![]()
Bosse Sundin
In discussing nature as heritage in the Swedish case, the obvious starting point, is 1909 when parliament passed two laws in relation to natural landmarks and National Parks. In the same year the Swedish Society for the Protection of Nature was founded. What happened in 1909 was a result of actions beginning in 1904. That year, Professor Hugo Conwentz, the foremost spokesman for nature protection in Germany, lectured in Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg and Lund on the dangers threatening the natural landscape and its plant and animal populations. These talks, which were widely publicised, were the primary impetus for a motion in parliament proposing an inquiry into appropriate measures for protecting Sweden's nature and landmarks. The proposal won parliamentary support and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences was given the task of executing the proposed inquiry. Five years later it resulted in the laws regarding natural landmarks and National Parks.1
The Swedish case is by no means unique. The decades around 1900 saw a wave of preservation and conservation movements. A few examples: in 1894, in Britain, the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty was founded; in 1895, in the USA, the American Scenic and Historic Preservation Society; in 1904, in the Netherlands, Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten (Society for the Preservation of Natural Landmarks). In France, in 1906, a law was passed regarding âla protection des sites et monuments naturel de caractĂšre artistiqueâ. In Prussia, in the same year, a state authority for the care of natural landmarksâStaatliche Stelle fĂŒr Naturdenkmalpflegeâwas founded. More examples could be given.2
In a way, this may be seen as a rather sudden discovery of âNature as Heritage'. But there are earlier examples. By 1819 the German scientist Alexander von Humboldt was already using the concept monuments de la nature when he talked about old, big trees and early in the 19th century geologists could discuss âthe ruins of nature' or the earth's crust as âthe archive of nature'.
In the Swedish case, antiquarians as early as the 17th century paid attention not only to rune stones, burial mounds, cairns, etc. but also to certain natural landmarks. In part this was due to an uncertainty whether objects, for example a formation of stones, were natural or cultural artefacts. There was also an interest in lusus naturae, the jokes or oddities of nature. And, obviously, the antiquarian's investigations of objects like burial mounds involve a sense of the landscape in which they were found.3
At the beginning of the 19th century, and even more popular towards its end, nature was also commonly seen as something that fostered the spirit of the people, das Volk, das Volksgeist. Each people, each Volk, had its own uniqueness due to the very nature, the native soil, from which it, since the beginning of history, had emerged. In the background we can find ideas from Montesquieu, Herder and Romantic philosophers. This
Figure 1 Burial Mounds as depicted in antiquarian N.H. Sjöborg, Samlingar fĂŒr Nordens fornĂ€lskare (Stockholm, 1822).
Figure 2 Burial mounds as depicted by antiquarian N. H. Sjöborg, Samlingar för Nordens fornÀlskare (Stockholm, 1822).
can be illustrated by an article by geologist Arvid Högbom. It discussed how Sweden had been formed by glaciation and the following elevation of the land. The title of the article is âHuru naturen danat Sverige' (How nature has founded Sweden) and we can see Moder Svea (Mother Sweden) placed between prehistoric wild savages from the Stone Age and presumably civilised Vikings. The history of the nation begins with the glaciation, and the elevation of land is a symbol of nature founding the national culture.4 The interest in dialects and folklore also pointed at a possible natural heritage. Certain natural objects were noticed because of the legends, historical memories, or folk traditions associated with them.
Also around 1900 an increasing role was played by nationalistic motives. The interest in nature and natural landmarks was inspired by a newly awoken patriotism. For the older patriotism, Sweden's greatness was to be found mainly in its proud history, studded with military victories. The new national enthusiasm was characterised by a biologically influenced conception of the nation in which nature provided its distinctive element. The moors, forests, and other natural wonders became national symbols with a deeper significance than that of the heroes and warrior-kings of the past.5
Nowadays we are so used to the concept of âNational Parks' that we tend to forget the nationalistic context in which it was formulated. The National Parks were supposed to preserve and display the essential quality of Swedish nature. Most of them were to be found in Lapland and all the larger ones were located in Norrland, the north.6
Figure 3 From A.G. Högbom, âHuru naturen danat Sverige', in: J. F. Nyström, Sveriges rike. Handbok för det svenska folket (Stockholm, 1899).
Among the reasons cited for this was the claim that these regions, with their forests, mountains and glaciers and wide-open spaces suggested a significant aspect of the Swedish national identity. The northern character of Sweden became central to the new national consciousness. At the foot of Lapland's glaciers, surrounded by the nomadic Lapps, one was closer to the Ice Age than anywhere else in Sweden. The new patriotism was also expressed by artists and writers of the so-called ânational romantic' spirit. A standard example is Nobel Laureate Selma Lagerlöf's The Wonderful Adventures of Nils, first published in 1906â1907, a reader in geography at Swedish schools for more than half a century.
Scientific inventory and research into the country's natural resources undoubtedly played a large part in emphasising these new national symbols. In our context, âNature as Heritageâ, the role of biology and geology should be stressed or, to be more precise, the theory of evolution and glaciation theory. Quaternary geology and quaternary biology were fashionable disciplines. Varved clay, boulder ridges, bogs, and swamps were nature's own archives from which the history of the evolution of Sweden's flora and fauna since the last Ice Age could be traced. An idea of how the climate had changed and how various species and plant communities had succeeded one another was being formed. The picture taking shape was one of nature in constant flux.7
This discovery of the history of the landscape recurs over and over again in the context of nature protection; one might even say that in essence the idea of protecting nature emerges directly from it. And it is no coincidence that most of the early advocates for nature preservation were biologists and geologists. Interest was directed towards what was apprehended to be nature in its original state. Put simply, it was a matter of preserving for future generations at least one boulder ridge, one primeval forest, one swamp, one peat bog. But interest was also shown in natural landmarks that triggered fantasy or had historical connotationsâan oak described by Linnaeus on one of his journeys to a Swedish landscape, an erratic stone which, according to an old saga, had been thrown by a giant, and so on. In particular, lusus naturae, jokes, freaks, oddities and curiosities of nature generated excitement. The first volumes of the yearbook of the Society for the Protection of Nature are packed with such examples as curious rock formations, a spruce with âbranches which have grown into trees themselves', and so on.
Most popular, without competition, were trees of various kinds. The law of 1909 gave to the Academy of Sciences the task of proclaiming various landmarks as protected. The Academy regularly published a national register. In the first edition, published in 1919, protected objects numbered close to 100. Seven years later there were 301. In 1932, 460 were listed. Taking that list as an example, under the heading âAreas', we find 69 objects described variously as forest, meadow, limestone formation, moraine area, bay with islets, bird cliff, and so on. âGeological Landmarks' mentions 33 objects, the majority individual erratic rocks. Under âPlants' we discover 43 protected species and under âWildlife' 21 species. The last group, individual plants, flowers, and stands, included by far the largest number of protected objectsâ371 out of a grand total of 460, mostly single trees, usually oaks. So, until the 1930s it would not be misleading to say that the typical natural landmark was an individual treeââa large beech', âa great and beautiful juniperâ, âa giant spruceâ, âa âtrollâ pineâ, or, most commonly, âa majestic old oakâ.8 It is not surprising that the logo of the Society for the Protection of Nature was an oak.
The analogy between the legislation for the protection of nature and the legislation for the preservation of relics of the past, antiquities, was widely exploited. And it is not unfair to say that early nature protection was âmuseum like' in character. The Swedish concept of ânatural monument' or ânatural landmark' (naturminnesmĂ€rke) is based on the German Naturdenkmal, and has lost some of its original resonance today. In fact it is impossible to translate into English, but the concept is a combination of nature, remembrance and mark (trace).
Earlier, the desire had been to preserve those relics of the past (forminne in Swedish, meaning âancient memory') that bore witness to the history of man. Now, it was essential to preserve those monuments that spoke of the history of nature. To allow these living monuments to be destroyed would be the same as allowing Sweden's rune stones to crumble away. Therefore, it was said, natural landmarks ought to be seen as serving as the outdoor wing of the Museum of Natural History, as a great national museum or as an âartless Sk...
