threats to their long-term preservation, provided herds are kept relatively small and given enough pasture to roam and graze, thereby reducing the amount of surface erosion caused by overgrazing of mounds. In sharp contrast, tumuli in tilled agricultural fields tend to be at heightened risk of destruction. This threat to the preservation of burial mounds under field agriculture takes a number of forms. As in the case of mechanised forestry, well-intact tumuli may pose significant impediments to the ploughing of fields. Farmers often choose to remove such impediments rather than plough over them (risking damage to self and/or machinery) or around them (requiring extra driving manoeuvres and reducing the amount of land under cultivation). Eroded tumuli, particularly those that were ploughed by earlier methods, tend to have lower and more smoothly sloped mounds and provide fewer impediments to mechanised tilling (Fig. 6.5). In such cases, the threat of complete removal is reduced, but new preservation challenges arise. Most notably, the ‘buffer effect’ provided by the bulk of the tumulus

19/11/2010 15:13:18

6  Agricultural changes, mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some notes from southern Burgundy

63

Fig. 6.5  Eroded tumuli might appear only as low hills. In such cases, while the risk of intentional destruction may be reduced, the mound is subject to a host of new threats. © William Meyer

is reduced, exposing the artefacts within to greater risk of destruction. This is especially true for materials contained within secondary burials, generally placed higher in Bronze and Iron Age tumuli than their primary interments. The potential damage in this case is not only mechanical, related to the passage of the plough or the action of roots; it is also chemical. Chemical and organic fertilisers applied to these tilled fields contain salts, acids, chlorides, nitrates and sulphuric compounds, all of which seep into the soil and can have corrosive effects on archaeological materials, particularly on bronze and iron (Nord et al. 2005). A final threat to such ‘low’ or ‘residual’ mounds – which may be so eroded to appear as dark circles, visible only in the few days or weeks after a ploughing event – is that the farmers who interact with them may have no idea that they are sites at all. This lack of knowledge can have devastating effects on the remains of a tumulus if a farmer decides to undertake a project to improve the productive quality of a field, like the digging of ditches or the emplacement of subsurface drainage tiles. In such cases, elements of the tumulus and its surrounding landscape, having survived more than a century of increasingly mechanised ploughing, might be destroyed in a single day. Given three decades of concern about the topic on both sides of the Atlantic (for example, Boismier 1997; Diez-Martín 2010; Dunnell & Simek 1995; Hinchliffe & Schadla-Hall 1980; McManamon 1984), it should come as no surprise that mechanised field agriculture impacts archaeological site preservation. The tumuli of southern Burgundy provide clear demonstrations of this impact as the machines involved in tillage become larger, the use

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in63 63

of chemical fertilisers becomes more frequent, and the amount of land under mechanised agriculture increases. Understanding agricultural change As demonstrated by the other contributions to this volume, the impacts of forestry and field agriculture on Burgundian tumuli are not isolated; nor are they even particularly unique. It is important to recognise that we are all witnessing similar phenomena as patterns of rural land use change across Europe. But simply recognising the geographic scope of the problem is not enough; indeed, this kind of recognition can quickly become overwhelming as damage to archaeological sites under modernised agriculture starts to appear inevitable. If we truly wish to confront the challenges to preservation posed by agricultural change, then we must endeavour to understand why such change occurs. To develop this kind of understanding, it is necessary to turn our attention from the human–land interactions of the distant past, toward those of the more recent past and present. Sadly, professionalised archaeology – the very entity that makes it possible for us to come together and to identify the extent of the problem that we face – does not necessarily provide us with the tools to understand agricultural change. The questions that we need to be asking are largely ethnographic and ecological, rather than strictly archaeological. For example: • Why does agricultural change happen? • What broader structures constrain and/or drive this change?

19/11/2010 15:13:21

64

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

• What stakes are involved in halting/slowing such change at the local level and for whom? • How can archaeologists work with interested stakeholders to achieve a balance between modernised agricultural production and preservation of the archaeological resource?

over the past three decades provides a glimpse of what stands to be gained by changing our approach to the problem of agricultural change. I have drawn on this information, as well as on the support of a multidisciplinary team as I conduct my own ethnographic work, to help understand the threats to the tumuli I study.

Despite the importance of such questions to the archaeology of the last 30 years, very few of us have been taught to ask them. Rather, as noted by Castañeda and Matthews in their introduction to Ethnographic Archaeologies (2008, 14), ‘archaeological training is normally an intensive study in how the archaeological record forms and how it may be recovered and understood through fieldwork, analysis, and interpretation’. If Castañeda and Matthews – writing for a North American audience – are correct, then the lack of preparation to address such ethnographic and ecological questions is not a problem that confronts European archaeologists alone. Thus, while the European and American authors of the studies referenced above have attempted to describe and decode the transformations undergone by the archaeological record as a result of cultivation, they have done little to explain the socio-cultural and ecological factors that induce such transformations.

The as-yet unpublished doctoral dissertation of my colleague, Elizabeth Van Deventer (2001), is a remarkable exploration of the factors that have driven and constrained agricultural change in southern Burgundy. Through 11 months of ethnographic fieldwork (spent living and working with a number of Burgundian farm families), Van Deventer traced the development of an intensified production in Charolais beef cattle, the principal agricultural product of the Arroux valley. While beef herding may seem an isolated agricultural sector, Van Deventer’s work demonstrates that wide-ranging ecological impacts originate with the development and expansion of this economy. These impacts – which include both physical modifications of the landscape and conceptual alterations to what might be called the Burgundian ‘land ethic’ (following Leopold 1949) – are ongoing and, I submit, directly implicated in threats to the archaeological resource (Fig. 6.6).

Case study: Charolais beef production in southern Burgundy But what might an archaeologist who poses such ethnographic and ecological questions learn about the threat to site preservation posed by changes in rural land use? The wealth of ethnographic, archaeological and ecological information collected by the French Project

The story told by Van Deventer does not begin in the late 1990s, when she completed her fieldwork. Rather, it is a story that begins some five decades earlier, at the end of the Second World War. Devastated by war and occupation, the French government sought to rebuild a place for itself in the global economy. Post-war leaders

Fig. 6.6  Many threats to the tumuli of southern Burgundy can be traced to an intensified production of Charolais beef cattle, and to the changes in land use required to sustain this production. © William Meyer

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in64 64

19/11/2010 15:13:25

6  Agricultural changes, mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some notes from southern Burgundy

recognised that productive land was one of the few resources left to them, and so focused on making France a strong agricultural power. To accomplish this goal, they had to enrol France’s immense paysan population: peasant farmers whose practice of non-intensive, small-scale, mixed agriculture had remained basically unchanged for centuries. As described by Van Deventer, many paysans willingly joined in the process of reconstruction, seeing an opportunity to improve their own positions in French society and, perhaps, even in the world. In the decades following the war, France almost completely transformed the lives and economies of its peasant population, seeking to create exploitants agricoles (that is, agri-businesspersons) from paysans. The development of these exploitants agricoles entailed, among other things, the establishment of agricultural lycées (high schools/ junior colleges) that introduced students to ‘modern’ farming techniques, presenting them as superior to the peasant land use of earlier generations. Where peasant farming relied on the small-scale production of several different plant and animal crops within a single holding, the modern farm model valorised an intensive production in one or a few crops, which varied by region. In southern Burgundy, the Charolais beef cow became the focus of this production. Intensified beef herding meant the felling of trees and the removal of hedges to expand pasture lands and to open new fields for the growth of fodder and cereals (to be used as cattle feed). This deforestation and subsequent cultivation were accomplished using increasingly complex and large machinery, another feature of the modern farm model. Agricultural lycées imparted (and continue to impart) a kind of discipline (sensu Foucault 1975), shaping not only the physical ways and means by which the landscape was/is altered, but also the ethics of this alteration, and sometimes even the personal habits/dress of the farmers themselves (for example, the bleues, the blue cover-all uniform often worn by Burgundian farmers). By making the receipt of farm subsidies dependent upon the completion of an agricultural lycée, the architects of the modern French farm ensured that this discipline would become ubiquitous. The project to rebuild a strong agricultural economy based on the efforts of carefully trained exploitants agricoles has been quite successful. France has developed the largest agricultural sector in the EU, and is the world’s second leading agricultural exporter after the United States (EIU 2008). But this success has not come without a significant price to the farmers whose transformation made it possible. In order to remain competitive and compliant with EU standards, many farmers change the size and composition of their herds, purchase more land and larger machinery, and build free-stall barns that cost hundreds of thousands of Euros. Only a fraction of these costs is taken up by subsidies; the remainder accrues as individual debt. Young farmers – even those who inherit family farms – take on more debt than their predecessors. As the support provided by subsidy structures under the Common Agricultural Policy is gradually reduced, these farmers’ debt loads increase yet again. The response is often to further intensify production, to increase herd size, and to put more land under cultivation, all of which have the possibility of increasing short-term revenues, but invariably add long-term costs to the price of production. As described by Van Deventer, many of

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in65 65

65

today’s exploitants agricoles struggle with the choices made by their paysan parents and grandparents: they ride a seemingly inescapable merry-go-round of decreasing subsidies, farm expansion and increasing debt. It must be understood that all of these changes and challenges, from the post-war period onward, have effects on the preservation of the archaeological resource. Indeed, these are the forces that threaten southern Burgundy’s tumuli. On a conceptual level, the modern farm model presented by the lycée prioritises the productive potential of the landscape, rather than its affective and historical importance. Thus, little emphasis is placed on the significance of the landscape as an element of long-term cultural ‘patrimony’. Further, with the primary locus for the transmission of orthodox landscape knowledge in the classroom rather than in the home, the possibility that the locations of important archaeological and historical sites will be passed on is greatly reduced, as is the likelihood that such sites will be protected from harm. While Van Deventer (2001) and others (for example, Crumley 2000) have documented the maintenance of traditional landscape knowledge and techniques in discreet ‘pockets of memory’ (following Nazarea 1998), this memory is typically kept by individual families and applied only at the scale of the individual household or farm. This means that sites may be only partially recognised and protected, a phenomenon that stands to impact archaeologists’ own recognition and interpretation of broader landscape patterns. Of course, discussions of site protection highlight the material impact of France’s post-war agricultural reconstruction. The clearance of mixed forest to create pasture and tillable crop land by which to support larger beef herds no doubt impacted southern Burgundy’s tumuli, as the most stable context for their preservation was removed. It should be noted, however, that the focus on beef production may have actually delayed major site destruction in southern Burgundy. Impacts to sites in areas that were put into intensive field-crop production (for example, cereals, vines) can be expected to have been greater at an earlier period, when forests were cleared and large tracts were put under immediate tillage. In some areas, for example in Languedoc – where intensified, monocrop viticulture began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Lem 2007) – archaeological site damage was likely under way well before the advent of the Second World War (C. Jorda, personal communication 2009). It is only in recent decades that the archaeological landscape of southern Burgundy has been threatened to the degree described above, as forests are cleared to expand pastures, larger herds are pastured on the landscape, more areas come under cultivation with heavier machinery, and more chemicals are applied to tilled fields to ensure productive harvests. A further, indirect impact of intensified beef production threatens the preservation of Burgundy’s archaeological resource: faced with declining subsidies and increasing debt, many landowners opt to sell logs to supplement their income (thereby entering into a tangent agricultural network that, like the livestock market, includes not only local and national actors, but also multinational corporations). This attempt to diversify farm incomes means further exposing archaeological sites to damage from the mechanised forestry described above.

19/11/2010 15:14:49

66

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Adapting archaeology to address agricultural change As should be clear from the Burgundian case study, the damage to archaeological sites that results from changes in rural land use is only the tip of a much larger iceberg. This damage is the local material effect of a complex network of interactions, choices and consequences operating at various temporal and geographic scales. Yet, as professional archaeologists, we have often chosen to focus on the effects rather than on their causes. Indeed, with our gaze turned toward the past and our stance on site preservation un-negotiable, we may be unable to explore the complex causes of agricultural change that result in threats to the sites we study, or to consider the implications involved in mitigating such threats. By way of conclusion, I would like to suggest a suite of ‘coursecorrections’ that professional archaeology might make in order to better confront the challenges posed by agricultural change. Rethinking archaeological research priorities There are a number of course-corrections to be made in the way that we administer the archaeological resource. The degree to which such corrections are needed, however, as well as the forms that they should take, are doubtless as variable across Europe as is cultural/ heritage resource law. In France, for example, one of the biggest challenges to confronting the threats posed by agricultural change involves the designation of regional research priorities. Following the discovery of a vast number of sites during the major autoroute construction projects of the 20th century, France’s archaeological archives and depots were filled with material, much of which has not been studied extensively. To balance needs for laboratory and (now-limited) archival/storage space with budgetary constraints and concerns about in-situ preservation of sites, French archaeologists-as-managers set research priorities by region. Such priorities guide the awarding of permits to independent researchers and/or requirements for environmental clearance investigation by heritage management organisations, and are quite common throughout Europe. The opening article of the French Loi du 27 Septembre 1941 sur les Fouilles archéologique (27 September 1941 Law on Archaeological Excavation) states that ‘No one may effectuate a dig or test pits (on their own land or on that belonging to others) with the purpose of researching monuments or artefacts of a prehistoric, historic, artistic or archaeological nature without having first obtained [State] authorisation’ (author’s translation). The requirement of government authorisation is reinforced by the terms of the Valletta Convention and related international legislation to which France also subscribes. Because of the constraints listed above, most of the work authorised by the regional archaeological services today is salvage/clearance work, generally conducted by INRAP (France’s national heritage-management organisation). The remainder of the archaeological work is authorised by a very limited number of renewable, three-year permits. Some of these permits are reserved for sites which are excavated more or less in permanence (that is, Mont Beuvray/Bibracte in southern Burgundy, Lattes/Lattara in eastern Languedoc); the remaining permits, which may be fewer than 10 per region, are divided among individual projects on the basis of regional research priorities. Thus, many

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in66 66

potential investigations never obtain the permissions required to be realised, particularly if the period or phenomenon to be studied lies outside a region’s designated priorities. Unfortunately, many of the sites ‘protected’ by the permitting process are none the less destroyed by farming and logging, ubiquitous features of French agriculture that the regional archaeological services are understandably powerless to control. As we go forward, we need to find a way of adapting the well-intentioned and otherwise-efficient notion of archaeological research priorities to the reality of agricultural change. We need to acknowledge that while agricultural modernisation may not currently threaten the archaeological resource in a particular area, it is likely to do so in the future. Where they exist, research priorities need to be re-conceived so that they are flexible enough to allow investigation when a site is threatened (regardless of its temporal or cultural affiliation), and yet firm enough to work within very real spatial and budgetary constraints. Archaeologists as ethnographers Excavation – though varied from place to place and even from individual to individual – is the method of investigation that unites us into a recognisable class of professional archaeologists. While excavation helps us to become familiar with the people of the past, it often does not allow us to understand the actions and concerns of people in the present. Yet, as I have demonstrated above, it is precisely these actions and concerns that threaten the archaeological resources that we hold dear. Thus, we must adopt additional methods that allow us to better understand not only the past residents of a landscape, but also those people who have now inherited it. I suggest that ethnography is one such method. The Burgundian case provides two important footnotes to the suggestion that archaeologists should begin to practise ethnography if we wish to understand and mitigate the threats posed by agricultural change. First, many of the threats to southern Burgundian sites are specific to these sites. Thus, while we might observe the same kinds of damage to sites across Europe and deduce that this damage results from overall changes in rural land use, we have to adopt particularist approaches to understanding precisely how the individual sites and landscapes that we study fit into broader networks of change. Second, if we seek to mitigate threats to the archaeological resource, the most important actors in these networks – aside from ourselves – are the farmers and loggers who damage sites. Rather than treating them as adversaries, however, we need to recognise that their actions are shaped and constrained by broader structures, as well as by the need to make a living, often in the context of diminishing revenues. In other words, these are critical stakeholders for whom the stakes of archaeological preservation may be quite different than they are for the archaeologist (see Castañeda & Matthews 2008). Reconsidering the professional–amateur divide In the course of archaeological fieldwork, it is quite common to come into contact with amateur or ‘avocational’ archaeologists of many sorts. Some of these people may actually be ‘grave robbers’ and ‘pot hunters’, as many of our professional colleagues suspect. Others,

19/11/2010 15:14:49

6  Agricultural changes, mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some notes from southern Burgundy

however, are the possessors of significant archaeological knowledge, resulting from disciplined, self-guided study, or from formal training that did not lead to a professional post in archaeology. As archaeologists begin to conduct ethnography to understand the threats posed by agricultural change, we are likely to discover that these avocational archaeologists are also important stakeholders in the question of archaeological preservation. In my Burgundian research, I am deeply indebted to my avocational colleagues. During the mid-19th century, the learned societies of northern Burgundy and the Jura received support from Napoleon III to excavate what were thought to be the graves of Caesar’s men and the Gauls who fought against them (Henry 1932). While the origins of the tumuli were misidentified at the time, the effect of government support was the development of a formalised archaeology of the later prehistoric periods (that is, protohistory). By contrast, most of the learned societies of southern Burgundy did not participate in this development. Rather – with the notable exception of the late Iron Age site of Mont Beuvray/Bibracte on the rim of the Arroux valley – protohistory has remained largely the domain of avocational archaeologists, many of whom descend directly from these poorer (though no less ancient) learned societies. Thus, studying tombs from the Bronze and Iron Ages, I have had to rely on these amateurs as sources of information and guidance. As we move forward, we need to acknowledge the broad range of abilities, qualifications, experience and motives contained within the avocational archaeological community. Further, we need to recognise that as natives of the areas that we study, these people may have a better understanding of the archaeological landscape than we do. Their native status is doubly important as avocational archaeologists can serve as gatekeepers and translators for professional archaeologists. They can be important political and pedagogical allies as we seek to work with a broader and often sceptical rural public. Rededicating archaeology to the public Indeed, rethinking archaeology’s relationship to this public is probably the single most important change that we can make to address the challenge of agricultural change. Too often we think of ourselves as working for the public (at best), or as somehow separated from it (cf. Castañeda & Matthews 2008). As a result, we may have closed archaeology to the very people that we should seek to interest. Yet, if we acknowledge that the real-world project of protecting archaeological sites against agricultural change is essentially a political project, then our selfimposed isolation from the public becomes problematic. As Bruno Latour (Latour 1999, 228-247) indicates through a brilliant consideration of Plato’s Gorgias, the (physically or intellectually) segregated expert can accomplish very little in political situations. If we want to save the sites that we study, we will need the help of the public, many of whom have direct control over whether such sites are preserved or destroyed. But how do we win the ‘hearts and minds’ of the public, particularly when site preservation may conflict with their own interests? As we move forward, we need to develop community-based archaeology programmes that recognise the very real concerns and interests of

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in67 67

67

non-archaeological stakeholders, enrol their assistance in projects, and attempt to capture their imaginations; this is to say, archaeology programmes that attempt to work with the public, rather than for or against it. We should specifically seek to engage young people in these projects, fostering from an early age a land ethic that recognises the importance of the archaeological resource. In France, ironically, the very lycées implicated in the problem of agricultural change may yet provide assistance on this score. Beginning in the late 1990s, agricultural lycées began their own new initiative, focused on the quality of food production, the quality of food demanded by consumers and the protection of the environment. Instead of creating more exploitants agricoles, the schools have turned to the training of jardiniers de l’espace rural (that is, gardeners of the countryside) (Van Deventer 2001, 207–211). Surely, working with the directors of these schools and with the broader public, we can find a place for the archaeological resource in the gardens tended by this new generation of jardiniers. The measures that I propose here should allow archaeologists to better confront the threats posed by agricultural change. But they will involve the expenditure of considerable time and energy on our part, requiring us to alter our own practice as archaeologists, expand our vision of what constitutes archaeology and recognise the important role played by various stakeholders in the preservation of archaeological resources. I am convinced, however, that it is only through this effort that we can hope to establish effective heritage management plans for the future. Acknowledgements I would like to thank my colleagues in the Working Group on Farming, Forestry and Rural Land Management for allowing me to share my observations from France. Three among our number – Emmet Byrnes, Vince Holyoak and Steve Trow – deserve special thanks as they have patiently worked to arrange this volume, a mandate more akin to herding cats than to herding Charolais. I also would like to thank my colleagues on the French Project, especially Drs Carole Crumley, Seth Murray and Elizabeth Van Deventer, for sharing their research and support. Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to Bibracte, Centre Archéologique Européen, for hosting me during the period of my fieldwork, as well as to those ‘less-official hosts’ who have provided me with both information and comfort during my time in France. This research has been made possible by the FrancoAmerican Fulbright Commission and by the Georges Lurcy Charitable and Educational Trust. [email protected] References Bender, B. 1998: Stonehenge: Making Space. Materialising Culture Series, Berg. Oxford. Boismier, W.A. 1997: Modelling the Effects of Tillage Processes on Artefact Distributions in the Ploughzone: A Simulation Study of Tillage-Induced Pattern Formation. British Archaeological Reports. Oxford. Castañeda, Q.E. & Matthews, C.N. (eds) 2008: Ethnographic Archaeologies: Reflections on Stakeholders and Archaeological Practices. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.

19/11/2010 15:14:49

68

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Crumley, C.L. 2000: From garden to globe: linking time and space with meaning and memory. In McIntosh, R.J., Tainter, J.A. & McIntosh, S.K. (eds), The Way the Wind Blows: Climate, History, and Human Action, 193– 208. Columbia Series in Historical Ecology. Columbia University Press, New York. Crumley, C.L. & Marquardt, W.H. (eds) 1987: Regional Dynamics: Burgundian Landscapes in Historical Perspective. Academic Press, San Diego. Diez-Martín, F. 2010: Evaluating the effect of plowing on the archaeological record: The early middle palaeolithic in the River Duero basin plateaus (north-central Spain). Quaternary International 214, 30–43. Dunnell, R.C. & Simek, J.F. 1995: Artifact size and plowzone processes. Journal of Field Archaeology 22, 305–319. EIU 2008: France: Country Profile 2008. The Economist Intelligence Unit. Foucault, M. 1975: Surveiller et Punir: Naissance de la Prison. Gallimard, Paris. Green, B. & Vos, W. (eds) 2001: Threatened Landscapes: Conserving Cultural Environments. Taylor & Francis, London. Henry, F. 1932: Les Tumulus du Département de la Côte-d’Or. Dissertation presented to the Faculté des Lettres de Paris. Librairie Ernest Leroux, Paris. Hinchliffe, J. & Schadla-Hall, R.T. (eds) 1980: The Past

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in68 68

under the Plough: Seminar on Plough Damage and Archaeology, 1977, Salisbury. Department of the Environment, London. Johnson, M.H. 2007: Ideas of Landscape. Blackwell,   Oxford. Latour, B. 1999: Pandora’s Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Lem, W. 2007: From vineyard virago to femme au foyer: Resisting resistance in rural Languedoc. In Fletcher, R. (ed.): Beyond Resistance: The Future of Freedom, 53–72. Nova Science Publishers Inc., New York. Leopold, A. 1949: A Sand County Almanac. Oxford University Press, New York. McManamon, F.P. 1984: The integrity of plowzone sites. American Archaeology 4, 70–76. Nazarea, V.D. 1998: Cultural Memory and Biodiversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nord, A.G., Tronner, K., Mattsson, E., Borg, G.C. & Ullén, I. 2005: Environmental threats to buried archaeological remains. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment 34, 256–262. Van Deventer, E.A. 2001: Redefining the farm, redefining the self: Enduring struggles in the historical transformation of agriculture in Burgundy, France. PhD dissertation submitted to the Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

19/11/2010 15:14:50

7  |  Cover is not shelter: archaeology and forestry   in the Czech Republic Zdeněk Neustupný Abstract: Numerous archaeological field monuments such as fortified settlements, burial mounds, fortresses and deserted villages are preserved in the forests of the Czech Republic. The restricted presence of man has enabled the conservation of their archaeological remains and relict landscapes. Contemporary forestry methods involving heavy machinery have posed a serious threat to these monuments in recent years. Although these sites have been afforded legal protection, the situation in real life is less than satisfactory. In order to improve these conditions, it is necessary to significantly enhance our knowledge and documentation of these sites, especially their precise location. It is also necessary to improve co-operation with the managers and owners of forests.

With 33.7% of its total area covered by forests, the Czech Republic ranks as the 12th most heavily wooded country in Europe (Fig. 7.1). There is a general perception that forested areas (from the time of their emergence at the end of the ice age 10,000 years ago) are continually decreasing, especially due to the influence of man. In Bohemia, however, the situation is not so simple. As the oldest maps show (the first military mapping was created under Joseph II in 1764–83, the second under Franz Joseph in 1836–52; see http://oldmaps.geolab.cz), forested land actually occupies a greater area today than in the 18th and 19th centuries. The post-Second World

War period in particular brought intensive forest planting, especially in the border areas (Sudetenland) following the expulsion of German residents in 1945. Forestation (of approximately 700 hectares per year) still continues today on infertile agricultural land. The distribution and extent of wooded and settled areas has also shifted back and forth in the distant past, with only parts of the borderland mountain zone in Bohemia left both unforested and largely uninhabitable. Human activity has periodically extended into subsequently forested areas. The main reason for this is thought to

Fig. 7.1  Map of Czech Republic. Forested areas are shown in green and the Central Bohemia region is highlighted. © Zdeněk Neustupný

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in69 69

19/11/2010 15:14:55

70

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 7.2  Hradecká skála“ (Soběšín, Kutná Hora region). Example of a small fort (stronghold) dating from the 13–14th century, a type considered to be less prestigious than stone-built castles and with no clear connection to a settlement like a motte-andbailey site. © Zdeněk Neustupný

be a deterioration of climatic conditions leading to the abandonment of sites at higher elevations, although alternative causes might relate to specific economic strategies (raising of cattle, mining of raw materials) or to changes in symbolic behaviour (cult locations, burials). As a consequence, visible remains of past human activity have been preserved beneath the cover of trees to a far greater extent than in other landscapes intensively reshaped by man. These often comprise the remnants of various fortifications – either prehistoric or early medieval fortified settlements or the rather less prominent small castles and strongholds of the High Middle Ages (Fig. 7.2) – and also include prehistoric and early medieval burial sites and deserted medieval villages. While forts (mainly of motte-and-bailey types) are also occasionally preserved in gardens and at the edge of villages, their survival in forested areas contrasts with the situation in developed areas, where it is extremely rare for their ramparts to be preserved. The ploughing of fields is also far more destructive for this type of monument where, at best, a barely discernible undulation in the terrain is all that remains of the ramparts. Burial mounds are also only recognised in forested areas, mainly in southern and western Bohemia, a fact that has led to (as yet unconfirmed) speculation on the regional distribution of this form of burial. Similarly, deserted villages with wellpreserved remains of buildings and embankments are preserved only in forests. Although forests in the past have served to protect archaeological resources that now significantly extend our knowledge of the past, today’s monuments are seriously threatened by modern forestry practices.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in70 70

Technology involving heavy machinery is an extremely destructive method for harvesting timber. Even more damaging are new plantings (forest tree nurseries), which can either destroy or significantly damage and disfigure monuments. Other activities connected with forest management, such as cutting new paths, are also extremely destructive. In order to improve this situation it is necessary to establish better communication with the owners of forests and the organisations that manage them. It is necessary to provide these individuals and organisations with comprehensive information about monuments in forests, to co-ordinate their activities and to propose forest management practices that will not pose a threat to archaeological sites. The current status of care for archaeological monuments in the Czech Republic Archaeological monument protection in Bohemia is treated in the State Monument Care Act of 1987 (Act No. 20/1987), a law that has been amended a number of times due to its age. The legislation is based on the fact that the Czech Republic as a whole is recognised as having potential for archaeological finds. As such, all planned construction activity must be reported in advance to the relevant archaeological organisation so that field excavations can be performed if necessary. Unfortunately, in practice this law does not always work. The situation with forestry operations is even more complicated, as these are often not interpreted as construction-related activity and, as a result, are reported to a minimal extent. Fortunately some archaeological monuments in forests have protected status as cultural monuments or, in certain cases, an even higher level of protection as natural cultural

19/11/2010 15:14:59

7  Cover is not shelter: archaeology and forestry in the Czech Republic

monuments. The aforementioned legislation requires that all activity connected with these sites is subject to official approval and precisely defined restrictions. The majority of archaeological cultural monuments are in-situ archaeological field monuments – that is, those that are features in the landscape (fortified settlements, burial mounds, etc.), rather than portable objects. Unfortunately, those engaged in forest management are often not aware of their existence and do not apply for the relevant official permission. Therefore, there is a manifest need for better communication between archaeologists and forestry workers. According to the aforementioned State Monument Care Act of 1987 all declared cultural (and national cultural) monuments are entered on the Central List of Czech Cultural Monuments maintained by the National Institute of the Care of Monuments (NPÚ), a specialised organisation for monument care under the Czech Ministry of Culture. Each administrative region of the country has its own branch of this national organisation; this decentralisation is intended to ensure good knowledge of local issues. However, the situation is complicated by the fact that not all known archaeological monuments whose character and state of preservation are comparable to designated cultural monuments are recorded on the Central List. One problem is the rather complicated procedure for actual designation, an act that is performed by the Ministry of Culture following a motion from the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, which typically collects the necessary documentation from specialised organisations (archaeological institutes, the NPÚ, museums, etc). Unfortunately, during the past ten years only a handful of monuments have managed to make it through the designation process for various reasons. Another problem is the search for cultural monument candidates – both in existing inventories and records and in the field. Two archaeological databases are maintained in the Czech Republic. As a result of the duality of archaeological institutes within the Academy of Sciences, the Archaeology Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague maintains the Archaeological Database of Bohemia (ADČ) (www.arup. cas.cz/en/archivy_en/archeo_dtb_cech_en.html), which does not include any information from Moravia, while the Moravian branch in Brno has no database. The second inventory of archaeological sites, the State Archaeological List (SAS), is kept by the National Institute of the Care of Monuments (http://twist.up.npu.cz). These two registers differ in their substance and only partially overlap: the basic records in the ADČ concern past archaeological

100 80

D

60

C

71

work (most frequently field excavations), supplemented by additional databases (regional, excerpts from literature, etc). On the other hand, the SAS attempts to systematically collect the most complete information possible for all cadastres in the Czech Republic. Both databases are GISsoftware-enabled, allowing the immediate display of records on maps. The ADČ is available for free from the Archaeology Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, though only for professional, non-commercial purposes. The GIS application is only accessible to a limited extent within the internal computer network of the Archaeology Institute of the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic in Prague. While the SAS system is web-enabled, only a list of sites (designated as ‘territories with archaeological finds’) is available to the public, without the facility of a mapped display. The non-public part of the database is available to various degrees to archaeological organisations and state and public authorities. It is necessary to point out that the utilisation of this data is significantly limited for individuals without an archaeological background. The location of monuments in the field is also fraught with complication. As a consequence of their extent and the scale of their remains, large numbers of fortified settlements (hillforts) have been known since the 19th century. In contrast, many monuments less discernible in the landscape (for example, deserted medieval villages) still await discovery. The designation of certain categories of monument is also entirely unrepresentative. While the majority of conspicuous fortified settlements appear on the list, the situation with smaller fortresses and deserted villages is far worse. Certain categories of monument are largely neglected in terms of designation. There are several reasons for this: in the case of abandoned farm tracks, for example, this is due to their relative commonness, an ostensible lack of interest and difficulties with reliable dating. A small number of industrial remains are designated, mainly mills and derelict glassworks (both occur exclusively in forest settings). Figure 7.3 captures the situation in the Central Bohemian Region. A further challenge is to improve our understanding of monuments – particularly the need to secure their comprehensive description. While geodetic surveys should be a standard procedure (Fig. 7.4), the majority of field monuments have not been surveyed at all. In the post-Second World War years only sites where systematic excavations were conducted were surveyed, the majority of these being fortified settlements. Even though surface studies of defunct medieval settlements began in the 1960s, this work was confined to a small number of sites and concluded at the beginning of the 1980s. Following changes in 1989, development-led rescue excavation became the dominant archaeological activity as a consequence of a massive construction boom. The study and documentation of archaeological

B

40

A

20 0 1

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in71 71

2

3

4

5

Fig. 7.3  Categories of monuments in Central Bohemia grouped according to their ground cover. 1: hill fort, 2: small fort (motte-and-bailey forts), 3: mound, 4: deserted village, 5: other A) forest, B) partially covered by trees, C) build-up area, D) other.

19/11/2010 15:14:59

72

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 7.4  Kří (Hradišťko u Sadské, Nymburk region). This small motte-and-bailey with ‘moat’ is surrounded by a 14th-century deserted village. A detailed geodetic survey of this site has been published (Klír 2008). © Zdeněk Neustupný

field monuments was not re-instigated on any scale until the turn of the millennium, when it was led by universities (the Department of Archaeology at the University of West Bohemia and the Institute for Prehistory and Early History in the Faculty of Arts at Charles University) and several regional offices of the NPÚ.

monuments. Nevertheless, the preservation of these sites requires more than just legal protection. In the future, it is essential to significantly improve two-way communication between archaeological institutions and forest managers.

Proposed improvements A list of archaeological field monuments that is as complete as possible is essential. This work naturally falls under the activities of the NPÚ but will also require intensive cooperation with other experts, especially those active in each region (for example, archaeologists in museums).

The majority of forests in the Czech Republic (59.9%) are owned by the state. Towns, their forest cooperatives and associations own an additional 16.8% of forests and private owners hold the remaining 23.3%. Of critical importance, however, is the identity of the organisations managing these forests, as this wholly determines what forestry practices are employed. Of the 1,578,700 hectares of forest land in the ownership of the Czech Republic, 1,356,200 hectares are managed by Lesy České republiky, s.p. (a state enterprise), 126,600 hectares are managed by Vojenské lesy a statky ČR, s.p. (a state enterprise), 6,000 hectares are managed by the Office of the President of the Republic and 89,900 hectares are tended by the National Park Administration. The situation is more complicated with respect to private owners, especially those whose land is not managed by state enterprises. An important future partner in these cases is the Forest Management Institute of Brandýs nad Labem, an institution that surveys forests, prepares regional forest-development plans and maintains a central database and archive on forests and hunting.

The next step is to locate sites that are to be declared cultural monuments, to assemble the best possible supporting documents for their nomination and registration on the Central List and, importantly, to complete their designation as cultural (or national cultural)

The regional forest-development plans, which serve as a source of information for establishing forest management plans, are of particular importance. Among other things, the forest management plan (mandated in Act No. 289/1995 Coll., the Forest Act) includes detailed forest maps

Good-quality geodetic surveys are still not part of standard archaeological practice and in some cases are outsourced to professional firms, driving up project costs. Given the large numbers of monuments, surveying all of the monuments that require work is not possible in the short term and will be a relatively long-term task even if limited to sites proposed for the Central List (where a field sketch is required at minimum). On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that if monuments lack a reliable spatial location it is very difficult to reach an agreement with forest managers to change their methods. In these cases a minimum level of survey to establish the outline of the monument (by GPS, for example) may be acceptable.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in72 72

19/11/2010 15:15:03

7  Cover is not shelter: archaeology and forestry in the Czech Republic

73

Fig. 7.5  Burial mound near Hrázka (Mužský, Mladá Boleslav region). Monuments such as this small mound from the early-medieval period (around AD 700 to 900) could be easily overlooked during forestry operations. In this case, however, heavy felling machinery was not used and the archaeological monument is preserved for the future. © Zdeněk Neustupný

and determines a mandatory management methodology for the next decade. It would be an important advance if information about the existence and location of archaeological field monuments, along with their depiction on the forest map, was included in these plans. During the past four years, therefore, the NPÚ has commented on emerging forest management plans in Central Bohemia and has ensured information on monuments is included within them. However, in order for protection to be truly effective, it is necessary to provide as accurate a map as possible and, above all, to demarcate the monument in the field in collaboration with the relevant forest worker. This field activity is now performed only in exceptional cases, but this situation is likely to improve considerably in the near future. It is intended that all of these approaches – an improved list of monuments, the systematic submission

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in73 73

of proposals for new monuments, the surveying of these monuments in the field and improved co-operation with owners and forest managers – will be incorporated into a new NPÚ programme. As a result, we hope that forests will remain beautiful places for relaxation as well as for learning about our past (Fig. 7.5). [email protected] References Klír, T. 2008: Osídlení zemědělsky marginálních půd v mladším středověku a raném novověku – The Settlements and Agriculture of the Margins in the Later Middle Age and Early New Age. Dissertationes Archaeologicae Brunenses/Pragensesque 5, Praha: Brno.

19/11/2010 15:15:07

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in74 74

19/11/2010 15:15:07

8  |  Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits Vibeke Vandrup Martens Abstract: Methods of environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits, covering urban and rural areas, and varying depositional situations including saturated or unsaturated zones, are described. An example is given from the farm of Aaker in Hamar, county of Hedmark, Norway. A method for standardised archaeological documentation of depositional conditions and definition of the state of preservation is shown. The implementation of the method, the underlying legislation, and its consequences for archaeology and in-situ site conservation are discussed.

Introduction Archaeological deposits are a part of our cultural heritage containing physical evidence of our past practices and interactions with nature. Physical or ‘tangible’ cultural heritage is often unique and irreplaceable. Besides buildings, monuments and historic places it includes hidden objects, structures and soil layers of importance for archaeology. The meanings of this physical evidence can be interpreted within the context of socio-economic, political, ethnic, religious and philosophical values of particular groups of people (Sandvik 2006; Sillasoo & Hiie 2007). The importance of the preservation of cultural heritage is stressed by several conventions. The Convention Concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted by the General Conference of UNESCO in 1972 (http://whc.unesco.org). The European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (www.conventions.coe.int, also known as the Malta or Valletta Convention), which was agreed in 1992, and was in turn designed to protect the archaeological heritage as a source of the European collective memory and as an instrument for historical and scientific study. It has been ratified by most European countries. The Valletta treaty calls for ‘the conservation and maintenance of the archaeological heritage, preferably in situ’. This means that archaeological sites must be actively maintained, or investigated, and not just left to natural deterioration or subject to anthropogenic destruction. The Norwegian Directorate of Cultural Heritage has proposed that it will in future undertake its statutory duty of preserving the national heritage primarily by seeking to preserve archaeological sites in situ. This is in accordance with the Norwegian Ministry of Environment’s stated aim to ‘preserve the underground archives and at the same time establish conditions for continued use of the pertinent areas and the development of vital inner cities’ (Parliamentary Report No. 16, 2004–2005). It is also adhering to the guidelines in the new standard from 2009 (NS 9451:2009) about ‘Cultural property. Requirements on environmental monitoring and investigation of cultural deposits’. Besides being part of our cultural heritage, archaeological deposits of various ages present in the rural and urban landscapes are geo-ecosystems affected by environmental processes. The changes to the environment caused by global warming and other environmental threats, including human activities such as intensive land use or the continuous development of towns, will

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in75 75

put archaeological evidence at risk and are a challenge for present and future future management of cultural heritage. How fast do archaeological materials and soil features degrade? At which point will the contextual value of the deposits become unreadable and impossible to interpret? And what measures can we take in order to promote a sustainable in-situ preservation? During the past 15 years or more, work on in-situ preservation of archaeological remains has taken place as a consequence of the Valletta charter of 1992 (Williams & Corfield 2003; Willems 2008). However, much of the work so far has dealt with questions of the feasibility of in-situ preservation without debating to what extent it is the desired solution, or if preservation through excavation and documentation is a safer way (Membery 2008). The method puts a large responsibility on future generations, as the concept of in-situ preservation implies that the deposits remain unchanged ‘for ever’. To ensure that in-situ preservation may be considered a possibility, knowledge about the present state of preservation as well as the physical and chemical conditions for future preservation capacity is necessary. Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits is the study of degradation processes and a search for mitigation strategies and remedial actions if or when critical levels are reached. Methods Degradation of archaeological deposits is caused first and foremost by oxidation of organic or inorganic material (Matthiesen 2004; Matthiesen et al. 2006, fig. 3; Huisman 2009). Monitoring of environmental conditions in deposits may be used to describe the present state of preservation and the physical and chemical conditions for future preservation (Smit et al. 2006). The management, preservation and conservation of archaeological sites in situ are complex tasks requiring a basis of multi-disciplinary competence. It is a relatively new tool to be used in the management of cultural heritage (Peacock 2002; Kars & Kars 2002; NIKU & RA 2008; Reed & Martens 2008). Good preservation conditions for archaeological deposits are characterised by stable physical and chemical conditions and relatively low micro-biological and chemical activity. Research on in-situ preservation of archaeological deposits has so far concentrated mainly on the deposits in the saturated zone below the ground-water table (Vorenhout & Smit 2006; Vorenhout 2008). Research projects conducted in the deposits at Bryggen in Bergen

19/11/2010 15:15:08

76

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

in Norway (http://www.natmus.dk/graphics/bevaring/ arkaeologi/pdf-filer/HenningMatt/matt2004woamposterbryggen.pdf) and at a number of sites in the UK, the Netherlands and other European countries (Christensson 2004; NIKU & RA 2008; Keevill et al. 2004; Matthiesen et al. 2006) are examples of this type of research and have shown that archaeological deposits are usually very well preserved under strongly anoxic conditions (lacking oxygen) that are predominantly observed in waterlogged environments (Caple 1998; Caple & Dungworth 1998).

term preservation in situ. Even small changes in the conditions of deposition, as caused by global environmental development or structural changes, may accelerate deterioration (Peacock 2002; Kars & Kars 2002).

However, large volumes of archaeological deposits in most parts of medieval towns are situated in the unsaturated zone, where the layers are not permanently waterlogged (Gardelin 2002; Martens 2008b; Williams & Corfield 2003). In this zone, oxygen can be transported by percolating rainwater to the archaeological deposits or by diffusion of oxygen through unsaturated soil layers. Very little information is available about the environmental conditions determining the preservation conditions of archaeological deposits in the unsaturated zone. This is mainly due to the lack of adequate methods to measure the physical, chemical and biological conditions in the unsaturated zone and thus a combination of different scientific disciplines for the characterisation of the preservation conditions is required.

In a fieldwork situation, a relatively easy assessment of the state of preservation should be based on the following principal criteria/indicators (from NIKU & RA 2008, 37):

Archaeological deposits outside the towns are also often in the unsaturated zone. This means that the problems of dryness and porosity are augmented by the extra threats of cultivation: harrowing, ploughing, drainage, fertilisation and additions of other chemical components to fight weeds, improve the soil and get larger and/or healthier crops. Crops that require more soil processing, such as potatoes or strawberries, are harder on the deposits than cereals because of the additional soil operations undertaken to cultivate them (Durham 2008; Trow, this volume).

To evaluate the possibilities for in-situ preservation, a necessary starting point is an assessment of the present state of preservation. Information may be gained from excavation profiles or from drilling or auguring into the deposits.

• Odour • for organic deposits: presence and strength of ‘rotten-egg’ smell • for wood: presence and strength of ‘freshly cut’ smell • Colour/colour change (the brighter the soil’s colour when first exposed and the faster the colour change after exposure, the better the preservation) • Amount of force required to snap pieces of wood (the more force, the better the preservation – for this purpose, relatively thin woodchips or twigs should be chosen, not naturally hard pieces like knots) • Amount of force required to pull apart a strand of moss • Sponge reaction of soil block; squishiness of woodchips; springiness of strands of moss or hair/fur • General appearance (colour, visibility of structure) of macroscopically visible organic components. That should allow a description of the state of preservation in accordance with Table 8.1.

In addition to this kind of archaeological observation, reasonably good standards have now been developed Monitoring techniques have so far been developed mainly for sampling and measuring (NS 9451:2009) to obtain for the saturated zone where ground water is monitored information on the future conditions for preservation. or sampled. These techniques cannot be transferred to Archaeologists work with geochemists, geophysicists, the unsaturated zone because of the lack of soil water microbiologists and hydro-geologists, measuring soil (Peacock 2002). Other techniques for in-situ monitoring  humidity, soil temperature, porosity and water content, and laboratory measurements must therefore be loss on ignition (content of organic material), pH (acidity), developed, implemented and evaluated (Hartnik et al. and redox potential. 2000; Huisman 2009). In addition, the state of preservation and the environmental conditions in the unsaturated Redox conditions in soil (Table 8.2) may be characterised zone are expected to deviate more in time and space by measuring redox-sensitive parameters in soil and in than those in the saturated zone because the aqueous pore water (oxygen, nitrate, ammonia, manganese (II), phase does not govern the environmental conditions manganese (IV), iron (III), iron (II), sulphate, sulphide, to the same extent. Maintaining equilibrium between methane) (Stumm & Morgan 1996). High oxygen concenartefacts, ecofacts and their surroundings ensures long- trations indicate that micro-organisms feed on oxygen

Table 8.1  State of preservation scale (SOPS) after NIKU & RA 2008 and NS 9451:2009. Preservation scale Position in relation to groundwater fill etc. later than c 1900 © RA & NIKU

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in76 76

over over/in in

null-value A0 B0 C0 0 D0

lousy A1 B1 C1 1 D1

Degree of preservation poor medium A2 A3 B2 B3 C2 C3 2 3 D2 D3

good A4 B4 C4 4 D4

excellent A5 B5 C5 5 D5

A B C D

19/11/2010 15:15:08

8  Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits Nitrate NO3 Low High High Low High Low Low

Ammonia NH4 Low Low Low Low High High High

Sulphide H2S Low Low Low Low High High High

Iron (II) Fe2 Low Low High High High High High

Iron (III) Fe3 High High Low Low Low Low Low

77

Redox conditions

Preservation

oxidising nitrate to oxidising nitrate to iron reducing iron reducing nitrate to sulphate reducing sulphate reducing sulphate red. to metanogene

Lousy Poor Medium Medium Good Good Excellent

Reducing conditions Oxidising conditions © Bioforsk Table 8.2  Concentration levels for parameters used to evaluate preservation capacity.

to degrade organic matter. In such conditions one may expect nitrogen to be present as nitrate and not as ammonia, and iron as oxidised iron (III); the concentration of sulphide will mostly be very low. However, if the conditions are instead iron reducing, all the oxygen and nitrate will already have been used up by microorganisms, nitrate will be present as ammonia, and high concentrations of iron (II) should be present (Hartnik et al. 2000; Martens et al. 2008, 13). Thus organic matter may have already degraded, or no degradation takes place. In nature, degradation of organic matter or corrosion of metals takes place parallel to reduction of other chemical combinations. The slowest degradation of organic matter, and the least oxidation of metals, takes place in metanogene conditions. By contrast, the fastest degradation of organic matter happens in oxygen-rich conditions. Oxidising and nitrate-reducing conditions may mostly be classified as poor preservation conditions, while sulphate-reducing and metanogene conditions are mostly excellent preservation conditions. Other environmental factors that affect the preservation conditions of archaeological deposits are the permeability and water content of the masses. These factors control the transport of (oxygen-rich) water through the deposits and diffusion of oxygen into the pores. Presence of poisonous combinations may slow the degradation of organic matter. Acid and highly soluble salts corrode the surface of metal objects. Increased acidity and salt concentration increases corrosion of metal objects and detrition and decaying of bone (Kars & Kars 2002; Huisman 2009). The development of mitigation strategies is the next logical step. It is of vital importance to know what to do when critical levels are reached, and to enable the decision whether to excavate (that is, choose preservation by record) as the final solution for preserving knowledge. Monitoring of archaeological deposits gives baseline data that can contribute to our understanding of the natural processes of degradation that do occur within the deposits. These data must be the basis for action in management (Huisman 2009; Martens 2008a; NS 9451:2009). The alternative to in-situ preservation is preservation by record, that is, through detailed archaeological investigation and documentation. All artefacts, ecofacts, soil

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in77 77

samples and other physical remains from the past, as well as all documentation material, need to be secured as a physical archive for the future. Knowledge about the conditions for conservation of this physical archive can be compared to the conservation possibilities in situ (Bergstrand & Nyström Godfrey 2006; Rimmer & Caple 2008). These archaeological considerations can be built into the overall societal planning and thus reduce the impact on archaeological deposits, allowing such deposits to be preserved in situ and more sustainably managed in the future (Martens 2008b; Willems 2008; NS 9451:2009). Material and results The chosen sample site in this context is Aaker, a magnate (or high-status) farm from the Roman period until the 18th century, since then used for farming and, later, as a military area. Aaker is situated at the Aakersvika bay, on the eastern shore of Lake Mjøsa, immediately east of the town of Hamar. The farm and its surrounding land are now owned by the Norwegian state, and plans were made to transform it into a new state archive. This would require major building activity, mostly underground, so inventories were made to assess the extent of the archaeological remains. This work was carried out by the county archaeologists (Hedmark fylkeskommune). When the remains had been mapped, NIKU, Bioforsk (the Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research) and Multiconsult, the consulting engineering company, were hired to evaluate the state of preservation of the archaeological remains, the conditions for future insitu conservation, the soil properties and possible building methods (Martens et al. 2007; Martens et al. 2008). Aaker (Fig. 8.1) is known particularly for its very rich metal finds, first and foremost a gold-plated bronze bird-shaped belt buckle from the Merovingian period (7th century AD) (Mikkelsen & Larsen 1992), and for the fact that archaeological deposits are preserved up to more than 1 metre in thickness, which is unusual for the southern Norwegian countryside. The buckle and other equally spectacular finds from the same period were found on the fields belonging to the farm. As seen in Figure 8.2, the terrain slopes away from the farm, leaving the impression of a mound comparable to the medieval farm mounds of northern Norway (Bertelsen 1978), and after the recent investigations, that is also how

19/11/2010 15:15:09

78

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 8.1  Aaker farm encircled, at Lake Mjøsa east of Hamar. © NIKU & Multiconsult

Aaker farm has been interpreted (Martens et al. 2007; Martens et al. 2008). As is shown in Figure 8.3, these deposits are rather dry and porous, leaving little potential for the preservation of organic finds, and ecofacts are badly preserved, although bone, burnt as well as unburned, has so far been well preserved, as has metal. Iron, bronze and gold have been found in much larger quantities than expected, thus leading to the interpretation of the site as a magnate farm

(Mikkelsen & Larsen 1992; Pilø 2005). However, the porosity of the layers leads to accelerated degradation, enabling oxygen carried through air or water to penetrate deep into the deposits. This may eventually lead to the ultimate destruction of the deposits, and it is gradually rendering them less legible. Even if some ecofacts and artefacts are preserved, their stratigraphical context may soon be lost. In an attempt to at least secure the maximum information on the deposits as they are disturbed by archaeologists,

Fig. 8.2  Aaker main building seen from the east. Terrain sloping to a farm mound. © NIKU

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in78 78

19/11/2010 15:15:15

8  Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits

79

Fig. 8.3  Section through archaeological deposits at Aaker. © NIKU

a standardised documentation sheet is used (NIKU & RA 2008, 29–31), classifying the components of the layer and their internal distribution, as well as trying to define their present state of preservation, as shown in Table 8.1.

for organic material is equal to the archaeological evaluation, whereas the conditions for the preservation of inorganic material are better, classified as medium (Table 8.3).

In 2007, two ditches and two auguring profiles were investigated (for example, Fig. 8.3), and in 2008 the investigation continued with auguring at four locations within the protected area. One profile, borehole 4, consisted of only disturbed layers and sterile subsoil. The archaeological deposits in boreholes 3 and 5 are in the unsaturated zone. They are dry and porous. Archaeologically, the state of preservation was characterised as very poor (borehole 3) and poor (borehole 5) (Table 8.3). In both cases, the geochemical evaluation of future preservation conditions

At borehole 6, 2 metres of medieval deposits were found beneath modern infill (Table 8.4). All the medieval deposits are in the saturated zone, and so their states of preservation as well as the conditions for future conservation differ considerably from the other investigated deposits at Aaker. Layer 3 was evaluated as being in a poor state of preservation, and the future conservation properties were considered poor to medium for organic material, and medium for inorganic finds. By contrast, layer 4 was in an excellent state of preservation, and the conditions

Table 8.3  Auger profile 5, Aaker, 2008. Top level (m asl) 129.1 129.05 128.52 128.28 GW 127,8 127.74 127.18

Depth (m)

Deposit type

Material

Layer nr

Sample nr

SOPS *

0–0,05 0,05–0,58 0,58–0,82 0,82–1,36

Lawn Sand Arch deposit Moraine clay

Top soil Added soil Undisturbed Sub soil

1 2 3

5-1 5-2 5-3

D1 A2

1,36–1,92 1,92–2

Moraine silt Blue clay

Sub soil Sub soil

4 5

5-4

Preservation chemical-physical organic matter inorganic

poor

medium

S1 S3 *

Analysis Analysis SOPS: Archaeological state of preservation status Low organic content 10% Medium organic content 10-20% High organic content 20-30% GW Average ground water level © NIKU & Bioforsk

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in79 79

19/11/2010 15:15:19

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

80

Top level (m asl) 125.1 125.08 GW 124,6 124.46 124.3 123.61 123.2 122.68 122.29

Depth (m)

Deposit type

Material

Layer nr

0-0,02 0,02-0,64

Meadow Sand

Top soil Added soil

1

0,64-0,80 0,80-1,49 1,49-1,90 1,90-2,42 2,42-2,81 2,81-3

Moraine clay Arch deposit Arch deposit Arch deposit Arch deposit Blue clay

“ Undisturbed “ “ “ Sub soil

2 3 4 5 6 7

Sample nr

SOPS *

Preservation chemical-physical organic matter inorganic

D3 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 6-5

D2 C2 C5 C3 C4

poor poor-medium excellent good good

medium medium excellent good good

S1 S3 *

Analysis Analysis SOPS: Archaeological state of preservation status Low organic content 10% Medium organic content 10-20% High organic content 20-30% GW Average ground water level © NIKU & Bioforsk Table 8.4  Auger profile 6, Aaker, 2008.

for future conservation were measured and evaluated as excellent for both organic and inorganic material. Further down, the conditions were not excellent, but still good (Table 8.4; Martens et al. 2008, 57–58). Good preservation conditions for archaeological deposits are characterised by stable physical and chemical conditions and relatively low micro-biological and chemical activity. Stable chemical and physical conditions lead to a decrease in the natural gradients causing chemical processes (for example, hydraulic gradients), thus slowing degradation of the deposits (Martens et al. 2008, 13). An evaluation of the archaeological deposits at Aaker shows that the ones in the unsaturated zone are in a rather poor state, and also have poor conditions for in-situ conservation, due to their porosity and dryness. The dryness causes cracks that go deep into the soil, thus allowing oxygen and oxygen-filled rainwater to penetrate deep into the deposits. If no mitigating intervention is carried out, for example by covering the deposits with a protective clay layer, the deposits will most certainly degrade further. New and better tools to measure and gain information directly from the soil are needed. Since 2007, probes measuring soil humidity and temperature have been installed in a profile (Fig. 8.3). This simple monitoring may indicate how fast the degradation can happen, so that decisions can be taken whether to excavate or accept the loss of contextual information from a very important site (Martens et al. 2007). From 2007 to 2008, the monitoring showed considerable variation, especially in the top half-metre of deposits. This shows clearly that the uppermost archaeological deposits are the most vulnerable in all respects: mechanical disturbances, dewatering, temperature variations and added access to oxygen (Martens et al. 2007, 30). In these deposits, degradation takes place continually. In the areas where the soil is worked, or at other sites in farmed areas with known archaeological locations, it may be

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in80 80

necessary to impose restrictions on ploughing depths, drainage and crop types to enable in-situ preservation (Johnsen 2009). The archaeological deposits at Aaker are very similar in composition and content to those of the nearby medieval town of Hamar, and it is probably safe to conclude that the threats to Aaker – continued degradation of deposits due to dewatering and ultimately loss of contextual information – also hold true for Hamar. After the latest investigations, it was decided that building a new state archive would pose too great a risk to the archaeological remains, and at present, the future of the site is undecided. Discussion When do measurements from environmental monitoring signal danger to the archaeological remains, and what are our options then? How may the contextual information be saved? Is it possible to use chemicals to alter the environment of a site, fill in or drain away water, or cover a site with a protective layer, or do we need to excavate to preserve as much knowledge about the past as we can gain from each site? All these are pertinent questions that must be raised when considering in-situ site preservation. At Aaker, after the recent development where building plans were cancelled, there are still no answers to what may be done to mitigate the harm already caused to the site during the preliminary inventories and through natural deterioration. Another important issue is, who should be asked to pay for mitigation? If data loggers signal danger, 10 or 15 years after they were installed, can we then ask the original developer to pay for the rescue operations, or must mitigation be government funded? Norwegian legislation is not clear on that subject, and the practice is even more muddled. It would not suffice to refer to the 1992 Malta Convention (the European convention

19/11/2010 15:15:20

8  Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits

on the protection of the archaeological heritage) and the Norwegian Standard (NS 9451:2009), considering that large sums may be involved. On the other hand, a developer who is allowed to build, for example, on piles but on the condition that the preservation state of archaeological remains are evaluated, and the possibilities for in-situ preservation are checked and monitored, might reasonably be made to set aside funds (for example, in a closed bank account) to be used for mitigation strategies if and when the need arises. Such a condition should be weighed against the demands that would otherwise have been made to finance a full archaeological ­investigation of the site before development. If the archaeological remains cannot be preserved in situ, they may be rescued for the future by excavation and conservation in museums and research institutes. However, both artefacts and ecofacts may be degraded during storage. It is therefore of interest to compare preservation in situ with preservation ex situ, in order to create a basis for reliable protection and conservation of the archaeological deposits and their contextual historical information. Conclusion Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits is a good tool for evaluating the conditions for in-situ preservation of archaeological remains, although the methods have so far concentrated on measuring saturated rather than unsaturated sites. We need new and better tools to measure and gain information directly from the soil and not from water. However, an archaeological and contextual evaluation of the site and its state of preservation is a necessary first step. Remains in the unsaturated zone are far more vulnerable than the saturated ones, and it is therefore uncertain whether in-situ preservation is a practical solution, or if it will simply lead to a complete loss of contextual information. Thus, an issue to be addressed further is the financing of mitigation strategies for monitored sites. [email protected] References Bergstrand, T. & Nyström Godfrey, I. 2006: Återdeponering av arkeologiska fynd – analys av fyndmaterial. In Högberg, A. (ed.), För en kritisk och konstruktiv kulturmiljöforskning. Riksantikvarieämbetets FoU-verksamhet 2001–2005, 142–147. Riksantikvarieämbetet, Stockholm. Bertelsen, R. 1978: Gårdshaugene i Nord-Norge: kommentarer til de siste 15 års forskningsvirksomhet. Stensilserie Universitet i Tromsø, Institutt for samfunnsvitenskap. Caple, C. 1998: Parameters for monitoring anoxic environments. In Corfield, M., Hinton, P., Nixon, T. & Pollard, M. (eds), Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ: Proceedings of the Conference of 1st–3rd April 1996, 113–123. MoLAS, London. Caple, C. & Dungworth, D. 1998: Waterlogged anoxic archaeological burial environments. Ancient Monuments Laboratory Report 22/98. Christensson, A. 2004: Safeguarding Historic Waterfront Sites – Bryggen in Bergen as a Case Study. Stiftelsen Bryggen, Szczecin/Bergen. Durham, B. 2008: To beguile the time: kinetic factors in

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in81 81

81

modelling of data from organic deposits.   Proceedings from PARIS 3, Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ 3, Amsterdam 2006, 3–14. Amsterdam. Gardelin, G. 2002: Nedbrytning av urbana kulturlager. En översiktlig sammanställning av erfarenheter och kunnskapsläge. Kulturen i Lund. Hartnik, T., Andersen, S., Vesterager, T. & Nordal, O. 2000: Characterisation of redox-conditions in the unsaturated zone. Proceedings of the ConSoilConference, Leipzig, 18–22 September 2000, 216–217. Huisman, D. J. (ed.) 2009: Degradation of Archaeological Remains. Den Haag. Johnsen, E. 2009: A Question of Reburial. Status Report on Reburial of Archaeological Sites in Norway. A Multiple Case Study. MA thesis in Archaeology, Trondheim, Spring 2009. NTNU. Kars, E.A.K. & Kars, H. (eds) 2002: The Degradation of Bone as an Indicator for the Deterioration of the European Archaeological Property. Amersfoort. Keevill, G., Hogan, D., Davis, M. & Howell, D. 2004: Waterlogged archaeological remains, environmental conditions and preservation in situ: a case study from the Tower of London. In Nixon, T. (ed.), Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ. Proceedings of the 2nd Conference 12–14 September 2001, 137–142. MoLAS, London Martens, V.V. 2008a: Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits. Paper Presented at the Sixth World Archaeological Congress, Dublin, Ireland 29 June– 4 July 2008. Martens, V.V. 2008b: Impacts of the Valletta Convention. In-situ preservation of urban archaeological deposits. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Conference of the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA), Malta, 16–21 September 2008. Martens, V.V., Haugen, A. & Amundsen, H.R. 2007: Forprosjekt miljøovervåking Aaker gård gnr.7/bnr.201, Hamar, Hedmark. Vurdering av bevaringsforhold for kulturlag. Samlerapport for Bioforsk, Multiconsult og NIKU. Rapport Miljøovervåking 4/2007. Unpublished report, NIKU, Oslo. Martens, V.V., Haugen, A., Amundsen, H.R., Hartnik, T., Bloem, E. & Finstad, J.A. 2008: Forprosjekt 2, miljøovervåking Aaker gård gnr.7/bnr.201, Hamar, Hedmark. Arkeologisk, jordfaglig og jordteknisk vurdering. Grunnundersøkelser og tilstandsvurdering av bevaringsforhold for kulturlag og fredet/verneverdig bygningsmasse på Aaker gård. Samlerapport for NIKU, Bioforsk og Multiconsult. Rapport Arkeologi 60/2008. Unpublished report,   NIKU, Oslo. Matthiesen, H. 2004: In-situ preservation and monitoring of the cultural layers below Bryggen. In Christensson, A. (ed.), Safeguarding Historic Waterfront Sites. Bryggen in Bergen as a Case Study, 71–75. Stiftelsen Bryggen, Szcecin/Bergen. Matthiesen, H., Dunlop, R., Jensen, J.A. & Christensson, A. 2006: Monitoring of Cultural Deposits below Bryggen in Bergen, Norway. http://www.natmus.dk/graphics/ bevaring/arkaeologi/pdf-filer/HenningMatt/ matt2004woamposterbryggen.pdf. Membery, S. 2008: Is in-situ preservation always the right strategy, or are flexible approaches beneficial to both developer and archaeologist? Proceedings from PARIS 3, Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ 3, Amsterdam 2006, 311–316. Amsterdam.

19/11/2010 15:15:51

82

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Mikkelsen, E. & Larsen, J.H. (eds) 1992: Økonomiske og politiske sentra i Norden ca 400–1000 e. Kr. Åkerseminaret, Hamar 1990. Universitetets oldsaksamlings Skrifter, Ny rekke nr. 13. Oslo. NIKU & RA 2008: The Monitoring Manual. Procedures and Guidelines for Monitoring, Recording and Preservation Management of Urban Archaeological Deposits. NS 9451:2009. Norwegian Standard 2009: Cultural Property. Requirements on Environmental   Monitoring and Investigation of Archaeological Deposits. Parliamentary Report No. 16, 2004–2005. Living with our Cultural Heritage. Norwegian Ministry for the Environment. Peacock, E.E. 2002: Monitoring the In-Situ Archaeological Deposits at Schultzgt. 3–7, Trondheim, Norway (1996–2001). Rapport Arkeologisk Serie, 2002-1. NTNU, Vitenskapsmuseet. Pilø, L. 2005: Bosted – urgård – enkeltgård: en analyse av premissene i den norske bosetningshistoriske forskningstradisjon på bakgrunn av bebyggelsesarkeologisk feltarbeid på Hedemarken. Oslo Arkeologiske Serie nr. 3. Institutt for arkeologi, kunsthistorie og konservering, Universitetet i Oslo. Reed, I. & Martens, V.V. 2008: Preservation Capacity of Urban Archaeological Deposits Beneath Modern Buildings in Norway. Proceedings from PARIS 3, Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ 3, Amsterdam 2006, 265–272. Amsterdam. Rimmer, M.B. & Caple, C. 2008: Estimating artefact loss: a comparison of metal artefact loss through in-situ decay and loss of ancient monument sites in England. Proceedings from PARIS 3, Preserving Archaeological

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in82 82

Remains In Situ 3, Amsterdam 2006, 65–74.   Amsterdam. Sandvik, P.U. 2006: Ein integrert naturvitskaplegarkeologisk-historisk rekonstruksjon av framveksten av Trondheim. Doktoravhandling ved NTNU 2006, 65. Sillasoo, Ü. & Hiie, S. 2007: An archaeobotanical approach to investigating food of the Hanseatic period in Estonia. In Karg, Sabine (ed.), Medieval Food Traditions in Northern Europe, 73–96. National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Smit, A., van Heeringen, R.M. & Theunissen, E.M (eds) 2006: Archaeological Monitoring Standard. Guidelines for the Non-Destructive Recording and Monitoring of the Physical Quality of Archaeological Sites and Monuments. Nederlandse Archeologische Rapporten (NAR) 33. Stumm, W. & Morgan, J.J. 1996: Aquatic Chemistry (3rd edn). Wiley, New York. Vorenhout, M. 2008: The added value of integrating conservation in situ and wetland management. Paper presented at the Sixth World Archaeological Congress, Dublin, Ireland 29 June–4 July 2008. Vorenhout, M. & Smit, M. 2006: Continuous redox and temperature measurements for archaeological monitoring. Poster presented at the Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ Conference. Amsterdam. Willems, W. J. 2008: Archeological resource management and preservation. Proceedings from PARIS 3, Preserving Archaeological Remains In Situ 3, Amsterdam 2006, 283–290. Amsterdam. Williams, J. & Corfield, M. 2003: Construction impacts on in-situ preservation of archaeological sites and artefacts. Proceedings from the 5th EC Conference, Krakow, Poland, 16–18 May 2002, 276–279.

19/11/2010 15:15:52

9  |  Monitoring and managing archaeological sites   on the farmland of Wales Peter Gaskell and Gwilym Hughes Abstract: Since the Neolithic, the character of agricultural practices in Wales has been influenced by the largely upland nature of the country. Today, livestock farming dominates agriculture in Wales. However, economic drivers and the shift in EU farming subsidies from production to environmental and sustainability issues are having an effect on agricultural patterns. This paper presents the work that has historically been undertaken in monitoring and managing archaeological sites on farmland in Wales. It then introduces a new project that aims to assess the impact of changing agricultural practice and the effectiveness of our management responses to perceived threats.

Past and present work Historically, management of archaeological sites on farmland in Wales has focused on providing legal protection for those sites that meet the criteria for designation (Scheduled Ancient Monuments). Cadw (the historic environment division of the Welsh Assembly Government) is responsible for identifying and providing this legal protection. There are more than 4,000 scheduled (protected) sites across Wales. Cadw’s regional Field Monument Wardens visit these monuments and assess their condition on a rolling programme – a monitoring cycle that began in 1985. The

fourth round of condition visits will shortly be completed. This work has provided valuable information on changing conditions as well as a critical point of contact with owners, allowing the provision of management advice and the development of management agreements. Nevertheless, farming practices continue to endanger archaeological sites, and in particular earthwork sites and buried archaeology, both scheduled and unscheduled. Thankfully, major damage cases are increasingly rare as a result of the enforcement of protection measures and the raising of awareness of the social and economic value of heritage.

Fig. 9.1  Carreg Sampson, a megalithic tomb, located on farmland in Pembrokeshire. © Cadw

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in83 83

19/11/2010 15:15:56

84

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

In addition to this monitoring programme of scheduled sites, Cadw is supporting a series of threat-related assessments of all known field monuments, whether legally protected or not. The fieldwork is being undertaken by the regional Welsh archaeological trusts, four charitable bodies that were established in the mid-1970s to provide a comprehensive archaeological and heritage management service for the whole of Wales. During the last ten years, the trusts have visited, described and assessed nearly 24,000 field monuments. Recommendations from these surveys have increased the numbers afforded legal protection through designation and have led to improved management. The survey programme has also enhanced the content of the regional Historic Environment Records (HERs). These HERs, formerly known as Sites and Monuments Records, are information datasets on historic assets created and maintained by each of the archaeological trusts for their region of Wales. During the next two years, and with the support of the archaeological trusts, Cadw will complete the assessment of all known field monuments dating to the prehistoric and Roman periods, enabling the provision of recommendations for legal protection – a major achievement. Agri-environment schemes However, providing legal protection and monitoring the condition of the small proportion of sites (around 5%) that are currently designated as scheduled sites is only part of the story. We still need to manage and monitor the changing condition of the tens of thousands of field

monuments that do not meet the criteria for designation. The emergence of agri-environment and landmanagement schemes has provided one opportunity for taking a more holistic approach to such management. In recent years two schemes have provided, among other things, support to Welsh farmers for the protection of the historic features – Tir Gofal and Tir Cynal. Between them, they covered 43% of the agricultural land in Wales. The evidence points to the success of these schemes in introducing new management regimes for archaeological sites on farmland and improving the quality of information available for historic features. However, we do not yet have quantitative and qualitative evidence to demonstrate the level of this impact. Tir Gofal and Tir Cynal have now been replaced by a new land-management scheme – Glastir (see Mike Yates, this volume). The focus of Glastir is very much on measuring environmental outcomes. Therefore, it is critical that we are able to measure the success or otherwise of the scheme and to provide an overall measure of the changing impact of agricultural change on the historic environment as a  whole. In short we must provide the evidence that will allow an audit of our investment in management regimes. Developing a monitoring project In order to address this issue, Cadw is now developing a methodology to monitor the condition of, and threat to the archaeological resource on farmland in Wales. The early stages of developing this project owed much to the work

Fig. 9.2  The Tir Gofal agri-environment scheme in Wales includes provision for the conservation and enhancement of archaeological features. © Dyfed Archaeological Trust

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in84 84

19/11/2010 15:15:59

9  Monitoring and managing archaeological sites on the farmland of Wales

of Mike Yates, former Inspector of Ancient Monuments at Cadw and policy lead for countryside matters. Cadw also enlisted the help of Peter Gaskell of the Countryside and Community Research Institute of Gloucester University, Ken Murphy and Alice Pyper of the Dyfed Archaeological Trust and Chris Martin of the Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust in the development of the methodology (Gaskell et al. 2008). The project began with an assessment of the likely impacts of agricultural change on the archaeology of Wales. It then evaluated the data sources that can be used to monitor the condition of the archaeological sites. Finally it has proposed a set of operational indicators to implement this monitoring programme. During the first part of this exercise, the types of agricultural change likely to take place and their potential impact on the archaeological resource were assessed by the research team. A series of pro-formas was completed which cross-tabulated the different types of management change with the likely impact on sites. This analysis allowed the identification of key factors relevant to the survival and condition of archaeological sites within the farmed landscape. Negative factors, such as the expansion of areas of cultivation, increasing stock levels, increased farm infrastructure, abandonment and uncontrolled scrub development, were identified. These were compared with positive factors, such as the reduction in cultivation, replacement of heavy animals by

85

sheep and the maintenance of appropriate stock levels to control scrub development. Following this exercise, two types of operational indicators were identified: early warning indicators drawn from agricultural census data and satellite imagery, and actual impact indicators using data held by the HERs. Following an evaluation of the data sources it was concluded that the basis for repeat monitoring of the changing condition of field monuments should be a combination of analysis of digital vertical aerial photography and field survey. We now propose to carry out a two-stage project: stage 1 will involve the preparation of baseline data and stage 2 repeat monitoring and analysis. The baseline data are derived from the records of field monuments and other historical data held in the HERs of the archaeological trusts, which contain more than 150,000 records. Of these, 41,036 field monuments are recorded as being located on agricultural land. These have been divided into the following five site types on the basis of vulnerability and management requirements. • Buildings – with recognisable upstanding masonry, such as industrial structures (10,479 sites). • Other stone structures – surviving as mounds or banks of stone, such as Bronze Age burial cairns or abandoned medieval settlements (10,134 sites).

Fig. 9.3  Location of farmland types in Wales. Source: Hosell et al. 2007

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in85 85

19/11/2010 15:16:00

86

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 9.4  Percentage of field monuments on farmland in Wales by farming area type. Source: Gaskell et al. 2008 LFA (SDA) LFA (DA) North & East Fringe South West South

• Earthworks – surviving as mounds or banks, such as castle mounds or Iron Age hillforts (13,894 sites). • Megaliths – massive stones set up singly or in groups, such as Neolithic burial chambers or Bronze Age stone rows (1,265 sites). • Sites with no visible upstanding remains – such as archaeological sites known only from cropmarks or geophysical surveys (5,264 sites).

The sample design for the monitoring has been developed by selecting a stratified sample of 2,000 sites based on the identified site types and farming-area types. Table 9.1 shows the total number of field monuments by the five farming-area types and the five site types. The actual sampling methodology for each of the 25 cells or strata has been developed with the assistance of statisticians from the University of Birmingham.

The division of Wales into five farming-area types on the basis of topography, climate and core farming economy (Hosell et al. 2007, 3) has been used as the basis for the development of the actual impact indicators (Fig. 9.3).

Baseline data in the form of site dossiers on each of the 2,000 sample sites have now been prepared by the four Welsh archaeological trusts using data held in their HERs. The establishment of these baseline data will provide the crucial basis for the repeat monitoring, which is to be carried out on a five-yearly cycle using new digital vertical aerial photographs, mapping data and sample field visits. We now have a real dataset that we will be able to use to measure the impact of changing farming patterns on the historic environment of our countryside and the impact of environmental land-management programmes such as Glastir.

• Less Favoured Areas – Severely Disadvantaged Area (LFA – SDA): marginal upland and hill land with largely sheep-only farming and some sheep and beef farms. • Less Favoured Areas – Disadvantaged Area (LFA – DA): as SDA but with a higher proportion of beef and sheep or beef-only farms and some dairy holdings. Generally, lower-lying land than SDA. • North and East fringes: more intensive beef-based farms and mixed farms with some dairy. Sheep farms also significant. • Southwest: Lower-lying land. Preponderance of dairy and other cattle farms plus small areas of horticulture. • South: Southern fringe of Wales. Main arable area, with mixed farming. Each of these five areas is subject to specific farming pressures. For example, the likely reduction in sheep numbers in the LFA – SDA zone may mean that the archaeological resource will be threatened by scrub encroachment. Figure 9.4 shows that almost two-thirds of the field monuments identified on the HERs lie in the LFA – SDA zone.

[email protected] [email protected] References Gaskell P., Dwyer J., Ford B., Murphy K., Pyper, A. & Martin, C. 2008: Monitoring the Historic Evironment: The Archaeological Resource. Unpublished report prepared for Cadw by the Countryside and Community Research Institute and the Dyfed Archaeological Trust. Hossell, J., Gardner, S., Dwyer, J., Roberts, A., Sanderson, V. & Hughes, G. 2007: Review of Indicators for Assessing the Impacts of Agri-environment Schemes and Recent CAP Reforms on Biodiversity in Wales. Final report to CCW and WAG.

Table 9.1  Sample design – total numbers of field monuments by area type and by site type. Area type

Buildings

Other stone structures

Earthworks

LFA – SDA

6,402

7,543

9,574

LFA – DA

Megaliths 831

No upstanding remains

Total

1,630

25,980

2,326

1,073

1,808

139

1,154

6,499

North & East Fringes

675

631

1,400

226

1,144

4,076

Southwest

837

571

587

54

538

2,587

South All Areas

239

317

525

15

798

1,894

10,479

10,134

13,894

1,265

5,264

41,036

Source: Gaskell et al. 2008.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in86 86

19/11/2010 15:16:01

10  |  Field Monument Wardens in Northern Ireland:   working with owners to manage scheduled   historic monuments Claire Foley Abstract: This paper is the first of two examining the use of fieldworkers – Field Monument Wardens (FMWs) or Advisers – to monitor the condition of archaeological sites in the island of Ireland and to help owners and occupiers maintain them in good condition. The FMW system in Northern Ireland focuses on scheduled (statutorily protected) sites and, through the recent Condition and Management Survey of the Archaeological Resource (CAMSAR) survey, has been demonstrated to be a very good way to connect with owners and occupiers to influence the maintenance of scheduled field monuments.

The Schedule of Historic Monuments in Northern Ireland FMWs were established in Northern Ireland in 1992 after more than ten years’ experience of this system in England, Wales and Scotland. Their purpose is to monitor the condition of scheduled (statutorily protected) archaeological sites and to help owners and occupiers to maintain them in good condition. The Schedule of Historic Monuments in Northern Ireland is compiled under Article 3 of The Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (the Order), and includes about 5% of the 36,000 presently known sites from 7000 BC to the recent past. At March 2010 the Schedule had 1,845 entries including megalithic tombs, churches and castles as well as Industrial Heritage structures, elements of Parks, Gardens and Demesnes, intertidal Maritime features and Defence Heritage structures from the mid-20th century. Four FMWs are the frontline staff that visit scheduled monuments and their owners. They determine solutions to problems such as overgrazing, collapse and erosion and together they report on more than 500 sites per year. They are part-time staff working from home in particular geographic regions providing essential, regular contact with the largely private owners of scheduled historic monuments. Scheduled Monument Consent is required for any actions that would damage or alter a protected monument and management agreements are also offered for actions that would improve the condition of a site. These aspects are discussed further below. Through these means a light-handed control is kept on scheduled sites with much advice and encouragement provided to owners and managers to generally good effect. Through a UK government policy of Better Regulation, the provision of guidance to prevent damage coupled with regular monitoring and discussion is regarded as an important part of the FMW work. The overall resource In support of this approach, a statistical review, the Condition and Management Survey of the Archaeological Resource (CAMSAR 2008) was carried out on a randomly selected sample of 10% of all monuments prior to AD 1700 in order to assess their condition as a benchmark in

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in87 87

time. This study found that scheduled monuments were in better overall condition than those sites that are not statutorily protected, thus establishing the value of the FMW work. The presently known 36,000 archaeological sites across the landscape of Northern Ireland are recorded in the Northern Ireland Monuments and Buildings Record. Their records are available for public research at the Built Heritage Directorate of the Northern Ireland Environment Agency in Belfast. The Record may be searched on www. ni-environment.gov.uk The landscape About 80% of Northern Ireland land use is in farming, largely pastoral. Much of this is land enclosed by a variety of boundaries, many of them ancient earthworks or stone walls. While there is some arable, the land is largely in mixed, pastoral use with cattle and sheep predominating. Some open land, usually 300m or more above sea level, is often grazed in common by numbers of farmers. The majority of owners of scheduled historic monuments are farmers with an average age of some 55 years. The landscapes in Northern Ireland are quite varied for a small country of 14,135 square kilometres. Monuments are scheduled in all kinds of terrain: on mountains, in peatland, in grassland and in grain-growing areas. They are enclosed by a variety of boundaries from dry-stone walls to clay banks with impenetrable hedges. They are also in lakeland, rivers, the foreshore and the intertidal reaches. FMWs and condition reports Being lone workers, the health and safety of FMWs is an important consideration and they are provided with appropriate training and equipment. An ability to work alone and to be aware of the dangers of farm animals is an important consideration. The range of sites which FMWs inspect is quite varied, including scheduled areas of below-ground remains, megalithic tombs, stone circles, prehistoric field walls and clearance cairns, large habitation earthworks, ruined castles and churches, designed landscapes, canals and intertidal fishtraps.

19/11/2010 15:16:01

88

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 10.1  A typical protected site in its wider landscape. Photo: Northern Ireland Environment Agency © Crown copyright

The FMWs organise their work around cyclical visits to groups of scheduled monuments every three to five years. By repeat visits owners gradually come to understand what is required of them in terms of farming behaviour on archaeological sites and the interval in time enables owners to make recommended changes. Archaeological sites in farmland are often perceived as convenient feeding or watering stations. Natural vegetation cover is used as informal shelter, particularly in winter as not all animals are overwintered indoors in Ireland. These activities can be very damaging to delicate earthworks and such damage is exacerbated by wet summers. The FMWs have to be aware of these issues and help owners to adjust their activities to discourage concentrations of animals at such sites. Condition reports are now electronically logged with conditions recorded on a scale of 1 to 5. A priorities list is filtered from this for sites that would benefit from more regular inspection and discussion with owners to prevent damage from, for example, overgrazing, ploughing or the natural regeneration of trees. The pattern of the regular cycle of visits is now being changed to target resources where they are most needed. The electronic recording system ensures that sites not visited for some time will be gradually integrated into the visiting cycle. Management agreements A FMW usually decides when a management agreement could be used to improve the condition of a site. This could be for fencing to reduce stock erosion or for an eroded area to be repaired or for the removal of invasive vegetation. A small amount of money offered in this way can make a great difference to the better management of earthworks and megaliths. However, light grazing

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in88 88

is the best long-term management for large areas of grassland and the aim is to maintain this regime but in a controlled manner to prevent damage leading to erosion by concentrated animal activity. Trees and bushes, if left unchecked, can overwhelm sites making them difficult to visit and observe and there is an assumed damage to below-ground remains. Management agreements are also provided for the conservation of ruined masonry monuments. It is important to be sensitive to the natural heritage conditions on a site as ancient earthworks often retain a good floral seedbed and we often consider whether the benefits of vegetation clearance at a particular monument outweigh the impacts on such habitats. Such clearance is not carried out during the bird-nesting season (between 1 March and 1 September). Badgers do much damage to earthwork monuments but as a protected species there is little that can be done to prevent this. However, rabbits are equally prolific and although not protected are difficult to control. FMWs can influence landowners to control grazing on archaeological sites, limit plough depth in consented areas and prevent damage caused by farm vehicles and development. This is done through education, advice, provision of instruction booklets and follow-up visits. The first 18 years of this work in Northern Ireland has established a pattern of the gradual improvement in the condition of scheduled sites. The Field Monument Warden system is a cost-effective method of reaching out to owners of statutorily protected, privately owned monuments and providing advice and support towards their better management.

19/11/2010 15:16:06

10  Field Monument Wardens in Northern Ireland

89

Fig. 10.2  A Field Monument Warden discussing the care of a megalithic tomb with an owner. Photo: Northern Ireland Environment Agency © Crown copyright

The experience and principles established through this work have found their way into the general management of sites on farmland, most of which are not actually statutorily protected, demonstrating the wider benefits which the FMWs have brought to protecting the historic environment of Northern Ireland.

References CAMSAR 2008: The Condition and Management Survey of the Archaeological Resource. TSO, Belfast. The Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order 1995. HMSO, Statutory Instrument No 1626 (N.I. 9).

[email protected]

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in89 89

19/11/2010 15:16:11

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in90 90

19/11/2010 15:16:11

11  |  The Field Monument Advisory Scheme   in the Republic of Ireland Rosanne Meenan Abstract: This paper is the second of two examining the use of fieldworkers – Field Monument Advisors (FMAs) or Wardens – to monitor the condition of archaeological sites in the island of Ireland and to help owners and occupiers maintain them in good condition. Field Monument Advisors were appointed in nine local authority areas in the Republic of Ireland during the mid- to late 2000s with the intention of visiting all the archaeological monuments within their areas. The objective of the scheme was to meet landowners, inspect the monuments on their land, to assess the condition of the monuments and to offer support and advice in cases where there were problems with management of the monument.

Objectives of scheme The Field Monument Advisory scheme in the Republic of Ireland was initiated in the mid-2000s. The National Heritage Plan, which aimed to place heritage ‘at the heart of public life’, was published 2002. It recognised that ‘Heritage is communal and we all share a responsibility to protect it. This reality is of fundamental importance to the task of handing to future generations a heritage as rich and varied as that which we enjoy today’ (Government of Ireland 2002, 13). Another key element of the National Heritage Plan was the recognition that ‘protection of heritage must begin at local level’ and consequently the role of local authorities in the protection and management of heritage was emphasised. The Plan called for the provision of local heritage plans, heritage fora, appointment of heritage officers, etc.

National Monuments legislation (1930–94). It was the aim of the scheme to visit all of these monuments, making contact with the landowners in all cases. The RMP files in the Archaeological Survey of Ireland were used as the starting point, in particular using the condition reports contained therein as baseline information. The majority of monuments are located in farmland but with the increase in development, some monuments are now located on the outskirts of towns and villages which, while not threatening the actual fabric of the monument, can threaten its context and environment. Initiation of the scheme One of the results of the marriage of these objectives was the establishment of the Field Monument Advisory scheme. The scheme was initiated and administered by

In terms of the archaeological heritage, the Plan called for an enhanced programme of monitoring of monuments as well as a database of owners of monuments with a view to advising them of the presence on the monuments on their land. The objective of the scheme was to support landowners in the care of monuments in their ownership, recognising that the majority of landowners are farmers and that they are the day-to-day managers of a large portion of archaeological landscapes and monuments. Dissemination of information about archaeological heritage was a core element of the scheme and it also aimed to establish a positive liaison with the farming community and other local, rural and community groups. There are between 130,000 and 140,000 known monuments in the Republic. These have been listed in the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP); the archive ‘contains records of all known or possible monuments pre-dating 1700 AD that have been brought to its attention and also includes a selection of monuments from the post-1700 AD [sic] period’ (www.archaeology.ie).  These monuments are afforded protection under Fig. 11.1  Field Monument Advisor, Co. Sligo, meeting landowner. © Mark Keane

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in91 91

19/11/2010 15:16:12

92

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

the Heritage Council; the Heritage Council is the Republic of Ireland’s statutory body charged with identifying, protecting, preserving and enhancing Ireland’s national heritage. The first FMAs were appointed in Counties Sligo and Clare in 2002, both on a pilot basis. Ultimately nine local authority areas were covered by the scheme with most of the appointments starting in 2006. The FMAs were employed by individual local authorities with funding shared between the local authority and the Heritage Council. The FMAs were engaged for a 20-hour week and were provided with office space, equipment, computer and up-to-date mapping facilities etc. by the local authority. During the site visit, personal contact was always made with the landowner and permission sought to enter lands. In my personal experience as FMA for Co. Meath permission was very rarely refused. The monument was inspected to assess its condition. Following the inspection, further information about the monument, its classification, its context in the archaeology and history of the area and its relationship with other monuments in the vicinity was provided to the landowner. There was a variation in the level of awareness of monuments in particular areas – where land had changed hands, recently arrived landowners would not always be aware of the existence of or the nature of monuments on their land. In those cases where the FMA considered that a monument had been damaged by agricultural activity an attempt would be made to come to an arrangement with the landowner about the future management of the site. This could entail the removal of heavy livestock from the vicinity of the monument during wet weather, removal of cattle feeders, re-routing of tracks for tractors etc; where heavy vegetation was a problem, the landowner might be encouraged to consider grazing by lighter animals, such as sheep or goats. In tillage areas the farmer might be encouraged to extend the unploughed zone around a monument or to cease ploughing in the vicinity of a cropmark. It was important that this dialogue was nonconfrontational and was perceived as supportive by the landowner.

A by-product or added bonus of the scheme was the discovery of previously undiscovered and unrecorded monuments; these can now be entered on the Record of Monuments and Places and are therefore afforded statutory protection. Once the monument had been inspected, the relevant information was fed into a database provided by the Heritage Council; it was designed to record the current condition of the monument, its degree of deterioration (if any) since last visited, a record of any management arrangements made with the landowners and the name and address of the landowner. Photographs were also uploaded on to the database. This database can be used to calculate up-to-date statistics on trends in the damage to and disappearance of monuments. It is also intended that the information will feed into the records of the Archaeological Survey of Ireland. Liaison with agricultural, community and other groups An integral element of the scheme was liaison with the farming community. Contact was maintained with officials of the farming organisations at county level. Contact was also initiated with Teagasc, the national agricultural advisory and research body; Teagasc advisors maintain a very close relationship with working farmers on a day-today basis. There was an in-put by FMAs into the training of planners for the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), administered by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. When REPS 4 was closed in June 2009, 62,000 farmers were enrolled in the scheme. Each of these farmers, and those who had enrolled in the three previous REPS schemes, would have attended courses in which, among other environmental issues, the significance of archaeological heritage is demonstrated and the legal framework that protects archaeological monuments is made known to the farmers. FMAs were encouraged to engage with local community groups and with schools. Site visits, classroom talks, graveyard-recording projects and mapping exercises were all carried out over the different counties at different times, normally with primary-school children. In Co. Meath I was involved in two long-term projects where artists and a sculptor were brought in to work with 10-year olds in raising their knowledge and appreciation of monuments

800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Clare

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in92 92

Fingal

Kilkenny

Louth

Meath

Sligo

Wicklow

Fig. 11.2  Visits to individual monuments by Field Monument Advisors as logged by March 2010.

19/11/2010 15:16:13

11  The Field Monument Advisory Scheme in the Republic of Ireland

93

in their local areas. Information meetings were organised in partnership with local history groups. Awareness of heritage matters was promoted by attendance and dissemination of information at functions such as vintage festivals, agricultural shows and the annual National Ploughing Championship, the latter attracting up to 200,000 people each year, most of whom have a rural and agricultural background.

The scheme had no statutory basis, so there was no obligation on the landowner to allow the FMAs access to the monuments. While access was rarely a problem, it would have been useful on occasion for the FMA to have been able to enter a farm without actively seeking out the permission of the owner, particularly when the monument appeared to have been damaged and the owner did not live locally.

Local heritage and other groups always have access to the FMA when seeking advice on matters such as conservation of local monuments, graveyard restoration, funding for heritage projects, etc.

Current status of the scheme The scheme, unfortunately, has fallen foul of the economic recession and of cuts in public funding, particularly to local authorities. As contracts ran out, they were not renewed. At the time of writing (March 2010), three FMAs are still in place but it is not clear just how long these contracts will survive in a climate of continuing and possibly more stringent cuts in public spending. Hopefully, when the economic climate improves, the same or a similar scheme will be re-introduced, not just to the nine local authority areas which have participated up to now but over the entire area of the state.

Problems The Field Monument Advisory Scheme undoubtedly has had major benefits in relation to the protection of archaeological heritage, awareness and educational elements; there were, however, a small number of matters which mitigated against an even more effective scheme. The FMAs had no access to funding which could have been distributed to farmers to carry out small-scale tasks, such as fencing, that may have been agreed as part of the management plan. The cost of any element of the agreed management plan was borne solely by the landowner and to that extent the success of the management plan was dependent on the good will of the owner.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in93 93

[email protected] References Government of Ireland 2002: National Heritage Plan. Dublin.

19/11/2010 15:16:13

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in94 94

19/11/2010 15:16:13

12  |  Assessing and managing risk:   the Scheduled Monuments At Risk (SMAR)   and Conservation Of Scheduled Monuments   In Cultivation (COSMIC) projects, England Jon Humble Abstract: England is one of the most physiographically diverse countries in Europe – it is also one of the most densely populated and intensively developed. A rich archaeological heritage is at increasing risk of loss, damage or decay from both natural and human agencies. SMAR (Scheduled Monuments at Risk) is the strategic response of the national heritage body, English Heritage, and during the past decade the risks to all 19,709 nationally important scheduled monuments have been systematically assessed. Following on from SMAR, the COSMIC (Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation) project has developed a reliable model for characterising and assessing the risk to archaeological sites in cultivation, and identifying suitable mitigation. COSMIC II is currently focusing attention on risk-management procedures and prescriptions for sites in cultivation at both the strategic and site-specific levels.

England’s archaeological heritage England is part of the UK, and it shares land borders with Scotland to the north and Wales to the west. The Irish Sea is to the north-west, and it is separated from continental Europe by the North Sea to the east and by the English Channel to the south. England’s terrain is mostly low hills and plains, especially in central and southern England, together with extensive areas of upland in the north and south-west, and a coastline that is fringed by more than 100 islands. England’s population is about 51 million (around 84% of the UK’s population) and is largely concentrated in London and the South-East, together with large conurbations in the Midlands, the North-East, North-West and Yorkshire. England has the fourth largest population in the European Union, and with an average density of 395 people per square kilometre, it is the second most densely populated country in the EU after Malta. The geopolitical division of England is complex, with up to four tiers of regional/local government and administration. About 72% of England is classified as agricultural land, with 8.6% as forestry and woodland. In comparison with the other parts of the UK (Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), England has by far the largest proportion of arable land (30%), together with the smallest proportion of pasture and rough grazing (37%). Historic environment records for England feature more than 1.5 million entries – many of these are archaeological sites for which the main source of evidence for their understanding is the fabric and content of the remains themselves – in other words, their ‘evidential value’ (English Heritage 2009a). More than 19,000 archaeological sites are designated (listed) as ‘scheduled monuments’, which by definition are recognised as being of national archaeological importance and which are protected under law by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. They include prehistoric, Roman and medieval sites together with the industrial structures of England’s more recent past. Most scheduled monuments (75%) are in private ownership. Importantly,

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in95 95

scheduling is discretionary and archaeological remains must meet first the necessary definition of a ‘monument’ within the Act; secondly, government criteria for national archaeological importance; and thirdly, scheduling has to be considered the most appropriate management regime for safeguarding the remains and for consenting works which represent an addition, removal or alteration to the monument. It is important to note, however, that scheduled monuments form only a small part of the archaeological resource, and estimates indicate that in most areas they represent less than 5% of the known number of archaeological sites. Many forms of ‘works’ and ‘development’ – particularly mineral extraction, building and construction – require planning permission, and the impacts upon archaeological remains (whether scheduled or not) and their mitigation are regulated by the system of spatial land-use planning, with a requirement for the developer to meet the costs should the impacts be judged as acceptable (CLG/DCMS 2010). Nevertheless, most routine farming practices, such as arable cultivation, do not require planning permission and therefore these lie beyond the conventional regulatory systems of land-use management that seek to ensure archaeological impact assessment and mitigation. Risk and the historic environment At a practical level, ‘state of the environment reporting’ is now an accepted yet still developing paradigm for presenting quantitative and qualitative data, and for identifying measurable performance indicators that can be used to track geographical patterns and trends in survival and condition through time. For example, within any given area and as part of a series of wide-ranging indicators, the numbers of historic Buildings at Risk (BAR) can be used to contribute to decision-making and development planning for the environment as a whole – not just the historic environment. A key expectation of the UK government is that policy for all aspects of the

19/11/2010 15:16:13

96

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

environment is adequately justified and evidence-based. but they can also be random, hard to predict and of The national BAR initiative, first launched by English uncertain impact. Heritage in 1998 and reviewed annually, has made a 3 Models and predictions: assessment of the   substantial contribution towards raising awareness of effects of natural and human hazards is commonly   the issues associated with conserving historic buildings, addressed by case-studies and the development and in many cases it has secured additional resources of models that are intended to represent the real and uses for buildings that might otherwise have  world as closely as possible. Inevitably, however, been lost. and importantly, the quality of decisions taken at the risk-management stage is contingent upon the discrepancy between model predictions and the   Principles of risk-based studies real world. Risk studies are concerned primarily with the following 4 Implementation or process risks: these are risks issues: that result from the implementation of any policy, programme or decisions that affect the historic • what might happen in the future?   environment. For example, risks associated with the (risk assessment and risk management) Common Agricultural Policy (for example, the   • what are the possible impacts and consequences? impacts on arable landscapes), the Countryside and (risk assessment) Rights of Way Act 2000 (such as the impacts on • how likely are the impacts and consequences?   moorland), or the repair and enhanced presentation (risk assessment) of a scheduled monument (for example, the impacts • how can these risks be managed or reduced?   of a greater number of visitors). (risk management). Risk assessment is about identifying the types, severity and likelihood of impacts that may affect a monument. If sound decisions are to be made as part of the riskmanagement process, the scale and rigour of risk assessment will be in direct proportion to the number, complexity and uncertainty of those impacts. Risk management is the wider activity that includes decisions on how to tackle risks, the actions to be taken to mitigate their effects, and the monitoring and evaluation of the outcome of those actions. Risk-based methods enable: • consideration of the end consequences of a variety of options and actions • a common approach to examining patterns and different types of risk • decision-making. Hazards, risk and assumptions are documented and can be communicated to stakeholders • a basis for risk to be recognised, reduced, shared, transferred or accepted • the reduction of ‘surprise’ • more opportunities for identifying mechanisms for mitigating risk • creative thinking and the contribution of specialist expertise to risk mitigation • wider recognition of an issue or problem and a common approach to uncertainty • better decision-making and therefore the better use of resources. Within the historic environment, four inter-related classes of risk may be identified: 1 Natural hazards: the physical realisation of natural hazards. These include both event-based phenomena, such as storms or flooding, which may accelerate decay and loss, and the longer-term processes of natural decay caused by various physical, chemical and biological agencies. 2 Human hazards: the likelihood and physical consequences of human action can be very obvious,

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in96 96

Nevertheless, the sum outcome of a policy, programme or activity depends upon the combination of all four types of risk. Almost all risk models as applied to the historic environment require testing and validation over a considerable period of time, and not all processes can necessarily be represented by models in a dependable way. Decisions based on incomplete or inaccurate models may not have the desired outcome, and this needs to be borne in mind during the decision-making process as it may well affect the preferred option. For example, during the formal consideration of planning proposals, some environmental decision-making can be guided by the ‘precautionary principle’, which assumes a worst-case scenario should approval be given (for example, that cave formations will collapse should quarry blasting take place near by). The precautionary principle recognises that many models are not wholly reliable, and that the consequences of an incorrect decision could be too catastrophic to accept any degree of risk. The properties of some systems allow for the likelihood of events to be calculated with a high degree of confidence or probability – for example, tossing a coin. Within the historic environment, however, few such simple systems exist and much risk assessment has to be based upon professional judgement and first-hand experience of the relationship between event and consequence. One of the purposes of carrying out risk assessment is to understand and address this uncertainty within the decision-making process, and in turn, to assess the risk and possible consequences which are attached to consideration of a variety of options. Ideally, the preferred option is the one with the most attractive future performance, yet unfortunately the availability of resources is often a major constraint on choice, and many decisions are based through force of circumstances on risk reduction rather than risk removal (for example, the temporary propping of a ruined structure, rather than long-term consolidation). A tiered approach to risk assessment is normally adopted, which begins with the broadest possible view of the problem or issue. All risks that could have a bearing on the eventual decisions are identified at the outset, in conjunction with the options for mitigating their effects

19/11/2010 15:16:14

12  Assessing and managing risk: SMAR and COSMIC projects, England

97

(‘risk screening’). It may be possible to discount some risks as insignificant, yet others will be regarded as important due to the likelihood and scale of their consequences (‘risk prioritisation’).

importance, and the identification of appropriate management measures. In the first instance, we will focus on risk assessment within the Schedule of protected monuments.

To date, risk studies in the historic environment have been based mainly upon the preparation of broad-brush ‘conservation audits’ or ‘risk registers’ (for example, BAR), and these studies have emphasised qualitative factors as well as the value of quantitative data for trend mapping. In conclusion, risk assessment aids decisions at the riskmanagement stage on whether to tolerate, avoid, control, mitigate or transfer the risk, and it allows the selection between different options on the basis of their risk profiles. Risk assessment is not, however, an end in itself and it is only of value if followed by risk management.

SMAR in the East Midlands of England The SMAR pilot project developed within the East Midlands region of England represented the first essential step towards realising this objective, prior to its eventual extension and adoption as a high-priority national heritage initiative.

This brief discussion of risk principles draws on the guidance document Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance (MAFF 2000), which helpfully summarises a number of standard reference works on the subject of risk. Risk and the archaeological resource Risk assessment and risk management as applied to the archaeological resource within the context of the historic environment are still very much in their infancy, and further developmental work is necessary before methodologies can become consistently and universally adopted. The principal unit of study for such assessments may be based on geo-political areas (for example, an administrative region), distinctive types of landscapes (for example, wetlands), or a particular group of heritage assets defined by asset class, period, geography or designation. Condition trend monitoring, examining patterns of change and loss, and identifying appropriate performance indicators are themes common to all such studies, and these are linked consistently by an over-arching aspiration for the sustainable management of the resource. Representing an investment by English Heritage of around €1.2 million, the Monuments at Risk Survey of England (MARS) (Darvill & Fulton 1998) was a census of 5% of all recorded archaeological monuments, whether scheduled or not, contained within a carefully designed series of sample transects selected throughout England. The English Heritage strategy document Pathways to Protecting the Past (1998) set out a number of objectives for tackling the findings and recommendations of the MARS report. These objectives were categorised as matters concerned principally with: • • • • •

the size of the resource countering destruction land use and natural erosion designation and protection public benefit, access to information and monitoring.

Under the heading of ‘countering destruction’, and following a statement on the intended approach to high-risk monuments, it was stated that English Heritage would: Consider how best to deal with the 28% of monuments (c. 65,000) at medium risk, including methods of rapid risk assessment to identify medium risk monuments, the assessment of relative

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in97 97

Encompassing 15,630 km2 of land (12% of England’s land area) and inhabited by some 4.2 million people (7% of the national population), the East Midlands region features a diverse range of landscapes, land uses, types of scheduled monuments, and natural and human agencies of erosion and destruction (Fig. 12.1). As a consequence, it was considered to be representative of the range of environments, situations and processes likely to be encountered within the other regions of England. Although MARS had been a major landmark report and highly influential at a strategic level, it had not provided a practical way forward for addressing the conservation management needs of individual archaeological sites. Those sites deemed to be of national archaeological importance and designated as scheduled monuments were regarded by English Heritage as the logical starting point for a follow-on initiative – particularly as English Heritage has a statutory duty to secure the preservation of these monuments, and in view of the ever-increasing need to prioritise management endeavour against a backdrop of non-increasing resources. MARS had observed that in general terms scheduling was working as a means of reducing the rate of decay (Darvill & Fulton 1998, 228). Nevertheless, the numbers of scheduled monuments perceived by MARS to be at high risk was shown to be slightly higher, at 3%, than the national average for the sample of archaeological monuments as a whole at 2% (that is, including non-designated sites). The difference was regarded as small, and not surprising in view of the fact that scheduling is sometimes carried out to protect monuments recognised as being at high risk, thereby increasing the number in this category. MARS also noted that the majority of scheduled monuments are at low risk, 75% compared with 50% for non-scheduled examples. This was considered to be a reflection of the procedures involved in the selection of monuments for scheduling, which tend to favour the best-preserved and most important monuments (Darvill & Fulton 1998, 228). SMAR was designed to test and further explore the validity of these observations, and more specifically, to generate strategic and site-level management information for scheduled monuments in the East Midlands region, together with the development of methodologies that could be adopted universally within the other English Heritage administrative regions. The project design identified four primary objectives: • to evaluate the condition, amenity value and setting of schedued monuments in the region and the extent to which they are at risk • to test methodologies of risk assessment

19/11/2010 15:17:00

98

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 12.1  Types of land use in the East Midlands region of England. © English Heritage

• to establish priorities for action and monument management • to act as a pilot for a national SMAR survey. The SMAR pilot project commenced in August 2001 and followed the familiar stages of data collection, collation, analysis, interpretation and reporting. Methodologies of data handling were extensively tested, with some 39 pieces of information (Table 12.1) being collated for each scheduled monument based on a combination of existing historic environment records, existing knowledge, desktop assessment, and, where necessary, the evaluation of some monuments at first hand. All monuments were categorised into one of three risk bands (high, medium or low) based on a combination of key factors (land use, condition, condition trend, vulnerability), and as an aid to professional judgement, a method of rapid risk assessment was developed using a ‘risk decision tree’. An understanding of condition dynamics (condition trend) was regarded as particularly significant, as a monument in poor yet improving condition might be at lower risk than a monument in better, yet declining condition – a point which underlines the importance of time-series data. The study systematically assessed all 1,493 scheduled monuments in the region and its results (English Heritage 2006) demonstrated that with 35% of monuments at risk, there was an urgent need for management action before more fabric was damaged or lost. SMAR assessed not only the condition of each monument’s fabric (whether buried or upstanding remains), but also included an initial evaluation of its setting and amenity value. The setting of a monument is its surroundings and is usually fundamental to forming an understanding and appreciation of the site

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in98 98

itself. Amenity value is what the visitor can appreciate of the monument when visiting the site. Clearly inappropriate development or land use next to a scheduled monument can be an eyesore, or can lead to the site becoming an ‘island’, cut off from its surroundings. Other impacts such as traffic, noise and dust from nearby mineral extraction can also spoil the enjoyment of visitors. 

Table 12.1 Location

Scheduled Monument Number, Scheduled Monument Name, County, District / Unitary / National Park, Parish, Ordnance Survey Grid Reference, English Heritage Region Type Monument Class, Monument Form, Monument Tripartite Form (Earthwork / Other Field Monument / Standing Structure), Period, Other Designations Local Circumstances Ownership, Land Use On, Land Use Around, Class Consents, Ownership Notes Condition

Management Risk Scoring General

Fabric Condition, Fabric Condition Trend, Fabric Vulnerability, Setting Contrast, Setting Appearance, Setting Perception, Setting Vulnerability, Setting Vulnerability Notes, Amenity Value Visibility, Amenity Value Physical Accessibility, Amenity Value Intellectual Accessibility, Photographs Management Action, Management Prescription, Management Notes Data Source, Date of Last Visit, Risk Assessment, Risk Assessment Date, Compiler Notes

19/11/2010 15:17:05

12  Assessing and managing risk: SMAR and COSMIC projects, England

The text box below summarises the key findings from the East Midlands’ pilot study.

99

Agriculture Trees & Shrubs Decay & Neglect

RESULTS OF THE EAST MIDLANDS PILOT SURVEY Condition

Risk

Vulnerability

Risk and land use

Legislation

Amenity value

Setting

Designation

Problems were noted on 35% of scheduled monuments, and 13% were in a wholly unsatisfactory condition. Condition was in decline for a quarter of monuments, and only 5% were improving. 13% of monuments were at high risk in the short term and 22% were at medium risk. Consequently, more than one-third were in need of urgent action to prevent deterioration, loss or damage. 26% of scheduled monuments were at risk from agriculture (mainly ploughing and erosion caused by stock), 20% were vulnerable to unmanaged tree and scrub growth, with 13% prone to decay and neglect and 4% threatened by development, mineral extraction and forestry. 71% of high-risk monuments were located in cultivated land, 13% in grassland, and 8% on developed or urban land, and 6% are in woodland. Ancient monument legislation permitted potentially damaging activities (ploughing, horticulture, forestry, gardening) on all or parts of 16% of scheduled monuments. 81% of monuments were visible and 8% partly visible. Buried remains alone survive for 11%. 31% were fully accessible to the public, but 44% had no public access. Detailed on-site interpretation was available at only 2% of monuments, 10% have some interpretation, and 88% had none available on-site. An initial appraisal of the setting of monuments suggested that 17% included many features of more recent date, 51% had some modern features, and 32% had no modern features. In 60% of cases the monument’s setting had changed substantially since the monument was constructed or in use. Partial changes in setting had occurred in 27% of cases. In 2% of cases it was considered to be unchanged. Monuments within National Park and Environmentally Sensitive Area boundaries are generally at lower risk than the regional average. Risk is not significantly reduced on land holdings in the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and monuments within the boundaries of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

Burrowing Animals Development Forestry Mineral Extraction Other No Known Threat

Fig. 12.2  Sources of risk to scheduled field monuments in the East Midlands region of England. © English Heritage

to extend SMAR to the other English regions as part of a wider ‘Historic Environment at Risk’ initiative. Furthermore, it provided incontrovertible evidence of a series of key issues for the future development of conservation policy and legislative reform, particularly the substantial number of scheduled monuments where the principal vulnerability to their condition is agriculture – most notably arable cultivation (Fig. 12.2). COSMIC Trow (this volume) has described the approach that has been taken by English Heritage, in partnership with other organisations, in its attempts over the past decade to address the impacts of arable cultivation on the archaeological resource. Building on the platforms provided by the Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes (Oxford Archaeology & Defra 2002) and the SMAR pilot project, the ambitious Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation project was undertaken in the East Midlands region, as a tendered and commissioned project from Oxford Archaeology (Oxford Archaeology 2006a), with joint sponsorship from English Heritage together with (and significantly) the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). COSMIC was designed to: • develop, test and deliver a reliable and integrated risk assessment and mitigation model for archaeological sites in cultivation • qualify the actual threat from a sample of sites in the East Midlands • develop an effective methodology for the wider application of the model • provide information to assist the future targeting of resources by Defra and English Heritage.

Completed and launched in 2006, the East Midlands During a two-year period, a sample of 116 archaeoSMAR study made several important recommendations. It logical sites in arable cultivation was examined by the emphasised the importance of working in partnership with project, comprising 77 scheduled monuments (that is, landowners, local authorities and other bodies; it sought 48% of the 159 under arable cultivation in the East to establish parity between resources and mechanisms Midlands region) together with 39 non-scheduled sites. for reducing the risk to scheduled monuments with those The participation of farmers was voluntary and required already in place throughout the public sector for addressing the granting of permission for carrying out fieldwork biodiversity targets; it identified targets for reducing the and the completion of a questionnaire on past and types and degree of risk to scheduled monuments in the current agricultural practices on their holdings. First, a East Midlands region; and it committed English Heritage desk-based risk assessment was undertaken based upon

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in99 99

19/11/2010 15:17:05

100

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 12.3  Codnor Castle, Derbyshire. Funding for the consolidation of this substantial medieval ruin, which was at high risk, was provided by UK Coal as a condition of planning permission for the nearby extraction of coal. © Jon Humble, English Heritage

the farmer questionnaires, historic environment records, geological, soils and topographic information. During this preliminary stage, three different risk-assessment models were considered. Secondly, there was a stage of fieldwork and revised assessment based upon a combination of walkover survey, augur survey and test-pitting followed by a re-testing of the risk models and any underlying assumptions. During this stage of the work more than 800 test pits were excavated in order to examine the character and depth of the soil over-burden above the in-situ archaeological horizons. Thirdly, the results of entering data into the various risk-assessment models were cross-compared with each other and also compared with the ‘real risk’ as observed during fieldwork – a process sometimes referred to as ‘ground-truthing’. It became apparent that most farmers had underestimated the depth of ground disturbance caused by ploughing, many were not clear on the precise location and national importance of archaeological sites located on their land, and in some cases farmers had perhaps unwittingly undertaken damaging activities such as sub-soiling

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in100 100

and pan-busting. In many cases, soil types, cultivation depths and the quality of preservation of archaeological remains were found to differ from the initial desk-based assessments. Not surprisingly, cropping regimes and landdrainage practices were often found to have changed significantly over time. In combination these factors led to the real risks of being both under- and over-estimated at the pre-fieldwork stage. Finally, the key factors influencing the relative effectiveness of the various predictive models were identified, leading to the development of a final risk model that was eventually confirmed, on the basis of available data, as being accurate and therefore reliable and dependable in about 80% of cases. The results enabled comparison between scheduled and non-scheduled sites, with important implications for the conservation management of individual sites and the future structure and deployment of agri-environment schemes. The majority of project sites were at risk from cultivation, with scheduled sites being at slighter higher risk than non-scheduled sites (79% compared with 75% at moderate, high or serious risk).

19/11/2010 15:17:08

12  Assessing and managing risk: SMAR and COSMIC projects, England

For each COSMIC site, a series of management and mitigation options was devised that could be tested against farmer reactions. As a cost-effective and practical option, in many cases it was proposed that cultivation could be continued, although to a carefully specified and restricted depth in order to provide adequate protection to the archaeological resource – either by reducing the depth of ploughing, or through the use of direct drilling or minimum tillage techniques that do not physically invert the soil. In such circumstances, the effectiveness of compliance monitoring with depth restrictions was considered to be an important issue (McAvoy 2002). In some cases, however, arable reversion or direct drilling were regarded as the only option for preserving the archaeological resource in situ – particularly if the prerogative was to arrest the erosion of upstanding earthworks, as now confirmed by the Trials project (Holyoak this volume). In addition to its clear potential for enhancing archaeological conservation, minimum tillage, that is, depth-limited or non-inversion cultivation (sometimes known as ‘conservation tillage’), is widely regarded as having potential advantages to the famer that include reduced energy and labour costs, enhanced soil moisture retention, together with the retention of plant cover which can have the positive effect of reducing soil erosion. The COSMIC project reported its findings in 2006 (Oxford Archaeology 2006b) and the risk model has since been adopted by Defra and other public-sector organisations in England as the primary mechanism for assessing the risks to archaeological sites in arable cultivation – particularly with regard to risk reduction via one of the agri-environment schemes, such as Environmental Stewardship, that provide for financial incentivisation, and require whole farm management planning and crosscompliance across all of a farm holding. In particular, the development of the COSMIC risk model, and confirmation that arable reversion was not the only option for securing the enhanced conservation of archaeological sites under arable cultivation, were vital steps forward. SMAR and the national perspective Upon completion of the East Midlands SMAR pilot project, it was acknowledged by English Heritage that the methodology had struck a highly effective balance between the resource requirements of data collection and analysis, and the strategic and conservation value

101

of the results – especially with regard to providing the much-needed evidence-base to landowners, government and other organisations that urgent action was necessary to prevent further damage or loss. The initiative provided a reliable means for prioritising management action according to the degree of recognisable risk to individual sites, together with information on the types of natural and human agency that were causing sites to be vulnerable, thereby enabling appropriate strategic responses. Importantly, the evidence had been collected by the systematic assessment of all scheduled monuments according to a consistent methodology. Completion of SMAR projects across the eight other English regions for all 19,703 scheduled monuments, and incorporation of the results within a wider ‘Heritage At Risk’ initiative was duly identified as a corporate priority for English Heritage – a major undertaking that commenced in 2005 and was completed in 2008 (English  Heritage 2009b). The study confirmed that the diversity of landscape, landuse practice and ownership are reflected by significant regional variations in the condition, condition trend and risk to scheduled monuments (Fig. 12.4). In the East of England, arable cultivation is the main cause of unsatisfactory condition, yet in the SouthWest it is plant and scrub growth, and forestry and cultivation were identified as the principal causes in Yorkshire and the Humber region. A little over half of all scheduled monuments (53%) were assessed as being in stable condition, although 30% were considered to be in decline. The combined regional studies demonstrated that 23% were at high risk of loss or damage to fabric, and 31% were at medium risk. The national survey showed that the principal vulnerability for 30% of monuments was unmanaged natural processes, and 21% were at risk from agriculture – yet only 3% were considered to be vulnerable to development. It is important to note that although protected by ancient monuments legislation and the planning process, most scheduled monuments do not have economically beneficial uses, and there is no legal mechanism for enforcing their management in favourable condition. In both these respects, the circumstances for scheduled monuments differ significantly from the 500,000 or so individual historic buildings, structures and related items

Fig. 12.4  Principal sources of risk to scheduled monuments in England (a) and its component regions (b). © English Heritage

Agriculture Development and urbanisation Forestry Mineral extraction Natural process No threat Other

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in101 101

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

Other No Threat Natural Process Mineral Extraction Forestry Development Agriculture

Ea st E a Mid st l of and En s gl an Lo d nd No on rth No Ea rth st W So es ut t h So Ea s W uth t es W t M es id t la Yo nds rk sh ire

No data

19/11/2010 15:17:08

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

102

(for example, bridges, milestones, etc) that are protected under other UK legislation, specifically the Planning [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act 1990. Nevertheless, experience confirms that the large majority of owners of scheduled monuments are willing to improve site management if it is financially viable. The implications for English Heritage of SMAR have been profound. SMAR has provided vital strategic information towards the ongoing process of Heritage Protection Reform (Trow this volume), and there has been a welcome recognition by government at all levels and among grant-giving bodies that SMAR provides an appropriate framework for targeting resources towards the conservation of scheduled monuments. Increasingly this has occurred within approaches that seek to integrate cultural heritage with nature- and landscape-­conservation interests, with outcomes that can be judged in terms of their public benefits and, if appropriate, suitably publicised. Since 2008 an annual Heritage At Risk report has been published by English Heritage which lists historic buildings, scheduled monuments, historic areas, places of worship, historic parks and gardens, battlefields and maritime-wreck sites that are considered to be at significant risk, thereby raising the public and political profile of the challenges. The report highlights successful conservation projects alongside cases that have yet to be resolved. Methodologies of site monitoring and the processes for updating and further refining the SMAR database are under ongoing review, and practical experience of riskreduction methods is steadily expanding. In conjunction with site-specific endeavour, strategic initiatives which tackle a number of monuments under a common theme (for example, a particular type of monument, agency of vulnerability, geographical area, monuments in common ownership, etc) have proved to be particularly successful in the East Midlands pilot region (English Heritage 2009b, 14), a pattern which is now emerging nationally. COSMIC II Following the success of the COSMIC project, and the widespread adoption within agri-environment schemes

of the risk model it had developed as the principal device for assessing the vulnerability of and options for archaeological sites in arable cultivation, and for targeting necessary resources, COSMIC II has four key aims: • to complete the assessment for all 159 scheduled monuments in the East Midlands under cultivation. A total of 77 scheduled monuments had been assessed by the first COSMIC project, so a further 82 monuments would be assessed by COSMIC II, but without site visits • identify the methodology and resource requirements for extending the approach nationally • to work with partners and landowners to identify practical approaches for delivering enhanced management for scheduled monuments under cultivation • to prepare management proposals for all 159 scheduled monuments under cultivation in the East Midlands that are informed by the results of the Trials project. Commencing in 2009, data were collected by Oxford Archaeology for COSMIC II from soil survey, geological and topographic maps, meteorological records, site files and from aerial photographic records that had been captured during the past seven decades. The approach has provided valuable evidence of land-use change over time, together with concomitant changes in the survival of upstanding archaeological remains. Informed by the results of the Trials project (see Holyoak this volume), revised management proposals for all 159 East Midlands scheduled monuments in cultivation now feature a higher proportion of recommendations for non-inversion tillage than for the first COSMIC project, and there are fewer occasions where arable reversion is regarded as the only viable option for enhancing site management (Fig. 12.5). At the time of writing, work continues on COSMIC II particularly with regard to the identification of practical approaches for securing enhanced management. This component of the project is being undertaken in conjunction with an agronomist acting as an intermediary

Fig. 12.5  Number and type of management recommendations made with regard to archaeological monuments assessed by the COSMIC project in the East Midlands region of England. © English Heritage 100 90

Number of sites

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 None

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in102 102

Entire field under pasture

Earthwork under pasture

Direct drilling only Non-inversion tillage

Other

19/11/2010 15:17:09

12  Assessing and managing risk: SMAR and COSMIC projects, England

in order to examine owner attitudes and the willingness of farmers to implement changes to management practices. Although all scheduled monuments are of equal national importance in the eyes of the law, a grading methodology based on condition and significance is under development that will in due course allow effective targeting and prioritisation of mitigation measures to those sites in greatest need. Shortage of human and financial resources for enhancing management will inevitably require mitigation measures to be implemented in stages. In the light of this experience, the final – but perhaps the most important – stage of COSMIC II will then review the implications for Heritage Protection Reform. In particular, it will provide an estimate of the resources needed for enhancing management practice if new legislation was to gradually revoke the automatic consent for the continuation of established agricultural operations (‘Class Consent 1’) on or around a site – the situation that currently applies to the majority of scheduled monuments (see Trow this volume). Pastures new SMAR and COSMIC are highly practical approaches that seek to achieve a workable, realistic balance between the resource requirements of risk assessment and risk management, and the extent to which there are popular and political mandates for the aims that they seek to address. In some respects the comparative simplicity of the methodologies has contributed to their uptake as approaches that can be readily understood by non-specialist audiences. Although yet to match the outstanding success of biodiversity doctrine for the nature conservation lobby, Heritage at Risk and SMAR as a component of Heritage at Risk have already gained widespread acceptance as the appropriate framework for targeting resources towards cultural heritage and archaeological resource management. Nevertheless, looking to the future and pastures new, much work remains to be undertaken, especially with regard to sites and landscapes of archaeological interest that are not designated (and irrespective of whether or not they are in cultivation) – either because they have yet to be assessed for designation, or because the decision has been taken not to designate, or because they fall outside of the scope of the definitions and criteria of the current legislation. With regard to the very considerable extra resources that SMAR and COSMIC have helped to secure for archaeological resource management from government, agencies and other organisations, there is no doubt that the investment in England towards developing these projects has already been repaid many times over. English Heritage is therefore pleased to commend the methodologies and would encourage other state agencies to consider carefully the potential merits of developing comparable approaches – tailored whenever

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in103 103

103

and wherever necessary according to local circumstances, legislation and practices. Acknowledgements The Scheduled Monuments at Risk pilot project in the East Midlands region was undertaken by Jon Humble and Kate Fearn, with Steve Trow and Phil Ellis. The pilot project and the eight other regional Scheduled Monuments at Risk projects were funded by English Heritage. Vince Holyoak coordinated the national programme of projects. The COSMIC project was commissioned from Oxford Archaeology with funding from English Heritage and the government Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. COSMIC II is currently being undertaken by Oxford Archaeology with funding from English Heritage. Particular thanks are owed to Klara Spandl, Carl Champness and Jill Hind at Oxford Archaeology, and to the steering group for the COSMIC projects. [email protected] References CLG/DCMS 2010: Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. The Stationery Office and Department for Communities and Local Government, London. Darvill, T. & Fulton, A. 1998: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England, 1995: Main Report. Bournemouth University and English Heritage, Bournemouth and London. English Heritage 1998: Pathways to Protecting the Past. English Heritage, London. English Heritage 2006: Scheduled Monuments at Risk: East Midlands Region. English Heritage, London English Heritage 2009a: Conservation Principles. Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment. English Heritage, London. English Heritage 2009b The Monuments at Risk Initiative 2003-08. (Online) www.helm.org.uk McAvoy, F. 2002: Archaeology beneath and within the ploughsoil, a case study. In Oxford Archaeology & Defra, The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes Project. BD 1701, CSG15, Final Project Report. Defra, London. MAFF 2000: Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, London. Oxford Archaeology 2006a: Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC). For English Heritage and Defra. http://randd.defra.gov.uk/ document.aspx?Document=BD1704_3769_FRA.pdf Oxford Archaeology 2006b: Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC). Full report for English Heritage, June 2006. http://sciencesearch. defra.gov.uk/Document.aspx?Document=BD1704_ 3769_FRA.pdf Oxford Archaeology & Defra 2002: The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes. BD1701, CSG15, Final Project Report. Defra, London.

19/11/2010 15:17:09

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in104 104

19/11/2010 15:17:09

13  |  The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS)   and archaeology Hugh Carey and Ann Lynch Abstract: The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) was introduced in the Republic of Ireland in 1994 and is now in its fourth phase. Although not primarily directed towards the protection of archaeological monuments REPS has, despite some shortcomings, acted as a channel of archaeological information to the farming community. It is hoped that progress made in this regard will not be lost in years to come.

Introduction This article will examine The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS), the agri-environment scheme offered to farmers in the Republic of Ireland. Two schemes (the Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme and the Organic Farming Scheme) available to farmers in Northern Ireland and administered by the Northern Irish government are not discussed here. In order to set REPS in context, however, a brief description of the entire island of Ireland will be helpful.

by a number of detached hill and mountain blocks and ringed by a broken rim of distinctive upland areas’. (Aalen 1997).

Ireland consists of a central lowland comprising about one-third of the landmass. This lowland area is ‘interrupted

The land area of the Republic of Ireland is 6.9 million hectares, out of which 4.2 million hectares are used

The climate is moist, with low annual temperature ranges. The nature of the climate and the soils in many areas has led to the predominance today, and in the past, of livestock production based on permanent pasture, with pockets of arable farming particularly in the south-east and parts of the north.

Fig. 13.1  Knockaunbaun, Connemara, Co. Galway. Stone pair in sheep pasture. © Hugh Carey

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in105 105

19/11/2010 15:17:13

106

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

for agriculture and a further 697,850 hectares are under forestry. Grassland accounts for 80% of the agricultural area; rough grazing accounts for 11%; and crops for 9%. The average farm size is 32 hectares, with almost 50% of farms being less than 20 hectares. Farms in the southeastern quarter of Ireland tend to be the largest, with the majority of farms being in the 15 to 25 hectare bracket elsewhere. Most farms of less than 15 hectares in extent are to be found on or near the west coast. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, the trend in Ireland, as supported directly by the EU, was towards increased production based on the single-dimension concept of price competitiveness, that is, more food was to be produced for more money. This led to widespread reclamation of large swathes of the countryside, resulting in extensive drainage works, the removal of hedgerows and, of course, the destruction of archaeological monuments that stood in the way of intensive mechanised farming. As internal and world markets failed to accommodate the increased output, the necessity of placing the surplus in intervention was determined as a safety valve in the stabilisation of price control. The growing awareness of the effects of this policy in terms of maintenance and disposal of this food mountain, coupled with the wider environmental consequences, saw a gradual shift away from it in the early 1990s, when a series of measures was introduced by the EU to enable member states to cut back production and focus on the ‘multi-functional’ role of farming. One of these measures involved the establishment in Ireland in 1994 of the Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS). Under this scheme, participants agreed to farm their land according to a five-year agri-environment plan prepared in consultation with an approved adviser. Farmers had to comply with 11 basic measures, which required them to: • • • • • • • • • • •

have a farm-nutrient management plan have a grassland management plan protect and maintain all watercourses and wells retain wildlife habitats maintain farm and field boundaries restrict the use of pesticides and fertilisers protect features of historical and/or archaeological interest maintain and improve the visual appearance of the farm and farmyard produce tillage crops in an environmentally friendly manner become familiar with environmentally friendly farming practice maintain farm and environmental records.

In return, farmers were given an annual grant to subsidise the measures needed to meet the requirements of the plan. In this paper, the evolution of the scheme over its four phases will be discussed from the point of view of the National Monuments Service (NMS) of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. REPS 1 In 1993, the Minister for Agriculture presented proposals to government for the implementation of the EU’s agri-

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in106 106

environment programme in Ireland. Shortly thereafter the proposals were submitted to the NMS for comment and after some preliminary exchanges of views, NMS was asked to respond to a proposal in a draft document from the European Commission, which aimed ‘To retain/ maintain features of archaeological/historical interest’. In a detailed response, the NMS drew the Department of Agriculture’s attention to a booklet entitled Irish Field Monuments (Manning 1985), which gave a broad outline of the general range of archaeological monuments to be found in the state. In its response, the NMS divided monuments into upstanding, less well-defined, levelled and cropmark categories. A code of practice was advocated for all categories: discouraging the continuous movement of animals across upstanding monuments; ruling out ground disturbance within 15m of all monuments and advising caution in the use of heavy machinery near them, with temporary fencing being advised if needs be, to protect the monument. A switch from pasture to tillage was discouraged in areas where less well-defined monuments existed, as were land reclamation, removal of field boundaries and afforestation. The prohibition on ground disturbance was removed in the case of cropmark sites and destroyed monuments in tillage, where the ‘existing form’ of ploughing was to be allowed, unless a monument had very recently been destroyed. However, deep ploughing was totally prohibited. In addition, farmers and the planners who would draw up their farm plans, were advised to consult the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) for their county and identify any monuments on their land. This advice from the NMS was accepted by the Department of Agriculture and formed the basis of Measure 7 in REPS 1, which bore the title, ‘Protect Features of Historical and Archaeological Interest’. A supplementary measure was added, which proposed an extra payment for farmers who facilitated public access to their land for ‘environmentally friendly leisure and sporting activities’. One of the suggested qualifying activities was ‘access to monuments and historic sites’. Having been launched in April 1994, REPS was reviewed by both the European Commission and the Department of Agriculture in early 1996. The Department of Agriculture asked the NMS to comment on the scheme to date. Although precise data were not available to quantify it, there was anecdotal evidence to suggest that REPS planners were not consulting the SMR and were not always fully aware of the archaeological potential of the farms they were assessing. Planners working for Teagasc, the Irish Agriculture and Food Development Authority, were generally seen to have some knowledge of archaeology but by contrast, planners working in the private sector seemed ill informed. Research subsequently carried out in the aftermath of REPS 1 confirmed that monuments were not being destroyed on a sample of REPS farms; that farmers in REPS were more aware of the statutory protections afforded to monuments but that there were problems with the identification of monuments and their inclusion on farm plans (Sullivan 2006). The SMR had by this time been

19/11/2010 15:17:13

13  The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and archaeology

107

Fig. 13.2  Monument in tillage field, with surrounding buffer area. © The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government

revised and under the terms of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 1994, it had become a statutory document and was renamed the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP). Every monument marked on the RMP had statutory protection and the state was to be notified of any works ‘at or in relation to’ any RMP site. It was therefore important from a legal, as well as a purely archaeological, point of view that monuments should be protected. In contrast to the advice given in the approach to REPS 1, which categorised monuments based on their condition (upstanding, less well-defined, levelled and cropmark sites), the NMS submission to the review of the scheme in 1996 suggested strategies which differed depending on whether the monuments were sited in pasture, tillage, woodland or wetland. The basic requirement for a buffer remained, although instead of a uniform 15m from the external perimeter of the monument, it was advised that monuments in grassland and woodland should receive a 20-m buffer and those in tillage should receive a 5-m buffer. Again, the advice stopped short of an absolute prohibition of ploughing over levelled or cropmark sites, although it was recommended that such sites should be taken out of tillage if possible. Common-sense advice was given against burning or dumping on monuments and against the use of historic buildings for housing livestock. In order to ensure that all planners would consult the RMP, it was recommended that the relevant extract from the RMP map was to be included in the farm plan, regardless of whether or not there were monuments on the farm. The NMS also asked that all applicants should avail themselves of the

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in107 107

option which incentivised the provision of public access to monuments on farms, and that these applications should be referred to the NMS for consideration. In May 1996, the revised specification for REPS 1 was issued but none of the suggested archaeological revisions were included. REPS 2 Some of the suggested revisions were included four years later in REPS 2, however, which was launched in November 2000. As in REPS 1, the core list of archaeological requirements included protection of monuments from damage by machinery or continuous movement of animals, but in line with the recommendations made by the NMS during the revision process some years before, buffer-area sizes were changed. Monuments in grassland were to have a buffer of 20m; those in tillage were to have a 5-m buffer. Farmers were required to undertake up to 11 basic measures, where they were applicable to their farm, with a twelfth mandatory management measure for those with land in Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) or Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). There was also the option to choose from three supplementary measures relating to the protection of rare breeds, taking areas immediately adjacent to rivers and lakes out of agricultural production (that is, putting them into ‘set-aside’) and conversion to organic farming. In a sample of 160 REPS farms studied after REPS 1, 64 previously unrecorded features of historical and archaeological interest were noted, only 11% of which had been recorded by REPS planners (Sullivan 2006). Perhaps in an attempt to address this shortcoming, the specifications for REPS 2 stated that ‘the planner shall list all historical and

19/11/2010 15:17:15

108

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

archaeological features in the agri-environmental plan’, suggesting that features should be recorded, whether or not they were on the RMP. A prohibition against the dumping of materials on monuments was also added to Measure 7. Where the edges of a monument were indistinct, it was recommended that clarification should be sought from the NMS. Farming and the Ancient Countryside (Stout 1996), a new booklet produced by the NMS in conjunction with Teagasc, which gave practical advice above and beyond the requirements of REPS, was recommended to applicants. REPS 3 In February 2004, the third phase of REPS (REPS 3) was launched. The management plan prescribed had not changed substantially since the earlier schemes, being based on the provision of a minimum 20-m buffer area, and the avoidance of continuous animal movements or the use of heavy machinery near monuments. The requirement, introduced but not clearly explained under REPS 2, that archaeological features identified on the farm but not officially recorded on the RMP maps should also be included in the farm plan, was stated clearly in the new phase. Under the title ‘Protect Features of Historical and Archaeological Interest’, Measure 7 outlined a more systematic approach to assessing the effect of existing farming practices on archaeological monuments and considering whether or not those practices were contrary to the aims of REPS. Two Optional Sub-Measures were also added. Option 7A allowed farmers to increase the buffer area to 30m in grassland and 7.5m in tillage. Option 7B allowed them to identify one archaeological monument on the RMP which was publicly accessible, and to maintain the points of public access to the monument as well as keeping it litter free. Participants were obliged to choose 2 options from a list of 16 and no extra payment was received for fulfilling their requirements. The archaeological options could be avoided altogether. REPS 4 In the lead-up to REPS 4 in 2006, the Department of Agriculture invited submissions from interested parties. In preliminary meetings between officials of the NMS and the Department of Agriculture it was made clear that any new archaeological proposal had to be cost neutral but that recommendations regarding management practices would be included in the new text for Measure 7. As a result, a proposal to create a new option for the smallscale repair of earthen monuments was not accepted but the procedures for removing invasive scrub and fallen trees, as well as other practical advice on the upkeep of monuments, was included. REPS 4, which is the current phase of the scheme and which was launched in July 2007, retained the core bufferarea provision (Measure 7) and increased buffer-area options (Option 7A) of REPS 3, but dropped the option allowing for the maintenance of public access (Option 7B). Measure 7 was also re-named ‘Establish Biodiversity Strips Surrounding Features of Historical and Archaeological Interest’.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in108 108

Besides their archaeological importance, the value of historic buildings as foci of faunal biodiversity and of earthen monuments as habitats for rare plants was stressed. This was a significant change in emphasis, which transformed the buffer area into something other than a way of protecting an archaeological monument. The protection of monuments was therefore in effect downgraded as an aim of the scheme, although the outcome on the ground was the same, provided nothing inappropriate was planted or allowed to establish itself in the biodiversity strip. The biodiversity strip is referred to as a ‘buffer zone’ frequently in the text of the measure and it is clear that in the minds of those who drafted it, Measure 7 was still aligned largely towards protecting archaeological monuments from damage. By making a connection between monuments and biodiversity, the Department of Agriculture kept the spirit of the measure in the face of the European Commission’s concerns about biodiversity and a view that protection of monuments was already being provided for by national legislation and should not be incentivised in an agri-environment scheme. This is not a legitimate concern. National Monuments legislation prohibits activities that would cause the destruction of, or damage to a monument. Works are forbidden ‘in proximity to’ monuments which are the subject of a Preservation Order or are Owned by or are in the Guardianship of the state. The term ‘proximity’ is not defined, however, and the legislation does not enforce buffers of a specific size around monuments nor does it oblige farmers to keep monuments tidy and scrub-free and see to their general upkeep. In fact none of the archaeological requirements of REPS are catered for by national legislation and there is no reason to exclude an archaeological measure on those grounds. Since REPS 2 it had been the case that previously unrecorded monuments should be marked on the farm plan. The new Measure 7 also recommended for the first time that the existence of these new sites should be reported to the NMS, for addition to the RMP. In addition, some headway was made in addressing two issues of concern that had arisen over the course of the various phases of the scheme, that is, the fencing-off of monuments and the ploughing of levelled or cropmark sites. It had become apparent as REPS progressed that farmers were being advised to fence off monuments in order to keep stock off them. This is not something advocated under REPS, although the temporary fencing-off of monuments is recommended in certain circumstances to prevent damage. It is possible that this recommendation was misunderstood and therefore found its way on to a training DVD used by REPS planners, as a fullyfledged recommendation to fence. Due to the lack of grazing, many of these fenced-off monuments attracted a dense cover of scrub and the accompanying problems associated with root action, windthrow and the provision of cover for burrowing animals and sheltering livestock. In REPS 4 it is clearly stated that monuments should not be fenced off and scrub generation should be prevented by appropriate levels of grazing. There is an incentive provided for the removal of existing scrub under an option in Measure 2, the Grassland and Soil Management Plan measure. It is too early to say whether or not this will

19/11/2010 15:17:16

13  The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and archaeology

109

Fig. 13.3  Browne’s Hill Portal Tomb, Co. Carlow. This National Monument is fenced off from the surrounding tillage field and receives regular maintenance to keep vegetation at bay. © Hugh Carey

lead to widespread removal of scrub from monuments but it is a step in the right direction.

continue, unless the monument had only recently been destroyed.

Levelled and cropmark sites, of which there are many in Ireland, have such low visibility on the ground that farmers find it hard to justify avoiding these locations. Since the introduction of REPS, farmers have been told to avoid ground disturbance, including deep ploughing, afforestation, removal of field boundaries and land reclamation at or on archaeological monuments. The introduction of tillage to archaeologically sensitive areas has been advised against.

There are good grounds for prohibiting ploughing of any sort across the sites of levelled monuments. Compaction, soil erosion and peat shrinkage will ensure that attempts to plough to the same depth every year are futile, as they combine with the weight of the machinery to push the plough further into the soil with every ploughing event (Oxford Archaeology 2002, 5–7). Shallow ploughing or direct drilling might be acceptable but machinery has become heavier in recent years and due to compaction, even land cultivated by means of those techniques will need to be deep ploughed occasionally to break up the soil and any gains to archaeology will be lost. A body of evidence from recent road schemes in Ireland, which has been published by the National Roads Authority (NRA) in a series of archaeological monographs, underlines again the potential for archaeological remains to come to light on farmland (though not always in tillage), where there was no surface trace of any monument (O’Sullivan 2003; O’Sullivan & Stanley 2004; O’Sullivan & Stanley 2006; O’Sullivan & Stanley 2007; Danaher 2007; Carlin et al. 2008; O’Sullivan & Stanley 2008; Johnston et al. 2008; McQuade et al. 2009; Stanley et al. 2009; Deevy & Murphy 2009).

REPS 1, 2 and 3 stated that monuments in tillage fields must be surrounded by an unploughed margin. This does not single out levelled or cropmark sites for special treatment and implies that they, too, were to get a buffer margin. Similarly, in REPS 4 levelled or cropmark sites are not mentioned specifically in the Planners Specification document but the Farmers Handbook states that: ‘All sites recorded on the Register [sic] of Monuments and Places, even where not visible must be protected by buffer strips.’ The buffer zone is to be an ‘uncultivated and unsown margin’, which might, according to the Planners Specifications, ‘become a refuge for rare plants’. This can be interpreted as a clear instruction that no ground disturbance can take place on any levelled or cropmark site and provides a prohibition on ploughing that, although implied, is absent from early phases of REPS and from guidance from the NMS, which advised that deep ploughing should never occur in an archaeological area but that the existing form of ploughing could

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in109 109

It is clear that there are occasions when ploughing should be ruled out, no matter what cultivation technique is suggested and no matter how long an area has been ploughed, if there is compelling evidence for a monument having existed on the site. It is now possible to make this prohibition under REPS 4.

19/11/2010 15:17:18

110

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 17.4  Feartagar Castle, Co. Galway. © Hugh Carey

Training The importance of training both for farmers and REPS planners became apparent early on in the scheme. In 1996 it came to the attention of NMS that many REPS planners had a low level of awareness of archaeological matters and were not making use of the SMR or the RMP as it became known after the passing of the National Monuments (Amendment) Act, 1994. Neither were they aware of the other legal protections afforded to the monuments. This was counteracted to some degree over the years by the publication by the Heritage Council, Teagasc and the NMS of guidelines, advice notes and other publications on the subject of archaeological monuments on farmland and by the attendance by many REPS planners at Environmental Management and other courses with an archaeological component. It has been impossible for the NMS – and private-sector archaeologists for that matter – to service the demand for REPS specific archaeological classes and lectures in a systematic way, and the archaeological input in many courses has come in the form of a somewhat dated, and as we have seen with regard to fencing, unreliable DVD. The training regime being rolled out under REPS 4 is more targeted and allows farmers to choose training that is relevant to their circumstances. It will hopefully be easier to meet the demand for training created by this approach.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in110 110

Conclusion It can be seen from this short history of REPS that its approach to the treatment of archaeological monuments on farms has evolved, albeit slowly, over the years since 1994. As one of 11 measures, archaeology could not really be said to be central to the scheme, as natural heritage concerns take precedence over built heritage ones. In the lead-up to REPS 4, Measure 7, which in previous phases of the scheme had been aimed at protecting features of historical and archaeological interest, was re-named in such a way as to make it primarily a biodiversity measure with side effects for archaeological monuments. In terms of the effect of REPS on Irish farming, the figures speak for themselves. The number of farmers involved in REPS has risen steadily. At present, there are about 62,000 farmers in the scheme, equating to about half of the farmed land of the country. From the start, the scheme adopted very basic measures for the protection of archaeological monuments, based on avoidance of damage due to groundworks and the movement of machinery and animals, by the provision of a buffer. This approach was quite effective and over the years additions were made to the various phases of the scheme, which made farmers and REPS planners think more deeply about how farming practices might affect monuments on the farm. Apart from the requirements of REPS and what they were told in training courses

19/11/2010 15:17:21

13  The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and archaeology

associated with the scheme, thousands of farmers received copies of Good Farming Practice and Archaeology (Stout & Keane 2003), and the other booklets and leaflets produced by the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Teagasc, which gave practical advice that went beyond the requirements of REPS. This is significant because even though Irish National Monuments legislation is strong, there has been no good channel for getting archaeological information to the farming community. The contribution by archaeologists to the process of designing REPS, though useful, has been sporadic, rather than routine, although there has been excellent contact over the years between individuals in the NMS, The Department of Agriculture and Teagasc. Perhaps because of the lack of ongoing, systematic contact at the organisational level, it has been hard to analyse and spot developments within the workings of the scheme and adjust it or to move it beyond basic measures. The trend towards fencing off monuments and the consequent generation of scrub, for example, would probably have been spotted if some degree of archaeological supervision or review had been built into the scheme, as would shortcomings in training programmes. The future In 2009 it was announced that, due to budgetary constraints, no new applications would be accepted for REPS 4 after 9 July of that year and that REPS would be discontinued once existing participants’ five-year contracts came to an end. From 2010, farmers emerging from REPS 3 and eventually those emerging from REPS 4 will be offered an alternative agri-environment scheme, which, as expected, is much reduced compared to REPS. Details have only recently emerged of this new AgriEnvironment Options Scheme (AEOS) but there is no measure aimed specifically at the preservation of archaeological remains. There is concern that if any progress was made towards heightening awareness of archaeology among farmers, it will slip away when REPS is gone. It will be a challenge to keep archaeology on the agenda in the lead-up to CAP post-2013. In Ireland, where the majority of our monuments are found in the rural landscape and where the survival of monuments is so high, the preservation of archaeological monuments should be a central aim of any agri-environment scheme. The future is uncertain, but at least four phases of REPS have left us with a large group of farmers who have some knowledge of archaeology and the idea that a monument on their land might be an asset. Scheme or no scheme, this is a foundation to build on for the future. [email protected] [email protected]

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in111 111

111

References Aalen, F.H.A. 1997: The Irish rural landscape: synthesis of habitat and history. In Aalen, F.H.A., Whelan, K. & Stout, M. (eds), Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape, 10. Cork University Press, Cork. Carlin, N., Clarke, L. & Walsh, F. (eds) 2008: Archaeology of Life and Death in the Boyne Floodplain: The Linear Landscape of the M4, Kinnegad-Enfield-Kilcock Motorway. National Roads Authority, Dublin. Danaher, E. 2007: Monumental Beginnings: The Archaeology of the N4 Sligo Inner Relief Road. National Roads Authority, Dublin. Deevy, M.B. & Murphy, D. (eds) 2009: Places Along the Way: First Findings on the M3. National Roads Authority, Dublin. Johnston, P., Kiely, J. & Tierney, J. (eds) 2008: Near the Bend in the River: The Archaeology of the N25 Kilmacthomas Realignment. National Roads Authority, Dublin. Manning, C. 1985: Irish Field Monuments. The Stationery Office, Dublin. McQuade, M., Molloy, B. & Moriarty, C. (eds) 2009: In the Shadow of the Galtees: Archaeological Excavations Along the N8 Cashel to Mitchelstown Road Scheme. National Roads Authority, Dublin. O’Sullivan, J. (ed.) 2003: Archaeology and the National Roads Authority: Proceedings of Two Seminars in 2002 on the Provision for Archaeological Works Within the National Roads Programme. National Roads Authority, Dublin. O’Sullivan, J. & Stanley, M. (eds) 2004: Recent Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes 2004. National Roads Authority, Dublin. O’Sullivan, J. & Stanley, M. (eds) 2006: Settlement, Industry and Ritual: Proceedings of a Public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes, September 2005. National Roads Authority, Dublin. O’Sullivan, J. & Stanley, M. (eds) 2007: New Routes to the Past: Proceedings of a Public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes, August 2006. National Roads Authority, Dublin. O’Sullivan, J. & Stanley, M. (eds) 2008: Roads, Rediscovery and Research: Proceedings of a Public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes, August 2007. National Roads Authority, Dublin. Oxford Archaeology 2002: The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes. Defra Project BD1701, Final Project Report, 5–6. Stanley, M., Danaher, E. & Eogan, J. (eds) 2009: Dining and Dwelling: Proceedings of a Public Seminar on Archaeological Discoveries on National Road Schemes, August 2008. National Roads Authority, Dublin. Stout, G. & Keane, M. 2003: Good Farming Practice and Archaeology. Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. Stout, G. 1996: Farming and the Ancient Countryside. Teagasc, Dublin. Sullivan, E. 2006: The archaeology of REPS – seeing is believing. In Proceedings of the Teagasc National REPS Conference 2006, 50–52. Teagasc, Carlow.

19/11/2010 15:17:22

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in112 112

19/11/2010 15:17:22

14  |  Archaeology, agriculture and environment   on the Burren Uplands, Ireland Christine Grant Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the issues facing the management of the archaeological resource on the Burren Uplands, one of the most important archaeological landscapes in Ireland. The Burren will require a dedicated archaeological conservation strategy but this should form part of an integrated management strategy for the wider landscape.

The Burren Uplands The Burren is a karst landscape located on the midwestern coast of Ireland (Fig. 14.1) and has an extraordinarily well-preserved natural and cultural heritage. The uplands cover an area of approximately 360sq km and have many regionally distinct characteristics in terms of geology, flora, archaeology and its traditional agricultural practices (Drew 1997).

The striking visual character of the landscape is due mainly to its geological formations, which are primarily of carboniferous limestone. Around 60% of the area is exposed bedrock and rocky pastureland. The rocky landscape that we see today is the result of glacial erosion, natural weathering and 6,000 years of agricultural activity. Karst features are formed by natural weathering of the bedrock, which results in the fractured bedrock surfaces known

Fig. 14.1  Location map showing Burren Uplands in the west of Ireland.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in113 113

19/11/2010 15:18:41

114

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

as pavements. The Burren boasts the most extensive area of limestone pavement in Europe (Webb & Glading 1998) and is characterised by its terraced hills, numerous turloughs (seasonal lakes) and cave systems, interspersed with fertile patches of drift-derived soils and natural sheltered depressions. The limestone environment has in turn had a strong influence on the character and location of its archaeological monuments. The Burren is best known for its flora and much of the landscape is now designated as Special Areas of Conservation under the EU Habitats Directive. Threequarters of all native Irish flower species can be found there, including rare and exotic varieties. The co-existence of many arctic-alpine species is a floral conundrum that would make the Burren a worthwhile area of study for ethno-botanists. The area is much frequented by researchers and tourists and is a place where the local communities are proud of their heritage. The Burren is listed as a vulnerable landscape by the local authority agency, Clare County Council (2005). The archaeological landscape The Archaeological Landscapes Project (ALP) was set up in 1999, initially as a commission from the Heritage Council of Ireland (HC), to evaluate the need for a landscape approach to protecting important archaeological areas. The project detailed the many issues involved in this complicated process (Cooney et al. 2002) and resulted in the compilation of a preliminary inventory of archaeological landscapes in Ireland (Cooney et al. 2001). The Burren is one of the landscapes identified by the project. Our current archive of monuments was compiled by the Archaeological Survey of Ireland (ASI). It is based on a desk-top study that was followed up by field survey. The field survey for the Burren was completed in 1999 but the records continue to be updated when new information becomes available (www.archaeology.ie). The Burren was recently sampled as part of a pilot study for the development of a national monitoring programme for archaeological sites, and analysis of the results is ongoing. The Burren Uplands is unparalleled in Ireland for the density, quality of preservation and close spatial association of its archaeological remains. The published Record of Monuments and Places (RMP) (Archaeological Survey of Ireland 1996) noted a total of 1,967 monuments on the Burren – 4.3 per sq km, which is three times the national average of 1.4 per sq km. As well as numerous individual monuments there are extensive tracts of associated field systems dating from the Neolithic period onward. Many of these ancient fields and settlement sites are preserved by their re-use as modern fields, thus making the archaeology an integral element of the contemporary landscape. Despite the large number of sites already documented on the Burren, research surveys have demonstrated that considerably more remain to be recorded. For example, an ongoing study in Kilcorney townland (Grant 2010) confirms the rewards of detailed mapping and field survey. The original RMP (1996) contained records of 5 monuments, including a field system, to which the ASI field survey was able to add another 18. A more recent

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in114 114

research survey, covering approximately half a square kilometre of the protected area, has now brought that total to 46 monuments. These are mainly settlement enclosures and house sites within the recorded field system. If this area had been cleared prior to the research study we would never have known the full significance of the remains. The Burren has unusually high concentrations of certain monuments types – for example 84 Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age wedge tombs (Archaeological Survey of Ireland 2010) and upwards of 130 cairns. This wealth of prehistoric monuments implies that the uplands have been a place of significance since the Neolithic at least. New discoveries continue to affirm this. For example, an unusually large (approximately 150-hectare) prehistoric hilltop enclosure identified in 2005 in the north Burren (Grant 2008) is one of the largest in Ireland (Grogan 2005). The history of antiquarian research on the Burren goes back to the 1800s but some of the most significant advances in our understanding of prehistoric (Jones 1998) and medieval (Comber & Hull 2008) settlement patterns have been made in the past 25 years. What survey and excavation have both shown is how the same areas and even the same monuments have been used and re-used for settlement from the prehistoric down to the historic period. The possibility of uninterrupted settlement becomes a stronger possibility with each new research project. For example, a previous gap in our knowledge relating to the Iron Age is now being filled in (Dowd 2007, Jones 2010). Management issues There are three main issues relating to the management of the archaeological resource on the Uplands: agricultural activity, scrub regeneration and tourism. It has been demonstrated that the regeneration of scrub is directly linked to changes in farming practices (Dunford 2002), so the key issue is agriculture. Tourism also has an impact but its full extent has not yet been scientifically researched. Agricultural activity The out-wintering of stock on high pastures and grazing on lower pastures in the summer months is a well-known aspect of traditional agricultural practice on the Burren. Its relatively benign impact has helped to maintain the high level of preservation of archaeological monuments, as well as to conserve floral diversity and species-rich grasslands. However, these traditional ways have been affected by changes in farming practice brought about by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Accepting the inevitability of change in the countryside (Fairclough 2002) is nevertheless central to developing appropriate mechanisms for managing its effects. A landmark study by Dunford (2002) assessed the impact of changes in traditional farming practice on the environment and local farming communities. It found that as a result of the CAP some traditional methods of farming were no longer sustainable. On the Burren a significant change from dry stock to suckler herds, requiring the use of supplemental feed, has resulted in reduced grazing on the winterages. A reduction in the viability of smaller landholdings has also led to a move to

19/11/2010 15:18:41

14  Archaeology, agriculture and environment on the Burren Uplands, Ireland

115

Fig. 14.2  Mature hazel trees in a megalithic tomb chamber. © C. Grant

part-time farming, and in some cases to small-scale land abandonment. Increased mechanisation has led to more labour-efficient farming that tends to focus development on the more accessible lowland areas (Dunford 2002). These changes have resulted in an imbalance in the ecosystem, characterised by a natural regeneration of hazel and blackthorn scrubland. Scrub regeneration Scrub regeneration is having a detrimental impact on the archaeological remains of the Burren as well as on its bio-diversity (ERA-Maptec et al. 2006). It is now evident that conservation of the archaeological heritage and wider environment will in future depend on more sympathetic farming practice. Since 1994 the Rural Environmental Protection Scheme (REPS) has been in operation in Ireland (see Carey & Lynch, this volume). It is an agri-environment scheme set up in response to EC regulations through the CAP reform package. It has been very beneficial for conserving archaeological remains in rural Ireland (O’Sullivan 1996). The unique agricultural practices of the Burren were acknowledged under this scheme (Department of Agriculture and Food 1995) and certain conditions were put in place for local participants. However, there are still restrictions on the flexibility of the traditional grazing patterns and there are many farmers who chose not to participate (Dunford 2002), including the owners of some of the largest landholdings. The current scheme has limitations in terms of the conservation of extensive archaeological areas or landscapes. The existing REPS scheme is now being phased out and its replacement does not include any archaeological measures at all. This means an uncertain future for archaeology on agricultural land. Instead, the new scheme is driven by

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in115 115

objectives relating to bio-diversity, climate change and water quality. The addition of archaeological objectives would not cut across these priorities, so their exclusion seems to be an unnecessary and retrograde step. The need for a new scheme streamlined to the particular needs of the unique Burren landscape had already been identified as a result of Dunford’s work. A fiveyear BurrenLIFE project (BLP) (www.burrenlife.com), established in 2005 with EU LIFE funding, has developed a new model for sustainable ‘conservation agriculture’. Involving a number of state agencies, the local authority and the Burren branch of the Irish Farmers Association, the BLP worked with farmers to test a number of alternative approaches on selected monitor farms. Their engagement is critical to future conservation initiatives on the Burren and it is therefore encouraging that conservation agriculture is now generally accepted as the best way forward by the local farming community (Dunford pers. comm.). A new agri-environmental scheme tailored for the Burren was launched in 2010 for an initial threeyear period. Its success rate will determine the future of agri-management on the Burren. The regeneration of scrub on the Burren has also been highlighted from a more specifically archaeological perspective. In 2005 the HC commissioned a report on habitats and archaeology on the Burren (Era-Maptec et al. 2006). With the aid of aerial photographs this showed that scrub had increased by 76% between 1975 and 2006. The impact of scrub growth on archaeological monuments was then assessed within a small number of sample study areas. In the rocky environment of the Burren, archaeological monuments often provide the best conditions for tree growth on account of their deeper

19/11/2010 15:18:43

116

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 14.3  Damage to settlement wall during clearance activity. © C. Grant

and damper soils and the often considerable shelter that they provide (Fig. 14.2). Field observation showed that trees had taken root directly on no fewer than 71% of monuments visited. Once established, trees can dislodge or crack structural stones and their root systems will disturb sub-surface remains. The level of damage will vary depending on the maturity and growth rate of the trees and on local grazing levels. Tree growth also has indirect impacts, for example by providing shelter for domesticated livestock seeking shelter and opportunities for wild animals such as badgers to dig their burrows. This is a pattern that will continue unless a successful management strategy can be implemented. The BLP has therefore developed a relationship with the County Monuments Advisor that includes a programme of mapping archaeological features on the monitor farms. This is a very important addition to the original design of the project and acknowledges the need for the integration of all aspects of the landscape in any measures for conservation. Scrub regeneration is also having a major impact on archaeology in pastureland, especially when it reduces the amount of land available for grazing and makes it difficult for farmers to gain access to their cattle. Mechanised clearance of scrubland, construction of farm roads and the location of supplemental feeding stations can all

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in116 116

have a direct impact on archaeological remains. General land clearance for the improvement of existing open pastureland has also become a problem in recent years. Many of these impacts occur where archaeological remains are subtle, for example low burial mounds or the foundations of ancient walls and settlement sites (Fig. 14.3). They are not easily recognised by landowners as archaeology and are therefore not considered to be of any significance. Other sites are completely overgrown by scrub and therefore not visible to people driving machinery, which makes them extremely vulnerable to damage. Tourism The impacts of tourism appear to be less extensive but on individual sites can be very detrimental. Erosion by people climbing on monuments is the most common problem, especially at the more popular sites. Damage to already fractured stones can also be exacerbated by pressure from tourists. A favourite pastime of tourists is to rearrange stones on monuments, particularly on cairns (Fig. 14.4). The Burren Connect project was established in 2007 by Clare County Council (www.burrenconnect.ie) with the aim of developing a model for sustainable visitor management. The project works closely with the local community and is very successfully raising awareness of the need for environmentally friendly tourism. It is currently devising guidelines for the proper assessment of monuments proposed for inclusion on walking trails, and

19/11/2010 15:18:45

14  Archaeology, agriculture and environment on the Burren Uplands, Ireland

117

Fig. 14.4  Prehistoric cairn damaged by tourists climbing over it and moving its stones to build a modern pillar on the top. © C. Grant

is considering a pilot project for restoring and maintaining damaged monuments. While providing an opportunity to highlight the problem of tourist impact on monuments, however, it has neither the remit nor resources to undertake scientific research on this issue. Protecting monuments Irish legislation is strong and provides blanket protection for all Recorded Monuments. However, the focus of management policies is on individual monuments and places. In areas like the Burren this is not always effective, especially given the proportion of unrecorded monuments. Ireland has ratified the European Landscape Convention and its archaeological community has been pushing for change in our approach to protecting archaeological areas and landscapes. In a place such as the Burren the need for a new approach is all too clear. Revised legislation and a new monuments bill will make provision for the designation of historic landscapes. Alongside a review of current practice and policy in the state heritage service, this is a significant step forward.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in117 117

But will it be enough to ensure effective conservation and management for the Burren and for other fragile landscapes? Legislation and policy by themselves are not enough to ensure protection. An effective, proactive management scheme must be developed. This will be best implemented at local level, in partnership with state authorities. Unless the policies of different environmental agencies are properly integrated any new archaeological legislation may have a limited impact. The HC has therefore identified the need for a National Landscape Act. This additional level of protection would be especially valuable in landscapes such as the Burren, in which all management agencies face the same issues and where it is impossible to separate archaeological and wider environmental impacts. ‘The recognition of archaeological landscapes should be an important aspect of any pro-active management strategy for the Irish archaeological resource’ (Cooney et al. 2002). In spite of much investment in research

19/11/2010 15:18:48

118

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

and calls for a different approach for the Burren the relevant agencies have not yet committed themselves to implement policies that will ensure more sustainable environmental management. What practical steps can be taken in the absence of an integrated management programme? A dedicated archaeological advisor for the Burren and for other special landscapes and areas would be a progressive start. An earlier programme of monument advisors, developed by the HC on a county basis, has proved very successful but has unfortunately been badly affected by recent cutbacks. The Archaeological Landscapes Project has shown that local authority planners generally see no problem with archaeological landscapes being integrated into county development plans. The project has also highlighted the fact that current planning legislation allows for the designation of ‘landscape conservation’ areas but that important landscapes such as the Burren have yet to be designated. Of the planners who responded to the ALP questionnaire, 75% see archaeology as a minor element of their day-to-day planning and 70% felt that the Record of Monuments and Places does not provide enough information for the purposes of development control and future planning. This is certainly an issue that can be addressed. There is also a role for archaeologists in this process. The success of recent research projects highlights the enormous potential of the Burren to address issues of archaeological theory at a national level. In the absence of an integrated research framework, research continues on a largely random basis, driven by the priorities of individual projects or researchers. There is also a strong argument for research projects to be engaging with broader conservation issues in their study areas. This could be achieved in a simple way by feeding information about impacted areas directly to the National Monument Service (NMS) for further assessment. At present, the long lapse of time between the completion of research projects and the availability of results means that valuable information is not always available to NMS at a time when policy is being formulated and updated. There is clearly a need for a more structured relationship between the various sectors of the archaeological community in this regard. There is also room for debate about the future role of university-level research, stimulated by the comprehensive outline of research priorities for Irish archaeology developed by the Heritage Council for Ireland (Heritage Council 2006). It is clear that Ireland needs a revised approach to the management of its historic landscapes at both national and local levels. However, EU common agricultural policy also has an important role in this and should acknowledge the need for integration of archaeology within wider environmental policy objectives. [email protected] References

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in118 118

Archaeological Survey of Ireland 1996: Record of Monuments and Places, County Clare. Archaeological Survey of Ireland 2010: Sites and Monuments Record www.archaeology.ie Burren Connect: www.burrenconnect.ie BurrenLIFE Project: www.burrenlife.com Clare County Council 2005: North Clare Local Area Plan. Ennis. Cooney, G., Condit, T. & Byrnes, E. 2001: The Archaeological Landscapes Project: Final Report. (Draft for Comment.) Unpublished report prepared for the Heritage Council. Cooney, G., Condit, T. & Byrnes, E. 2002: The Archaeological Landscape Project: an approach to cultural landscapes in Ireland. In Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (eds), Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, 39–48. EAC Occasional Paper 2. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Brussels. Comber, M. & Hull, G. 2008: Caherconnell County Clare, and cashel chronology. Archaeology Ireland 22, No.4, 30–33. Department of Agriculture and Food 1995: Conditions for the conservation of the Burren to be applied under the Rural Environmental Scheme. Departmental Circular 84\95. Dowd, M. 2007: Living and dying in Glencurran Cave. Archaeology Ireland 21, No. 79, 36–39. Drew, D. 1997: The Burren, County Clare. In Aalen, F.H.A., Whelan, K. & Stout, M. (eds), Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape, 287–298. Cork University Press. Dunford, B. 2002: Farming and the Burren – The Story of Farming’s Contribution to One of Europe’s Most Precious Landscapes. Teagasc, Dublin. Era-Maptec Ltd, Wildworks Ltd, Parr, S. & Grant, C. 2006: Assessment of Landscape Change and Effects on Archaeology and an Assessment of Habitat Survey in the Burren, Co. Clare. Heritage Council. Fairclough, G. 2002: Europe’s landscape: archaeology, sustainability and agriculture. In Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (eds), Europe’s Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the Management of Change, 1–12. EAC Occasional Paper 2. Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Brussels. Grant, C. 2008: The role of research in issues of management and conservation. In Burren INSTAR Landscape and Settlement Project. Unpublished report for the Heritage Council. Grant, C. 2010: Kilcorney Archaeological Project. The Other Clare 34. Grogan, E. 2005: The Prehistoric Landscape of North Munster. The North Munster Project, Volume 2. Discovery Programme Monograph No. 6. Heritage Council 2006: Research Needs in Irish Archaeology: Framework for a National Archaeological Research Programme. Interim Report. Jones, C. 1998: Discovery and dating of the prehistoric landscape of Roughan Hill in Co. Clare. Journal of Irish Archaeology IX, 27–44. Jones, C. 2010: Roughan Hill Prehistoric Landscape Project. www.nuigalway.ie/archaeology O’Sullivan, M. 1996: REPS, farming and archaeology. Archaeology Ireland 10, No. 38, 8. Webb, S. & Glading, P. 1998: The ecology and conservation of limestone pavement in Britain. British Wildlife 10, 103–113.

19/11/2010 15:18:48

15  |  Heritage stewardship in Flanders: rural development money for rural heritage management? Karl Cordemans Abstract: From 1999 the Flemish Land Agency (VLM) has been the managing authority for several agri-environment schemes in Flanders. In 2005 the VLM started working on the introduction of a heritage stewardship scheme under Pillar 2 of the Common Agricultural Policy. The scheme was designed in co-operation with a wide range of Flemish heritage organisations. Due to difficulties with the financial and political framework, the scheme is not yet operational, but should become operational in the near future with the start of a new government administration.

Agriculture in Flanders Flanders is the most northerly of the three Belgian regions (the others being Wallonia and the capital Brussels). It is about 13.500 km² in area and has 6 million inhabitants, which makes it the most densely populated sub-national area in Europe with 444 inhabitants per km². Flanders is more or less flat, with a hilly southern border with Wallonia. Its soils consist mainly of clay in the coastal areas, sand and loamy sand in the northern and central areas and sandy loam and loam in the more elevated south (Fig. 15.1). Currently, a total of 620,000 hectares is in use for agriculture (46% of the land surface; another 15% is used for forestry), a sector that supports 32,000 companies and employs 50,000 people (2% of the working population). Since 1997 the average area of Flemish farms has grown by 40% to an average of about 25 hectares. This small size reflects the dominance of intensive beef production and horticulture, which require only limited areas of land. Excluding these sectors, the average farm size is about 35 hectares. Four out of five farm businesses are specialised, principally in cattle (meat and dairy) and pig production and horticulture. Of the total agricultural area, 56% is covered with meadows, pasture and fodder crops for

stockbreeding; 35% is allocated for arable farming, mainly cereals, potatoes and sugar beet. Agriculture policy is the responsibility of Belgium’s regional authorities. In Flanders 10% of the farmed area is currently entered into one or more agri-environment management agreements. The Flemish Land Agency and agri-environment programmes The Flemish Land Agency (VLM) became the managing authority for agri-environment schemes in Flanders in 1999 with the introduction of the Water Scheme, which compensates farmers for reduced manuring. Subsequently, schemes were introduced to protect meadow birds, farmland birds and hamsters and to deliver management of erosion, flora, buffer strips and small landscape features. All of these schemes are carried out under the provisions of the European Rural Development Regulations 1257/1999 and 1698/2005, with a total annual spend of more than €14 million. From 2005, a new heritage scheme has been in development. The mission of the VLM is to enhance the rural areas of Flanders. In its toolkit are several instruments: land-use

Fig. 15.1  The soils of Flanders. © Digitale versie van de Bodemkaart van Vlaanderen, IWT, uitgave 2001 (OC GIS-Vlaanderen)

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in119 119

19/11/2010 15:18:50

120

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

planning, land consolidation and the development of new areas of nature value. In all these areas of activity various historic features are encountered, including archaeological sites (mostly surviving as cropmarks), moated sites, chapels, duck decoys, redoubts, sheepfolds, orchards, bridges, baking houses and so on. Most of these locally distinctive heritage features are situated in the countryside, and are not scheduled or positively managed. As a result of their loss of function and economic context they are doomed to disappear in the future. Currently the VLM would be obliged either to purchase, or provide alternative land in exchange for, any heritage feature it wants to conserve before transferring its ownership to regional or local government to ensure its future proper management. This is a complex, timeconsuming and expensive procedure and is therefore applied infrequently. The availability of a simple tool, such as the Heritage Stewardship Scheme, would encourage the VLM to achieve far more for these local heritage features. Other organisations involved with countryside heritage encounter similar problems in ensuring effective management while sites remain with private owners. The agency is convinced that with a flexible and practical instrument available, such as a stewardship scheme, the locally distinctive rural heritage of Flanders will become more widely valued and will be more readily incorporated into a wide range of projects. This has the potential to secure the preservation and management of a large number of rural heritage sites with a relatively small budget.

Heritage stewardship scheme – a definition A stewardship agreement is a voluntary contract between a public authority and a private person or a company for a set period of time, in which the person or company undertakes to carry out management measures in return for incentive payments from the public authority. The intention behind these agreements is to enhance, maintain or create certain values (for example, natural, environmental or cultural values). Heritage stewardship is intended to safeguard a wide range of historic landscape features and to address the need for both regular and overdue maintenance. Among the various categories of heritage asset to be targeted are man-made landscape features such as dykes, raised fields, moats and duck decoys. An additional category is the built rural heritage, such as chapels, pillboxes, bakeries, ice cellars and tribunals (stone benches on which the judge and sheriff sat in open-air courts) (Fig. 15.2). A third category is the heritage preserved in the soil, which includes archaeological sites (for example,(cropmark sites (Fig. 15.3), moated sites and occupation sites) and palaeo-ecological or geomorphological heritage such as creek ridges, peat layers or lake mires. Finally, ‘green heritage’ (semi-natural features) is also eligible. This includes ancient solitary trees, orchards, hedges, etc. The newly designed heritage stewardship scheme is exclusively intended for local rural heritage, which currently does not receive maintenance funding of any kind. Ideally, the stewardship agreements should run over a long period (10 years or more) but, for practical reasons, the duration will be limited to five years.

Fig. 15.2  A unique example of the built rural heritage: a medieval tribunal or open-air judge’s bench (Vierschaar) at Oudenaarde, East-Flanders. © Karl Cordemans, VLM

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in120 120

19/11/2010 15:18:53

15  Heritage stewardship in Flanders: rural development money for rural heritage management?

121

Fig. 15.3  An example of an archaeological cropmark site at Aartrijke, Western-Flanders. © Jacques Semey, Archaeology Unit, Ghent University

Heritage stewardship: scheme design As stated above, the initial establishment of the heritage stewardship scheme commenced in the year 2000, when a Flemish Land Agency internal working group of landscape specialists and archaeologists reviewed a number of elements of the cultural heritage often encountered in project work and suggested management actions for each. These included archaeological remains, built heritage and landscape features. This was followed up by an extensive study of a possible stewardship scheme, including a literature review, a more detailed elaboration of the details of the stewardship scheme itself and a start on the legislative, organisational and financial framework. In addition, a study was commissioned to determine the major threats acting on archaeological sites (principally below-ground remains) and the best possible management actions to reduce the degradation of these fragile remains. In order to create a flexible and widely applicable instrument, 30 different heritage features were described in detail. They include archaeological sites, geomorphological phenomena and historical features of different kinds (see above). For each of these features the threats were identified and matched with possible management responses. A distinction was made between management measures that can be carried out by farmers, and specialised measures that would need to be carried out by trained heritage professionals. This latter category is not included in the heritage stewardship scheme. Listing and combining all the possible measures resulted in the four different stewardship modules: management of the soil record, management of cultural-historical landscape

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in121 121

heritage, management of cultural-historical built heritage and management of ‘green’ heritage. For each heritage feature, the relevant management options can be selected and integrated in a specific stewardship module, which is termed the ‘à-la-carte’ approach. This will ensure the delivery of the appropriate management of each feature in terms of its individual characteristics. The selection and combination by experts of measures within modules also makes it possible to offer a heritage stewardship agreement for categories of heritage that were not included in the initial list, since management measures for similar features are often identical. This ‘à-la-carte’ approach will provide the VLM with a flexible instrument with a high performance level that will ensure correct management responses. The most acute threats to archaeological heritage in Flanders are eutrophication, desiccation, erosion, bioturbation and agricultural activities. Hence, the proposed management measures for archaeological heritage are: • • • • • •

conversion to extensive grassland (grazing) conversion to extensive grassland (hay-making) direct drilling cultivation without tillage maintaining extensive grassland prohibition of crops with a particularly damaging impact (for example, potatoes, beet, carrots) • specialised grazing management • maintaining condition (for example, groundwater levels).

19/11/2010 15:18:56

122

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Financial framework Managers who enter into a stewardship agreement will receive compensation for the loss of income caused by the loss of production, extra costs and labour. Payments for the various management measures, based on an assessment of an appropriate level of compensation, range from €90 to €500 per hectare. The calculations for the compensation payments of all measures were carried out by a group of specialists in fields such as monument management and regional landscapes, based upon field evaluations of different heritage features. Compensation rates for some measures are fairly easy to calculate. For example, agronomists can work out costs and economic losses of the conversion of farmland into meadow. Less straightforward calculations are those for a fair and universally acceptable compensation rate for the painting of the woodwork of a chapel or the removal of overgrowth from the roof of a bakery. Organisational framework All farmers can apply for the current agri-­environmental measures. However, this will not be possible for the new heritage stewardship. Because of the large numbers of rural heritage features of various qualities and a very limited initial budget, the heritage stewardship scheme will only be offered to owners of selected features. In most cases, this will be determined by their location in a project area or in a specific location (such as a heritage area or an area recognised as having important archaeological features) and the character of the feature itself. In order to make a selection among the heritage features and to determine the appropriate composition of the stewardship module and to satisfy other requirements, in-house agri-environment advisers of the Flemish Land Agency will work together with landscape experts of local Regional Landscape ­ organisations. They will be

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in122 122

supported by a large expert group to ensure a correct assessment of historical, archaeological, ecological and economic values. Farmers will also be assisted in the execution of the measures and can rely on the VLM advisers for technical advice (for example, on the use of historically appropriate paints, etc). The future The minister responsible for the built and archaeological heritage has expressed his intention to commence the heritage stewardship scheme in the near future. During the process of preparing a new heritage law the heritage administration has confirmed that the planned stewardship scheme can be used as a management measure for known archaeological sites without legal protection and for legally defined ‘anchor places’ – that is, areas with high concentrations of heritage remains and high landscape value. It is planned to launch the heritage stewardship scheme in 2012 with a limited regional Flemish budget, without applying for European co-funding. Meanwhile the political willingness among the regions to co-finance the stewardship scheme within the new Rural Development Programme is also being examined. Depending on the percentage of co-funding, this could double the previously planned budget! There is increasing recognition in political circles and among agricultural organisations that the rural heritage is important for the cultural identity of the countryside. If all parties involved are prepared to address their responsibilities and allow just a tiny slice of the EU-budget cake to be spent on rural heritage management, we can achieve a great deal. [email protected]

19/11/2010 15:18:56

16  |  Agri-environmental schemes and the historic environment of the United Kingdom: a view from Wales Mike Yates with contributions from Victoria Hunns, Rhonda Robinson and Jonathan Wordsworth Abstract: For more than two decades government support for environmental farming schemes in the United Kingdom has included provision for the protection and management of archaeological sites, traditional buildings and historic landscape features. However, differences in the practical application of schemes between the various UK countries are marked. This paper provides a brief summary of how the schemes operate in each home nation area, with particular reference to the situation in Wales, and highlights the ways in which the historic environment has benefited. The implications of a shift in emphasis within the Common Agricultural Policy are also considered.

All the UK home nations draw most of their funding for agriculture from the European Union and their environmental farming (agri-environment) schemes are all based upon the same EU Rural Development Regulation. An overview of the impact of agri-environmental schemes on the historic environment of the UK might, therefore, seem a relatively simple objective. However, during discussions with colleagues in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, a rather variable picture emerged, complicated further by the Welsh Assembly Government’s announcement in May 2009 of major changes to its agri-environment schemes. This varied picture is, of course, largely due to the devolved system of UK government, with priorities, emphasis and implementation of the schemes being matters for each home nation to determine. In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland support for land management in the countryside is channelled through the devolved governments. In each of these areas responsibility for the care for the historic environment is also devolved to the regional government and this can allow close integration between departments. By contrast, in England agri-environmental schemes are delivered on behalf of the government by Natural England, a non-departmental public body (NDPB), while the historic environment is the responsibility of another NDPB, English Heritage. To make things more complex, a key element of agricultural support in England, the Single Farm Payment (SFP), essentially ‘Pillar 1’ support for farming through the Common Agricultural Policy, is administered by a separate Rural Payments Agency. One unfortunate consequence of these national differences within the UK is a lack of consistent recording, which means that statistics for the UK as a whole are difficult to obtain and direct comparisons between countries can be misleading. Against this background, and given limited space, it is not possible to consider each scheme in detail: so it seems more valuable to identify some common themes, to look at some examples of their application, and finally to consider the shared pressures for change, with particular reference to the discussions taking place in Wales about its new agri-environment scheme. The first theme is that management of the countryside is relevant to us all. Our primary source for new

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in123 123

­archaeological information must be the sites and monuments that have survived for us to study today. In the countryside this irreplaceable resource is often vulnerable to processes that are not subject to the sort of planning constraints that provide a degree of protection in a more urban context. The need for management of the historic environment must be set alongside the significant public funds – from both national governments and the EU – which are directed towards the countryside and especially the farming industry. While some EU states continue to provide more-or-less direct subsidies for farmers, there is an increasing expectation that public funds should be targeted towards public ‘goods’, often expressed in terms of environmental benefits. This ‘de-coupling’ of financial support from production is driving development of the Common Agricultural Policy and seems set to continue. It follows that, as archaeologists with a responsibility to protect our resource for future generations, we should grasp the opportunities presented by this emphasis on public benefit, and become more proactive in land management. It is not just a question of preventing damage to historic features; there is also a need for sympathetic management. Neglect can also be a threat. To give a simple example, when land is forested with the exclusion of livestock, a monument can quickly became overgrown and obscured by scrub. Even if no trees are planted on a monument, self-seeded saplings soon become established and in due course – without management – these grow into trees and the roots will affect the underlying archaeological deposits. This introduces another important theme: levels of management. Many archaeological sites have reached an equilibrium with their environment and providing there is sympathetic management, there need be no further deterioration, although they do need protection from damage, and support for sympathetic management. For other sites the management may be less sympathetic – overgrazing or neglect may lead to erosion or damage by root development. In these cases protection remains vital but there is also a need to establish a more benign

19/11/2010 15:18:57

124

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

management regime. In other cases the damage might be so severe that it requires repair to improve the condition of the site and make it less vulnerable to further damage. There are also those sites, often the best preserved, which have not yet reached an equilibrium with their environment. These include monuments with upstanding masonry, steep slopes or inherently unstable environments, such as eroding riverbanks. For these the need is for intervention, repair or consolidation so they are less vulnerable and so that, with benign management, they can survive in good condition. There therefore seem to be three elements critical to monument survival and these are the elements we seek in agri-environmental schemes: • protection from damage – the catastrophic event and piecemeal attrition • sympathetic management – for long-term sustainable survival • repair and conservation – to reduce vulnerability and make the site more robust and able to survive through sympathetic management. Before we can consider how agri-environmental schemes address these factors we also need to understand the extent of the protection and support that already exists without recourse to these schemes, as EU regulations do not permit payment to farmers to meet existing legal requirements. The concept of ‘the carrot and stick’ is common to many European languages and is another theme that runs through UK agri-environmental provision, with the law wielding the ‘stick’ and agri-environmental schemes offering a ‘carrot’ in the form of payments for providing environmental benefits. UK legislation makes it a criminal offence to damage a ‘listed’ ancient monument of national importance (referred to as ‘scheduled monuments’). This is the biggest stick we have and the benefits of agri-environmental schemes to the historic environment have to be seen in terms of what they provide over and above this basic protection. This is considerable, because only monuments that meet strict criteria can benefit from this protection. In Wales, for example, some 70% of known historic features lie on registered agricultural land but less than 5% of the historic features noted in our Historic Environment Records are ‘scheduled’ and benefit from this protection, leaving some 150,000 individual features without legal protection. Although the EU cannot fund existing legal requirements it can support and reinforce them. The basic UK government and EU support for agriculture through the Common Agricultural Policy is referred to as the ‘Single Farm Payment’ (SFP) or the ‘Single Payment Scheme’, and farmers accepting this payment have to agree to conditions known as Cross Compliance (that is, comply with a range of EU directives). They also need to follow the requirements of Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC), which include an EU-wide requirement not to damage any legally protected monument. Any farmer not complying with this risks losing his SFP as well as prosecution: reaffirming the heritage legislation and making the ‘stick’ a little stronger. There are also other

GAEC conditions that, while not specifically intended to benefit historic features, do actually contribute significantly to the protection of the wider historic environment and benefit both protected and unprotected sites. There is, for example, a requirement to prevent soil erosion by overgrazing and trampling and a need for an environmental assessment before any significant area of permanent grassland is brought into cultivation. There is also a requirement to retain stone-wall field boundaries, which helps protect distinctive landscapes. In Northern Ireland there is also a requirement on farmers receiving the Single Farm Payment to ensure all known historic features are protected from damage. This begs the question: why can this benefit not be applied throughout the UK? Certainly there are many archaeologists who believe that this must be the way forward and there is a strong argument that public funds should not be used in any way to support activities that damage the historic environment. Politics and the art-ofthe-possible in each UK region must also be taken into account. In England and Wales, it is arguable that the imposition of more stringent GAEC requirements could alienate the land managers on whom we depend for day-to-day stewardship of historic features. There is also a practical consideration. It is unreasonable to expect a farmer to protect a historic feature if he or she is not made aware of its existence. In Northern Ireland a unified record of all known historic features is held by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency, so it is relatively simple to make that information available to the Department of Agriculture and Rural Affairs (DARD) for inclusion in their GAEC conditions. Elsewhere in the UK it is the agri-environmental schemes that provide the most significant opportunity for protection, sympathetic management and, occasionally, repair and conservation for the vast majority of historic features that have no statutory protection in the countryside. These differing protective approaches may be best visualised in the form of a pyramid in which the base level is regulation: the Cross Compliance and GAEC requirements of the SFP outlined above, with various penalties for breaching conditions and laws (Fig. 16.1). However, the legal stick is a limited tool and the ethos of agri-environmental schemes is to provide encouragement

High Level Stewardship (England)

Rural Priorities Scheme (Scotland)

Glastir – Targeted Scheme (Wales)

Countryside Management Scheme (Northern Ireland)

Glastir – All Wales Scheme Entry Level Stewardship (England) Land Management Contract Scheme (Scotland) Single Farm Payment (SFP) – Cross Compliance and Good Agricultural and Environmental Condition (GAEC) UK Legislation

Fig. 16.1  The agri-environmental pyramid.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in124 124

19/11/2010 15:18:57

16  Agri-environmental schemes and the historic environment of the United Kingdom: a view from Wales

to farmers – a carrot – in the form of incentives for delivery of environmental benefits as public goods. The first step up the pyramid above this base level is generally known in England as ‘Entry-Level Stewardship’ or ELS. In Wales, a new scheme, ‘Glastir’, will have a similar ‘All-Wales’ scheme due to be introduced in 2012 (replacing the ‘Tir Cynnal’ scheme which ended in 2008), and in Scotland this first step is referred to as ‘Tier 2’ or the ‘Land Management Contract Scheme’. Because of its stronger protection for non-scheduled sites through their SFP GAEC conditions, Northern Ireland does not have such a first step incentive scheme. In England, Scotland and Wales there are some key similarities between these schemes. For example, a farmer entering the scheme has to agree to a series of basic requirements for his entire holding that include a requirement not to damage any historic feature on the holding. It is important not to underestimate the significance of this simple requirement. Given the fact that so many otherwise unprotected historic features lie on farmland, this mechanism goes a long way to meeting the first of the monument survival requirements mentioned earlier – protection from damage. In addition, to get into the scheme farmers in England must agree to carry out certain works or actions with specific environmental outcomes. These are chosen by the farmer from a list of options, each of which carries with it a number of points based on an official estimate of cost and/or profit forgone. The number of points required to get into the scheme depends on the size of the farm, so a large farm would need to deliver more options from the list than a small farm.

3

4

5

Among the many options available in the English EntryLevel scheme are five that relate directly to the historic environment: • maintenance of weatherproof traditional farm buildings • take archaeological features currently on cultivated land out of cultivation • reduce cultivation depth on land where there are archaeological features • management of scrub on archaeological sites • management of grassland with archaeological features. In Wales a similar approach is currently being considered for the All Wales part of the Glastir scheme, although the final list of options for the historic environment may be reduced. In Scotland farmers can choose from a series of ‘Land Manager’s Options’, which do not have exclusively environmental outcomes but which do include management of archaeological and historic sites and also repairs to vernacular buildings. In all these schemes payments are relatively modest – a small carrot – and the EU requires that administration costs are kept low. For the historic environment several key points emerge: 1 All registered farmland is eligible and therefore the schemes have the capacity to provide protection for a very large number of otherwise unprotected historic features. Even in an industrial country such as the UK agriculture still accounts for 74% of total land use. 2 These are voluntary schemes so farmers need to

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in125 125

6

125

find them attractive if they are to provide the sort of widespread protection we want. However, farmers operating on an industrial scale may not find them economically worthwhile and the small-scale ‘hobby’ farmer may be discouraged by the paperwork. The previous Entry-Level scheme in Wales eventually included some 20% of registered agricultural land. Expectations for the new Glastir scheme are higher but early discussions with the farming organisations suggest uptake may not be that extensive – especially if prices for farm produce continue to rise. The low payments mean that there must be limited expectations in terms of improvement for the historic features, and management objectives need to be realistic. Having said that, protection from damage must be regarded as a positive result and in many cases other options intended to protect different environmental assets (for example, peat bogs and permanent grassland) will provide an ancillary benefit for many historic features. The insistence on low administration costs means there is no provision for detailed advice on the management of individual features and for this reason care is needed if specific management actions are encouraged. Scrub removal is a typical example. This is a benefit if done with care – but a disaster if a mechanical excavator is used. The importance of sound advice cannot be over-emphasised – not just on-line or in advisory booklets but in the scheme information packs for farmers and through the other farm advice agencies. The need to keep administration costs low also impacts on the capacity for inspection and monitoring. The various inspection systems rely upon a combination of random and targeted visits, and also remote observation through air photographs. With limited checking on the ground there are bound to be cases where the agreements are less effective, and one problem is that the routine inspections are generally done by people with limited archaeological knowledge. Finally, archaeologists cannot expect farmers to protect and preserve a site if the farmer has not been told where it is. In the past, the UK has relied largely on simple ‘point data’, which have been included on farm maps – but this means that a standing stone and a 5-hectare hillfort are both marked as a single point. There is a serious danger that, unless the information available to farmers is radically improved, the conditions included in the agreements will be unenforceable and all but the most flagrant breach will pass without penalty. In particular historic features require definition as polygons on maps that will be available to farmers as part of the agreement. This is now seen as a priority. England has just embarked on the hugely ambitious Selected Heritage Inventory for Natural England (SHINE) project to create just such a system of historic-feature-GIS polygons identified and verified by the Historic Environment Records (HERs). In Wales the Welsh Archaeological Trusts have begun a similar exercise funded by the Welsh Assembly Government (Cadw).

Although there are clearly difficulties, it is important not to underestimate the achievements so far. For example, from the inception of England’s ELS in 2005 to April

19/11/2010 15:18:57

126

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

2010, 5,914 agreements have been made that include an option for improving the management of archaeological features. These include 1,917 for the maintenance of traditional buildings; 340 for taking archaeological sites out of cultivation; 267 to reduce cultivation depths; 156 to remove scrub; and 3,234 establishing sympathetic grassland management. This shows how, with staff and resources, the ELS can go beyond simple protection and begin to address the improvement of the condition of individual historic features. Furthermore, the number of historic features protected through the whole farm section of ELS agreements that do not include a Historic Environment option must be many times greater.

high-quality sites that have since been scheduled. Also evident is the huge benefit of the farm visit by an archaeologist. The opportunity to discuss a monument on the ground with the landowner and come to an agreement on a practical maintenance regime must not be underestimated. While some landowners may be motivated solely by the payment, farmers are often genuinely interested in the archaeological sites on their land, and the fact that an archaeologist has come specifically to see a monument often increases the perception of importance, leading to better care. The Welsh Archaeological Trusts, who provided support for the Tir Gofal scheme, reported the same positive response in Wales.

It is also worth highlighting the fact that the earlier ELS in Wales provided protection for some 10,000 otherwise unprotected historic features. In Scotland in 2008–9 there were 3,970 applications for the Land Manager’s Options, so the scheme clearly has support, but of these only 28 selected management of archaeological or historic features. So, the picture across the UK is mixed.

As well as advice and information there is also the provision in Northern Ireland for capital works for conservation and repair to traditional buildings. In Wales similar support was available under Tir Gofal to help the repair and conservation of earthwork monuments too, and an example serves to illustrate what can be possible. At Aber Motte in Gwynedd, north-west Wales (Fig. 16.2), Tir Gofal was able to provide funds for more detailed recording and the preparation of a programme for repair to the extensive erosion of a fine historic castle mound built by Hugh of Chester during his campaign to subdue the recalcitrant Welsh towards the end of the 11th century. The farmer himself did much of the work, so benefited financially, but the local archaeological trust provided the necessary archaeological expertise to ensure that the site was not damaged during the works, and that anything that was identified could be fully recorded. Other examples include fencing to help control or exclude stock and even the provision of stiles and footpaths so that pedestrian erosion on well-visited sites could be reduced.

At the top of the agri-environmental pyramid there is a series of higher-level schemes, although again there are regional differences. The provision in Northern Ireland provides a useful starting point because it is very similar to the Tir Gofal scheme, which has operated in Wales for a decade but which will soon be replaced by the targeted scheme within Glastir. In Northern Ireland the Countryside Management Scheme is open to all farmers, but the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development (NI) reserve the right to select those farms that have the potential to offer most environmental benefits. In Wales the former Tir Gofal scheme required an applicant to have a certain level of environmental assets in order to get into the scheme. In both countries, therefore, applicants benefit from an archaeological survey of their farm to increase their chances of a successful application, and a survey is also of great value as a practical means of providing sound information, advice and encouragement to farmers. In Wales most surveys for Tir Gofal were deskbased, with field visits to about 20% of applicants where information was poor or where it was expected there might be significant hitherto unrecorded features. In Northern Ireland most applicants have a field visit and there is a dedicated archaeological officer available to provide site-specific advice and field guidance. Agreements include a detailed ‘Whole Farm’ section, with conditions requiring sympathetic management of all historic features and also measures to prevent damage. These are quite extensive and include: • • • •

not feeding livestock on historic features controlling stocking levels avoiding the use of vehicles over historic features controlling scrub.

In 2009 a total of 1,485 participants in Northern Ireland were receiving agri-environment payments for the management of archaeological features, covering some 603 hectares of land. Furthermore, payment for monuments and the farm inspections by the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have resulted in many previously unrecorded monuments being added to the Northern Ireland Sites and Monuments Record. Of these many are

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in126 126

Turning now to England – the High-Level Environmental Stewardship (HLS) scheme gives some idea of the direction Wales may take with the new targeted element of the forthcoming Glastir scheme. Like the Countryside Management Scheme in Northern Ireland, the HLS is open to all farmers, but the success of the application will depend how far the applicant can meet particular objectives. The overall objectives for England are: • wildlife conservation • to maintain and enhance landscape quality and character • the protection of natural resources • the protection of the historic environment • to promote public access. There are also two secondary objectives: • flood management • conservation of genetic resources. As well as providing protection to historic features through the conditions of a whole farm section, the same Entry Level Stewardship options are available, as well as some additional options, which include maintaining and restoring water meadows and maintaining high water levels to protect archaeological deposits. There is also the provision for more specific capital works designed to address particular conservation or management issues. Most notable are the resources available for specific conservation work for individual historic features (see,

19/11/2010 15:18:57

16  Agri-environmental schemes and the historic environment of the United Kingdom: a view from Wales

for example, Fig. 17.4) and for the restoration of historic buildings and parkland. The most significant element of the HLS, however, is the requirement for a Farm Environment Plan (FEP), which must identify and assess the condition of all environmental assets – including archaeological features. There is a requirement to consult the local HER, so otherwise unprotected sites must be identified. The HER is then active in helping land managers to understand significance, priority and the actions that can be taken to help protect and conserve sites. This FEP allows an application to be evaluated against regional priorities and by matching these to the assets on the farm a specific agreement is drawn up with the farmer by a dedicated project officer. The agreement will identify a series of costed options, which could include conservation and repair work to individual historic features and traditional buildings. Importantly, project officers

127

can access technical advice on the historic environment provided by specialists within Natural England throughout the agreement process. Again, the figures for England are quite impressive. There are some 2,045 HLS agreements which include options to carry out work to traditional farm buildings and historic features. A similar scheme operates in Scotland through the Rural Priorities Scheme. Here, too, regional priorities have been identified although they include economic development as well as environmental work. How historic features worthy of expenditure are identified is a little unclear but the recent appointment of a dedicated member of staff within the funding department to advise specifically on the historic environment is a welcome development that will surely help greatly. Prior to this appointment, the mechanism for delivering professional advice was certainly more limited. Of rather greater significance in Scotland has been the confirmation from the EU that funding for the historic environment should be delivered through one particular funding stream within the Rural Development Regulation. This applies to all nation states, but how this is interpreted and implemented is subject to national priorities. Up to February 2009 the Scottish Rural Priorities scheme provided £21,000 for the management of just 10 archaeological sites. The picture is very mixed

Figs 16.2a and 16.2b  Practical conservation of the 11th-century castle mound at Aber, North Wales, carried out under a Tir Gofal agri-environmental agreement. Above: before repair; below: after the completion of conservation work. © Cadw, Welsh Assembly Government

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in127 127

19/11/2010 15:19:02

128

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

but the individual successes show that opportunities are clearly there. To summarise against the levels of management defined earlier: the basic or entry-level schemes have the potential to extend protection far beyond that provided by national legislation but the effectiveness depends on takeup, advice and monitoring. These basic schemes also encourage and support sympathetic management but again the effectiveness depends on take up. More ambitious repair and conservation work is possible through the HLS and the figures from England show that this can be very effective. Certainly the provision of sitespecific advice has been the key to the success of many projects in Northern Ireland and in our earlier Tir Gofal scheme in Wales. However, the picture is varied and reflects the differing national objectives. In conclusion, it is important to consider how, as archaeologists, we might best develop these opportunities, and that requires some understanding of the constraints within which those who draw up these schemes have to work. Their starting point must always be the Rural Development Regulation and this is clearly capable of varying interpretation. There is nothing to be gained by asking for things which fall outside its current remit but it may be possible for organisations such as the EAC to present a case for greater recognition for the historic environment, especially in the wake of the European Landscape (Florence) Convention. One area where those concerned for the historic environment may need to become more involved at a national level is in the development of individual Rural Development Plans. These underpin the regional rural expenditure within the UK and the current plans are due for renewal in 2013. There is invariably a consultation phase and archaeologists need to participate to ensure their interests are represented. The consultations also provide an opportunity for archaeologists to gain an understanding of EU objectives and priorities, and this is where the discussions around the new Welsh Glastir scheme have been especially revealing. The EU objectives have certainly shifted since the earlier agri-environmental schemes were devised, as can be seen just by looking at the principal objectives for schemes that were developed some years ago. In the English schemes, for example, flood management is a secondary consideration, but now this enjoys much higher priority in Wales and, similarly,

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in128 128

the revised Northern Ireland Countryside Management Scheme now has a strong focus on climate change. There can also be little doubt that the driving forces behind the selection of target areas for the Higher-Level Glastir scheme in Wales will be water quality and flood control, soil carbon and the wider climate-change agenda. The historic environment may find itself in second place. Much has been made of the potentially harmful effects of growing biofuel crops and a careful watch needs to be maintained on developments in this area, but there are positive developments as well. Concern about climate change has increased attention on soil erosion and the need to protect soil carbon. This is an area where there are significant synergies since historic features also benefit from measures to reduce erosion and soil loss. Similarly, waterlogged deposits benefit from efforts to raise the water table or slow down drainage, and further examples need to be identified. There are also actions that archaeologists can take to help satisfy some of the EU concerns about monitoring results. The EU is naturally sensitive to criticism for wasting money so there is an increasing requirement for schemes to have definable outcomes. Payment for just ‘looking after’ an environmental asset is unlikely to receive favour. It is therefore more important than ever to be able to show the benefits and this means devoting resources into establishing baseline data and following this up with a strategy for monitoring. This is rarely popular among archaeologists, perhaps because it delivers little of interest to the academic and takes resources from urgent ‘threatrelated’ work. Nevertheless, it is going to be increasingly important and the work begun in Wales (see Hughes, this volume) is attracting wider interest for this reason. There is also a need to devote some of our own resources into better definition of the sites, monuments and (more problematically) landscapes that we wish to protect and improve. It is encouraging that England, Scotland and Wales are all considering how to improve mapping for farmers. As an exercise, this is fraught with difficulties and provokes debate among archaeologists. However, with difficult times ahead, we need to be prepared and this is one area where we can take action ourselves. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

19/11/2010 15:19:02

17  |  Ripping up history, sordid motives or cultivating solutions? Plough damage and archaeology:   a perspective from England Stephen Trow Abstract: This paper considers the impact of arable cultivation on the archaeological resource in England and the approach taken by English Heritage, since 2000, in its attempts to address the issue, in partnership with other organisations. The paper concentrates on the use of strategic evidence and advocacy in efforts to deliver changes to legislation and environmental farming policy. The paper should be read in conjunction with other papers in this volume by Holyoak, Humble and Yates et al.

From Dorchester to MARS by way of Salisbury Archaeologists in England have been concerned about the impacts of ploughing on archaeological remains for almost as long as they have been interested in the preservation of its antiquities. In 1870, when work began to level the ramparts of the important Iron Age enclosure at Dyke Hills, outside Dorchester on Thames in Oxfordshire (Fig. 17.1), as part of a programme of agricultural land improvement, Colonel Augustus LaneFox (later to become the first Inspector of Ancient Monuments) wrote to The Saturday Review (2 July 1870) describing the damage to the site: Hitherto the neighbouring ground has been grazed, and the harmless sheep is no foe to history; but it has lately occurred to the owner of the ground that a few shillings more of yearly profit might be gained by turning pasture land into arable; and to such a sordid motive as this, these precious antiquities are at this very moment being sacrificed. This case was among several that stimulated the introduction of Sir John Lubbock’s Ancient Monument

Bill in 1872 and the eventual passing into law of the United Kingdom’s first Ancient Monuments Act ten years later. The concerns expressed by Lane-Fox – and periodically thereafter – began to be examined more systematically during the 1970s as archaeology fully established itself as a professional discipline in the UK. In 1974, for example, in his review of the pressures on archaeology published in the influential Rescue Archaeology, Philip Barker wrote: ‘The most destructive of all processes, however, is the least obvious. Ploughing, especially deep ploughing … poses the major threat to the continued existence of our sites.’ (Barker 1974) In 1977 plough damage was the subject of a landmark conference held in Salisbury, at the heart of the ploughlevelled landscapes of Wessex. Apart from giving the issue a significantly higher profile, the Salisbury seminar also secured official acknowledgement of the problem when the collected papers were published by the Department of the Environment’s Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings as The Past Under the Plough. Writing in the introduction to the volume (Hinchliffe and ­Schadla-Hall

Fig. 17.1  Ploughing and agricultural improvements at the major Iron Age enclosure at Dyke Hills in Oxfordshire in 1870 was one of a number of high-profile cases of damage that led to the passing of the UK’s first ancient monuments legislation. © English Heritage NMR 15551-29

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in129 129

19/11/2010 15:19:39

130

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

1980), Andrew Saunders, then Chief Inspector of Ancient Monuments, observed: ‘There can be few, if any, archaeologists who are not aware that arable farming and forestry are the agencies of the greatest destruction of the material evidence for the understanding of our past or who are not aware of the scale on which this destruction is being carried out.’ The year 1977 also saw publication of the first serious and detailed study to address the mechanics of plough damage and approaches to its assessment by the Council for British Archaeology and the Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit (Lambrick 1977). This work was carried out in connection with one of a number of state-sponsored extensive plough-damage surveys, which also represented a first systematic attempt to quantify the scale of the ploughdamage problem, including large-scale assessments of plough damage in Sussex (Drewett 1976) and on the Gloucestershire and Avon Cotswolds (Saville 1980). The magnitude of the challenge revealed by this work was daunting: the Cotswolds survey alone suggested that the plough-damage problem required the urgent rescue excavation of 14 long barrows, 1 causewayed enclosure, 18 round barrows, 8 hillforts, 2 Romano-British sites, 2 medieval villages and a priory. Scaled up to the national level it was clear that such an approach would dwarf the limited resources for archaeology available from the public purse for decades to come. One important policy outcome of the greater scrutiny directed towards the challenge of agriculture for

archaeology during the 1970s and early 1980s, was the inclusion of a clause (Section 17) relating to archaeology in the 1986 Agriculture Act. This required the Secretary of State to achieve a ‘reasonable balance’ when exercising agricultural functions including (Section 17(1)(c)) ‘the conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty and amenity of the countryside ... and of any features of archaeological interest there’. This Act paved the way, from 1987, for a series of environmental farming programmes (agri-environment schemes) which would henceforth provide incentives to land managers for delivering environmental good practice on their farm holding. Included within these schemes (initially the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Scheme, later augmented by the Countryside Stewardship Scheme) were options allowing for better management of historic features, including archaeological sites. These options were, however, always regarded as subsidiary objectives, with the main emphasis and resources for the schemes directed towards species and habitat protection (see Yates et al., this volume). Notwithstanding the recognition gained of the scale of the plough-damage problem during the 1970s and the important but limited policy gains made, subsequent decades saw the plough-damage issue largely set to one side, at least in terms of high-level initiatives. The attention of England’s state archaeology service was quickly refocused on other pressing strategic matters. These included the no-less-problematic (and not unrelated) loss of wetland archaeology in England and the rather

Fig. 17.2  Despite designation, cultivation can legally continue within scheduled monuments in the UK in locations where it was already taking place. At Arbury Banks in Northamptonshire, for example, half of a designated prehistoric enclosure under grassland is effectively protected but ploughing continues to damage archaeological remains in the cultivated area. © English Heritage NMR 21405-24

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in130 130

19/11/2010 15:19:41

17  Plough damage and archaeology: a perspective from England

131

more tractable challenges posed by development, which eventually led to the effective system of planning-led and developer-funded archaeology operating in the UK today. In considering why the early advantages gained in relation to the plough-damage issue were not followed up and built upon, it is arguable that it was the sheer scale of the problems revealed by survey work that led to an impression of impotence on the part of the responsible authorities. Too many sites were involved; resources were too limited; practical management solutions seemed remote; and the farm industry and relevant policy-makers were not engaged. In this regard it is perhaps noteworthy that the most authoritative account of archaeological policy-making in England during the last half-century (Wainwright 2000) devotes only a single word to the issue of agricultural impacts, preferring instead to focus on those policy areas where progress was more readily discernible.

• first, to work towards a better-quantified understanding of the scale of the problem at the national level; • second, to promote research on the implications of long-term cultivation on archaeological sites and the effectiveness of management options; • third, to achieve recognition of the issue among civil servants, rural interest groups, environmentalists and the public; • fourth, to improve understanding of the problem and ability to address it among the farming community; • fifth, to use this improved evidence and research base to negotiate better outcomes for archaeological site management within the framework provided by England’s environmental farming schemes; and • sixth, to seek changes to the legislative framework relating to designated archaeological sites situated in cultivated landscapes.

Whatever the reasons, at the turn of the 21st century the situation with regard to the impact of cultivation on archaeology in England was comparatively little improved to that in the 1970s. The system of statutory protection for ancient monuments (scheduling) introduced by the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act provided little effective protection, as the legislation awarded farmers automatic permission to continue cultivation on the more than 2,700 designated monuments already under the plough (Fig. 17.2). In addition, although environmental farming programmes had the potential to reward farmers for managing selected archaeological sites on their land, these agreements were almost exclusively focused on pastoral landscapes and were delivering negligible benefits in terms of cultivated monuments (English Heritage 2006, 3). Most problematically, little meaningful research work or long-term monitoring had been undertaken (either by heritage agencies or the university sector) on the detailed mechanics of plough damage. As a result there was no real understanding of the long-term implications for, or the pace of decline of, the thousands of archaeological sites regularly being cultivated. Nor was there any body of empirical information on how best to manage them.

The first objective was addressed through the Scheduled Monuments at Risk project (see Humble, this volume). This initiative was designed to build on the foundations put in place by MARS and deliver an audit of all of the (nearly 20,000) designated archaeological sites in England. This, in turn, would create a baseline indicator for future monitoring of the state of England’s nationally important archaeology, as well as providing a set of clear priorities for future management action.

The publication in 1998 of the England-wide Monuments at Risk Survey (MARS) (Darvill and Fulton 1998), coupled with the creation within English Heritage, in 2000, of a small team dedicated to rural policy issues, allowed renewed attention to be directed towards the problem. MARS provided the first-ever quantified assessment of the state of the archaeological resource at the national level. Based on a 5% sample field survey of all recognised and inventorised archaeological sites, the project identified the vulnerabilities and risks to the thousands of sites visited, together with an assessment of their condition and trajectory. The survey results demonstrated that 10% of observed cases of monument destruction during the period 1945 to 1995 and 30% of cases of piecemeal damage arose as a result of arable agriculture or cultivation (Darvill and Fulton 1998, 128). A new approach Informed by this landmark study, the newly formed English Heritage rural-policy team began work on the issue, adopting a strategy that comprised six objectives (each of which is explored in more detail below):

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in131 131

The second objective involved building a series of partnerships with other organisations to deliver a number of research initiatives, not least England’s then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) which, in 2001, was to become the Department For Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). These partnerships – catalysed by the findings of MARS – served not only to improve access to research funding but, equally importantly, to share ownership and responsibility for the outcomes of the research with the key body responsible for agricultural and environmental policy. The first of these projects was initiated by the Council for British Archaeology and MAFF (Oxford Archaeology and Defra 2002) and this was followed up by a series of linked and sequential joint projects sponsored by English Heritage and Defra (Humble, this volume and Holyoak, this volume). Together these projects have made a significant advance in our understanding of the mechanisms of cultivation and the risks it poses to the archaeological record – although far more remains to be done. The third objective was to raise the profile of the issue beyond the archaeological profession. In addressing this, English Heritage chose to take a calculated risk in terms of its relations with the farming industry and, in July 2003, published Ripping up History, a campaign document aimed at opinion-formers, civil servants, farmers, environmentalists, the media and the public (Fig. 17.3a). With its emotive title and arresting images of plough-scarred Romano-British mosaics, the document was designed to attract attention and (although it included a clear statement that criticism was levelled at an inadequately reformed EU Common Agricultural Policy, rather than the farming community) English Heritage was aware that it would be controversial. The document achieved significant radio, television and quality newspaper coverage and, despite some negative comment in the farming press,

19/11/2010 15:19:41

132

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

was very successful in terms of establishing the profile of the issue with key partners and stakeholders. Importantly, in responding to the document, the UK’s National Farmers Union chose to take a constructive line and issued the following press statement: Farmers today pledged to work with English Heritage to investigate how more effective protection can be given to ancient sites buried beneath farmland in Britain. ‘We recognise with English Heritage that changes to farming policy at home and in Europe provide a useful opportunity to revisit this issue. But we need to ensure that changes bring benefits for farmers and our heritage.’ One criticism justifiably levelled at English Heritage by the agricultural lobby, in response to this campaign, was the absence of readily accessible information and advice for farmers seeking to understand the locations of archaeological sites on their landholding and a similar lack of practical advice on how to reduce risks. English Heritage therefore sought to address this, as the fourth objective in its strategy, by improving information on site locations; providing new advisory literature aimed at farmers; and enhancing capacity for delivering face-to-face advice on archaeology. Access to information on site location was provided, in the first instance, by enhancing farmers’ access to English Heritage’s National Monuments Record (NMR). The main problem with the data available in the NMR and in local authority inventories was that, although available in GIS form, the information for undesignated sites was mainly cast in the form of ‘points’, rather than ‘polygons’ showing the full extent of each site. It was, therefore, of limited practical use to land managers. With several hundred thousand undesignated sites recorded in national and local inventories, the conversion of these data into polygons was a major challenge and a project that is still in hand after several years. More rapid progress was made with the production of

a suite of advisory literature aimed both at farmers and professional multi-disciplinary farm advisers (Fig. 17.3b). These advice notes addressed the stewardship of archaeology in grassland, in cultivated land and through agri-environment schemes, as well as the management of historic parkland and farm buildings. The full range of this literature is available on line at http://www. english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-bytopic/landscape-and-areas/farmland/ and has also been adopted by several specialist farm advisory web sites. Notwithstanding the availability of this written advice, it was always recognised that it was no substitute for faceto-face advice, delivered in the field. With this in mind, English Heritage successfully lobbied the government organisations charged with delivery of environmental farming schemes to increase the number of its in-house experts in archaeology from 1 (in 2000) to around 15 (in 2009). Following a series of organisational changes, these advisers are currently employed by England’s nature conservation agency, Natural England. English Heritage also grant-aided the establishment (but not the long-term costs) of a number of Historic Environment Countryside Adviser posts in a series of local authorities. At the time of writing, some 19 of these posts are active and working closely with English Heritage’s own advisers and with Natural England. Taken together, these new appointments represent a significant increase in the capacity available for delivering advice to farmers and their impact is reflected in a corresponding increase in beneficial archaeological site management activity. The timing of the publication of the Ripping Up History campaign document was no accident. It was chosen to coincide with two key government initiatives announced in 2003. The first was a review of England’s environmental farming schemes by Defra and the second was an announcement by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport of a fundamental review of heritage legislation, intended to culminate in a new parliamentary heritage bill. The publicity surrounding Ripping up History was to effectively influence both of these reviews and, thereby,

Figs 17.3a and 17.3b Publication of Ripping up History in 2003 was calculated to raise the profile of the issue, but was followed by more practical advice to land managers, such as guidance for professional farm advisers, published in 2005.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in132 132

19/11/2010 15:19:48

17  Plough damage and archaeology: a perspective from England

133

Figs 17.4a and 17.4b  An agri-environment scheme agreement at Segsbury hillfort in Oxfordshire has returned its once heavily ploughed interior to flower-rich chalk grassland, and cleared its ramparts of damaging scrub. Photographs taken in 1987 and 2003. © English Heritage NMR 4243-34 and 23195-09

support the fifth and sixth objectives of the English Heritage strategy. By 2003, a variety of environmental farming (agrienvironment) schemes had been in operation across the UK, some for up to 15 years (Yates et al., this volume). While a number of these included provision for managing historic landscape features, only a few were effective in delivering improved management of archaeological sites and none were successfully securing the cessation of ploughing on significant numbers of threatened archaeological sites. As noted above, the publication of Ripping Up History coincided with the review of the effectiveness of environmental farming schemes, which was to inform the design of a new England-wide scheme, Environmental Stewardship. Around the same time, the Scheduled Monuments at Risk pilot project in England’s East Midlands region (English Heritage 2006 and Humble, this volume) clearly and empirically demonstrated that the preceding environmental farming scheme, Countryside Stewardship, was not benefiting nationally important archaeological sites, even where they were situated on farm holdings entered into the scheme. As a result, Defra committed to making the new scheme more effective in improving the management of archaeological sites, including those under the plough. When Environmental

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in133 133

Stewardship was launched in 2005, among the measures available to land managers were options to remove sites from cultivation and to promote minimum tillage as well as to manage sites in grassland; to control scrub; and to maintain or restore historic buildings. While the schemes continue to be led by nature conservation considerations, the availability of these options and realistic financial incentives to encourage their delivery by farmers has dramatically improved performance in terms of all aspects of the historic environment. By the autumn of 2008, Environmental Stewardship had already delivered 36 million Euros-worth of agreements to manage historic features, including removing 3,444 hectares of archaeologically sensitive land from cultivation and ensuring reduced-depth cultivation over an additional 10,265 hectares (Fig. 17.4). Turning to the sixth and final objective of achieving change in the statutory arrangements pertaining to cultivated archaeological sites, it is also possible to point to limited progress. Plough damage was registered as an issue during the consultation process leading to a proposed new heritage bill for England and Wales, not least as a result of the Ripping up History campaign. In its preparatory White Paper the government concluded that it should withdraw the automatic consent that permitted

19/11/2010 15:20:00

134

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

supposedly ‘same-depth’ cultivation of designated archaeological sites. Instead it proposed replacing it with a licensing system based on a site-specific assessment of risk that would permit monitoring conditions to be attached to licences. In doing so it referred to the joint English Heritage and Defra research described by Humble and Holyoak elsewhere in this volume (DCMS et al. 2007, 27–28). Disappointingly, however, although fully drafted, the Heritage Bill that would deliver these reforms has not yet found parliamentary time, largely due to the competing legislative demands posed by the financial crisis of 2009. Forwards, backwards or round in circles? An assessment of progress It is now some ten years since English Heritage began its concerted effort to deliver improvements to the management of archaeological sites under cultivation. It is, therefore, an appropriate juncture at which to review and evaluate progress and to consider next steps. During the decade English Heritage has undoubtedly made important advances in understanding the scale of the overall challenge and identifying its priorities for action and it has raised awareness of the issue quite markedly amongst the farming community. With its research partners it has revolutionised understanding of the detailed mechanics of cultivation impacts and begun to map out avenues for further fruitful investigation. It has successfully influenced the design and delivery of English environmental farming schemes – so, inter alia, they deliver significant benefits in terms of protecting archaeological remains threatened by ploughing – and has influenced the preparation of the draft Heritage Protection Bill for England and Wales. The balance sheet also displays less encouraging results. As yet, the draft bill has not been enacted and its prospects for progress remain uncertain, leaving in place a less-thansatisfactory legal framework for designated sites under the plough. Anecdotal evidence suggests that renewed pressures for food and energy production have begun to reverse the flow of land from arable to pastoral use, which has characterised agricultural land-use in England for the last two decades or so. As a consequence, more sites may be threatened in the future. Equally worryingly, the next round of reform to the EU Common Agricultural Policy and widespread reductions in public expenditure may threaten the modest gains made through England’s environmental farming schemes during the last 20 years (see Trow, this volume). Archaeologists in 21st-century England cannot, therefore, afford to be complacent about cultivation: it remains the single biggest threat to our archaeological resource and effective solutions remain tantalisingly out-of-reach. There

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in134 134

is, perhaps, no more telling testimony of our collective failure to resolve this problem than the fact that – despite our best efforts and those of Colonel Augustus Lane-Fox, nearly a century and a half ago – the Dyke Hills enclosure currently remains under the plough. It must be hoped that, in future, progress will be more rapid. [email protected] References Barker, P. 1974: The scale of the problem. In Rahtz, P. A. (ed.), Rescue Archaeology, 28–34. Penguin Books, Pelican Originals series, Harmondsworth. Darvill, T. & Fulton, A. 1998: MARS: The Monuments at Risk Survey of England, 1995: Main Report. Bournemouth University and English Heritage, Bournemouth and London. DCMS et al. 2007: Heritage Protection for the 21st Century. TSO (The Stationery Office): Department for Culture, Media and Sport and Welsh Assembly Government, Cm 7057, Norwich. Drewett, P. L. 1976: An Extensive Survey of Plough-Damage to Known Archaeological Sites in West and East Sussex. Institute of Archaeology, London. English Heritage 2006: Scheduled Monuments at Risk: East Midlands Region. English Heritage, London. Hinchliffe, J. & Schadla-Hall, R. T. 1980: The Past under the Plough. Papers presented at the seminar on plough damage and archaeology held at Salisbury, February 1977. Department of the Environment, London. Lambrick, G. 1977: Archaeology and Agriculture: A Survey of Modern Cultivation Methods and the Problems of Assessing Plough Damage to Archaeological Sites. Oxford Archaeological Unit Survey 4. Council for British Archaeology and the Oxford Archaeological Unit, London. Oxford Archaeology & Defra 2002: The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes BD1701, CSG15, Final Project Report. http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document. aspx?Document=BD1701_535_FRA.pdf Proudfoot, E. V. W. (ed.) 1989: Our Vanishing Heritage. Forestry and Archaeology: Proceedings of a Conference, Inverness, April 1987. Council for Scottish Archaeology Occasional Paper No. 2. Council for Scottish Archaeology, Edinburgh. Saville, A. 1980: Archaeological Sites in the Avon and Gloucestershire Cotswolds: An Extensive Survey of a Rural Archaeological Resource with Special Reference to Plough Damage. Committee for Rescue Archaeology in Avon, Gloucestershire and Somerset (CRAAGS), Report No. 5 (Bristol). Wainwright, G. 2000: Time please. Antiquity 74, No. 286, 909–943.

19/11/2010 15:20:00

18  |  Mitigation impossible? Practical approaches to managing archaeology in arable farming systems Vincent Holyoak Abstract: This paper complements those by Trow and Humble (this volume) and summarises the results of a five-year research project that has studied the direct and indirect effects of differing tillage systems on surface and sub-surface archaeology, using both laboratory-based and accelerated field trials. It has provided us with the first empirical data on precisely how and why cultivation and the techniques associated with tillage impact upon archaeology. More importantly, it has tested the effectiveness of varying mitigation techniques, at the same time highlighting new areas where simple changes to agricultural practices could bring about much broader benefits to both farmers and the conservation of archaeology.

This paper outlines the results of a five-year research project that has studied the direct and indirect effects of differing tillage systems on surface and sub-surface archaeology using both laboratory-based experiments and field trials. In doing so, it complements papers elsewhere in this volume by Humble and by Trow that examine the risks to listed (scheduled) archaeological sites in England, particularly those posed by tillage. Humble has described how earlier work (see Oxford Archaeology 2002) and the Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC) project (see Oxford Archaeology 2006a, 2006b) provided a desk-based methodology for assessing the risks to archaeology under cultivation considered to be 80% accurate, with accuracy capable of further enhancement by site visits, farmer interviews and test pitting. However, in contrast to the risk-assessment element of the COSMIC methodology that resulted from two years of field testing, the project’s recommendations for mitigation (reducing risk) had not been tested empirically, but were simply based upon assumptions which archaeologists have been making for many years. It was therefore recognised that before the practical recommendations for reducing risk suggested by COSMIC could be deployed, we needed to gather this empirical data, and see whether the risk-reduction measures proposed for sites were realistic, effective and correct. This also opened up another possibility: if a better understanding could be developed about what processes were most damaging, and why, this might also help to identify fundamental changes to cultivation practices which could deliver widespread, across-theboard approaches to risk-reduction for archaeological sites, rather than simply delivering management solutions at a site-specific level. The results of COSMIC had also pointed to reduced depth cultivation as a means of reducing risk. However, there was no simple or reliable method for farmers or curators to monitor depth and ensure compliance. This aspect also required further work. The absence of a body of detailed evidence for the longterm impacts of tillage (described by Trow, this volume) also meant that approaches had to be developed which replicated these effects within a short time-frame, if the project was to provide useful results.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in135 135

The effects of differing tillage techniques In 2005 English Heritage and Defra commissioned Oxford Archaeology and the Department of Soil Sciences, Cranfield University, to undertake a five-year project called ‘The Effects of Arable Cultivation on Archaeology’, in order to better understand the physical impacts of cultivation on archaeology, specifically the relative effects of normal ploughing, direct drilling and minimum tillage upon earthworks, the buried soils beneath them and on subsurface features and artefacts (see Oxford Archaeology 2009). To achieve this, Oxford Archaeology constructed a series of replica surface and sub-surface features (Fig. 18.1). These were then subjected by the Cranfield University team to both ‘real time’ and the accelerated equivalent of 30 years’ worth of cultivation, using a range of common equipment and cultivation regimes. These ‘false archaeological sites’ comprised sub-surface features (including walls, pits and ditches) buried under a plough soil 0.25m to 0.30m deep. Earthworks (mimicking medieval ridge and furrow, prehistoric barrows and a bank) were also constructed. Four 10m by 20m test plots, each of which contained six replica archaeological sites, were cultivated using respectively a mouldboard plough, shallow inversion, non-inversion and direct drilling. In each case one half of the plot was first subsoiled, while the other half was not. The cultivation undertaken included deep (0.20–0.25m) and shallow (0.125m) conventional ploughing (that is, inversion tillage using a standard mouldboard plough), non-inversion tillage using a combination tillage tool (in this case a Simba Solo) and direct drilling or zero tillage. The destructive effects of 0, 1, 2 and 5 passes of the subsoiler (or pan-buster) on these archaeological sites was also measured. Both deep and shallow mouldboard ploughing led to truncation of the sub-surface archaeological features over time, even though cultivation operations were restricted to a ‘constant’ depth of 0.25–0.30m. The rate of archaeological truncation for the deep mouldboard plough plots was 0.01m over the equivalent of 30 years, whereas on the shallow mouldboard plough plots 0.07m of truncation was recorded. After each episode of cultivation on the false earthworks a GPS survey was undertaken to show changes in profile. Both conventional ploughing and non-inversion tillage

19/11/2010 15:20:00

136

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 18.1  One of the ‘false archaeological sites’ constructed during the accelerated field trials portion of the project in order to look at the effects of differing tillage practices on sub-surface artefacts and features. © Oxford Archaeology

resulted in the destruction of earthworks. The average height loss of the non-inversion tilled earthworks was around 0.01–0.03m ‘per year’, the variation correlating significantly with earthwork type. Unexpectedly, ploughing the earthworks led to a similar or lesser average height loss than non-inversion tillage of around 0.01m ‘per year’. The surprising result was that the profile of the medieval ridge-and-furrow earthworks had changed much more than that of the barrows, even using minimum tillage. This appeared to have been due to the repeating undulation of the earthworks, and the rigidity of the minimum tillage rig. Unable to pivot adequately, the rig simply planed the surface of the features. This element of the trials project indicated that non-tillage (direct drilling) offered the only long-term sustainable protection for earthworks remaining under cultivation. For each cultivation technique the project also looked not just at the surface changes in profile, but also at lateral soil movement (using transponders) and the depth of disturbance (using coloured glass beads). Together with the work on profiles, this gave some data on the rates of erosion, and the implications for buried soil and archaeological features situated below or contained within earthworks. In all of the plots subsoiling rather than tillage operations was found to represent the single most damaging activity to the archaeological features. This is highly significant because of the perception that non-inversion tillage leads to the build-up of deep soil compaction and pans, and therefore necessitates periodic subsoiling. The project therefore also studied the relationship between tractor

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in136 136

passes and soil compaction and degradation over the accelerated 30-year-equivalent period. Compaction and pressure at depth One of the reasons that the Soils Science department of Cranfield University was chosen as contractor was not only their agronomic expertise, but also their laboratory facilities. These included a soil bin that could be filled with any soil and then, using hydraulic equipment, allow any tillage implement or combination of wheel or track loadings to be run across it. A series of pressure sensors buried within the soil could then be used to measure the forces exerted. This aspect of the laboratory work looked at several areas of interest, the first of which was the relationship between depth and the transmission of pressure. A penetrologger was also used to look at compaction. From this initial laboratory work it was intended to identify the least and most damaging combinations in terms of tillage operations and wheel loading, and then use these combinations for the accelerated and real-time field trials on the replica archaeological sites. However, clay soils could not be used in the soil bin, so work on this soil type was carried out only in the field. The final aspect of the work on soil pressure and compaction looked at the effects of tillage implements and cultivation systems on buried artefacts. The initial trials used modern plant pots in order to develop a workable methodology. The pots had a simple electrical circuit painted on to them, they were wired up and buried, and a pressure plate exerted pressure upon them (Fig. 18.2). Once the circuit was broken, so too was the pot. This methodology was transferred from plant pots to specially

19/11/2010 15:20:03

18  Mitigation impossible? Practical approaches to managing archaeology in arable farming systems

137

Fig. 18.2  The instrumented replica ceramic vessel, pre-burial. © Cranfield University

soil loosening to a depth of 0.25m (that is, within normal tillage depths and at far less depth than subsoiling) will remove the effects of the surface soil damage caused by wheelings.

made replica prehistoric, Roman and medieval ceramics, and then applied to human bones (a small number of unstratified skulls and long bones from a large urban excavation). The latter proved more problematic because they were found to flex rather than break cleanly. Without empirical data to show otherwise, it had always been assumed by archaeologists that, in addition to the effects of the tillage implements physically ripping through archaeological deposits, the pressure exerted by the implements as they dragged through the soil was primarily what led to soil compaction. However, Cranfield University’s work using pressure sensors showed that in fact the tyre or track loads on farm vehicles produced much greater peak pressures than the tillage implements, ranging from 0.5 bar to 7.5 bar, depending on load, inflation pressure, carcase stiffness and soil conditions (primarily moisture content). The work also showed how these peak pressures could be massively reduced by decreasing inflation pressure, carcase rigidity, or in the case of tracked vehicles, by fitting additional idler wheels. More simply still, they could also be massively be reduced by waiting until the soil moisture content was correct (that is, until the moisture content does not exceed field capacity). The clear message was that the weight of the vehicle or tillage implement was much less important than the manner in which this weight was being transferred on to the surface of a field.

Depth compliance monitoring English Heritage’s Centre for Archaeology had already done some initial work on two possible methods of monitoring cultivation depth using electrical transponders and coloured glass beads, both of which can be accurately sited and relocated using a GPS. The purpose of the work was to examine the feasibility of monitoring a land manager’s compliance with any depth conditions which might be applied either to the cultivation of legally protected archaeological sites, or to conditions imposed as a result of an agri-environment agreement. In a field test of this approach, a series of monitoring stations was put in place on the Scheduled Monument of Little Woodbury, the Iron Age settlement site near Salisbury excavated by Gerhard Bersu in 1938. The transponders were buried at the base of the plough zone on the surface of the horizon containing chalk-cut archaeological features. The transponders give off a signal, and if cultivation goes too deep, and displaces the transponder, this can be detected and measured using a combination of a GPS and a transponder reader. Transponders come in a range of sizes and are inexpensive, although monitoring requires expertise and specialist equipment and has other cost implications. For the beads a 1m-square pit was excavated immediately above the archaeological horizon and filled to predetermined depths with varying colours of glass (Fig. 18.3). If cultivation is too deep the beads are displaced into the cultivation horizon, providing a readily visible ‘warning’.

Importantly, the study detected virtually no development of compaction pans away from the wheelings in any of the plots, including those subject to direct drilling and noninversion tillage, even after 30-years’-equivalent-worth of primary and secondary cultivation. This is important, because many farmers cite the supposed formation of pans and compaction as either a reason to avoid notillage or minimum-tillage systems, or possibly worse still, to routinely undertake subsoiling. In fact, given that direct drilling or non-inversion tillage take place at much lesser depths than normal inversion tillage operations, even in cases where compaction pans do form, shallow Fig. 18.3  A glass-bead cultivation-depth monitoring station under construction. Although displacement of the beads offers a readily identifiable indicator to the farmer that they may have cultivated too deeply, the trials project suggested that these are best used in conjunction with transponders located by GPS. © Oxford Archaeology

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in137 137

19/11/2010 15:20:09

138

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 18.4  Contour survey showing the effects of accelerated mouldboard ploughing over a test earthwork during years 0–15. © Oxford Archaeology

Fig. 18.5  Contour survey showing the effects of accelerated non-inversion cultivation over a test earthwork during years 0–10. © Oxford Archaeology

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in138 138

19/11/2010 15:20:13

18  Mitigation impossible? Practical approaches to managing archaeology in arable farming systems

139

7 6

Pressure (bar)

5 4 Tractor & Deep Plough

Harvester

LGP Tractor & Rolls

3 Tractor & Trailer: Shallow Plough

2

Tractor & Simba Solo Tractor & Drill

1 0 road 5t, 7bar

harvester 10t, 2bar

rear tractor 2t, 2bar

harvester 10t, 1bar

rear tractor 2t, 1bar

track 12t

harvester 5t, 2bar

dual 2t, 1bar

harvester 5t, 1bar

track 5t

human walking

Fig. 18.6  Chart showing pressure at 0.25m depth using differing equipment with laboratory (histogram) and accelerated field results (lines). © Cranfield University

Following this initial work at Little Woodbury, the Cranfield University and Oxford Archaeology research project was tasked with evaluating the most effective transponders to use in terms of signal strength and longevity, and the simplest method of monitoring their location. Although initially more time consuming to put in place, glass-bead monitoring stations have the advantage of providing a very simple visual indication for both the farmer and specialists that cultivation has gone deeper than it should. The project reviewed what colour of beads might be the most effective, whether (in the light of the cost of beads) coloured sand would be equally as effective, what size of monitoring station was required, and how the methods stood up over 30-years’equivalent of cultivation. Field testing showed that both the glass-indicator stations and transponders worked well in indicating likely damage to archaeological horizons, with glass being best in terms of surface visibility, and therefore offering farmers a simple visual indication that cultivation operations were going too deep. Operations subsequent to primary cultivation would, however, tend to disperse the glass and make any concentrations less distinct, and indicators could also be removed by a farmer. Monitoring of the transponders would be possible at any time after initial cultivation without fear that the evidence would disappear or be tampered with. It was suggested that transponders (32mm glass cylinders in point configurations) could be used in conjunction with the glass beads as a way of cross-checking compliance with any depth restrictions which might be applied to cultivation. Lessons from the management and mitigation projects English Heritage was confident of the utility and accuracy of the COSMIC risk assessment model, which in terms of the mitigation required to significantly reduce the risk for archaeology under cultivation had suggested – possibly for the first time – that with some notable exceptions, the majority of archaeological sites could

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in139 139

remain in cultivation, if conditions were imposed on the way that they were cultivated. To make this approach work effectively, however, the effectiveness of the riskreduction (mitigation) measures proposed by COSMIC also needed to be tested. The trials project was an attempt to address that problem, by providing a scientific rather than intuitive understanding of the risks to archaeological remains. It also allowed consideration of how, by seeking changes to farming practices generally, risks may be reduced to large numbers of sites as an alternative to site-specific approaches. In so doing, it highlighted some issues not previously considered or understood. For example, non-inversion tillage was demonstrated not to offer significant protection to earthworks compared to conventional mouldboard ploughing (Figs 18.4 and 18.5). Instead, direct drilling (which entails no tillage) and managed pasture are the only feasible options. While non-inversion tillage is damaging to earthworks, it can be used on sites with no surviving surface features where these are not on the upper and middle slopes, especially on light soils where the erosion risk is greatest. It must also be undertaken either along the contours of the slope and not up or down, or across them. Standard mouldboard ploughs are ineffectual for depth-limited cultivation because they are designed to ‘dig in’ and always go more deeply than is intended. Another issue is that of pressure. Vehicle or tillage implement weight appears far less important than the loading placed upon wheels and, through them, the soil, which increases compaction. The greater the compaction the greater the necessity to subsoil, which in turn means a deeper disturbance, often going far deeper than normal tillage. So wheel loading can be potentially more damaging than the direct physical impact of tillage implements (Fig. 18.6). At its outset, the COSMIC project was predicated on the (generally held) assumption that the most damaging activity associated with cultivation was the direct physical

19/11/2010 15:20:14

140

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

impact of tillage implements dragging through archaeological horizons, destroying and displacing features and artefacts as they went. However, as the risk-assessment methodology was developed, the significance of the presence (or absence) of layers buffering the archaeological horizons was also identified as being critical to risk. It was suggested that anything reducing the depth of these buffers – such as compaction – would therefore have a negative impact, primarily by bringing archaeological layers closer to the cultivation horizon, but also by allowing the better transmission of the downwards pressure exerted by tillage implements, leading to the distortion and destruction of artefacts and features. General recommendations Beyond risk-reduction applications at a site-specific level, the ultimate prize arising from the trials project was the identification of a simple series of recommendations that could be adopted by farmers to benefit archaeology anywhere within most arable farming systems. The primary recommendations were as follows: • Avoid mouldboard ploughing (inversion tillage) operations over archaeology. • Use only shallow (non-inversion) tillage and direct drilling operations along the contours of slopes, with tractors equipped with wide-section tyres, low ground pressure/dual tyres or rubber tracks. • Good slope tillage management should be adhered to – that is, tillage should be practised in one direction one year and the other direction the year after. This will compensate for any small lateral movements of the soil. • Operate all field-going equipment with the safest low-inflation pressure for the required load and field/ road speed duty cycle. There was a series of secondary recommendations: • Where practicable concentrate as many wheelings as possible in one place and apply the principles of controlled traffic farming. Ensure that these wheelings avoid known areas of buried archaeological features and deposits where possible. • Prevent road-going trucks with high inflation pressures from traversing the fields; permit them to park on the headland by the gateway. • Where possible avoid field operations in

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in140 140

high-moisture-content conditions with weak soils at or above field capacity. • Only undertake subsoiling operations over archaeological sites to depths no greater than 0.30m or within the current depth of ploughsoil – whichever is least – as they will damage buried archaeological deposits and objects by direct impact. • Avoid conventional depth or shallow ploughing of sites on slopes, for the same reasons as for flat sites. These recommendations represent the end of one process, but hopefully also the beginning of a wholly new dialogue, because they open up the scope for achieving multiple benefits, both environmentally and for farm businesses. All of the general recommendations above follow the principles of Defra’s Protecting our Water, Soil and Air: A Code of Good Practice for Farmers, Growers and Land Managers (2009), which help to sustain good agricultural practices by minimising compaction and promoting crop growth. Indeed, Cranfield University suggested that there is evidence that farmers are already attempting to lower pressures in order to preserve soils, and this will surely be more persuasive than any other arguments that ­archaeologists might deploy. Acknowledgements Thanks to Klara Spandl, Oxford Archaeology. [email protected] References Oxford Archaeology 2002: The Management of Archaeological Sites in Arable Landscapes. BD1701. http://sciencesearch.defra.gov.uk/Document. aspx?Document=BD1701_519_FRA.pdf Oxford Archaeology 2006a: Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC). BD1704. For English Heritage and Defra [online]. http://randd.defra.gov. uk/document.aspx?Document=BD1704_3762_FRA.pdf Oxford Archaeology 2006b: Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation (COSMIC), English Heritage Full report, June 2006. (http://sciencesearch.defra.gov. uk/Document.aspx?Document=BD1704_ 3770_FRA. pdf) Oxford Archaeology and Cranfield University 2009: Trials to Identify Soil Cultivation Practices to Minimise the Impact on Archaeological Sites (Defra)/Effects of Arable Cultivation on Archaeology (EH). BD1705.

19/11/2010 15:20:14

19  |  Forestry and the historic environment in Britain:   a challenging past and an exciting future Tim Yarnell and Peter Crow Abstract: Forestry policy has changed considerably over the last century. It was originally focused on restocking woods ‘ravaged’ during the First World War and afforestation to establish a timber resource but today’s programmes aim to deliver a wide range of benefits in addition to sustainable timber production. This article discusses the potential risks, opportunities and benefits that woodland management can have for the historic environment and identifies future challenges.

The challenging past The landscape we see today in Great Britain is the product of a great many social, political, economic and technological drivers. This is especially true for the history of forests and woodlands. Augmented by climate change the same drivers will undoubtedly continue to play a significant part in the future. The direction of land-use change is frequently determined by government actions and in this context the role of the Forestry Commission (FC) (the government department responsible for the protection and expansion of Great Britain’s forests and woodlands) is significant. The FC was established in 1919, after the First World War, to improve forestry supply and productivity. As the government department responsible for forestry in Great Britain it delivers separate Forestry Strategies for the administrations for England, Scotland and Wales, reporting to three government ministers. In 1900 woodland cover in Great Britain was around 5%, whereas today it is 12% (2.6 million hectares). Although low compared to many European countries, this doubling of woodland cover in the last century is no small achievement. The social history associated with this period of expansion is interesting and informative but beyond the scope of this paper. It is, however, worth noting that many of the forests established over the last hundred years are a testament to considerable physical endeavour. They established new settlements and prompted debates on land use – for example, ‘mutton versus trees’ – that resonate today. Although largely successful in meeting the objectives of expansion and productivity there is no doubt that some of the effects this expansion of woodland had on the historic environment, especially individual archaeological sites and ancient woodlands, were not what would be hoped for today. However, by examining what happened in the past, particularly the period between approximately 1920 and 1980, it is possible to plan for the future. To avoid taking good land out of agriculture, many upland or less fertile lowland locations, such as the Brecklands in East Anglia, were targeted for afforestation. and typically planted with fast-growing, non-native conifer species. In some cases it was necessary to modify the site to provide the best possible growing conditions; as a result deep cultivation and drainage often occurred. The impacts of these operations led to many archaeological sites being surrounded or covered by trees, with the result that they were either assumed to be destroyed or

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in141 141

simply forgotten. This period of damage has been well documented (Proudfoot 1989) and led to changes in policy and practice. There is no doubt that some sites were severely damaged, but in recent years the harvesting of these early plantings has allowed many lost or forgotten sites to be rediscovered – as a result the familiar entry ‘destroyed by afforestation’ is proving not always to be true. However, in some upland landscapes, largely unchanged for centuries, many individual sites have become divorced from their historic context or setting. Elsewhere, especially in the lowland zone, changes in agricultural practice (for example, pasture improvement or conversion to arable) have meant that some of the best-surviving archaeological features are now to be found in woodlands. Another past impact on the historic environment that is sometimes overlooked is the ‘planting through’ (commercial afforestation) of existing ancient or secondary broadleaved woodland with conifers to increase productivity. These changes in the historic character of the woodland were accompanied in some instances by disturbance to archaeological features relating to both woodland management and other earlier land uses. The conservation of this archaeology, often referred to as ‘in woods’ and ‘of woods’ (Darvill 1987, 92–104), is an exciting opportunity for the future. Delivering benefits today During the past three decades, there have been many changes in forest policy in Great Britain, where the encouragement of woodland establishment and timber production has been accompanied by a greater awareness and appreciation of the other benefits that woodlands have to offer. For example, the Strategy for England’s Trees Woods and Forests is supported by a delivery plan that includes aims for the natural environment, climate change and quality of life, in addition to the sustainable resource necessary for business and markets. Improved visitor access to promote and enhance recreational use is a frequent objective, aimed at supporting health and outdoor opportunities for many different groups within society. Since the early 1990s there has been significant interest in establishing woodlands nearer to where the majority of the population live – ‘Community Forests’ as they are known. An increased understanding of ecosystems and biodiversity is enabling better-informed forest management, with increasing ecological value sought and supported (often with enhanced grant schemes).

19/11/2010 15:20:14

142

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

A greater appreciation of the historic environment has also developed over recent years. The UK Forestry Standard (Forestry Commission 2004) included the conservation of heritage features as one of the criteria for Sustainable Forest Management (SFM). The better understanding of the potential risks to the historic environment of damage from forest operations such as ground preparation, road construction and harvesting, has led to the publication of practical guidelines for forest managers (Forestry Commission 1995). This guidance outlines the requirements that important sites are clearly identified and that the cultural and historical character of the countryside is taken into account when creating new woods and when making changes to existing woods. A revised and expanded version of these guidelines is forthcoming. The establishment and sustainable management of forests deliver economic, social and environmental benefits. There is, however, a potential element of competition between these benefits, especially at a local scale. Although the statutory and regulatory framework for the conservation of the historic environment and individual historic assets is much improved, it is important to obtain objective information on heritage assets: their importance, significance and the risks that forest environments and operations pose to their preservation. The long-term nature of forestry as a land use means that it is also necessary to consider potential future impacts of altering soil conditions, climate-change predictions and associated mitigation strategies.

What is where? The first stage in any conservation strategy is identifying the assets. Implementation of forestry policy depends on it applying to both existing woodland and across land currently in other uses. The most challenging aspect of this relates to existing woodland. Within the UK, many archaeological sites are known and recorded because of their visibility in aerial photographs. However, where woodland canopies have persisted for most of the last century and sometimes longer, many archaeological features have been hidden from view. Equally, archaeological surveys within woodlands are logistically difficult and often considered to be expensive, with the result that few have been undertaken to date and many important features remain hidden and unrecorded. For this reason, woodlands have been described as containing the largest remaining unknown archaeological resource in the UK. Modern technology is helping to address this situation and the remote-sensing technique of LiDAR (light, detection and ranging) has the potential to reveal heritage features hidden beneath the tree canopy. By firing an aircraft-mounted laser in very rapid pulses over deciduous woodland in winter, some of the laser energy will be reflected back from the canopy while some will be reflected from lower down, potentially from the woodland floor. By combining the time taken to detect the laser reflections (directly related to the distance of the reflected surface from the LiDAR system) with positional data from the survey aircraft, 3-dimensional co-ordinates can be produced for the reflective surfaces. As

Fig. 19.1  A LiDAR-derived ‘bare earth’ model. Many potential archaeological features are suggested, but on-site investigation may still be necessary to separate them from modern or natural features. © Forest Research, based on Forestry Commission and Unit for Landscape Modelling data

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in142 142

19/11/2010 15:20:15

19  Forestry and the historic environment in Britain: a challenging past and an exciting future

143

Fig. 19.2  While roots will grow between most artefacts, some localised disturbance may occur. However, this rarely prevents archaeological interpretation and may be preferable to other land uses. © Forest Research

shown in Figure 19.1, these data can be processed to filter out reflections from the canopy and produce a map of the terrain that is devoid of vegetation and potentially shows any archaeological features present (Devereux et al. 2005). There are, however, limitations to this technique because the laser is unable to penetrate dense vegetation, especially where evergreen plants occur and no benefit is gained from a winter (leaf-off) survey. Nonetheless, some results can still be obtained from mature, well-thinned coniferous plantations. Within the UK, important heritage features also include a large number of ancient trees, often many hundreds of years old. Where these have a characteristic canopy shape that is different to that of any surrounding woodland, or their girth is sufficiently large, these may also be detectable within the LiDAR data, allowing many of them to be mapped (see www.forestry.gov.uk/fr/lidar for further information and examples). With efficient use of computer-mapping software, features identified from LiDAR or other sources of information can be recorded and then included in any forest-operation maps as areas to be protected. Such tools are essential in modern forestry and heritage management, allowing not only data capture and display for maintenance purposes, but also the facilitation of knowledge exchange between stakeholders. Sizeable areas of the historic forests in England have been surveyed from the air (including the forested areas of Dean, Wyre and Savernake) and early analysis of the results is proving exciting. Understanding impacts and preservation There are few detailed studies into the impacts of plant roots on buried archaeological materials and observations on rooting activity are usually excluded from archaeological excavation reports. The FC is therefore encouraging archaeologists to record any rooting activity and impacts seen during excavations to help improve our understanding of below-ground processes. Despite a lack of detailed records, discussions with archaeologists regarding their observations allows the following points to be usually accepted: • Roots can cause physical damage to buried artefacts. This can range from the total destruction of small objects and the breakage of larger remains to minor surface damage only. • Chemical damage of buried artefacts as a result of root exudates can occur, but this tends to be very localised. • The active growth of roots through the soil can lead to the movement of small artefacts or the mixing of archaeological deposits. This can occasionally result in a loss of archaeological context. • Root-induced physical damage and bioturbation can be very localised and may not prevent the archaeological interpretation of a site (see Fig. 19.2). However, this disturbance may be preferable when compared to that posed by other long-term land uses, for

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in143 143

example where sites undergo regular cultivation for the growing of cereal crops. • Roots can form a physical lattice that can help to stabilise soils and archaeological deposits associated with earthworks or sites on steep slopes. However, in these instances careful management is then needed to prevent wind-throw (‘wind-throw’ is the term used in UK forestry for the occurrence of trees being blown over as a result of storms with extreme wind speeds). • During wind-throw events, a single tree or an entire area of forest may be damaged, with the wind either snapping trees or lifting substantial root systems from the ground. The latter may include any near-surface archaeological evidence that is present in close proximity to the roots. Within the UK, models have been developed to predict the risk of wind-throw based on a combination of crop and geographic information. • Where soils are thin or impoverished, roots are more likely to exploit archaeological deposits, especially if they provide a preferable rooting medium by virtue of being more friable, organically rich or wetter. The likelihood of any of the above risks occurring will inevitably be site specific, depending not only on the nature, depth and extent of any archaeological deposits and features present, but also the size, stocking density, rotation length and species of tree growing on site. For example, there may be little below-ground disturbance for many years once a mature, broadleaf woodland has developed a closed canopy and no forest operations are required until final harvesting. This is especially true for woodlands in lowland areas with little risk of wind-throw. Where risks are perceived to be higher, silvicultural practices such as pollarding can help to reduce them. Regular coppicing also reduces the risks of wind-throw and is also known to limit the diameter of roots, partly as a result of the smaller above-ground biomass. Such short-rotation coppice (SRC) tends to produce smaller roots than standard trees of a similar age, most of which occur within the upper soil horizon (Crow & Houston

19/11/2010 15:20:16

144

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

2004). For conventional woodland, the rooting depth will be determined primarily by the soil conditions of the site, and also to a lesser degree, by the species of tree being established (Crow 2005). Site cultivation is probably the greatest single risk to archaeological deposits and features. Ploughing is well known for causing damage to archaeological sites, especially when on each occasion it continues to cut deeper into previously uncultivated soil. However, where it is possible to maintain ploughing to a constant depth, archaeological evidence can survive below. Where a ‘plough pan’ – that is, a layer of soil below the ploughed horizon which has become compacted (via physical) or cemented (via chemical) processes – forms, any plant will have most of its roots restricted to within the ploughed horizon. Foresters therefore usually recommend that prior to the establishment of any tree species on former agricultural land, cultivation should occur to a greater depth than previous ploughing because this will break any plough pan and allow better root development. However, an increase in cultivation depth will inevitably have a detrimental effect on archaeological evidence surviving just below the former plough soil. The deeper the new cultivation, the greater is the risk of encountering previously unknown archaeological material. Unlike rootinduced damage, which can be very localised, deep cultivation techniques have a greater potential to destroy a feature or even an entire site. Cultivation to make a site suitable for some species may also involve the cutting of drains to lower the soil-moisture content of a predominantly waterlogged site. Drainage can cause localised physical soil disturbance, but perhaps the greatest archaeological concern will be the drying out of previously waterlogged deposits and artefacts and their subsequent degradation as a result of the loss of anaerobic conditions. By selecting the right type of tree for the site conditions, the need for drainage may be reduced. The FC encourages early consultation with historic environment advisers, which can help identify sites potentially at risk from an increased plough depth, allowing targeted cultivation and planting to reduce the risks of accidental damage. Different types of vegetation cover can influence the structure, hydrology and chemistry of the soil, all of which could have implications for the preservation of any buried archaeological material. However, the rates and extent of any change are difficult to predict because they will result from a combination of influences. These include the initial soil chemistry, site hydrology, the chemical composition of any litter material or root exudates produced by the crop, soil fauna and the geographic location of the site (as this will influence the quality and quantity of the atmospheric deposition and precipitation), soil temperature and drainage pattern. All of these can influence both the chemical properties of the buried environment or the rates of reaction or change within it and thus whether or not an artefact would be chemically preserved or degraded (Crow 2008). Given the complexities and uncertainties associated with predicting changes in soil chemistry due to the vegetation type, it is difficult to forecast a generalised outcome of the establishment of particular tree species.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in144 144

Detecting changes to either heritage features themselves or the surrounding physical or chemical environments requires monitoring and active management. This may vary from physical monitoring via simple photographic evidence of vegetation encroachment or erosion to detailed surveys or chemical analysis of the location. Forest Research (the FC’s research agency, www.forestry. gov.uk/forestresearch) and conservation scientists from English Heritage (the government’s statutory adviser on the historic environment in England) are investigating how routinely collected environmental monitoring data can provide information about changes in the buried environment, and therefore about artefact preservation. This collaborative research has highlighted how changes in air quality can rapidly alter the soil-solution chemistry (often in a period of 10 years or less), thereby emphasising the benefits of better collaboration between archaeologists and environmental scientists. Management plans exist for each Scheduled Monument (a statutory designation) within land managed by the FC. These plans, which are agreed between the forest managers and the appropriate national heritage body (that is, English Heritage, Cadw in Wales or Historic Scotland), include some aspect of monitoring and are reviewed on a regular basis. The FC is ensuring that all of the features in its land are accurately recorded within its corporate Geographic Information System (GIS). It is also considering options for including aspects of condition assessment and monitoring within the system to help ensure that the management agreements are fulfilled. In turn, the FC hopes to link this data to a system for reporting on the overall condition of Scheduled Ancient Monuments. Enhancing heritage value Within the UK, heritage is a major contributor to the tourism industry and is an asset highly valued by the public – very large numbers of people enjoy the recreation and relaxation offered by visiting woods and forests. There are thus many opportunities to promote heritage assets within woodlands, including the use of guided trails and working with volunteer groups to help with surveys, monitoring, and maintenance or restoration projects (Fig. 19.3). Activities of these kinds all raise awareness of local heritage, which in turn helps to strengthen links between the local community and its past. Woodland features therefore become more valued by those who visit them, learn from them or simply enjoy the association with the past activities they represent. There have been several successful partnership projects with a woodland heritage component and it is likely that others will follow. A future of opportunity Programmes of work connected with improving biodiversity offer opportunities for securing the longterm conservation of the historic environment, provided that they are properly planned and executed. Similarly, initiatives responding to climate change are significant for the historic environment in several ways. The UK government is committed to increasing the quantity of carbon storage (partly through woodland expansion) and replacing fossil-fuel consumption with renewable energy from sources such as wood fuel. For example, there are proposals to establish 10,000 hectares of woodland cover per annum in England over the next 15 years.

19/11/2010 15:20:16

19  Forestry and the historic environment in Britain: a challenging past and an exciting future

145

Fig. 19.3  Well-managed woodland can offer longterm protection for many historic environment assets. Such features can be used to enhance visitor access and learning. © Forest Research

Climate-change predictions suggest that the UK may experience greater extremes of weather – hotter, drier summers will be matched by milder, wetter winters. Many predictive models also indicate a greater frequency of storm events. All of these predictions have implications for the preservation of the historic environment, especially in combination with energy-crop establishment. For example, there is concern that the combination of a thirsty biomass crop and increasingly drier summers will put waterlogged deposits at greater risk of desiccation. Similarly, as the UK climate warms in a SE–NW direction, the introduction of more drought-tolerant tree species will inevitably alter the characteristic appearance of historic landscapes in which they did not previously exist (see Fig. 19.4). Conversely, the presence of tree roots can help to stabilise soils and deposits, reducing their risk to storm-induced erosion. However, significant damage can occur if the

trees are not sufficiently wind-firm. Coppicing reduces the height and density of above-ground biomass and can therefore decrease the risks of wind-throw. Forest Research has also developed models to predict the risks of windthrow, based on parameters such as soil type, tree species, planting density and height and slope and site exposure. Predictive modelling of this kind will be of growing value given the risk of increased numbers of storm events. Forest Research has been cross-checking designated monuments covered by woodland with geographical areas modelled to be at greater risk of wind-throw. Given the long timescales associated with establishing, managing and harvesting forestry, it is necessary to plan much further ahead than for many other rural land uses. This will be particularly relevant when considering replacements for veteran or other significant trees, or woodland on an archaeological site. Re-establishment with trees of the same provenance may not be practical

Fig. 19.4  Coppicing is an old woodland practice that may once again provide opportunities for local wood-fuel production while providing a long-term, lowimpact land use. However, traditional varieties may have to be replaced to cope with climate change. © Forest Research

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in145 145

19/11/2010 15:21:15

146

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

and it may be necessary to plant a variety or mix that is better suited to the climate of the future. In some parts of the UK, the practice of de-stumping has been proposed as a mechanism for increasing the productivity from individual trees. This process involves winching a tree’s root system from the ground so that it may be chipped and burned as a fuel source. This has the potential to cause significant damage to any archaeological evidence buried in close proximity to the soil surface as well introducing risks to soil integrity and water quality. For this reason the practice is currently limited to a very few areas and then only after impact assessments have been carried out. Perhaps of lesser concern is the potential use of woodland to increase the water-holding capacity of some catchments and floodplains and therefore reduce the risks of flooding downstream following heavy rain. Tree roots can help to stabilise deposits that may otherwise be washed downstream, and debris from them can help to restrict and back-up the water flow. During drier summer periods, however, there may be concern over the increased water uptake from potentially waterlogged deposits. Short-rotation forestry (SRF) for wood fuel production encourages the establishment of fast-growing species on sites that will sustain their vigorous growth. In many cases this will involve fertile, lowland soil, possibly of former agricultural use and with a sufficient water supply to sustain growth. Alluvial floodplains, reclaimed wetlands and natural basins are therefore possible candidates for meeting such requirements, especially where sites do not flood on a regular basis, but are maintained by a high water table. Wetland environments are also well known for their ability to yield well-preserved archaeological remains, especially organic materials such as wood or leather – elements often lost from archaeological deposits on drier sites. This good degree of preservation requires permanent waterlogging; when these soils begin to dry out and oxygen is able to reach the artefacts, their degradation begins. Any change in land use or associated drainage that potentially reduces the water levels within the upper soil horizons will have a negative impact on the preservation of any near-surface organic remains present. The establishment of woodland on a reclaimed floodplain will often be considered detrimental because trees have a higher water demand than short vegetation such as grass. However, the total water uptake during a 12-month period can be very similar for both broadleaf trees and grass, as the latter has a longer growing season and will therefore remove water from the soil for a greater part of the year (Hall 1996). Conversely, deciduous woodland will remove water for a shorter period, but to a greater extent during that time. The amount of water removal will differ slightly from one species of tree to another and according to the stocking density, but will be greatest in the case of fastgrowing species. In England, the FC is engaged with specific habitat and biodiversity initiatives that offer excellent opportunities to increase the understanding and conservation of significant elements of the historic environment. The first involves the removal of planted conifers from ancient woodland sites (PAWS). Identifying the cultural heritage elements

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in146 146

of these woodlands is an important part of the policy. The second initiative is focused on the restoration of open habitats. As well as allowing many heritage features to be identified and conserved it provides additional mechansims for protecting below-ground deposits and tree cover associated with designed landscapes. Forest Research is also examining the impacts of destumping and tree establishment on floodplains. The impacts and benefits of habitat connectivity for the historic environment are also being explored. Conclusion The forests and wider landscapes of Great Britain contain a wealth of historic environment assets, many of which have yet to be recorded or investigated. Ill-informed forest operations have the potential to destroy or cause significant damage to them. However, there is no desire – nor is it practicable – to fossilise the landscape as it is today. With suitable guidance, woods and forests can offer a degree of long-term protection that may be preferable to many other land-uses. An exciting future lies ahead through working with others, identifying the benefits of protecting the historic environment and engaging with wider society. By improving access to woodlands and their facilities we can enhance their cultural value for everyone. Mitigation measures in response to predicted climate change also offer new challenges both for forestry and heritage, but through good collaboration, research and understanding, the risks can be minimised and mutual benefits recognised. [email protected] [email protected] References Crow, P. 2005: The Influence of Soils and Species on Tree Root Depth. Forestry Commission Information Note. Crow, P. 2008: Mineral weathering in forest soils and its relevance to the preservation of the buried archaeological resource. Journal of Archaeological Science 35, 2262–2273. Crow, P. & Houston, T. 2004: The rooting habit of Short Rotation Coppice grown on Pelosol, Brown Earth, Surface and Ground Water Gley soils. Biomass and Bioenergy 26, 497–505. Darvill, T. 1987: Ancient Monuments in the Countryside: An Archaeological Management Review. English Heritage Archaeological report 5. English Heritage, London. Devereux, B.J., Amable, G.S., Crow, P. & Cliff, A.D. 2005: The potential of airborne lidar for detection of archaeological features under woodland canopies. Antiquity 79, 648–660. Forestry Commission 1995: Forestry and Archaeology. Forestry Commission Guideline series. Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. (Soon to be replaced by Forestry and the Historic Environment Guidelines.) Forestry Commission 2004: The UK Forestry Standard (2nd edn). Forestry Commission, Edinburgh. Hall, R. 1996: Hydrological Effects of Short Rotation Coppice. ETSU Report B/W5/00275/REP. ETSU, Harwell. Proudfoot, E.V.W. (ed.) 1989: Our Vanishing Heritage: Forestry and Archaeology. Council for Scottish Archaeology, Occasional Paper No. 2. Council for Scottish Archaeology, Edinburgh.

19/11/2010 15:21:16

20  |  Forestry and archaeology in Ireland:   current practice and future trends Emmet Byrnes Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to present an overview of the history of afforestation in Ireland over the last century, followed by a more detailed account of historical and current practices in relation to archaeology within existing and newly established forests. The minimum mandatory requirements and optional measures applicable to archaeological sites and monuments under the various forestry grant schemes are detailed, with particular attention given to the procedures for assessing ‘initial afforestation development consent’, felling licences, and forest infrastructure grant applications. It concludes with a discussion of the problems that remain, possible future threats to the archaeological resource and proposals to mitigate these.

Historical background The landscape encountered by the first people to settle in Ireland in the post-glacial period – that is, Mesolithic fisherhunter-gatherers – was one dominated by woodland, with extensive forests of Scots pine, hazel and birch stretching across the central plain and the foothills of the mountains, which form a saucer-like fringe to the country. Breaks in this canopy were essentially confined to the coast, along river courses, around lakes, and in areas of raised bog in the midlands and of blanket bog on the exposed uplands of the Atlantic seaboard (Smith 1992, 110; Cooney & Grogan 1994, 9). Improving climatic conditions during the next three millennia resulted in changes in the species composition of these forests, with oak and elm beginning to overshadow Scots pine and hazel by around 6500 BC, and a gradual incursion of alder, ash and yew (Aalen et al. 1997, 121–123). However, despite evidence for clearance in the Neolithic period, it was not until the Bronze and Iron Age periods that an increasing population (coupled with a deterioration in climatic conditions and a consequent expansion of the aforementioned bog areas from around 3000 BC onwards) resulted in any perceptible decline in woodland cover. Forest clearance gathered pace in the Early Medieval period, a time during which many of the topographically descriptive place-names indicating various forms of woodland, as well as fields, meadows and open grasslands, were first recorded. Written sources from the period also suggest increasing regulation of woodland use, with the 8th-century law tract Bretha Comaithchesca, or ‘Laws of the Neighbourhood’, establishing a hierarchy of protections afforded to different tree species as well as listing graduated fines for damaging or cutting them down without permission (MacCoitir 2003, 18). As in Britain, woodland exploitation in Ireland continued and increased throughout the High and Late Medieval periods. The Anglo-Norman lordship of the island during this period is often cited (at least domestically) as the ‘point at which the rot set in’ in terms of the irreversible decline in woodland cover, primarily through its export of raw lumber for the English market. While there is some evidence for this, an example being the deforestation of Glendalough in AD 1229 (Neeson 1991, 42), cartographic

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in147 147

sources still depicted large areas of forest and woodland cover as intact around 1600. However, by 1800 practically all the large areas of forest cover had been removed. There are many reasons for this sudden change, a marked increase in the number of ironworks and demand for charcoal in the 17th century being one possible explanation (McCracken 1971). The simplest and most significant underlying factor, however, was probably the energy demands of the ever-increasing indigenous rural population, which grew from 5 million in 1800 to 8 million by 1841, two-thirds of whom were dependent on near subsistence agriculture for their livelihoods (Neeson 1991, 91). There was a short reversal in fortunes in the mid-18th century when wealthy landowners (encouraged by grants, prizes and medals from the Royal Dublin Society), especially those with estates and demesnes, set about trying to ‘improve’ their lands and increase long-term economic gain by planting trees and overseeing the managed exploitation of the resultant woodlands. The change in aesthetic tastes away from manicured gardens and ‘landscape parks’ around the same time also resulted in the planting of many small woodlands and copses. By 1841 some 140,000 hectares of new woodlands had been planted (Aalen et al. 1997, 127; O’Carroll 2004, 10). The process was reversed again with the passing of the Land Act in 1881, a legislative framework provision to enable the transfer of the estates and demesne lands from landlords to their tenant farmers, and which resulted in cash-poor landlords felling much of what remained of their demesne woodlands to make money, while at the same time encouraging many of the former tenants to clear their newly obtained private holdings to ‘make land’ for tillage and grazing. The overall result was that by the opening of the 20th century the area under forest cover (in the counties that now constitute the Republic of Ireland) had been reduced to just 105,200 hectares, or 1.5% of the landmass, with beef production, dairying and localised areas of specialised tillage being the dominant activities and characterforming forces in the landscape. This low baseline cover is one the reasons why national forestry policy during the last 50 years has been biased towards expansion,

19/11/2010 15:21:16

148

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 20.1  Forest cover in Ireland in 2010. Source: Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

rather than concentrating on the detail of managing an established resource. National afforestation programmes The British Administration in Ireland recognised declining woodland cover as a problem. In 1903 it set up a state forestry programme, with the establishment of a forestry training centre in Avondale, County Wicklow, and new bases for expansion of woodland cover through the purchase of some privately owned woodland areas and estates. However, even with independence and the initiation of a modest afforestation programme by the new Free State Government in 1923 (planting approximately 388 hectares of land in the first year), overall forest cover continued to decline throughout the 1920s. In 1928 the Minister of Lands and Agriculture told the Dáil (the Lower House in the Irish Parliament) that there remained just ‘89,000 hectares of woods in the country’. In the same year a new Forestry Act was introduced ‘to make further and better provision for promoting afforestation’, providing for the first time non-refundable grants

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in148 148

to private landowners. Although the first of the planting grants were made available in 1931, the main applicants and beneficiaries were large estates. Almost all new forest planting continued to be undertaken directly by the state on state lands for the next decade, with a peak of about 2990 hectares planted in 1938. Government policy for the next two decades was ‘to create a home supply of raw timber sufficient to meet home requirements’ with a national target of some 283,300 hectares of forest cover, and a ratio of 1:7 in respect of protected forest areas versus full productive forest areas. However, lack of finance and suitable land, allied to opposition to forestry in many areas of the country, as well as formal restrictions on purchasing anything other than marginal land hindered progress (DAFF 2010). The Second World War (1939–45) also impacted on the state’s afforestation programme substantially, with planting rates falling to about 1712 hectares in 1945. To add insult to injury, much of the new planting undertaken in the late 1940s and early 1950s only replaced the coverage

19/11/2010 15:21:19

20  Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends

of mature forests that was lost during the war, when other fuels and timber could not be imported in quantity. In 1946 a more ambitious target of about 4000 hectares was set, accompanying a new Forestry Act designed to repeal previous acts and make more ‘modern and comprehensive’ provisions for forestry. This act remains the principal legislative framework for forestry in Ireland. Two years later, in 1948, the government, via a new ‘economic plan’, adopted the first long-term afforestation plan with long-term financial and administrative supports put in place to fulfil the strategy. The plan envisaged a state afforestation programme of around 400,000 hectares, to be achieved over a 40-year period with a planting rate of around 10,000 hectares per annum and with a view to bringing national forest cover to approximately 6%. While the new programme was rapidly put into action, the annual planting target of 10,000 hectares was not reached until 1961. This target was re-affirmed in 1964, when a second programme for economic expansion was put forward by the government of the day. By 1970 stateowned forests had reached 206,300 hectares in area and directly employed 4,395 people. The state’s afforestation programme continued over the next decade, achieving an average annual planting rate of 8800 hectares, but by the 1980s it had run into difficulties. Restrictions on the type of land that could be purchased, in place since the 1923 programme, meant sufficient ‘suitable land’ could no longer be acquired and the rate of afforestation continued to fall to a low of 5700 hectares in 1989. By this time the total forest area in state ownership amounted to 304,232 hectares and responsibility for the management of commercial forests, amenity and conservation woodlands, nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries, was vested in the Forest and Wildlife Service of the Department for Forestry and Fisheries. A deep economic recession in the mid-1980s presented challenges to the state and the management of its property portfolio, especially in terms of overall costs and efficiencies. After a two-year review (1984–5) the Forest and Wildlife Service and the national forest estate built up during the previous 80 years was divided into three distinct entities. In 1987 the wildlife functions were

149

transferred to the Office of Public Works (now called the National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS)) and two years later, in January 1989, a new semi-state company called Coillte Teoranta – the Irish Forestry Board Limited – was established to manage the state’s commercial forests, with ownership of the forest lands transferred to the new company. The third entity – the Forest Service – remained as a division within the Department of Energy (now the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) and continues to act as the National Forest Authority. This body has responsibility for, among other things: setting national forest policy, the control of felling, protecting the forest estate from disease and pests, promoting forest research and development, the promotion of private forestry and the administration of associated grant schemes, and in latter years the operation of the ‘forest consent system’. Although, grant schemes encouraging private landowners to plant forests had existed since 1930, by 1980 only 10,192 hectares had been planted by the sector. However, with declining levels in the state programme a substantial move to increase private-sector planting was undertaken in 1981, following the introduction of a special grant scheme under the forestry element of the EEC’s (Directive 85/350) ‘Western Package’. The ‘package’ was aimed at stimulating agricultural development and improving farm incomes by offering grants to plant on ‘lands marginal for agriculture but suitable for forestry’ in disadvantaged areas in 13 counties along the Atlantic seaboard and across the northern drumlin belt. Other forestry grants schemes (with funding drawn from the European Union’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)) were introduced in succeeding years. In 1986 a ‘compensatory allowance’ or cash payment (per hectare per year for 20 years) was added to the incentives for farmers in the disadvantaged areas, with eligibility for forestry grants extended to farmers and farm co-ops countrywide in 1987. In 1989 the grant schemes were opened to non-farmers and the grant was enhanced to cover 100% of the capital costs incurred. The schemes and payments available were again revised in 1992. As a result private planting increased almost year-on-year from a low of 1249 hectares between 1981 and 1986 to a peak of 17,353 hectares in 1995. The

25000

Fig. 20.2  The rate of new forest planting (afforestation) in Ireland over the last 80 years, undertaken either directly by the State or by private landowners with financial assistance from the State. Source: Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in149 149

Hectares

20000

15000 Total Private

10000

State

5000

0 1920

1930

1940

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

Year

19/11/2010 15:21:19

150

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

result of this, when coupled with a smaller programme of land acquisition and planting by Coillte Teoranta, meant forest cover then totalled 8% of the landmass. Buoyed by this boom, in 1996 the government published a new and ambitious strategy for the development of the forestry sector up to the year 2035 – Growing for the Future (DAFF 1996), with a core aim of increasing forest cover to 1.2 million hectares (or 17% of the landmass) by 2030. The afforestation levels required to achieved this target were set at 25,000 hectares per annum to the year 2000, and 20,000 hectares per annum thereafter. However, despite the availability of generous grants and compensatory payments to private landowners, the rate of afforestation has declined in almost every year since, falling to about 6244 hectares in 2008. Annual private planting rates have remained at those levels since, despite the government commissioning a number of reviews with a view to reversing the trend (Bacon 2003; Malone 2008). Following an adverse judgment by the European Court of Justice in 1999 (Case C-339/00) in relation to the eligibility of the company for certain CAP payments, new afforestation by Coillte Teoranta effectively ceased and the company has since concentrated on the management and re-afforestation of its existing estate and co-operative partnerships with private landowners and farmers. In 2007 a new inventory estimated that national forest cover had reached just 697,850 hectares (or slightly under 10% of the landmass), of which 57% was in direct or indirect public ownership and 43% in private ownership. More than three-quarters of the area is commercial coniferous forest, less than one-fifth is broadleaf and mixed forest, and the remainder is comprised of various types of native and scrub woodland. Forestry and archaeology Ireland is exceptionally rich in upstanding archaeological sites and monuments and as noted by other authors elsewhere in this volume (see Carey and Lynch) previously unrecorded monuments are also routinely uncovered, with a particularly large body of sites surviving at subsurface level, exposed and recorded in advance of the major national road schemes funded by the National Roads Authority (NRA) over the last decade or so. To date, more than 120,000 of these monuments have been mapped (Cody 2009) and given statutory protection under various provisions of the National Monuments Acts 1930 to 2004. Many of these upstanding ‘field monuments’ were built by, and relate to the activities of farmers during the past six millennia. Most are located in areas that are in continuing agricultural use, but others are in nowmarginal and remote upland areas that were once more attractive and densely settled. In these latter upland areas, particularly along the Atlantic seaboard, environmental changes like the growth of blanket bog have resulted in the archaeological evidence of past farming settlements being frozen at particular junctures in time, up to and including entire relict landscapes, and being preserved to a uniquely high quality (O’Brien 2009, 353–365). The earliest rules specific to forestry and archaeology (outside of the general obligations under the National

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in150 150

Monuments Act 1930) known to the author is a circular issued by the Department of Agriculture in 1945 (Circular 14/45 –Archaeological Remains on State Forest Lands). The circular stemmed from representations by the authorities in the National Museum of Ireland (NMI) and the National Monuments Advisory Council (a body now defunct). It was re-issued in 1966 as Staff Circular 2/66. Among other things, the circular required inspectors and foresters to report ‘discoveries of apparent archaeological interest’, including archaeological ‘finds’ (that is, artefacts), to the NMI or An Garda Síochana (the Irish Police Service), with a notional payment for the surrender of the latter. There was also a prohibition on the disturbance of the sites of new discoveries until they were properly investigated. It made particular mention of upland areas, which were thought to be above the prehistoric tree line and likely to contain low-visibility monuments such as ‘hut circles, stone or earthen forts … tumuli … cairns … and evidently very early field systems’ not previously recorded on Ordnance Survey maps. A prohibition was placed on the future planting of such ‘earthworks’, with a requirement that staff inform themselves of the appearance of these features through a booklet prepared by the Office of Public Works (OPW) and entitled ‘Irish Antiquities – General Guide’. These circulars appear to have remained the formal position on forestry and archaeology until around 1987, when in conjunction with the introduction of a new Farm Forestry Scheme (under EC Regulation 797/85) a revised set of guidelines dealing with the rural landscape was issued. Entitled ‘Commercial Forestry and the Rural Landscape: Guidelines for the Private Planter – Advisory Leaflet No. 2’, with a view to integrating forests into the countryside, they required private farm forestry planters to ensure ‘archaeological sites and [their] surrounds [are] left undisturbed’. In 1991, the then Irish Association of Professional Archaeologists (IAPA) issued a report calling for a policy to facilitate the ‘protection of landscape complexes’ and prescriptions for individual sites in new afforestation projects, as well as provisions for the assessment and monitoring of sites in established forests. The report followed a survey of its members, which had attempted to quantify the impact of forestry on archaeology and which had identified a total of 132 sites destroyed, damaged or under threat from forestry. Of these 132 sites just 30% were recorded on the Ordnance Survey maps (Foley et al. 1991; Johnson 1998, 41). In the same year, 1991, as part of the forestry programme co-funded by the EU under the Community Support Framework for Ireland, the Forest Service (then in the Department of Energy) issued a new set of more specific guidelines. Entitled ‘Forestry and Archaeology Guidelines’, they outlined new procedures by which the archaeological resource would be protected in areas earmarked for forestry development. Provision was made for formal consultation with the OPW prior to the start of any new forestry planting operations, with requirements for the formal marking of the boundaries of monuments and the maintenance of buffer zones around them. The maintenance of the latter was also required through all stages of the forest production cycle, including the construction of forest roads and during felling. There was

19/11/2010 15:21:20

20  Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends

151

Fig. 20.3  A Bronze Age stone row at Maughanasilly, Co. Cork. Although critical views or visual linkages may be retained, new forest planting will over time change the wider landscape setting of such monuments. © Emmet Byrnes, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

a specific prohibition on the use of detection devices for archaeological purposes. An illustrated gazetteer of monument types that a planter was likely to come across in the course of a development was included, as well as an illustration of what the formal marking posts and operational buffer zones should look like. The government also gave a commitment that year (in the Environmental Action Programme: 1st Progress Report – 1991) to the protection of the archaeological heritage generally and that afforestation by both Coillte Teoranta and private farmers grant-aided by the Department of Energy would avoid archaeological remains. It also stated that consideration would be given to ‘an archaeological survey [by the OPW] of areas likely to be planted with trees’. However, despite the new guidelines and commitments given, concerns about (and in some cases criticism of) the impact of new afforestation projects and forestry operations generally on archaeology continued (Cooney 1993; IAPA 1994). IAPA in particular sought a reduction in the mandatory Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) threshold to 100 hectares (from the then 200-hectare threshold), specific archaeological surveys of all proposed sites greater than 8 hectares in size and the establishment of a ‘pre-afforestation field unit’. These concerns, while not all attributable to it, were fuelled in part by a series of very large afforestation projects in upland areas in the south-west of the country. Only seven of these projects (one 809 hectares in size) were subjected to the full EIA process. Even then the environmental impact statements (EISs) produced were

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in151 151

of variable quality (Byrnes 1993). The remainder had little or no determinable archaeological assessment of their potential impact unless they coincided with monuments formally recorded on the Sites and Monuments Record (SMR) (see Johnson 1998, 40). In 1997 the EEC amended the EIA Directive (Council Directive 97/11/EC) to require member states to ensure that all Annex II development projects (including initial afforestation) were screened against a series of specific criteria (Annex III), including ‘landscapes of historical, cultural or archaeological significance’. In 1998 the first truly comprehensive report on the forestry and archaeology in Ireland was produced by the Heritage Council (Johnson 1998), an independent statutory body established under the Heritage Act 1995 with responsibility to propose policies and priorities to government for the ‘identification, protection, preservation and enhancement of the national heritage, including monuments, archaeological objects, heritage objects, architectural heritage, … etc etc’. Johnson’s report summarised all the areas relevant to the practice of archaeology and forestry in Ireland, with comprehensive explanations and examples of the most important aspects. It covered the status of the national programmes for the identification and protection of archaeological sites and monuments, the forestry practices in Ireland, the various threats posed to archaeology in the forest cycle, with a comparative analysis of the policies and practices in the neighbouring jurisdiction of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

19/11/2010 15:21:23

152

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

The report also highlighted weaknesses, apparent contradictions and inconsistencies in practice, for example the over-reliance on the relatively newly established statutory record of archaeological sites and monuments – the Record of Monuments and Places (RMP). It identified instances of bad practice and damage to archaeological sites and monuments from forestry operations, and noted the limited value of the contemporary EIA regulations in terms of ensuring that pre-afforestation archaeological surveys were carried out. The value of replicating the ‘Afforestable Land Survey’ (ALS), conducted in Scotland by Historic Scotland and the Royal Commission for Ancient and Historic Monuments in Scotland (RCAHMS) in conjunction with the Forestry Commission, in Ireland was one of its key findings. The following year the Heritage Council produced a formal policy paper on forestry and the national heritage, addressing wider environmental concerns such as landscape and biodiversity as well as archaeology, with a series of recommendations under each heading (Heritage Council 1999). In 2000, the government department then with responsibility for implementing policies, procedures and legal provisions relating to the identification, protection, or works at or in relation to archaeological sites or monuments produced its own in-house report on the subject (Courtney & Coldrick 2000), replicating some of Johnson’s findings and bolstering the ­recommendations

of the Heritage Council’s policy paper. Despite the findings of the two reports and the recommendations of the Heritage Council, however, a degree of institutional inertia remained and the procedures developed over the previous decade were still seen as generally delivering a good outcome (Sweetman 2000, 532). Paralleling these developments, a case was taken by the EU Commission against Ireland in the European Court of Justice (Case C-392/96) in terms of the use of absolute (or project size) thresholds for the assessment of initial afforestation and peat-extraction projects. The judgment, issued in 1999, found that the Irish Government had exceeded the discretion afforded member states in setting thresholds in the Directive and that in addition to project size, nature, location and the cumulative impacts had to be taken into account. The net effect of the judgment was that in the following two years the Irish EIA regulations were substantially amended. The current regulatory regime is set down under the European Communities (EIA) (Amendment) Regulations 2001 and European Communities (Environmental Impact Assessment) (Forestry Consent System) (Amendment) Regulations 2006. The mandatory EIA threshold is now 50 hectares, provision is made for sub-threshold EISs or other forms of environmental assessment prior to development, there is a statutory obligation to obtain

Fig. 20.4  A Bronze Age copper mine at Derrycarhoon, Co. Cork: low-visibility monuments or those not immediately recognisable as important to non-archaeologists are especially vulnerable to damage from mechanised felling machinery. © Emmet Byrnes, Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in152 152

19/11/2010 15:21:28

20  Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends

‘development consent’ via the ‘Forest Consent System’ for all afforestation projects, a number of national environmental authorities and environmental non-governmental organisations (NGOs) that have to be consulted have been listed, and procedures for the public notification and participation in the environmental decision-making process are set out. The suite of environmental guidelines, which include Forestry and Archaeology Guidelines and Forest Harvesting and the Environment Guidelines, was also revised and updated in consultation with the National Monuments Service (NMS). In terms of archaeological requirements the provisions for operational ‘buffer zones’ were strengthened to minimum mandatory exclusion zones (15m for designated archaeological sites or monuments and 5m for other historic structures and features), with specific provision made for larger exclusion zones where warranted, as well as clearer fencing and long-term access requirements. The reporting obligations for artefacts were extended to include newly discovered monuments and the terminology used for archaeological assessments was simplified to make it more comprehensible to lay persons. Two years later in 2003, three environment professionals were employed by the Forest Service to enhance the staffing complement in its environment section and advise on the implementation the aforementioned regulations and guidelines: namely an archaeologist (the author), an ecologist and a landscape architect. The same year the NMS (then part of a larger organisation called Dúchas – the Heritage Service) agreed a formal ‘Code of Practice’ with Coillte Teoranta, the purpose of which was to ensure the safeguarding of the state’s archaeological heritage within the context of the existing legislative and policy framework, and which had a number of agreed policies and principles. Key among these was a commitment by the company to ‘ensure the appointment of an archaeologist to oversee the archaeological elements of forestry operations’ and to finance any necessary archaeological investigations, including preservation by record of sites being removed by forestry development, on the basis of the ‘polluter pays principle’. When originally part of Ireland’s programme for the Rural Development Regulation (RDP) 2007–2013, the current afforestation and forest infrastructure grant schemes were subject to a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and the production of an ‘environmental report’ under Directive 2001/42/EC. Although subsequently withdrawn from the programme and now wholly financed by the national exchequer, the mitigation strategies agreed to in that report and monitoring requirements under the Article 10(1) continue to apply. In international terms the Irish Government is a member of the Ministerial Conference for the Protection of Forests in Europe (MCPFE) and at the group’s Lisbon Conference in 1998 gave a commitment in perpetuity that the development of forestry in Ireland would thereafter be carried out within the principles of Sustainable Forestry Management (SFM) (Forest Service 2000, 1). The MCPFE Resolution most relevant to archaeology was that agreed upon in Vienna in 2003, entitled ‘Vienna Resolution 3

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in153 153

153

– Preserving and Enhancing the Social and Cultural Dimensions of Sustainable Forest Management in Europe’. The tenth point of the resolution commits the signatories to: maintain[ing] and increase[ing] the attractiveness of the landscape by, inter alia, enhancing and preserving traditional elements of the cultural landscapes and to identify[ing], assess[ing] and encourage[ing] the conservation and management of significant historical and cultural objects and sites in forests and related to forests in collaboration with relevant institutions. Although yet to be fully ratified by the member states the draft Pan-European Guidelines for the Afforestation and Reforestation with special focus on the provisions of the UNFCCC, agreed at Malahide in Ireland in 2008, if agreed to will also provide further protection for the archaeological resource in that the thirty-fourth point states: landscape values, including maintenance of highvalue cultural landscapes, cultural heritage sites, both as defined by UNESCO, and sacred cultural sites, should be taken into account in the elaboration of policies and planning procedures for afforestation and reforestation activities. In terms of day-to-day practice, however, what this all means is as follows: prior to referral, all new afforestation development applications within 200m of a designated archaeological site or monument are examined in the first instance by the Forest Service archaeologist. A desk-based assessment is then undertaken that includes checks, not only against the RMP, but also against the published detailed descriptions in the county-based NMS inventory and surveys and other known published surveys, descriptions and photographs. In each case a close examination takes place of four different sets of orthographically rectified digital aerial photographs from the last decade maintained on the Forest Service GIS system. Cognisance is also taken of additional culturalheritage-related notes, submissions or recommendations made by the applicant, the consultant forester, Forest Service District Inspector, statutory environmental consultees and/or third parties, which may be followed up by field inspection in certain circumstances. The result of these assessments, following the obligatory notification of, and consultation with NMS, is the imposition of one or more archaeological conditions on each and every referred application. These are taken from a tiered hierarchy of archaeological mitigation responses, with the lowest condition being adherence to the relevant guidelines, followed by increasing the size of archaeological exclusion zone(s), the exclusion of a larger area or areas of archaeological potential, archaeological monitoring of specified areas, the refusal of either part or all of the development without prior archaeological assessment by independent archaeological consultants (paid for by the applicant under the ‘polluter pays principle’), or a recommendation for refusal of the entire development.

19/11/2010 15:21:28

154

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

In recognition of the obligations under Annex III of the EIA directive, special consideration is also given to the wider landscape setting of monuments, and in particular their relationship with other roughly contemporary or determinably linked sites – that is, identifiable archaeological complexes and landscapes. The recorded or evident inter-visibility of sites and landscape relationships are taken into account for archaeological complexes and areas, with outright refusals or requirements for the maintenance of linkages or whole areas to be left open and unplanted. The NMS has also given a commitment to the Forest Service to provide up-to-date maps for inclusion in the national Indicative Forestry Statement (IFS) (which indicates land suitable for forestry as well as areas of heightened environmental sensitivity or constraint), all archaeological areas, zones of archaeological potential, zones of archaeological amenity and World Heritage Sites that it has recorded to date. In terms of other works in the forest cycle at or near archaeological sites and monuments within established forested areas, all felling-licence applications and forest infrastructure (that is, road) grant applications within 200m of a designated archaeological site or monument are also examined in the first instance by the Forest Service Archaeologist. Again, a desk-based assessment is undertaken, followed by the obligatory notification of, and consultation with NMS. In the case of felling licences, these assessments result in the application of one of three archaeological conditions, with the lowest again being adherence to the relevant guidelines, followed by a requirement for a pre-works site inspection of the site or monument by either a suitably qualified professional archaeologist or other archaeologically trained environmental specialist. The conditions might also include the preparation with the forester of a plan outlining the most appropriate means to fell and remove trees from, on and around the monument for the consideration of the Forest Service and the NMS. These plans are also required to give a rudimentary assessment of the current condition of the monument and to set out the nature and extent of the exclusion that will be established around the monument at the replanting (reforestation) stage, as well as other management needs. In the case of forest infrastructure (that is, road) grants the desk-based assessments also result in the imposition of one or more archaeological conditions. The lowest again is adherence to the relevant guidelines conditions. A minimum 30m exclusion zone is now routinely required for the creation of a new forest road near an archaeological site or monument, or an area of elevated archaeological potential, with archaeological monitoring conditions routinely imposed on all significant new ground disturbance and deep excavations during the road’s construction within 100m of a designated site or monument. In addition, any road grant application for a new forest road greater than 1km in continuous length is required to be accompanied by an archaeological walkover survey/assessment report. The Forest Environment Protection Scheme (FEPS), launched in 2007 to encourage farmers to combine the establishment of high nature-value woodland with their participation in the mainstream Rural Environment

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in154 154

Protection Scheme (REPS), also included enhanced measures designed specifically to further protect archaeological sites and monuments within newly afforested areas. The minimum mandatory exclusion zone was extended from 15m to 20m, with optional measures encouraging participants to a) extend the exclusion zone by an additional 5m, b) manage the vegetation within the zone, and/or c) provide public access, including signage, to the site or monument. Conclusion While the policies, procedures and standards implemented since 2003 have undoubtedly improved the position of archaeological sites and monuments within newly planted or established forests, as well as ensured a greater degree of consistency in the pre-development assessment, mitigation and monitoring of adverse impacts, the author openly acknowledges that they are still far from perfect. Legitimate causes for concern and criticism remain, and there is considerable scope for improvement. Although the Forest Service no longer relies solely on the RMP for assessing the impact of proposed development, it remains the only ‘trigger’ by which an application is referred to the archaeologist in the first place. Checks against more detailed descriptions in inventories and surveys entries and other known published surveys, certainly improve the response for development projects with known archaeology, but do nothing for projects in areas which have not been adequately surveyed or mapped by the Ordnance Survey, by the Archaeological Survey of Ireland (ASI), or another state archaeological institution such as the Discovery Programme. The problem is particularly acute in the case of upland areas over 200m OD along the Atlantic seaboard (see O’Brien 2009). The closure of the current phase of the mainstream agrienvironment scheme (REPS) (see Carey and Lynch this volume) may also have a contributory, if unintended, negative consequence. Outside of designated areas protected under European or national natural heritage legislation, that is, Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) under the Habitats Directive, Special Protection Areas (SPAs) under the Birds Directive, and Natural Heritage Areas (NHAs) under the Wildlife Acts, the scheme offered significant protection for upland areas in that the compensatory element was able to supplement the income of farmers and was sufficient to encourage most of them to continue their traditional farming practices. The EU demand that the new AEOS agri-scheme agreed to under the current Rural Development Regulation should only cover income foregone and not include any provision to supplement income, will (in the opinion of the author) invariably lead landowners to look elsewhere for new income streams. Where not constrained by other environmental designations, they may well be attracted by afforestation, induced to change their current farming practice and ‘improve’ their land to increase its productivity, and/or give it over to other forms of development such as wind farms, the construction and servicing of which could have an equally detrimental effect. In terms of combating the potential adverse impact of these processes the following should be considered.

19/11/2010 15:21:29

20  Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends

As a first step all grey literature should be systematically examined to identify previously unrecorded upland archaeological sites and monuments, followed by their speedy assessment and (where warranted and permissible by law) addition to the RMP. Area-based rather than point-based protection should also be considered for many upland monument complexes, especially given the fragmentary and dispersed nature of some of the elements. Pre-bog field wall complexes and associated settlement structures like hut sites are a case in point. Second, the adoption of the Afforestable Land Survey philosophy by the Archaeological Survey of Ireland (ASI), in terms of prospecting in heretofore poorly surveyed upland areas, would be beneficial. There is considerable scope for the Forest Service to assist the ASI with such targeted surveys, in that individual District Inspectors and the archaeologist could indicate vulnerable upland areas where there is an emerging pattern of new afforestation. The resultant product would not only be of use to the Forest Service (as the consent authority for new afforestation), but could equally well be used by other planning authorities, for example those assessing windfarm applications, and for whom the RMP is also the only trigger. Third, and finally, greater care and consideration need to be given to the interaction of different land-use policies and plans, especially those funded by the EU. A more coherent response to the protection of all facets of the environment is needed, especially in terms of recognising that concerns about climate change, water management, bio-diversity, and bio-energy, are not exclusive of, and can be advanced in tandem with, requirements to preserve and protect our rural cultural heritage and historic landscape features. To that end future CAP policies and associated RDP regulations should be framed so as to ensure that financial provision can be made to maintain and support existing farming practices beneficial to archaeological sites and monuments (especially those in upland areas). The potential impact on archaeological sites and monuments of all schemes and policy choices should also be assessed and mitigated using professional archaeological advice and input from the very beginning. [email protected] References Aalen, F.H.A., Whelan, K. & Stout, M. 1997: Atlas of the Irish Rural Landscape. Cork University Press, Cork. Bacon, P. 2003: Forestry – A Growth Industry in Ireland. Peter Bacon and Associates, Wexford. Byrnes, E. 1993: Forestry Development, the EIA Process and Archaeology: Present Practice and Proposals for Future

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in155 155

155

Development. Unpublished dissertation produced for the Diploma in EIA Management, University College Dublin. Cody, E. 2009: Listing archaeological sites, protecting the historical landscape. The situation in the Republic of Ireland. In Buttimer, N., Rynne, C. & Guerin, H. (eds), The Heritage of Ireland. The Collins Press, Cork. Cooney, G. 1993: Forestry and the cultural landscape – understanding the past in the present. Irish Forestry 50, 13–19. Cooney, G. & Grogan, E. 1994: Irish Prehistory – A Social Perspective. Wordwell, Dublin. Courtney, L. & Coldrick, B. 2000: The Impact of GrantAided Afforestation on Known Archaeology in Ireland. Unpublished report produced by Margaret Gowen and Co. Ltd for the Department of Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands. DAFF 2010: Irish Forests – A Brief History. Unpublished report produced by the Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. DAFF 1996: Growing for the Future. Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Dublin. Foley, C., Gibbons, M. & Stout, G. 1991: Forestry and Archaeology. Unpublished report produced by the Sub-Committee on Forestry and Archaeology, Irish Association of Professional Archaeologists. Forest Service 2000: Code of Best Forest Practice – Ireland. Forest Service, Dublin. Heritage Council 1999: Policy Paper on Forestry and the National Heritage. Heritage Council, Kilkenny. IAPA 1994: Strategy for the Development of the Forestry Sector in Ireland. Unpublished report produced by the Irish Association of Professional Archaeologists. Johnson, G. 1998: Forestry and Archaeology in Ireland. Heritage Council, Kilkenny. MacCoitir, N. 2003: Irish Trees: Myths, Legends and Folklore. The Collins Press, Cork. Malone, J. 2008: Factors Affecting Afforestation in Ireland in Recent Years. Department of Agriculture and Food, Dublin. McCracken, E. 1971: Irish Woods Since Tudor Times. David and Charles, Newton Abbot. Neeson, E. 1991: A History of Irish Forestry. Lilliput Press, Dublin. O’Brien, W. 2009: Local Worlds – Early Settlement Landscapes and Upland Farming in South-West Ireland. The Collins Press, Cork. O’Carroll, N. 2004: Forestry in Ireland – A Concise History. COFORD, Dublin. Smith, C. 1992: Late Stone Age Hunters of the British Isles. Routledge, London. Sweetman, D. 2000: The man-made heritage – the legislative and institutional framework. In Buttimer, N., Rynne, C. & Guerin, H. (eds), The Heritage of Ireland. The Collins Press, Cork.

19/11/2010 15:21:29

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in156 156

19/11/2010 15:21:29

21  |  Archaeology and forestry in Bavaria (Germany):   current ways of co-operation Joachim Hamberger, Walter Irlinger and Grietje Suhr Abstract: Forests in Bavaria are rich in archaeological sites deriving from more than 40,000 years of human history. As stable forests provide among the best protection for these sites, improved co-operation between heritage management and forestadministration authorities is of great importance in Bavaria and elsewhere. This paper describes threats to archaeological monuments in woodland as well as measures for their protection.

Introduction With some 2.5 million hectares of forests, Bavaria is the German state richest in woodland. Archaeological monuments from more than 40,000 years of human history survive in these woods, which comprise 36% of the state’s land-area. They range from settlement traces in caves to open settlements, fortifications, ritual places and burial sites as well as complexes from Early Modern times and relics of the Second World War and the ‘Cold War’. In comparison, for example, to the survival of archaeological resources in farmland, stable forests provide one of the most protective environments for archaeological sites and exhibit a great diversity of archaeological monuments. So, in terms of archaeology, forests are atypical in many respects and, to a certain extent, woods can be seen as an archive of human history (Fig. 21.1). The significance of this archive was recognised at an early stage by the pioneers of Bavarian archaeology. Alongside teachers, clergymen and estate owners, forest rangers also played an important role in this initial phase of research. Well-preserved earthwork monuments played a major part in early archaeological investigations, which therefore often took place in forests. As well as excavations to investigate Roman monuments such as the limes, its fortresses and Roman roads, particular attention was paid to barrows. A striking example of this is the excavation of some tumuli by forest ranger Augustin Richter in 1830. Figure 21.2 illustrates how the barrows were investigated, according to methods current at the time: an exploratory trench was dug from the foot of the mound into its centre, in order to obtain the grave goods, which were thought

to be located in the middle of the mound. Modern reexcavation of other barrow cemeteries has shown that the complete excavation of a barrow was exceptional in the 19th century and, therefore, their burials were by no means entirely destroyed. The archive in the Bavarian forests can therefore be seen not only to consist of archaeological monuments of all ages (for details see: www.lwf.bayern. de/publikationen/daten/spezial/p_32808.pdf), but also to illustrate the history of their investigation by preserving the evidence of early excavations (Irlinger 2009). Threats Although woodland provides good protection for archaeological monuments, there are still a variety of threats. Although these may often initially appear minor in terms of the fabric of monuments, they can still do lasting damage to their general character and appearance. For example, significant harm is caused by wind-throws and storm losses. Upturned root-plates seriously disturb underlying soil layers and the removal of timber, the subsequent clearing of torn out root-plates and the subsequent reafforestation can cause additional damage. On the one hand, damages to woodland needs to be rapidly repaired: on the other, archaeological monuments are seriously threatened and damaged by this. In order to mitigate this conflict between forestry and the preservation of monuments, an agreed procedure should be put into place before forest operations begin. It has frequently been observed that old building materials, horticultural waste or the branches of felled trees are deposited in the deep earthwork ditches of fortifications or in sunken hollow-ways. Eventually this causes earthworks to become completely backfilled and archaeological monuments to disappear. The most dramatic changes occur when new forest roads or extraction lines are built in order to allow the most direct access to be gained to particular areas of the forest. During this process, ancient earthworks are breached (Fig. 21.3); gates are widened; mounds are levelled; and apparent ‘entrances’ secondarily

Fig. 21.1  Forests are more than trees and nature: they are cultural archives of our society. Forest workers and forest owners are responsible for this. They are, so to speak, ‘terrain archivists’. It is important to make sure that the next generation of forest workers will develop a sense of this. © Joachim Hamberger, after a sketch by Martin Suda

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in157 157

19/11/2010 15:21:31

158

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 21.2  Barrow in a forest. The homogeneous construction of the tumulus is centrally cut by an exploration trench dug in 1830. © Bavarian State Conservation Office, Erwin Keller

created by bank breaches falsify the observed structure of the monument. Important insights into the construction of the fortification are lost by the lack of archaeological documentation. Timber extraction also causes serious interference with both the fabric of sites (such as

f­ ortifications and barrows) surviving as earthworks and below-ground sites (such as former settlements), which frequently lie immediately below the modern forest soil (Hamberger 2009, Irlinger 2008). The movement of machinery may also cause deep ruts and erosion as well as compression of and damage to the below-ground archaeological stratigraphy. For example, heavy timber-harvesting rigs operating within barrow cemeteries can cause massive harm to burials resting only a few centimetres below the ground. Cremation burials between barrows are particularly vulnerable to unsupervised driving (Fig. 21.4). Strict adherence to access lines, careful forest management and, especially, cautious use of machines not only provide the basis for sustainable and semi-natural forestry but also provide the best protection for archaeological monuments. Illegal excavations also pose a considerable danger to archaeological monuments in woodland, particularly as the cover provided by trees significantly reduces the risk of detection for treasure hunters. Only the alertness of forest owners, forest rangers, lumbermen and hunters can guarantee the effective control and protection of these archaeological monuments (Fig. 21.5) (LWF spezial 2008). Fig. 21.3  A bank well protected by trees was broken through almost at a right angle. The artificially built track is supposed to make the forest outside the fortification more easily accessible for silvicultural use. © Bavarian State Conservation Office, Ulf Händler

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in158 158

19/11/2010 15:21:33

21  Archaeology and forestry in Bavaria (Germany): current ways of co-operation

159

Fig. 21.4  Timber harvester operating in a forest. © Bavarian State Conservation Office, Walter Irlinger

In many ways, forests can be seen to be unusual with regard to archaeology. In Bavaria, the preservation of the historical archive in forests is seen as a commonly shared task, which cannot be accomplished by archaeologists alone. Only through close co-operation with landowners, forest managers and nature-conservation interests will it be possible to develop strategies for the protection of archaeological features. Consequently, in order to protect this cultural heritage, an initiative to improve co-operation between the Bavarian State Conservation Office and the different forest-administration authorities in Bavaria was started in 2005.

Measures for the protection of archaeological monuments in the forests of Bavaria The key to effective protection for the archaeological archive of woodlands is to ensure that preservation of monuments is considered at an early stage. It is imperative that as complete a database as possible exists for each individual monument. This should include not only topographical survey plans, maps of the extent of the monument and information about the density of finds but also features and the relationship of the monument to its natural environment, for example its position on a slope or spur, the depth of the occupation

Fig. 21.5  An illegal excavation site in a barrow was disguised by a cover of spruce brushwood. In the centre of the tumulus there is a wide hole reaching down to the burials with their grave goods. The damaged barrow is hardly visible on the ground now. © Bavarian State Conservation Office

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in159 159

19/11/2010 15:21:39

160

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 21.6  Excerpt from BayernViewer-denkmal. Areas of listed monuments are marked in red. © Bavarian State Conservation Office/Bavarian Survey Administration

general public. One approach to this has been to publish an informative and attractive booklet, In Boden und Stein – Denkmäler im Wald (www.lwf.bayern.de/publikationen/ daten/spezial/p_32808.pdf), which contains information about different types of archaeological sites, possible threats and how to obtain further information (for example, how to contact the Bavarian State Conservation Office and where the BayernViewer-denkmal is accessible on the internet). The booklet is aimed mainly at forest owners, forestry workers and the general public, as well as people working in politics and administration. To date, the topic has aroused a lot of interest: two editions of the booklet were printed with 22,000 copies in total. A third edition with 15,000 copies is now planned. Additionally, there have been more than 15,000 downloads of the booklet from the internet. layer, the geology or its relationship to stretches of water. From 2007 the Bavarian State Conservation Office has provided comprehensive data on archaeological sites to the public. This information is available on the internet and thus is easily accessible for all. The so-called BayernViewer-denkmal (Bavarian Monument Viewer – see www.blfd.bayern.de) informs on the location and spatial extent of all known archaeological sites in Bavaria. Information is displayed, for example, on maps based upon topographical information and upon aerial photography. Also available on the internet are short descriptions of the various types of archaeological site (Fig. 21.6). On the basis of this up-to-date information, forestry staff are able to register the position of monuments and make early contact with the archaeological conservation authorities, in order to address their concerns when devising forestry strategies. One of the Bavarian forest-management authorities (Bayerische Forstverwaltung) issues maps (‘Waldfunktionspläne’) that show and evaluate different characteristics of the forest, for example its functions concerning economic or recreational use. In future, all Bavarian archaeological and architectural monuments will be included in these maps. Another forest-­administration authority (Bayerische Staatsforsten) is responsible for forestry workers. In partnership with the Bavarian State Conservation Office they initiated a training programme on archaeological matters for their personnel. Each year there are two training sessions in different regions of Bavaria, each for 20 people. The forestry workers are informed about types of archaeological monuments in general and about appropriate measures for the protection of archaeological sites. They are also instructed about the underlying regulatory framework. Alongside forest managers and workers, it is also essential to communicate the importance and diversity of this archaeological resource to forest owners (54% of Bavarian forests are in private ownership), politicians and the

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in160 160

From 2010, there will also be a travelling exhibition based on the booklet. In addition to the general public, the exhibition is also aimed at politicians and will therefore travel first to each of the administrative districts of Bavaria. Subsequently the exhibition will be displayed at various museums. Summary Improved co-operation between the Bavarian State Conservation Office and the Forest Administration has already yielded results. For example, if forest operations with harvesters are planned in the area of an archaeological site, there will now be requests for advice from forest-management staff and heritage-management officials get an opportunity to co-ordinate the use of harvesters with their operators. Similarly, extraction lines for harvesting machines can be planned to avoid archaeological monuments and tracks can be padded with branches from cut-down trees to reduce disturbance. In addition, harvesting trees in winter when the soil is frozen has been adopted, so that the tracks left behind by harvesters are not as deep as when the soil is wet. [email protected]  [email protected]  [email protected] (Translation from the German: Janine Fries-Knoblach/ Grietje Suhr) References Hamberger, J. 2009: Denkmäler im Wald. Der Bayerische Bürgermeister 2, Bd. 62 (92) 81–83. Irlinger, W. 2009: Grabhügelfeld von Bruck, Landkreis Altötting – Grabung durch Revierförster Augustin Richter 1831. Forum Forstgeschichte. Festschrift zum 65. Geburtstag von Prof. Dr. Egon Gundermann. Forstgeschichtliche Forschungsberichte 206, 46–50. Irlinger, W. 2008: Schutz archäologischer Geländedenkmäler im Wald. Unser Wald 4, 4–6. LWF spezial 2008: In Boden und Stein. Denkmäler im Wald. Freising.

19/11/2010 15:21:40

Looking to the Future

Sensitive historic landscapes face new challenges as a result of a changing climate. Wind farm at Ovenden Moor, West Yorkshire, England. © English Heritage NMR 20211/03

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in161 161

19/11/2010 15:23:29

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in162 162

19/11/2010 15:23:29

22  |  Changing the land – the implications of   climate-change policies, actions and adaptations   for Scotland’s rural historic environment Jonathan Wordsworth Abstract: The Scottish government has ambitious plans for converting Scotland to a more sustainable economy in response to the impacts of climate change on its economy, society and environment. The adaptations required will have a significant impact on the archaeological features and historic landscapes that are the backbone of the Scottish countryside. This paper identifies some of these impacts and suggests that Scotland’s heritage may be under greater threat from the responses to the threats of climate change than the impacts of climate change itself.

Rural situation Scotland forms the most northerly part of the British Isles, with most of its population concentrated in urban areas in the central belt and along its eastern coast. It is characterised by a predominantly rugged terrain. Of the agricultural area in Scotland, 83% is defined as ‘Less Favoured Area’ (Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture 2005 – in contrast only 17% of English agricultural land is defined as Less Favoured Area) subject to altitude, slope, location and climatic restraints restricting it to pastoral use and only 11% of farmland is tilled annually. The farming industry is contrasted between highly efficient and productive arable and livestock units in the more fertile areas and extensive low-input pastoral systems for the majority of the land. By European standards Scotland is predominantly an open landscape, with only 17% currently forested (Scottish Forest Strategy 2006), but this is a significant increase from an estimated 5% of woodland cover in 1900. Much of this forest cover is recent and records show that Scotland had to import timber from the medieval period onwards, especially from Scandinavia and the Baltic regions. Climate-change impacts Erosion is already occurring on some of the richest archaeological sites along Scotland’s extensive coastline, particularly on the north and west coast islands. These have been favoured locations for human settlement since the earliest settlement in the Mesolithic period and some of the best-preserved of these sites, such as Skara Brae, are particularly rich in artefactual and environmental evidence due to a sealing cover of lime-rich shell sand dunes, also known as machair. However, they are already under severe pressure from sea-level rise and in contrast to the isostatic uplift experienced on mainland Scotland following the melting of the ice sheets, there have been significant losses of land around the islands of Scotland during the last 10,000 years. For example, peat deposits formed since the last ice age have been found off Shetland at a depth of 45m below current sea level (Tipping 1996). Work by the Scottish Coastal Archaeology and the Problem of Erosion Trust (SCAPE) has identified more than 11,500 archaeological sites currently at risk (this risk is significantly increased by the frequency and power of storm surge events attributed to climate change impacts).

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in163 163

After a ruthless prioritisation process about 90 of these have been estimated to be of such national archaeological importance as to deserve detailed excavation (T Dawson pers. comm.). These are major losses and curatorial authorities in Scotland have extremely difficult decisions to make in defining priorities for dealing with these major sites. Climate-change predictions estimate that the impacts of climate change will exacerbate this erosion both through sea-level rise and increased storm events (in 2006 a storm at Baile Sear, North Uist, led to the loss of 4m of major stratified archaeological deposits in a single night). However the extent of the loss from climate change alone remains uncertain. Predictions of increased inland rainfall and storm events for the north and west of the country and possibly drier conditions for the east (leading to windblown erosion and drying of soils, especially peat soils in the uplands), could lead to the degradation of extensive historic landscapes. However, it can be argued that the impact of these changes will be less severe on Scotland’s historic environment than the mitigation measures introduced to reduce Scotland’s carbon footprint. The pollen, archaeological and documentary records show change throughout the prehistoric and historic periods. The records are also important for showing the response of people to climate and social change (such as the survival of extensive Bronze Age settlements at altitudes no longer considered habitable in more recent times). Archaeology in Scotland is particularly rich in recording the pulses of settlement and land use into marginal areas, areas most at risk from modern land-use change. Significance of Scotland’s historic environment (or Why does it matter?) Situated on the north-west periphery of Europe with relatively poor natural resources, Scotland might be seen as having only a minor impact on European civilisation in the prehistoric and medieval periods. Its world impact is focused in the 18th and 19th centuries, when its ideas, merchants and soldiers were central to the creation of the British colonial and industrial empire. However, Scotland’s significance, in archaeological terms, has been the survival of intact prehistoric and later landscapes dating from the Neolithic to the 18th century. These occur in upland and island areas, most notably in Orkney (where the Heart of

19/11/2010 15:23:29

164

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Neolithic Orkney stone monuments have been designated as a World Heritage Site). Scotland is also important for its well-preserved sequence of Roman frontier campaign camps and defences, part of which were also granted World Heritage Site status as part of the Roman Limes. The lack of forested cover for many thousands of years, allied to a climate and terrain favouring pastoral farming, has maintained a palimpsest of cultural features not matched in lowland Europe. Scotland’s predominantly acid and wet soils do not favour the preservation of a rich artefact culture, but these wet acid soils do favour the ­ preservation of pollen data and occasional organic remains. Scotland’s historic environment informs the nation’s proud, if sometimes prickly, sense of national worth. At a local level individual sites and wider cultural landscapes are key elements in defining community identities and importance. In general these are related to more recent events such as the castles and battlefields of the medieval and post-medieval periods or to the homes of ancestors dispersed to the cities and abroad following major landuse change in the 18th and 19th centuries. Scotland is also rich in evidence of technical advances in abandoned industrial landscapes. The resonance of this to contemporary culture is shown in the popularity of heritage as a market for tourism and as an asset worth preserving by local communities. Up to 300 separate heritage societies are run by local communities across Scotland and voluntary schemes like Archaeology Scotland’s Adopta-Monument Scheme or Scotland’s Rural Past Project (which has 60 groups recording rural settlements across Scotland) have become increasingly popular. Scottish government action All political parties in Scotland have agreed to adopt ambitious targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions – by 42% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, as set out in Scotland’s Climate Change Act 2009. This progressive legislation includes a commitment to convert 50% of Scotland’s electricity production to renewable sources by 2020. This target is achievable but it will have a major impact on the form and use of the Scottish countryside. While Archaeology Scotland and other archaeological organisations may applaud these commitments, we remain concerned about their impacts on the resource we value. Some of the responses to climate change could potentially destroy large areas of our historic landscapes. Food production through secured local supply (thereby reducing food miles for imported food) has been identified by both politicians and farmers as a justification for the maintenance of traditional financial support for agriculture. However, only 5% of the wheat produced in Scotland goes directly to human consumption; the remainder is used by the brewing industry and for animal feed. Similarly, for barley (DTZ Study 2007) 65% goes as animal feed and 33% for brewing and distilling. In terms of impact on the Scottish economy, of course, these are significant industries, particularly whisky distillation. However, to argue that subsidies should be maintained for food security related to climate-change impacts is more difficult to justify. Predictive scenarios for Scottish agriculture (for example, Scottish Natural Heritage’s Report No. 343 (Land Use

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in164 164

Consultants 2010)) suggest a focus on more intensive agriculture with a continuing reduction in field boundaries and historic landscape features like veteran and hedgerow trees. This is a continuation of existing economic trends but it is not inevitable and depends on how vigorously the case is argued for agri-environment measures to protect these features, as discussed elsewhere in this volume. The forest industry has persuasively argued for expansion of forest cover in Scotland on the grounds that trees serve as carbon sinks. This led the 2006 Scottish Forestry Strategy to adopt carbon sequestration as a justification for increasing woodland cover, though the funding for more than 10,000 hectares of annual planting has yet to be found. Policy incentives for renewable energy production The UK government gives incentives for the production of renewable energy because the relevant technologies tend to be more expensive. Energy producers must produce a percentage of their electricity from renewable/green sources – from 3% in 2002–3 to 11.1% in 2010–11). They can also buy certificates from other producers to cover their shortfall with Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs). Because of the targets set by government these ROCs are currently worth approximately £50 for every 1 MWh of energy produced. These pressures and incentives are encouraging a rapid growth in renewable-energy production, particularly for wind energy even though this is recognised as not the most efficient energy source (in 2007–8 the average base production was 24.1% making the UK subsidy at €113 per MWh the most expensive in Europe, in contrast to Slovakia at €36 per MWh – see Constable & Barfoot 2008). Less-developed technologies are able to claim higher ROCs, currently 1.5 for offshore wind power and 2 for tidal and wave power. Renewable energy from rural sources Bio-fuels Currently only oilseed rape (OSR) is grown as a biofuel crop in Scotland on any significant scale (Non-Food Energy Crops 2009) and the hectarage has almost certainly been much reduced since the last recorded figures in 2007 (when Scotland was cropping 13,237 hectares of OSR under the Energy Aid Scheme in contrast to 226,537 hectares in England) because of changes in the subsidies given. Quantities of other bio-fuel crops like Miscanthus grass and sugar beet (about 6% of the English crop in 2009 is believed to have been converted into bio-ethanol) are not currently significant enough to be recorded. This may in part be due to a lack of industrial facilities to process the oils but is more likely to be related to the subsidies available relative to market prices. However, the UK under the EU Renewable Fuel Transport Fuels Obligation has to raise its bio-fuel production from 2.56% in 2008–9 to 5.26% in 2013–14. This has implications for the amount of arable ground being cultivated in Scotland, particularly if it is related to an increased emphasis on local food production. It is noteworthy that a quarter of the USA cereal harvest is now estimated as being converted to bio-diesel and bio-ethanol fuel, distorting world food prices by removing large quantities of grain from food markets. The impacts of expanded bio-fuel production on the historic environment are not thought to be any more severe than existing arable production,

19/11/2010 15:23:29

22  Climate-change policies, actions and adaptations for Scotland’s rural historic environment

though any expansion of arable area might have an effect on historic landscapes. Wind power Wind power has been described as ‘potentially the most profitable’ renewable energy source (Warren & Birnie 2009, 103). Scotland has been estimated as having the best onshore and offshore wind resources in Europe (Troen & Petersen 1989), with some estimates putting these as high as one quarter of the EU potential. This is perhaps hyperbole, but there is certainly the potential here. The UK currently lags behind Spain and Germany in the amount of wind power produced and estimates for future production suggest an eightfold or larger increase in capacity by 2020, although this would still be perhaps half the capacity of Germany (European Wind Energy Association 2009, update. Estimates derived from EUROSTAT). Average production relative to capacity for wind turbines in 2008 was 24.1% and this is expected to rise to 28.9% by 2020, reflecting an increased use of larger and offshore turbines with more reliable wind sources. The increase in wind capacity has three main effects on the historic environment: the physical impacts of the turbines themselves, their related infrastructure and their visual impacts. All of these are assessed through Environmental Impact Assessments (EIAs) and indeed form a significant source of work (and thus income) for commercial archaeological companies in Scotland. In general, the process of evaluation and mitigation work enforced by historic environment curators in local and central government prevents major direct physical impacts, though infrastructure requirements related to turbine erection – namely roads, borrow pits, drainage and cable routes – can have a detrimental effect if not properly supervised. However, the major issue is the visual impact of the turbines on the landscape. There is

165

strong polarisation between those who seek to maximise renewable energy production and those concerned about losing the visual landscape qualities that make Scotland distinctive both to local communities and to tourism, one of the largest industries for rural Scotland. Despite the signing-up of the Scottish and the UK governments to the European Landscape Convention, there remains a lack of agreed procedures to deal with cultural landscapes in the development process. As a result, there is a major concern that important historic landscapes are being sacrificed for intrusive developments because the historic environment is deemed less significant than Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs) and Special Areas of Conservation (SACs). These latter areas are protected under European law whereas our archaeological sites, at best, have only domestic legislation to protect them. The situation is compounded because wind turbines are most efficient when sited in remote areas that require expensive and visually intrusive electricity distribution lines to deliver the power to the urban areas where the energy is consumed. The footprints of the power lines and their visual impact extend far beyond the original site for energy production. This is not easily resolved and is often exacerbated by the fact that the beneficiaries of the wind power profits are primarily commercial companies, which are more able to weather the major costs of developing a wind farm, and thus large rather than small developments are encouraged. The EIA process is costly and time-consuming and it is only large companies, often electricity-generating companies, that have the resources to do this and to use investment in wind power as a costeffective means of reducing their renewable obligation, as guided by European Directives. As a result, some of Europe’s largest wind farms are now being developed in Scotland – such as Whitelees (140 turbines 110m high covering an area of 55 square kilometres), and Clyde (152

Fig. 22.1  Current and proposed wind-farm footprints in the south of Scotland. For a full national coverage map see www.snh.gov.uk. © Reproduced courtesy of Scottish Natural Heritage

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in165 165

19/11/2010 15:23:35

166

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4 Fig. 22.2  Relict historic landscape areas recorded to date as part of the Scottish Historic Land Use Assessment Project, jointly managed by Historic Scotland and RCAHMS. Full national cover is anticipated by 2014. See www.rcahms. gov.uk/hlamap.html © Reproduced courtesy of HS/RCAHMS

turbines covering an area 47.5 square kilometres). These have major landscape footprints and significantly alter the countryside within which they are sited. Individual archaeological sites can be protected and proponents of wind power argue that the landscape can be easily restored to its former state once redundant turbines are removed. This is to ignore the impact of the road and other infrastructure needed to support the turbine construction. However, to many people these remain acceptable losses if they can mitigate climate change. Forestry expansion Nowhere is Scotland’s heritage more threatened than by proposals to expand woodland cover to 25% as a means of sequestering carbon during the 20–60 years of a tree’s life in a plantation. To meet the targets of the Climate Change Act up to 14,000 hectares of new woodland will need to be planted each year for the next 20 years. While

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in166 166

Scotland’s robust process of Environmental Assessment can include survey and mitigation work to prevent woodland planting on significant archaeological sites, it is not appropriate for extensive historic landscapes. For example, a major study commissioned to identify potential locations for new woodland (Towers et al. 2006), though it considered agricultural potential, biodiversity, soils and natural Landscape Character Areas (LCAs), made no reference to Historic Land Use Assessment (HLA). Forestry plans generally leave around 20% unplanted, but in areas of complex archaeology this is insufficient to protect surviving remains. The archaeological mapping of these areas is still incomplete – the nationwide Historic Land Use Assessment only covers some 75% of the country and is not expected to be completed until 2014. More significantly, the concept of cultural landscapes, in contrast to individual historic sites, is poorly embedded within the experience and thinking of planners and developers.

19/11/2010 15:23:37

22  Climate-change policies, actions and adaptations for Scotland’s rural historic environment

167

Fig. 22.3  Multi-period landscape at Rottal in the Eastern Highlands showing at least 3,000 years of settlement. It has already been compromised by forestry plantations dating to the 1970s and is typical of the areas likely to be chosen for new forestry planting. © Crown Copyright: RCAHMS. Licensor www.rcahms.gov.uk

Because most forest planting takes place through ploughing or machine mounding, its physical impact is usually sufficient to irrevocably degrade the archaeological record. This includes the physical destruction of sites, as well as the alteration of soil horizons and the corrugation of traditional landscapes. Robust individual sites may survive but their contexts and relationships will be lost. Besides the issue of where the funding for new planting should come from within an extremely cash-strapped economy, there is also an argument about whether this is the most effective use of Scotland’s resources. Many citizens are happy to see new woodlands established but these should be in the right place and for the right reasons. The false mythology of an ‘Ancient Wood of Caledon’ stretching from coast to coast prior to the arrival of the Romans (see Breeze 1982; Tipping 1994; Tipping 1997) still persists, particularly among ecologists unable

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in167 167

to recognise an historic landscape and desperate to recreate this myth as absolution for man’s destruction of so many ecosystems. In terms of ecology and carbon sequestration, the carbonrich peat soils of the uplands are far more important than re-created woodlands that support an impoverished ecology. Scotland’s peat bogs contain 2735 megatonnes of carbon compared with the 114 megatonnes stored within the living surface vegetation for the whole of the UK (ECOSSE 2007), or as much carbon as all the woodland in France and the UK combined. A hectare of peat bog can contain up to 5000 tonnes of carbon compared with 300 tonnes for a hectare of mature woodland (Pearce 1994). This is without discussing the significance of these open landscapes to both visitors and local communities. These relict landscapes contain the subtle evidence of many periods of human use and are now valued as

19/11/2010 15:23:47

168

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

‘wild’ land, a scarce resource. The palaeo-environmental importance of peatlands as sources of information on major organic sites, as well as a detailed vegetational history, is well known. Blanket bog can also provide a protective covering for whole historic landscapes. Recognition of the value of peatland for carbon storage means that there is now increased pressure for forestry expansion on the permanent grasslands that contain most of Scotland’s intact historic landscapes. An example of this is the West Affric Estate owned by the National Trust for Scotland (NTS). Because the lower Glen Affric contains an iconic remnant pinewood, there was a presumption that this should be expanded on to the NTS property. An archaeological survey identified mostly 18th-century shieling (ie temporary summer) and permanent sheepfarming settlement, with some documentary evidence for earlier transhumance. A detailed environmental study carried out by Stirling University (Tipping et al. 2006) has shown that woodland cover has been intermittent since the last ice age. Surviving pine stumps beneath the peat represented a brief woodland interlude in the vegetation history of this valley some 4,000 years ago and perhaps lasting for no longer than 500 years. Moreover, it was almost certainly the result of increased rainfall rather than any human action. Despite this evidence, a grant-driven process has led to this wilderness area being fenced off into wired compartments. In 2009, because the trees were not establishing themselves quickly enough (which meant that the NTS had to face the possibility of paying some of their grant back), 4,000 holes were dug by machine to allow new trees to be planted. This corrugation of the landscape is not about the protection of wilderness or the restoration of habitat. It reflects a restricted vision of what the landscape should look like, rather than allowing time and more natural processes to control change. As a result an open landscape used for transhumance for several hundred – if not thousands – of years has been savagely altered to create a new cultural landscape bounded by post-and-wire fences. Conclusions There are no easy answers to climate change but the archaeological community in Scotland is concerned that simplistic responses like expanding woodlands, maximising crop production or creating an industrial landscape of wind farms are seen as the only answers. Without a robust defence of the values and significance of our past, there is a danger that much that is of value will be lost. Scotland’s archaeology is important to the communities of which it forms part. Decisions on its future should be informed by the past and change adopted with the perspective of the past. Quick fixes to replace sheep and deer with trees and turbines to create more ‘natural’ landscapes and habitats are as deterministic as the notorious clearances of people in the 19th century. A less interventionist and more joined-up approach is needed in which different interests and values are considered together. One of the positive approaches in the Climate Change Act approved by the Scottish Parliament was the commitment to produce a Sustainable Land Use Strategy for Scotland by 2011.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in168 168

While this is a process rather than a result, there are encouraging signs that historic environment values are being embedded within it. The uncertainties of Common Agricultural Policy reform from 2013 (with CAP funding currently forming more than 40% of the EU budget) make the future unclear and it is critical that archaeologists and other historic environment professionals argue strongly for the values of this common resource. [email protected] References Breeze, D. 1992: The Great Myth of Caledon. Scottish Forestry 46, 331–335. Constable, J. & Barfoot, R. 2008: UK Renewable Subsidies: A Simple Description and Commentary. Renewable Energy Foundation, London. www.ref.org.uk Climate Change Scotland Act 2009: www.opsi.gov.uk DTZ Study 2007: Scottish Primary Food and Drink Produce Processed in Scotland. DTZ Scottish Government research project (July 2007). In The Scottish Arable Sector, 2009. www.scotland.gov.uk Economic Report on Scottish Agriculture 2005: www. scotland.gov.uk ECOSSE 2007: Estimating Carbon in Organic Soils – Sequestration and Emissions: Final Report. www. scotland.gov.uk European Wind Energy Association 2009: Pure Power Wind Energy Targets for 2020 & 2030. www.ewea.org Land Use Consultants 2010: An Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change on Scottish Landscapes and their Contribution to Quality of Life: Phase 1 – Interim Report. Scottish Natural Heritage Commissioned Report No. 343. Non-Food Energy Crops 2009: https://statistics.defra.gov. uk/esg/statnot/nonfoodcrops.pdf Pearce, F. 1994: Peat bogs hold bulk of Britain’s carbon. New Scientist 1952, 19 November. www.newscientist. com Scottish Forestry Strategy 2006: http://www.forestry.gov. uk/sfs Tipping, R. 1994: The form and fate of Scotland’s woodlands. Proc. Soc. Antiq. Scot. 114, 1–54. Tipping, R. 1996: Microscopic charcoal records, inferred human activity and climate change in the Mesolithic of northernmost Scotland. In Pollard, T. & Morrison A., The Early Prehistory of Scotland, 39–61. Edinburgh University Press for the University of Glagow, Edinburgh. Tipping, R.1997: Vegetational history of Southern Scotland. Botanical Journal of Scotland 49, 151–162. Tipping, R., Davies, A.L. and Tisdall, E. 2006: Long-term woodland stability and instability in West Glen Affric, Northern Scotland. Forestry 79, 351–359. Towers, W., Schwarz, G., Burton, R., Ray, D., Sing, L. & Birnie, R.V. 2006: Possible Opportunities for Future Woodland Expansion in Scotland. Macaulay Institute, Aberdeen. www.forestry.gov.uk Troen, I. & Petersen, E.L. 1989: European Wind Atlas. Roskilde: Risø National Laboratory. Warren, C.R. & Birnie, R.V. 2009: Repowering Scotland: wind farms and the ‘Energy or Environment’ debate. Scottish Geographic Journal 125, No. 2, 97–126

19/11/2010 15:23:47

23  |  The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples Leif Gren and Peter Norman Abstract: Modern agriculture and forestry is becoming increasingly intensive and homogenous. In this process it is common for archaeological sites to become damaged. Swedish examples demonstrate that good systems for legal protection and information are necessary. However, these do not offer a complete solution since half the ancient monuments in Sweden have been damaged by forestry. It is therefore highly desirable for better production methods to be developed in order to save archaeological sites.

Introduction A fundamental quality of a living landscape is that it is always changing, but changes can have both positive and negative consequences. A specific problem is that European landscapes are losing much of their historic dimension and remarkable scenery. Among the features being lost are a wide variety of ancient monuments in different landscapes. A historic biodiversity is also changing into either intensive agriculture or monoculture; coniferous forest of spruce or pine; or nature reserves with spontaneous regeneration. This change in our common environment is taking place all over Europe and it is leading to a homogenised landscape where regional variation and identity become less visible or are lost altogether. In order to create more diverse and higher-quality landscapes, we need to develop holistic perspectives and new multiobjective production methods. The European landscape and a lack of long-term sustainability There is widespread political agreement in Europe that development in the landscape and the environment should aim to be sustainable. At the political level there

is, of course, awareness that there is a wide variety among landscapes, ranging from polluted and degraded areas to nature reserves with stringent environmental restrictions. Between these extremes there are many measures to improve the environment in ‘everyday’ landscapes, and it is generally believed that these developments are broadly sustainable. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that current policy at either European or national level will lead to a genuinely sustainable development that has adequate regard for biodiversity, heritage conservation and scenic values as well as human quality of life. A major problem, in every country, is that we have separate sectors promoting production and nature conservation and no holistic approach to calculating what is truly profitable in the long term. Demands from the market for lower prices and more efficient agricultural production have led to the abandonment of low-yield areas and unprofitable agricultural production methods. Support for large-scale afforestation or woodland creation is directed towards unused or low-yield land. Despite strong political measures for maintaining historic structures within the Common Agricultural Policy

Fig. 23.1  This is not a battlefield but ordinary forestry after clear cutting by powerful machines without intelligent direction. All ancient structures, both archaeological and biological, are wiped out. The value for recreation is almost non-existent. This is a brutal environment where history starts from zero. Intelligent production technology could avoid this. © Photo Åsa Ström 2000, Swedish National Heritage Board

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in169 169

19/11/2010 15:23:49

170

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 23.2  Agriculture with intensive farming, wiping out all ancient archaeological and biological structures – an environment where history starts from zero. © Photo Jan Norrman, Swedish National Heritage Board

(CAP), the forces that threaten historic structures in the landscape are stronger. Across the landscapes of Europe and the European Union, alongside a more efficient agriculture we see more forests for timber production or providing nature reserves and recreation. Economic and policy developments in many countries have led to a scenario where the global forests shrink while Europe’s forests expand. As a result, in Western and Southern Europe, a great part of the ancient grasslands, heaths and previously deforested areas are now subject to large-scale afforestation. Both agriculture and forestry are characterised by the use of machines whose precision in steering does not match their powerful traction. Technology is little more sophisticated than in the age of the steam engine. This is resulting in monotonous landscapes devoid of features and with an inverted soil. In the production landscape it is very difficult to achieve sustainability for anything other than production. It could be said that the landscape has always changed, and that losing much of the ‘old’ is inevitable. While this is correct, the problem is the low quality of the ‘new’. The inherited landscapes of contemporary Europe are an archive of historical human-environmental interaction and can be regarded as our ‘biocultural heritage’, but changes are impoverishing them. We should be making this past a part of our common future. Instead, almost every landscape is witnessing the loss of historic structures that are the result of thousands of years of human activities and landscape management.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in170 170

European landscape policies There are many incentives provided by the CAP for the support of environmentally friendly farming techniques that go beyond usual good farming practice, and grants that compensate for the additional costs and loss of income that arise as a result of altered farming practices. These supports are used for measures such as environmentally favourable farming; the management of low-intensity pasture systems; integrated farm management; preservation of landscape and historical features such as hedgerows, ditches and woods; and conservation of high-value habitats. Despite this political awareness of problems in relation to the environment within the EU, past and current developments are leading to the loss of important landscape qualities. It appears that we cannot achieve a more effective and more efficient agriculture without the loss of historical features. The EU has no common forestry policy in the way that it has a common agricultural policy and the European forestry strategy confirms that policy responsibility lies with member states. The EU does, however, support the conversion of agricultural land to woodland and forest and it seeks to maintain the ecological stability of forests and to restore damaged woodland. Forestry measures therefore appear in EU policies on agriculture, rural development, environment, research etc. A common trend across Europe is that forest policies are increasingly influenced by a number of broader societal issues outside the forest sector, such as the protection of our natural and cultural heritage, climate-change mitigation and the requirement for renewable energies.

19/11/2010 15:24:00

23  The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples

Heritage management and Swedish forestry and agriculture Archaeological heritage resources are finite, irreplaceable and non-renewable; each site may contain information that is both unique and previously unknown. In a series of international declarations, states are encouraged to ensure respect for cultural heritage in society, and take appropriate measures to prevent, avoid, stop and suppress acts of destruction of cultural heritage. This attitude is also reflected in Swedish national legislation, with the Swedish Heritage Conservation Act making it a crime to damage an archaeological site. Without permission, it is prohibited to disturb, remove, excavate, and cover over ancient monuments and remains or – by building, development, planting or in any other way – to alter or damage them. The heritage-management sector has a variety of instruments for dealing with the protection of the heritage in the landscape. First we have the Ancient Monuments Act legislation, which says that all monuments or archaeological sites are protected, regardless of whether they have previously been recognised. Secondly we have the Swedish National Heritage Board´s database of all registered archaeological sites and monuments (Ancient Sites Information System – ASIS). There are also many measures to bring information to the landowners and different non-governmental organisations. Another approach is to create new, more environmentally friendly production methods within forestry and agriculture. ASIS contains information on more than 1.7 million remains in 570,000 places, and approximately 260,000 of these are protected by law. Most of these ancient remains are situated in areas of forestry or agriculture:

171

some are situated in national parks or nature reserves. Consequently most of Sweden’s ancient monuments risk being damaged by ongoing production methods. Damage to the archaeological heritage caused by forestry Modern forestry has become a huge threat to the archaeological heritage, causing extensive damage on ancient monuments. The worst impacts are caused by heavy felling and scarification machines. Felling machines frequently leave ruts in monuments and scarification machines leave deep scars in the soil and on ancient monuments (as the ground is scarified before planting to give newly planted seedlings a better microclimate for growth and to reduce competing vegetation). Even when a new stand is to be created through natural regeneration (from trees retained in felled areas to produce natural seeding), it is generally essential to scarify the soil. Soil scarification is carried out on about 160,000 hectares annually, but neither this operation nor felling is performed with sufficient care to avoid archaeological sites. The most common problem in the felling operation occurs when ancient monuments are covered with waste such as layers of branches and other residue, despite the Ancient Monuments Act prohibition on covering an ancient monument. Normally the covering with waste from tree felling does not cause any permanent damage, but if they are not removed immediately after the felling, they can obscure the location of the ancient monument and lead to unintentional damage by scarification machines. During the last ten years the Swedish National Heritage Board has undertaken three surveys of damage to ancient monuments caused by the forestry. According to these

Fig. 23.3  Legal production methods must improve, but do not blame the farmers and the companies: they just do what the market and policy wants them to do. Old cottage in mid-Sweden, surrounded by a clear-cutting area. © Photo Jan Norrman 1996. Swedish National Heritage Board

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in171 171

19/11/2010 15:24:04

172

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 23.4  An ancient landscape like this one in Romania cannot survive in an open EU market. It is a ‘paradise landscape’ in terms of heritage, biodiversity and recreation. But the Copenhagen criteria demand ‘the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union’. Outside designated reserves this kind of landscape will require a switch to new intelligent high technology in order to save muscle power. © Photo Jerker Moström 2005. Swedish National Heritage Board

Fig. 23.5  A multi-functional landscape in Gotland, Sweden, that produces low agricultural yields but high production of common benefits such as biodiversity, recreation and maintained heritage. © Photo Jan Norrman, Swedish National Heritage Board

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in172 172

19/11/2010 15:24:11

23  The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples

173

Fig. 23.6  A polarised EU landscape in Scania, Sweden, showing nature conservation with spontaneous regeneration on the left and modern forestry on the right. The area on the left is supposed to cost taxpayers money, whereas that on the right is supposed to create taxpayers money. In the long run neither of them will promote high values for recreation or biodiversity. © Photo Leif Gren 2004. Swedish National Heritage Board

surveys the frequency of damage has not decreased. Rates of damage decrease only marginally even if the location of monuments is marked out on the ground, first before the felling and then before the scarification. Despite this, in our opinion, most of the damage is not deliberate, but commonly caused by negligence or by accident. Forestry is stressful and intensive, with expensive machines needing to be at work for at least 16 hours a day to be profitable. In addition, awareness among workers of the importance of the archaeological heritage is very low. Nevertheless, according to the legislation and several legal judgments, it is a crime to damage an ancient monument, whether the damage is deliberate or through negligence. While it is important to identify the person responsible for the damage, prosecute the landowner and condemn him or her, it is even more important to identify why the negligence is so frequent, analyse the problem and take action. Damage to the archaeological heritage caused by agriculture In Swedish legislation agriculture and forestry are considered to be ongoing land use, meaning that they do not require permission even within protected ancient monuments. Grazing on ancient monuments, like most agricultural operations, does not require authorisation according to the Ancient Monuments Act. Indeed, a

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in173 173

normal grazing regime usually benefits archaeological sites. In arable landscapes there are a large number of ancient monuments, particularly settlements, with no visible traces above ground level. Continuation of normal agriculture in these circumstances does not require authorisation. It is, however, prohibited to change farming practices in ways that harm antiquities without permission, for example, through significantly deeper ploughing (that is, ‘deep ploughing’) that causes previously undisturbed stratigraphy to become damaged. Similarly, it is prohibited to plough close to visible ancient monuments – located adjacent to or as ‘islands’ within arable fields – in a manner that causes parts of the ancient monument direct injury or removes vegetation, and causes erosion. Another widespread problem occurring to other monuments on farmland is recurring small-scale damage, the cumulative effect of which over many years results in significant damage to the heritage. Measures to stop damage to archaeological sites It might be considered that heritage legislation as powerful as the Swedish Ancient Monuments Act should be very effective, but unfortunately this is not always the case. Several assessments of damage to archaeological remains in timber-producing forests show that almost

19/11/2010 15:24:16

174

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 23.7  A plantation in Galloway Forest Park, Scotland, stocked with an American species of spruce. The historical dimension has been lost, as well as the possibilities for recreation and biodiversity. When the trees reach maturity they will easily blow down in the first storm. Many sad landscapes like this are created with EU money, but a more holistic approach could create something better. © Photo Leif Gren 2004. Swedish National Heritage Board

every second site is damaged where modern clearcutting and re-plantation has occurred. Even when the ASIS was made available on-line by The Swedish National Heritage Board in 2003, the frequency of damage did not decrease. Obviously legal protection and information provision are not sufficient: to effectively sustain heritage in the landscape it will be necessary to introduce more environmentally friendly production methods within both forestry and agriculture. A key question is why damage to ancient monuments is such an extensive problem and why, despite international declarations and national legislation to the contrary, destruction of ancient monuments by forestry is so frequent? How can we stop the damage caused by accident and negligence? One answer may be to increase information and education – for example, by training the driver of the felling machine how to avoid damaging ancient monuments – but it is also important to increase general awareness of the purpose of preserving the archaeological heritage. Examples of measures to prevent accidental or negligent destruction of ancient monuments include: • awareness raising (essential, and must be done among heritage agencies, authorities and for the public)

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in174 174

• dissemination of information about the problem • education of police and prosecutors • recommendations to authorities dealing with spatial planning • developing methods of surveillance • manuals for reporting forestry damage to ancient monuments to the police • seminars for the forestry industry • better co-operation with the local heritage movement • simplify the system of felling reports to the authorities • support the Swedish Forest Agency in developing methods for surveillance of damage to ancient monument. High technology is needed to maintain the historic landscape A living and changing landscape can also be a wellmaintained, well-used and inhabited landscape. Much of today’s valued landscape and semi-natural habitat is the result of our farming heritage. Current approaches to managing the historic landscape usually attempt to imitate traditional methods, but what is really needed to obtain a high-quality landscape for tomorrow is new and cutting-edge technology. This may seem a paradox, not least to many historians or archaeologists on various cultural heritage boards, but we must recognise the

19/11/2010 15:24:18

23  The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples

175

Fig. 23.8  In a socialistic planned economy it is possible to maintain an ancient landscape like this one in Romania, where farming is carried out manually. But this is impossible in the EU, where the Copenhagen criteria demand ‘the existence of a functioning market economy as well as the capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union’. © Photo Uvidiu Ophrean

impossibility of going back to a situation where a large part of the population is engaged in maintaining the landscape through outmoded methods of production. The most extreme example of the challenge in Europe is Romania, which today has the most significant landscape in Europe in terms of cultural heritage and biodiversity, maintained by large numbers of low-paid farmers using traditional technologies. Given the circumstances most of these are unlikely to remain as farmers tomorrow. The greatest problem we face today is that management of valuable cultural landscapes and biodiversity-rich landscapes is not integrated with agricultural and forestry production. In Europe we currently have separate systems for production and environmental protection, and can never, therefore, create a wholly sustainable landscape. Intensive production creates structurally barren landscapes with no historical or ecological values, but there will never be sufficient money to create well-protected and highquality environmental reserves at the landscape scale. Furthermore there is a risk that even well-maintained historic landscapes will appear as strange, artificial and static landscapes. What agriculture and forestry have created since the advent of the steam engine are landscapes made for

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in175 175

power without precision. A 21st-century tractor or forestry machine, just like a steam engine from the 19th century, still demands wide-open spaces suitable for powerful traction without careful steering. The result is a kind of landscape where all stone walls, clearance cairns, ancient monuments or any other structures are regarded as unprofitable hindrances for production. This problem could be solved with advanced technology: every modern car is equipped with GPS and computers, but in tractors or forestry machines the same technology is used only to improve production. Intelligent precision steering must be integrated with horse power, and advanced technology should be used to facilitate environmentally friendly production methods. The first step in this direction will require a great deal of research. What is needed, for example, are lightweight tractors designed for shallow-ploughing that can easily work in small fields without destroying any stone wall or historic feature. Scythes for meadows and blades for pollarding trees should be replaced with more intelligent machines that can see and think for themselves, or even work alongside livestock, with a similar precision to manual production methods. Forestry practices should avoid monocultures and large-scale clear-cutting and soil scarification. Such methods do not

19/11/2010 15:24:21

176

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Fig. 23.9  New kinds of small-scale production methods are needed for holistic solutions. Archaeology must play a part in the development of both forestry and agriculture. © Photo Leif Gren 2000. Swedish National Heritage Board

exist today but, if developed, could integrate cultural heritage and biodiversity with production systems. This could avoid the dichotomy of intensively used production landscapes on the one hand and ‘lifeless museumlandscapes’, separate from a viable market production, on the other. While productivity per hectare may diminish, this would provide an alternative to costly nature or culture reserves. For Europe it could mean good business: with the same landscapes providing production of food or timber, a maintained cultural heritage and biodiversity as well as beautiful scenic landscapes with high value for recreation and tourism. We would also avoid ‘lookalike’ landscapes all over Europe produced by the same intensive production methods – vitally important if we want to maintain some regional identity. The policy of the EU should change now to adopt a holistic view and a truly sustainable landscape approach. A new, changing and multi-functional landscape is needed The free market economy demands lower prices and greater efficiency, resulting in most areas of land being dedicated to economic purposes. Traditional production methods had positive spin-off effects for biodiversity and scenic beauty. With the enlargement of the EU to the east, it is evident that this traditional agriculture is not possible. EU members must follow the Copenhagen criteria, one

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in176 176

of which requires states to have a functioning market economy and capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces. This limits the state-controlled nature and heritage conservation sector to avoid conflict with the market economy. A positive vision for the European landscape should adopt a multi-functional approach that preserves good qualities and permits the addition of new high-quality elements and structures. What we define as ‘good quality’ needs wide discussion. The conservation of the historic landscape requires an approach which fully integrates production systems and the provision of public goods. It is not sustainable to have one landscape for profitable production and another unprofitable one for environmental conservation and the failures of intensive production methods. In a sustainable living and changing landscape, we cannot use methods that consider only maximising economic outcome. The continuing creation of new landscapes should also adopt holistic perspectives and the outcomes for biodiversity and scenic qualities for humankind: in short, a landscape that most people can appreciate as a part of the quality of life. [email protected] [email protected]

19/11/2010 15:24:25

Contributors

Andreas Büttner Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Dienststelle Bamberg, Schloß Seehof 96117 Memmelsdorf, Germany Emmet Byrnes Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Agriculture House, Kildare Road, Dublin 2, Ireland Hugh Carey Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Customs House, Dublin 1, Ireland Karl Cordemans Vlaamse Landmaatschappij, Gulden Vlieslaan 72, 1060 Brussels, Belgium Peter Crow Forest Research, Alice Holt Lodge, Farnham, Surrey GU10 4LH, England Claire Foley Northern Ireland Environment Agency, 5–33 Hill Street, Belfast BT1 2LA, Northern Ireland Jana Esther Fries Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Regionalteam Weser-Ems, Ofener Straße 15, 26121 Oldenburg, Germany Peter T Gaskell Countryside and Community Research Institute, Dunholme Villa, The Park, Cheltenham GL50 2RH, England

Vincent Holyoak English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST, England Gwilym Hughes Cadw, Plas Carew, Unit 5/7 Cefn Coed, Parc Nantgarw, Cardiff CF15 7QQ, Wales Jon Humble English Heritage, 44 Derngate, Northampton NN1 1UH, England Victoria Hunns Natural England, Ceres House, 2 Searby Road, Lincoln LN2 4DW, England Walter Irlinger Bayerisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Hofgraben 480539, München, Germany Ann Lynch Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Customs House, Dublin 1, Ireland Vibeke Vandrup Martens NIKU – Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research, P.O. Box 736 Sentrum, N-0105 Oslo, Norway Guido Mauro Cultural Heritage Agency, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, P.O. Box 1600, 3800 BP, Amersfoort, The Netherlands Rosanne Meenan Roestown, Drumree, Navan, Co. Meath, Ireland

Christine Grant National Monuments Service, Department of Environment Heritage and Local Government, 3rd Floor, Plaza Offices, Headford Road, Galway, Ireland

William Meyer Department of Anthropology & Research Laboratories of Archaeology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA

Leif Gren Swedish National Heritage Board, Box 5405, S-114 84, Stockholm, Sweden

Zdeněk Neustupný Národní památkový ústav, územní odborné pracoviště středních Čech v Praze Sabinova 373/5, 130 11 Praha 3, Czech Republic

Joachim Hamberger Staatliche Führungsakademie für Ernährung Landwirtschaft und Forsten, Am Lurzenhof 3c, 84036 Landshut, Germany Henning Hassmann Niedersächsisches Landesamt für Denkmalpflege, Scharnhorststr. 1, 30169 Hannover, Germany

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in177 177

Peter Norman Swedish National Heritage Board, Box 5405, S-114 84, Stockholm, Sweden Rhonda Robinson Northern Ireland Environment Agency, 5–33 Hill Street, Belfast BT1 2LA, Northern Ireland

19/11/2010 15:26:01

178

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Gabriele Schiller Archäologisches Landesamt Schleswig-Holstein, Brockdorff-Rantzau-Straße 70, 24837 Schleswig, Germany

Réka Virágos Legal Department, National Office for Cultural Heritage, 1014 Budapest, Táncsics Mihály u. 1, Hungary

Ingrid Smedstad Department for Monuments and Sites – Archaeology, Dronningensgt. 13, Pob. 8196 Dep, 0034 Oslo, Norway

Thomas Westphalen Landesamt fur Archäologie Dresden, Zur Wetterwarte 7, 01109 Dresden, Germany

Michael Strobel Landesamt fur Archäologie Dresden, Zur Wetterwarte 7, 01109 Dresden, Germany

Jonathan Wordsworth Archaeology Scotland, Suite 1a, Stuart House, Eskmills, Station Road, Musselburgh, EH21 7PB, Scotland

Grietje Suhr Heiglhofstr. 8a, 81377 München, Germany Cees van Rooijen Cultural Heritage Agency, Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, P.O. Box 1600, 3800 BP, Amersfoort, The Netherlands Stephen Trow English Heritage, 1 Waterhouse Square, 138–142 Holborn, London EC1N 2ST, England

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in178 178

Tim Yarnell Forestry Commission, West Midlands Regional Office, Block B, Government Buildings, Whittington Road, Worcester WR5 2FR, England Mike Yates 36 Ty Mawr Rd, Llandaff North, Cardiff CF14 2FN, Wales

19/11/2010 15:26:01

Résumés/Zusammenfassungen

Introduction Stephen Trow Résumé: Ce volume est composé d’une série de communications présentées lors de diverses séances de congrès organisés avec l’appui des membres de l’Association européenne des Archéologues (EAA) et des membres du groupe de travail mixte d’Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC) sur la gestion de l’agriculture, des forêts et des terres rurales. Il comprend également plusieurs communications tout particulièrement commanditées conçues pour améliorer la couverture géographique et l’exhaustivité de cette publication. Prises dans leur ensemble, ces communications examinent les problèmes que posent l’agriculture, la foresterie et les diverses utilisations associées des terres rurales dans le contexte de la conservation à long terme des sites archéologiques et de la gestion des paysages historiques. Zusammenfassung: Dieser Band umfasst eine Reihe von Abhandlungen, die auf verschiedenen Konferenzseminaren präsentiert wurden, organisiert und unterstützt von Mitgliedern der Europäischen Vereinigung von Archäologen (EAA) und Europae Archaeologiae Consilium (EAC), und dem gemeinsamen Arbeitskreis für Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft und Landmanagement. Es beinhaltet auch mehrere speziell beauftragte Beiträge, die zum Zweck hatten, den geographischen Umfang und die Vollständigkeit dieser Veröffentlichung zu erweitern. Insgesamt untersuchen die Abhandlungen die Herausforderungen, die an die Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft und dazugehörigen Landwirtschaftlichen Nutzungen gestellt werden, im Zusammenhang mit der langzeitigen Pflege von archäologischen Stätten und dem Management von historischen Landschaften.

1  Farming, forestry, rural land management and archaeological historical landscapes in Europe Stephen Trow Résumé: Cette communication introductive fournit une vue d’ensemble des effets de l’agriculture, de la foresterie et d’autres utilisations des terres rurales dans le contexte de la conservation à long terme des ressources archéologiques des campagnes européennes. Elle le fait en se référant aux données sur l’utilisation des terres au niveau européen et aux bilans détaillés de l’état des ressources archéologiques entrepris dans plusieurs pays. Ensuite, la communication prend en considération les progrès réalisés, ainsi que les perspectives, dans le sens de l’amélioration de cet impact à travers le mécanisme de la politique de ­développement rural de l’Union Européenne.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in179 179

Zusammenfassung: Diese einleitende Abhandlung gibt einen Überblick über die Auswirkungen von Landwirtschaft, Forstwirtschaft und anderen Landnutzungen auf die langzeitige Erhaltung der archäologischen Ressource in den ländlichen Gebieten Europas. Das wird erreicht, indem Europaweite Landnutzungsdaten und detaillierte Revisionen des Erhaltungszustands der archäologischen Ressourcen herangezogen werden, die in einer Reihe von Ländern durchgeführt wurden. Dieser Artikel prüft welche Fortschritte gemacht werden, um diese Einflüsse mit Hilfe der Europäischen Landwirtschaftspolitik zu verbessern.

2  Challenges related to archaeological heritage preservation in the Norwegian rural landscape Ingrid Smedstad Résumé: Les campagnes norvégiennes subissent une importante perte de leur patrimoine archéologique, perte qui continue. Il est absolument essentiel de réduire le taux de cette perte. Cet article esquisse les grandes lignes du système de gestion et de la politique gouvernementale au niveau de la gestion du patrimoine culturel. Les causes de perte du patrimoine sont évoquées, ainsi que les diverses mesures susceptibles de fournir une base pour une protection et une gestion améliorées du patrimoine archéologique. Zusammenfassung: Norwegen leidet unter einem fortlaufenden Verlust archäologischer Denkmäler in ländlichen Gebieten. Diesen Verlust zu vermindern ist höchste Priorität. Dieser Artikel gibt einen Überblick über das Manangement System und die staatlichen gesetzlichen Richtlinien für den Denkmalschutz. Die Gründe für den Verlust von Kulturdenkmälern werden diskutiert, zusammen mit Maßnahmen, die ergriffen werden können, um den Schutz und das Management archäologischer Kulturstätten zu verbessern.

3  Problems and perspectives of archaeological heritage preservation in farmed landscapes in Germany – a survey of federal structures Andreas Büttner, Jana Esther Fries, Henning Hassmann, Gabriele Schiller, Michael Strobel and Thomas Westphalen Résumé: En raison de sa constitution fédérale, de la diversité de ses types de relief et de la nature fragmentée de son infrastructure agricole, la préservation des monuments archéologiques dans les paysages agricoles de l’Allemagne présente des problèmes complexes et prolongés. La commission pour l’archéologie et l’agriculture de l’Association des archéologues d’état en Allemagne a pour but non seulement de faire le point sur cette

19/11/2010 15:26:02

180

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

situation déroutante mais aussi de représenter les intérêts de la préservation du patrimoine archéologique auprès des associations, autorités et institutions pertinentes et de mettre au point des stratégies et des approches à la préservation des sites archéologiques susceptibles d’être adaptées aux besoins et aux problèmes posés dans différentes régions. Zusammenfassung: Aufgrund der Bundesverfassung, der Vielseitigkeit seiner Landschaften und Fragmentation der landwirtschaftlichen Infrastruktur ist der Denkmalschutz in den landwirtschaftlich genutzten Gebieten Deutschlands eine komplizierte und langwierige Herausforderung. Das Ziel der Kommission ‘Archäologie und Landwirtschaft’ im Verband der Landesarchäologen soll nicht nur eine Bestandsaufnahme dieser unübersichtlichen Situation vorbereiten, sondern auch die Interessen der archäologischen Denkmalpflege bei den zuständigen Institutionen, Behörden und Verbänden vertreten und Strategien und Ansätze für die Erhaltung von archäologischen Stätten entwickeln, die an Probleme der verschiedenen Regionen angepasst werden können.

4  Shaping the Netherlands Cees van Rooijen and Guido Mauro Résumé: Pratiquement la totalité du patrimoine archéologique des Pays-Bas est constamment sous pression. Les sites archéologiques dans les zones de faune et de flore sont généralement bien protégés mais la préservation des sites situés dans des zones agricoles constitue un grand problème. C’est en partie à la suite de la décentralisation de la gestion du patrimoine que l’agence du patrimoine culturel s’efforce d’améliorer la préservation du patrimoine en mettant des informations à disposition. Zusammenfassung: Ziemlich das gesamte archäologische Kulturgut in den Niederlanden ist unter ständigem Druck. Archäologische Stätten in Naturgebieten sind im allgemeinen gut geschützt, aber die Erhaltung in landwirtschaftlich genutzten Gebieten ist ein schwerwiegendes Problem. Zum Teil dafür verantwortlich ist die Dezentralisation des Denkmalschutz Managements, und die Denkmalbehörde versucht die Denkmalpflege zu verbessern, indem sie Informationen verfügbar macht.

5  Raising consciousness: the reconciliation of archaeological heritage preservation and agricultural practice in Hungary Réka Virágos Résumé: Estimant de longue date que les sites étaient d’intérêt purement académique, les archéologues hongrois ont récemment été obligés de faire face au problème de la gestion et de la préservation de leurs ressources archéologiques. Au niveau de l’utilisation des terres rurales, le mélange d’une conscience croissante de leur image parmi les propriétaires terriens et des approches mal développées à la gestion du patrimoine archéologique a eu pour résultat une situation presque incontrôlée : un problème auquel on ne peut plus échapper. Zusammenfassung: Nachdem archäologische Stätten bisher nur als akademisches Interessengebiet angesehen wurden, sind Ungarische Archäologen nun mit dem Problem konfrontiert, wie man die archäologischen

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in180 180

Ressourcen verwalten und aufrecht erhalten kann. Bezüglich der Landwirtschaft hat die Kombination eines wachsenden Bewusstseins auf der Seite der Grundbesitzer und eine schlecht entwickelte Einstellung zur Denkmalpflege zu einer fast unkontrollierbaren Situation geführt: Ein Problem, daß nicht länger umgangen werden kann.

6  Agricultural changes, ancient mounds, and archaeological course-corrections: some field (and forest) notes from southern Burgundy William Meyer Résumé: Dans cet article, je traite des incidences qu’ont les changements agricoles sur les tertres funéraires de l’âge du bronze et de l’âge du fer du sud de la Bourgogne. L’archéologie professionnelle n’est peut-être pas bien équipée pour atténuer leur impact. Je suggère des changements au niveau de cette discipline qui pourraient permettre une meilleure protection des sites, y compris l’adoption d’une approche ethnographique. La création de plans efficaces pour la gestion du patrimoine à l’avenir devra entraîner des changements au niveau de notre pratique de l’archéologie, une expansion de ce qui constitue l’archéologie et la reconnaissance de l’importance du rôle de diverses parties prenantes en tant qu’alliées pour la préservation des ressources archéologiques. Zusammenfassung: In dieser Abhandlung wird diskutiert, wie sich landwirtschaftliche Veränderungen auf die Grabhügel der Bronze- und Eisenzeit in Südburgund auswirken. Die archäologische Fachwelt ist eventuell schlecht ausgerüstet, um den Einfluß dieser Veränderungen zu mindern. Er werden Verbesserungen für die Disziplin vorgeschlagen, die es vielleicht ermöglichen soll, Fundorte besser zu erhalten, einschließlich der Einführung eines ethnographischen Denkansatzes. Um archäologischen Denkmalschutz effektiv für die Zukunft aufzubauen, müssen wir die Methoden der archäologischen Praxis verändern, die Interpretation was Archäologie bedeutet erweitern und es muß die Rolle der verschiedenen Interessengruppen als Verbündete in der Erhaltung des Archäologischen Erbe gewürdigt werden.

7  Cover is not shelter: archaeology and forestry in the Czech Republic Zdeněk Neustupný Résumé: De nombreux monuments archéologiques sur le terrain, comme des peuplements fortifiés, des tertres funéraires, des forteresses et des villages abandonnés, sont préservés dans les forêts de la République tchèque. La présence limitée des êtres humains a permis de conserver leurs vestiges archéologiques et leurs anciens paysages. Ces dernières années, les méthodes modernes de foresterie, qui entraînent l’utilisation de matériel lourd, représentent une sérieuse menace pour ces monuments. Bien que ces sites soient protégés par la loi, la situation au quotidien est bien moins satisfaisante. Pour améliorer ces conditions, il faudrait avoir de bien meilleures connaissances de ces sites, et qu’ils soient bien mieux documentés, tout particulièrement en ce qui concerne leur emplacement précis. Il faut également améliorer la coopération avec les exploitants et les propriétaires des forêts. Zusammenfassung: Eine große Anzahl archäologischer Denkmäler in der Landschaft, wie befestigte Siedlungen,

19/11/2010 15:26:02

Abstracts

Grabhügel, Festungen und verlassene Dörfer befinden sich in den Wäldern der Tschechischen Republik. Die dünne menschliche Besiedelung hat die Erhaltung der archäologischen Überreste und relikten Landschaften ermöglicht. Moderne Forstwirtschaftliche Methoden, bei denen schwere Maschinen eingesetzt werden, stellen in den letzten Jahren eine beträchtliche Bedrohung dar. Obwohl diese Stätten gesetzlich geschützt sind, ist die Realität nicht sehr zufriedenstellend. Um diese Gegebenheiten zu verbessern, ist es notwendig unser Wissen und die Dokumentation dieser Stätten zu verbessern, insbesondere deren genaue Lage. Es ist deshalb notwending, die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den Denkmalpflegern und Waldbesitzern zu verbessern.

8  Environmental monitoring of archaeological deposits Vibeke Vandrup Martens Résumé: Les méthodes de surveillance environnementale des gisements archéologiques, couvrant les zones urbaines et rurales, et diverses situations de déposition, y compris les zones saturées et non saturées, sont décrites. L’exemple cité est celui de la ferme d’Aaker à Hamar, comté de Hedmark, Norvège. Une méthode normalisée pour la documentation archéologique des conditions de dépôt et la définition de l’état de préservation est indiquée. La mise en œuvre de cette méthode, la législation à l’appui, et ses conséquences pour l’archéologie et la préservation des sites sur place sont discutées. Zusammenfassung: Die Methoden der Umwelt­ überwachung von archäologischen Ablagerungen in der Stadt und in ländlichen Gebieten unter verschiedenen Ablagerungsverhältnissen, unter anderem gesättigte und ungesättigte Zonen, werden beschrieben. Ein Beispiel anhand eines Bauernhofes in Aaker in Hamar, im Bezirk Hedmark, Norwegen wird beschrieben. Eine standardisierte Methode zur archäologischen Dokumentation von Ablagerungsverhältnissen und eine Definition des Erhaltungszustands wird aufgezeigt. Die Anwendung dieser Methode, die dahinterstehende Gesetzgebung und die Konsequenzen für die Archäologie und Konservierung von Ort wird diskutiert.

9  Monitoring and managing archaeological sites on the farmland of Wales Peter Gaskell and Gwilym Hughes Résumé: Depuis le néolithique, le caractère des pratiques agricoles au pays de Galles ont été influencées par la nature du pays, largement constitué de hautes terres. A l’heure actuelle, l’élevage domine l’agriculture au pays de Galles. Toutefois, les pressions économiques et le transfert des subventions agricoles de l’UE, de la production vers l’environnement et la durabilité, ont eu des incidences sur les modèles agricoles. Cette communication présente le travail qui a été entrepris jusqu’à présent pour la surveillance et la gestion des sites archéologiques situés dans des terres arables au pays de Galles. Ensuite, elle introduit un nouveau projet qui vise à évaluer les effets dus au changement des pratiques agricoles et l’efficacité de nos réactions aux menaces perçues au niveau de la gestion. Zusammenfassung: Seit dem Neolithikum ist die Landwirtschaft in Wales von der hügeligen Natur des

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in181 181

181

Landes geprägt. Heutzutage beherrscht die Viehhaltung die Landwirtschaft. Ökonomische Antriebe und die Verlagerung des Schwerpunkts von Produktion zu Umweltverträglichkeit der EU Subventionen beeinflussen das landwirtschaftliche Bild. Diese Abhandlung beschreibt die Arbeitweise, wie sie in der Vergangenheit beim Überwachen und Management von archäologischen Denkmälern auf landwirtschaftlichem Gelände durchgeführt wurde. Dann wird ein neues Projekt vorgestellt, das zum Ziel hat zu prüfen, wie sich die Veränderungen der landwirtschaftlichen Schwerpunkte auf die Effektiviät unserer Denkmalsverwaltung auf wahrgenommene Gefahren auswirken.

10  Field Monument Wardens in Northern Ireland: working with owners to manage scheduled historic monuments Claire Foley Résumé: Cette communication est la première de deux qui prennent en considération l’emploi de travailleurs sur le terrain – gardiens de monuments sur le terrain (FMW) ou conseillers – pour la surveillance de l’état des sites archéologiques dans toute l’Irlande et pour aider les propriétaires et les exploitants à maintenir ces sites en bon état. Le système des FMW en Irlande du Nord se concentre sur les sites classés (jouissant d’une protection juridique) et, par le biais de la récente enquête Relevé de l’état et de la gestion des ressources archéologiques (CAMSAR), s’est révélé être un excellent moyen de contact avec les propriétaires et occupants afin d’influencer l’entretien des monuments classés sur le terrain. Zusammenfassung: Diese Abhandlung ist die erste von zwei Beiträgen, die das Einsetzen von Denkmalwärtern (Field Monument Wardens – FMWs) oder Beratern untersuchen, die die Erhaltung von archäologischen Stätten auf der Insel Irland überwachen und Landbesitzern und Inhabern helfen, sie in gutem Zustand zu erhalten. Das FMW system in Nordirland konzentriert sich auf staatlich geschützte Denkmäler und in einer kürzlich durchgeführten Bestandsaufnahme (Erhaltungszustand und Management der archäologischen Ressourcen – CAMSAR) wurde gezeigt, daß es eine sehr positive Methode ist, mit Landbesitzern und Inhabern Kontakt zu knüpfen und zum Unterhalt von staatlich geschützten Denkmälern beizutragen.

11  The Field Monument Advisory Scheme in the Republic of Ireland Rosanne Meenan Résumé: Cette communication est la seconde de deux qui prennent en considération l’emploi de travailleurs sur le terrain – gardiens de monuments sur le terrain (FMAs) ou conseillers – pour la surveillance de l’état des sites archéologiques dans toute l’Irlande et pour aider les propriétaires et exploitants à les maintenir en bon état. Des conseillers pour les monuments sur le terrain ont été nommés, du milieu à la fin des années 2000, par les autorités locales de neuf régions de la République irlandaise, dans le but de visiter tous les monuments archéologiques de leurs régions. Le programme avait pour but de rencontrer les propriétaires terriens, d’inspecter les monuments sur leurs terres, d’évaluer l’état des monuments et d’offrir leur appui et leurs conseils au cas où il y aurait des problèmes liés à la gestion du monument.

19/11/2010 15:26:02

182

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

Zusammenfassung: Diese Abhandlung ist die zweite von zwei Beiträgen, die das Einsetzen von Denkmalwärtern (Field Monument Advisors – FMAs) oder Beratern untersuchen, die die Erhaltung von archäologischen Stätten auf der Insel Irland überwachen und Landbesitzern und Inhabern helfen, sie in gutem Zustand zu erhalten. Denkmalberater sind Mitte bis Ende 2000 in neun Kreisbehörden der Irischen Republik eingesetzt worden, mit der Absicht alle Denkmäler in ihrem Einflußraum zu inspizieren. Das Programm hatte zum Ziel die Grundbesitzer kennen zu lernen, die Denkmäler auf ihrem Land zu inspizieren, den Erhaltungszustand zu bewerten und Unterstützung und Rat zu geben, in Fällen, bei denen es Probleme mit dem Management des Denkmals gibt.

12  Assessing and managing risk: the Scheduled Monuments At Risk (SMAR) and Conservation Of Scheduled Monuments In Cultivation (COSMIC) projects, England Jon Humble Résumé: L’Angleterre est l’un des pays les plus variés de toute l’Europe au niveau physiographique – elle est aussi un pays où la densité de la population est l’une des plus élevées et le développement l’un des plus intensifs. Son riche patrimoine archéologique est de plus en plus en danger de perte, d’endommagement ou de délabrement pour causes et naturelles et humaines. SMAR (Monuments classés en danger) représente la réponse stratégique de l’agence pour le patrimoine national, English Heritage, et, durant la dernière décennie, les risques menaçant les 19,709 importants monuments nationaux classés ont été systématiquement évalués. Suite à SMAR, le projet COSMIC (Conservation des monuments classés situés dans des cultures) a élaboré un modèle fiable pour la caractérisation et l’évaluation des dangers menaçant les sites archéologiques situés dans des cultures, et l’identification de moyens d’atténuation appropriés. A l’heure actuelle, COSMIC II se concentre sur les prescriptions et procédures de gestion des risques pour les sites cultivés, et au niveau stratégique et au niveau des sites eux-mêmes. Zusammenfassung: England ist eines der physiographisch vielfältigsten Länder Europas – es ist auch eines der am dichtesten Bevölkerten und hochentwickelsten. Sein reiches archäologisches Erbe ist immer weiter vom Verlust, Schaden oder Verfall bedroht, von menschlichen, sowohl auch von natürlichen Einflüssen. SMAR (Scheduled Monuments at Risk – Gefährdete staatlich geschützte Denkmäler) ist die strategische Antwort des Staatsorgans für Denkmalpflege, ‘English Heritage’, und während der letzten zehn Jahre sind die Risiken denen die 19,709 landesweit wichtigen, staatlich geschützen Denkmäler ausgesetzt sind, systematisch bewertet worden. Der Nachfolger von SMAR, das COSMIC Projekt (Conservation of Scheduled Monuments in Cultivation – Erhaltung von staatlich geschützten Denkmälern in der Kulturlandschaft) hat ein verlässliches Modell entwickelt, um die Risiken für archäologische Denkmäler in der Kulturlandschaft zu charakterisieren und zu bewerten, und hat passende Methoden entwickelt, um Schäden zu vermindern. COSMIC II konzentriert sich zur Zeit darauf, Verfahren zum Risikomanagement für archäologische Stätten in der Kulturlandschaft zu entwickeln, auf strategischer und localer Ebene.

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in182 182

13  The Rural Environment Protection Scheme (REPS) and archaeology Hugh Carey and Ann Lynch Résumé: Le Programme pour la protection de l’environnement rural (REPS) fut introduit dans la République irlandaise en 1994, et est maintenant dans sa quatrième phase. Bien que REPS ne soit pas essentiellement axé sur la protection des monuments archéologiques, ce programme a, malgré certains défauts, servi de filière d’informations archéologiques pour la communauté agricole. Il faut espérer que les progrès réalisés à ce niveau ne seront pas perdus au cours des années à venir. Zusammenfassung: Ein Plan zum Schutz des ländlichen Raums (REPS) wurde 1994 in der Irischen Republik eingeführt und besteht nun in seiner vierten Phase. Obwohl REPS sich nicht direkt um den Schutz archäologischer Denkmäler kümmert, hat es, trotz einiger Mängel, als eine Brücke fungiert, um archäologisches Wissen in der landwirtschaftlichen Gemeinschaft zu verbreiten. Es besteht die Hoffnung, daß auf dieser Ebene Fortschritte gemacht werden können, und es in kommenden Jahren nicht verloren geht.

14  Archaeology, agriculture and environment on the Burren Uplands, Ireland Christine Grant Résumé: Le but de cette communication est de présenter une vue d’ensemble des problèmes auxquels doit faire face la gestion des ressources archéologiques des hautes terres de Burren, l’un des paysages archéologiques les plus importants de toute l’Irlande. Burren exigera une stratégie de conservation archéologique spécialisée, laquelle stratégie devrait faire partie d’une stratégie de gestion structurée pour le paysage en général. Zusammenfassung: Der Zweck dieser Abhandlung ist einen Überblick über Probleme zu geben, die sich für das Management von archäologischen Ressourcen im Burren Upland (Irisches Karsthochland) stellen, eines der wichtigsten archäologischen Landschaften Irlands. Der Burren braucht eine eigene Strategie zum Schutz der archäologischen Denkmäler, aber sie muß in den breiteren Landschaftsschutz integriert werden.

15  Heritage stewardship in Flanders: rural development money for rural heritage management? Karl Cordemans Résumé: Depuis 1999, l’agence flamande des terres (VLM) est responsable de la gestion de plusieurs programmes agro-environnementaux en Flandres. En 2005, la VLM s’est mise à travailler sur l’introduction d’un programme de préservation du patrimoine en vertu du deuxième pilier de la politique agricole commune. Le programme a été conçu en coopération avec diverses organisations pour le patrimoine flamand. En raison de difficultés structurelles aux niveaux financier et politique, le programme n’est pas encore en opération mais devrait devenir opérationnel dans un avenir proche avec une nouvelle administration gouvernementale. Zusammenfassung: Ab 1999 ist die Flämische Land Argentur (VLM) für die Verwaltung der landwirtschaftlichen

19/11/2010 15:26:03

Abstracts

183

Umweltprogramme verantwortlich. VLM begann 2005 mit der Einführung einer Verwaltungsstrategie für das Kulturerbe unter Säule 2 der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik der Europäischen Union. Diese Strategie wurde in Zusammenarbeit mit einer Reihe von Kulturorganisationen entworfen. Wegen finanzieller Schwierigkeiten und dem politischem Rahmen ist diese Strategie noch nicht in die Tat umgesetzt, sollte aber in der näheren Zukunft startmäßig sein, wenn eine neue Regierung ins Amt geht.

Ressources in England und welche Maßnahmen von English Heritage seit 2000 ergriffen werden, um auf diese Problemstellung in Partnerschaft mit anderen Organisationen einzugehen. Diese Abhandlung konzentriert sich auf den Gebrauch von strategische Indizen und Verfechtern, um Veränderungen bei der Gesetzgebung und umweltschützende Agrarpolitik herbeizuführen. Diese Abhandlung sollte mit zusammen den Beiträgen von Holyoak, Humble und Yates et al. gelesen werden.

16  Agri-environmental schemes and the historic environment of the United Kingdom: a view from Wales

18  Mitigation impossible? Practical approaches to managing archaeology in arable farming systems

Mike Yates with contributions from Victoria Hunns, Rhonda Robinson and Jonathan Wordsworth Résumé: Cela fait plus de deux décennies que l’assistance gouvernementale pour les programmes d’agriculture environnementale au Royaume-Uni englobe des dispositions pour la protection et la gestion des sites archéologiques, des bâtiments traditionnels et des caractéristiques des paysages historiques. Néanmoins, il y a des différences très nettes entre les divers pays du Royaume-Uni au niveau de l’application pratique des programmes. Cet article fournit un court résumé de la manière dont fonctionnent les programmes dans chaque pays, avec référence tout particulièrement à la situation au pays de Galles, et il met en valeur comment en a profité l’environnement historique. Les incidences d’un changement de l’importance accordée à divers aspects de la politique agricole commune sont également prises en considération. Zusammenfassung: Über zwei Jahrzehnte lang wurden staatliche Gelder, die für Agrar-Umweltprogramme bereitgestellt, darunter auch für den Erhalt und Management von archäologischen Stätten, traditionellen Häusern und historischen Landschaftszügen. Die Durchsetzung dieser Programme ist in den verschiedenen Grafschaften des Vereinigten Königreiches allerdings sehr verschieden. Diese Abhandlung fasst zusammen, wie diese Programme in den jeweiligen Ländern in die Tat umgesetzt werden, mit besonderer Betonung auf Wales, und es wird hervorgehoben, wie das historische Umland davon profitiert hat. Die Konsequenzen einer Verlagerung der Schwerpunkte innerhalb der Gemeinsamen Agrarpolitik werden auch erwogen.

17  Ripping up history, sordid motives or cultivating solutions? Plough damage and archaeology: a perspective from England Stephen Trow Résumé: Cette communication prend en considération les incidences des cultures sur les ressources archéologiques en Angleterre et l’approche suivie par English Heritage qui s’efforce depuis 2000 d’aborder le problème, en partenariat avec d’autres organisations. La communication se concentre sur l’utilisation d’indices stratégiques et de plaidoyers visant à obtenir des changements aux niveaux de la législation et de la politique agricole environnementale. Il convient de lire cette communication avec d’autres communications par Holyoak, Humble et Yates et al. incluses dans ce volume. Zusammenfassung: Diese Abhandlung behandelt die Auswirkungen von Ackerbau auf die archäologischen

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in183 183

Vincent Holyoak Résumé: Cette communication est le complément de celles de Trow et Humble (dans ce volume) et résume les résultats d’un programme de recherches qui a duré cinq ans et qui a étudié les effets directs et indirects de différents systèmes de labourage sur l’archéologie, et en surface et sous la surface, par le biais d’essais accélérés sur le terrain et d’essais en laboratoire. Cette étude nous a fourni les premières données empiriques sur la manière précise dont la culture et les techniques associées au labourage ont des incidences sur l’archéologie, et pourquoi. Plus important encore, elle a mis à l’épreuve l’efficacité de diverses méthodes d’atténuation, tout en mettant en valeur en même temps de nouveaux domaines où de simples changements au niveau des pratiques agricoles pourraient entraîner des avantages bien plus étendus pour les fermiers ainsi que pour la conservation de l’archéologie. Zusammenfassung: Diese Abhandlung vervollständigt die Beiträge von Trow und Humble (dieser Band) und fasst die Resultate einer fünf Jahre langen Forschungsstudie zusammen, die sich mit den direkten und indirekten Auswirkungen von verschiedenen Ackerbaumethoden auf die oberirdische und unterirdische Archäologie beschäftigte, unter Verwendung von Labor- und Geländeversuchen. Diese Studie hat uns zum ersten Mal empirische Daten geliefert, wie und warum Ackerbau und die verschiedenen Arten der Bodenbestellung sich auf die Archäologie auswirken. Insbesondere hat es die Effektivität verschiedener Methoden zur Schadensminderung getestet und gleichzeitig neue Wege aufgezeigt, wo einfache Veränderungen in der Agrartechnik Vorteile für Landwirte und den Schutz der Archäologie bringen können.

19  Forestry and the historic environment in Britain: a challenging past and an exciting future Tim Yarnell and Peter Crow Résumé: La politique des forêts a énormément changé au cours du dernier siècle. Au début, elle se concentrait sur le reboisement de forêts ‘ravagées’ durant la première guerre mondiale ainsi que le boisement pour la mise en place de ressources en bois, mais les programmes actuels ont pour but de mener à un large éventail d’avantages, en sus de la production durable du bois. Cette ­ communication traite des risques, opportunités et avantages potentiels que peut présenter la gestion des forêts pour l’environnement historique, et elle identifie de futurs défis à relever. Zusammenfassung: Forstwirtschaftspolitik hat sich im letzten Jahrhundert sehr verändert. Ursprünglich hat sie sich darauf konzentriert, den Waldbestand der nach dem ersten Weltkrieg verwüstet wurde, wieder zu erneuern

19/11/2010 15:26:03

184

EAC OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 4

und aufzuforsten, um Holz als Rohstoff zu produzieren. Moderne Programme haben neber umweltverträglicher Holzproduktion auch andere, breiter angelegte Ziele. In diesem Artikel werden die potenziellen Risiken, Chancen, und Nutzen diskutiert, die das Forstmanagement der historischen Landschaft bieten kann, und identifiziert Herausforderungen an die Zukunft.

20  Forestry and archaeology in Ireland: current practice and future trends Emmet Byrnes Résumé: Cette communication a pour but de présenter une vue d’ensemble du boisement en Irlande au cours du dernier siècle, suivie d’un compte-rendu plus détaillé des pratiques historiques et actuelles par rapport à l’archéologie dans les anciennes forêts ainsi que dans les forêts récemment plantées. Les prescriptions obligatoires minimales et les recommandations applicables aux monuments et aux sites archéologiques selon les divers plans de subventions pour la foresterie sont détaillées, en faisant tout particulièrement attention aux procédures pour l’évaluation de ‘l’autorisation de développement initial du boisement’, le permis d’abattage, et les demandes de subventions pour l’infrastructure des forêts. Elle se termine par une discussion des problèmes qui restent encore, de futures menaces possibles au niveau des ressources archéologiques et de propositions pour atténuer ces menaces. Zusammenfassung: Der Zweck dieser Abhandlung ist ein Überblick über die Geschichte der Wiederaufforstung in Irland im letzten Jahrhundert zu geben, gefolgt von einer ausführlichen Beschreibung frührerer und heutiger Methoden in Bezug auf Archäologie in bestehenden und neuen Wäldern. Die minimalen verbindlichen und freiwilligen Auflagen für Archäologische Stätten und Denkmäler unter der Schirmherrschaft verschiedener Förderungshilfen werden beschrieben. Besondere Beachtung wird den Vorgängen gegeben, die ‘Genehmigung für erstmalige Wiederaufforstung’, Lizenzen zum Holzfällen und Förderungsanträge zur Forstinfrastrukur prüfen. Sie schließt mit einer Diskussion der restlichen Probleme, mögliche zukünftige Gefährdungen der archäologischen Ressourcen und Vorschläge wie sie gemindert werden können.

21  Archaeology and forestry in Bavaria (Germany): current ways of co-operation Joachim Hamberger, Walter Irlinger and Grietje Suhr Résumé: Les forêts de la Bavière sont riches en sites archéologiques résultant de plus de 40,000 années d’histoire humaine. Etant donné que des forêts stables offrent la meilleure des protections pour ces sites, une meilleure coopération entre les responsables de la gestion du patrimoine et ceux de la gestion des forêts est de la plus grande importance en Bavière et ailleurs. Cette communication décrit les menaces affrontant les monuments archéologiques dans les forêts ainsi que les dispositions pour leur sauvegarde. Zusammenfassung: Die Wälder Bayerns sind reich an archäologischen Fundstätten, die mehr als 40,000 Jahre menschlicher Geschichte decken. Da die stabilen Wälder diesen Denkmälern den besten Schutz bieten

EAC4 Trow, Holyoak and Byrnes.in184 184

können, ist eine verbesserte Zusammenarbeit zwischen Denkmalschutz und der Forstverwaltung in Bayern und anderswo sehr wichtig. Diese Abhandlung beschreibt die Gefahren denen die Denkmäler in den Wäldern ausgesetzt sind, als auch Methoden, um sie zu schützen.

22  Changing the land – the implications of climatechange policies, actions and adaptations for Scotland’s rural historic environment Jonathan Wordsworth Résumé: Le gouvernement écossais a d’ambitieux projets dans le sens de transformer l’Ecosse en une économie plus durable pour répondre aux effets du changement climatique sur son économie, sa société et son environnement. Les adaptations nécessaires auront de considérables incidences sur les caractéristiques archéologiques et les paysages historiques qui représentent la base de la campagne écossaise. L’article identifie certaines de ces incidences et suggère que le patrimoine de l’Ecosse pourrait être davantage menacé par les réponses aux menaces que pose le changement climatique que par les effets du changement climatique lui-même. Zusammenfassung: Die Schottische Regierung hat ehrgeizige Pläne Schottland in eine zukunftsfähige Wirtschaft zu verwandeln, als Antwort auf den Einfluß der Klimaveränderung auf die Wirtschaft, Gesellschaft und die Umwelt. Die notwendigen Anpassungen werden eine bedeutungsvollen Einfluß auf die archäologischen Denkmäler und historischen Landschaften haben, die das Rückrad der Schottischen Kulturlandschaft sind. Diese Abhandlung identifiziert einige der Auswirkungen, und behauptet, das das Schottische Erbe unter größere Gefahr durch die Maßnahmen gebracht wird, die als Reaktion auf die Klimaveränderung ergriffen werden, als die Klimaveränderung selbst.

23  The impoverishment of heritage in the European landscape – with some Swedish examples Leif Gren and Peter Norman Résumé: La foresterie et l’agriculture moderne deviennent de plus en plus intensives et homogènes. Ce processus veut dire que les sites archéologiques sont souvent endommagés. Des exemples suédois montrent qu’il faut avoir de bons systèmes de protection juridique et d’information. Ces derniers n’offrent néanmoins pas une solution complète car la moitié des anciens monuments de la Suède ont été endommagés par la foresterie. Il serait donc fort souhaitable de mettre au point de meilleures méthodes de production pour la sauvegarde des sites archéologiques. Zusammenfassung: Moderne Land- und Forstwirtschaft wird immer intensiver und homogen. In diesem Zusammenhang kommt es häufig vor, daß archäologische Fundstätten Schaden erleiden. Beispiele aus Schweden zeigen, daß gute Systeme zum gesetzlichem Schutz und Informationsaustausch notwendig sind. Sie bieten allerdings keine vollständige Lösung, da die Hälfte aller altertümlichen Denkmäler in Schweden durch Forstwirtschaft geschädigt wurden. Es ist deshalb sehr erwünschenswert, daß auf eine Verbesserung der Gesetzesgebung hingearbeitet werden soll, um die archäologischen Fundstätten zu retten.

19/11/2010 15:26:03