Bridging Natural and Cultural Heritage Management: Recommendations for Present and Former Raised Bog Areas

ABSTRACT

Raised bogs (peat moss-dominated wetlands) are under environmental pressure but valued for their specific biodiversity and climate-mitigating potential. Strong efforts to restore these unique ecosystems contrast with a limited focus on cultural heritage management in bogs, putting their exceptional cultural heritage at risk. We take a new perspective on cultural heritage management in bog remnants and make recommendations for measures synergetic to their natural and cultural heritage. We focus on tangible cultural remains on the surface of bog remnants and surrounding former bog areas in the Netherlands, where bogs have long been under exceptional use and environmental pressure. To reach this objective, we first (1) explore the range and diversity of tangible cultural remains on the land surface through analysis of three case studies, (2) conduct a systematic inventory of how such cultural remains are currently incorporated in land management in and around 17 bog remnants, and (3) based on that develop a range of recommendations for improved integral management. We illustrate how preserving and displaying cultural remains can be aligned with the achievement of ecological goals in bog nature reserves.

KEYWORDS:

• Cultural remains
• heritage management
• nature management
• Natura 2000
• raised bogs
• The Netherlands

Introduction

Raised bogs are peat moss-dominated wetlands that consist of organic soils, and once covered large parts of western and northern Europe and the Low Countries in particular.¹ However, most bog areas in Europe including the Netherlands, the main focal area of this study, have disappeared since 1000 CE due to large-scale peat extraction and agricultural reclamation.² In continental western and central Europe, less than 10% of the original peatland area is left.³ Since 1900, most remaining bogs have become nature reserves. Consequently, their management aims primarily at conserving and restoring the special ecological values (flora and fauna) and ecosystem functioning of bogs. Since conserved and restored bogs may function as net carbon sinks,⁴ climate mitigation has become an important additional goal of bog conservation.⁵ To achieve these biodiversity and climate mitigation goals, many bog remnants and surrounding former boglands across Europe have over the last decades been subjected to restoration and rewetting projects, which often involve significant landscape interventions.⁶

There is growing awareness that large-scale bog restoration projects can only be successful with the support of local communities.⁷ Cultural remains of past human landscape practices may contribute to such local support, since these remains constitute an important way in which people feel connected to their environment.⁸ Cultural remains can be both tangible objects or structures from the past, or intangible traditions, stories and placenames connected to the landscape. They may be valued as carriers of meaning, memory, and identity and hence considered as heritage by local residents and/or the general public.⁹ When a landscape is subject to (imminent) change, people often express concern about the handling or the future of this heritage. This is in particular true for bog landscapes subject to new conservation policies or restoration projects. Recent examples across Europe show that fear of loss of tangible or intangible heritage often is a central argument for resistance within local communities.¹⁰ But despite its evident importance, bog-related cultural heritage has received relatively little attention in bog conservation and restoration management.¹¹

From a stratigraphic perspective, we can distinguish sub-peat, intra-peat, and supra-peat cultural remains (Figure 1).¹² The former two categories comprise archaeological features and artefacts, while supra-peat remains include younger human-made structures engraved to the ground surface, built objects, and intangible heritage such as placenames and bog-related stories (Table 1). Bog-related cultural remains are not limited to the remaining bogs themselves. The surrounding areas often also harbour cultural remains connected to former peat extraction and/or bog reclamation.¹³

Figure 1. Schematic cross-section of a bog remnant with surrounding drylands and indicating the stratigraphical distinction between supra-peat, intra-peat, and sub-peat layers. The three layers harbour different types of cultural remains (cf. Gearey et al. 2010). Mineral soils represented in light grey, peat soils in black.

Table 1. Simplified overview of common cultural remain types (with examples) in (former) bog landscapes classified according to bog use stage and stratigraphical position (on land surface, within, or underneath peat deposit). This article focuses on visible tangible remains at the land surface (intangible remains indicated in italic).

	CULTURAL REMAINS DATING FROM:
	BEFORE START OF BOG GROWTH	BETWEEN START OF BOG GROWTH AND START OF PEAT MINING	PEAT MINING	AFTER PEAT MINING
SUPRA-PEAT		Traces of buckwheat burning culture -shallow ditch systems Traces of bovenveen use (agriculture practiced on superficially drained bog) -elongated narrow strip parcels -former house places (e.g. indicated by specific plant species) Traces of bog reclamation for agriculture Traces of bog use as common land and/or borderland -boundary markers Traces of military defence use -dikes to retain water in bog (leidijken) -sconces and other fortifications	Traces of large-scale commercial peat mining: -local relief differences, disturbed peat profiles Infrastructure -canals for drainage and transport Settlements and industrial buildings (outside bog remnants) -churches for peat workers -peat-colonial villages -peat-processing factories Traces of small-scale peat mining: -local relief differences, disturbed peat profiles (on a relatively small scale) -small square or round turf pits -shallow peat dredging ponds -transport tracks (peat dikes)	Traces of use as nature reserve -blocked drainage ditches -dikes for water retention Traces of use as recreation area -boardwalks, footpaths, vantage points, information boards, visitor centres Traces of peat-colonial land use (outside bog remnants) -peat-colonial farmsteads -regular parcellations -infrastructure (e.g. road system, polder pumping stations)
		Specific placenames Folklore Bog-related stories	Specific placenames Folklore Bog-related stories	Specific placenames
INTRA-PEAT		Embedded (waterlogged) archaeological remains -wooden trackways, platforms -extraction sites (e.g. fishing stations) -waste dumps -bog bodies -‘ritual’ sites (e.g. ‘votive’ offerings)
SUB-PEAT	Archaeological remains in the mineral soil on which the bog developed -settlement sites (e.g. stone age camp sites) -burial sites (e.g. megaliths)

Just like the bog ecosystems themselves, the cultural remains embedded in their peat deposits or engraved to their surface are under pressure from drainage, atmospheric pollutant nitrogen inputs and climate change.¹⁴ In reclaimed boglands land consolidation, large-scale rewetting projects and other land use changes may endanger the cultural remains present there. Large-scale rewetting projects for ecological bog restoration may benefit intra-peat cultural remains, as their long-term preservation also needs permanently wet conditions in the peat deposits. But ecological restoration sometimes requires excavation of mineralised residual peat and this may put cultural remains present therein at risk.¹⁵ Consequently, there is a risk that ecological restoration projects have a negative rather than a positive impact on the long-term preservation of bog-related tangible heritage.

Previous research on cultural remains in bogs has mainly focused on archaeology.¹⁶ This largely concerns sub- or intra-peat remains, which are notoriously difficult to predict spatially and are generally encountered by chance. In contrast, the relatively younger supra-peat remains are often clearly visible in the field as well as on spatial imagery such as aerial photographs and digital elevation models. Studies describing the spatial layout and main landscape structures of medieval bog reclamations and large-scale peat mining landscapes in the Netherlands and adjacent areas worked from a historical-geographical rather than a heritage perspective.¹⁷ The latter perspective was central to Raven’s contribution on the Bargerveen, which had a biographic rather than systematic inventory approach.¹⁸ In sum, while tangible supra-peat remains in and around extant bog reserves are of particular importance to local communities and support for restoration projects, this bog-related heritage category has so far been underexposed in academic research.

Our aim is to take a new perspective on the management of tangible cultural remains at the surface of (former) bogs by indicating how it could be better aligned with ecological objectives. To reach this goal, we first need to understand in more detail the nature and range of tangible supra-peat remains in and around bog remnants, and what role such remains currently play in bog management. We focus specifically on tangible supra-peat remains since tensions between local residents and nature management organisations in bog areas are often related to or even caused by precisely this category of cultural remains as opposed to the more elusive sub- and intra-peat remains.¹⁹ Ultimately, we aim (1) to contribute to improving the conservation and experience of – as well as the engagement with – bog-related heritage and (2) to increase mutual understanding and support among bog area managers, heritage management agencies, and local residents.

To achieve this objective, we formulated the following research questions:

1. What types of tangible cultural remains can we expect on the surface of raised bog remnants and adjacent former bog landscapes?

2. To what extent and how are cultural remains incorporated in current management plans for Dutch raised bog reserves?

3. How can tangible cultural remains on the land surface be integrated into the management of (former) raised bogs in a way that benefits the cultural remains while not compromising ecological and climate mitigation goals?

The Netherlands is a particularly suitable study area, given its varied and comparatively intensive bog use history. Consequently, a remarkably diverse set of bog-related cultural remains can be expected here, representing much of the likely European range of bog-related cultural remains. To answer the first question, we will map tangible cultural remains at the surface of (former) bog areas in three Dutch case studies. To address research question 2, we will conduct a literature survey on all 17 Dutch Natura 2000 areas containing bog remnants (Figure 2) and adjacent former bogland areas. To answer research question 3, building on the outcomes of the previous steps, we will assess potential synergies and tensions between nature conservation goals and cultural heritage management in and around bog reserves, and make recommendations for integral future management on a European scale.

Figure 2. Map of the Netherlands indicating (a) bog distribution around 1500 CE and (b) the 17 Natura 2000 areas with bog remnants. The three case study areas of this paper are indicated with rectangles. The numbers correspond with those in Appendix 2. Peat distribution map adapted by permission from Springer Nature: Springer, climatological, stratigraphic and palaeo-ecological aspects of mire development, W. A. Casparie & J. G. Streefkerk, copyright 1992 (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7997-1_3).

Raised Bogs in the Netherlands: Use History and Current Status

Bogs were used in many different ways by humans since prehistory.²⁰ This ranged from extensive or local use forms, such as the grazing of livestock or crossing peatlands for travelling or ritual use, to more intensive uses such as peat exploitation or peatland reclamation for agriculture.²¹ As urban centres, manufacturing and reclamations developed especially from the late Middle Ages onward (notably in the western Netherlands), firewood became progressively scarcer and was increasingly replaced by peat fuel.²² Peat was taken from bogs, gradually at ever larger distance from the main urban centres. In many parts of the Netherlands, peat cutting to fuel the country’s main cities and industries was on an industrial scale and run by commercial companies. Bogs were often completely cut away, after which the remaining soils were agriculturally reclaimed.

With their progressive decline, the remaining stretches of bogland were increasingly valued. After 1900, and most notably after the Second World War, they became nature reserves. From the 1990s onward, it became clear that the remaining bogs, being negatively impacted by intensive agriculture in their surroundings, could only survive on the longer term if their hydrology were restored. Increasingly large rewetting projects were started in and around many bog reserves, occasionally causing frictions with neighbouring local communities.²³ In the last two decades, virtually all Dutch bog remnants (and many European ones) have been designated as Natura 2000 reserves, recognising their importance to European nature conservation (Figure 2). In the Netherlands, responsible government bodies (often provinces) draw up six-year management plans for the individual Natura 2000 areas. Raised bog areas within the Dutch Natura 2000 reserves range from 9 ha (Besthmenerveentjes) to over 2000 ha (Bargerveen, Fochteloërveen, Verheven Peel). Oftentimes they are remnants of bogs that originally were far larger. Depending on their state of preservation, these remnants are classified as habitat types ‘Active raised bogs (H7110)’ and/or ‘Degraded raised bogs still capable of natural regeneration (H7120)’.²⁴

Methods and Materials

Mapping Cultural Remains in (Former) Bog Areas

Case Study Areas

We selected three case study areas from the Natura 2000 reserves with significant bog remains: the Bargerveen, Peel and Korenburgerveen bogs. These represent a geographically even distribution across the eastern Netherlands and reflect the variety in size and use history of Dutch bog areas. The Bargerveen and Peel bog remnants originally were part of much larger, now largely lost bogs. Therefore, these case study areas both consist of bog remnants and former boglands. In contrast, the Korenburgerveen represents a smaller bog and its present dimensions largely correspond with its former maximum expansion.²⁵ Below we present the general characteristics of these case study areas.

Bargerveen Area

The Bargerveen bog (2083 ha) is the only significant Dutch remnant of the former vast Bourtanger Moor bog landscape (c. 160,000 ha) in the north-eastern Netherlands, on the border with Germany.²⁶ Between c. 1200 and 1950, agriculture was practiced on the superficially drained bog (in Dutch: bovenveencultuur).²⁷ Departing from a line of farms constituting a reclamation basis (typically parallel to a stream), narrow strip parcels extended into the bog. Thus, each elongated strip was characterised by an environmental gradient (moisture regime, substrate type, soil fertility) determining which parts were used as meadowland, pastureland, or arable land. Between c. 1650 and c. 1850, the Bourtanger Moor was part of the Dutch Republic’s militarily reinforced natural border against foreign incursions. To this end, dike systems (‘leidijken’) were built to retain surplus water within the bog.²⁸ In the Bargerveen Area, large-scale commercial peat exploitation only started after 1850.²⁹ A younger phase of the bovenveencultuur also started around 1850, when (generally German) colonists settled in the Bargerveen for peasant farming on the bog.³⁰ Buckwheat burning culture was practiced as well. Around 1900, the focus of peat exploitation activities shifted from fuel mining to producing peat litter and activated carbon.³¹ The stepwise designation of the Bargerveen as a nature reserve started in 1968, but commercial peat exploitation in the area continued until the early 1990s.³²

Peel Area

The Peel case study area is in the south-eastern Netherlands, in the centre of a former bog landscape that once covered c. fifty-five thousand hectares including surrounding heathlands. The study area includes two large remaining bog complexes: the Verheven Peel (Deurnsche & Mariapeel, 2734 ha) and the Groote Peel (1348 ha). Subsistence peat cutting by local residents has been recorded since the late Middle Ages.³³ In early modern times, inhabitants of several villages in the hinterland of the Peel bogs were involved in self-organised turf commercialisation.³⁴ In the Verheven Peel large-scale commercial peat exploitation started around 1850, in the Groote Peel in 1889.³⁵ Similar to the Bargerveen area, commercial peat exploitation shifted from peat fuel to other turf products around 1900.³⁶ The Verheven Peel was appointed as nature reserve between 1964–1980,³⁷ the Groote Peel between 1951–1982.³⁸

Korenburgerveen Area

The Korenburgerveen bog (459 ha) is situated in the eastern Netherlands. Unlike the Bargerveen and Peel bogs, it has not been subjected to large-scale commercial peat exploitation.³⁹ The bog has been extensively used since the Middle Ages (probably for livestock grazing, and wood cutting in the bog margins). Little is known about the history of peat exploitation and (small-scale) bog reclamation. While subsistence peat-cutting for fuel probably existed earlier, its climax was in the second half of the nineteenth century. By 1909, peat mining had become of minor importance.⁴⁰ Since 1918 and notably from 1950 onward, the bog was gradually developed into a nature reserve. The Korenburgerveen is the only case study where part of the bog is managed by a local foundation (Stichting Marke Vragenderveen) rather than a national nature conservancy organisation. This foundation is still rooted in the local farmers community.

Procedure to Identify Bog-Related Cultural Remains in the Case Studies

A new procedure was developed to map bog-related cultural remains at the surface (supra-peat) in the three case study areas (Figure 3). For each study area a timeline of bog use history was constructed based on descriptions in Jansen and Grootjans.⁴¹ By combining these timelines (Appendix 1) with visual analysis of digital terrain models, aerial imagery and post-1850 topographic maps (https://www.topotijdreis.nl/) in ArcGIS Desktop 10.6.1, we created maps of distinct cultural remains zones. The digital terrain models and aerial imagery provided objective and comprehensive 2D palimpsest images of cultural traces and remains, while the timeline information was used to interpret the age and genesis of the cultural remains. Additionally, the listed (built) monuments directly or indirectly related to former bog use were localised and mapped using monument registers (accessible via https://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/onderwerpen/bronnen-en-kaarten/).

Figure 3. Procedure to identify tangible bog-related cultural remains on the surface of bog remnants and surrounding reclamation landscapes.

Literature Survey on the Role of Cultural Remains in the Current Management of (Former) Bog Areas

We performed a basic literature survey for all 17 Dutch Natura 2000 reserves to obtain a general impression of the cultural remains represented in these areas. To this end we consulted available overview studies,⁴² and a range of site-specific publications. Subsequently we investigated to which extent cultural remains are incorporated in the current Natura 2000 management plans, which were accessed via https://www.bij12.nl/onderwerpen/natuur-en-landschap/natura-2000-beheerplannen/. This was done through an extensive search for relevant keywords (e.g., heritage, history, archaeology, cultural remains). Additionally, we cursorily analysed to what degree bog-related cultural remains in surrounding reclamation landscapes are incorporated in provincial and regional cultural maps, and if these remains are legally protected. This information was retrieved from online data provided by the Dutch Cultural Heritage Agency (https://www.cultureelerfgoed.nl/onderwerpen/bronnen-en-kaarten/). Appendix 2 contains all collated information on the Natura 2000 reserves, the cultural remains they contain, and their management.

Assessment of Synergies and Tensions Between Nature Conservation Goals and Heritage Management

In order to obtain a systematic and generic assessment of synergies and tensions between nature conservation goals and management of bog-related cultural remains, we developed a matrix table in which the main types of raised bog management and restoration measures were plotted against recommendations for management of (supra-peat) cultural remains (Appendix 3, summarised as Table 2). The measures were derived from recent overviews for Dutch raised bogs,⁴³ and are similar to those applied in bog reserves elsewhere in Northwest-Europe.⁴⁴

Table 2. Potential synergies between key ecological management measures and heritage management in raised bogs, with accompanying caveats, as summarised from Appendix 3.

Ecological measure	Potential synergy with heritage management	Caveat
Removing trees or shrubs to promote peat moss growth	Lower risk of damage to supra-peat or intra-peat cultural remains by deep-rooting shrubs or trees Improved visibility of supra-peat remains to the public	Avoid using heavy machinery and aim at leaving tree stumps in place to avoid damage to cultural remains If tree or shrub growth on cultural remains actually contributes to their visibility: balance desired visibility against risk of damage to cultural remains
Small-scale rewetting	Consider blocking drainage ditches locally rather than filling them completely. This way, while still allowing their function as starting points for bog recovery, they may remain visible for decades and continue to bear witness to the long bog drainage history
Large-scale rewetting within or outside bog reserve	Rewetting is beneficial to intra-peat and sub-peat cultural remains Rewetting may accentuate small relief differences, potentially improving visibility of cultural remains structures	If remaining peat deposits have to be removed before rewetting because they are too degraded by oxidation, ensure professional archaeological assistance to salvage intra-peat cultural remains Local communities may experience sense of loss of the landscape and/or cultural remains therein. Engage them in the planning phase and aim at allowing them access to the area after rewetting (e.g. via dikes or boardwalks) Works to be carried out carefully to avoid unnecessary damage to cultural remains Where possible, reuse existing landscape elements such as old dikes

Results

Cultural Remains in (Former) Bog Areas

Bargerveen Area

Cultural surface structures in the Bargerveen area (such as ditch, canal, and road systems) and their orientation vary spatially in a block-wise fashion (Figure 4). Each block represents a drainage unit, and many carry the placename Blok, accompanied by a sequential number.⁴⁵ Over the twentieth century, new markets demanded new peat types, and new extraction techniques were introduced. In combination with spatial variation in peat types, this explains the diverse zonal pattern of surface structures.

Figure 4. Map of the Bargerveen case study area showing the spatial pattern of supra-peat tangible cultural remains zones relating to specific historical land use forms, and the location of listed national, provincial, and municipal monuments linked to these land use forms. LSPR = large-scale planned reclamation; LSC = large-scale commercial peat extraction.

Not all former bog use forms have left physical traces. Some, for instance extensive livestock grazing on the bog, were of a ‘non-engraving’ nature. Relics of other use forms have been erased by later land use types. For example, the buckwheat burning culture originated in the seventeenth century and was eventually practiced on virtually all large Dutch bogs.⁴⁶ Buckwheat fields covered much of the Bargerveen before commercial peat exploitation started, as still witnessed by the village name Weiteveen (literally: ‘Buckwheat Bog’). Bovenveencultuur was practiced around Nieuw-Schoonebeek and is reflected by the long strip parcellation stretching into the Bargerveen bog.

The national, provincial, and municipal monuments in the area constitute a heterogeneous collection of tangible remains (Figure 4). Striking examples are several roman-catholic churches and rectories (Figure 5), relating to the influx of German peasant farmers and peat workers after 1800.⁴⁷ They settled on and near the Bargerveen bog in the hitherto predominantly protestant province of Drenthe and built peasant houses on locations where peat had been cut away (Figure 6). During the Second World War these houses were re-used as hiding places. None of them has been preserved, but many former house places are still recognisable by e.g. elevation differences and extant nut trees or other species reminiscent of human habitation.

Figure 5. St Antony’s church with rectory (built in 1921). In the foreground the former edge of the Bargerveen where turves are being dried. Later these buildings were designated as national monuments partly because of their special location on the edge of the peat-colonial village of Zwartemeer and close to the present-day Bargerveen nature reserve. Photo: J.B. Schröer, Drents Archief (collectie Schröer).

Figure 6. Upper image: former peasant house in a recently rewetted part of the Bargerveen nature reserve. The last residents left in 1967. More recently, the building was adapted to function as a habitat to wild animals, until it burned down after a lightning strike in 2018 (photo by Albert Raven, taken with permission from Raven 2015). Lower image: the present situation in the area (taken with permission from Wanders 2020).

Peel Area

In this case study area, too, the varied nature of the mineral and peat subsoil has led to a diverse land use history and zonal patterning of supra-peat cultural remains. Here, however, some of the most conspicuous traces originate from subsistence peat cutting (Figures 7 and 8), others from commercial peat exploitation. Traces of the buckwheat burning culture with its shallow ditch systems⁴⁸ only locally survived in areas indicated as buckwheat lands on mid-nineteenth century maps (Figure 8c). The zonal pattern of bog-related cultural remains is less diverse outside the Natura 2000 area, due to agricultural reclamations starting around 1900. After the Second World War, land reallotment schemes were executed in many of these reclaimed areas. Consequently, peat extraction pits, old tracks for carrying away turves, etc., have been erased there. What persists is a diversity in typical agrarian reclamation structures such as road and field patterns.

Figure 7. Map of the Peel case study area showing the spatial pattern of supra-peat tangible cultural remains zones relating to specific historical land use forms, and the location of listed national and municipal monuments linked to these land use forms. (LSP)R = (large-scale planned) reclamation of former bog and heathland; S = subsistence peat extraction; LSC = large-scale commercial peat extraction. The medieval villages of Deurne, Liessel, and Meijel are situated on mineral soil drylands (light grey area).

Figure 8. Prominent bog-related cultural remains visible on digital terrain models (DTM) of sites in the Verheven Peel (a-c) and Groote Peel (d) nature reserves. The location of the more detailed DTM images a-c is indicated on the top left overview image. Background DTM images courtesy of AHN viewer (https://www.ahn.nl/ahn-viewer), CC0.

Built monuments and protected townscapes are particularly well represented in the small peat-colonial villages of Griendtsveen and Helenaveen. As peat workers from the north-eastern Netherlands settled in the traditionally roman-catholic Peel area, a protestant church was established in Helenaveen.

Korenburgerveen Area

The subarea placenames in the Korenburgerveen bog indicate that its use was divided between three adjacent hamlets (Figure 9). This is underlined by the conspicuous ‘peat dikes’ (linear remnant strips of unexcavated bog, which served to dry and carry away turves) leading into the bog from three directions. Each individual ‘peat dike’ bears a name, typically of the family entitled to cut peat next to the respective track. Other conspicuous traces consist of the Middeldijk dike and the regular ditch system southeast of it, in the Corlese Veen subarea. These were created in the early twentieth century to reclaim the bog margin into meadows.⁴⁹

Figure 9. Upper image: map of the Korenburgerveen case study area showing the bog’s position in a natural depression (indicated by DTM hillshade background), and the spatial pattern of supra-peat tangible cultural remains zones relating to specific historical use forms. S = subsistence peat extraction. Vv = Vragenderveen; Cv = Corlese Veen; Mv = Meddose Veen. The former two subareas are separated by an old municipal border; the latter two by a railway line. Lower image: map excerpt showing the peat dikes of the Vragenderveen subarea and their names (taken with permission from Wanders 2020).

There are no designated national or municipal monuments or protected townscapes near the Korenburgerveen relating to past bog use. This likely relates to the historical absence of large-scale commercial peat extraction or large-scale agricultural bog reclamations. However, several important Second World War remains are present. These include traces of two war time hiding places that represent an emotionally charged history to the present day.⁵⁰

Role of Cultural Remains in the Current Management of (Former) Bog Areas

We found that cultural remains have an insignificant position in most Dutch Natura 2000 management plans (Appendix 2). In nine of the 17 Natura 2000 bog areas not a single reference is made to its human use history or the resulting cultural remains. In four Natura 2000 bog areas, management plans contain a general background paragraph on archaeology and cultural heritage. Only in exceptional cases more detailed descriptions of cultural remains and their importance are provided. Nevertheless, even these management plans lack a clear vision on the practical implementation of such remains in future bog management. Both for Aamsveen and Engbertsdijksvenen separate cultural-historical inventories have recently been made, commissioned by the land-managing organisations Staatsbosbeheer and Landschap Overijssel.⁵¹ These reflect an increased awareness of the importance of cultural history and its remains in relation to landscape management. However, both reports are inaccessible to the wider public and it is yet unclear to which degree they will lead to changes in practical management.

The relevant provincial cultural-historical maps demonstrate awareness of the presence and importance of bog-related cultural remains. Most show at least some of these elements, both in and outside Natura 2000 areas. However, the information is relatively superficial and incomplete. The most frequently mapped category consists of bog reclamation landscapes and relics (different classifications are applied). Some maps show characteristic regional elements, such as ‘Peelbanen’ (a regional name for peat dikes in the province of Limburg). Some Natura 2000 areas are included in predictive archaeological maps or municipal heritage maps, occasionally accompanied by reports and policy documents. The predictive archaeological maps mainly focus on the potential presence of sub-peat and intra-peat archaeological remains,⁵² whereas they generally ignore younger supra-peat remains. Some municipal heritage maps have a wider scope and depict a broader range of cultural elements but lack a coherent vision and strategy on their management.

Some Natura 2000 areas and their border zones contain archaeological sites, historical buildings and other landscape elements that have been assigned legal protection. These highly variable locations range from stone age sites in the Peel bogs to the ruins of a medieval monastery at Sibculo that once instigated reclamation of the Engbertsdijksvenen bogs.⁵³ Another case is the ‘protected townscape’ of Ravenswoud, near the Fochteloërveen bog remnant, which is considered a prime example of an early modern peat colony. Parts of the Groote Peel, Deurnsche Peel and Mariapeel bogland, incorporated in our case study, are labelled as ‘Areas of Provincial Cultural-Historical Importance.’ According to the Dutch Monuments Act such ‘values and characteristics are to be protected on a spatial planning basis.’ How this is practically implemented, also in relation to Natura 2000 management, is not clearly articulated. Lastly, local community initiatives to restore, manage and display cultural remains include internment camps (1940s-1960s) near the Fochteloërveen bog (https://www.fochteloo.nl/cultuur-en-recreatie/), and turf-processing sites (‘kluunplaatsen’) in the Aamsveen bog.⁵⁴

Perspectives for the Management of Bog-Related Cultural Remains

The case studies show a wealth and large variety of bog-related cultural remains at the land surface. Broadly speaking, their inclusion in current bog management is limited. Building on these outcomes, we propose perspectives for their management that are aligned to measures for ecological bog conservation and restoration (Table 2). Appendix 3 contains a more elaborate version of this table. In many cases no negative impact of ecological management on cultural remains is to be expected. Where the contrary is the case, realistic solutions usually seem possible to protect cultural remains without compromising ecological goals. Positive impacts of ecological management on cultural remains concern, for instance, the accentuation of supra-peat remains by suppression of obscuring grassy or woody vegetation. Conversely, cultural remains or past land use practices can contribute significantly to reaching ecological goals. Former drainage ditches and peat extraction pits, such as those demonstrated in our case study areas, have proven to be suitable starting points for the recovery of bog vegetation in rewetting projects (Figure 10a). Such cultural relics need not necessarily be wiped out or obscured when overgrown by recovering bog vegetation. Rather, they may remain visible for decades by vegetation differences (Figure 10b). In the 1960s, the nature conservation agency managing the Groote Peel reserve used extant military defence dikes to rewet the reserve.⁵⁵ Furthermore, some forms of former bog use, such as the bovenveencultuur, have resulted in species-rich grasslands that would otherwise not have occurred in the middle of a bog landscape. More generally, the physical irregularities resulting from supra-peat cultural remains may contribute to ecological gradients and local biodiversity. Similarly, monumental built objects in or near Natura 2000 areas, such as the casemates in the Peel (Figure 7) may be made suitable to serve as shelter or hibernation sites for protected species such as bats.

Figure 10. (a) A former peat pit in the Mariapeel bog reserve recolonised by peat moss and other bog plants (courtesy of Hilde Tomassen). (b) An old ditch system is still visible through the linear zones of light-coloured purple moor-grass (Molinia caerulea) (taken with permission from Wanders 2020).

Discussion

From a heritage viewpoint – a perspective relatively unusual to continental Northwest-European bog management -, our study has underlined the very diverse set of tangible cultural remains at the surface of Dutch (former) bog areas, particularly in the commercially excavated bog landscapes where bogs were most damaged ecologically. It has confirmed that coherent and structural visions on the incorporation of these remains in landscape management plans are lacking in the Netherlands. We have demonstrated that the preservation and display of tangible cultural remains at the surface of (former) bog areas can generally be well aligned with ecological bog (restoration) management. Here, we (1) expand on the character, wealth, and importance of bog-related cultural remains, (2) address the counterproductive nature-culture divide in landscape management and (3) discuss future perspectives.

Bog-Related Cultural Remains: A Rich and Important Resource

Many raised bogs across Europe and beyond have been affected by peat exploitation and drainage. Such activities have left multiple traces in the landscape.⁵⁶ The Low Countries stand out through an early start of commercial-scale peat extraction, in the High and Late Middle Ages.⁵⁷ Within the Low Countries, regional differences in the start of this process, as well as the relatively intensive nature of other use forms (such as small-scale agricultural reclamations or subsistence peat cutting) have led to a particularly diverse range of cultural remains on a relatively small land area. In the Bargerveen and Peel bog areas, for instance, large-scale commercial peat exploitation added a wide variety of cultural remains to the landscape, without completely obliterating older cultural remains. As such, raised bogs are excellent examples of palimpsest landscapes.⁵⁸ We endorse previous findings that the status of protected nature reserve offers a preserving effect on cultural remains to places.⁵⁹ To some extent this may be negated by large-scale bog restoration projects, although one could argue that these are merely the youngest layer of cultural remains being added to the palimpsest landscape.

We argue for more comprehensive studies of, and communication about, bog-related cultural remains. First, these could contribute to improved understanding of the historical backgrounds of and (spatial) interlinks between diverse types of cultural remains. Second, they could contribute to processes of valuing and prioritising cultural remains in nature conservation and heritage preservation management.

Bridging the Nature-Culture Divide

The nature-culture divide is evident in both the environmental sciences and the humanities.⁶⁰ In ecology and nature conservation, humans are often considered primarily and implicitly as historical disturbants of nature, and of peatlands in particular; a destructive habit that is being sought to reverse.⁶¹ The nature-culture relationship, often implicitly seen as an opposition, is also at the heart of environmental history as understood by western scholars.⁶² Environmental historians often focus on human impacts on nature, starting from the (implicit) notion that humans tend to overexploit or harm nature.⁶³ However, dividing the world into ‘culture’ (the human domain) and ‘nature’ (the ‘wild’ and ‘pristine’ domain) is difficult to sustain.⁶⁴ Indeed, humanities scholars increasingly break down the nature–culture dichotomy, as illustrated by the term ‘natureculture’. This notion recognises the inseparableness of nature and culture in ecological relationships, which have both a biophysical and a social dimension.⁶⁵ Extending this view to bog landscapes, we can consider humans as ecosystem engineers and landscape builders, similar to the key role of peat mosses as bog builders (biophysical dimension).⁶⁶ Simultaneously, humans as ecosystem engineers have drawn bogs into their economic and cultural orbit (social dimension). What matters, though, is the extent of human influence. Concerning peatlands, human activities have for centuries been plainly destructive and continue to be so in many places worldwide.⁶⁷ Still, many historical examples show that moderate and regulated human use of natural landscapes can be reasonably sustainable and even enriching to biodiversity.⁶⁸ Importantly, and over the longer term, the implicit nature-culture opposition may put both cultural remains and (support for) nature restoration goals at risk. Opposing nature to culture may increase the likelihood of nature conservationists seeing cultural remains as obstacles to achieving ecological restoration goals. In the Dutch and European context, many cases of tension between local residents and nature conservancy organisations are known, for instance over bog restoration projects⁶⁹ – which in some cases are thought to ‘erase’ traces or practices of peat-cutting traditions.⁷⁰ Notions such as natureculture or humans as ecosystem engineers, then, may be suitable discursive tools to help bridging the sectoral gap between ecological and heritage management, as well as between land management agencies and local residents.

Future Perspectives

The underexposure of cultural heritage in peatland management and restoration is not a typically Dutch phenomenon. Similar observations have, amongst others, been made for Ireland, the United Kingdom and Germany.⁷¹ Recent international position and policy papers and reviews generally reflect this underemphasis.⁷² It is clear that both intra-peat and supra-peat remains are at risk at a European scale, and that concerted efforts to protect them are urgently needed. Nevertheless, there are positive signs as well, which show an increased awareness of the challenges at hand. Natural England and Historic England have recently published standards for delivering ‘environmentally sustainable’ peatland restoration projects, which place a heavy emphasis on the importance and inclusion of archaeological and cultural-historical remains.⁷³ In 2022 a two-day conference on synergies and tensions relating to cultural heritage and nature conservation in peatlands was organised in Osnabrück (Germany) by the leading heritage management organisations of Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein. This brought together heritage specialists, nature conservationists, spatial planners, policy officers and legal experts to discuss future perspectives.⁷⁴

Consistent with these developments, we argue for a more aligned form of landscape management in which synergies are sought between ecological and cultural heritage goals.⁷⁵ In a practical sense, we recommend the formation of area-based strategic alliances between nature managers, heritage managers and local residents. Such connections allow to address specific weaknesses in current policy and practice, through:

1. increasing awareness of the intertwined (historical) ‘human’ and ‘natural’ processes shaping today’s bog landscapes, underpinning regional-historical narratives;

2. augmenting support for ecological bog restoration, aligned with tailor-made management of tangible (intra-peat and supra-peat) heritage remains;

3. more pragmatic, targeted, and effective approaches to bog (restoration) management, including local ‘grassroots’ initiatives.

These recommendations are aligned with the global shift of landscape heritage policy from object-oriented and expert-driven to area-oriented and collaboration-driven. Both the Faro Convention and the practice approach that has gained traction in the theoretical debate on landscape heritage reflect this shift.⁷⁶ These developments provide openings for increased involvement of local communities in landscape and heritage management. From the perspective of effective and publicly supported nature policy, the involvement of local residents has been advocated as well.⁷⁷ The potential of this approach in the context of peatland restoration and management has already been shown.⁷⁸ Instead of a formal, institutionalised approach to heritage management, an informal approach aimed at establishing open, shared or collaborative governance and management structures may then be most appropriate, as this allows local communities to take ownership and initiative in managing ‘their’ bog heritage.

Conclusions

This study has underlined how tangible cultural remains at the surface of (former) bog landscapes are rich and diverse but have an insignificant position in most Dutch Natura 2000 management plans. Coherent and structural visions on the incorporation of cultural remains into future landscape management – within and outside these nature reserves – are virtually lacking. Preserving bog-related cultural remains and making or keeping them visible can go well with achieving ecological goals. We have highlighted several potential synergies between cultural remains and ecological restoration goals in Natura 2000 bog reserves and provided recommendations for better alignment of ecological measures and cultural remains on the bog surface. Additionally, we advocate a more active involvement and co-governance of local communities in bog management, in which cultural remains can help improving local engagement and support.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2024.2330263.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Additional information

Funding

This research was part of the Home Turf Project of Wageningen University, financed by the Dutch Organisation for Scientific Research [NWO Vidi Project, no. 276-60-003]. It benefitted from the work of thesis students Jeroen Wanders and Bas van Splunter. We thank Prof. Dr. Ir. Theo Spek (University of Groningen), Prof. Dr. Edward Huijbens, Dr. Juul Limpens and Dr. Bas Verschuuren (Wageningen University) for their valuable feedback on an earlier version of this paper, and Jeroen Wanders MSc, Dr. Hilde Tomassen (B-WARE Research Centre) and Dr. Anouk Cormont (Wageningen Environmental Research) for practical help. Finally, we thank the editor and anonymous reviewers whose constructive comments helped improve our manuscript.

Notes

1. Gerding, ‘Vier eeuwen turfwinning’; Joosten and Couwenberg, ‘Bilanzen zum Moorverlust’; and Leenders, Verdwenen venen.

2. Joosten, ‘De teloorgang’.

3. Joosten and Couwenberg, ‘Bilanzen zum Moorverlust’.

4. Gallego-Sala et al., ‘Latitudinal Limits’.

5. E.g., Tanneberger and Wichtmann, Carbon Credits from Peatland Rewetting.

6. Jansen, Grootjans and Van Tooren, ‘Slotbeschouwing’; and Tanneberger and Wichtmann, Carbon Credits from Peatland Rewetting.

7. Byg et al., ‘Conservation in the Face of Ambivalent Public Perceptions’, 181; and Jansen et al., ‘Bargerveen’, 350.

8. Braaksma, Jacobs and Van der Zande, ‘The Production of Local Landscape Heritage’, 64; and Paulissen et al., ‘Place meanings of Dutch raised bog landscapes’.

9. Flood, Mahon, and McDonagh, ‘Assigning Value to Cultural Ecosystem Services’.

10. Carroll, “We’re being left with nothing”; and Ruber, ‘Natuurherstel De Peel’.

11. Cf. Jansen and Grootjans, Hoogvenen; Rotherham, Peatlands, 14; and Gearey and Chapman, An Introduction, 187–211.

12. Cf. Gearey et al., Peatlands and the Historic Environment, 11.

13. Leenders, Verdwenen venen; and Van Beek, Maas, and Van den Berg, ‘Home Turf’.

14. Buckland, ‘Peatland Archaeology’; Natural England, and Historic England, Peatland Restoration and the Historic Environment; and Gearey and Chapman, An Introduction.

15. Gearey et al., Peatlands and the Historic Environment, 35.

16. Gearey and Chapman, An Introduction.

17. E.g., Wassermann, Aufstrecksiedlungen in Ostfriesland; Borger, ‘Draining – Digging – Dredging’; De Bont, ‘Vergeten land’; Leenders, Verdwenen venen; and Zomer, ‘Middeleeuwse veenontginningen’.

18. Raven, ‘Bargerveen’.

19. Cf. Spek, Brinkkemper and Speleers, ‘Archaeological Heritage Management and Nature Conservation’.

20. E.g., Van Beek, Maas, and Van den Berg, ‘Home Turf’; Rotherham, Peatlands; and Gearey and Chapman, An Introduction.

21. De Bont, ‘Vergeten land’; Zomer, ‘Middeleeuwse veenontginningen’; and Paulissen et al., ‘Dire Necessity or Mere Opportunity?’.

22. Gerding, ‘Vier eeuwen turfwinning’, 497; and Joosten, ‘De teloorgang’, 104–105.

23. Spek, Brinkkemper and Speleers, ‘Archaeological Heritage Management and Nature Conservation’; and De Meij et al., ‘Engbertsdijksvenen’.

24. Jansen and Grootjans, Hoogvenen.

25. Ketelaar and Van ’t Hullenaar, ‘Het Korenburgerveen’, 278.

26. Jansen et al., ‘Bargerveen’.

27. Verhoeven, ‘Introduction’, 4.

28. Raven, ‘Bargerveen’.

29. Gerding, ‘Vier eeuwen turfwinning’; and Scholtens, ‘Van veen naar veenkoloniën’.

30. Raven, ‘Bargerveen’; and Scholtens, ‘Van veen naar veenkoloniën’.

31. Gerding, ‘Vier eeuwen turfwinning’; and Raven, ‘Bargerveen’.

32. Jansen et al., ‘Bargerveen’.

33. Blankers and Van Noorden, ‘De Verheven Peel’; and Van Duinen and Joosten, ‘De Groote Peel’.

34. Paulissen et al., ‘Dire Necessity or Mere Opportunity?’.

35. Blankers and Van Noorden, ‘De Verheven Peel’; and Van Duinen and Joosten, ‘De Groote Peel’.

36. Joosten, ‘Die Geschichte der Moore’, 95–97.

37. Blankers and Van Noorden, ‘De Verheven Peel’.

38. Van Duinen and Joosten, ‘De Groote Peel’.

39. Ketelaar and Van ’t Hullenaar, ‘Het Korenburgerveen’, 278.

40. Ketelaar and Van ’t Hullenaar, ‘Het Korenburgerveen’.

41. Jansen and Grootjans, Hoogvenen.

42. E.g., Jansen and Grootjans, Hoogvenen.

43. Jansen, Grootjans, and Van Tooren, ‘Slotbeschouwing’; and Jansen et al., ‘Bargerveen’.

44. E.g., Eiseltová, Restoration.

45. Scholtens, ‘Van veen naar veenkoloniën’; and Jansen et al., ‘Bargerveen’.

46. Gerding, ‘Vier eeuwen turfwinning’; and Joosten, ‘De teloorgang’.

47. Raven, ‘Bargerveen’, 290.

48. Cf. Joosten, ‘Die Geschichte der Moore’.

49. Ketelaar and Van ’t Hullenaar, ‘Het Korenburgerveen’, 279.

50. Wanders, ‘Tracing Peatland Histories’; and De Raat, ‘De onderduikers in het veen dachten veilig te zitten’.

51. Worst, Natura 2000-gebied Aamsveen; and Alink, Coppens, and Worst, Landschapsbiografie van de Engbertsdijksvenen.

52. E.g., Goossens, Gemeente Haaksbergen.

53. Van Beek, Maas, and Van den Berg, ‘Home Turf’, 23.

54. Ten Hoopen, ‘Twentse kluundellen’.

55. Provincie Noord-Brabant, Natura 2000-beheerplan Groote Peel, Deurnsche Peel & Mariapeel (139 en 140).

56. E.g., O’Sullivan, ‘Exploring Past People’s Interactions’; Strohwasser, Das Murnauer Moos; Bruisch, ‘Nature Mistaken’; and Natural England, and Historic England, Peatland Restoration and the Historic Environment.

57. Leenders, Verdwenen venen; and Joosten, ‘De teloorgang’, 105.

58. Cf. Mayhew, A Dictionary of Geography.

59. E.g., Purmer, Het landschap bewaard.

60. E.g., Spek, Brinkkemper, and Speleers, ‘Archaeological Heritage Management and Nature Conservation’; Rotherham, ‘Bio-Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity’; and Peatlands.

61. Jansen and Grootjans, Hoogvenen; and Rotherham, Peatlands.

62. Cf. Schama, Landscape and Memory; and Radkau, Nature and Power, 1–6.

63. Radkau, Nature and Power.

64. Harrison, ‘Beyond “Natural” and “Cultural” Heritage’; and Mommaas et al., Nature in Modern Society.

65. Cf. Haraway, The Companion Species Manifesto; and Brown and Verschuuren, ‘Entangled Landscapes’.

66. Jones, Lawton and Shachak, ‘Organisms as Ecosystem Engineers’, 373; and Van Breemen, ‘How Sphagnum Bogs Down Other Plants’.

67. Joosten and Couwenberg, ‘Bilanzen zum Moorverlust’; and Rotherham, Peatlands.

68. Rotherham, ‘Bio-Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity’; Peatlands; and Paulissen et al., ‘Dire Necessity or Mere Opportunity?’.

69. Spek, Brinkkemper and Speleers, ‘Archaeological Heritage Management and Nature Conservation’; De Meij et al., ‘Engbertsdijksvenen’; and Ruber, ‘Natuurherstel De Peel’.

70. Carroll, ‘“We’re being left with nothing”’; and Ruber, ‘Natuurherstel De Peel’.

71. Gearey and Chapman, An Introduction, 187–211; Ickerodt and Bauerochse, ‘Das Schutzgut “Archäologisch Erbe im Moor”’; and Bauerochse and Metzler, ‘Moore als Archive der Natur- und Kulturgeschichte’.

72. European Commission, European framework for action on cultural heritage; ICOMOS, The Future of Our Pasts; and Sesana et al. ‘Climate change impacts on cultural heritage’.

73. Natural England, and Historic England, Peatland Restoration and the Historic Environment.

74. Briel and Bauerochse, “Kulturelles Erbe und Naturschutz in Mooren – Spannungsfeld und Synergien“.

75. Cf. Spek, Brinkkemper and Speleers, ‘Archaeological Heritage Management and Nature Conservation’; Purmer, Het landschap bewaard; Rotherham, ‘Bio-Cultural Heritage and Biodiversity’; and Peatlands.

76. ‘Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (CETS No. 199),’ Council of Europe, accessed March 7, 2024, https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list?module=treaty-detail&treatynum=199; and Braaksma, Jacobs and Van der Zande, ‘The Production of Local Landscape Heritage’, 64–65.

77. Byg et al., ‘Conservation in the Face of Ambivalent Public Perceptions’; and Mommaas et al., Nature in Modern Society, 114.

78. Rotherham, Peatlands; Flood, Mahon, and McDonagh, ‘Assigning Value to Cultural Ecosystem Services’; and ‘Everyday resilience’.