estonian landscape study: contextual history

231BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3

EEssttoonniiaann llaannddssccaappee ssttuuddyy::ccoonntteexxttuuaall hhiissttoorryy

TTiiiinnaa PPeeiillNNTTNNUU,, TTrroonnddhheeiimm ((NNoorrwwaayy))

HHeelleenn SSoooovväällii,, HHaannnneess PPaallaanngg,, TTõõnnuu OOjjaa,, ÜÜlloo MMaannddeerrUUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff TTaarrttuu

ABSTRACTThe history of Estonian landscape research is limited to the twentieth century. The mostsignificant milestone in this process was the appointment of J. G. Granö as Professor ofGeography 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, butEstonian landscape study has had numerous undercurrents and exiting interactions withother 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 inmind, stressing the wide spectrum of landscape studies by researchers who may notconsider themselves primarily as concerned with landscapes but have nevertheless con-tributed to the discipline and the understanding of landscapes in Estonia.

KEY WORDS: Estonia, landscape, history

RÉSUMÉHHIISSTTOOIIRREE CCOONNCCEEPPTTUUEELLLLEE DDEE LL’’ÉÉTTUUDDEE DDEESS PPAAYYSSAAGGEESS DD’’EESSTTOONNIIEEL’étude des paysages en Estonie ne débuta qu’au début du XXe siècle. L’étape la plusimportante de ce processus fut l’engagement comme professeur de géographie àl’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 ousociales, 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’étudespaysagères réalisées par des chercheurs qui, sans nécessairement se considérercomme des spécialistes des paysages, ont néanmoins apporté une contribution déter-minante à cette discipline et à sa compréhension.

MOTS-CLÉS: Estonie, paysage, histoire

Interest in both Estonian landscapes andlandscape concepts has increased sig-

nificantly over the last decade and sever-al comprehensive surveys have recentlybeen written stressing one or anothertrend (Arold, 1993; Roosaare, 1994; Kurs1997, 2003; Järvet and Kask, 1998) andthe conceptualisation of landscapes(Palang et al., 2000; Peil, 2001). The setobjective of this paper is therefore to pro-vide a context for academic approach tolandscapes in Estonia and for connec-tions with the Estonian approach toEurope, as well as to present the mainlandscape regions (Arold, 2001) and aperiodisation in landscape history(Palang and Mander, 2000). When discussing Estonian landscapes,two distinct factors need to be kept in mindwhile comparing their research history withthe European one. Firstly, the Republic ofEstonia was first declared in 1918, up towhich date the people and the countrywere dominated by their neighboursthroughout the modern period. Secondly,the dominant people spoke languages thatwere not just slightly different but belongedto another linguistic family. The indigenouspeople working the land had no need oropportunity to reflect on their surroundingsen masse (for the discussion of the peas-ant attitudes to their surrounding environ-ment see Peil, 1999). This resulted in a late,i.e. the twentieth century development ofboth the vocabulary and concept for dis-cussing the surrounding world by nativeFinno-Ugric people and the need to createand popularise the concepts quite forcibly.The latter was seen as one of the maintasks for the newly established EstonianUniversity of Tartu. Lacking trainedresearchers in Estonia, a Finn, JohannesGabriel Granö was invited to become thefirst Professor of Geography in 1919. Thiswork has been significant and even centralin the Estonian landscape study until thepresent.

The new university discipline of geogra-phy focused largely around landscape,which offered it a monistic object of study– a region which encompassed bothnature and the results of human activity –in the following two decades. The Sovietannexation of the Baltic States abruptlychanged the conditions for the study oflandscapes. The natural science basedapproach became dominant, as thehuman agent was erased from the land-scape field. This, however, did not mean atotal cessation of the research on humanactors in their life-world, but this was con-ducted mainly by historians and archaeol-ogists with no obvious indications to theconnection with the physical environment/landscape with a few exceptions(Indreko, 1934; Ligi, 1963; Moora, 1974;Lõugas, 1980). The dominant trend in his-tory was, and to some extent still is, view-ing the landscape as something separate,fundamental but not really connected withthe people living upon it (for example thefirst part of the History of the EstonianPeasantry (ETA), published as late as in1992). A new break-through was made inthe 1980s with innovative landscape eco-logical studies and especially in the1990s when the research was diversifiedto the extent that researchers did notunderstand each other while applyingterms in a large variety of meanings. The 2000s have been characterised by anew effort to create common ground andtrans-disciplinary approaches. A signifi-cant landmark was the publication of a col-lection of essays that includes all main sci-entific and popular approaches (Palangand Sooväli, 2001). Simultaneously, land-scape study has lost ground in schoolgeography and as a university discipline(erased from both syllabi as a separatetheme in 2003). Today we can distinguish between fourmain schools of landscape study inEstonia: a systematic approach based on

232 Estonian landscape study: contextual history

IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN

German landscape thought, developinginto a genetic and functional scientificexplanation of corresponding reasons; anatural science based approach focusingon «topoecology», having its roots in theRussian school (introduced by Markus)and becoming dominant in the Sovietperiod; social science and humanisticthought mainly re-introduced in the 1990sand inspired by the Scandinavian andAnglo-American landscape schools; andapplied landscape studies, including

school geography, management andplanning and tourism promotion. Finally,this survey of the Estonian landscapewould not be complete without includingthe research in other parts of (mainly)Europe by both exiled Estonians in thepost-war years and interested foreigners(mainly in the 1990s). The suggestedscheme is not a strict frame for classifica-tion, but will help the readers to orientatethemselves in the different directions oflandscape studies in Estonia.

233BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3

SSYYSSTTEEMMAATTIICC AAPPPPRROOAACCHHEESS IINN EESSTTOONNIIAANN LLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEE RREESSEEAARRCCHH

Generally, the history of scientific and sys-tematic landscape approach in Estonia istraced back to the arrival and influence ofGranö, although the so-called Landschaftprinciple had been adopted in Estonia bythat time and influenced the teaching ofgeography at schools (Rumma, 1922;Paatsi, 1984, 1995). The ideas of Hettnerand Passarge were adopted, although thestudies and the first attempts at systemis-ing were based on the external appear-ance of landscapes. Granö developed theideas of Landschaftskunde, which helinked with the early tradition of «puregeography» (Granö, 1929) consideringperception through sight as well as otherhuman senses. The next stage was the dis-tinguishing of immediate environments thatmoved with the observer on the earth's sur-face in the form of more or less homoge-neous regions by means of a specific car-tographic method. The formation of thoseareas was based on orthographical, hydro-graphical, administrative and anthropo-geographical borderlines (Granö, 1922,1924). According to this principle, he deter-mined 22 distinct landscapes in Estonia,providing new names for some of them.Figure 1 shows the border-zones of land-scape districts with varying strengthdepending on the dissimilarity of adjacentlandscape groups. The second large task embarked on thanksto his initiative was the publication of aseries (Eesti - Estonia) of comprehensivetreatments of the Estonian counties. This

material is still used today for reference inboth historical and geographical research.Granö's was not the first attempt to providea regionalisation of the Estonian land-scapes or define the concept (Kampmann,1917; Matkur, 1921; Rumma, 1922), butwas the most systematic and scientificallygrounded covering the whole territory ofthe new nation state, while the previousones had left areas in between blank (forexamples see Miksikese õppekeskkond2003). The following decades witnessed amethodical and meticulous particularisa-tion of the descriptions of particular land-scapes and their borders. This continued tosome extent in the post-war years, whenthe most significant contributions to thesystematisation of the Estonian landscapeswere made by Endel Varep, the Head andlater Professor of Physical Geography atUniversity of Tartu (Varep, 1964; Varep andMaavara, 1984). Kallio Kildema (1958)published a classification of Estonian landforms, the main principles of which are stillin use. Latest version was published byIvar Arold (2001). Although these divisionsare largely based on geomorphology andphysical features of the landscapes, theyfollow in their main features the system cre-ated by Granö providing a politically neu-tral (the pre-war «foreign» influences wereproclaimed undesirable in the Soviet peri-od) source of reference. Wide use of com-puters and GIS technology (Peterson andAunap, 1998; Aaviksoo, 1993) has reducedthe need for classification of landscape

units in its traditional sense.The most current classification of land-scape as presented on Fig. 2 wasdetailed by Ivar Arold (1993, 2001); lateradjusted by Ülo Mander and Tõnu Oja(1999). The territory of Estonia falls intotwo parts: Lower and Upper Estonia. Theformer comprises the coastal areas andthe inland depressions, which remainedinundated during the Late and Post-glacial periods until about 11 000 yearsago. Upper Estonia embraces the higherareas of uplands.

The so-called Finnish-Estonian school ofgeography was further developed by stu-dents of Granö - August Tammekann(1933) and Edgar Kant (1923, 1933,

1935). These researchers paid equalattention to both natural (geomorphology,water, vegetation) and artificial (mainly thedistribution and shape of rural settle-ments) features. Tammekann developedthe ideas, taking the genesis of the land-scape into account (Roosaare, 1994).Kant (1935) continued his work on urbanlandscapes and introduced new ideas foranalysing the life-world and the ecologicalpreconditions of Estonian landscapes,which later inspired his students in Lund,Sweden, especially Torsten Hägerstrand,in developing time-geography and situa-tional ecology.The division of landscape into natural andcultural ones was first introduced in the1930s. 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).

and industrial) and physical landscapes,were different stages of formation of thecultural landscape (Kurs, 1992) andinsisted that «research, delimitation,description, and explanation of culturallandscapes must follow the same rulesapplicable to geographical study of everyother landscape that is underlining their

artificial character shaped by humanactivities» (Kant, 1933, p. 59). This prima-cy of culture and the human actor in thelandscape was reduced in the Soviet peri-od; the emerging generation of landscaperesearchers concentrated mainly onnature in the landscape.

235BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3

NNAATTUURRAALL SSCCIIEENNCCEE BBAASSEEDD AAPPPPRROOAACCHH

The study of physical landscapes waspursued from the early years of Estonianlandscape research and some innovativework was conducted. For example,Johannes Käis published a work on thelakes of Võru (1923) treating them asecosystems, although not using the term(cited in Arold, 1993). Generally, EduardMarkus is considered as the leading figureof the natural science approach to theEstonian landscapes. Having been edu-cated in Russia, he shared the views ofRussian geographers and soil scientistssuch as Berg and Dokuchayev. Markusaimed at defining the main landscapeunits or ideal landscape embryons basedon soil and vegetation studies (Markus,1925). While Granö concentrated mainlyon finding typical areas that are separatedby diffuse border areas, Markus focusedon borders, especially on the shifts in bor-ders, defining a landscape as a geo-graphical unit only when it is a naturalcomplex. Thus the term landscape,according to him should be used only toindicate a certain group of natural com-plexes (Markus, 1930). The main aim in the post-war years was tocreate a landscape science that wouldestablish a sound theoretical basis andelevate geography to be among funda-mental sciences. The investigations werealso expected to meet the demands ofpractical needs. The change, however,did not result in replacing the conceptused previously, but in a diversification ofthe concept itself (Kildema and Masing,1966; Kildema, 1969). A greater stresswas put on cross-disciplinary studies withphysics (a discipline of geophysics oflandscape) and chemistry (landscape

geochemistry). Geomorphology was seenas the determining factor in landscape for-mation and thus the focus was put on thelandscape genesis. Primarily inventorialstudies, investigating the character of var-ious natural resources and focusing on theclassification of typological units (bed-rock, Pleistocene cover and hydrographi-cal networks, geocomplexes, relief, plantcover; later also forests and mires) wereconducted. Paleogeography and pollenanalysis were applied in examining land-scape formation, developed at theInstitute of Ecology, Tallinn PedagogicalUniversity (Punning, 1994; Punning andKoff, 1997). Many of the original studieswere limited to a description of one type ofphenomena with no means for describinginterrelations, dynamics and developmentprocesses but based on extensive fieldstudies and resulting in painstakingregional descriptions (Arold, 1974;Karukäpp, 1974; Sepp (Ratas), 1974;Hang, 1976; Linkrus, 1976). An innovativeapproach was introduced examining theinteractions between the landscape com-ponents by Urve Ratas (Ratas et al.; 1988)and Are Kont (et al., 1994) presenting theso-called complex profiles or landscapetransects.The aspect of landscape as scenery wassuppressed and such studies discour-aged as old-fashioned. Human beingsand their activities were separated fromthe landscape. In its most radical formpeople were seen as an enemy of naturallandscape, destroying its natural orderand having a negative impact (Eilart,1976; Raukas and Rõuk, 1986). This waspartly a reaction to the large-scale Sovietdevelopment schemes, since the only

possibility for protection of Estoniannature was seen through prohibition andkeeping people away. In its turn, this con-tributed to a further separation of peopleand their life-environment, resulting inheated debate on conservation issues inthe 1990s. Landscape could thus bedefined scientifically only as the basic unitfor determining landscape regions (Arold,1991) or indicating a territorial unit withinterrelated landforms, soils, vegetationand artificial features (Varep, 1964). In the late 1980s, two new approachesemerged, which were (1) a natural-territo-rial system with interrelated purely naturalparts and results of human activities(Ratas and Puurmann, 1995; Ratas et al.,1996; Hellström, 2002), and (2) the «old-fashioned» understanding of landscapeas scenery (EE, 1992, pp. 80-81). Inter-disciplinary studies based on matter

cycling in catchment areas and resultingin computer modelling were alsolaunched (Roosaare, 1984).The re-emergence of the monistic view oflandscape occurred parallel to the accep-tance of the fact that landscape sciencehad failed to meet its aims. Static classifi-cations and regional descriptions werefound incapable of handling landscapecomponents that occur as more or lesscontinuous fields with fuzzy borders. Timewas difficult to integrate into the study,and the dynamics of the landscape as asystem was explained using static andcinematic models (Roosaare, 1989). The ideological breakdown of landscapescience led the physical geographers toseek for new ideas which coincided withthe fall of the Soviet Union. Estonian land-scape research opened up for new per-spectives in physical geography, land-


I Accumulation uplands: I-1 Haanja, I-2 Otepää, I-3 Karula, I-4 Vooremaa; II Abrasional uplands: II-1 Pandivere, II-2 Sakala; III Depressions: III-1 Valga, III-2 Võru-Hargla; IV Plateaus: IV-1 Harju, IV-2 Viru, IV-3 Central Estonian, IV-4 Ugandi,

IV-5 Palumaa, IV-6 Irboska; V Marine coastal lowlands: V-1 Gulf of Finland, V-2 West-Estonian, V-3 Gulf of Riga, V-4 Saaremaa, V-5 Hiiumaa, VI Inland swampy lowlands: VI-1 Alutaguse, VI-2 Peipsi, VI-3 Võrtsjärve, VI-4 Kõrvemaa, VI-5 Soomaa, VI-6 Metsepole.

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

A - border between Upper Estoniaand Lower EstoniaB - border between the outcrops ofSilurian and Devonian sediments

scape ecology and cultural geography.Landscape ecology was promoted by ÜloMander, the current Head and Professorof Physical Geography and LandscapeEcology at the Institute of Geography,University of Tartu, who has established alocal centre with numerous studentsattached both locally and with connec-tions to European networks (Mander et al.,1997, 2000; Mander and Jongman,1998). Interesting transdisciplinaryresearch with combined methods, «a newform of landscape ecology», appearedalongside a general «ecologisation» ofsociety.

International and interdisciplinary collabora-tion increased in the early 1990s. For exam-ple, within the PACT PalaeoecologicalNetwork led by Urve Miller, a Professor ofQuaternary Geology at Stockholm Uni-versity, Estonian researchers and post-grad-uates from various disciplines includinggeology, geography and archaeology wereincluded in an international network. Thishad a significant role in informationexchange, which resulted in several vol-umes dealing with Baltic environmental andcultural history and introducing a new com-bined approach to the environment (PACT37; 50, 51, 57).

237BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3

SSOOCCIIAALL SSCCIIEENNCCEE AANNDD HHUUMMAANNIISSTTIICC AAPPPPRROOAACCHH TTOO LLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEE

Landscape as a visual pattern thus re-emerged in the 1990s and its treatmentwas broadened to cover the perceptionand experience of landscapes in theminds of ordinary people conducted by anew generation of researchers educatedfurther in Europe and inspired by thehumanistic Scandinavian and Anglo-American research (Peil, 1999). A synthe-sis of critical, human and historical geog-raphy, in which landscape is read andinterpreted as a form of cultural praxis,has been created (Peil, 1999; Peil et al.,2002; Alumäe et al., 2003; Kaur et al.,2003; Palang et al., 2003; Sooväli et al.,2003). Palang and Mander (2000) pre-sented a periodisation of cultural land-scape history in Estonia as illustrated inFigure 3. They define five stages of land-scape development and compare thestages with those in Western Europe asdiscussed by Vos and Meekes (1999).Simultaneously, the opening of Estoniaattracted the interest of several Europeangeographers who were interested in theextensive societal changes connected tothe ongoing transition in Estonia, particu-larly in agriculture, the problems and chal-lenges of rurality. Scholars and PhD stu-dents from the Nordic universities as wellas from Great Britain have introduced anew social perspective into the Estonianresearch of landscapes and identity. TheUK scholars Ray Abrahams (1994, 2001)

and Tim Unwin (1998, 1999, 2000) haveexamined the rural transition. A researchgroup led by Professor Göran Hoppe,originally at Stockholm and currently atUppsala University, has conducted exten-sive analyses in the frame of the project«Geographical aspects of the EstonianSwedes. Changes in society, landscapeand cultural meetings during 800 years».Copenhagen University has launchedseveral projects in agriculture, planning,tourism. In social and humanistic landscaperesearch, re-established in the 1990s,landscape is often defined as a socialconstruction, a way of seeing, and therebythe task of the researcher is seen to inter-pret the meaning and symbolism of thelandscape. This covers a variety of disci-plines. Within archaeology inter-discipli-nary studies about early communities andrelations to the land, the shaping of cultur-al landscapes and mythology haveemerged (Ligi, 1992. Valk, 1999; Lang,2000; Mägi, 2001). Research in land-scape history focusing on settlement andland use patterns has mostly been con-ducted by historians (Troska, 1987, 1994;Moora and Lõugas, 1995; Moora, 1998).Folkloristic studies have concentrated onlandscape scenery, its temporal formationand variation – local lore and its connec-tion to the physical setting (Hiiemäe,2001). Semiotics strives to understand the

relationship between memory, culture andlandscape in interpreting the signs andsymbols created by human actors (Kull,2001). The growing interest in landscape,both urban and rural, could be detectedin newly established disciplines in Estoniasuch as landscape architecture, land-scape aesthetics, landscape psychology,

identity and art history (see for exampleLehari, 1997, 1999; Listra, 2001). Criticalgeopolitical research has also contributedto a new understanding of landscapes,marginal areas and borderlands; thesestudies have increased our conscious-ness of presentation and representationof 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).

Providing an overview of all appliedresearch in Estonia in the twentieth cen-tury would be an enormous task, but afew main trends need to be considered.Studies in landscape planning and man-agement have a history going back overforty years and have significantly con-tributed to the popularisation of con-cepts and increase in local knowledge.As planning is seen to guarantee sus-taining the landscapes, severalapproaches have been used to assesstheir sustainability. One of theseapproaches has been the concept ofecological networks, introduced in theearly 1980s and developed currently(Jagomägi, 1983; Jagomägi et al., 1988;Mander et al., 1995; Külvik, 2002). Thisnetwork was developed to counterbal-ance the impact of anthropogenic infra-structure in the landscape. Landscapeapproach had an increasing role in envi-ronmental policy in the 1990s (MoE,1997; MoE, 1998). A project with aninnovative approach to landscape –«Environmental conditions significant insettlement and land use patterns» waslaunched by the Ministry of the

Environment and covers the whole terri-tory of the Republic of Estonia. The so-called valuable landscapes are deter-mined in each county and connected tothe ecological network. The Ministry hasproduced several popular booklets forbest land use practices to preserve thediversity of landscapes and biodiversitywhile taking into consideration the levelof economic development.The most recent development in appliedlandscape research was launched by theEstonian Tourist Board in co-operationwith the Estonian Ecotourism Association(ETB, 2000; Sarv, 1999). Dividing Estoniainto five «lands» for tourism promotionmay be considered the most radical re-orientation in landscape systematisationsince Granö. The division is supposedlybased on physical and cultural condi-tions, following the borders of formerparishes, the borders of which are arguedto follow natural divides as well. The re-introduction of the Estonian ancient wordfor land – maa – in the names of artificial-ly construed «fifth-lands» is an interestingindication of new myth creation made toserve exclusively commercial purposes.

239BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3

AAPPPPLLIIEEDD LLAANNDDSSCCAAPPEE SSTTUUDDIIEESS

IINN CCOONNCCLLUUSSIIOONN

The history of Estonian landscaperesearch is limited to the twentieth centu-ry. The German systematic and scientificnotion of landscape (Landschaft) hasbeen a dominant trend, but Estonianlandscape study has had numerousundercurrents and exciting interactionswith other disciplines from the naturaland social sciences, as well as the

humanities. Conceptualisation and con-textualisation in the current plurality ofmeanings and concepts are the newchallenges that the dynamic landscapestudy is facing in Estonia, although ifnothing else, its ninety-year old turbulenthistory has provided the tools for adapta-tion and persistence.

• AAVIKSOO K. (1993), Application ofMarkov Models in Investigation ofVegetation and Land Use Dynamics inEstonian Mire Systems, Tartu UniversityPress, Tartu.• ABRAHAMS R. (1994), «The regenera-tion of family farming in Estonia»,Sociologia Ruralis, 34 (4), pp. 354-368.• ABRAHAMS R. (ed.) (2001), AfterSocialism: Land Reform & Rural SocialChange in Eastern Europe, BerghahnBooks, Incorporated. • ALUMÄE H., PRINTSMANN A., PALANGH. (2003), «Cultural and historical valuesin landscape planning: locals' percep-tion», in PALANG H. & FRY G. (eds.),Landscape Interfaces. Cultural Heritagein Changing Landscapes, Boston,Dordrecht, London, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, pp. 125-147.• AROLD I. (1974), Administratiivrajoonilooduslike tingimuste ja ressurssidekäsitlus kompleksse territoriaalplaneerim-ise vajadusteks (Eesti NSV Võru rajooninäitel), PhD thesis, Manuscript, TartuState University, Department of PhysicalGeography.• AROLD I. (1991), Eesti maastikud,University of Tartu, Tartu.• AROLD I. (1993), Estonian landscapes:factors of landscape formation and land-scape investigation in Estonia. Land-scape regions, University of Tartu, Tartu.• AROLD I. (2001), Eesti maastikulineliigestatus, University of Tartu, Tartu.• BERG E. (ed.) (2002), Eesti tähen-dused, piirid ja kontekstid, TartuUniversity Press, Tartu.• EE (1992), Eesti Entsüklopeedia, vol. 6,80-81, Tallinn, Valgus.• ETA – Eesti talurahva ajalugu, 1 kd,KAHK J., TARVEL E. (eds.) (1992), Olion,Tallinn. • EILART J. (1976), Man. Culture.Ecosystem, Perioodika, Tallinn.• ETB (2000), Avasta Eestimaa uutmoodi,Estonian Tourist Board (see alsowww.tourism.ee).• GRANÖ J.G. (1922), «Eesti maastikulisedüksused», Loodus I, 2, pp.105-123; 4, pp.193-214; 5, pp. 257-281.• GRANÖ J.G. (1924), «Maastikuteaduse

ülesanded ja maastiku vormide süs-teem», Loodus III, 4, pp. 171-190.• GRANÖ J.G. (1929), «ReineGeographie. Eine methodologischeStudie beleuchtet mit Beispielen ausFinnland und Estland», ActaGeographica, 2, 2. • HANG E. (1976), «Surface relief andgeological structure as causes of land-scape peculiarities in the OtepääUpland», Acta et CommentationesUniversitatis Tartuensis 393, Tartu, pp. 3-24.• HELLSTRÖM K. (2002), AgriculturalReforms and Policies Reflected in theFarming Landscapes of Hiiumaa from1850 to 2000, PhD thesis, SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences,Alnarp.• HIIEMÄE M. (2001), «Maastik jakohapärimus», in PALANG H., SOOVÄLIH. (eds.) (2001), Maastik: loodus ja kultu-ur. Maastikukäsitlusi Eestis, PublicationesInstituti Geographici UniversitatisTartuensis, 91, pp. 86-96.• INDREKO R. (1934), «Looduse jamaastiku määrav osa Eesti muinasaegselasustamisel», Eesti Rahva MuuseumiAastaraamat, IX-X, pp.113-122.• JAGOMÄGI J. (1983), «Ökoloogiliselttasakaalustatud maa», Eesti Loodus, 4,pp. 219-224.• JAGOMÄGI J., KÜLVIK M. & MANDERÜ. (1988), «The role of ecotones in land-scape», Acta et Comm. Univ. Tartuensis,808, pp. 96-118. • JÄRVET A., KASK I. (1998), «Eestimaastikud alt- ja pealtvaates», EestiLoodus, 8, pp. 347-349.• KAMPMANN M. (1917), Kodumaatund-mise õpeviis, G. Pihlakas, Tallinn.• KANT E. (1923), Otepää: loodus jainimene, Postimees, Tartu.• KANT E. (1933), «Geograafia, sot-siograafia ja antropo-ökoloogia», EestiLooduseuurijate Seltsi Aruanded, XXXIX,pp. 32-91.• KANT E. (1935), Bevölkerung undLebensraum Estlands. Ein antropoökolo-gischer Beitrag zur Kunde Baltoskandia,Akadeemiline Kooperatiiv, Tartu.• KARUKÄPP R. (1974), «On the relief of


RREEFFEERREENNCCEESS

Karula Elevation», EGS AR 1973, pp. 36-51.• KAUR E., PALANG H., SOOVÄLI H.(2004), «Landscapes in Change -Opposing attitudes in Saaremaa, Estonia,Landscape and Urban Planning, 67, 1-4,pp.109-120.• KILDEMA K. (1958), Muldade kivisuseuurimise metoodika ja uurimistulemusedEesti NSV-s, PhD thesis, Manuscript.Estonian Research Institute for Agricultureand Land Amelioration (EMMTUI).• KILDEMA K. (1969), «Eesti NSVmaastikulisest liigestusest», TallinnaBotaanikaaia Toimetised, III, pp. 5-15.• KILDEMA K., MASING V. (1965),«Maastikuteaduse arenguteest», EestiLoodus, 5, pp. 257-263, 6, pp. 321-328.• KRIISKA A. (1996), «Viron rannikkoalueenasustus ja pyyntikulttuurin erikoistuminenkivikaudella», Muinastutkija, 4, pp. 1-6.• KONT A, KULL O., ROOMA I.,MAKARENKO D., ZOBEL M. (1994), «Thekame field ecosystems studied by land-scape transects», in PUNNING J.-M.(ed.), The influence of natural andanthoropgentic factors on the develop-ment of landscapes. The results of a com-prehensive study in NE Estonia,Publications of Institute of Ecology, 2,pp. 161-189.• KULL K. (2001), «Mis tähendab met-sarahvas: looduse loodud eestlastest jatema maastike keelest», in PALANG H.,SOOVÄLI H. (eds.) (2001), Maastik: lood-us ja kultuur. Maastikukäsitlusi Eestis,Publicationes Instituti GeographiciUniversitatis Tartuensis, 91, pp. 96-105.• KURS O. (1992), «Scientific heritage ofEdgar Kant», Estonia. Man and Nature,Estonian Geographical Society, Tallinn,pp. 108-128.• KURS O. (1997), «Maantieteellisteninstituutioiden kehitys Virossa/Development of geographical institutionsin Estonia», Terra, 109, 4, pp.189-197.• KURS O. (2003), Institutions of Geographyin Estonia, http://www.geo.ut.ee/english/index.html 19.03.03.• KÜLVIK M. (2002), Ecological networksin Estonia – concepts and applications,PhD thesis, Tartu University Press, Tartu.• LANG V. (2000), Keskusest ääremaaks,Viljelusmajandusliku asustuse kujunemineja areng Vihasoo-Palmse piirkonnas

Virumaal. Lisad 2-7: Kalman J., Maldre L.& Saluäär U. Muinasaja teadus, 7. AjalooInstituut, Tallinn.• LEHARI K. (ed.) (1997), «Ruum.Keskkond. Koht», Eesti Kunstiakadeemiatoimetisi, Tallinn.• LEHARI K. (1999), «Kultuurmaastikuuurimisest», Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri, 3/2,pp. 160-161.• LIGI H. (1963), Põllumajanduslik maaka-sutus Eestis 16.-17. sajandil, Tallinn,ENSV TA Ajaloo Instituut.• LIGI P. (1992), «The prehistory ofSaaremaa», in HACKENS T., LANG V.,MILLER U. (eds.), Estonia: nature, manand cultural heritage, PACT 3, pp. 163-73.• LINKRUS E. (1976), «The glint head-lands and glint bays in the LahemaaNational Park», Acta et CommentationesUniversitatis Tartuensis, 156, 4, pp. 43-54. • LISTRA L. (ed.) (2001), Eesti identiteetja iseseisvus, Avita, Tallinn.• LÕUGAS V. (1980), «Põllumajandus-maastiku ajaloost Eestis», in AASALO L.(ed.), Põllumajandusmaastik Eestis,Tallinn, Valgus, pp. 50-84.• MANDER Ü., JAGOMÄGI J., KÜLVIK M.(1988), «Network of compensative areasas an ecological infrastrucutre of territo-ries», Coll. K. F. Schreiber: Connectivity inLandscape Ecology, Münstersche Geo-graphische Arbeiten, 29, pp. 35-38.• MANDER Ü., KUUSEMETS V., LÕHMUSK., MAURING T. (1997), «Efficiency anddimensioning of riparian buffer zones inagricultural catchments», EcologicalEngineering, 8, pp. 299-324. • MANDER Ü., JONGMAN R. H. G.(1998), «Human impact on rural land-scapes in central and northern Europe»,Landscape and Urban Planning, 41, 3-4,pp. 149-154. • MANDER Ü., KULL A., KUUSEMETS V.(2000), «Nutrient flows and land usechange in a rural catchment: a modellingapproach», Landscape Ecology, 45, 3,pp. 187-199. • MANDER Ü., OJA T. (1999), «Eestimaastike omapära ja sellest tulenevadökoloogilised iseärasused», in T. FREY(ed.), Loodusliku mitmekesisuse kaitseviisid ja vahendid, IM Saare, pp. 14-30.• MARKUS E. (1925), «Die Transgressiondes Moores über den Sandwall beiLaiwa», Sitzungsber. Naturforscher-

241BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3

Gesellschaft Univ. Tartu, XXXII, 1-2.• MARKUS E. (1926), «Verschreibung derNaturkomplexe in Europa», Geogra-phische Zeitschrift, 33 (10), pp. 516-541.• MARKUS E. (1930), «Naturkomplexevon Alatskivi», Acta Comm. Univ.Tartuensis, A XVIII, 8.• MATKUR A. (1921), Maateadusealgõpetus [Eesti algkoolide IV. õpeaastakursus], I. wihk M. Tamverk, Haapsalu.• Miksikese õppekeskkond (2003),http://www.miksike.ee/lisa/6klass/3linnas-tumine/liigendus.htm, 19.03.03.• MoE (1997), Estonian NationalEnvironmental Strategy, Ministry of theEnvironment, Tallinn.• MoE (1998), Estonian NationalEnvironmental Action Plan, Ministry of theEnvironment, Tallinn. • MOORA H., LÕUGAS L. (1995),«Natural conditions at the time of primaryhabitation of Hiiumaa Island», Proceed-ings of Estonian Academy of Sciences,Humanities and Social Sciences, 4,pp. 472-81.• MOORA T. (1974), «Maastiku jamuinasaja maaviljelusliku asustuseseostest», in TARMISTO V. (ed.), Harjurajoonis, TA Kodu-uurimise Komisjon,Tallinn, pp. 130-141.• MOORA T. (1998), «Muistsete loodu-solude osast kiviaja asustuse kujunemiselKunda ümbruses, Loodus, inimene jatehnoloogia, Interdistsiplinaarseiduurimusi arheoloogias», Muinasajateadus, 5, pp. 13-151.• MÄGI M. (2001), At the crossroads ofspace and time: graves, changing societyand ideology on Saaremaa (Ösel), 9th-13th centuries AD, Tallinna Raamatu-trükikoda, Tallinn. • PAATSI V. (1984), «Eesti maastikulisedliigestused kooligeograafias», EestiLoodus, 6, pp. 353-359.• PAATSI V. (1995), Eesti maastikulisedliigestused kooligeograafias 1917-1944,Kultuurikeskus, Tartu.• PACT 37 (1992), Estonia: Nature, Manand Cultural Heritage, Proceedings of aRound Table held at Tallinn, April 1991, T.Hackens, V. Lang, U. Miller (eds.).• PACT 50 (1996), Landscapes and Life,dedicated to Professor Urve Miller, V.Lang, S. Hicks (eds.).• PACT 51, (1996), Environmental and

cultural history of coastal Estonia: recentadvances, S. Hicks, V. Lang, U. Miller, L.Saarse (eds.).• PACT 57, (1999), Environmental andcultural history of the Eastern BalticRegion, U. Miller, T. Hackens, V. Lang, A.Raukas, S. Hicks (eds.).• PALANG H., MANDER Ü. (2000),«Maastiku muutused Eestis», in FREY T.(ed.), Kaasaegse ökoloogia probleemidVIII: Loodusteaduslikud ülevaated EestiMaa Päeval. Eesti VIII Ökoloogiakonver-entsi lühiartiklid, Tartu, pp. 169-180.• PALANG H., MANDER Ü., O. KURS O.,SEPP K. (2000), «The concept of land-scape in Estonian geography», EstonianGeographical Society, pp. 154-169.• PALANG H., SOOVÄLI H. (eds.) (2001),«Maastik: loodus ja kultuur. Maastiku-käsitlusi Eestis», Publicationes InstitutiGeographici Universitatis Tartuensis, 91.• PALANG H., ALUMÄE H., PRINTS-MANN A., SEPP K. (2004), «Landscapevalues and context in planning: anEstonian model», in BRANDT J., VEJREH. (eds.), Multifunctional landscapes –volume 1: Theory, values and history,Southampton, Wessex Institute ofTechnology Press, pp. 219-233.• PEIL T. (1999), «Islescapes. Estoniansmall islands through three centuries»,Stockholm Studies in Human Geography,8, Almqvist & Wiksell International,Stockholm.• PEIL T. (2001), «Maastike keskel», inPALANG, H., SOOVÄLI H. (eds.) (2001),Maastik: loodus ja kultuur. Maastiku-käsitlusi Eestis, Publicationes InstitutiGeographici Universitatis Tartuensis, 91,pp. 57-67. • PEIL T., RATAS U., NILSON E. (eds.)(2002), Alasti maailm: Kolga lahe saared,Tallinna Raamatutrükikoda, Tallinn.• PETERSON U., AUNAP R. (1998),«Changes in agricultural land use inEstonia in the 1990s detected with multi-temporal Landsat imagery», Landscapeand Urban Planning, 33.• PUNNING J-M., KOFF T. (1997), «Thelandscape factor in the formation of Pollenrecords in lake sediments», Paleo-limnology, 18, pp. 33-44.• RATAS U., PUURMANN E., KOKOVKINT. (1988), Genesis of islets' geocomplex-es in the Väinameri (the West Estonian


Inland Sea), Academy of Sciences(Preprint TBA-8), Tallinn 41, pp. 193-201.• RATAS U., PUURMANN E., KOKOVKINT. (1996), «Long-term changes in insularlandscapes on the example of Vohilaid,West-Estonia», Estonia. GeographicalStudies, Estonian Academy Publishers,Tallinn, pp. 90-106.• RATAS U., PUURMANN E. (1995),«Human impact on the landscape ofsmall islands in the West EstonianArchipelago», Journal of CoastalConservation (1), pp. 119-26.• RAUKAS A., RÕUK A.-M. (1986),«Inimmõjust Eestis läbi aastatuhandete»,Eesti maastike kujunemine ja kaitse,Academy of Sciences, Tallinn, pp. 39-41.• ROOSAARE J. (1984), «A computersimulation model for the territorial systemsof intensive agriculture», Acta etCommentationes Universitatis Tartuensis,676, pp. 87-103, Tartu.• ROOSAARE J. (1989), «Miks ei täitunudmaastikuteadusele asetatud suured loo-tused», in Looduslikud protsessid ja inim-mõju Eesti maastikes. E. Markuse 100.sünniaastapäevale pühendatud nõupi-damise ettekannete lühikokkuvõtted,Tallinn-Tartu, pp. 44-47.• ROOSAARE J. (1994), «PhysicalGeography in Estonia: Bridging Westernand Eastern Schools of LandscapeSynthesis», GeoJournal, 33,1, pp. 27-36.• RÕUK A.-M. (1974), «Morphologicalvariety of drumlins and drumlin-like ridgesin Saadjärve drumlin field», EstonianGeographical Society Yearbook 1973,pp. 5-35.• RUMMA J. (1922), Üldine maateadus,Loodus, Tartu.• SARV M. (1999), «Maapooled ja maavi-iendikud», Eesti Loodus, 7, pp. 268-270.• SEPP U., (1974), Hiiumaa maastikulineiseloomustus, Valgus, Tallinn. • SOOVÄLI H., PALANG H., KAUR E.,PEIL T., VERMANDERE I. (2003),«Combining approaches in landscaperesearch. The case of Saaremaa,Estonia», in PALANG H., FRY G. (eds.),Landscape Interfaces. Cultural Heritage

in Changing Landscapes, Boston,Dordrecht, London, Kluwer AcademicPublishers, pp. 357-375.• TAMMEKANN A. (1933), «Eestimaastikutüübid», Publ. Inst. Geogr. Univ.Tartuensis, XXXIX, pp. 3-21.• TROSKA G. (1987), Eesti külad XIXsajandil, Estonian Academy of Sciences,Institute of History, Tallinn. • TROSKA G. (1994), «Eesti maa-asulatearengujooni XIX sajandi teisel poolel»,Eesti Teaduste Akadeemia Toimetised,Humanitaar- ja sotsiaaltedused, 43 (2),pp. 146-168.• UNWIN T. (1998), «Rurality and the con-struction of the nation in Estonia», inPICKLES J., SMITH A. (eds.), Theorizingtransition: the political economy ofchange in central and eastern Europe,London, Routledge, pp. 284-306.• UNWIN T. (1999), «Place, territory andnational identity: an interpretation ofEstonia», in HERB G., KAPLAN D. (eds.),Nested identities: nationalism, territoryand scale, Rowman and Littlefield,Lanham, pp. 151-176.• UNWIN T. (2000), «Estonia», in HALLD.R. & DANTA D. (eds.), Europe goesEast: EU enlargement, diversity anduncertainty, Stationery Office, London,pp. 131-154.• VAHTRE S. (1970), «IlmastikuoludestEestis 18. ja 19. sajandil (kuni 1870) janende mõjust põllumajandusele ning talu-rahva olukorrale», Publ. Univ. Tartuensis,258, pp. 43-159.• VALK H. (1999), «Maastikust, muististestja mõtteviisist», Eesti Arheoloogia Ajakiri,3, 2, pp. 165-169. • VAREP E. (1964), «The landscaperegions of Estonia», Transactions of TartuState University, Publications onGeography 156 (4), pp. 3-28.• VAREP E., MAAVARA V. (eds.), (1984),Eesti maastikud, Eesti Raamat, Tallinn.• VOS W., MEEKES H. (1999), «Trends inEuropean cultural landscape develop-ment: perspectives for a sustainablefuture», Landscape and Urban Planning,46, pp. 3-14.

243BELGEO • 2004 • 2-3


Tiina PeilDepartment of Geography, NTNU; Trondheim, Norway

[email protected]

Helen Sooväli, Hannes Palang, Tõnu Oja, Ülo ManderInstitute of Geography, University of Tartu, Estonia

[email protected],[email protected]

[email protected]@ut.ee

manuscript submitted in September 2003; revised in October 2003

estonian landscape study: contextual history

Documents