The Place of Archaeology in Integrated Cultural Landscape Management a Case Study Comparing Landscapes with Iron Age Oppida in England, France and Spain

Journal of European Landscapes 1 (2020): 9–28 DOI 10.5117/JEL.2020.1.47039

Research Article

The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management A case study comparing landscapes with Iron Age oppida in England, France and Spain

Tom Moore1, Vincent Guichard2, Jesús Álvarez Sanchís3

1 Durham University, Durham, United Kingdom 2 Bibracte EPCC, Glux-en-Glenne, France 3 Complutense University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain Corresponding author: Tom Moore ([email protected])

Received 4 September 2019 | Accepted 3 October 2019 | Published 8 May 2020

Abstract Across Europe, landscape is recognised as a frame through which societal values are defined and embedded. The European Lands- cape convention and wider research has drawn attention to the need for integrating a diverse range of stakeholders to ensure landscape sustainability. Archaeology is increasingly recognised as having an important place in integrated landscape management but often remains relatively peripheral. This paper examines the place of archaeology in specific European regions and the potential ways of integrating archaeological heritage in landscape management. Emerging from a project funded by the Joint Programme Initiative on Cultural Heritage (Resituating Europe’s FIrst Towns (REFIT): A case study in enhancing knowledge transfer and developing sustainable management of cultural landscapes), we explore the place of a set of common European heritage assets, Iron Age oppida, in the management of the landscape they are a part of and how they might be used better to engage and connect stakeholders. Using four case studies, we review the present integration of archaeology within landscape management and how this operates at a local level. From this we explore what challenges these case-studies present and outline ways in which the REFIT project has sought to develop strategies to respond to these in order to enhance and promote co-productive management of these landscapes.

Keywords archaeology, oppida, stakeholders, coproduction, integrated managament, cultural ecosystems services, cultural landscape, sustainability

Introduction

Across Europe, landscape is recognised as a frame current and future environments.5 As national and Eu- through which societal values are defined and embed- ropean agendas advocate integration,6 detailed assess- ded.1 The concept of cultural landscape as defined by ments of the current place of archaeological heritage at UNESCO2 emerged from wider European traditions3 on a local level are increasingly necessary if archaeology is the need to emphasise the interconnections between to be embedded in holistic landscape management.7 natural and cultural factors in creating landscape charac- Developing from these concerns, this paper examines ter. More recently, the European Landscape convention the place of archaeology in specific European environ- (ELC)4 has drawn more attention to the perceptive na- ments and the potential ways of integrating archaeologi- ture of landscape and the need for integrating a diverse cal heritage in landscape management. In this paper we range of stakeholders and values to ensure landscape consider ‘Landscape’ in similar terms to that in the ELC, sustainability. Archaeology as a discipline increasingly recognising that ‘cultural landscape’, as it has been defin- recognises that it should be integral to such approaches, ed by UNESCO,8 has tended to somewhat under-estimate not just as evidence from the past, but contributing to the perceptive aspect of landscapes as developed more

Copyright Tom Moore et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 10 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management recently.9 Emerging from a project funded by the Joint physical, mental and social). Requiring collective defi- Programme Initiative on Cultural Heritage (Resituating nition and understanding of the factors that influence Europe’s FIrst Towns: A case study in enhancing know- their character, landscape can form an arena that enga- ledge transfer and developing sustainable management ges inhabitants in public life. In so doing, it can embed of cultural landscapes: http://www.refitproject.com), we stakeholders in a transversal approach to public action, explore the place of a set of common European heritage including engagement with agriculture, tourism, energy, assets, Iron Age oppida located in France, England10 and transport and heritage. In many cases, archaeology has Spain, in the management of the landscape they belong untapped potential to act as a lever to facilitate such en- to and how they might be better used to engage and con- gagement. nect stakeholders. Recognition of the importance of stakeholder parti- Using four case studies, this paper reviews the present cipation means that integrated management and lands- integration of archaeology within landscape manage- cape sustainability are increasingly regarded as mutually ment and how this operates at a local level. This is fol- dependent.30 Definitions of integration vary, however. lowed by an exploration of the specific challenges faced Integrating academics and policy makers has been a fo- in integrating these monuments and how this has in- cus of European agendas31 but engagement with more di- fluenced us to take a coproductive approach, developing verse stakeholders32 has not always been widespread.33 A strategies to enhance archaeology as a lever to promote paradigm shift is occurring, however, with realisation of integrated landscape management. the need to incorporate all stakeholders within landscape management.34 Stakeholders can be defined very broadly, including farmers, business, ecologists and residents, but Integrated cultural landscape management also all those who feel an attachment with a landscape Whilst ‘cultural landscapes’11 were relatively tightly de- (tourists, heritage professionals and the wider public) to fined by UNESCO,12 the ELC took a broader approach, whom, for example, it might relate to their identity. emphasising that all landscapes are a product of human Integration requires participation and coproducti- and natural interaction13 and emerge as much from the on, emphasising a share of power in decision making.35 perception and perspective of human agents as from Landscapes can be contentious36 and coproduction need their materiality.14 The ELC also recognised that crucial to not impose unanimity but allows exploration of ‘tra- their value is in the improved quality of life they bring,15 de-offs’ between stakeholder values. In this approach, coinciding with increasing recognition of heritage as a sustainability is not a contrast between preservation social benefit.16 These developments emerged alongside and exploitation but emphasises landscape dynamism, recognising the need to include communities in decision allowing stakeholder participation in defining landscape making. This ‘principle of participation’,17 reinforced by character and direction.37 Although cultural heritage the 1998 Aarhus Convention,18 and echoed in the right is increasingly an aspect of integrated management,38 to heritage under the Faro Convention19 emphasised archaeology has not always been fundamental to such that diverse stakeholders should be integral to landscape processes. For European oppida, the REFIT project re- and heritage management. In our approach to landscape cognised an opportunity to explore whether that place we seek to go somewhat further than the ELC, drawing could be enhanced, alongside other interests and values, on concepts of ‘Natural Capital’,20 ‘public goods’,21 and to underpin these particular landscapes’ sustainability. ideas of landscape as ‘commons’,22 which have attemp- ted to build ecosystems services23 into assessments of landscape value. As part of this broader interpretation of Oppida, a pan-European case study in cultural landscape, the importance of cultural ecosystems servi- landscape management ces24 are perceived not as separate elements but integral The large Iron Age monuments known as oppida, found to landscape biographies.25 Many such approaches recog- across western and central Europe (Fig. 1),39 represent a nise, as we do, the intangibility of ‘landscape’ in which particular challenge for heritage management. Their sca- the perceptions, memories and identities of all its actors le, often covering 100s of hectares, means that, archae- are engrained as part of those landscape biographies.26 ologically, oppida have to be considered as man-made These perspectives on landscape have emerged at a territories.40 Whilst recognising (above) that all heritage time when European territories face a variety of pressu- is an integral element of landscape, oppida are unusual res, ranging from the impacts of climate change, rural in forcing archaeologists (and other stakeholders) to en- depopulation, declining rural economies and changing gage with heritage as integral to the landscape, not as farming practices.27 At the same time, in a contested, ‘sites’ divorced from it. globalised world, landscape is a frame of reference for From different motivations (Álvarez Sanchís and local, regional and national identities.28 Landscape, and Moore as researchers, Guichard as director of a research the archaeology within it, have significant potential as, centre, tourist site and museum) we recognised that ma- what has been recently defined in debates in the UK as naging these monuments requires a landscape perspec- a ‘public good’29, in other words contributing to broad- tive. The often relatively non-spectacular archaeological ly defined aspects of community well-being (cultural, remains and their scale means oppida are frequently Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 11

Figure 1. Approximate distribution of monuments known as ‘oppida’ across Europe with the location of the case study landscapes (drawn by Tom Moore). working areas with few able to be preserved only as ches. As a pan-European phenomenon, oppida also re- heritage monuments (Fig. 2).41 In addition, despite their present a heritage asset which has a (largely untapped) significance for Europe’s cultural heritage (arguably re- potential act as focus for trans-national comparison and presenting temperate Europe’s first urbanism)42 oppida cooperation. To undertake assessment of landscapes in are poorly recognised as significant heritage assets43 which oppida are integral , four examples were chosen, and underdeveloped as foci for cultural and economic two in England (Salmonsbury and Bagendon, Glouces- sustainability.44 This means that even when they recei- tershire), one in France (Bibracte, Burgundy) and one in ve high-level protection they continue to balance the Spain (Ulaca, Ávila) (Fig. 1). These reflect the diversity needs of heritage management with other landscape re- of oppida whilst emphasising the range of pressures on quirements.45 Landscapes with oppida within them are, them. The project aimed to work less on disseminating therefore, a useful focus with which to compare current archaeological knowledge, although this was an aspect, approaches and the practicalities of integrated approa- but more to explore methods of knowledge exchange 12 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management

oversees agri-environment subsidy schemes (Countrysi- de Stewardship), which provide options for management of the environment, including the historic environment, on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). Management of heritage and archaeology is covered by two core areas of legislation. The Ancient Monuments Areas Act (1979), enforced by a government agency (Historic England), legally protects ‘Scheduled Ancient monuments’ requiring permission for actions such as archaeological investigation or changes in land use. This covers only a fraction of archaeological heritage (approximately 20,000 sites). The majority of archaeological remains are managed under the auspices of planning legislation, embodied in the Town and Country Planning Act (1990). Planning is undertaken at the regional authority level using guidance from central government via the National Planning Policy Framework (2012). This is built on an underlying ‘polluter pays’ principle with developers using consul- Figure 2. Nature of landuse within the area encompassed by tants to evaluate archaeology prior to development with oppida, from a sample of 152 sites mainly in France (106), Ger- local authorities developing mitigation strategies. These 57 many (25) and Britain (11) (after Daval 2009). are informed by regional development plans which outline priorities and highlight the current resource through Historic Environment Records. Many local au- between stakeholders. As part of the project we under- thorities have developed Historic Landscape Character took analysis of stakeholder perceptions46 and develo- assessments to provide a framework on the nature and ped methodologies to engage stakeholders, which are value of the landscape.58 Much of agricultural land- discussed in more detail elsewhere.47 Underpinning the- use is situated outside planning regulations, however, se is our assessment of the current state of integration which means that the vast majority of archaeology not of landscape management at our case studies and the under development threat is subject to little manage- challenges these present. ment oversight. Areas of the landscape designated as National Parks or Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are provided sta- Current integration of archaeology in landscape tutory guidance59 on landscape management priorities, management informed by Landscape Character Assessments.60 Via The place of archaeology in local landscape management Neighbourhood plans and Local Landscape Character can only be understood in its juridical context. All three Assessments,61 the Localism Act (2011) aimed to situate of our partner countries are signatories to the European local communities more directly in defining manage- Landscape convention48 and Valletta convention.49 These ment priorities. The impact of these schemes appears acts as the basis from which most European countries to have been limited, however.62 There is relatively lit- are aligning their approaches to managing landscape.50 tle incentive for the main practitioners of archaeology Similarly, although none of our countries are yet signa- (developer-funded consultants) to undertake significant tories to the Faro Convention,51 they acknowledge the dialogue with other stakeholders, beyond those commis- value and potential of cultural heritage as a resource for sioning them. This means that the vast majority of ar- sustainable development and quality of life. Commit- chaeology is divorced from wider discourse.63 ment by all countries to the Aarhus convention52 also Both Natural and Historic England aim to work to- includes a need for public participation within environ- gether to ensure the historic environment is part of mental matters. Despite these underpinnings, the reality landscape management.64 Government infrastructure of how archaeology is connected to landscape manage- continues to foster divisions between the ‘natural’ and ment varies considerably.53 Also significant is the varied ‘cultural’, however, seen in the splitting of landscape con- impact of the development of national approaches to cerns across the Department for Digital, Culture, Media landscape and heritage.54 and Sport (DCMS), Department for Environment, Far- ming and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and Ministry of Housing, The English framework Community and Local Government (MHCLG). Disjunctu- The ELC informs England’s approaches to landscape ma- re also exists in academia, with archaeology departments nagement55 although archaeology’s integration is more often more closely linked to history or classics than en- complex.56 The core mechanism for managing the quali- vironmental studies or geography, with limited research ty of rural territories is through Natural England which cooperation.65 Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 13

The English cases studies: Bagendon and Salmonsbury confluence of the Dikler and Windrush rivers, Salmons- Two landscapes were chosen to represent the diversity of bury is typical of ‘enclosed oppida’. Iron Age earthworks British oppida. Bagendon and Salmonsbury, Gloucester- enclose an area of around 29ha (Fig 3b). The area inclu- shire, although both located in the Cotswolds, are quite des evidence from a variety of other periods, including different in terms of their landscape character (Cotswold a Neolithic causewayed camp and Early Medieval ‘hund- AONB 2002) as well as the pressures that face them. The- red’ (meeting place). The oppidum lies on the edge of the se include development, the decline of rural economies small town of Bourton-on-the-Water, famous for its ver- and changing population dynamics. Both are located in nacular architecture, which overshadows the earlier his- the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty which tory of the area. The town has a population of over 3,000 provides guidance on landscape priorities.66 and is a major tourist attraction with around 700,000 Situated on the interface between the Cotswold Hills visitors per annum. The urban area encroaches on Sal- and Thames Valley, the ‘polyfocal oppidum’ at Bagendon monsbury which, since 2003, as part of Greystones Farm, has around 4km of earthworks encompassing around has been under the management of the Gloucester Wild- 200ha. Its heyday was in the Late Iron Age (1st century life Trust (GWT), an environmental charity. This organisa- BC-1st century AD) but most of the Iron Age remains are tion has 3 staff at Greystones who co-ordinate landscape relatively ephemeral (Moore 2014). Only a small element activities. As well as the Scheduled Ancient Monument is a Scheduled Ancient Monument (Fig. 3a). Central to of Salmonsbury, the area includes a Special Scientific In- the complex is Bagendon village with elements thought terest (SSSI) and an organic dairy farm. As at Bagendon, characteristic of Cotswold villages (vernacular architecture; the archaeology is difficult to visualise and, in contrast to drystone walls). The surrounding land comprises privately the number of tourists who visit Bourton-on-the-Water, owned pasture and arable fields along with some wood- Salmonsbury is relatively unvisited. land. Despite the significance of its archaeological heritage as the precursor to the regional Roman ‘civitas’ capital Challenges for Bagendon and Salmonsbury (which became modern-day Cirencester), and one of the Our case study landscapes reflect many of the successes largest archaeological monuments in western England, its and challenges within integrated landscape management relative invisibility means there are few visitors. in England. One of the most obvious aspects of integra- Salmonsbury, c. 24 km to the northeast, presents a ted management is through Natural England ‘Country- different landscape. In a low-lying position close to the side stewardship’. A significant proportion of the area

Figure 3. Landscape designation (including forms of stewardship agreement) around (a) Bagendon and (b) Salmonsbury (drawn by Tom Moore). 14 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management around both Bagendon and Salmonsbury, including levels of heritage protection: (1) property with historical much of the oppida, is under some form of stewardship heritage status, (2) the General Inventory of Moveable agreement, although only at Salmonsbury does this have Property and (3) the General Register of Property of Cul- a specific historic environment option (Fig 3a, 3b).67 tural Interest (moveable and immoveable). The Autono- Of the two, greater integration in management can mous Communities have established additional levels of be seen around Salmonsbury where the Gloucestershire protection introducing special categories, concerning in- Wildlife Trust has created a unified management plan, tangible heritage for instance. Regional laws on archae- incorporating farming, public access, wildlife and histo- ological heritage govern BIC, which include archaeologi- ry. This reflects the national picture, where exemplars cal sites, informing expropriation of the lands necessary of integrated management which include archaeology for excavations and permission for archaeological inves- are rare and restricted to organisations such as National tigation. They also govern programmes of conservation Parks.68 Even around Salmonsbury, however, it is still the for archaeological sites and their environs. environmental significance which acts as the draw for Recently, preventive archaeology has emerged,73 rati- local engagement.69 onalizing archaeological investigation and allowing for In contrast, there is no unified approach to the Ba- the designing of research models prior to development.74 gendon landscape and no forum through which values Despite significant discussion on the role of preventive can be shared. The links which exist between different archaeology in Spain, there is currently a lack of data on stakeholders, such as archaeologists and environmental its extent with each region displaying its own particular groups, relate to personal connections, although some circumstances. These variations are due to different legal are facilitated by national agencies. The one facet of inte- frameworks and the development of different manage- grated management around Bagendon, ‘Countryside ste- ment mechanisms.75 Despite the existence of elaborate wardship’, is focused on individual farms with no wider statutory systems of planning and heritage management landscape agreements. To address this, recent integrated this does not, therefore, always guarantee effective lands- approaches have been trialled in the region70 but heritage cape management.76 In general, the current practice in has so far not been incorporated within these. With land Spanish cultural heritage management is characterized entirely in private ownership, Bagendon lacks a landscape by outstanding research and theoretical approaches con- co-ordinator, beyond government agencies, meaning the trasted with an often poor presence of these concepts needs of individual landowners often have primacy. within territorial strategies.77 For the REFIT project this contrast in existing manage- Landscape is taken into account by references to it in ment has significant implications. At Salmonsbury, an nature conservation laws, urban regulations and other existing organisation (GWT) exists as a potential co-or- provisions such as legislation on road development. Inte- dinator to facilitate strategies to enhance awareness of grated policies on landscapes are, however, scarce.78 Pro- archaeology within presentation and management stra- tective strategies for listed heritage monuments focus tegies. At Bagendon the challenge is to explore how to largely on preservation while at the same time there is develop knowledge exchange between stakeholders in little protection for heritage susceptible to development. a landscape without such organisations. For both lands- This approach often results in rigid protective regimes capes, however, common issues exist, including a need causing landowners and other stakeholders to oppose to enhance awareness of the dynamism of landscapes, preservation regarding it as in danger of leaving the regi- in order to contextualise modern landscape choices, and on vulnerable to economic stagnation. develop ways to engage all stakeholders. At present, de- Landscape management is considered in various are- spite the national significance of the archaeological re- as. Central government deals primarily with protected mains, they do not act as a focus around which integra- property belonging to the state and manages public au- ted management coalesces. thorities and delegated bodies, while the Autonomous Communities focus on private property within their regi- The Spanish framework on. Most regions maintain a distinction between herita- Spain’s approach to cultural landscapes varies. A system ge and environmental protection, downplaying the inte- of devolved legislation on heritage and landscape ensu- grated approach to landscape called for by the European res different approaches exist across the country. Cultu- Landscape Convention. This reflects a general division in ral heritage management is regulated by national law71 Spain between heritage and the natural environment. and regional legislation. This law is based on the con- Cultural heritage is legally conceived as a set of tangible cept of Asset of Cultural Interest (Bien de Interés Cultu- and intangible assets which are considered worth pro- ral: BIC), which includes non-movable heritage, movable tecting.79 Natural heritage is defined as environmental heritage and intangible cultural heritage.72 It provides assets which have not been altered by humanity. This decentralization of the management of cultural heritage creates two different concepts, two sets of legislation, to autonomous regions (Comunidades Autónomas) un- two different governing administrations, two forms of der the guidance of the State. This ensures a fragmented education and information and two completely diffe- approach with autonomous regions having developed rent degrees of impact, strong for natural heritage but their own legislation (ibid. 70). National law covers three weak for cultural heritage. Natural and cultural heritage Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 15 do not share a common approach, but there are some points in existing legislation that enable the historic environment to be incorporated within landscape planning.80 The categories established by environmental laws such as national parks, natural parks and nature reserves have in recent years been emulated by cultural laws as cultural parks, cultural areas and archaeological parks. Here the convergence of concepts offers the potential to co-ordinate environmental and cultural management.81 In recent years working groups have been set up to develop action plans to comply with the conventions entered into at an international level.82 This is leading to change,83 with a recent law of historical heritage in Andalucía including a category termed Cultural Lands- cape.84 In addition, the Institute of Cultural Heritage of Spain has developed a project titled the National Plan of Cultural Landscapes (2012). A number of research projects also exist within Spain which have sought to take a Figure 4. Plan of Ulaca oppidum in its wider landscape more integrated approach to landscapes85 involving local stakeholders and a variety of agencies in management There is, however, growing exploration of Ulaca’s ar- strategies.86 chaeological heritage as the focus for landscape integration. In the 1990s different reconstruction programmes The Spanish case study: Ulaca were created in the province of Ávila, thanks to a demand The situation at Ulaca reflects the relatively divided situa- for ‘cultural tourism’. Consequently, the region has wit- tion within Spanish approaches to landscape. Located in nessed major archaeological excavations as part of an in- the province of Ávila, the oppidum Ulaca, encompassing creasing awareness among the local population of the sig- approximately 70ha, was occupied in the Late Iron Age nificance of local heritage as a cultural resource. This, in (ca. 300-50 BC) by people known as the Vettones who of- part, led to an exhibition Celtas y Vettones hosted by the ten erected stone statues (‘verracos’).87 After the Roman council of Ávila which saw around 100,000 visitors. The conquest it was abandoned with the foundation of the European project Interreg III-A, led by the Regional Go- town of Ávila, which became a World Heritage site in 1985. vernment of Ávila (Diputación Provincial), was decisive in In some ways, Ulaca is an excellent example of a cul- recognition and dissemination of the archaeological heri- tural landscape in which archaeological-historical and tage of the Iron Age oppidum through new excavations, environmental elements are united on the basis of their restoration programs, and publications aimed at the ge- protection and development. It was declared an Histo- neral public, as well as the creation of a permanent exhi- ric-Artistic Site in 1931 and protected as a BIC (Asset of bition in Ávila: Vettonia. A desire by heritage stakeholders Cultural Interest) in 1986. The archaeological zone of to enhance local communities’ engagement with the re- Ulaca (450ha; Fig. 4) was delimited and protected by the source of Ulaca is closely linked to the need for economic Law of Spanish Historical Heritage, leaving any restorati- development in the region. The rationale is that visitors to on subject to the dictates of the Territorial Committee of cultural attractions tend to stay longer and spend more, Cultural Heritage. It is fenced and protected by an on-site meaning that increased visitors to Ulaca might allow for a guardian paid for by the regional government and recei- diversification of the local economy and contribute to the ves around 4,000 visitors per annum. It is part of the pro- preservation of the community’s heritage. tected natural space (ENP) called “Sierra de la Paramera y Despite these developments, a decline in local Serrota”, within the network of natural areas of the Auto- customs in agrarian communities, such as those around nomous Community of Castilla y León, under the auspi- Ulaca, has led to a declining sense of identity in the face ces of law 42/2007 on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity. of globalization.88 The receptivity of people to better un- Due to its rough terrain its main use is for extensive catt- derstand the past, which was previously often ignored, le grazing, organised by the local community. and the strategy of cultural tourism which places the Despite this combination of designations, the role of oppida as the historical roots of the region, has created integrated management is less clear. Decisions about ac- a kind of popular ‘vettonism’ (Ruiz Zapatero and Salas cessibility, building of infrastructure, land-use and the 2008). Implicit in this is the notion that there is a sense provision of funds for heritage presentation can encoun- of shared concern and belonging expressed as a com- ter problems due to the lack of co-ordination mechanis- mon value system. This has led to the development of ms between levels of administration. This creates gaps a highly successful local festival (the Luna festival: Fig. between how policy makers, researchers, stakeholders 10), which attracts around 3,000 visitors each summer and the community perceive what Ulaca heritage is and to Ulaca, organised primarily by the local mayor. Until what measures are taken to manage it. recently this festival had little official endorsement and 16 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management there remains something of a tension that it has been strengthened by the establishment of scientific advisory created outside of archaeological authorities’ guidance. commissions at national and inter-regional levels. The- There are concerns, for example, over the impact of large se have greatly contributed to improving the quality of numbers of visitors on the archaeological remains. This archaeological research and field practice, as well as the is a clear example of the ‘trade-offs’ heritage managers publication of results. The pressure on archaeological need to explore if Ulaca is to become foci for cultural heritage from development has also led to the establish- landscape sustainability. ment of a legislative framework for rescue archaeology, based on the polluter pays principle. This dictates that Challenges for Ulaca the State (via the Ministry of Culture) decides on the ad- The moderate success of local residents and authorities visability of interventions likely to damage archaeologi- in increasing the value of Ulaca as a resource for tou- cal heritage and exercises scientific control. The conduct rism and as a source of local identity is something which of archaeological work may be entrusted to approved might be enhanced. A landscape co-ordinator has emer- operators, in practice usually the National Institute for ged, in the form of the local mayor of Solosancho, but Preventive Archaeological Research (INRAP), units belon- this is reliant on a dynamic individual and their relati- ging to local authorities or independent firms. onship with authorities, residents and academics, rather Landscapes are taken into account in environmental than embedded in systems or practice. The challenge is and urban planning legislation. Their protection mainly for greater dialogue between stakeholders to consider results from a 1930 law which allows two levels of pro- management plans without governmental frameworks. tection, classification or inscription, for “natural monu- The lack of engagement with natural environment au- ments and sites whose conservation or preservation is of thorities is particularly stark whilst the integration of general artistic, historical, scientific, legendary or pictu- other stakeholders has been limited. At present both resque interest”. Today, there are about 6,700 classified the approaches by regional authorities and local peop- or listed sites, covering c. 4% of France. Over the years, le are almost entirely focused around the archaeologi- there has been a tendency to increase the size of the cal heritage but the potential to explore how heritage protected areas, usually motivated by recognition of the management might connect to aspects of managing the landscape’s cultural and environmental quality. natural environment exists. Opportunities to make clear The 1993 law about ‘the protection and enhance- connections between contemporary agricultural prac- ment of landscapes’ aims to protect more extensively tices, foodways, heritage and the natural environment landscapes, whatever their importance or type. The law, abound89 but have, as yet, seen little development. later updated to include the definition of landscape used in the European Landscape Convention, provides for a The French framework wide variety of measures to protect space for reasons of In France, too, archaeological heritage and landscape is- landscape quality or their important biodiversity. These sues are covered by legislation that depends on several measures most often take the form of contractual in- ministries.90 Local authorities have little regulatory po- centive schemes, such as ‘regional natural parks’ (parcs wers in this field but can support the State to enhance naturels régionaux), or special provisions in documents the value of heritage, as part of regional planning and guiding land management by local authorities. The po- tourism policies.91 licy of the Grands Sites de France, initiated in 2002, en- The most significant elements of archaeological heri- courages local authorities to take charge of the sustaina- tage benefit from a 1913 law which allows two levels of ble management of landscape areas of high value and to protection, as classified historical monuments (14,100 in experiment with methods of integrated management.92 2015) or listed historical monuments (29,500) with work This policy is an example of the reflections taking place on or around these monuments strictly supervised. An within the Ministry of the Environment regarding the amendment to the Heritage Code in 2016 defines ‘remar- notion of landscape as a lever to develop sustainable kable heritage sites’ (sites patrimoniaux remarquables) regional projects, both to mobilize all stakeholders that include several older features: “towns, villages or through their interest in their lived environment, and districts whose conservation, restoration, rehabilitation to develop territorial projects through the transversality or enhancement is in the public interest from the histo- that reflection on the future of landscape requires (e.g. rical, architectural, archaeological, artistic or landscape the Paysages Territoires Transitions research-action in point of view”. These sites (800 in 2016) are the subject which Bibracte is involved). of safeguarding or enhancement plans. Communities Archaeological heritage may benefit from measures with remarkable heritage sites are organised into a na- designed to protect areas for their landscape quality or tional association (Sites & Cités remarquables de France) biodiversity, even if heritage is rarely emphasised as the which allows exchange of experience and lobbying. grounds for protection. In this respect, the primacy of ar- Archaeological heritage has benefited, since 1941, chaeology as the reason for protection of Mont Beuvray from specific legislation. These provisions include the (Bibracte) according to the 1930 law is exceptional. Simi- need for State authorization to carry out excavations. larly, local urban plans, which are an obligation of local Recently, monitoring of archaeological activity has been authorities, must incorporate consideration of the pre- Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 17 servation of cultural heritage but, in practice, they rarely addition, because of its location within former Presi- take into account buried archaeological heritage. Finally, dent François Mitterrand’s (1916-1996) original consti- there is no provision specifically concerned with the ris- tuency, in 1984 an archaeological research programme ks that agricultural work poses for buried archaeological was initiated and the site was included on the list of heritage, although it is a major factor in destruction of Grands Travaux de l’Etat in 1989. A management struc- archaeological remains. ture was established, bringing together state and local In summary, France has been concerned with moving organisations to implement a significant programme of from an archaeology of rescue to a genuine policy which investments, establishing a public property of 950 hec- preserves archaeological heritage. It has been most suc- tares, and creating facilities which were inaugurated by cessful in establishing an effective framework for stu- Mitterrand in 1995. The site roles within the landscape: dying remains threatened by development, but archae- as a natural and historic site, a research centre, and an ological heritage remains insufficiently integrated in archaeological museum are managed by one public management and there remains considerable scope for body – an établissement public de coopération culturelle taking archaeological heritage into account when deve- (EPCC).94 This type of public organisation was established loping landscape projects. In the same manner, decisions by legislation in 2001 to allow significant cultural facili- to allow the destruction of archaeological sites after their ties, such as museums, to be run as partnerships. Under scientific recording are still fully in the hands of experts this system, the facility is managed by an independent and never shared with the wider community. organisation, with policy and financing arranged by a governing board which includes representatives from the The French case study: Bibracte founding bodies. This type of management structure has Amongst our case studies, Bibracte is already the most advantages in combining the policies and resources of integrated in terms of management. The oppidum of all the different bodies involved, and in creating a ma- Bibracte is situated on Mont Beuvray, Burgundy, si- nagement structure where roles and responsibilities are tuated within the Parc naturel régional du Morvan (c. clearly distributed between the elected representatives 173,000ha), an upland region with low population den- (who define overall strategy) and the director (who has sity and an economy based on cattle breeding, forestry responsibility for its operational running). and, to a much lesser extent, tourism. Bibracte dates to As well as its archaeological significance, Mont Beu- the late 2nd to 1st century BC, with 12km of fortifications vray has significant environmental value, rich in beech and is spread over 200 hectares. Its excellent preserva- forests and panoramic viewpoints which open onto pro- tion and historical significance, as a place where Julius tected landscapes. Today Bibracte is encompassed by a Caesar wrote his Commentaries on the Gallic War, mean variety of heritage and natural environmental protection that it has a focal place in French national identity.93 In (Fig. 5). It is a classified Monument Historique (encom-

Figure 5. Designations of the landscape around Bibracte. 18 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management passing 135 ha) and classified according to the 1930 on, driven largely by the State in the form the Ministry Act because of its historic and picturesque significance of Culture. The 1990s saw the rise of cultural ambitions (covering 1478 ha). Since 2014, it has also been a desig- (including opening the museum) and the involvement of nated Natura 2000 area, covering c. 1004 ha. Since 2008, local authorities. In the 2000s, management recognised Bibracte has been a Grand Site de France. This does not the importance of a landscape approach to highlight and offer specific protection but aims to ensure an integra- make understandable the archaeological site which is ted and sustainable management programme the clas- largely perceived by its visitors as a vast “natural” space.95 sified site and its landscaped setting (buffer zone) which In particular, the award of the Grand Site de France la- extends across the territory of ten villages (including ca. bel in 2007 (and renewal in 2013), has been part of a 25,000 ha and 2,500 inhabitants). growing dialogue with the Ministry of the Environment. Bibracte functions as a place of fieldwork for resear- In the spirit of the European Landscape Convention, the chers, from a dozen or so countries, and as an archaeolo- ambition is presently to build from Mont Beuvray a sus- gical park. It endeavours to operate as an experimental tainable territorial project based on a harmonious deve- site for archaeological work, including museography and lopment of its economic activities (agriculture, forestry research methodology, as well for integrated heritage and amenity economy) with the involvement of local sta- management with the hosting of training courses and keholders, using the mobilising and integrative capacity international workshops. The Bibracte museum exhibits of the notion of landscape. This project is being carried the results of archaeological research on the site placing out in close partnership with the Parc naturel régional du it in wider context. The museum and Centre archéolo- Morvan, and involvement of a multidisciplinary consor- gique européen host a diverse set of visitors including tium of researchers which role is to assess the effective- researchers, students and heritage professionals parti- ness of the process, especially the possibility of creating cipating in scientific programmes. They include several a heritage community around a shared vision of the evo- hundred individuals and complete around 8,000 wor- lution of the shape of the territory.96 As such, Bibracte king days at Bibracte per year. The museum has c. 44,000 has now entered a new stage in its history based on a visitors per year. School trips account for a significant paradigm shift.97 proportion with 8,000 children spending at least one Through an integrated approach Bibracte is exploring day at Bibracte. The remaining visitors comprises 40% the trade-offs necessary to manage its landscape. Recog- from the local area, 30% from other regions of France, nising, for example, that the beech forest on Mont Beu- and the rest from other countries, primarily the Nether- vray is an integral aspect of its landscape character, the lands and Belgium. management plan recognises a need to ensure its sustainability whilst using woodland clearance to make the Challenges for Bibracte archaeology more visible to a public audience.98 Working The existence at Bibracte of a clear landscape co-ordi- with a landscape architect this integrates archaeological nator which already integrates aspects of national and preservation, display whilst enhancing the natural en- local government, academic researchers, tourism spe- vironment. These guidelines led to the establishment of cialists and environmental experts means it is far-and- a long-term forestry project with the aim of opening up away the most integrated of our case studies. Bibracte the topography of the Iron Age monument and creating still faces significant challenges, however. Bibracte is a set of development scenarios. Such an approach moves located in an upland area which has suffered from sig- away from simply privileging heritage, recognising it as nificant depopulation since the late-nineteenth century just part of the cultural landscape over which dynamic and has seen major agricultural decline, with pine plan- choices need to be made. tations replacing pasture, drastically transforming the landscape. This is due to a combination of extensive low value-added agro-pastoral production mobilising little Overview: comparative challenges labour and drastic changes in forest physiognomy due to Our case studies provide a snap shot of particular ways widespread highly mechanized production systems that oppida are managed in different settings. Reflection favour exogenous resinous species over hardwoods. on the current situation highlights the diverse ways in Within this context, Bibracte exists in the role of a cul- which oppida are integrated into management and the tural centre for a local population with very few other ways in which stakeholders experience them. This re- cultural opportunities. A concerted effort is, therefore, lates both to fundamental differences in national and being made to produce non-archaeologically related regional government policies and to the extent to which events related to artistic creation or contemporary issues, these embrace the concepts of the ELC. It also relates to welcome artists in residence and hosting multi-discipli- local factors such as levels of engagement between sta- nary festivals. Despite this integration of management, keholders and role of management actors. Despite the only recently has Bibracte’s management begun to ex- variation, a number of common themes and challenges plore the views and values of non-specialist stakeholders emerge. These represent challenges and opportunities (the methods for doing which are explored below). In for REFIT to develop strategies to integrate oppida heri- the 1980s Bibracte had an essentially scientific ambiti- tage within a landscape perspective. Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 19

Disconnection and structural division plinary approach espoused by the Grands Sites de France A common factor across our case studies is the current policy,100 of which Bibracte is a part; attempts to enhance lack of awareness by many stakeholders of existing frame- historic environment within countryside stewardship in works for landscape management. Despite all four case England and regional approaches to cultural landscape studies being situated in rural areas there is a surprisingly in Spain. However, the impact of structural separation limited awareness of the juridical or management basis should not be under-estimated in creating both con- for current management. From all our case-studies, sur- ceptual and information barriers within and between veys of stakeholders revealed a surprising commonality in stakeholders. A variety of approaches across Europe are how few could identify key management organisations or challenging such division101 with increasing numbers the mechanisms by which the land was managed (Fig. 6). of integrated landscape initiatives emerging from the In England, the extent to which Stewardship was used ‘bottom-up’102 but archaeology as integral to these re- to manage the surrounding territory was poorly under- mains rare. More encouragingly, despite these divisions stood, even by landowning stakeholders.99 Even around and a general unfamiliarity with the concept of ‘cultural the most actively engaged manager, Bibracte, only around landscape’ amongst our stakeholders,103 interviews with 25% of local stakeholders surveyed (n=420) were aware stakeholders revealed that, once explained, the majority of how it was managed and its legal protections. regard it as reflecting their own appreciation of the in- This lack of awareness appears to relate largely to how tegrated nature of landscapes. It thus has the potential the landscape is presented, dividing information on heri- to act as a frame of reference which non-specialists can tage, geology, ecology and agronomy, ensuring relatively ‘buy into’. little knowledge transfer between stakeholders. Our assessment of the current situation at all four case studies emphasises that whilst information for some aspects of Landscape coordination and integration these landscapes exists (Fig. 7), this tends to be restricted Transcending structural divisions to enhance integration to specific spheres (such as solely ecological) with little appears best achieved through the existence of ‘lands- easily accessible information on current land-use or the cape coordinators’. In our case studies the nature of these biography of landscape character. At some case studies, varies. From its earlier focus on heritage, Bibracte EPCC such as Bibracte, discussion with regional, elected re- has developed as a space with which to connect national presentatives reveal this disconnect is leading to limited and regional agencies, academics and political actors. El- investment of communities in land strategy issues. This sewhere, coordination exists at Salmonsbury in the form encourages municipalities to have a fatalistic attitude of the Wildlife Trust, and at Ulaca, more nascent, in the towards changes in land ownership, for example, which form of the mayor. We termed these ‘leaders’ or co-ordi- can lead to major changes in land management. nators, but they might just as well be identified as lands- One of the potential reasons for stakeholder discon- cape actors (or stakeholders) who have the ability to act as nect from landscape management, witnessed in all three ‘connectors’ or hubs around which others can coalesce or countries, is how approaches to landscapes continue to interact. The expertise or existing role of these stakehol- foster division between the ‘natural environment’ and ders is less important than in being one to which many cultural heritage. Despite the ELC’s emphasis on integra- other stakeholders are connected, or has the capacity to tion, in practice there remains significant disconnection. connect. At Bibracte, the driving force in this regard coin- There are signs of change, for example in the cross-disci- cides with the heritage stakeholder which has recognised

Figure 6. Proportion of stakeholders surveyed using question- Figure 7. Photo of information panel at Salmonsbury display- naires who were unable to identify any law or designation used ing only ecological information. to manage the landscapes of the 4 case study oppida. 20 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management the challenge to broaden its remit to the wider cultural Review of our case studies revealed that none had yet landscape. Within those areas where no major museum explored stakeholder views of the landscapes and inte- or heritage stakeholder is present, at Ulaca and Salmons- grated this into management. In those where it had been bury, the potential comes from working with other, more taken into account (e.g. Cotswolds) this was through ge- permanently established stakeholders (the Wildlife Trust neralised regional or national surveys.109 Deeper under- and local community, respectively). Identifying such standing of the motivations and values of all stakeholders co-ordinators provides the potential for those working on is important in underpinning any integrated approach. Iron Age oppida to work co-productively to facilitate en- For REFIT, we embarked on surveys and interviews to ex- gagement with other stakeholders. Building on existing plore stakeholders’ perceptions of landscape.110 Recogni- stakeholder networks we can engage stakeholders in the sing the importance of exploring the landscape through archaeological heritage, which need not focus on the Iron visual means111 this also involved mind maps to explore Age archaeology of oppida but use this as lens to explore the extent and nature of the perceived landscape. The- broader issues on landscape. The one landscape where no re are, of course, a range of scales at which landscapes coordinator exists, Bagendon, is the landscape with the need to be understood and managed112 but our engage- most limited integration at present and challenges us to ment is finding that most stakeholders engage with it consider how to create a space for dialogue. Our inter- at a relatively localised scale.113 It is at this scale, around views104 suggest one possibility is using the social capital landscapes that feel familiar and comfortable, whilst also of individual landowners. The importance of individuals’ focused around our heritage assets, the oppida, that en- social capital in connecting stakeholders is being recogni- gaging stakeholder communities is likely to be most ef- sed105 but the potential for archaeology to act as a lever in fective in acting as forums to discuss larger issues. developing such capital has only begun to be explored.106 To facilitate greater engagement in landscape choi- The high value placed on cultural heritage in these lands- ces we have developed various strategies. Bibracte has capes107 suggests, however, it has the potential to be used sought to engage local stakeholders on landscape issues to engage and enable stakeholders. The visibility and soci- through interviews and collective workshops, both ind- al resonance of the oppida at Bibracte, Salmonsbury and oors and through landscape reading workshops in the Ulaca in particular have the potential to act as levers for field (Fig. 8).114 These sessions have made it possible to engagement in wider landscapes discourse. coproduce a diagnosis of what characterises this unique landscape and identify the risks of landscape degradati- on;115 a scheme now validated by the local authorities. Landscape visions and landscape dynamism Despite these successes these were insufficient in A trend across our case studies is a limited appreciation ensuring that the region’s stakeholders became fully by most stakeholders of the ways in which landscapes engaged in determining landscape issues. To address have emerged in the past and the nature of choices over this, as part of the REFIT project, two interrelated ave- landscape change in the present.108 In some areas, such as nues have been explored with promising preliminary the Cotswolds there is a perception of a static landscape. results. These recognise that new aspects of the lands- At Bibracte, by contrast, there is recognition of current cape might need to be identified with which to harness transformations but a lack of appreciation on how to in- the engagement of local stakeholders. Field workshops fluence these changes. Bibracte is an example of the pa- conducted at the community level revealed a strong in- radoxical nature of engagement in landscape dynamism; terest by local people in the territory’s network of dense most stakeholders are aware of the changes that the and ancient trackways.116 Examination of 19th century Morvan has undergone since the beginning of the 20th cadastral maps revealed that this network has changed century and these are a source of anxiety for many inha- little over the last two centuries. It was discovered that bitants. At the same time, projects to explore alternative these trackways could act as a lever for engagement, re- evolutions of the landscape, which have largely been car- presenting a shared interest amongst diverse stakehol- ried out by work at Bibracte, remain barely recognised by ders and provide a structuring role in reflections on the local stakeholders, even though the subject is included future of the landscape. The trackways have the advanta- in the permanent exhibition at the museum and is ad- ge of representing a concrete manifestation that embo- dressed by the visitor guides to the site. This gap between dies more abstract notions of landscape and experience. perceptions of short-term and long-term change coinci- This approach reflects projects elsewhere which are re- des with a distinction in stakeholders’ perception of the cognising that relatively overlooked aspect of landscape landscape, distinguishing between the heritage of Mont heritage, especially those that have long structured a re- Beuvray, which enjoys national recognition, distinct from gion as a proper common service, whether trackways,117 their own daily environment, which they find difficult to irrigation networks or waterways118 have the potential to consider as also of heritage value. The challenge for a sus- unify stakeholder interests. tainable territorial project around Bibracte is to ensure In the other case studies different approaches have that these two perspectives on landscape, one imposed been taken to engage stakeholders focusing on under- “from above” (by the state and the experts) and one expe- standing landscape biographies. Around Bagendon and rienced “from below” by the local stakeholders, coincide. Salmonsbury, where farmers had limited engagement Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 21 with wider perspective on landscape change and many to non-specialist stakeholders. By taking a biographical residents revealed perceptions of landscapes as largely approach to landscape we sought to mobilise the past static, different engagement approaches were develo- to engage local communities in appreciating their place ped. These included participatory augering events (Fig. in longer landscape biographies ensuring more infor- 9)119 with local farmers, residents and volunteers from med choices about managing existing and future lands- the wildlife trust. Building on farmers’ and wildlife group capes.120 Working coproductively with landscape co-or- members’ existing interests in how soils are formed and dinators, archaeology has the potential to demonstrate what species are used to identify past landscapes, the- the dynamic nature of landscape biographies and the se explored how archaeologists understand landscape interaction of social, economic, ecological and aesthetic change, explore past anthropogenic impact, and relate forces in creating landscape character. this to modern choices in landuse. Many participants have emphasised how these events transformed their understanding of the changing nature of these landscapes: Coproduction of landscape visions Recognition of the need to connect oppida heritage to “I thought I had a long view of the landscape but wider discourse on landscape means coproductively wor- I realise it was just a short one… what we have been king with other stakeholders to incorporate information shown today is what an effect previous generations on archaeological heritage as part of its presentation to a have had on the landscape” farmer, Bagendon. wide set of stakeholders. Through the engagement even- “this has informed us how the landscape has ts discussed above local stakeholders (farmers, residents, been formed by natural and human activity over ecologists etc) could be accessed, but to ensure a greater many generations and informs us how that links to reach to residents and other communities our analysis what we are doing today” landowner, Bagendon suggested other engagement tools were required. This included larger engagement events, for example at Sal- At Ulaca, by contrast, the existing Luna festival (Fig. monsbury, open-days were held (called ‘Love your Lands- 10) was used, through workshop sessions and presenta- cape’) which included participatory augering workshops tions, organised by REFIT, as a focus for engaging local to explain how archaeology can understand landscape stakeholders in discussion on choices in managing the change. These were coproduced with the Wildlife Trust, landscape. In different ways, our work on oppida is thus ensuring that heritage, ecology and agronomy were not seeking to focus less on disseminating knowledge from seen as distinct aspects but integral to the landscape. To heritage stakeholders but to facilitate the possibility of reach more diverse audiences and ensure sustainability developing new “bottom-up” approaches in these lands- videos of these events were created to enable greater capes based on the highlighting their singularities. All numbers of stakeholders to engage with these landscapes of these approaches use the presence of the oppida to remotely, as well as physically. Around Bibracte, open days create forums, acting as hubs of discussion, but recog- held at local farms (‘La recherche est dans le pré’) brought nising the need to engage stakeholders through media researchers from different disciplines (archaeology; agro- that resonate with them and via forms of heritage that nomy; ecology; anthropology) together to explain their connects multiple stakeholders allowing the exploration work to local people. This engaged local residents and of wider landscape concerns. Previously, in all our case farmers in their own environment, rather than in the re- studies, the relationship between the history of the terri- search centre context, through presentations that did not tory and modern land use were not explicitly explained isolate heritage from other landscape aspects.

Figure 8. Photo of landscape workshop in the Bibracte land- Figure 9. Photo of participatory augering event in the Bagen- scape. don landscape. 22 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management

To foster greater awareness of the integrated nature of Conclusions these landscapes we implemented the creation of down- loadable landscape guides for all case studies. Coprodu- Our assessment of the situation of integrated landscape ced with stakeholder organisations (the Wildlife Trust in management in our case studies emphasises the need the UK; Parc naturel régional du Morvan in France) these to embed heritage and archaeology within broader ap- guides combine information on archaeology, ecology and proaches to landscape whilst engaging with a broad modern land-use, incorporating perspectives (in the form spectrum of stakeholders. Through assessing the cur- of quotes) from relevant stakeholders (Fig. 11). These are rent levels of integration we have recognised that there formed around designated pathways with set information is significant, largely untapped potential for archaeo- points (often at particular viewpoints) extemporising on logy and specific heritage assets, like oppida, to be not different aspects of the landscape. The intention is that just integrated but act as levers for consideration of the these will act as walking guides and sources of informati- changing nature of landscape. REFIT is attempting to on which engender greater reflection on landscapes than develop this through novel engagement events and cre- subject-specific information. In addition, Bibracte has de- ating spaces within the landscape to integrate stakehol- veloped longer booklets (in multiple languages) outlining ders in landscape decisions. This process is an ongoing how the archaeological heritage is connected to the wider one with many of our activities part of longer-term landscape.121 This also includes excerpts from stakehol- strategies, for example at Salmonsbury and Bibracte,124 ders reflecting on their engagement with Bibracte and the and is already leading to a more integrated presenta- landscape. To ensure wider reach of these resources, digital tion of our landscapes. Oppida, whilst typifying many interactive guides have also been produced for each lands- landscape issues, represent just one case study in how cape. These include videos providing perspectives from a archaeological assets can act as foci in coalescing stake- variety of stakeholders, as well more in-depth information holders on landscape issues. Other heritage elements on archaeology, ecology and current landuse. Through dis- of landscape are likely to face similar issues and have semination of these resources via other stakeholders (the similar potential to be explored as levers in enhancing AONB and Wildlife Trust in the UK) we are likely to ensure integrated landscape management. greater use of these resources and cut across engagement REFIT emphasises that through coproduction with with non-heritage stakeholder communities existing landscape coordinators there are pathways for All of our engagement approaches emerge from re- ensuring archaeology is not perceived as a marginal cognising that only by working coproductively with other ‘cultural ecosystems service’ but an integral aspect of landscape stakeholders are we likely to embed archaeology the landscape. This is partly about raising the profile in landscape biographies. The engagement approaches of frequently overlooked archaeological heritage, such undertaken at Bibracte, in particular, reveal that for copro- as the oppida, but more crucially situating such monu- duction to be successful, they can be inspired by reflection ments as part of a discourse on landscape biographies. on historical approaches to land management. In this, we Archaeology has the potential to act as lever to under- have been inspired by reigniting and operationalising noti- stand past landscapes, anticipate future changes and ons of landscapes as ‘commons’, a concept largely forgotten codefine the desirable future for landscapes of which in France since the revolution,122 in its potential to engage all stakeholders are inheritors and contemporary par- stakeholders as policy actors.123 This concept emphasises ticipants. To do so, we need to act coproductively with how landscapes are co-created, rather than ascribed, and other stakeholders to ensure that archaeologists do not that local stakeholders are integral to their character. leave landscapes to other disciplines.125

Figure 11. Image of interactive guide for Bagendon and down- Figure 10. Image of the Luna festival at Ulaca. loadable guide to Salmonsbury (Greystones). Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 23 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Gemma Tully, Jonhattan Vidal, Jesus turel regional du Morvan, Réseau des Grands Sites de Rodríguez-Hernández and Chiara Pai for their work on France, Cotswold Archaeology and Diputación Ávila) for the REFIT project. Our thanks to Thomas Meier and an their input into the project. REFIT was funded by the Eu- anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier ropean Council’s Joint Programme Initiative on Cultural draft of this paper. We also express our thanks to our Heritage through the research agencies of France (ANR), core partners (Gloucestershire Wildlife Trust, Parc na- Spain (Mineco) and UK (AHRC grant: AH/N504403/1.).

Bibliography

AFD (Agence française de Développement). Opportunités et défis d’une Renaissance des cités d’Europe, octobre 2001 Études rurales [En approche par les communs de la terre et des ressources qu’elle porte. ligne], 163-164. http://journals.openedition.org/etudesrurales/134 Paris: ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères, 2017. CoE (Council of Europe). European Convention on the Protection of the Almagro Gorbea, M. and A. Mederos. “Archaeological Cultural Heritage Archaeological Heritage (Revised) (Valletta). 1992. https://rm.coe. in Spain.” In Protecting the Cultural and Archaeological Heritage of int/168007bd25 the Mediterranean Region. Legal issues, ed. V. Karageorghis and Ch. CoE (Council of Europe). European Landscape Convention. 2000. https:// Bakirtzis, 65-76. Nicosia: Foundation Anastasios Levantis, 2013. rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTM- Álvarez Sanchís, J. and J. Rodríguez Hernández. “Engagement strategies Content?documentId=09000016802f80c6) for Late Iron Age oppida in North-Central Spain.” Complutum 27, CoE (Council of Europe). Council of Europe Framework Convention on the no. 2 (2016): 401–415. Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro). 2005. https://rm.coe. Baas, H., B. Groenewoudt B and E. Raap. “The Dutch Approach.” In The int/1680083746 European Landscape Convention. Challenges of Participation, ed. M. CoE (Council of Europe). Landscape and Sustainable development. Chal- Jones and M. Stenseke, 45-66. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. lenges for the European Landscape convention. Strasbourg: Council Benková, I. and V. Guichard. Gestion et présentation des oppida: un pano- of Europe publishing, 2006. rama européen. Bibracte 15. Glux-en-Glenne, 2009. Cornu, M. and V. Négri. Code du patrimoine et autres textes relatifs aux Bertens, L. The EuWatHer project: optimizing the interplay between data- biens culturels. Paris: LexisNexis (Codes bleus), 2012. base and narrative. 2018. http://waterwaysexplorer.org/wp-con- Cotswold AONB. Landscape Character Assessment. 2002. http://www. tent/uploads/2018/01/EUWATHER_Scientific-Report_122017.pdf cotswoldsaonb.org.uk/landscape_character_assessment/intro- Bloemers, J.H.F. “The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox Protec- duction.htm tion and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Cotswold AONB. Management Plan 2013-2018. Cotswold AONB, Glouces- Landscape and its European Dimension.” In The Cultural Landscape tershire. 2013. and Heritage Paradox: Protection and Development of the Dutch Ar- CRoW Act. Countryside and Rights of Way Act. 2000. https://www.legis- chaeological-Historical Landscape and its European Dimension, ed. lation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/37/contents J.H.F. Bloemers, H. Kars, A. van der Valk and M. Wijnen, 3-16. Am- Daval, C. “Protection et accessibilité des oppida. Une approche statistique.“ sterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010. In Gestion et présentation des oppida: un panorama européen, ed. I. Braive, P. and J.P. Thibault. Petit traité des Grands Sites: réfléchir et agir Benková and V. Guichard, 27-32. Bibracte 15. Glux-en-Glenne, 2009. sur les hauts lieux de notre patrimoine. Arles: Actes sud / ICOMOS Darroux, C. Journée participative: paysage et patrimoine à Glux en Glenne ‘ -France, 2009. 11 juillet 2017. 2017. https://reflaction.hypotheses.org/386 Butler, A. and U. Berglund. “Landscape Character Assessment as an Darroux, C. L’expérience politique du paysage: bricolages et singularités au Approach to Understanding Public Interests within the Europe- c’ur d’un renouvellement de label Grand Site de France (Bibracte-Mor- an Landscape Convention.” Landscape Research 39, no. 3 (2014): van). Développement durable et territoires. Forthcoming. 219–236. Darroux, C., V. Guichard, O. Thiébaut and Cl. Janin. “La recherche-ac- Castro, P.V., W. Chapman, T. Escoriza, S. Gili, V. Lull, R. Mico, C. Rihuete, R. tion participative dans le Grand Site de France de Bibracte - Mont Risch, M.E. Sanahuja Yll and P. Verhagen. “Archaeology in the south Beuvray, un laboratoire de la fabrique territoriale par la médiation east of the Iberian Peninsula: a bridge between past and future so- du paysage dans le Parc naturel régional du Morvan.“ In La mon- cial spaces.” In Europe’s cultural landscape: Archaeologists and the tagne, territoire d’innovation, colloque international, Grenoble, 11-13 management of change, ed. G. Fairclough and S. Rippon, 133-142. janvier 2017. Forthcoming. Brussels: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Brussels. DCMS (Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport). Heritage State- Chazelle, Cl. Bibracte Mont-Beuvray. Gestion du Grand Site ment 2017. www.gov.uk/dcms et de ses territoires. Elements de diagnostic paysa- De Montis, A. “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention on na- ger. Clermont-Ferrand: Atelier Claude Chazelle, 2017. tional planning systems: A comparative investigation of six case www.bibracte.fr/media/bibracte/163210-2017_chazelle_diagnos- studies.” Landscape and Urban Planning 124 (2014): 53–65. tic_paysager.pdf DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs). A Green Chouquer, G. Patrimoine et paysages culturels. Actes du colloque interna- Future: Our 25 Year Plan to Improve the Environment. HM Govern- tional de Saint-Émilion (30 mai-1er juin 2001). Éditions Confluences, ment, 2018 www.gov.uk/government/publications 24 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management

Dietler, M. “A Tale of Three Sites: The Monumentalization of Celtic Op- and Scandinavian Archaeology (ZBSA) on the occasion of the 175th pida and the Politics of Collective Memory and Identity.” World Ar- anniversary of the Archaeological State Museum, Schleswig, October chaeology 30, no. 1 (1998): 72–89. 26th to 28th, 2011, ed. Cl. von Carnap-Bornheim, 117-136. Schriften Di Gioia, L. and S. Chaumier. Actualité du patrimoine. Dispositifs et ré- des archäologischen Landesmuseums (Schleswig-Holstein) Ergän- glementations en matière de patrimoine en France. Dijon: Editions zungsreihe 10. Neumünster/Hamburg: Wachholtz, 2014. Universitaires de Dijon, 2008. Guichard, V. “Bibracte : le paysage au c‘ur du projet de site / Bibracte : Die Dunford, B. The Burren Life programme. Research series paper no. 9. Na- Landschaft im Zentrum des Projekts der archäologischen Stätte.“ In tional Economic and Social Council, Ireland, 2016. Paysages entre archéologie et tourisme / Landschaften zwischen Ar- Eagle, R., A. Jones and A. Greig. “Localism and the environment: A criti- chäologie und Tourismus, ed. C. Dunning and E. Dunning, 102-113. cal review of UK Government localism strategy 2010–2015.” Local Bienne: ArchaeoTourism, 2017a. Economy 32, no 1 (2017): 55–72. Guichard, V. “Les oppida, une parenthèse dans l’histoire de l’Europe tem- Elorietta, B. and D. Sánchez Aguilera. “Landscape regulation in regional pérée.“ Pallas 105 (2017b): 159–171. territorial planning: a view from Spain.” In The European Landscape Guichard, V. “Raconter la construction des territoires: une nouvelle mis- Convention: Challenges of Participation, ed. M. Jones and M. Stense- sion pour les musées d’archéologie.“ In Une histoire des civilisations. ke, 99-120. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. Les révolutions de l’archéologie contemporaine, ed. J.-P. Demoule, D. Fairclough, G. “Europe’s landscape: archaeology, sustainability and ag- Garcia and A. Schnapp, 579-583. Paris: La Découverte / Dominique riculture.” In Europe’s cultural landscape: Archaeologists and the Carré, 2018. management of change, ed. G. Fairclough and S. Rippon, 1-12. Guichard, V. and Cl. Chazelle. “Mettre en valeur l’invisible : réflexions sur Brussels: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Brussels, 2002. le site archéologique de Bibracte (Nièvre, France).“ In De la resti- Fairclough, G. and S. Rippon. “Conclusion: archaeological management tution en archéologie / Archaeological restitution, Actes du colloque of Europe’s cultural landscape.” In Europe’s cultural landscape: Ar- de Béziers 2004, ed. M-É Bellet and Cl.-A. Chazelles, 263-272. Paris: chaeologists and the management of change, ed. G. Fairclough and Éditions du patrimoine (Idées et débats), 2007. S. Rippon, 201-206. Brussels: Europae Archaeologiae Consilium, Helm, D. Natural Capital. Valuing our planet. New Haven: Yale University Brussels, 2002. Press, 2015. Fewster, K.J. “The Role of Agency and Material Culture in Remembering HERCULES. 2017. http://www.hercules-landscapes.eu/resources. and Forgetting: An Ethnoarchaeological Case Study from Central php?publications Spain.” Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 20, no. 1 (2007): Hernandez-Morcillo, M., T. Plieninger and C. Bieling. An empirical review 89–114. of cultural ecosystem service indicators. London: Elsevier, 2013. Fichtl, S. La ville Celtique. Les oppida de 150 av. J.-C. à 15 ap. J.-C. Paris: Hølleland, H., J. Skrede and S.B. Holmgaard. “Cultural Heritage and Eco- Editions Errance, 2005. system Services: A Literature Review.” Conservation and Manage- Fluck, H. and V. Holyoak. Ecosystems Services, Natural Capital and the ment of Archaeological Sites 19, no. 3 (2017): 210–237. Historic Environment. Research Report Series 19/2017. Historic Ingold, T. The Perception of the Environment: Essays on Livelihood, Dwell- England, 2017 https://www.historicengland.org.uk/research/re- ing and Skill. London: Taylor & Francis, 2000. search-results/research-reports/ Jones, M. “European landscape and participation: rhetoric or reality?” In Forman, R. Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cam- The European Landscape Convention: Challenges of Participation, ed. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. M. Jones and M. Stenseke, 27-44. Dordrecht, Springer, 2011. Fowler, P.J. World Heritage Cultural Landscapes 1992 – 2002. World Jones, J., P. Silcock and T. Uetake. Public Goods and Externalities: Agri-en- Heritage Papers 6. Paris, UNESCO, 2003. https://unesdoc.unesco. vironmental Policy Measures in the United Kingdom. OECD Food, org/ark:/48223/pf0000133121 Agriculture and Fisheries Papers 83. Paris, 2015. Frier, P.-L. Le nouveau droit de l’archéologie preventive. Paris: L’Harmat- Kolen, J. and H. Renes. “Landscape biographies: Key issues.” In Landscape tan, 2004. biographies. Geographical, historical and archaeological perspectives García Martín, M., C. Bieling, A. Hart and T. Plieninger. “Integrated land- on the production and transmission of landscapes, ed. J. Kolen, H. scape initiatives in Europe: Multi-sector collaboration in multi-func- Renes and R. Hermans, 21-48. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University tional landscapes.” Land Use Policy 58 (2016): 43–53. Press, 2015. Goudiard, R. 12e Entretiens de Bibracte, La terre en partage, modes de Kolen, J., C. Crumley, G. Burgers, K. von Hackwitz, P. Howard, K. Karro, M. propriété et de faire valoir, expériences et perspectives du Moye-Âge de Kleijn, D. Löwenborg, N. van Manen, H. Palang, A. Printsmann, au XXIe siècle, libre retour écrit. Glux-en-Glenne, 2017. http://www. H. Renes, H. Scholten, P. Sinclair, M. Veld and P. Verhagen “HERCU- bibracte.fr/media/bibracte/163210-2017_entretiens_bibracte_ LES: Studying long-term changes in Europe’s landscapes.” Analecta synthese.pdf Praehistorica Leidensia 45 (2015): 209–219. Guichard, V. “An example of integrated management of a heritage site: Le Dû-Blayo, L., A. Van Tilbeurgh, C. Thenail and D. Le Coeur (2015) Bibracte-Mont Beuvray (Burgundy, France).” In Less More Architec- “Paths that Trace a Territorial Thought Through the Landscape.” ture Design Landscape. Le Vie dei Mercanti. X forum Internazionale In Landscape and Sustainable Development: the French Perspective, di Studi. La sucuola di Pitagora, ed. C. Gambardella. Fabbrica della ed. Y. Luginbühl, P. Howard and D. Terrasson, 47-61. London: Rout- Conoscenza 16. Napoli, 2012. ledge, 2015. Guichard, V. “150 years of research at Bibracte - a national vs. European Le Roy, E. “Des communs “à double révolution”.“ Droit et Société 94 perspective.“ In Quo vadis ? Status and future perspectives of long- (2016): 603–624. term excavations in Europe. Papers presented at a workshop organized Luginbühl, Y. Convention européenne du Paysage. Bien-être individuel et by the Archaeological State Museum (ALM) and the Centre for Baltic social et paysage. Rapport sur le Thème 2 des Ateliers 2003. Docu- Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 25

ment du Secrétariat Général de la Division de l’aménagement du ter- oppida: un panorama européen, ed. I. Benková and V. Guichard, 15- ritoire et du paysage. Strasbourg, Conseil de l’Europe, 2004. 26. Bibracte 15. Glux-en-Glenne, 2009. Luginbühl, Y. La mise en scène du monde. Construction du paysage euro- Powell, J.R. and M. Clark. Cotswold AONB Survey 2002: Your Ideas, Con- péen. Paris: Editions du CNRS, 2012. cerns and Aspirations. Project Report. Cheltenham: Cotswolds Con- Martín Civantos, J.M. and M.T. Bonet García. “MEMOLA project. Mediter- servation Board, 2003. ranean Mountainous Landscapes: an historical approach to cultur- Querol, M.A. and A. Castillo “Arqueología Preventiva y Patrimonio Mun- al heritage based on traditional agrosystems.” European Journal of dial. El ejemplo español como base para el cambio en el ejercicio de Post-Classical Archaeologies 5 (2015): 347–356. la gestión arqueológica.“ In: Actas del Primer Congreso Internacional Martínez, B. and A. Castillo “Preventive Archaeology in Spain.” In Europe- de Buenas Prácticas en Patrimonio Mundial: Arqueología - Proceed- an Preventive Archaeology. Papers of the EPAC Meeting, Vilnius-2004, ings of the First International Conference on Best Practices in World ed. K. Bozóky Ernyey, 187-208. National Office of Cultural Heritage, Heritage Archaeology, ed. A. Castillo, 51-65. Mahón: Editora Com- Hungary, 2007. plutense, Mahón, 2012. Michelin, Y., T. Joliveau and C. Planchat-Héry. “Landscapes in participa- Querol, M.A. “Patrimonio Cultural y Patrimonio Natural. Una relación tory processes: tools for stimulating debate on landscape issues? con futuro.“ In Patrimonio Cultural y Patrimonio Natural. Una re- A conceptual and methodological reflection from research action serva de futuro, ed. A. Moure, 31-45. Cantabria: Universidad de Can- projects in France.” In The European Landscape Convention: Chal- tabria, 2003. lenges of Participation, ed. M. Jones and M. Stenseke, 145-174. Dor- Querol, M.A. Manual de Gestión del Patrimonio Cultural. Madrid: Akal, drecht: Springer, 2011. 2010. Mitchell, N., M. Rössler and P.-M. Tricaud. World Heritage Cultural Land- Reed, M.S., S. Vella, E. Challies, J. de Vente, L. Frewer, D. Hohenwallner‐ scapes. A handbook for conservation and management. Paris: UNE- Ries, T. Huber, R.K. Neumann, E.A. Oughton, J. Sidoli del Ceno and SCO, 2009. H. van Delden. “A theory of participation: what makes stakeholder Moore, T. Following the digger: the impact of developer-funded archaeolo- and public engagement in environmental management work?” gy on academic and public perceptions of cultural landscapes. 10th Restoration Ecology 26, no. S1 (2018): S7–S17. International Seminar of Forum UNESCO University and Heritage: Reed, M.S. “Stakeholder participation for environmental management: Cultural Landscapes in the 21st century. Newcastle: International a literature review.” Biological conservation 141, no. 10 (2008): Centre for Cultural Heritage Studies (ICCHS), University of Newcas- 2417–2431. tle, 2006. Roberts, G. “The cultural landscape.” Landscape Research 19, no. 3 (1994): Moore, T. “The birth of a capital? Bagendon ‘Oppidum’ and the impact 133–136. of Rome on the British countryside.” In The Impact of Rome on the Roe, M.H. “Policy Change and ELC Implementation: Establishment of a British Countryside: a conference organised by the RAI, Chester, 11-13 Baseline for Understanding the Impact on UK National Policy of October 2013, ed. D. Breeze, 26-30. London: The Royal Archaeolog- the European Landscape Convention.” Landscape Research 38, no. ical Institute, London, 2014. 6 (2013): 768–798. Moore, T. “Alternatives to urbanism? Reconsidering oppida and the ur- Roger, A. La théorie du paysage en France (1974-1994). Paris: Champ Val- ban question in Late Iron Age Europe.” Journal of World Prehistory lon, 2009. 30, no. 3 (2017): 281–300. Ruiz del Arbol, M. and A. Orejas. “Spain.” In Landscape as Heritage. The Moore, T. and G. Tully. “Connecting landscapes: examining and enhanc- management and Protection of Landscape in Europe, a summary by ing the relationship between stakeholder values and cultural land- the COST A27 project “LANDMARKS”, ed. G.J. Fairclough and P. Grau scape management in England.” Landscape Research 43 (2018): Moller. Geographica Bernensia 79. Bern, 2008, 229-248. 769–783. Ruiz del Árbol, M. and A. Orejas. “Protection and Management of Spanish Natural England. Experiencing Landscapes: Capturing the ‘cultural ser- Archaeological-historical landscapes. Possibilities and perspectives vices’ and ‘experiential qualities’ of landscape (Study Report). Natural for the application of a protective and developmental approach.” England Commissioned Report NECR024. Sheffield: Natural En- In The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox: Protection and De- gland, 2009. velopment of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Landscape and its Négri, V. Le patrimoine archéologique et son droit. Questions juridiques, European Dimension, ed. J.H.F. Bloemers, H. Kars, A. van der Valk and éthiques et culturelles. Actes du colloque international, 9 et 10 oc- M. Wijnen, 477-491. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2010. tobre 2012, Musée du quai Branly (Paris). Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2015. Ruiz Zapatero, G. and J. Álvarez-Sanchís. Castros y verracos. Las gentes de Ostrom, E. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Col- la Edad del Hierro en el occidente de Iberia. Institución Gran Duque lective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. de Alba, Diputación de Ávila, 2011. Pára, L. and A. Vourc’h. “Heritage Sites and Sustainable Tourism as Lever- Ruiz Zapatero G. and N. Salas. “Los vettones hoy: arqueología, identidad age for Local Development: the Grand Site de France Network moderna y divulgación. “ In J R (Ed.) Arqueología Vettona. La Me- Experience, P3T.” Journal of Public Policies and Territories 1, no. 3 seta Occidental en la Edad del Hierro, ed. J.R. Álvarez Sanchís, 408- (2012): 17–29. 423. Zona Arqueológica 12. Madrid: Museo Arqueológico Regional, Parry, G. Rural placemaking. Presentation to REFIT workshop ‘Working 2008. across boundaries: Integrating different stakeholder approaches to Sauer, C.O. “The Morphology of Landscape.” University of California Pub- Cultural Landscapes (Cirencester) 17-19 September 2017’ available at lications in Geography 2, no. 2 (1925): 19–53. https://www.refitproject.com/refit-workshop-3-cirencester-sept-2 Selman, P. “Community participation in the planning and management Pierrevelcin, G. and V. Guichard. “Protection et accessibilité des oppida. of cultural landscapes.” Journal of Environmental Planning and Bilan de la visite de quelques sites“. In Gestion et présentation des Management 47, no 3 (2004): 365–392. 26 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management

Short, C., J. Phelps, D. Henehan, C. Staddon, S. Wells and J. Turvi- Handbook of Public Archaeology, ed. R. Skeates, C. McDavid and J. ll. Cotswold Catchment Payments for Ecosystems Services Pilot: Carman, 332-350. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Catchment Based Approach Collaborative Project Demonstrat- Tudor, C. An Approach to Landscape Character Assessment. Sheffield: ing the Integrated Local Delivery Framework. Defra Project Natural England, 2014. Report NE0144, Defra funded Round 2 PES pilot. Gloucester, Tully, G. and M. Allen. “Participatory Augering: A methodology for chal- CCRI, 2014. lenging perceptions of archaeology and landscape change.” Public Soli, B. “Protection of the environment and the role of archaeology.” Archaeology 16, no. 3-4 (2018): 191–213. In Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society, ed. F. Tully, G., C. Piai, J. Rodríguez Hernández and E. Delhommeau. “Under- McManamon and A. Hatton, 93-98. London: Routledge, 2000. standing Perceptions of Cultural Landscapes in Europe: A Com- Spencer, N. “Participation within the landscape of the river Dart catch- parative Analysis Using ‘Oppida’ Landscapes.” The Historic Envi- ment, Devon, England.” In The European Landscape Convention: ronment: Policy & Practice 10, no. 2 (2019): 198–223. Challenges of Participation, ed. M. Jones and M. Stenseke, 239- Turner, S. and G. Fairclough. “Common culture: the archaeology of land- 260. Dordrecht: Springer, 2011. scape character in Europe.” In Envisioning Landscape: situations and Spek, T. “The Future of the Past.” In The Science and Practice of Land- standpoints in Archaeology and Heritage, ed. D. Hicks, L. McAtackney scape Stewardship, ed. C. Bieling and T. Plieninger, 148-163. Cam- and G. Fairclough, 120-145. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press, 2007. bridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. Turner, S. “Landscape archaeology.” In The Routledge Companion to Stewart, P.J. and A. Strathern. Landscape, memory and history. An an- Landscape Studies, ed. P. Howard, I. Thompson and E. Waterton, thropological perspective. London: Pluto Press, 2003. 131-142. London: Routledge, 2012. Swanwick, C. Landscape character assessment: guidance for England UNECE (n.d) www.unece.org/env/pp/introduction.html and Scotland. Wetherby: The Countryside Agency and Scottish UNESCO. Report of the Expert Group on Cultural Landscapes La Petite Natural Heritage, 2002. Pierre (France) 24-26 October 1992. http://whc.unesco.org/ar- Tabary, D. and A. Maillier. Bibracte - Mont Beuvray: Grand Site de France. chive/pierre92.htm [22-3-2020]. Paris: Les Nouvelles Éditions de l’Université, 2015. United Nations. The Rio declaration on environment and development. Taylor, K. and J. Lennon. “Introduction. Leaping the fence.” In Manag- 1992. (available at www.unesco.org/education/pdf/RIO_E.PDF) ing cultural landscapes, ed. K. Taylor and J. Lennon, 1-17. London: Van der Valk, A. “Introduction: sharing knowledge – stories, maps and Routledge, 2012. design.” In The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox: Protec- Terrasson, D. “Introduction.” In: Landscape and Sustainable Develop- tion and Development of the Dutch Archaeological-Historical Land- ment: the French Perspective, ed. Y. Luginbühl, P. Howard and D. scape and its European Dimension, ed. J.H.F. Bloemers, H. Kars, A. Terrasson, 5-7. London and New York: Routledge, 2016. van der Valk and M. Wijnen, 365-385. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Thibault, J.-P. Petit traité des Grands Sites. Réfléchir et agir sur les hauts University Press, 2010. lieux de notre patrimoine. Arles: Actes Sud, 2009. Waterton, E. “Whose Sense of Place? Reconciling Archaeological Per- Trow, S. and J. Grenville. “Agriculture, environmental conservation and spectives with Community Values: cultural landscapes in England.” archaeological curation in historic landscapes.” In The Oxford International Journal of Heritage Studies 11, no. 4 (2005): 309–325.

Endnotes

1. Waterton, “Whose Sense of Place”; Taylor and Lennon, “Introduction”. 2. UNESCO 1992 3. Including concepts of cultural landscape emerging in early 20th century America (Sauer, “The morphology”) and concepts of ‘Kulturlandschaft’ in Germany (Thomas Meier pers. comm). 4. CoE, European Landscape Convention. 5. Fairclough and Rippon, “Conclusion”; Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies”; Hølleland et al., “Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services”. 6. García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe; DEFRA, A Green Future. 7. Turner, “Landscape archaeology,” 139. 8. Fowler, World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. 9. e.g. Luginbühl, La mise en scène du monde, 93-120. 10. We refer specifically to England, rather than the UK, because the agencies involved in landscape largely operate at national level (e.g. Natural England). 11. Roberts, “The cultural landscape,” 133-136. 12. UNESCO 1992; Fowler, World Heritage Cultural Landscapes; Mitchell et al., World Heritage Cultural Landscapes. 13. CoE, Council of Europe Framework Convention. 14. Luginbühl, La mise en scène du monde. 15. Luginbühl, Convention européenne du Paysage. 16. e.g. CoE, Council of Europe Framework Convention. 17. United Nations, The Rio declaration. 18. UNECE. 19. CoE, Council of Europe Framework 20. Helm, Natural Capital.. Journal of European Landscapes 1: 9–28 27

21. Jones et al., Public Goods and Externalities. 22. Ostrom, Governing the Commons; Spek, “The Future of the Past.” 23. Hernandez-Morcillo et al., An empirical review. 24. Braive and Thibault, Petit traité des Grands Sites; Fluck and Holyoak, Ecosystems Services; Hølleland et al., “Cultural Heritage and Ecosystem Services. 25. Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies”; Spek, “The Future of the Past.”. 26. cf. Stewart and Strathern, Landscape, memory and history; Ingold, The Perception of the Environment; Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies.” 27. Whilst ‘European Landscape’ has been a frame of reference for the ELC, we recognise that it does not constitute any sense of unity. Here we consider however that landscapes within Europe face a range of sometimes similar challenges for which cross-comparative studies of theoretical perspectives, methodologies and dialogue may be useful. 28. Taylor and Lennon, “Introduction.” 29. Jones et al., Public Goods and Externalities. 30. Reed, “Stakeholder participation”; Guichard, “An example of integrated management,” 1. 31. e.g. Bloemers, “The Cultural Landscape and Heritage Paradox,” 12. 32. For the purposes of this project, stakeholders were defined as those who can affect, or are affected by, decisions associated with these landscapes: Spencer, “Participation,” 243. This may be directly, in the case of residents, or indirectly, in the case of government organisations. 33. CoE, Landscape and sustainable development, 173-178; Jones, “European landscape and participation,”14. 34. e.g. García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe. 35. Reed et al., “A theory of participation.” 36. Turner and Fairclough, “Common culture,” 122. 37. Mitchell et al., World Heritage Cultural Landscapes, 99. 38. García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives in Europe,” fig. 3. 39. The term ‘oppidum’ (sing.; ‘oppida’ plural) derives from a Latin term used by classical writers such as Julius Caesar to describe pre-Roman set- tlements in Iron Age temperate Europe. The term has been applied by archaeologists to a variety of sites dating from the 4th century BC to 1st century AD which, although highly varied, have in common that they represent major social changes toward the end of the 1st millennium BC (Guichard, “Les oppida”; Moore, “Alternatives to urbanism”). 40. Moore, “Alternatives to urbanism.” 41. Daval, ‘Protection et accessibilité des oppida“ ; Guichard, “An example of integrated management”; Álvarez Sanchís and Rodríguez Hernández, ‘Engagement strategies.” 42. Fichtl, La ville Celtique; Moore, “Alternatives to urbanism.” 43. Pierrevelcin and Guichard, “Protection et accessibilité.“ 44. Daval, ‘Protection et accessibilité des oppida.“ 45. Guichard, “An example of integrated management.” 46. e.g. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.” 47. e.g. Álvarez Sanchís and Rodríguez Hernández, ‘Engagement strategies”; Tully and Allen, “Participatory Augering.”. 48. CoE, European Landscape Convention. France and the UK ratified the convention in 2006, Spain in 2007. 49. CoE, European Convention on the Protection. France ratified the convention in 1995, the UK in 2000, and Spain in 2011. 50. De Montis, “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention.” 51. CoE, Council of Europe Framework Convention. 52. 1998: UNECE. France ratified the convention in 2002, Spain in 2004 and the UK in 2005. 53. Guichard, “An example of integrated management,” 1. 54. e.g. Chouquer, Patrimoine et paysages culturels, 163-164; Trow and Grenville, “Agriculture, environmental conservation”; Guichard, “Raconter la construction.” 55. Roe, “Policy Change.” 56. Trow and Grenville, “Agriculture, environmental conservation.” 57. For the Cotswolds: http://www.cotswold.gov.uk/residents/planning-building/planning-policy/local-plan-2001-2011/ 58. Turner and Fairclough, “Common culture.” 59. CRoW Act. 60. Swanwick, Landscape character assessment. 61. Tudor, An Approach. 62. Eagle et al., “Localism and the environment.” 63. Moore, Following the digger. There are exceptions and examples of good practice (for example Cotswold Archaeology http://cotswoldarchaeolo- gy.co.uk/community/) but there is little compunction to do this aside from ensuring charitable status. 64. DCMS, Heritage Statement 2017, 8. 65. Trow and Grenville, “Agriculture, environmental conservation.” 66. Cotswold AONB, Management Plan 2013-2018. 67. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes.” 68. e.g. Selman, “Community participation.” 69. Moore and Tully. “Connecting landscapes.” 28 Tom Moore et al.: The place of archaeology in integrated cultural landscape management

70. e.g. Short et al., Cotswold Catchment Payments. 71. i.e. Law 16/1985 72. Almagro Gorbea and Mederos. “Archaeological Cultural Heritage in Spain,” 68-70. 73. Martínez and Castillo “Preventive Archaeology in Spain.” 74. Querol and Castillo, “Arqueología Preventiva.” 75. Martínez and Castillo “Preventive Archaeology in Spain,” 189. 76. Van der Valk, “Introduction: sharing knowledge,” 379. 77. Ruiz del Árbol and Orejas, “Protection and Management.” 78. Ruiz del Arbol and Orejas. “Spain.” 79. Querol, “Patrimonio Cultural”; Querol, Manual de Gestión, 24-25; Ruiz del Árbol and Orejas, “Protection and Management.” 80. Ruiz del Árbol and Orejas, “Protection and Management,” 482-483. 81. Ruiz del Arbol and Orejas. “Spain,” 238-240 82. see De Montis, “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention.” 83. Elorietta and Sánchez Aguilera, “Landscape regulation,” 107. 84. Querol, Manual de Gestión, 170-171, 447-448. 85. Castro et al., “Archaeology in the south east of the Iberian Peninsula.” 86. e.g. Martín Civantos and Bonet García, “MEMOLA project.” 87. Ruiz Zapatero and Álvarez-Sanchís, Castros y verracos. 88. Fewster, “The Role of Agency.” 89. Álvarez Sanchís and Rodríguez Hernández, “Engagement strategies.” 90. Négri, Le patrimoine archéologique; Terrasson, “Introduction.”. 91. for an overview on French heritage policies, see: Di Gioia and Chaumier, Actualité du patrimoine. For archaeological policies: Frier, Le nouveau droit; Cornu and Négri, Code du patrimoine. They all describe a situation that has been modified by law 2016-925. 92. Pára and Vourc’h, ‘Heritage Sites and Sustainable Tourism.” 93. Dietler, “A Tale of Three Sites.” 94. Guichard, “An example of integrated management”, Guichard, “150 years of research.” 95. Guichard and Chazelle, “Mettre en valeur l’invisible.” 96. Darroux, L’expérience politique du paysage; Darroux et al., “La recherche-action participative.” . 97. Guichard, “Bibracte.” 98. Guichard, “An example of integrated management.” 99. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; cf. M.H. Roe, “Policy Change.” 100. Thibault, Petit traité des Grands Sites. 101. Soli, “Protection of the environment”; De Montis, “Impacts of the European Landscape Convention”; HERCULES. 2017. 102. García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives”; Dunford, The Burren Life programme. 103. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”. 104. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes.” 105. García Martín et al., “Integrated landscape initiatives,” 51. 106. e.g. Martín Civantos and Bonet García, “MEMOLA project.” 107. Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.” 108. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.” 109. e.g. Natural England, Experiencing Landscapes; Powell and Clark, Cotswold AONB Survey 2002. 110. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes”; Tully et al., “Understanding Perceptions.”. 111. Michelin et al., “Landscapes in participatory processes.” 112. Forman, Land Mosaics; Butler and Berglund, “Landscape Character Assessment.” 113. Moore and Tully, “Connecting landscapes.”. 114. Darroux, Journée participative; Darroux et al., “La recherche-action participative.” 115. Chazelle, Bibracte Mont-Beuvray. 116. Darroux, Journée participative. 117. e.g. Le Dû-Blayo et al., “Paths that Trace.” 118. e.g. Martín Civantos and Bonet García, “MEMOLA project”; Bertens, The EuWatHer project. 119. Tully and Allen, “Participatory Augering.” 120. cf. Baas et al., “The Dutch Approach,” 51; Kolen and Renes, “Landscape biographies”; Kolen et al., “HERCULES.” 121. Tabary and Maillier, Bibracte - Mont Beuvray. 122. Goudiard, 12e Entretiens de Bibracte. 123. Le Roy, “Des communs “à double révolution”; T. Spek, “The Future of the Past.” 124. Parry, Rural placemaking; Guichard, “Bibracte.” 125. Fairclough, “Europe’s landscape,” 4.