2015-05-05
602
3.1 Введение в проблему культурно-ландшафтного районирования
(Веденин Ю. А.)..................................................................................... 335
3.2 Опыт культурно-ландшафтного описания крупных регионов России
(Веденин Ю. А.)..................................................................................... 338
3.3 Культурно-ландшафтное районирование Кунгурского края
(Кулешова М. Е.)................................................................................... 383
3.4 Культурно-ландшафтная дифференциация территории национального
парка «Угра» (Чалая И. П., Иванова И. Г.)......................................... 406
3.5 Культурно-ландшафтная дифференциация территории Кенозерского
национального парка (Веденин Ю. А., Тормосов Д. В.)....................... 425
3.6 Культурно-ландшафтное районирование территории Бородинского поля
(Горбунов А. В., Кулешова М. Е.)......................................................... 446
4 Управление культурными ландшафтами
как объектами наследия
4.1 Управление культурными ландшафтами на охраняемых территориях
(Кулешова М. Е.)................................................................................... 463
4.2 Предмет охраны и пути сохранения культурного ландшафта Бородинского
поля (Горбунов А. В.)............................................................................. 503
|
|
|
4.3 Программа сохранения культурных ландшафтов Кенозерья
(Веденин Ю. А., Козыкин А. В., Кулешова М. Е., Тормосов Д. В.)...... 532
4.4 Менеджмент-план как инструмент сохранения культурных ландшафтов:
на примере национального парка «Угра» (Кулешова М. Е., Новиков В. П.,
Массалитина Г. А.).............................................................................. 549
4.5 Практика охраны этнокультурных ландшафтов: на примере территории
российского Севера (Шульгин П. М.).................................................. 576
4.6 Организационно-правовые аспекты охраны культурных ландшафтов
Польши (Онуфриенко Г. Ф.)................................................................. 588
Заключение (Веденин Ю. А., Кулешова М. Е.)..................................... 598
Table of contents
Preface (F. Bandarin)............................................................................. 5
Introduction (Yu. Vedenin, M. Kuleshova).............................................. 7
Chapter 1. Methodological background: research
of cultural landscape as a heritage site
1.1 Cultural Landscape as a Category of Heritage (Yu. Vedenin, M. Kuleshova) 13
1.2 Principles and Methods of Cultural Landscape Assessment (M. Kuleshova) 37
1.3 Informational Paradigm of the Cultural Landscape (Yu. Vedenin).......... 68
1.4 Factors of Spatial Differentiation depending on Cultural Landscapes:
Natural Frame, Its Ecological Functions, Natural and Cultural
Framework (M. Kuleshova)..................................................................... 82
1.5 Audio Markers in the Cultural and Ethnic Landscape (E. Andreeva)...... 105
1.6 Topological Organization of the Traditional Cultural Landscape
(V. Kalutskov)......................................................................................... 116
1.7 Perception of the Cultural Landscape in the Russian Geography
(M. Obolenskaya)................................................................................... 133
Chapter 2. Typology of cultural landscape as a heritage
site and its descriptions
2.1 Systematics of Cultural Landscape (M. Kuleshova)................... 145
2.2 County Estates and Their Place in the Cultural Landscapes
of Russia..................................................................................... 163
|
|
|
2.2.1Estate Landscape as a Heritage Site (Yu. Vedenin)..................... 164
2.2.2Old Estates Near St.-Petersburg and Their Role in
Forming Cultural Landscape (T. Isachenko).................................. 186
2.3 Monastery Landscape: Case Study of the Anzer Island in Solovetsky Archipelago
(M. Kuleshova)....................................................................................... 197
2.4 Landscape of the Battlefields: Genesis, Structure, Evolution
(A. Gorbunov).................................................................................... 230
2.5 Relict Peasant Landscape in the Russian North................................. 246
2.5.1 Functional and Spatial Organization of the Kenozero Cultural Landscape
(M. Kuleshova) 247
2.5.2................................................................................................................ Folklore as a Tool for Cultural Landscape Description (N. Vedernikova)......................................................................... 286
2.6 Roeros Industrial Landscape as a World Heritage Site (M. Jones) 313
2.7 The Medieval Cultural Landscape as an Object of Archaeological Research: Case Studyof Old Radonezh (S. Chernov)................................................................ 322
603
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
Chapter 3. Cultural landscape differentiation
3.1 Introduction to the Cultural Landscape Regionalizing (Yu. Vedenin) 335
3.2 Description of Russia’s Regions as Cultural Landscapes (Yu. Vedenin) 338
3.3 Cultural Landscape Regionalizing of the Kungur Kray (M. Kuleshova) 383
3.4 Cultural Landscape Differentiation in the Ugra National Park
(I. Chalaya, I. Ivanova).......................................................................... 406
3.5 Cultural Landscape Differentiation in the Kenozero National Park
(Yu. Vedenin, D. Tormosov).................................................................... 425
3.6 Cultural Landscape Complexes at the Borodino Battlefield
(A. Gorbunov, M. Kuleshova)................................................................. 446
Chapter 4. Cultural landscape management
4.1 Cultural Landscape Management in the Protected Areas (M. Kuleshova) 463
4.2 Subject for Protection and Conservation of the Cultural Landscape
at the Borodino Battlefield (A. Gorbunov).............................................. 503
4.3 Programme for Conservation of Cultural Landscapes in Kenozero
(Yu. Vedenin, A. Kozykin, M. Kuleshova, D. Tormosov)......................... 532
4.4 Management Plan as a Tool for Conservation of Cultural Landscapes:
Ugra National Park Case Study (M. Kuleshova, V. Novikov, G. Massalitina) 549
4.5 Practical Conservation of Ethnic Cultural Landscapes: Russian North Case Study
(P. Shul’gin)........................................................................................... 576
4.6 Organizational and Legal Aspects of the Cultural Landscape Protection in Poland
(G. Onufrienko)...................................................................................... 588
Conculsion (Yu. Vedenin, M. Kuleshova)............................................... 598
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
Abstracts
Chapter 1. Methodological background: research
of cultural landscape as a heritage site
1.1. Cultural Landscape as a Category of Heritage
(Yu. Vedenin, M. Kuleshova)
In contemporary Russian geographical science there are three main approaches to
the definition and understanding of the cultural landscape: classical physico-geo-
graphical, ethnological and informational-axiological. In this book the latter one is the
base for relevant investigation as this approach correlates well with principles and cate-
gories of the World Heritage Sites. The cultural landscape falls in the category of heri-
tage sites primarily due to its universal value, i. e. an extent to which the creative poten-
tial of man-nature interaction is reflected in the specific cultural, historic and geo-
graphic context. Cultural landscape as a heritage site shall be characterized by
authenticity and integrity. Analysis of different international documents advocates
that cultural landscape could be one of the most promising categories for nominations
to the World Heritage List and in the near future might change the proportion between
various types of the heritage sites. Biosphere reserves (evolution of these protected ar-
eas is described in detail in this section), national parks and museum-reserves play a
particular role in the preservation of cultural landscapes in Russia. Cultural landscape
becomes one of the topical issues in the elaboration of the international and European
programs, pertaining to the strategy of environmental protection and human
well-being.
1.2. Principles and Methods of Cultural Landscape Assessment
(M. Kuleshova)
Section provides an insight into the system of evaluation criteria applied by
UNESCO for the site nomination in the World Heritage List, as well as the other assess-
ment systems, used for the establishment of the protected areas network. There are
screened possibilities for application of the existing methods and tools for the cultural
landscape evaluation. A comprehensive system of indicators for this evaluation in-
cludes both natural and cultural phenomena: the public recognition of the cultural
landscape as the masterpiece resulting from combined works of nature and of man; an
exceptional testimony of the evolutionary natural and cultural processes; an outstand-
ing example (and extraordinary representation) of either natural or cultural process,
605
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
site, and phenomenon; historic representation, or an important evidence of a signifi-
cant stage in the human history or in the natural processes, phenomena and events;
a representation of habitats with key importance to the presentation of cultural and
natural diversity, including the exceptionally valuable natural and cultural assets under
the threat of destruction; taxonomic uniqueness, i. e. the high rarity of certain types or
classes of objects; direct or tangible association with historic events, outstanding per-
sonalities, their creative work, public ideals and cultural and living traditions.
In the conclusion there are presented the examples of cultural landscape nomina-
tions to the World Heritage List from Russia. The first and only one cultural landscape
listed in the World Heritage in Russia is the Curonian Spit in the Baltic region.
Solovetsky Monastery is nominated as the architectural ensemble, however there has
been an evaluation of this site by the international expert group with the proposal to
re-nominate it as a cultural landscape. There is also an unassailable evidence for cul-
tural landscape of Kenozero to get such status in the World Heritage List.
|
|
|
1.3. Informational Paradigm of the Cultural Landscape
(Yu. Vedenin)
The informational background for cultural landscapes is presented in this section
as the heritage site category. There is introduced a definition of the landscape informa-
tional layer. Particular attention has been given to the classification of the landscapes
according to the level of public awareness in relation to valuable scientific, historic, es-
thetic information and their specific carriers. Consequently, the following landscape
groups are identified:
1. Landscapes carrying valuable information, which is still not widely recognized
among specialists and public, but potentially important for the world and national cul-
ture. As subgroups there are distinguished: a) landscapes with information carriers in
the form of material objects (archaeological, architectural, ethnological, etc.) and po-
tential natural monuments (geological, hydrological, biological etc.); b) landscapes,
where informational layer is formed by the local population, a creator and guardian of
the certain traditions, knowledge and lore, fixed in the oral folk culture.
2. Landscapes carrying information, valuable for world and national culture,
particularly fixed, developed and widely recognized regionally, nationally and glob-
ally. In this group of landscapes, similarly to the first category, there are distinguished
two subgroups: a) landscapes, which value is determined by the material objects, re-
vealed by scientists and local guides — these could be both local people (ethnic group)
and monuments of history, nature and culture; b) landscapes, which informational
layer is formed on the basis of mythology, created by art, religion, folk art. This my-
thology exists both in the virtual and material space; and the connection between the
real objects and their virtual images could be relative and highly improbable.
3. Landscapes existing in the virtual space (transcendent), created by the imagi-
nation of scientists, artists, literature men, without the specific analogues in the world.
Particular attention is given to the role of information in various types of heritage
sites — designed and created intentionally by man, organically evolved and associative
cultural landscapes. In conclusion the constructive significance of the cultural land-
scape concept for the state cultural policy is discussed.
606
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
1.4. Factors of Spatial Differentiation depending on Cultural
Landscapes: Natural Frame, Its Ecological Functions, Natural
and Cultural Framework
(M. Kuleshova)
Natural frame is represented as the system of geographic morphological struc-
tures, most significant from the ecological point of view and responsible of the pro-
cesses of mass-energy circulation in the geosystems, which determine environmental
sustainability and physical landscape patterns. Every item of natural frame and its rele-
vant territorial complex plays the specific role in sustaining essential parameters of the
natural or social and cultural environment. Such roles are determined as ecological
functions. The following ecological functions are identified in the natural frame:
edificial (enviro-protecting and enviro-forming), informational (in situ conservation
of an asset, either scientific, research, or didactic), resource protecting and resource re-
newing, recreational and curative, or medicinal.
|
|
|
The frame structures could be distinguished by form as well: linear (these are its
axes), point (these are its hubs (nodes) occurring at the overlaps, trans-sections and ap-
proximations), and areal ones. Frame axes are subdivided into linear connecting, linear
barrier-distributing, linear contacting and linear buffers. Most significant are the hubs
of the frame — zones of particular functional saturation and informational potential.
Natural-cultural framework evolves as a result of the process of natural and cul-
tural interactions. This is a poly-functional system actively affecting the type of devel-
opment and spatial organization of all territorial complexes — economic, settlement,
technical and engineering subsystems. Therefore, the natural framework hubs might
be represented either by natural reserve or a city. In this way, the principally new ap-
proach is proposed to deal with the territorial framework based on interaction versus
counteraction of natural and man-made factors in the construction of the Earth land-
scapes. Such approach is essential for the concept of the cultural landscape as a heri-
tage. It brings scientist to the search for constructive models of nature and socio-
cultural sphere interaction.
1.5. Audio Markers in the Cultural and Ethnic Landscape
(E. Andreeva)
A notion of a «sounding» landscape is introduced as the specific type of cultural
landscape. An attempt to consider role of sounds and audio environment as important
features in the cultural landscape is commissioned. The «sounding» landscape is seen
not only as an inalienable part of the cultural landscape but also as its independent and
integral component.
In the interaction with the other components of the cultural landscape, the audio
environment is one of the main cultural dominants. «Audio-design» — is a real, func-
tional factor in the territorial planning. It is more active than the other components, it
is adequately perceived and interpreted in the bordering of cultural landscape. The
transformations in the ethnic or confessional composition of the population are im-
mediately reflected in the audio environment of the cultural landscape. The written
607
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
sources (as well as historic, ethnographic, folklore) provide a way for understanding of
the sounding atmosphere at a given territory in the past. The bell chimes were the most
constant audio markers of the Russian cultural landscape.
1.6. Topological Organization of the Traditional Cultural Landscape
(V. Kalutskov)
A term «topos» is coined by an author for representation of a unit in the typologi-
cal organization of the cultural landscape. Topos is a name of a definite place or a land-
scape locus. This is a group toponym with the geographically localized distribution
(use) in a specific ethnic environment or in a particular socio-cultural community.
Topological organization of the cultural landscape is considered in the following as-
pects: typological (according to composition and correlation of different types of
toposes; territorial (through analysis of territorial network and location of different
toposes); and spatio-semantic (revealing natural- cultural complexes). A comparison
of topological organization is provided for the traditional cultural landscapes of the
Russian North. Territorial distribution of toposes is described and natural-cultural
topological complexes are identified in the rural cultural landscape of Verkola district
in the Arkhangelsk region. Topos’ role is illustrated as an important element of the re-
gional and local intangible heritage, intrinsic to the traditional culture of the Russian
North.
1.7. Perception of the Cultural Landscape in the Russian Geography
(M. Obolenskaya)
Based on publications review, there is proposed an analysis of different ap-
proaches to the perception of cultural landscape. A history of this concept and its evo-
lution in the Russian geography is traced through the XX century. Basic notions of the
cultural landscape theory are considered, both traditional for the national geographic
school and resulting from the comprehensive humanitarian research in geography.
The existing methodological background, and tendencies of its further development
are described. It is demonstrated that now the most promising trends are located at the
intersection of theoretical geography and the other areas of knowledge, in particular,
in cultural sciences.
Chapter 2. Typology of cultural landscape as a heritage
site and its descriptions
2.1. Systematics of Cultural Landscape
(M. Kuleshova)
This section describes different approaches to heritage sites in the context of the
landscape typology. Leading classification with various additions and clarifications
(explanations) is based on the typology in the UNESCO guidelines for implementation
of the Convention on World Natural and Cultural Heritage. There is discussed a possi-
608
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
bility to test the typology, based on diversity of landscape transformation activity (ag-
ricultural, building construction, sacred/spiritual, museum, nature conservation etc.),
as well as diverse (rural, urban, peasant, monastery, industrial etc.) cultures.
Cultural landscapes, nominated to the List of World Heritage Sites, according to
their short descriptions, correlate with specific activities and cultural characteristics.
The comparison of the official published lists of the cultural landscapes (World Heri-
tage Sites) with the brief versions of the existing nominations on cultural heritage re-
veals that the status of cultural landscape is awarded to site in exceptional cases.
A group of so-called “hidden” cultural landscapes is formed. Rural landscapes domi-
nate among both formally recognised and “hidden” cultural landscapes. The role of sa-
cred, archaeological and industrial landscapes increases steadily. In the list of World
Heritage Sites there is a cluster of hidden cultural landscapes in the form of protected
palace and park ensembles and also, gardens. Sporadically, most often in the “hidden”
form, the memorial and fortification landscapes are being nominated.
The special attention is given to the urban landscape. In the List of World Heritage
Sites urban landscapes are represented only in the “hidden” form, because the urban
quarters and ensembles are formally recognized as group of buildings category. This
prevents the comprehensive description and understanding of the urban culture as ter-
ritorial, landscape phenomenon. The cultural landscape systematics is directly con-
nected to the problem of spatial differentiation.
2.2. County Estates and their Place in the Cultural
Landscapes of Russia
This section consists of two sub-sections, written by different authors. Both au-
thors propose their approach to the contents of the estate landscape, its relationship to
the other types of cultural landscapes, as well as focus on different heritage sites estab-
lished in different historic periods. Important, that authors are representing different
schools and regions. Yury Vedenin draws his conclusions on the material from Mos-
cow and Moscow region, while Tatyana Isachenko considers the situation around
St-Petersburg and in the Leningrad region.
2.2.1. Estate Landscape as a Heritage Site
(Yu. Vedenin)
This sub-section comprises a material on the place of the estate landscape in the
cultural heritage of Russia. Estate landscape is considered as an arena of social, eco-
nomic and cultural activities. Particular attention is paid to the role of art in the forma-
tion of the estate landscape, including architecture, garden and park art, music, theater
and literature, their impact upon harmonization of the estate and surrounding rural
landscapes. Special subsection is dedicated to the comprehensive evaluation of estate
landscapes at present in Russia, and the problems of their conservation, restoration, re-
vival and evolution.
609
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
2.2.2. Old Estates Near St. Petersburg and Their Role
in Forming Cultural Landscape
(T. Isachenko)
In this sub-section there is laid out an analysis if the estates’ input primarily to the
formation of the cultural landscape and its components, morphological structure and
secondly, to the image and physiognomy of the contemporary landscape. During the
estate’s building up all components of the natural complex, including the topography
and hydrological network, could be changed or transformed. However, vegetation is
the most changeable landscape component, and its transformation in the estate parks
and surrounding landscapes always results in greater biodiversity.
Due to changed topography, new hydrological regime and introduced plant com-
munities, new morphological landscape units emerge — such as facies and biotopes;
microclimatic conditions also change inside the estate complexes.
Estates have the great influence over the landscapes in the Leningrad region. In
this section it has been illustrated by the example of 4 landscape regions — Izhora,
Luga-Oredezh, Luga and Upper Luga. In the Izhora plateau upland the landscape calls
for urgent measures in the protection of the estates as the historical environment. Es-
tate landscapes at present are relict deteriorating complexes. Except in a few cases, they
degrade or emerge into the surrounding natural landscape: the ponds enter the
eutrophication, park trees are dying, introduced plants are being extinguished.
2.3. Monastery Landscape: Case Study of the Anzer Island
in Solovetsky Archipelago
(M. Kuleshova)
Monastery landscape has specific features distinguishing it from the other types
of cultural landscape. Monastery culture is based on the recognition of the beauty and
wisdom (good practice) as the God creation. Consequently, any transformations shall
not destroy nature, but to the contrary, enhance and humanize the initial perfection
and utility. Monastery landscape is distinguished by peculiar semantic significance.
Religious semantics of the landscape initiate due to presence of cult edifices, faith sym-
bols, memorial and legendary places, religious toponyms. This landscape is character-
ized by example of Anzer Island — a most mysterious island of the Solovetsky Archi-
pelago, where the Saviour Transfiguration monastery is located.
Landscape descriptions are executed in the system of topological criteria, adopted
by UNESCO. There are delineated the following landscapes at the island territory —
associative (of sacred significance, related to historical events, personalities and leg-
ends), clearly defined (estates and sketes) and organically evolved landscapes (forest
and meadows, forest and bogs with the regulated water runoff). Each of these land-
scape types is associated with the specific macrostructures, forming the natural frame-
work (lake/canal systems, ancient depressions of the subglacial lakes, sea coastal areas,
topographic barriers and highlands, landscape boundaries etc.). Cultural centers of the
island (both of sacred and economic activity) coincide with the nodes of the natural
frame. Understanding of the Anzer cultural landscape formation assists in the elabora-
tion of the effective operational program for its protection, restoration and use.
610
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
2.4. Landscape of the Battlefields: Genesis, Structure, Evolution
(A. Gorbunov)
In the section the transformation of battlefield cultural landscapes is modeled in
the case study of Borodino site. The initial rural estate landscape, due to the grand bat-
tle has been transformed into the historic military site with the associative cultural
landscape. Though the battlefield landscape originates from the different destructive
activities, related to the topography transformation, vegetation extermination, total
destruction of infrastructure and constructions, its complete conservation is not desir-
able, and both people and nature are aiming to restore the detrimental losses. The rela-
tive authenticity of the battlefields has to be preserved exclusively by comprehensive
development of the memorial landscape with the museum elements to create the asso-
ciative image of the battlefield. The systematization of the compositional elements in
the cultural landscape of the battlefields is viewed as the integral approach enabling to
maximize estimation of historical-cultural and natural sites, to classify according to
typical characteristics, to propose an action plan for their protection and use.
2.5. Relict Peasant Landscape in the Russian North
2.5.1. Functional and Spatial Organization of the Kenozero
Cultural Landscape
(M. Kuleshova)
Kenozero Land is the unique model of the peasant landscape in the Russian North,
one of the few sites, where the living tradition of the rural culture still exists. Here are
widely represented both the tangible and intangible heritage phenomena, as the infor-
mational base of the cultural relict landscape. It is important to note the high level of sa-
credness in the environment, the presence of multiple chapels, sacred woods, obey and
ceremonial crosses. Establishing national park in Kenozero had presented the unique op-
portunities for scientific research and monitoring. The case study demonstrates the spa-
tial-functional structure of the peasant (rural) landscape, including the following zones:
settlement (village of alive), aquatic area with the necropolis (village of dead), adjacent
community plough lands, transitional meadows, growth and bush area, and finally, the
peripheral zone of further lakes and woods with hunting and fishing grounds, timber
and non-timber activities. The localization of sacred sites, their role in the spatial net-
work in the traditional rural landscape have been considered from the conceptual point
of view. The original natural factors in the village planning and construction have been
considered. By example of several cultural landscape complexes there has been proposed
an algorithm of the cadastre description of cultural landscapes as heritage sites.
2.5.2. Folklore as a Tool for Cultural Landscape Description
(N. Vedernikova)
Folklore is one of the important elements of the cultural landscape, providing an
evidence of the historical memory of local community, its relation to the original natu-
ral and cultural environment. In the folklore there are discovered the most essential
611
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
features of spiritual culture, corresponding to the tangible landscape elements. On the
basis of the field materials (stories, legends, oral poems and fairy tales etc.), collected in
Kenozero at the complex expedition by the Heritage Institute in 2002, there is provided
the directory of the elements of spiritual geography — sacred woods, monasteries,
churches, chapels, crosses as the system of cultural values, the essentials of the sacred
and household traditions in Kenozero spiritual heritage. Folklore assists in the discov-
ery and studying of island burial grounds (necropolis), phenomenal to Kenozero
Land. The records about household spirits, transcripts of the historic tales permit to
re-assess and review the village constructions — houses, banya (steam bath houses),
and to appraise nature use and subsistence (harvested fields, plough lands, meadows,
hunting grounds etc.). The success of folklore investigation in the description of cul-
tural landscape is supported by the analogous research of Vladimir Kalutskov and
Anna Ivanova in Pinega district of the Archangel region.
2.6. Roeros Industrial Landscape as the World Heritage Site
(M. Jones)
Norwegian Roeros has been nominated World Heritage Site as a medieval mining
town, where the complex of wooden constructions and installations for copper mining
industry has been preserved in entirety. In 1994 an international group of experts
worked there and it recommended heritage nomination to be extended to incorporate
rural and historical industrial landscape in addition to the town with the mining settle-
ment and copper production. It has been demonstrated that the vicinities of Roeros
comprise exclusive historical and cultural heritage and are of high value and of func-
tional and historical continuity with the town. The characteristics of the industrial cul-
tural landscape and its re-nomination history are presented in this section along with
the heritage establishment and prospects for future development. Russia has no expe-
rience in assessment and nomination of such types of landscapes yet, therefore the
Roeros case is of exceptional interest and value.
2.7. The Medieval Cultural Landscape as an Object
of Archaeological Research: Case Study of Old Radonezh
(S. Chernov)
Results of the archaeological research are proposed to study the cultural land-
scapes evolution, their ‘historical readings’, and typology according to the categories
adopted by UNESCO. Case study in the archaeological investigation of the cultural
landscapes in Moscow region (district of Old Radonezh) is a good example of such ap-
proach. There is included an archaeological interpretation of the organically evolved
medieval cultural landscapes in this area. Based on this research, relict sites of the land-
scape are determined — they are old roads, places of former settlements, valley bot-
tom meadows and other landscape components, preserved since Middle Age. It is
stressed that the archaeological reconnaissance of the terrain leads to the correct strat-
egy for the protection and use of the cultural landscapes.
612
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
Chapter 3. Cultural landscape differentiation
3.1. Introduction to the Cultural Landscape Regionalizing
(Yu. Vedenin)
Cultural landscape regionality is briefly reviewed. It is demonstrated that scale
and objectives play crucial role in the selection of methods and criteria for territorial
differentiation of cultural landscapes.
3.2. Description of Russia’s Regions as Cultural Landscapes
(Yu. Vedenin)
In the Russian cultural space extensive cultural landscape areas are delineated, de-
termined mainly by the ethnic composition of their population. The primary and most
spacious cultural landscape area is the Russian Eurasia. Its vital characteristic is that
Russians are both dominant in the population and comprise the only nation with the
compact traditional settlement on entire territory. In the other cultural landscape areas
the compact settlement is characteristic for non-Russians, other title nations and indig-
enous peoples.
Cultural landscape areas are divided into cultural landscape regions. In Russian
Eurasia they are determined by the differences in the history of settlement and coloni-
zation, as well as diversity of contemporary economic, social and cultural institutions.
For other cultural landscape areas the principal characteristics of regionality are
polyethnic composition, similar religious and cultural forms, administration and gov-
ernance, in particular, an establishment of ethnic autonomies.
In this section there is presented a brief description of the principal cultural land-
scape regions in Russian Eurasia. Particular attention is paid to the type of cultural her-
itage and traditional folk culture. These characteristics are fixed in the methaphor
(symbolic) names of the regions. They are as follows: Russian North — the living his-
tory of Russian nation; Novgorod and Pskov Land — historical Russian foreground in
the West; St-Petersburg — European center of Russia; Central Russian Lands — the
heart of Russia; Russian Black Soils — the poetic soul of Russia; Russian Near Cauca-
sus — the lands of ancient Greek colonies, Cossack stations and spas; Russian steppes
in Volga and Near Urals Lands — the eastern image of Russia; Russian works of the
Urals — land of tales, green stone and metals; Russian Western Siberia — land of first
colonists and first Siberian University; Russian Eastern Siberia — Land of Baikal, taiga
and industrial giants; Amur and Primorie — land of travelers, tiger and ginseng.
3.3. Cultural Landscape Regionalizing of the Kungur Kray
(M. Kuleshova)
Kungur Kray is considered under several administrative units of Perm region. In
the middle of 18 century sity of Kungur has been a capital of Perm government, and at
present it is the non-formal center in the South-West of Perm region. The section de-
scribes the history of Kungur Kray establishment as territorial entity, provides an ex-
planation for its borders, and natural, historical and cultural features, including the
613
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
natural, cultural and mixed heritage. On the basis of the geosystem analysis of the kray
territory, location of heritage sites and social and economic factors there is estimated
the natural and natural-cultural framework. This framework comprise the foundation
for cultural landscape differentiation of Kungur Kray. Eight cultural landscape regions
is contoured on its territory, with the four of them emerging along the valley of the
Sylva river, a main axis of natural-cultural network, the next two regions are located in
the left river-bank part of its watershed, and the remaining two regions in the right
river-bank of its watershed. Cultural landscape differentiation of the territory infers
that each region is specialized on tackling its ‘unique list’ of questions, what determines
the perspectives of socio-economic and socio-cultural development in Kungur Kray.
3.4. Cultural Landscape Differentiation in the Ugra
National Park
(I. Chalaya, I. Ivanova)
The Ugra National Park is situated in Kaluga region along valleys of the Urga and
the Zhizdra rivers. Its territory is abundant in valuable natural, historic and cultural
sites and attracts multiple visitors. Based on the cultural and historic data analysis and
landscape assessment, the park territory is divided into 60 sites, varying in natural and
cultural features, including the level of heritage preservation and the density of heri-
tage objects in the relevant sites. On the basis of these characteristics the relevant cate-
gories of sites are selected: unique and valuable, with high historic and cultural poten-
tial; mixed nature-agricultural; predominantly rural; technogenic (man-made) sites. In
this section there is placed the description of the unique sites, their principal cul-
tural-historic characteristics and most valuable objects of the heritage.
3.5. Cultural Landscape Differentiation in the Kenozero
National Park
(Yu. Vedenin, D. Tormosov)
The Kenozero National Park served as an object for identification and systemati-
zation of cultural landscapes and its entire territory has been divided into 4 cultural
landscape groups: Lyokshmozero, Vilno-Porzhenskoye, Kenozero and Pochozero.
Names of the groups relates to the toponyms of large lakes, indicating the centrifugal
pattern of the settlement. In each cultural landscape zone there are distinguished spe-
cific cultural landscape complexes. Core of the complex is a group of settlements, lo-
cated at the coast of one or several connected water bodies and encircled by spacious
fields and meadows, eventually transgressing into woods with hunting grounds.
Classification of the cultural landscape complexes is based on the information
about structure and state of rural settlements (clusters of smaller villages, so called
“kust”’), as well as type of agricultural land use. According to this classification, there
were distinguished 5 classes of cultural landscape complexes: a) cultural landscape
complex of artificially enlarged or newly built up settlements with permanent popula-
tion and agricultural land use; b) cultural landscape complex of traditional settlements
with permanent population and agricultural land use; c) cultural landscape complex of
614
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
abandoned settlements with seasonal agricultural land use; d) cultural landscape com-
plex with abandoned settlement and no land use.
In the section there is provided a brief characteristic of each complex, reflecting its
specific features and the role in the general system of settlement within the Kenozero
National Park.
3.6. Cultural Landscape Complexes at the Borodino Battlefield
(A. Gorbunov, M. Kuleshova)
The Museum Reserve has been established to memorize the Battle of Borodino,
at a place of decisive battle between two great armies, led by Mikhail Kutuzov and
Napoleon Bonaparte. The activity of the Museum reserve is aimed at the preserva-
tion and use of its territory for the tourist service and local excursions. The relevant
cultural landscapes memorize the events and actions of the Great Patriotic Wars in
1812 and in 1941–45. For the effective management of this territory there has been
organized the cultural landscape differentiation, based on the combination of visual
indicators as well as context information on military actions at the Borodino battle-
field. There were distinguished 14 landscape complexes with different cultural value
and tourist attractivity, their borders defined, a connection between cultural land-
scape characteristics and natural network and landscapes established. The landscape
images or ‘portraits’ have been compiled, including the detailed definition, fixing
type of the landscape complex, its functions, natural characteristics, historic and cul-
tural values. For primary historic and cultural landscape complexes there has been
developed an algorithm of representation of the basic information (definition —
borders — informational value — spatial structure and principal compositional ele-
ments — evolutionary process — main functions and use — quality assessment —
use and research prospects).
Chapter 4. Cultural landscape management
4.1. Cultural Landscape Management in the Protected Areas
(M. Kuleshova)
Cultural landscape management in the protected areas is defined as a system of
measures, aimed to provide the protection and/or promotion (restoration) of the
landscape complex as a heritage site. In Russia cultural landscapes are expeditiously
protected in National Parks and Museum Reserves. In other countries, for example,
in Great Britain, Germany, Norway, USA and Poland for the cultural landscapes pro-
tection there are being established various forms of protected territories. The prob-
lems and perspectives of Russia’s legislation development oriented at cultural land-
scape protection are further discussed in this section. One of the substantial gaps of
the Russian jurisdiction is a lack of category of the protected cultural area, in spite of
de facto existent institution of Museum reserves and Museum estates. Effective man-
agement of cultural landscapes is limited by discoordination of the relevant authori-
ties in the sphere of cultural and nature conservation. Principal threats to the values
615
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
of cultural landscape either in the protected areas or out of their limits emerge from
the deregulated urban development and land use. Particular attention is given to the
problems of informational, research and design support of cultural landscape man-
agement in the protected areas (identification, assessment, monitoring, inventory,
design and protection regulation), role of local community in the landscape protec-
tion. Restoration and conservation of the cultural landscapes in the context of na-
tional parks or museum reserves objectives might serve as a serious impulse to the lo-
cal economy development.
4.2. Subject for Protection and Conservation
of the Cultural Landscape at the Borodino Battlefield
(A. Gorbunov)
In this section there is presented a classified description of events at the Battle of
Borodino in 1812 and in the WWII in 1941, resulting in the transformation of the typi-
cal rural estate landscape in the western part of Moscow region into the heritage site. It
is followed by an assessment of negative and positive changes in the landscape at the
Borodino battlefield, which took place afterwards, the identification, inventory and
description of the landscape elements; their fixation and analysis of the visual and spa-
tial relationship to the landscape dominant heights with the determination of neces-
sary actions for their restoration. Optimal decision for this complicated task is the si-
multaneous provisions for the authenticity preservation and development of modern
functions of the battlefield site in the form of memorial landscape expositions based
on the existing cultural landscape complexes.
4.3. Programme for Conservation of Cultural Landscapes in Kenozero
(Yu. Vedenin, A. Kozykin, M. Kuleshova, D. Tormosov)
Program for conservation of the cultural landscapes in the Kenozero National
park has been elaborated under the management plan development for the period
2001–2005. The program goal is a provision of dynamic stability and unity of the cul-
tural landscapes in the park. Main factors, threatening the cultural landscapes protec-
tion, are interconnected with the cease of agricultural activity and loss of values of the
traditional lifestyle. Program for conservation of cultural landscapes in Kenozero
Land calls for identification and provision of the actions in order to secure the neces-
sary basis for their preservation and rehabilitation. These actions comprise as follows:
elaboration and enforcement of the legislation and regulation for cultural landscape
protection, relevant fundraising and financial support, research and design, as well as
planning and implementation of the specific activities to preserve the most valuable
landscape complexes. Each of the specified actions include the particular set of activi-
ties with the deadlines, tentative costs and executive bodies.
In relation to the relict cultural landscape an economic activity, ethnic and historic
memory of the local communities are of particular significance, ensuring reproduc-
tion of the main characteristics and quality of the landscape. Therefore the Program
concentrates the significant efforts to involvement of the local population into the
616
Cultural Landscape as a Heritage Site
protection and development of the cultural landscape. Research part of the Program is
oriented at the inventorying of the cultural landscape complexes and includes the pre-
ventive measures for further degradation of the agricultural lands, restoration of the
most important communicative and visual relationships, rehabilitation of the land-
scape proportions and maintenance of its functions.
4.4. Management Plan as a Tool for Conservation of Cultural
Landscapes: Ugra National Park Case Study
(M. Kuleshova, V. Novikov, G. Massalitina)
Management plan is a new practical tool in the protected areas functioning in
Russia. Recently, relevant document has been elaborated for many national parks. The
management plan developed for the Ugra National Park incorporates the special ac-
tion plan, aimed at conservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of cultural land-
scapes, what is the great advantage of this document, as this topical orientation at the
problems of the cultural landscape is not a common issue for national parks in general.
The Ugra National Park is characterized by exclusive diversity of the cultural land-
scapes — peasant, monastery, nobility estate, historical industrial, urban, archaeologi-
cal, military — all types of cultural landscape are represented here. Such diversity im-
poses heavy demands on the area management. Park territory is divided into particular
operational units — cultural landscape districts, each being characterized by specific
cultural, historic and natural geographical peculiarities. The assessment of cultural
landscapes, prospects for their development and main actions aimed at their protection
as heritage sites conclude this section.
4.5. Practical Conservation of Ethnic Cultural Landscapes:
Russian North Case Study
(P. Shul’gin)
Problems of determination and conservation of the ethnic landscapes are speci-
fied by example of the traditional lands of indigenous peoples of the North, where
there are preserved the aboriginal culture, system of migration and settlement, tradi-
tional land use and subsistence and sacred sites. All these lands contain the memory of
the people and at the same time serve for their contemporary subsistence and tradi-
tional living.
The specific case is presented in this section — this is the design of the Punsi nat-
ural park in Khanty-Mansi autonomous region. The main objective for this park is a
protection of natural complexes and unique historical cultural heritage and tradi-
tional culture of Salym Khanty people. This original ethnic group preserved the tradi-
tional practice of land use and tribal land system. There is proposed the specific pro-
gram of establishment and activity of the Punsi Natural park as a strictly protected
ethnic-ecological territory. Along with the protection of the traditional land use by
local Khanty people, there are discussed the perspectives for development of new
types of activities, including organization of museum services, relevant research and
tourism.
617
Культурный ландшафт как объект наследия
4.6. Organizational and Legal Aspects of the Cultural
Landscape Protection in Poland
(G. Onufrienko)
Protection of cultural landscapes is one of the priority issues for the cultural pol-
icy in Poland. Establishment of protected areas is recognized as the leading form of
the cultural landscapes protection. Jurisdiction on landscape parks establishment is
presented as a case study. Particular attention is paid to research process and methodi-
cal materials for the cultural landscape protection. Protection activities, conservation
and revalorization of cultural landscape in Poland are stimulated under the National
Program adopted by the Ministry of Culture in 1994. One of the chapters in this pro-
gram is entirely dedicated to the cultural landscape protection and has the relevant ti-
tle. The consideration of the Poland experience in the management of cultural heri-
tage, and in particular, concerning the cultural landscapes, is of high interest, because
many political and legal processes in this country are analogous to the contemporary
Russian life.
Научное издание
Культурный ландшафт
как объект наследия
Научные редакторы:
Юрий Александрович Веденин,
Марина Евгеньевна Кулешова
Утверждено к печати Редакционно-издательским советом
Российского научно-исследовательского института
культурного и природного наследия
имени Д. С. Лихачёва
Лицензия ЛР № 020730 от 3 марта 1998 г.
Редакторы:
Ю. Б. Виниченко, Ю. С. Макаревич
Перевод Т. Ю. Семёновой
Оформление картосхем
А. А. Парамоновой
Российский научно-исследовательский институт
культурного и природного наследия имени Д. С. Лихачёва.
129366, Москва, ул. Космонавтов, 2
Издательство «Дмитрий Буланин».
Санкт-Петербург, Выборгская наб., 29, оф. 417
Подписано в печать 22.11.04 г. Формат 70×108 1/16.
Бумага офсетная. Гарнитура Miniature.
Печ. л. 38,75. Тираж 800 экз.
Заказ № 409.
Отпечатано в ИПП «Гриф и К»,
300057, Тула, ул. Октябрьская, 81а.
ОГЛАВЛЕНИЕ
Предисловие. 5
Preface. 6
Введение. 7
I Методология изучения культурных ландшафтов как объектов наследия. 11
1.1 Культурные ландшафты как категория наследия. 13
Понятие «культурный ландшафт». 13
Культурные ландшафты и Всемирное наследие. 18
Свойства культурного ландшафта как объекта Всемирного наследия. 21
Культурный ландшафт и особо охраняемые территории. 26
Культурный ландшафт и европейские стратегии защиты окружающей среды.. 31
Литература. 34
1.2 Принципы и методы оценки культурного ландшафта. 37
Критерии ценности культурного ландшафта в системе объектов Всемирного наследия. 37
Обобщённая система критериев ценности природного и культурного наследия, включая культурные ландшафты.. 42
Применение оценочных критериев для целей создания особо охраняемых территорий. 45
Примеры обоснования универсальной ценности ряда культурных ландшафтов России для целей их отнесения к участкам Всемирного наследия. 51
Обоснование предложения о реноминации Соловецкого архипелага как объекта Всемирного природного и культурного наследия. 54
Основания для проведения реноминации Соловецкого архипелага по категории «mixed property» (смешанное наследие) — культурные ландшафты и природные комплексы.. 57
Критерии соответствия статусу Всемирного природного и культурного наследия. 59
Обоснование предложения о включении Кенозерья в Список Всемирного природного и культурного наследия по категории «культурный ландшафт». 62
Основания для отнесения к номинации по категории «культурный ландшафт». 64
Литература. 66
1.3 Информационная парадигма культурного ландшафта. 68
Основные характеристики информационного слоя культурного ландшафта. 70
Информация как основа классификации культурных ландшафтов. 72
Методы описания культурного ландшафта. 77
Культурный ландшафт и наследие. 77
Место культурного ландшафта в культурной политике и политической культуре. 79
Литература. 81
1.4 Факторы культурно-ландшафтной диф-ференциации территории – при-родный каркас, его экологические функции и природно-культурный каркас. 82
Природный каркас и экологические функции территории. 82
Структуры природного каркаса. 89
Природно-культурный каркас. 93
Методология выявления природных и природно-культурных каркасов в связи с задачами создания особо охраняемых территорий. 97
Литература. 104
1.5 О звуковом маркировании культурного ландшафта и пространства этнокультуры 105
Литература. 115
1.6 Топологическая организация традиционного культурного ландшафта. 116
Постановка проблемы.. 116
Культурный ландшафт: «внешний» и «внутренний». 116
Топологическая организация культурного ландшафта и местное сообщество. 117
Топос - единица топологической организации культурного ландшафта. 118
Топологическая организация традиционных культурных ландшафтов Русского Севера (типологический аспект) 124
Топологическая организация Веркольского ландшафтного заказника: территориальный аспект и природно-культурные комплексы.. 127
Топосы как наследие. 131
Литература. 132
1.7 Эволюция взглядов на культурный ландшафт в российской географи-ческой науке 133
Литература. 142
2 Типологическое разнообразие культурных ландшафтов как объектов наследия и алгоритмы их описания 143
2.1 Систематика культурных ландшафтов. 145
Литература. 162
2.2 Русский усадебный ландшафт и его место в культурном ландшафте России. 163
2.2.1 Усадебный ландшафт как тип культурного наследия. 164
Роль помещичьей усадьбы в культурном пространстве России. 164
Выделение усадебного ландшафта как объекта наследия. 168
Усадебный ландшафт как арена жизнедеятельности. 173
Роль искусства в формировании усадебного ландшафта. 174
Связь усадьбы с окружающим природным и антропогенным ландшафтом.. 175
Проблема консервации, реставрации, возрождения и развития усадебного культурного ландшафта. 178
Современное состояние усадебного ландшафта и перспективы его сохранения. 179
Литература. 185
2.2.2 Старинные усадьбы окрестностей Петербурга и их роль в формировании культурных
ландшафтов........................................................................................................................ 186
Литература. 196
2.3 Монастырский ландшафт: пример острова Анзер (Соловецкий архипелаг) 197
Типологические особенности монастырского культурного ландшафта. 197
Ассоциативные ландшафты.. 200
Рукотворные ландшафты Анзера. 206
Естественно сформировавшиеся ландшафты.. 212
Археологический ассоциативно-эволюционировавший ландшафт мыса Колгуев. 218
Природный каркас острова. 221
Природно-культурный каркас. 223
Литература. 228
2.4 Ландшафт полей сражений: генезис, структура, развитие. 230
1. Памятники-свидетельства. 238
2. Памятные места и объекты.. 239
3. Памятные знаки. 240
4. Объекты наследия, не связанные с военными событиямиили относящиеся к другим историческим периодам.. 242
Литература. 245
2.5 Реликтовый крестьянский ландшафт Русского Севера. 246
2.5.1 Функционально-планировочная организация крестьянских культурных ландшафтов Кенозерья. 247
Феноменология крестьянского ландшафта Кенозерья. 247
Пространственная иерархия сакральных центров ландшафта. 250
Крестьянский ландшафт Кенозерья как центрическая полизональная структура. 258
Модели описания культурного ландшафта отдельных деревень Кенозерья. 268
Литература. 285
2.5.2 Фольклор как способ отражения культурного ландшафта. 286
«Святые» рощи. 287
Монастыри. Церкви. Часовни. Кресты.. 290
Монастыри. 290
Церкви. 293
Часовни. 295
Деревянные кресты.. 301
Кладбища. 304
Деревня. 306
Литература. 311
2.6 Индустриальный ландшафт Рёроса как объект Всемирного наследия. 313
Индустриальный ландшафт Рёроса. 313
Основания для присвоения Рёросу статуса объекта Всемирного наследия. 317
Критические замечания. 319
1. «Окружность» как символическая граница. 319
2. Чьё культурное наследие должно охраняться и от кого?. 319
3. Являются ли объекты Всемирного наследия элитарными?. 319
4. Продолжение —в дискуссии. 320
Литература. 320
2.7 Русский средневековый ландшафт как объект археологических исследований. 322
Литература. 332
3 Культурно-ландшафтное районирование 333
3.1 Введение в проблему культурно-ландшафтного районирования.. 335
3.2 Опыт культурно-ландшафтного описания крупных регионов России. 338
Культурно-ландшафтные области. 342
Культурно-ландшафтные районы.. 342
Русская Европа. 343
Русский Север — живая память России. 344
Новгородско-Псковская земля — исторический форпост России на западе. 348
Санкт-Петербург — европейский центр России. 351
Центральные Русские земли — сердце России. 354
Русское Черноземье — поэтическая душа России. 362
Русское Предкавказье — земля древних греческих колоний, казачьих станиц и курортов. 366
Русские степные Поволжско-Приуральские земли — восточное лицо России. 368
Русский заводской Урал — земля сказов, зелёного камня и металла. 370
Русская Азия. 373
Русская Западная Сибирь — земля первых сибирских переселенцев и первого сибирского университета. 374
Русская Восточная Сибирь — земля Байкала, тайги и крупнейших индустриальных гигантов 376
Русское Приамурье и Приморье — земля смелых путешественников, тигров и женьшеня. 379
Заключение. 382
3.3 Культурно-ландшафтное районирование Кунгурского края. 383
Основные особенности территории1 383
Природно-культурный каркас исторической территории «Кунгурский край». 393
Гидроморфные и планировочные оси природно-культурного каркаса с взаимосвязанными узловыми структурами. 395
Экоморфные оси и узлы природно-культурного каркаса. 397
Буферные автоморфные структуры природно-культурного каркаса. 398
Культурно-ландшафтные районы Кунгурского края. 399
Перспективы охраны и освоения природно-культурного наследия. 402
Литература. 404
З.4 Культурно-ландшафтная дифференциация территории национального парка «Угра» 406
Угорский участок парка. 407
Жиздринский участок парка. 419
3.5 Культурно-ландшафтная дифференциация территории Кенозерского национального парка. 425
3.6 Культурно-ландшафтное районирование территории Бородинского поля.. 446
Центральная зона боевых действий 1812 г. 451
Периферийная зона боевых действий 1812 г. 452
Зона расположения войск и резервов 1812 г. 454
Зона боевых действий 1941 г. 454
4 Управление культурными ландшафтами как объектами наследия 461
4.1 Управление культурными ландшафтами на охраняемых территориях. 463
Предпосылки и мотивации. 463
Зарубежный опыт управления культурными ландшафтами и иными объектами культурного наследия на охраняемых территориях. 466
Великобритания. 467
США.. 468
Германия. 469
Норвегия. 470
Польша. 471
Нормативно-правовое обеспечение управления культурными ландшафтами. 472
Регламентация землепользования и градостроительной деятельности на охраняемых территориях 481
Информационное и научно-проектное обеспечение управления культурными ландшафтами 486
Выявление и инвентаризация историко-культурного наследия. 486
Мониторинг культурных ландшафтов и иных объектов историко-культурного наследия. 487
Культурно-ландшафтная дифференциация и идентификация охраняемой территории. 489
Проектная документация, функциональное зонирование и режимы содержания охраняемых территорий 491
Привлечение местного населения к управлению культурными ландшафтами. 496
Заключение. 499
Литература. 500
Нормативно-правовые и иные руководящие и методические документы.. 501
4.2 Предмет охраны и пути сохранения культурного ландшафта Бородинского поля. 503
Исторические факторы формирования культурного ландшафта. 504
Анализ ландшафтных изменений и основные рекомендации по их предотвращению.. 508
Предмет охраны поля сражения. 509
Памятники-свидетельства. 510
Памятники-свидетельства 1812 года. 511
Памятные места и памятные объекты.. 513
Памятные места 1812 года. 514
Памятные места 1941 года. 515
Памятные объекты 1812 года. 516<
