This presentation is part of the online document Acknowledging Landscapes: Presentations from the National Register Landscape Initiative.

Brad Barr: I wanted to start by mentioning that some of my presentation is taken from a presentation that was done by Rod Mather and John Jensen at a workshop that we held in … It says 2011 but I think it was 2009. John has been a major inspiration and really kind of the intellectual driving force behind this whole idea of cultural landscapes and cultural landscape analysis. I included some of their slides because he speaks far more eloquently about that than I do and is more informed about it. I just wanted to start by saying this is not all original work.

Barbara thought maybe I should talk a little bit about the national marine sanctuary system. The National Marine Sanctuary system is a system that varies in a marine environment and special national significance. The sizes of the sites, there are anywhere from depending on how you count them 14 or 15 sites around the country, from New England to American Samoa. They vary in size from about a 1 square nautical mile to more than 100,000 square nautical miles. They protect both natural and cultural resources. The designations can be tailored to specific areas and issues and threats. Anything from single species up to entire ecosystems, and individual cultural sites to extensive maritime cultural landscapes. It’s a very powerful and a very adaptive tool. It operates through extensive public engagement. We have sanctuary advisory councils at all of our sites and they provide forums for ongoing engagement, direct involvement with the local communities, with the gateway communities that we work with at each of our sites.

Our fundamental statute that we work under is the Natural Marine Sanctuary Act, and it defines the areas as areas of the marine environment that have special conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, cultural, archaeological, scientific, educational, and aesthetic qualities. You can see that the statute is very broadly construed and broadly defined, and it includes both ecological and historical, cultural and archaeological. As I keep reminding our own people in the national marine sanctuary system, it does not prioritize these, and say that ecological is more important but everything with the scope of the act is an important and primary jurisdictional element of the site.

The authority is to establish this comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management. It really is comprehensive. It’s meant to deal with all aspects of the ecological and cultural landscapes of those particular areas but it can be tailored in such a way to address only those things that are supporting but not overlapping other jurisdictions that protect the resources to a level appropriate for a site that is of special national significance.

The whole idea of establishing sanctuary is this business about facilitating the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection. I won’t read the rest of it but basically what it means is that these are multiple use areas, and that means that there are uses that do happen, human uses that do happen within these sites but they are managed in a way that preserves the resources, and the sites generally have are zoned so that have fully protected marine preserves either networks or individual sites within each one to address particularly sensitive or threatened areas within the sites.

The national marine sanctuary system, this is a map. You can see that it includes all of the sites, again from the national marine sanctuary of American Samoa up through the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, which was established not under the National Marine Sanctuary Act but on the Antiquities Act.

The National Marine Sanctuary of America Samoa also includes Rose Atoll, a Marine National Monument, so we have a role in the management of these Antiquities Act sites as well. There are this national system of sites, there are two that are listed here on this map in white print are sites that are exclusively cultural heritage sites. The Monitor International Marine Sanctuary which is the site of, for the record, the USS. Monitor from the Civil War period and the Thunder Bay National Sanctuary underwater preserve that protects a suite- a landscape of 160 wrecks in what is equivalently kind of the graveyard of the Great Lakes.

We have a broad selection of sites that most of the sites are ecosystem focused but also have the authority and the responsibility of managing cultural heritage. It’s the primary marine protected area system that focuses on waters of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone. It’s really trying to create a system that is the fundamental definition of a system, which is more than the sum of its parts. We’ve been in operation for about 40 years and we’ve learned a lot of valuable lessons along the way. We work closely in collaboration with states, particularly in those areas where we have overlapping jurisdiction in coastal waters.

As I eluded to earlier, it supplements the existing authorities rather than duplicates them. Our goal is not to fix what isn’t broken. The designation process and the management plans really do focus on things that enhance the protection rather than to duplicate it. We work under the paradigm of ecosystem based management at our sites, and I’ll talk about this a little more, but it’s the landscape approach that focuses on preserving ecosystem integrity and biodiversity. We have under the sanctuary program, our Maritime Heritage Program, which focuses on in-situ preservation of the Maritime Cultural Heritage Resources of the individual sites.

Just by way of full disclosure, I’m not an archaeologist or a historian. I’m a MPA practitioner, been in this business for 40 years, and I started my work with the Sanctuary Program at a place called, “Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary” off Boston, and I thought I’d start with a story about our kind of approach in the early days of maritime cultural heritage management and research. This is a picture of what the sanctuary looks like from the surface. It’s a typical sort of ocean picture, it shows a boat, a ship, this is kind of what you’d see.

But when we started collecting information about the sea bed what we found was that it was, and we sort of knew this, but this gave us very detailed information that it was a very complex very diverse kind of landscape or “Seascape,” as I say here. It gave us a lot of information about the ecosystem but also potentially about the cultural resources. I remember having a conversation with John Jensen years ago talking about this landscape concept, this was maybe 1998 or 97, when we started talking, about, “Well you know, this landscape is probably pretty important.”

In that little wedge on the right hand side of the slide is the Port of Boston.  Since Colonial Times Boston has been an active shipping port. It’s a maritime city and so the landscape of this area is extremely important. When we got all this information, what do we do with it? Well, we had this really terrific landscape information but we did was went out and looked for shipwrecks. This is an image of the [inaudible], the high resolution [inaudible] that shows all of the areas that were identified as anomalies that were potentially shipwrecks based on that data set.

We found some terrific ones, there’s no doubt about that. The Wreck of the Portland, which is a very important wreck of a coastal steamer back in 1891, the picture was from 1891. It was historically significant and it’s on the National Register. The Palmer and the Crary, the picture on the upper right is two ships that went down together, that’s I believe also on the register. Basically why I’m telling this story is just to suggest that this is what we generally do is approach our cultural heritage offshore as a shipwreck kind of focused exercise. I guess my point is that it’s necessary but it may not be sufficient, and I’d argue that it probably is not sufficient.

This whole idea, this notion of the sites only paradigm as John put it, it’s our traditional way of thinking about historic resources is to focus on these sites, on these individual sites with clear boundaries. Sites are convenient, they’re discreet, they’re specific. They’re established and widely accepted criteria for evaluating archaeological and historical sites. We have clear legislated mandates and direction. There’s this standardized archaeological review process that people are used to using. We have the National Historic Preservation Act, which created the National Register that establishes these criteria for nominations. It’s a very comfortable place for us to be in a lot of ways because the sites are convenient. There a place that we gravitate to and again, in the marine context we’re talking about shipwrecks. This is the usual assessment of these Underwater Cultural Heritage consist a lists of the most significant sites in the area.

Underwater Cultural Heritage is more than just ship wrecks. It includes both the tangible and the intangible. The tangible stuff is the stuff you can see or the stuff that leaves remnants: wharfs, docks, fish weirs, dwellings, navigation markers, dumps, dredge channels, and dredge materials disposal areas. What are defined as other cultural markers of the ocean. There’s also the intangible stuff, we know that UNESCO described this intangible cultural heritage as practices representations, expressions, knowledge, skills, as well as the instruments, objects, and artifacts, and cultured spaces there with that communities groups, and in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage.

This is part of the cognitive connection of people to the sea. Intangibles things involve things like traditional knowledge of maritime communities and cultures and sacred and symbolic sites. We don’t think of ecosystems as just their charismatic species – it’s a whale site. Sometimes we do that but we really shouldn’t because we know that ecosystems are complex with many inner connected elements. You can’t just look at one little piece of it and really understand anything about it. Certainly the Underwater Cultural Heritage is very much the same way.

We need to consider all these elements, all the interactions and all the processes at work in these complex systems. Maritime heritage works in a very similar way – not all of the physical remains that are out there may be worth preserving, but collectively they do tell a story. A story of how people interacted with that area and how they were shaped by that activity. I think it’s important not to say that we don’t want to just simply abandon shipwrecks because those are important elements of maritime cultural landscapes, they may be necessary but they’re not necessarily sufficient.

What are we talking about when we talk about cultural landscapes. Many on the phone are well aware of what [inaudible] cultural landscapes are defined but just to characterize that. Part of it is the build environment, it places that people gather, places where they recreate, places that are official buildings for example. Networks of paths and roads, these are all in the terrestrial environment; these are all things that we can see and we can see the remnants of in the historical context.

Again, the landscape is more than just this physical built environment. Human beings live in these places, they leave an imprint on those places and the place imprints on them. That kind of relationship, like Lockering describes as the, “cognitive landscape,” which is kind of man and landscape, landscape and man. It’s something that is an important part of understanding landscapes, it’s not just the physical part of the build environment but it’s tied to this notion of connection between people and the way that they have used the environment and the way the environment has shaped how they live.

One of the things that I think is important is for us to remember that there are these symbolic components, sometimes spiritual components, depending on the composition of it. The two that were mentioned in John and Rod’s presentation were the … On the left was the site of the Twin Towers in New York, and the symbolic importance of that particularly in recent years. Also the symbolic nature of the places like Iwo Jima, even though what’s left on the island, there’s very little physical remnants of that particular event, it has tremendous symbolic meanings, public importance to people within that culture.

It’s important to remember that Indian tribes and indigenous populations have many sacred and important places in their culture. Some of which may have, like Iwo Jima, may not have the physical remains but some of them do. We certainly saw in Doug’s presentation a couple of webinars ago how that physical manifestation of some of these important symbolic and sacred sites can be manifested in today’s world. We shouldn’t really under estimate it’s cultural meaning and make sure that it’s reflective of all the cultures and all the voices that are present in that particular landscape.

We know a lot more about landscapes and the terrestrial environment. It’s considerably better studied, and Brian alluded to this in his presentation, but most landscape studies end at the water’s edge. There seems to be this impenetrable and invisible boundary between the land and the sea, and it manifests itself in many things that we do that deal with work in the coastal zone, and I think that is no exception in terms of the way we view cultural landscapes as well.

Submerged cultural landscapes, obviously there are, again, the physical environment analogs – things like shipwrecks, dredged channels, aids to navigation, all of those things that are listed on that list, and even some of the things that are listed off the slides that were supposed to be on the list. They can be treated individually or they can be treated as a part of this larger landscape and be looked at thematically in many ways. The components might also be linked spatially and temporally. I’m possibly covering some old ground for a lot of people about how landscapes operate. It’s important to be on the same page as we begin to do what Brian was just talking about of taking this and moving it into the application of this in terms of supporting the effective management of cultural and natural resources in the coastal environment.

The whole idea of cultural landscape approach, I would urge people to log-on to the MPA web page, mpa.gov, and take a look at the cultural heritage resources working group white paper because it really is the seminal work, in many ways, on how to conceive what cultural landscapes and the green environment are constituting. It’s more than just this inventory of objects. It’s an interpretive tool, it’s a lens to better understand the past and the present, and potentially the future, and the cultural relationships in the environment.

The cultural Landscape approach, again taking this from the white paper, it’s place based, it’s adaptive, it’s interdisciplinary, it emphasizes the importance of all human/ecosystem relationships, it considers all human activities and material culture, and accepts multiple, and in fact not only accepts but it’s necessary to include multiple or even sometimes conflicting, cultural meaning. It’s a relatively important and adaptive tool that can be used.

It’s about making relationships visible, creating a context for communication. It’s important to remember that as cultural landscape analysis it’s not really meant to be about making management decisions, but it certainly can inform and guide those decisions because it provides this deeper knowledge. As a practitioner one of the things that I was drawn to about Maritime Cultural Landscapes is that it does provide this opportunity to better understand the place that you’re trying to manage through time. That’s been something that’s not necessarily been something that most marine protected areas managers have incorporated into their thinking, and that’s both a challenge and an opportunity I think.

This last quote I think really hits the nail on the head about why we’re very interested in this and it’s Paula Gunn Allen, who’s an author who once said that, “How can one immediately experience the present without regards to the shaping presence of the past?” I think that really is a very good kind of summary of why we’re interested in this as protected areas managers and as managers of both natural and cultural resources.

The advantages here for heritage management and research highlights human influences and usage, provides a better foundation for determining preservation priorities, provides a space for separate historical or cultural interpretation, identifies themes both material and symbolic, and it provides a structure for traditional culture.

For particularly for management of protected areas, it increases knowledge of the ecosystem and environment through time. The link as Brian mentioned and the one that was highlighted in the cultural resources working group white paper for the MPA Center was this link to Ecosystem Based Management. Ecosystem Based Management includes a wide range of ecological, environmental, and human factors and to look holistically at ecosystems and the relationships between ecosystems. It seeks to identify and control key drivers of ecological change and stability and to account for the cumulative impacts of different activities. It really is sort of stepping back and basing your decisions on preserving ecosystem and integrity and not just on the immediate needs of that particular management challenges you happen to be facing.

Perhaps the most important of EBM is that it places humans as actors inside the ecosystem. It doesn’t separate humans but actually incorporates humans into the ecosystem. The U.S. Ocean Commission’s Final Report explains EBM as looking “at all links among human and non-living resources” and “considers human activities and their benefits, their potential impacts with the context of broader biological and physical environments.”

One of the really interesting things about Cultural Landscape Analysis (CLA) and EBM is that they are very much a kind of parallel processes that are kind of conceptualized in sort of the same way. Ecosystem Based Management has emerged as the accepted paradigm in marine resources management in the United States and abroad. It’s really more of a philosophy of management than it is a management process. The strongest attraction and greatest power is the fact that it is a philosophy. It has the same potential characteristics as CLA because it’s landscape-based.

The Cultural heritage is generally undervalued and unrecognized avenues for bringing the human experience into ecosystem based management. I think that there’s a synergy that’s really important and I’ll talk about that a little bit later

Anyway, I feel like I’m beating a dead horse on this but I think it’s important that the whole idea of CLA and EBM is that they’re synergistic, they have the same kind of focus in many ways except that one is on natural and one is on cultural and they are implemented in the same ways based on extensive engagement with the public and with stakeholders. What CLA brings into EBM is this notion of temporality and cultural variability.

Based on all of this, we at the National Marine Sanctuary System have sort embraced the idea of Cultural Landscape Analysis and have tried to carry us forward into making it more relevant to the management of our sites and to find a way to effectively and seamlessly integrate it into our management approaches. We’ve set up this goal of developing the process and guidance to implement Maritime Cultural Landscapes throughout the National Marine Sanctuary System. We’re making progress on developing some … Some sites are beginning to implement at pilot sites.

As Brian mentioned, “Maritime Cultural Landscape” is not a new idea but it certainly is one that has, we think, some pretty significant value.” Maritime Cultural Landscapes, the idea was introduced by Westerdahl back in 1992 and has been discussed and expanded beyond the original focus on maritime archaeological resources.

Westerdahl really is the seminal work on Maritime Cultural Landscapes based on research conducted in Sweden, introduced the definition and the conceptual framework. It was defined as, “The whole network of sailing routes, old as well as new, with ports and harbors along the coast, and it’s related construction and remains of human activity, underwater as well as terrestrial.” Again, focusing on bridging this boundary between land and sea. It was based, partially at least, in this cognitive landscape which is the mapping and imprinting of functional aspects of the surrounding in the human mind. Man in landscape, landscape in man. It was an idea that Westerdahl brought forward Lofgren, a paper by Lofgren in 1981. Again, it’s this notion of man being affected by his environment and by his action, imprinting his effect on the environment that they live in.

Our culture is focused in Maritime Cultural Landscapes is more on culture than archaeology, more broadly on culture. Community stakeholders seek recognition of cultural resources beyond historic shipwrecks. Since we’ve been talking about this we’ve gotten a lot of feedback from stakeholders that suggest that they really do seem to understand intuitively the broader approach that looking at Maritime Cultural Landscapes provides.

As resource managers we have to make decisions that balance a lot of cultural influence. MCL provides an mechanism to understand the cultural resource issues in a more comprehensive and integrated way. It’s likely to be equally valuable in understanding and supporting the effective management of both natural and cultural resources because of this direct synergy and link between EBM and Maritime Cultural Landscapes.

We have come up with a definition here, and I’m not going to read the whole definition. The definition is not particularly elegant, it’s not synced and so we’re still working on trying to develop it, but as a working definition this provides us with a starting point. Any definition that can’t fit on an individual slide probably should be revised. I won’t bore with you with reading the whole thing but, we do have a working definition I guess is the point of the slide.

Some potential benefits that we think accrue from MCL approach. Achieving and maintaining a healthy coastal marine ecosystem requires this fundamental understanding of the relationships between people and the environment. MCL really raises cultural heritage to the ecosystem level, it’s the way that we think about a lot of our sites even though cultural resources and natural resources may not be congruent in an individual sites. Thinking about a site only as an ecosystem may be somewhat limiting and I’ll talk about that a little bit later.

MCL assist in evaluating simultaneously multiple cultural drivers or pressure on ecosystems. It broadens the stakeholder involvement, assisting with the integration of knowledge, memories, and empirical observations of tribal and indigenous cultures, and resource users such as scuba divers and commercial and sport fishermen into this marine management. It provides this mechanism for engagement. It provides managers with access to a comprehensive source of place-based cultural heritage resource knowledge. It really highlights this notion of the human-induced aspects of change over time and how the people have been shaped by those changes in the environment.

Where we are right now is trying to better define what the functional elements of Maritime Cultural Landscapes are. The functional elements listed provide a preliminary template – it’s a beginning point for compiling information relevant to the Maritime Cultural Landscape of a particular site. Functional elements include specific areas of properties resulting from the interactions between culture and marine environment. It’s in question format and it’s designed to assist resource managers in considering a more comprehensive array of the cultural properties and topics. The elements here are listed as suggestive, and not necessarily the final list or certainly any kind of comprehensive list that apply to all or even most of the site.

The first functional element relates to the question of, “who?” It’s, “What groups have been or are associated with the Maritime Cultural Landscape of the place?” This helps us to understand the human ties to the sea. It also tries to bring this multicultural perspective, interactions with the past and present cultures in the areas, place names are a part of this, traditional maritime uses, spiritual and symbolic connections to the place. It really is very much under laid with this theoretical foundation of place meaning and place attachment, which is extremely important not only for this but generally for marine protected areas and for other place-based management approach.

The next functional element of Maritime Cultural Landscapes has focused on “What?” That is, “What human activities have been associated with the area?” You’ve seen some of these lists proliferate; we seem to be a culture of list makers. These are some of the kind of human elements that have been associated with a particular area, the kind of things that we’d be looking at. Everything from marine mining and drilling resource extraction to harvesting, hunting, and fishing. It’s a broad collection of human activities that are associated with that area.

The next one has to do with, “When?” It really is trying to get a chronology of when some of these activities occurred. Some of the cultural perspectives may be chronologic and may be different chronologies or they may be even be knocked down by chronology, but it’s important to try to get a sense of when some of these things happened. Things like archaeology and paleoarchaeology, history, and oral traditions are a part of all of this. This is another one of the elements.

The next part of it has to do with, “Where?” What are geological and oceanographic processes that provide the physical setting and locations for the cultural imprint? There’s a list here of the kinds of things we’d be looking at. Hydrodynamic environment, geological and the coastline change, climate change impacts as a part of that, geographic context landscape at larger scales, changes in the build environment over time.

There’s also the, “How?” Element, in other words, what kind of human activities were conducted. There’s a list here that deals with navigation, lifesaving, shipbuilding, shore line infrastructure: harbors, wharves, and piers, and landings, fishing, fishing boats, gear processing related commerce, and then recreation, types and related infrastructures. These are examples of what you might be looking at in terms of the how question.

Some of the places that we’ve been working on trying to develop a framework for MCL is … One of the areas is the Redwood Coast of Northern California. This was a document that Jim Delgado who’s our director of the Maritime Heritage Program prepared. The synopsis documents really are the kinds of things that help to set out the framework for the various elements of Maritime Cultural Landscape for that particular area. It gives a general overview and it really sets the agenda for what would be further investigated. In this case, it’s for an area that’s being proposed for expansion of the existing MPA’s, Cordell Bank and the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

That light green area on the top shows the expansion area that’s being proposed, it’s before Congress. It’s an area that extends both the Cordell Bank and the Gulf of Farallone Sanctuary, which are the two lowest dark purple and dark green boxes or areas. What’s interesting about this one is that in fact one of the things that immediately that we discovered of doing the perspectives document, the synopsis document for MCL for this Redwood Coast, was that the actual cultural landscape extends further north of the expansion area. I mentioned that sometimes the ecosystem that we’re looking at for political boundaries may not be congruent with the landscapes as they’re defined and as they’re bounded in these discussions about cultural landscape analysis. These documents are important because they do give you that first look at the cultural landscape and its various elements.

Copies of this document are available. I’d be happy to send you one if you send me an email. I’m at brad.barr@noaa.gov and this is a particularly good one and very interesting for anybody who knows anything about that particular part of the coast, but it’s also interesting in terms of defining what the MCL framework might look for that particular area.

I also wanted to mention that there’s another paper that we’re using that was published, “Ocean and Coastal Management” last year, which takes off on the ideas that were proposed by the Cultural Heritage Working Group of the MPA Center, and carries it forward into this … Basically from theory to practice, idea for Maritime Cultural Landscapes and Marine Protected Areas. I’d be happy to send you a copy to that or it’s available online. This gives you a sense of really what we’re talking about in a little bit more detail.

I guess in conclusion I want to say that this is a work in progress. We’re still learning about how to make this all work within the context of the National Marine Sanctuary system. We’re getting a lot of good advice. We’re beginning to understand a little bit more deeply about what Maritime Cultural Landscapes are and how they relate to place-based management. I think we’re making progress is what I would say, and I think that we will continue to make progress because we’re really intent on trying to make this a part of the way we do business in the sanctuary system.

The key is really that synergy between Ecosystem Based Management and Maritime Cultural Landscapes. The implementation process that can be used for using this deeper knowledge that’s generated by Maritime Cultural Landscapes is already in place in the National Marine Sanctuary system and in other place-based management mechanisms and that’s things like: site establishment, management planning, and public engagement. These are already things we do. Its expanding how we do these things to integrate the knowledge of MCL is the real challenge, and it’s a really formidable challenge in many ways because agencies have cultures that adapt very slowly in acceptance of … Active engagement by the sites. It’s difficult particularly when resources are incredibly limited as they are now.

Again, we have a realistic expectation of how we’re implementing this throughout the system, but we have a clear mandate to move forward and to embrace it as a part of the way we do business regularly. It requires certainly a capacity to support the collection of essential Maritime Cultural Landscape information, and this isn’t just an internal process but it’s very much a collaborative process and engagement, with public engagement and engagement with as broad a group of people as possible who have an interest, and who have something to contribute to our understanding of Maritime Culture Landscape.

Dave ?: Brad, you had mentioned the European heritage preservation practitioners that have been involved in looking at maritime cultural landscapes and publishing on it in 1992. Have you engaged any of them to see where things stand today with the further development and evolution of the maritime cultural landscapes concept and how it gets applied in maritime heritage preservation contexts over there?

Brad: Yeah we’ve just begun to do that. Interesting you should mention that, because Jim Delgado was at a meeting over in someplace in Europe and ran into Christer Westerdahl and they had a long conversation and Jim sort of laid out the kind of things we were doing in maritime cultural landscapes, and Jim said that Christer was delighted with where we were headed. That kind of validation is sort of rare. But I think it’s important for us to do that because there is a lot going on, and we certainly are reaching out, more broadly, to try to understand what’s happening in places like Europe where they’ve been working on some of these ideas longer than we have.

Dave: My second question for you is, and maybe you touched on this in your presentation, and it just skipped my mind. How do you … or do you define any kind of boundaries for a maritime cultural landscape? As you’re speaking about it conceptually, I immediately started to think about terminology and the importance of terminology in discussing some of the different definitions of some of the terms that are used in this discussion. It occurred to me that what I was seeing, described as a maritime cultural landscapes, in your talk is quite a bit different than the submerged paleo-cultural landscape that we are going to be talking about in a little bit, and the way that that is thought of. I just … I’m curious. Are there any types of boundaries that you would consider with a maritime cultural landscape? To me it seems like it extends to the surface of the water that’s being used, as well as the interface between land and water. In our case, we’re dealing with a landscape that’s been inundated, submerged impact. We’ve got sort of time-transgressive maritime cultural landscape opportunities in the submerged landscape, paleo-cultural landscape. They’re just different. I think it’s important for us to recognize that there is a difference.

Brad: I agree. I think that we … our focus is looking at integrating the maritime cultural landscapes into our sites. And so we have constrained boundaries already. We have a site and so what … The Redwood Coast is a good example of that because we looked at all of the significant historical activities and cultural activities that occurred within there. And then we looked at the boundaries of the kind of effect of those activities and areas, and one of the things we discovered was that the reach of the actual boundary if you will, and I’m not sure there distinct boundaries, but the sort of fuzzy boundary of the cultural landscape for that particular expansion area was actually further north than the areas that we’d been looking at previously. It’s a little easier for us because we have discrete sites that are established by metes and bound. So we are looking at those activities within that particular site.

Brad: If you’re starting from first principles, it’s going to be very difficult to determine what boundary the landscape actually is.

John Jensen: John Jensen. I’d like to respond to Dave’s question a little bit if I could. I think it’s a very important one, and one of the elements that we’ve struggled with, Rod Matter and I, and others in the cultural heritage working group, is recognizing that when we go for a cultural landscape approach and think about cultural landscapes, we’re really dealing with two different things, at the least. One, it’s landscapes in the property sense of the word. How does that connect up with the National Register? That kind of property that’s worth understanding, assessing, and choosing to preserve. That’s the functional element of it. Then there is the bigger picture which is using a cultural landscape approach as a way of looking at the world, as a way of looking at maritime space. But I think there’s room, and both things are … can work with one another very well. But again, there are two different ways that works.

Larry Fry: This is Larry Fry in Hawaii. Thanks Brad for a great presentation. I certainly agree with the cultural landscape approach. So comment and a question. My comment first is that if anybody is interested, there is a lengthy dissertation being published this year on how to look at landscape form in traditional fishing villages along the West coast of Florida. It uses Cortez, Florida as a model. It’s a really lengthy dissertation, and it really discusses a lot of the things Brad was talking about today. So if anybody wants to keep an eye out for that, I think it would be a worthy read during your spare time. One of my questions for Brad, have you looked at with any focus at traditional fishing villages, mostly vernacular fishing villages in the US? Has that been a part of your study?

Brad: It’s certainly within the scope of what we’re hoping to be able to include within maritime cultural landscapes. I know in the Redwoods Coast document and some other work that’s been done, we have looked at those traditional fishing villages and the landscape of commercial fishing and fishing landscapes of these areas. It is something we are looking at. It’s an evolving part of the approach.

Larry: Okay. I think one thing that leads to the cultural landscape approach in this context is the fact that a lot of the infrastructure, the historic infrastructure of historic fishing villages is no longer there. You read National Register nominations about these fishing villages, and they really concentrate on the dwellings that are there. All of the most important things, the elements that make them historic, are now missing. They are rarely discussed at some of the National Register nominations. For example, the net dryng docks that used to be used when cotton nets were around. Vernacular dwellings can be found anywhere, not just maritime cultural landscapes. That’s one thing that I think that’s important. I certainly think traditional fishing villages are an important focus.

Brad: Absolutely. I think one of the other elements of that that is particularly interesting is looking at the changes in fishing grounds over time, because it really does provide that link between the changes in the environment and changes in the human use. There’s been quite a bit of work being done in New England about that. And I think it’s all really fascinating and certainly very relevant to the work that we are doing with maritime cultural landscapes.

National Center for Preservation Technology and Training
645 University Parkway
Natchitoches, LA 71457

Email: ncptt[at]nps.gov
Phone: (318) 356-7444
Fax: (318) 356-9119