Layer of The Past PDF

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]
On: 21 December 2014, At: 22:40

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Landscape Research
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/clar20
Layers of the past: A theory and

method for historical landscape
analysis
a b b
Odd Egil Stabbetorp , May-Liss Be Sollund , Jan Brendalsmo
c
& Ann Norderhaug
a
Norwegian Institute for Nature Research , Oslo, Norway
b
Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage Research , Oslo,
Norway
c
Bioforsk , Stjrdal, Norway
Published online: 02 Aug 2007.
To cite this article: Odd Egil Stabbetorp , May-Liss Be Sollund , Jan Brendalsmo & Ann
Norderhaug (2007) Layers of the past: A theory and method for historical landscape analysis,
Landscape Research, 32:4, 463-479, DOI: 10.1080/01426390701449844
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390701449844
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 22:40 21 December 2014
Landscape Research,
Vol. 32, No. 4, 463 479, August 2007
Layers of the Past: A Theory and Method

for Historical Landscape Analysis
ODD EGIL STABBETORP*, MAY-LISS BE SOLLUND{,
JAN BRENDALSMO{ & ANN NORDERHAUG{
*Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Oslo, Norway {Norwegian Institute for Cultural Heritage
Research, Oslo, Norway {Bioforsk, Stjrdal, Norway
ABSTRACT The scope of this paper is to present a landscape analysis which allows for the
inclusion of dynamics through time and the cultural diversity of the landscape. Our method is to
classify the physical landscape into area types based on the main forms of production in the
agricultural society. This is combined with known historical sites, and the result is presented as
maps representing dierent periods in time. We also generate character areas from modern land
use and geological maps on the basis of the elements which dominate the landscape today. Finally,
we combine the time images with the character areas to present functional units in a manner
which includes time depth. The method is described through examples from a municipality in
southern Norway (Nttery). The method is useful for dening cultural environments for the
purpose of area planning and conservation, and is applicable on a general level.
KEY WORDS: Landscape analysis, GIS, historical landscape, area management,

coastal culture
Introduction
Humans have always exploited the natural resources available in their surroundings.
The landscape, as we see it today, is shaped by an interaction between natural and
cultural forces. As pointed out by Antrop (2005), planning and managing future
landscape remain dicult and extremely uncertain. The processes and management
in past traditional landscapes and the manifold relations people have towards the
perceivable environment and the symbolic meaning it generates, oer valuable
knowledge for more sustainable planning and management for future landscapes.
The European Landscape Convention (ELC) states that the countries which have
ratied this Convention should identify and assess landscape qualities, frame and
implement policies to protect, manage and plan landscapes, and to lay down
procedures for participation by the general public, local and regional authorities and
other interested parties (Council of Europe website). A theoretically based analysis
of the landscape should therefore be based on an understanding of how dierent
Correspondence Address: Odd Egil Stabbetorp, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Gaustadalleen
21, N-0349 Oslo, Norway. Email: odd.stabbetorp@nina.no
ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/07/040463-17 2007 Landscape Research Group Ltd

DOI: 10.1080/01426390701449844
464 O. E. Stabbetorp et al.
area types have been used during history. Throughout Europe in recent years, quite a
few approaches have been presented (e.g. Aldred, in press; Antrop, 2005; Caspersen
& Nellemann, 2005; Clark et al., 2004; Fairclough, 2003; Fairclough & Rippon,
2002; Rippon, 2004; Schibbye & Palstam, 2001; Widgren, 1997).
In 1974 the Dutch sociologist Willem Wertheim presented a theory of evolution of
social thought, claiming that in any given society at any time there is a whole series
of (contemporary) ideologies of which only one is the dominant, the one in power.
The other ideologies will then be what he called counterpoint ideologies, all
struggling to be the dominant. As any coherent ideology is also a representation of a
consistent way of utilizing the given resources, one might distinguish three main
types of humans utilization of resources through time: the hunter/gatherer society,
the agricultural society and the (modern) industrial society (Wertheim, 1974). The
rst change of dominant ideology, on a real macro-level, is what is usually labelled

The Agricultural Revolution; the second change, The Industrial Revolution.
Historically, the primary industries have dominated the use of the landscape since
the introduction of agriculture.
The diversity of ideologies in society through history, representing many thoughts
and practices of exploitation and use of a given area, is what we today can observe in
the landscape. Taking forested areas as an example, the hunter/gatherer society was
dependent on many types of forest resources, like food, wood for res, tools and
building materials. Agriculture exploited many of the same resources, but the forests
also became important for pasture. The impact of humans on nature became more
evident, both by the forest grazing and by turning forested areas into open grassland
and crop elds. Industry exploited the wood resources on a much larger scale for a
whole set of new practices.
The forests are still exploited according to all three ideologies. In a way, todays
leisure hunters can be said to represent characteristics of all three ideologies. The
notion of leisure ties him to the industrialized society, the idea of the forest as an
additional resource for his consumption links him to the ideology of the agrarian
period, and the activity in itself can be said to be a reminiscence of the pre-
agricultural ideology. The same area is exploited by forestry in producing timber,
while the farmers still use their forests in many ways, for example, rewood
production, building and fencing materials, pasture, etc. The three ideologies may
often be in conict with each other, and this conict can be read as a conict between
a dominant ideology (commercial forestry) and counterpoint ideologies.
Similar views can be adapted to other parts of the landscape. In order to analyse
the landscape historically, we have to understand how dierent landscape resources
are used at dierent times. We have settled on the period which has existed for a long
time and has left various imprints in the landscape, viz. the agricultural period. In
comparison the hunting/gathering society, which had a longer time span, has left far
less physical impact on todays landscape, and those impacts are very much obscured
by time.
The scope of this paper is to present a landscape analysis which allows for the
inclusion of dynamics through time and the cultural diversity of the landscape. Our
case is the agricultural society. Our method is to classify the physical landscape
into area types based on the main forms of production in the agricultural society,
and to establish a landscape characterization method. This method is also a
Historical Landscape Analysis 465
contribution to the implementation of the European Landscape Convention in

Norway, in identifying and explaining historical elements in todays landscape. In
this paper we present the basic outline of our method, and we demonstrate some
applications of the method in a case study area.
Data Sources
For the purpose of analysing the landscapes potential resource utilization, two
information sources were used. The 1: 5000 maps of Norway contain information on
land cover/use for areas beneath the timberline (Bjrdal, 2001). This mapping eort
was initiated in the 1960s. More detailed information regarding soil types was needed
with respect to the present day agricultural land. This was taken from a quaternary
geological map in the scale 1: 50 000.

Information about cultural heritage objects was extracted from two national
databases: The national database for cultural heritage sites and monuments
(Askeladden website), and the national database for buildings built before 1900
(Statens Kartverk, 2000). Both databases are founded on eld registrations
performed from 1960 until now, and they are continuously supplemented. The
interpretation of farm names and the dating of dierent name types were based on
Rygh (1898) with later modications (Sandnes & Stemshaug, 1997). In his work
Rygh compiled all historical references for all Norwegian farms until c. 1600. For the
period after 1600, he based his work primarily on central sources (the national land
registers from the 17th to the 19th century).
During the Ice Age the Fennoscandian shield was suppressed by the weight of the
ice. After the ice disappeared, the land gradually rose relative to the sea. In certain
areas, such as south-eastern Norway, this process is still active, and it has steadily
produced new land areas available for agriculture. To dene the position of the
shoreline at dierent stages in the land uplift, we combined information from a land
uplift curve for the region (Henningsmoen, 1979) with the digital elevation model for
the study area.
Case Study Area

The study area is Nttery municipality, Vestfold county, situated in the southeast of
Norway (598150 N, 108250 E), consisting of one large and more than 100 small islands
(Figure 1). The area is situated in the outer part of the Oslo ord, with many narrow
sounds and shallow waters. The main communication routes to several important
harbours (Oslo, Drammen, Tnsberg) pass along the eastern part of the archipelago.
The total land area is 60 km2, with a population size of 20 000 (SSB, 2006). In the
period 1950 1980 the population increased from c. 11 000 to c. 17 000, in 1980 2005
from c. 17 000 to c. 20 000 (SSB). Adjacent to Nttery to the north is the town of
Tnsberg, one of the few towns in Norway dating back to the late Viking Age (10th
century). Geologically, Nttery belongs to the Oslo rift region, and the bedrock
consists of silicaceous plutonic rocks (tnsbergite and larvikite; Srensen, 1980). The
landscape is gentle, with low hills (rising to 99 m asl) between plains with deep layers of
marine sediments. The climate is relatively favourable in a Norwegian context, with a
mean temperature in January of 18C, and 188C in July. The area is within the
Figure 1. The position of the study area of Nttery.
boreonemoral zone, and the vegetation is a mosaic of deciduous thermophilous forests

and pine forests on the ridges in between the cultivated areas. Most of the plains have a
long history of agriculture. The survey of the area with respect to cultural heritage sites
and monuments is fairly complete. Todays agriculture is dominated by crop
production, but on some of the medium-sized islands husbandry remains.
Marine resources have always played an important part in the economy of the
inhabitants in this coastal area. Other marine activities have been important in
certain periods, such as seafaring in the 18th and the 19th centuries, and whaling in
the 19th and the 20th centuries.
Nttery is situated in the most densely populated area in Norway. The
importance of agriculture has diminished, leading to forest encroachment of
abandoned pastures and marginal arable elds. At the same time, high demand for
new homes has been substantial. The area has for the last 100 years been one of the
most popular places for summer time recreation and leisure boat life in Norway.
Summer houses have been erected in many places, especially in the former
impediment and pasture areas. Many sailors houses have during the last century
been converted into summer houses.
Several literature sources covering the local history of Nttery were used.
Among these, Berg (1922), Grieg (1943), Paulsen (1986), and Brendalsmo (1993) are
central. Historical maps are few, but we have especially made use of a map constructed
in 1902 (Holst, 1902). In addition, local informants (municipal employees and
inhabitants) were interviewed, but not in any systematic manner. A quaternary
geological map (Bergstrm et al., 1992) in the scale 1: 50 000 was digitized.
Methods
The dierent land use classes in the 1: 5000 map, combined with information from
the quaternary geological map, were grouped into three broad area types, which in
our interpretation reect the potential function they had in the agricultural period.
In addition, sea surrounding the area was considered as the fourth area type. Thus,
the resulting map contains the following area types (see Figure 2):
Easily arable land: crop production

Fodder production areas: meadows, etc.
Outelds: Less productive areas, mainly used as grazing areas, but also potential
for wood production, hunting and gathering.
Marine area: Fishing, hunting, trade and communication
Figure 2. The classication of land areas within the study area Nttery into categories based
on resource utilization during the agricultural period. The classication is based on ne-scale
topographic and quaternary geological maps.
These broad area types and their resources are relevant to all historical epochs, but
their relative importance varies among dierent systems of production.
Easily arable land denotes areas which were potentially used for crop production also
in prehistoric farming. This corresponds to the annotation in the 1: 5000 map, but this
also includes land uplift areas with high clay content in the soil, that is, areas easily
cultivated today but only by mechanical means. Therefore the quaternary geology map
was used to extract clay areas which were included in the following area type. Thus, the
area type easily arable land includes well-drained areas with sandy sediments.
The area type fodder production areas contains areas which we interpret as
productive, but probably not possible to use for crop production in prehistoric
agriculture. On the ne-scale topographic maps, these areas are denoted as less easily
arable land. Fens (all drained today) are included here. As mentioned above, we also
included clay areas in this area type.

The area type outelds includes less productive areas which are mainly forested
today, but which was potentially used for pasture and wood production in earlier
times. This area type is a combination of several signatures from the 1: 5000 map,
including mainly non-arable forested areas and impediment. Geologically, the areas
are constituted by low hills with shallow glacial and/or marine deposits.
The area type marine area was obtained from the 1: 5000 map, but in the time
images the marine areas were corrected according to the land uplift.
The resulting map was then evaluated by including spatial historical information
in a landscape model. In the evaluation we constructed time images (maps) for
selected periods, incorporating cultural heritage sites and monuments from
the actual period in the landscape model (see Figures 3 and 4 for examples).
The selection of periods for presentation is partly dependent on available sources.
The landscape was also classied into units on the basis of the elements which
dominate the landscape today. This resulted in the delineation of functional areas
which can be used in landscape planning and management. These landscape units
(e.g. shore settlements, housing estates, see Figures 5 and 6) were constructed on the
basis of available maps, written sources and eld evaluations. Within each functional
area the existing elements were combined with the results from the time images. This
combination serves as the basis for the description and the visual representation for
the landscape units (see Figure 7).
All material was organized in a GIS, using the software ArcView (ESRI, 1996).
The quaternary geological map had to be digitized. The contour lines (interval 1 m)
of the 1: 5000 maps were transformed into a digital elevation model (using the
program Surfer; Keckler, 1996) with 10 m grain size. In our maps we have used the
digital elevation model in combination with data from Henningsmoen (1979) to give
the approximate position of the shoreline in actual time periods. A historical map
(Holst, 1902) was scanned and georeferenced to modern maps by the use of the
extension ImageWarp (McVay, 1999) for ArcView. The cultural heritage data were
imported into the GIS model, represented as points.
Results
In the following, we present a few examples of how the method is used. First we
present two examples of time layers (the Iron Age and the Middle Ages). Thereafter
we give two examples of particular types of landscape units (shore settlements and
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of documented cultural heritage from the Iron Age (c. 0 c. AD
950). The shoreline is raised by 5 m, approximating the situation in the middle part of the
period. A delimitation of the central area of activity is superimposed.
housing estates). Finally we give one example (Borgheim) of how time layers are
incorporated in the presentation of a given landscape unit. Our aim is not to give a
complete analysis of the cultural history of Nttery, but rather to present dierent
aspects of our method.
The results of the classication into area types are presented in Figure 2. In the
middle part of the main island a basin dominated by clayish soil is clearly visible.
This represents sediments in a shallow bay that existed until the medieval period.
North of the bay, large consistent areas of arable land dominate the landscape. To
the south, the landscape is more fragmented, with arable lands in the depressions
between the mainly north south going ridges. The hills and ridges, as well as the
small islands in the eastern archipelago are dominated by areas with shallow soil,
mainly being usable for pasture.
c. 0 c. AD 950: Iron Age

Documented cultural heritage sites from the Iron Age are clearly concentrated
around the central inlet (Figure 3). According to the analysis of farm names,
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of documented cultural heritage from the Middle Ages (c. AD
950 c. AD 1550). The shoreline is raised by 3 m, approximating the situation in the middle
part of the period.
29 farms have names belonging to this period. Two have disappeared as functional
units, and their position is only reected in names of eld strips. Several others have
been included in neighbouring farms. All Iron Age farms lie on land interpreted as
suitable for Iron Age agriculture. The farm on the island in the southwest (Veierland)
is the only one outside the main island.
Graves (mainly barrows) are the commonest type of cultural heritage
monuments, but also several artefacts from the same period are found. These
most probably represent grave deposits from damaged graves. The graves are
located close to the present day farmyards. This suggests that the farmyards have
been in the same place until the present day, because burial close to the farmyard is
typical for the Iron Age (Myhre, 2002). We have chosen to depict the shoreline
5 m higher than the present sea level (c. 1 500 years ago; see Henningsmoen, 1979).
South of the central farm area, three hill forts are situated on top of small, steep
ridges. Burials (mainly cairns) from earlier periods are also frequent within the
study area (Figure 3), but these are more concentrated along the sea and in the
southern part of the main island.
Figure 5. Shore settlements from the 19th century. Buildings built before 1900, and which lie
less than 150 m from the sea, are shown.
The establishment of new agricultural practices in this period is commonly

assumed to be caused by a general cooling of the climate (Myhre, 2002). The new
practices involve the building of storage houses for fodder and keeping the animals
indoors in winter time. It seems natural that the farms were established on sites
where the surroundings oer arable land and areas suited for husbandry and fodder
production. The nutrient-rich, moist meadows in the at areas along the inlet have
oered valuable grazing land for the domestic animals. The bay must have been
suitable as a sheltered harbour, and this can also have been a central factor for the
location of the Iron Age farms.
We have dened a Central Iron Age area (Figure 3) on the basis of what we
consider to be the most important agricultural areas during this period. The
shoreline for the period is used as the eastern border. The delineation inwards is
drawn according to the resource maps, avoiding less productive areas only suitable
for pasture. This area is also where one may expect more remains of human activity
in the Iron Age.
Figure 6. Built areas c. 2000 (a) and examples of planned housing estates raised between c.
1920 and c. 1980 (b).
c. AD950 c. AD1550: The Middle Ages

Documented cultural heritage from the medieval period are scant. The stone church,
built in the rst half of the 12th century, a road and the farm names are the only
remains (Figure 4). In Figure 4, the shoreline is drawn 3 m above the present sea
level, corresponding to c. AD 1000.
During the Middle Ages, 60 new farms are documented on Nttery (Berg, 1922
and own analysis), of which the majority still exists. They are mainly situated outside
the central Iron Age area (see Figure 3), especially in the southern part of the main
island. There are no examples of farmyards with names typical of the Middle Ages
(except those lying in the central Iron Age area) which have prehistoric graves in
their vicinity, indicating that these farms represent new settlements.
Figure 7. The administration centre of the municipality Nttery (Borgheim), delimited

according to its current extent. The maps represent known elements from four dierent time
periods, along with the interpretation of the main area resource groups. The centre is
positioned in a highly arable landscape, with evidence of agriculture back to the Iron Age (a).
Todays centre represent a continuation of central functions at least back to the medieval
period (b), when a church (until 1920 the only church on the island) was built here. c. 1900 (c)
several non-agricultural residences have been built on former agricultural land and the land
has been split up in several independent farms. Today (d) the area is mainly a built-up area,
occupied by buildings with dierent functions (administration, schools, social welfare, shops,
etc.). The road system has not changed much during the 20th century.
It is commonly assumed that the climate became much more favourable in the
10th century. This, together with a general population increase and changes in the
societal organization, probably represents the main causes for the establishment
of new farms (ye, 2002; Rnneseth, 1974; Stylegar & Norseng, 2003). As the
Iron Age farms remained as production units, the new settlements had to be
established in the more marginal areas, especially in the southern part of the
island. The agricultural modes of production did probably not dier much from
that of the Iron Age. It is likely that also the geographical and political centre of
the society remained unchanged, as indicated by the position of the medieval
church.
The inlet became closed due to land uplift. A local name Knarrberg (Rygh, 1907)
indicates the rock besides which a Knarr (a sea-going vessel) could have its port. This
may indicate the increasing importance of sea trade in this period.

In the medieval period the main island seems more or less totally exploited, as seen
from the wide scatter of medieval farms. We have therefore not made any detailed
delineation of any area related to the medieval period.
Shore Settlements (19th Century)

In the 14th century the Black Death approximately halved the population in
Norway. Then, an increase in population started after c. 1500 (Sandnes, 1971). This
trend continued through the 17th to the 19th century. Economic development and a
rise in the importance of trade led to the establishment of small settlements scattered
along the shoreline, inhabited predominantly by shermen, pilots, seafarers and
sailors, especially in the 19th century.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of buildings erected before 1900 located within c.
150 m from the sea. The basis is the national register of buildings constructed before
1900 (SEFRAK, Statens Kartverk, 2000), and the historical map (Holst, 1902). In
addition, we sorted out the profession of the original residents (Berg, 1922), picking
out those occupied in marine related activities.
The small properties belonging to each household often had a tiny garden plot,
but the main income was connected to marine activities. The houses were small, built
of wood, and most of them still remain. As shown in Figure 5, most of the houses
were built in clusters, thereby giving characteristic built environments which today
are important cultural evidence from the days of sail.
The rise of these built environments constitutes a part of the transformation
toward monetary economy after the introduction of the Industrial Revolution in
Norway in the middle of the 19th century. The natural resource, on which the
inhabitants in the shore settlements were dependent, was the sea.
Housing Estates (c. 1920 c. 1980)

Todays built areas are shown in Figure 6a, based on modern municipality maps.
The areas contain houses built over a long period of time, partly as scattered
settlements along the main roads, and partly as housing estates of dierent age. In
Figure 6a, three separate areas are marked: Skoleveien (the northernmost),
Vestskogen (in the middle, consisting of three subunits), and Harkollen (the
southernmost). In Figure 6b these selected areas are shown in relation to the area
type on which they were established.
Skoleveien was built in the 1920s as a result of municipal planning, in order to
establish a suburb to the nearby town of Tnsberg. It was built on arable land, and
the residential properties were large, facilitating gardening of vegetables and fruit.
In the 1960s the municipality initiated a more structured planning of large-scale
housing estates. This was a result of improved economy and planning tools, shortage
of housing, and the development of new forms for employment. This increased
the demand for homes in the vicinity of towns, where most opportunities for
employment were found. Vestskogen was the result of this, and the rst (northern-
most) part was built in the 1960s. Successively, two more areas were established in
the 1970s. All of them were located on arable land, although the area was not used
for agriculture when the housing estate was planned. Even so, the properties were
smaller than those at Skoleveien, as lawns and owers had now taken the place of
gardening for self-support.
Harkollen, which was established in the late 1970s, demonstrates changes in the
attitude with respect to what types of area should be used for housing estates. This
area was placed on a small hill, not suitable for agriculture or forest production or
for gardening (see Figure 6b). The next phase in planning shows new changes in
attitudes, as the landscape value of hills covered with open pine forests were seen as
important for the landscape identity. Therefore newer housing estates were
established on the slopes between arable land and the top of the ridges.
The position of the housing estates reects societys view on landscape resources at
dierent times. Until the 1980s, agricultural land was not regarded as a particularly
scarce resource, and therefore it was considered useful for inexpensive housing
development. The establishment of housing estates (especially the modern ones) also
demonstrates the lack of a direct connection between neighbouring resources and the
positioning of dwellings. A well-developed infrastructure with respect to roads and
public communication made it unnecessary to live close to places of work. In
addition, working places are not connected to the resources available in the local
landscape. This demonstrates that a new way of thinking about resources now had
penetrated society more or less completely. Now, closeness to the waterfront (leisure)
and easy access to the town (work) was the measure stick, and not the availability of
arable land, or the sea as a place of work.
Cultural Environments: The Borgheim Case

The administrative centre of Nttery municipality, called Borgheim, is presented as
an example of how we combine the time images with a given landscape unit. The
cultural environment is presented as a sequence of maps showing documented
remains of human activity from dierent periods, with the classication of the
landscape into resource classes as a basis for the historical land use (Figure 7).
Borgheim is situated within the Iron Age environment (Figure 3). The environ-
ment is delineated according to the dominating features of todays landscape, viz. the
densely built area dominated by buildings having public service functions. It is
surrounded by farmland (crop production) on all sides except to the north, where the
built area extends along the main road to the city border of Tnsberg. Based on our
knowledge of the area, and the accessible sources, we have chosen to present four
phases of its history.
In the Iron Age the sea extended into the southern part of the delimited area (5 m
higher than today, see Figure 3). The soils in the already existing land uplift areas
have high clay content. These areas were probably too humid for crop production,
but such areas have been important pastures until modern times. According to the
name types, two farms within the area, Nttery and Elgestad, are considered to be
from the Iron Age. Nttery is one of the two oldest farms in the municipality.
Therefore, a central function in the society is indicated already at this stage. Two
documented burial sites are situated near the present Nttery farmyard, one
consisting of two barrows, the other one is an excavated grave from the Viking Age.
As several graves were documented in this area in the early 19th century (Grieg,
1943), the two sites are probably part of one coherent burial site (Brendalsmo, 2004).
The late Viking Age in Norway corresponds to the introduction of Christianity.
A stone church was erected at the farm Nttery in the rst half of the 12th
century, in connection to the Iron Age burial site, most probably as a replacement
for an older wooden church. According to the cadastre of church properties from
the end of the 14th century (Huitfeldt, 1879), the farm Nttery had already been
divided into two individual farms. A road called TjoDvegen (meaning the
peoples road or the main road) is mentioned in documents (see Paulsen, 1986).
In this period the annual uplift was c. 4 mm (Henningsmoen, 1979), resulting in
the closure of the inlet from the open sea and an increased area of productive
pasture along the shoreline.
The landscape by the turn of the 19th century is documented through a historical
map (Holst, 1902) that shows the existing roads, farms, cotters farms and other
buildings. Several new farms had now been established on the lands of the old farms.
In addition, several new homes had been built. These houses reect a new way of
exploiting the landscape by their lack of direct relation to agricultural production.
The road system is well developed due to the increased populations also in other
parts of the island, for example, the shore settlements, as well as new needs for
transportation of goods.
In the present landscape, the church and churchyard as well as the farmyard
are still remaining and in use. The barrows still remain, in a small area functioning
as a park, partly due to the general protection by the Cultural Heritage Act
(Kulturminneloven, 1978, 2004). Otherwise the area is nearly completely built-up,
with public buildings (schools, oces, social welfare, etc.), commercial activity and
an increased number of private houses. The roads follow the routes evident on the
map from 1902.
Discussion
Coastal areas are particularly dynamic in terms of landscape change. The multitude
of available resources (both land-based and marine) gives many opportunities for
human exploitation, and thereby a varied landscape pattern with many types of
cultural landscape elements. Changes may occur rapidly, causing many remnants of
the past to disappear. We must assume that in our study area many physical
manifestations of earlier activity have been destroyed. Written evidence and general
knowledge about historical resource utilization must therefore be considered in the

understanding of the landscape.
We have based our work on a general theory regarding land use and mans
exploitation of resources. When applied to complicated landscapes like those
typical of Norway, it also becomes important to evaluate the limitations brought on
by the environment to mans activities. Historical studies in the Norwegian
agricultural landscape provide support that in periods with high population density,
practically all areas were exploited (Asheim, 1978; Tveite, 1975). In our study area,
there was no forest left c. 1900 (Berg, 1922), due to the exploitation of land for
grazing areas.
In dierent countries, also the existence, or lack, of dierent types of docu-
mentation must be taken into account. Historical maps, which are shown to be very
useful in historical landscape analyses (e.g. Fairclough, 2003; Schibbye & Palstam,
2001), vary greatly in availability among countries. Norway has few historical maps
(Jerpasen et al., 1997). We therefore used information from land cover/land use
maps and quaternary geological maps to obtain information about the potential for
exploitation by man in the agricultural society. On the other hand Norway has well-
developed databases regarding cultural heritage monuments and older buildings,
giving a better foundation for landscape analyses based on GIS than in many other
countries.
The resource map can be used as a tool for predicting potential sites for dierent
types of cultural traits and activities in areas which are poorly documented with
respect to cultural heritage. In this way, the resource map is a useful tool both in
research and in area planning and conservation. The general theory and structure
makes our method applicable in all types of landscape. Since our case study is in a
coastal area, the exploitation of the marine resources will obviously be of uttermost
importance, but the procedure for the analysis can easily be applied in inland areas.
As we have shown, it applies to both built and more natural areas, and it could easily
be performed also in an urban landscape. Even downscaling to detailed analyses, for
example, archaeological excavations could easily be done, except that the sources for
area classication would have to be changed.
In the further development of the method, it will be of great importance to
incorporate competence and knowledge from other disciplines. The cultural
landscape represents one of the most species-rich landscapes in many countries
(e.g. Ejrns et al., 2005; Eriksson & Eriksson, 1997; Stabbetorp & Often, 2003). In
Norway, considerable eorts have been made to conserve this biodiversity (DN,
1994). This biodiversity is to a large extent dependent on human activities
throughout history, and a clear understanding of the land use history is a
prerequisite for conservation (Ihse & Norderhaug, 1995). At the same time, this
biodiversity can be seen as part of the cultural heritage, and biological inventories
can give important information regarding former land use (Fry et al., 2001). This
interaction between human activities and biodiversity is only one example of
humannature interactions (see Asheim, 1978).
As described here, our procedure does not include any value assessment. This is
deliberate. In landscape management and area planning other views than the experts
judgment should be involved if choices or priority assignments have to be made
(see the European Landscape Convention). If the landscape classication follows our
scheme, a basic foundation of knowledge about a given area is laid down before the
value assessment is done. Criticisms have been raised towards evaluations which
incorporate validating arguments in the description of a given object (Hanssen, 1998).
Area value assessment involves many discourses of philosophical and multidisciplin-
ary character (Erikstad et al., 2006), and the criteria for value assessment are vague
and often inconsistent (Ejrns et al., 2005). When local people and governments
shall participate in the evaluation process regarding value assessments and area
conservation (according to the European Landscape Convention), the need for easily
apprehended descriptions like those based on our method is a prerequisite.
Acknowledgements
This work is part of a multidisciplinary project which is nanced by the Norwegian

Research Council through strategic institute programmes in the institutes NIKU,
NINA and NIBR. We would like to thank Bo Solhaug and Ronny Meyer in
Nttery municipality, Petter Molaug and Anne Sterdal in NIKU, and two
anonymous referees.
References
Aldred, O. (in press) Identifying and assessing landscape through historic landscape classication, in:
Proceedings from the Aornord Conference 2005 Eects of Aorestation on Ecosystems, Landscape &
Rural Development (NORD).
Antrop, M. (2005) Why landscapes of the past are important for the future, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 70, pp. 21 34.
Asheim, V. (1978) Kulturlandskapets historie (Oslo/Bergen/Troms: Universitetsforlaget).
Askeladden website http://askeladden.ra.no (last accessed 13 July 2007).
Berg, L. (1922) Ntter. En bygdebok (Kristiania).
Bergstrm, B., Olsen, K. S. & Srensen, R. (1992) TJME 1813 II, Kvartrgeologiske kart M 1: 50000,
med beskrivelse (Oslo: Norges geologiske underskelse, NGU).
Bjrdal, I. (2001) Markslagsklassikasjon i konomisk kartverk (NIJOS-rapport, 16/2001).
Brendalsmo, A. J. (1993) En e langt fra Landet, kulturminneregistrering i skjrgarden (Nttery
kommune).
Brendalsmo, J. (2004) For Gud eller egen vinning?, Njotary, 25, pp. 23 32.
Caspersen, O. H. & Nellemann, V. (2005) Landskabskaraktermetodenet kompendium, Arbejdsrapport
nr. 20-2005 (Hrsholm: Skov & Landskab).
Clark, J., Darlington, J. & Fairclough, G. (2004) Using Historical Landscape Characterisation (London:
English Heritage and Lancashire County Council).
Council of Europe website http://www.coe.int/t/e/Cultural_: co-operation/Environment/Landscape/
DN (1994) Verdifulle kulturlandskap i Norge (Trondheim: The Directorate for Nature Management).
Ejrns, R., Stabbetorp, O. E., Bratli, H., Liira, J., Aude, E., Nygaard, B. & Skovlund Paulsen, R. (2005)
The valuation of habitats for conservation: concepts, methods and applications, TemaNord, p. 519.
Eriksson, A. & Eriksson, O. (1997) Seedling recruitment in semi-natural pastures: the eects of
disturbance, seed size, phenology and seed bank, Nordic Journal of Botany, 17, pp. 469 482.
Erikstad, L., Lindblom, I., Jerpasen, G., Hanssen, M. A., Bekkby, T., Stabbetorp, O. E. & Bakkestuen, V.
(2006) Tverrfaglig verdiforstaelse og verdisetting i konsekvensanalyser, NIBR-rapport, 2006-3.
ESRI (1996) ArcView GIS (Redlands, CA: ESRI Inc.).
Fairclough, G. J. (2003) The long chain: archaeology, historical landscape characterization and time depth
in the landscape, in: H. Palang & G. Fry (Eds) Landscape Interfaces: Cultural Heritage in Changing
Landscapes, pp. 259 318 (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Fairclough, G. & Rippon, S. (Eds) (2002) Europes Cultural Landscape: Archaeologists and the
Management of Change (EAC Occasional Paper 2) (London/Brussels: English Heritage/EAC).
Fry, G., Jerpasen, G., Skar, B. & Stabbetorp, O. E. (2001) Combining landscape ecology with archaeology
to manage cultural heritage interests in the changing countryside, Publicationes Instituti Geographici
Universitatis Tartuensis, 92, pp. 198 202.
Grieg, S. (1943) Vestfolds oldtidsminner (Oslo: Brgger).
Hanssen, B. L. (1998) Values, Ideology and Power Relations in Cultural Landscape Evaluations (Bergen:
Department of Geography, University of Bergen).
Henningsmoen, K. (1979) En karbondatert strandlinjeforskyvningskurve fra sndre Vestfold, in:
R. Nydal, S. Westin, U. Hafsten & S. Gulliksen (Eds) Fortiden i skelyset: 14C datering gjennom 25
ar (Trondheim: Laboratoriet for radiologisk datering).
Holst, C. (1902) Map of Nttery. Statens kartverks arkiv: 9D7, M 1: 25 000.
Huitfeldt, H. J. (1879) Biskop Eysteins Jordebog (Rdeboka), Fortegnelse over det geistlige gods i Oslo
bispedmme omkring aar 1400 (Christiania).
Ihse, M. & Norderhaug, A. (1995) Biological values of the Nordic Cultural Landscape: dierent
perspectives, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 1, pp. 156 170.
Jerpasen, G., Be Sollund, M.-L. & Widgren, M. (1997) Historiske kart og kulturminnevern, En metode for
landskapsanalyse (Oslo: NIKU, Fagrapport 003).
Keckler, O. (1996) Surfer for Windows, v. 6 (Golden: Golden Software Inc.).
Kulturminneloven (1978, 2004) online at: http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldles?doc/usr/www/lovdata/
all/nl-19780609-050.html&depalle&kort,tittlovomkulturminner&.
McVay, K. R. (1999) ImageWarp 2.0, data program online at: http://arcscripts.esri.com/details.
asp?dbid10118 (last accessed 13 July 2007).
Myhre, B. (2002) Landbruk, landskap og samfunn 4000 f.Kr.-800 e.Kr., Norges landbrukshistorie 1, 4000
f.Kr.-1350 e.Kr., Jorda blir levevei (Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget).
ye, I. (2002) Landbruk under press 800 1350, Norges landbrukshistorie 1, 4000 f.Kr.-1350 e.Kr., Jorda
blir levevei (Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget).
Paulsen, H. (1986) Nttery, 1800-arene (Sandefjord).
Rippon, S. (2004) Historic Landscape Analysis: Deciphering the Countryside (CBA Practical Handbook 16)
(York: Council for British Archaeology).
Rnneseth, O. (1974) Gard und Einfriedigung. PhD thesis, Stockholm University.
Rygh, O. (1898) Norske Gaardnavne, Forord og Indledning (Kristiania).
Rygh, O. (1907) Norske Gaardnavne, Bd. VI, Jarlsberg og Larviks Amt (Kristiania).
Sandnes, J. (1971) detid og gjenreising (Oslo/Bergen/Troms: Universitetsforlaget).
Sandnes, J. & Stemshaug, O. (Eds) (1997) Norsk stadnamnleksikon (4th edn) (Oslo: Det Norske Samlaget).
Schibbye, B. & Palstam, Y. (2001) Landskap i fokus: utvardering av metoder for landskapsanalys
(Stockholm: Riksantikvarieambetet).
Srensen, R. (1980) Vestfold, in: V. Mller (Ed.) Geologien i Vestfold, Bygd og by i Norge (Oslo).
SSB (2006) Befolkningsstatistikk. Befolkningsendringer i kommunene, 1951 2006, available online at:
http://www.ssb.no/emner/02/02/folkendrhist/tabeller/tab/0722.html (last accessed 13 July 2007).
Stabbetorp, O. E. & Often, A. (2003) Culturally Dependent Botanical Diversity in a Region Along the
Swedish Border in Southeastern Norway (Oslo: NINA, Oppdragsmelding 808).
Statens Kartverk (2000) SEFRAK som en del av GAB, available online at: http://www.statkart.no/IPS/
lestore/Matrikkelavdelingen/Registreringsinstrukser/GAB/BrukerbokSefrak.doc (last accessed 13 July
2007).
Stylegar, F.-A. & Norseng, P. G. (2003) Del 2: Mot historisk tid. stfolds historie bind 1. st for Folden
(stfold fylkeskommune).
Tveite, S. (1975) Norsk landbrukshistorie 1750 1914 (As-NLH).
Wertheim, W. F. (1974) Evolution and Revolution. The Rising Ways of Emancipation (Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books).
Widgren, M. (1997) Landskap eller objekt: kring kulturminnesvardens problem att hantera landskapets
historia, in: J. Brendalsmo, M. Jones, K. Olwig & M. Widgren (Eds) Landskapet som historie, pp. 5 16.
NIKU Temahefte 4.

Layer of The Past PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Layer of The Past PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 21 December 2014, At: 22:40

Layers of the past: A theory and

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01426390701449844

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Layers of the Past: A Theory and Method

Research, Oslo, Norway {Bioforsk, Stjrdal, Norway

KEY WORDS: Landscape analysis, GIS, historical landscape, area management,

ISSN 0142-6397 Print/1469-9710 Online/07/040463-17 2007 Landscape Research Group Ltd

rst change of dominant ideology, on a real macro-level, is what is usually labelled

contribution to the implementation of the European Landscape Convention in

geological map in the scale 1: 50 000.

Case Study Area

Figure 1. The position of the study area of Nttery.

boreonemoral zone, and the vegetation is a mosaic of deciduous thermophilous forests

Easily arable land: crop production

included clay areas in this area type.

c. 0 c. AD 950: Iron Age

The establishment of new agricultural practices in this period is commonly

c. AD950 c. AD1550: The Middle Ages

Figure 7. The administration centre of the municipality Nttery (Borgheim), delimited

may indicate the increasing importance of sea trade in this period.

Shore Settlements (19th Century)

Housing Estates (c. 1920 c. 1980)

Cultural Environments: The Borgheim Case

knowledge about historical resource utilization must therefore be considered in the

This work is part of a multidisciplinary project which is nanced by the Norwegian

You might also like