Selective Information from Historical Geographers:

The case of the Dutch area of Piksen

What this study is aboutKnowledge and values on cultural landscapes and heritage - hence information –

typically underlie landscape and spatial policies, plans, designs and management.

Selective inclusion of objects and aspects in that information is common, yet not

trivial. As it turns out, selections may vary considerably, both in types and amounts.

Purpose, context, scale and administrative level, supposed needs, perceptions, and

who are making and selecting the information are all at play.

As historical geographers are among the main people to select this type of information,

the question arose what they personally (would) do.

This study concentrates on ‘what’, although ‘how’ and ‘why’ are crucial as well. To

minimize the influence of pre-existing personal knowledge, values, and perceptions,

the little-known cultural landscape of the Dutch Piksen area (in the province of

Overijssel)[-] was chosen. For the same reason the assignment took information

without toponyms as the starting point. The annual Dutch cultural landscape

(NCH) conference of 2009 – held in Overijssel - provided the ideal opportunity to

approach landscape history professionals (108 registered, 99 people present + 1 more

afterwards => a total of 100 people as the research sample).

Relation to PhD ResearchThis study is part of a PhD research project on information and communication

regarding landscape and cultural history from a local perspective. In this field

several ‘worlds’ coincide and interact: those of information and communication

on one hand, those of landscape, cultural history and heritage on the other. The

local perspective is the reference frame for the project. The central issue is what,

how, and why actors do in indirect information/communication forms like GISses,

documents, websites, etc. Actors may use free language (e.g. text), structured

language (data, like in GIS) and visualization (e.g. maps, pictures), or combinations

of all these (‘multimodal’). All those means and forms act and perform differently

themselves, hence they differ in both affordances and performances. Every aspect –

e.g. content, presentation, and interactions – contributes to that. Hence, insight in

what and how is done in information and communication, is essential.

This study of Piksen concentrates on ‘what’ professionals (‘who’) personally do

towards content, in a predefined context, leaving other aspects out.

Area of ‘Piksen’

“The soil consists mainly of sand - which used to be (mainly wet)

heath land or peat - and of peat, with gravel or moraines

beneath the surface. In the centre area there are two small ice-

pushed moraine ridges surrounded by parabolic cover-sand

ridges (map 1). The edges of the area consist of slightly higher

ice-pushed moraine ridges in the east and a rain-fed stream in

the west. This complex is well preserved (map 4).

On the southern cover-sand ridge are prehistoric burial mounds

and urn fields. At or near the ice-pushed moraines and the

stream valley are traces of Stone Age and Iron Age settlements

and megalithic tombs, as well as of early medieval houses. In

peat areas there are also some archaeological finds (e.g.

Roman fibulae).

In the centre area habitation began quite late. But at least from

the 13th century on the moraines and cover-sand ridges

provided for a main east-west road through the (big) marshlands

in this part of Overijssel. The road came in from the west at a

ford in the river, near two castles. At least one castle had much

to endure. In the 14th century the bishop of Utrecht took on a

punitive expedition against this ‘greedy’ castle because of its

high toll tariffs. In 1672 the bishop of Münster (Germany) took

this road in his attack on Holland and destroyed the area. A third

castle stood a little further south along the river. Near this

location a Stone Age settlement has been found. In the north-

south direction there was a main road following the river banks.

All three castles have disappeared in the 18th or 19th century,

but ruins or traces are still present.

The land in the centre area consisted of common lands of five

municipalities (called ‘marke’: cf. Gemeinde, parish) before

1800 and two after 1850, located in two different main

administrative regions. Habitation started again around 1750

on the northern cover-sand ridge. After the splitting up of the

common lands in 1841-1852 into private ownerships at first just

the northeast marshlands were divided into narrow but long

parcels (Map 2). The remaining land got reclaimed after 1900 -

in many cases after being sold, expropriated and/or dug out for

turf - and got different parcellations (Map 3). Originally

farmhouses stood mainly on or near river banks and ice-pushed

moraine ridges, while later-on expanding to the cover-sand

ridges and spreading out after the reclamation. Field names like

‘Curved fields’, ‘The Colony’ (also a hamlet) and ‘New Ground’

are witnesses of the development since 1750. The old east-west

road lost its significance after a new road was built further to the

south around 1830. A part got lost in the reclamation (with many

new roads), but another part is still functional. There are no

farmhouses left from before 1850, but there are some

characteristic houses dating from the reclamation period, like

farmhouses and an estate’s steward/game keeper’s house.”

The historic landscape professionals at the conference were asked to indicate in a

quick assessment – about 15 minutes - which elements (words, sentences, and

interrelationships) they found relevant or interesting to record, either as knowledgeor as values. The aim was to get a more or less ‘automatic’ response.

The resulting data, description, and/or map – there was a hint towards the possible use

of GIS – would serve as a basis for local plans, landscape management,

education, etc. The assignment was complemented by a small number of

questions about the respondents’ backgrounds.

The number of respondents was 24 in total. After the conference the non-respondents

were asked by e-mail why they had not responded. Response came from 49 people:

2 had already done the assignment, 9 were not present, 38 indicated why they did not respond, leaving 33 unknown.

Organization and response The Piksen area

Map 1 - Soil map 1976 Map 2 – Topographic Map 1850

Map 3 – Topographic map 1942 Map 4 – Topographic Map 2004

Indicating knowledge and values:

Overall results:

(all text)

(all text)

Archaeologists Historical Geographers

J. Sophie Visser, M.Sc., M.A.Consultant LandZij / PhD Student Utrecht University

j.s.visser[at]planet.nlLandZij

Statistics on indicated

terms (non-unique)

For Knowledge For Values

Mean Standard

deviation

Mean Standard

deviation

By Archaeologists 35* 16 10 7

By Hist. Geogr. 49* 22 22 15

All respondents 51 25 18 12

* Archaeologists: 5 between 24 and 37, 1 had 56 terms; Hist. Geogr.: 14, 20, 21, 38, 42, 53, 74, 88, 88 terms

Themes

and terms

(unique)

Knowledge Values Knowledge* Values*

Both

disciplines

Both

disciplines

Espec.

Archaeol.

Espec.

Hist. Geogr.

Espec.

Archaeol .

Espec.

Hist. Geogr.

Soil Sand, peat Other soils Sand

Land-forms

All ridges Cover-sand ridges

Stream valley

Stream/ river Moraine ridges

Archaeol. finds/ traces

Burial mounds, urn fields,ME houses

Burial mounds, urn fields,

Other finds(not all)

Prehistoric settlements

Castles Castle 1, 2Ruins & traces

Ruins & traces Castle 3 Castle 3

Roads, ford

Old E-W / N-S roads + ford

Old E-W road New roads Ford New roads

Parcels GenerallyHabitation Farm-

steadsgenerally

Characteristic houses > 1900

Characteristic houses > 1900

History, Geography

Generally >1900

* Knowledge: indicated by > 4 archeologists and > 6 hist. geographers; Values: > 4 resp. 5 respondents

Selected ‘official’ informationAvailability of information on ‘cultural history’ depends on: - Information level: State, Provincial, Municipal (2x), otherwise- Information makers: Disciplinary, authorities, local experts, ………..- View on object/area: Cultural or physical landscape, or heritage, or

nature, or land use, or …………… - Information form: (GIS) map, and/or report, book, website, …. - Information goal: Policy/values, informative/knowledge,

persuasive/expressive, ………..

Analysis of results

Results:

-Overall difference between knowledge and values statistically significant (Wilcoxonmatched-pairs signed-ranks test), other results indicative (small groups) -Results partly surprising, partly not:

-Surprising (1) : variation in the indicated number of terms, especially for knowledge,

-Surprising (2) : variation in comprised terms/themes-Less surprising : - differences in the number of terms for knowledge resp. values

- differences in comprised terms/themes by Archaeologists and Historical Geographers

Area description, assigment, (non-)response:

- Area description: adequate- Respondents: -some: making the distinction knowledge/values is difficult

-most: ‘good’ or ‘satisfying’ on area description and/or method of indicating terms

-Time-dependent answers => older respondents indicated that answerswould have been different 10,20, or 30 years ago

- Non-respondents: - most: ‘no time’, ‘not right person’- some: ‘distinction knowledge/values’ difficult or incorrect, or

difficult assignment, or inadequate description-almost all: ‘interesting study’