Estonian landscape study: contextual history

Tiina Peil NTNU, Trondheim (Norway) Helen Sooväli, Hannes Palang, Tõnu Oja, Ülo Mander University of Tartu

ABSTRACT The history of Estonian landscape research is limited to the twentieth century. The most significant milestone in this process was the appointment of J. G. Granö as Professor of Geography at the University of Tartu who introduced the German systematic and scien- tific notion of landscape (Landschaft). This has been a dominant trend ever since, but Estonian landscape study has had numerous undercurrents and exiting interactions with other disciplines from both the natural and social sciences, as well as the humanities. This is a first attempt to write a landscape research history with a broader perspective in mind, stressing the wide spectrum of landscape studies by researchers who may not consider themselves primarily as concerned with landscapes but have nevertheless con- tributed to the discipline and the understanding of landscapes in .

KEY WORDS: Estonia, landscape, history

RÉSUMÉ HISTOIRE CONCEPTUELLE DE L’ÉTUDE DES PAYSAGES D’ESTONIE L’étude des paysages en Estonie ne débuta qu’au début du XXe siècle. L’étape la plus importante de ce processus fut l’engagement comme professeur de géographie à l’Université de Tartu de J.G. Granö, qui a introduit la notion allemande de «Landschaft» au sens systématique et scientifique du terme. Cette tendance a depuis lors prédomi- né en Estonie, marquée, en dépit de certaines tensions sous-jacentes, par de passion- nantes interactions avec d’autres disciplines, que ce soit les sciences naturelles ou sociales, ou encore les sciences humaines. Cet article constitue une tentative inédite d’écrire une histoire de la recherche paysagè- re dans une perspective plus large, en mettant en évidence le vaste éventail d’études paysagères réalisées par des chercheurs qui, sans nécessairement se considérer comme des spécialistes des paysages, ont néanmoins apporté une contribution déter- minante à cette discipline et à sa compréhension.

MOTS-CLÉS: Estonie, paysage, histoire

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 231 INTRODUCTION

nterest in both Estonian landscapes and The new university discipline of geogra- Ilandscape concepts has increased sig- phy focused largely around landscape, nificantly over the last decade and sever- which offered it a monistic object of study al comprehensive surveys have recently – a region which encompassed both been written stressing one or another nature and the results of human activity – trend (Arold, 1993; Roosaare, 1994; Kurs in the following two decades. The Soviet 1997, 2003; Järvet and Kask, 1998) and annexation of the Baltic States abruptly the conceptualisation of landscapes changed the conditions for the study of (Palang et al., 2000; Peil, 2001). The set landscapes. The natural science based objective of this paper is therefore to pro- approach became dominant, as the vide a context for academic approach to human agent was erased from the land- landscapes in Estonia and for connec- scape field. This, however, did not mean a tions with the Estonian approach to total cessation of the research on human Europe, as well as to present the main actors in their life-world, but this was con- landscape regions (Arold, 2001) and a ducted mainly by historians and archaeol- periodisation in landscape history ogists with no obvious indications to the (Palang and Mander, 2000). connection with the physical environment/ When discussing Estonian landscapes, landscape with a few exceptions two distinct factors need to be kept in mind (Indreko, 1934; Ligi, 1963; Moora, 1974; while comparing their research history with Lõugas, 1980). The dominant trend in his- the European one. Firstly, the Republic of tory was, and to some extent still is, view- Estonia was first declared in 1918, up to ing the landscape as something separate, which date the people and the country fundamental but not really connected with were dominated by their neighbours the people living upon it (for example the throughout the modern period. Secondly, first part of the History of the Estonian the dominant people spoke languages that Peasantry (ETA), published as late as in were not just slightly different but belonged 1992). A new break-through was made in to another linguistic family. The indigenous the 1980s with innovative landscape eco- people working the land had no need or logical studies and especially in the opportunity to reflect on their surroundings 1990s when the research was diversified en masse (for the discussion of the peas- to the extent that researchers did not ant attitudes to their surrounding environ- understand each other while applying ment see Peil, 1999). This resulted in a late, terms in a large variety of meanings. i.e. the twentieth century development of The 2000s have been characterised by a both the vocabulary and concept for dis- new effort to create common ground and cussing the surrounding world by native trans-disciplinary approaches. A signifi- Finno-Ugric people and the need to create cant landmark was the publication of a col- and popularise the concepts quite forcibly. lection of essays that includes all main sci- The latter was seen as one of the main entific and popular approaches (Palang tasks for the newly established Estonian and Sooväli, 2001). Simultaneously, land- University of Tartu. Lacking trained scape study has lost ground in school researchers in Estonia, a Finn, Johannes geography and as a university discipline Gabriel Granö was invited to become the (erased from both syllabi as a separate first Professor of Geography in 1919. This theme in 2003). work has been significant and even central Today we can distinguish between four in the Estonian landscape study until the main schools of landscape study in present. Estonia: a systematic approach based on

232 Estonian landscape study: contextual history German landscape thought, developing school geography, management and into a genetic and functional scientific planning and tourism promotion. Finally, explanation of corresponding reasons; a this survey of the Estonian landscape natural science based approach focusing would not be complete without including on «topoecology», having its roots in the the research in other parts of (mainly) Russian school (introduced by Markus) Europe by both exiled Estonians in the and becoming dominant in the Soviet post-war years and interested foreigners period; social science and humanistic (mainly in the 1990s). The suggested thought mainly re-introduced in the 1990s scheme is not a strict frame for classifica- and inspired by the Scandinavian and tion, but will help the readers to orientate Anglo-American landscape schools; and themselves in the different directions of applied landscape studies, including landscape studies in Estonia.

SYSTEMATIC APPROACHES IN ESTONIAN LANDSCAPE RESEARCH

Generally, the history of scientific and sys- material is still used today for reference in tematic landscape approach in Estonia is both historical and geographical research. traced back to the arrival and influence of Granö's was not the first attempt to provide Granö, although the so-called Landschaft a regionalisation of the Estonian land- principle had been adopted in Estonia by scapes or define the concept (Kampmann, that time and influenced the teaching of 1917; Matkur, 1921; Rumma, 1922), but geography at schools (Rumma, 1922; was the most systematic and scientifically Paatsi, 1984, 1995). The ideas of Hettner grounded covering the whole territory of and Passarge were adopted, although the the new nation state, while the previous studies and the first attempts at systemis- ones had left areas in between blank (for ing were based on the external appear- examples see Miksikese õppekeskkond ance of landscapes. Granö developed the 2003). The following decades witnessed a ideas of Landschaftskunde, which he methodical and meticulous particularisa- linked with the early tradition of «pure tion of the descriptions of particular land- geography» (Granö, 1929) considering scapes and their borders. This continued to perception through sight as well as other some extent in the post-war years, when human senses. The next stage was the dis- the most significant contributions to the tinguishing of immediate environments that systematisation of the Estonian landscapes moved with the observer on the earth's sur- were made by Endel Varep, the Head and face in the form of more or less homoge- later Professor of Physical Geography at neous regions by means of a specific car- University of Tartu (Varep, 1964; Varep and tographic method. The formation of those Maavara, 1984). Kallio Kildema (1958) areas was based on orthographical, hydro- published a classification of Estonian land graphical, administrative and anthropo- forms, the main principles of which are still geographical borderlines (Granö, 1922, in use. Latest version was published by 1924). According to this principle, he deter- Ivar Arold (2001). Although these divisions mined 22 distinct landscapes in Estonia, are largely based on geomorphology and providing new names for some of them. physical features of the landscapes, they Figure 1 shows the border-zones of land- follow in their main features the system cre- scape districts with varying strength ated by Granö providing a politically neu- depending on the dissimilarity of adjacent tral (the pre-war «foreign» influences were landscape groups. proclaimed undesirable in the Soviet peri- The second large task embarked on thanks od) source of reference. Wide use of com- to his initiative was the publication of a puters and GIS technology (Peterson and series (Eesti - Estonia) of comprehensive Aunap, 1998; Aaviksoo, 1993) has reduced treatments of the Estonian counties. This the need for classification of landscape

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 233 units in its traditional sense. 1935). These researchers paid equal The most current classification of land- attention to both natural (geomorphology, scape as presented on Fig. 2 was water, vegetation) and artificial (mainly the detailed by Ivar Arold (1993, 2001); later distribution and shape of rural settle- adjusted by Ülo Mander and Tõnu Oja ments) features. Tammekann developed (1999). The territory of Estonia falls into the ideas, taking the genesis of the land- two parts: Lower and Upper Estonia. The scape into account (Roosaare, 1994). former comprises the coastal areas and Kant (1935) continued his work on urban the inland depressions, which remained landscapes and introduced new ideas for inundated during the Late and Post- analysing the life-world and the ecological glacial periods until about 11 000 years preconditions of Estonian landscapes, ago. Upper Estonia embraces the higher which later inspired his students in Lund, areas of uplands. Sweden, especially Torsten Hägerstrand, in developing time-geography and situa- The so-called Finnish-Estonian school of tional ecology. geography was further developed by stu- The division of landscape into natural and dents of Granö - August Tammekann cultural ones was first introduced in the (1933) and Edgar Kant (1923, 1933, 1930s. Kant argued that cultural (garden

I - borders of land forms districts, II - borders of summer hydrographical districts, III - borders of vegetation groups' districts, IV - borders of settlement and roads' districts, V - border-zones of four or three landscape element groups, VI - border-zones of two landscape element groups.

Figure 1. Landscape regions defined with the help of combinations of different borders (Granö, 1922).

234 Estonian landscape study: contextual history and industrial) and physical landscapes, artificial character shaped by human were different stages of formation of the activities» (Kant, 1933, p. 59). This prima- cultural landscape (Kurs, 1992) and cy of culture and the human actor in the insisted that «research, delimitation, landscape was reduced in the Soviet peri- description, and explanation of cultural od; the emerging generation of landscape landscapes must follow the same rules researchers concentrated mainly on applicable to geographical study of every nature in the landscape. other landscape that is underlining their

NATURAL SCIENCE BASED APPROACH

The study of physical landscapes was geochemistry). Geomorphology was seen pursued from the early years of Estonian as the determining factor in landscape for- landscape research and some innovative mation and thus the focus was put on the work was conducted. For example, landscape genesis. Primarily inventorial Johannes Käis published a work on the studies, investigating the character of var- lakes of Võru (1923) treating them as ious natural resources and focusing on the ecosystems, although not using the term classification of typological units (bed- (cited in Arold, 1993). Generally, Eduard rock, Pleistocene cover and hydrographi- Markus is considered as the leading figure cal networks, geocomplexes, relief, plant of the natural science approach to the cover; later also forests and mires) were Estonian landscapes. Having been edu- conducted. Paleogeography and pollen cated in Russia, he shared the views of analysis were applied in examining land- Russian geographers and soil scientists scape formation, developed at the such as Berg and Dokuchayev. Markus Institute of Ecology, Tallinn Pedagogical aimed at defining the main landscape University (Punning, 1994; Punning and units or ideal landscape embryons based Koff, 1997). Many of the original studies on soil and vegetation studies (Markus, were limited to a description of one type of 1925). While Granö concentrated mainly phenomena with no means for describing on finding typical areas that are separated interrelations, dynamics and development by diffuse border areas, Markus focused processes but based on extensive field on borders, especially on the shifts in bor- studies and resulting in painstaking ders, defining a landscape as a geo- regional descriptions (Arold, 1974; graphical unit only when it is a natural Karukäpp, 1974; Sepp (Ratas), 1974; complex. Thus the term landscape, Hang, 1976; Linkrus, 1976). An innovative according to him should be used only to approach was introduced examining the indicate a certain group of natural com- interactions between the landscape com- plexes (Markus, 1930). ponents by Urve Ratas (Ratas et al.; 1988) The main aim in the post-war years was to and Are Kont (et al., 1994) presenting the create a landscape science that would so-called complex profiles or landscape establish a sound theoretical basis and transects. elevate geography to be among funda- The aspect of landscape as scenery was mental sciences. The investigations were suppressed and such studies discour- also expected to meet the demands of aged as old-fashioned. Human beings practical needs. The change, however, and their activities were separated from did not result in replacing the concept the landscape. In its most radical form used previously, but in a diversification of people were seen as an enemy of natural the concept itself (Kildema and Masing, landscape, destroying its natural order 1966; Kildema, 1969). A greater stress and having a negative impact (Eilart, was put on cross-disciplinary studies with 1976; Raukas and Rõuk, 1986). This was physics (a discipline of geophysics of partly a reaction to the large-scale Soviet landscape) and chemistry (landscape development schemes, since the only

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 235 possibility for protection of Estonian cycling in catchment areas and resulting nature was seen through prohibition and in computer modelling were also keeping people away. In its turn, this con- launched (Roosaare, 1984). tributed to a further separation of people The re-emergence of the monistic view of and their life-environment, resulting in landscape occurred parallel to the accep- heated debate on conservation issues in tance of the fact that landscape science the 1990s. Landscape could thus be had failed to meet its aims. Static classifi- defined scientifically only as the basic unit cations and regional descriptions were for determining landscape regions (Arold, found incapable of handling landscape 1991) or indicating a territorial unit with components that occur as more or less interrelated landforms, soils, vegetation continuous fields with fuzzy borders. Time and artificial features (Varep, 1964). was difficult to integrate into the study, In the late 1980s, two new approaches and the dynamics of the landscape as a emerged, which were (1) a natural-territo- system was explained using static and rial system with interrelated purely natural cinematic models (Roosaare, 1989). parts and results of human activities The ideological breakdown of landscape (Ratas and Puurmann, 1995; Ratas et al., science led the physical geographers to 1996; Hellström, 2002), and (2) the «old- seek for new ideas which coincided with fashioned» understanding of landscape the fall of the Soviet Union. Estonian land- as scenery (EE, 1992, pp. 80-81). Inter- scape research opened up for new per- disciplinary studies based on matter spectives in physical geography, land-

A - border between Upper Estonia and Lower Estonia B - border between the outcrops of Silurian and Devonian sediments

I Accumulation uplands: IV-5 Palumaa, IV-6 Irboska; I-1 Haanja, I-2 Otepää, I-3 Karula, V Marine coastal lowlands: I-4 Vooremaa; V-1 , V-2 West-Estonian, II Abrasional uplands: V-3 , II-1 Pandivere, II-2 Sakala; V-4 , V-5 , III Depressions: VI Inland swampy lowlands: III-1 Valga, III-2 Võru-Hargla; VI-1 Alutaguse, VI-2 Peipsi, IV Plateaus: VI-3 Võrtsjärve, VI-4 Kõrvemaa, IV-1 Harju, IV-2 Viru, VI-5 Soomaa, VI-6 Metsepole. IV-3 Central Estonian, IV-4 Ugandi,

Figure 2. Typological landscape regions (modified from Arold, 2001).

236 Estonian landscape study: contextual history scape ecology and cultural geography. International and interdisciplinary collabora- Landscape ecology was promoted by Ülo tion increased in the early 1990s. For exam- Mander, the current Head and Professor ple, within the PACT Palaeoecological of Physical Geography and Landscape Network led by Urve Miller, a Professor of Ecology at the Institute of Geography, Quaternary Geology at Stockholm Uni- University of Tartu, who has established a versity, Estonian researchers and post-grad- local centre with numerous students uates from various disciplines including attached both locally and with connec- geology, geography and archaeology were tions to European networks (Mander et al., included in an international network. This 1997, 2000; Mander and Jongman, had a significant role in information 1998). Interesting transdisciplinary exchange, which resulted in several vol- research with combined methods, «a new umes dealing with Baltic environmental and form of landscape ecology», appeared cultural history and introducing a new com- alongside a general «ecologisation» of bined approach to the environment (PACT society. 37; 50, 51, 57).

SOCIAL SCIENCE AND HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO LANDSCAPE

Landscape as a visual pattern thus re- and Tim Unwin (1998, 1999, 2000) have emerged in the 1990s and its treatment examined the rural transition. A research was broadened to cover the perception group led by Professor Göran Hoppe, and experience of landscapes in the originally at Stockholm and currently at minds of ordinary people conducted by a Uppsala University, has conducted exten- new generation of researchers educated sive analyses in the frame of the project further in Europe and inspired by the «Geographical aspects of the Estonian humanistic Scandinavian and Anglo- Swedes. Changes in society, landscape American research (Peil, 1999). A synthe- and cultural meetings during 800 years». sis of critical, human and historical geog- Copenhagen University has launched raphy, in which landscape is read and several projects in agriculture, planning, interpreted as a form of cultural praxis, tourism. has been created (Peil, 1999; Peil et al., In social and humanistic landscape 2002; Alumäe et al., 2003; Kaur et al., research, re-established in the 1990s, 2003; Palang et al., 2003; Sooväli et al., landscape is often defined as a social 2003). Palang and Mander (2000) pre- construction, a way of seeing, and thereby sented a periodisation of cultural land- the task of the researcher is seen to inter- scape history in Estonia as illustrated in pret the meaning and symbolism of the Figure 3. They define five stages of land- landscape. This covers a variety of disci- scape development and compare the plines. Within archaeology inter-discipli- stages with those in Western Europe as nary studies about early communities and discussed by Vos and Meekes (1999). relations to the land, the shaping of cultur- Simultaneously, the opening of Estonia al landscapes and mythology have attracted the interest of several European emerged (Ligi, 1992. Valk, 1999; Lang, geographers who were interested in the 2000; Mägi, 2001). Research in land- extensive societal changes connected to scape history focusing on settlement and the ongoing transition in Estonia, particu- land use patterns has mostly been con- larly in agriculture, the problems and chal- ducted by historians (Troska, 1987, 1994; lenges of rurality. Scholars and PhD stu- Moora and Lõugas, 1995; Moora, 1998). dents from the Nordic universities as well Folkloristic studies have concentrated on as from Great Britain have introduced a landscape scenery, its temporal formation new social perspective into the Estonian and variation – local lore and its connec- research of landscapes and identity. The tion to the physical setting (Hiiemäe, UK scholars Ray Abrahams (1994, 2001) 2001). Semiotics strives to understand the

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 237 relationship between memory, culture and identity and art history (see for example landscape in interpreting the signs and Lehari, 1997, 1999; Listra, 2001). Critical symbols created by human actors (Kull, geopolitical research has also contributed 2001). The growing interest in landscape, to a new understanding of landscapes, both urban and rural, could be detected marginal areas and borderlands; these in newly established disciplines in Estonia studies have increased our conscious- such as landscape architecture, land- ness of presentation and representation scape aesthetics, landscape psychology, of Estonia in the media (Berg, 2002).

Stages in landscape history

Western Europe time Estonia

Postmodern landscapes 2000 Postmodern landscapes Collective open fields 1900 Private farm landscapes Industrial landscapes

1800

Estate landscapes 1700 Traditional agricultural landscapes 1600

1500

1400 Mediaeval landscapes

1200

Antique landscapes Ancient landscapes Natural/prehistoric landscapes

Vos and Meekes 1999 Palang and Mander 2000

Figure 3. Stages in landscape history; comparison of the European (Vos and Meekes, 1999) and Estonian landscape evolution (Palang and Mander, 2000).

238 Estonian landscape study: contextual history APPLIED LANDSCAPE STUDIES

Providing an overview of all applied Environment and covers the whole terri- research in Estonia in the twentieth cen- tory of the Republic of Estonia. The so- tury would be an enormous task, but a called valuable landscapes are deter- few main trends need to be considered. mined in each county and connected to Studies in landscape planning and man- the ecological network. The Ministry has agement have a history going back over produced several popular booklets for forty years and have significantly con- best land use practices to preserve the tributed to the popularisation of con- diversity of landscapes and biodiversity cepts and increase in local knowledge. while taking into consideration the level As planning is seen to guarantee sus- of economic development. taining the landscapes, several The most recent development in applied approaches have been used to assess landscape research was launched by the their sustainability. One of these Estonian Tourist Board in co-operation approaches has been the concept of with the Estonian Ecotourism Association ecological networks, introduced in the (ETB, 2000; Sarv, 1999). Dividing Estonia early 1980s and developed currently into five «lands» for tourism promotion (Jagomägi, 1983; Jagomägi et al., 1988; may be considered the most radical re- Mander et al., 1995; Külvik, 2002). This orientation in landscape systematisation network was developed to counterbal- since Granö. The division is supposedly ance the impact of anthropogenic infra- based on physical and cultural condi- structure in the landscape. Landscape tions, following the borders of former approach had an increasing role in envi- parishes, the borders of which are argued ronmental policy in the 1990s (MoE, to follow natural divides as well. The re- 1997; MoE, 1998). A project with an introduction of the Estonian ancient word innovative approach to landscape – for land – maa – in the names of artificial- «Environmental conditions significant in ly construed «fifth-lands» is an interesting settlement and land use patterns» was indication of new myth creation made to launched by the Ministry of the serve exclusively commercial purposes.

IN CONCLUSION

The history of Estonian landscape humanities. Conceptualisation and con- research is limited to the twentieth centu- textualisation in the current plurality of ry. The German systematic and scientific meanings and concepts are the new notion of landscape (Landschaft) has challenges that the dynamic landscape been a dominant trend, but Estonian study is facing in Estonia, although if landscape study has had numerous nothing else, its ninety-year old turbulent undercurrents and exciting interactions history has provided the tools for adapta- with other disciplines from the natural tion and persistence. and social sciences, as well as the

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 239 REFERENCES

• AAVIKSOO K. (1993), Application of ülesanded ja maastiku vormide süs- Markov Models in Investigation of teem», Loodus III, 4, pp. 171-190. Vegetation and Land Use Dynamics in • GRANÖ J.G. (1929), «Reine Estonian Mire Systems, Tartu University Geographie. Eine methodologische Press, Tartu. Studie beleuchtet mit Beispielen aus • ABRAHAMS R. (1994), «The regenera- Finnland und Estland», Acta tion of family farming in Estonia», Geographica, 2, 2. Sociologia Ruralis, 34 (4), pp. 354-368. • HANG E. (1976), «Surface relief and • ABRAHAMS R. (ed.) (2001), After geological structure as causes of land- Socialism: Land Reform & Rural Social scape peculiarities in the Otepää Change in Eastern Europe, Berghahn Upland», Acta et Commentationes Books, Incorporated. Universitatis Tartuensis 393, Tartu, pp. 3- • ALUMÄE H., PRINTSMANN A., PALANG 24. H. (2003), «Cultural and historical values • HELLSTRÖM K. (2002), Agricultural in landscape planning: locals' percep- Reforms and Policies Reflected in the tion», in PALANG H. & FRY G. (eds.), Farming Landscapes of Hiiumaa from Landscape Interfaces. Cultural Heritage 1850 to 2000, PhD thesis, Swedish in Changing Landscapes, Boston, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dordrecht, London, Kluwer Academic Alnarp. Publishers, pp. 125-147. • HIIEMÄE M. (2001), «Maastik ja • AROLD I. (1974), Administratiivrajooni kohapärimus», in PALANG H., SOOVÄLI looduslike tingimuste ja ressursside H. (eds.) (2001), Maastik: loodus ja kultu- käsitlus kompleksse territoriaalplaneerim- ur. Maastikukäsitlusi Eestis, Publicationes ise vajadusteks (Eesti NSV Võru rajooni Instituti Geographici Universitatis näitel), PhD thesis, Manuscript, Tartu Tartuensis, 91, pp. 86-96. State University, Department of Physical • INDREKO R. (1934), «Looduse ja Geography. maastiku määrav osa Eesti muinasaegsel • AROLD I. (1991), Eesti maastikud, asustamisel», Eesti Rahva Muuseumi University of Tartu, Tartu. Aastaraamat, IX-X, pp.113-122. • AROLD I. (1993), Estonian landscapes: • JAGOMÄGI J. (1983), «Ökoloogiliselt factors of landscape formation and land- tasakaalustatud maa», Eesti Loodus, 4, scape investigation in Estonia. Land- pp. 219-224. scape regions, University of Tartu, Tartu. • JAGOMÄGI J., KÜLVIK M. & MANDER • AROLD I. (2001), Eesti maastikuline Ü. (1988), «The role of ecotones in land- liigestatus, University of Tartu, Tartu. scape», Acta et Comm. Univ. Tartuensis, • BERG E. (ed.) (2002), Eesti tähen- 808, pp. 96-118. dused, piirid ja kontekstid, Tartu • JÄRVET A., KASK I. (1998), «Eesti University Press, Tartu. maastikud alt- ja pealtvaates», Eesti • EE (1992), Eesti Entsüklopeedia, vol. 6, Loodus, 8, pp. 347-349. 80-81, Tallinn, Valgus. • KAMPMANN M. (1917), Kodumaatund- • ETA – Eesti talurahva ajalugu, 1 kd, mise õpeviis, G. Pihlakas, Tallinn. KAHK J., TARVEL E. (eds.) (1992), Olion, • KANT E. (1923), Otepää: loodus ja Tallinn. inimene, Postimees, Tartu. • EILART J. (1976), Man. Culture. • KANT E. (1933), «Geograafia, sot- Ecosystem, Perioodika, Tallinn. siograafia ja antropo-ökoloogia», Eesti • ETB (2000), Avasta Eestimaa uutmoodi, Looduseuurijate Seltsi Aruanded, XXXIX, Estonian Tourist Board (see also pp. 32-91. www.tourism.ee). • KANT E. (1935), Bevölkerung und • GRANÖ J.G. (1922), «Eesti maastikulised Lebensraum Estlands. Ein antropoökolo- üksused», Loodus I, 2, pp.105-123; 4, pp. gischer Beitrag zur Kunde Baltoskandia, 193-214; 5, pp. 257-281. Akadeemiline Kooperatiiv, Tartu. • GRANÖ J.G. (1924), «Maastikuteaduse • KARUKÄPP R. (1974), «On the relief of

240 Estonian landscape study: contextual history Karula Elevation», EGS AR 1973, pp. 36- Virumaal. Lisad 2-7: Kalman J., Maldre L. 51. & Saluäär U. Muinasaja teadus, 7. Ajaloo • KAUR E., PALANG H., SOOVÄLI H. Instituut, Tallinn. (2004), «Landscapes in Change - • LEHARI K. (ed.) (1997), «Ruum. Opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia, Keskkond. Koht», Eesti Kunstiakadeemia Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 1-4, toimetisi, Tallinn. pp.109-120. • LEHARI K. (1999), «Kultuurmaastiku • KILDEMA K. (1958), Muldade kivisuse uurimisest», Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, 3/2, uurimise metoodika ja uurimistulemused pp. 160-161. Eesti NSV-s, PhD thesis, Manuscript. • LIGI H. (1963), Põllumajanduslik maaka- Estonian Research Institute for Agriculture sutus Eestis 16.-17. sajandil, Tallinn, and Land Amelioration (EMMTUI). ENSV TA Ajaloo Instituut. • KILDEMA K. (1969), «Eesti NSV • LIGI P. (1992), «The prehistory of maastikulisest liigestusest», Tallinna Saaremaa», in HACKENS T., LANG V., Botaanikaaia Toimetised, III, pp. 5-15. MILLER U. (eds.), Estonia: nature, man • KILDEMA K., MASING V. (1965), and cultural heritage, PACT 3, pp. 163-73. «Maastikuteaduse arenguteest», Eesti • LINKRUS E. (1976), «The glint head- Loodus, 5, pp. 257-263, 6, pp. 321-328. lands and glint bays in the Lahemaa • KRIISKA A. (1996), «Viron rannikkoalueen National Park», Acta et Commentationes asustus ja pyyntikulttuurin erikoistuminen Universitatis Tartuensis, 156, 4, pp. 43-54. kivikaudella», Muinastutkija, 4, pp. 1-6. • LISTRA L. (ed.) (2001), Eesti identiteet • KONT A, KULL O., ROOMA I., ja iseseisvus, Avita, Tallinn. MAKARENKO D., ZOBEL M. (1994), «The • LÕUGAS V. (1980), «Põllumajandus- kame field ecosystems studied by land- maastiku ajaloost Eestis», in AASALO L. scape transects», in PUNNING J.-M. (ed.), Põllumajandusmaastik Eestis, (ed.), The influence of natural and Tallinn, Valgus, pp. 50-84. anthoropgentic factors on the develop- • MANDER Ü., JAGOMÄGI J., KÜLVIK M. ment of landscapes. The results of a com- (1988), «Network of compensative areas prehensive study in NE Estonia, as an ecological infrastrucutre of territo- Publications of Institute of Ecology, 2, ries», Coll. K. F. Schreiber: Connectivity in pp. 161-189. Landscape Ecology, Münstersche Geo- • KULL K. (2001), «Mis tähendab met- graphische Arbeiten, 29, pp. 35-38. sarahvas: looduse loodud eestlastest ja • MANDER Ü., KUUSEMETS V., LÕHMUS tema maastike keelest», in PALANG H., K., MAURING T. (1997), «Efficiency and SOOVÄLI H. (eds.) (2001), Maastik: lood- dimensioning of riparian buffer zones in us ja kultuur. Maastikukäsitlusi Eestis, agricultural catchments», Ecological Publicationes Instituti Geographici Engineering, 8, pp. 299-324. Universitatis Tartuensis, 91, pp. 96-105. • MANDER Ü., JONGMAN R. H. G. • KURS O. (1992), «Scientific heritage of (1998), «Human impact on rural land- Edgar Kant», Estonia. Man and Nature, scapes in central and northern Europe», Estonian Geographical Society, Tallinn, Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 3-4, pp. 108-128. pp. 149-154. • KURS O. (1997), «Maantieteellisten • MANDER Ü., KULL A., KUUSEMETS V. instituutioiden kehitys Virossa/ (2000), «Nutrient flows and land use Development of geographical institutions change in a rural catchment: a modelling in Estonia», Terra, 109, 4, pp.189-197. approach», Landscape Ecology, 45, 3, • KURS O. (2003), Institutions of Geography pp. 187-199. in Estonia, http://www.geo.ut.ee/english/ • MANDER Ü., OJA T. (1999), «Eesti index.html 19.03.03. maastike omapära ja sellest tulenevad • KÜLVIK M. (2002), Ecological networks ökoloogilised iseärasused», in T. FREY in Estonia – concepts and applications, (ed.), Loodusliku mitmekesisuse kaitse PhD thesis, Tartu University Press, Tartu. viisid ja vahendid, IM Saare, pp. 14-30. • LANG V. (2000), Keskusest ääremaaks, • MARKUS E. (1925), «Die Transgression Viljelusmajandusliku asustuse kujunemine des Moores über den Sandwall bei ja areng Vihasoo-Palmse piirkonnas Laiwa», Sitzungsber. Naturforscher-

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 241 Gesellschaft Univ. Tartu, XXXII, 1-2. cultural history of coastal Estonia: recent • MARKUS E. (1926), «Verschreibung der advances, S. Hicks, V. Lang, U. Miller, L. Naturkomplexe in Europa», Geogra- Saarse (eds.). phische Zeitschrift, 33 (10), pp. 516-541. • PACT 57, (1999), Environmental and • MARKUS E. (1930), «Naturkomplexe cultural history of the Eastern Baltic von Alatskivi», Acta Comm. Univ. Region, U. Miller, T. Hackens, V. Lang, A. Tartuensis, A XVIII, 8. Raukas, S. Hicks (eds.). • MATKUR A. (1921), Maateaduse • PALANG H., MANDER Ü. (2000), algõpetus [Eesti algkoolide IV. õpeaasta «Maastiku muutused Eestis», in FREY T. kursus], I. wihk M. Tamverk, Haapsalu. (ed.), Kaasaegse ökoloogia probleemid • Miksikese õppekeskkond (2003), VIII: Loodusteaduslikud ülevaated Eesti http://www.miksike.ee/lisa/6klass/3linnas- Maa Päeval. Eesti VIII Ökoloogiakonver- tumine/liigendus.htm, 19.03.03. entsi lühiartiklid, Tartu, pp. 169-180. • MoE (1997), Estonian National • PALANG H., MANDER Ü., O. KURS O., Environmental Strategy, Ministry of the SEPP K. (2000), «The concept of land- Environment, Tallinn. scape in Estonian geography», Estonian • MoE (1998), Estonian National Geographical Society, pp. 154-169. Environmental Action Plan, Ministry of the • PALANG H., SOOVÄLI H. (eds.) (2001), Environment, Tallinn. «Maastik: loodus ja kultuur. Maastiku- • MOORA H., LÕUGAS L. (1995), käsitlusi Eestis», Publicationes Instituti «Natural conditions at the time of primary Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis, 91. habitation of Hiiumaa Island», Proceed- • PALANG H., ALUMÄE H., PRINTS- ings of Estonian Academy of Sciences, MANN A., SEPP K. (2004), «Landscape Humanities and Social Sciences, 4, values and context in planning: an pp. 472-81. Estonian model», in BRANDT J., VEJRE • MOORA T. (1974), «Maastiku ja H. (eds.), Multifunctional landscapes – muinasaja maaviljelusliku asustuse volume 1: Theory, values and history, seostest», in TARMISTO V. (ed.), Harju Southampton, Wessex Institute of rajoonis, TA Kodu-uurimise Komisjon, Technology Press, pp. 219-233. Tallinn, pp. 130-141. • PEIL T. (1999), «Islescapes. Estonian • MOORA T. (1998), «Muistsete loodu- small islands through three centuries», solude osast kiviaja asustuse kujunemisel Stockholm Studies in Human Geography, Kunda ümbruses, Loodus, inimene ja 8, Almqvist & Wiksell International, tehnoloogia, Interdistsiplinaarseid Stockholm. uurimusi arheoloogias», Muinasaja • PEIL T. (2001), «Maastike keskel», in teadus, 5, pp. 13-151. PALANG, H., SOOVÄLI H. (eds.) (2001), • MÄGI M. (2001), At the crossroads of Maastik: loodus ja kultuur. Maastiku- space and time: graves, changing society käsitlusi Eestis, Publicationes Instituti and ideology on Saaremaa (Ösel), 9th- Geographici Universitatis Tartuensis, 91, 13th centuries AD, Tallinna Raamatu- pp. 57-67. trükikoda, Tallinn. • PEIL T., RATAS U., NILSON E. (eds.) • PAATSI V. (1984), «Eesti maastikulised (2002), Alasti maailm: Kolga lahe saared, liigestused kooligeograafias», Eesti Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda, Tallinn. Loodus, 6, pp. 353-359. • PETERSON U., AUNAP R. (1998), • PAATSI V. (1995), Eesti maastikulised «Changes in agricultural land use in liigestused kooligeograafias 1917-1944, Estonia in the 1990s detected with multi- Kultuurikeskus, Tartu. temporal Landsat imagery», Landscape • PACT 37 (1992), Estonia: Nature, Man and Urban Planning, 33. and Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of a • PUNNING J-M., KOFF T. (1997), «The Round Table held at Tallinn, April 1991, T. landscape factor in the formation of Pollen Hackens, V. Lang, U. Miller (eds.). records in lake sediments», Paleo- • PACT 50 (1996), Landscapes and Life, limnology, 18, pp. 33-44. dedicated to Professor Urve Miller, V. • RATAS U., PUURMANN E., KOKOVKIN Lang, S. Hicks (eds.). T. (1988), Genesis of islets' geocomplex- • PACT 51, (1996), Environmental and es in the Väinameri (the West Estonian

242 Estonian landscape study: contextual history Inland Sea), Academy of Sciences in Changing Landscapes, Boston, (Preprint TBA-8), Tallinn 41, pp. 193-201. Dordrecht, London, Kluwer Academic • RATAS U., PUURMANN E., KOKOVKIN Publishers, pp. 357-375. T. (1996), «Long-term changes in insular • TAMMEKANN A. (1933), «Eesti landscapes on the example of Vohilaid, maastikutüübid», Publ. Inst. Geogr. Univ. West-Estonia», Estonia. Geographical Tartuensis, XXXIX, pp. 3-21. Studies, Estonian Academy Publishers, • TROSKA G. (1987), Eesti külad XIX Tallinn, pp. 90-106. sajandil, Estonian Academy of Sciences, • RATAS U., PUURMANN E. (1995), Institute of History, Tallinn. «Human impact on the landscape of • TROSKA G. (1994), «Eesti maa-asulate small islands in the West Estonian arengujooni XIX sajandi teisel poolel», Archipelago», Journal of Coastal Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised, Conservation (1), pp. 119-26. Humanitaar- ja sotsiaaltedused, 43 (2), • RAUKAS A., RÕUK A.-M. (1986), pp. 146-168. «Inimmõjust Eestis läbi aastatuhandete», • UNWIN T. (1998), «Rurality and the con- Eesti maastike kujunemine ja kaitse, struction of the nation in Estonia», in Academy of Sciences, Tallinn, pp. 39-41. PICKLES J., SMITH A. (eds.), Theorizing • ROOSAARE J. (1984), «A computer transition: the political economy of simulation model for the territorial systems change in central and eastern Europe, of intensive agriculture», Acta et London, Routledge, pp. 284-306. Commentationes Universitatis Tartuensis, • UNWIN T. (1999), «Place, territory and 676, pp. 87-103, Tartu. national identity: an interpretation of • ROOSAARE J. (1989), «Miks ei täitunud Estonia», in HERB G., KAPLAN D. (eds.), maastikuteadusele asetatud suured loo- Nested identities: nationalism, territory tused», in Looduslikud protsessid ja inim- and scale, Rowman and Littlefield, mõju Eesti maastikes. E. Markuse 100. Lanham, pp. 151-176. sünniaastapäevale pühendatud nõupi- • UNWIN T. (2000), «Estonia», in HALL damise ettekannete lühikokkuvõtted, D.R. & DANTA D. (eds.), Europe goes Tallinn-Tartu, pp. 44-47. East: EU enlargement, diversity and • ROOSAARE J. (1994), «Physical uncertainty, Stationery Office, London, Geography in Estonia: Bridging Western pp. 131-154. and Eastern Schools of Landscape • VAHTRE S. (1970), «Ilmastikuoludest Synthesis», GeoJournal, 33,1, pp. 27-36. Eestis 18. ja 19. sajandil (kuni 1870) ja • RÕUK A.-M. (1974), «Morphological nende mõjust põllumajandusele ning talu- variety of drumlins and drumlin-like ridges rahva olukorrale», Publ. Univ. Tartuensis, in Saadjärve drumlin field», Estonian 258, pp. 43-159. Geographical Society Yearbook 1973, • VALK H. (1999), «Maastikust, muististest pp. 5-35. ja mõtteviisist», Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, • RUMMA J. (1922), Üldine maateadus, 3, 2, pp. 165-169. Loodus, Tartu. • VAREP E. (1964), «The landscape • SARV M. (1999), «Maapooled ja maavi- regions of Estonia», Transactions of Tartu iendikud», Eesti Loodus, 7, pp. 268-270. State University, Publications on • SEPP U., (1974), Hiiumaa maastikuline Geography 156 (4), pp. 3-28. iseloomustus, Valgus, Tallinn. • VAREP E., MAAVARA V. (eds.), (1984), • SOOVÄLI H., PALANG H., KAUR E., Eesti maastikud, Eesti Raamat, Tallinn. PEIL T., VERMANDERE I. (2003), • VOS W., MEEKES H. (1999), «Trends in «Combining approaches in landscape European cultural landscape develop- research. The case of Saaremaa, ment: perspectives for a sustainable Estonia», in PALANG H., FRY G. (eds.), future», Landscape and Urban Planning, Landscape Interfaces. Cultural Heritage 46, pp. 3-14.

BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3 243 Tiina Peil Department of Geography, NTNU; Trondheim, Norway [email protected]

Helen Sooväli, Hannes Palang, Tõnu Oja, Ülo Mander Institute of Geography, University of Tartu, Estonia [email protected], [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

manuscript submitted in September 2003; revised in October 2003

244 Estonian landscape study: contextual history