Awheel Along Europe’s Rivers: Geoarchaeological Trails for Cycling Geotourists

1.1 Opening Remarks

At the outset it should be noted that Europe’s geoheritage is not accorded the recognition, resources and statutory protection given to the continent’s archaeological and historical sites and their artefacts. Therefore, a geotourism approach that melds geoheritage with archaeological heritage is potentially a fruitful collaboration for geoconservation purposes. The suggestion that for much of Europe’s geoheritage ‘A pan-European integrated geotourism and geoconservation strategy really is necessary to protect the remaining legacy of important and interesting sites from sheer neglect, infilling, development and restorative environmental works.’ [1] still seems to be a truism, part met by the work of the various national and regional ProGEO groups [2]. Such a pan-European approach, as perhaps suggested by the ProGEO Protocol [2], to engage with existing and new stakeholders, requires that for ‘…communicative success and conservation effectiveness, interpretative provision needs to be widespread and appropriate to host site and culture.’ [1]. Therefore, this paper reports a scoping study for a geoarchaeological themed geotourism project, underpinned by a sound theoretical consideration (Figure 1), as a possible means to kick-start such an approach that should encourage engagement with existing and potential new stakeholders to further European geoconservation.

Figure 1

Topological representation of the 4Gs of geotourism – This shows the interrelationships of geoconservation, geohistory, geo-interpretation; and geodiversity

Since most geotourism provision requires visitors to primary geosites (and geomorphosites) mainly to get to them by private car or tourist coach this seems at odds with the tourism sector’s interest in sustainable tourism; hence, a more environmentally-friendly transport mode would seem an innovative approach to adopt for this study. With bicycles widely recognised as the most environmentally-friendly and sustainable form of transport [3], it is opportune to consider the development of geotourism linked to leisure cycling, albeit as a niche (geo)tourism [4, 5] market. Leisure cyclists were selected as the primary audience because they are a growing European leisure market [6]. Leisure cycling is particularly popular with families. It also appeals to, especially touring, sporty individuals aged 40-60 years [7]. The introduction of electric-motor-assisted bicycles (e-bikes) has created a new leisure market of older leisure cyclists [7] now better able to tackle hilly areas; e-bike sales account for 10-15% of European bicycle sales [3]. Many, particularly touring, cyclists are well-educated individuals with moderate to high levels of disposable income [7]. In planning their trips they use a broad spectrum of information media, with an increasing emphasis on mobile-technology based sources [7]; they usually include significant attractions and refreshment facilities in their routes.

1.2 Geotourism and Geotourists

Geotourism is a geologically-based contemporary paradigm [8] for landscape promotion and geoconservation. It is ‘The provision of interpretative and service facilities for geosites and geomorphosites and their encompassing topography, together with their associated in situ and ex situ ‘artefacts’, to constituency-build for their conservation by generating appreciation, learning and research by and for current and future generations’ [9]. It links onsite geoheritage (primary geosites/geomorphosites) generally in rural settings particularly with offsite geoheritage in museums (secondary geosites) mainly in urban settings. A geotourism review [9] drew attention to its ‘3Gs’ of geoconservation, geohistory, and geo-interpretation; later amended [10] to ‘4Gs’ (Figure 1) with the inclusion of geodiversity [11], of which geoheritage is a major cultural element [10]. Geosites and geomorphosites presented and interpreted for geotourism purposes are valued by their host communities and visitors (that is geotourists), thus helping to ensure their long-term preservation and accessibility.

Geotourists can be categorised as either ‘Educational’ and ‘Recreational’ [12] or ‘Dedicated’ and ‘Casual’ [1]. The former of each pair of opposites typically are academic, student and amateur geologists. The latter of each pair are exemplified by tourists collecting fossils and visiting geology-focused visitor attractions such as caves. Most cyclists would be placed in the latter pair. They are primarily pleasure-seekers, mainly interested in social interaction at (preferably then, before the advent of much online technology) explicitly interpreted, by outdoor panels and visitor-centres, geosites [1]. Tourism involving active components (such as cycling) with some conservation focus, scholarship, science and environmental awareness is a small [13] niche market [5]. Its depends upon the patronage of well-educated tourists with much disposable income, corresponding to Plog’s ‘Allocentrics’ [14, 15]. However, seminal geosite research [12, 16, 17, 18] reported that their visitors were mainly casual geotourists on social outings, commonly with (grand)children, who arrived by car and/or a short walk; very few cycled to them. Further, rapid technological advances, have led to most people, compared to their forebears, seeking to quickly gain rewards and get things done. Indeed, ‘…speeded up communication… [has] produced people with nimbler brains, but reduced attention span.’ [19] suggests that geointerpretative media should already have adapted to this change in the audience’s nature.

1.3 Geo-Interpretation

Geo-interpretation is ‘The art or science of determining and then communicating the meaning or significance of a geological or geomorphological phenomenon, event, or location.’ [20]. It is a geology-focused form of environmental interpretation, itself a response to the recognition of ‘…a growing interest among those organizations and individuals who manage countryside and heritage resources in communicating with the increasing ‘market’ of visitors. This desire to communicate has come either from a need to attract people (and their money) or from a deep-seated feeling that people should know about this place, they should understand it and care about it. Conservation education is important.’ [21]. The emergence of modern heritage tourism from the mid-1980s, especially in the UK [22], particularly aided interpretation’s development [23], drawing upon a spectrum of provision pioneered by the USA National Parks Service. Consequently, heritage sites began to have appropriate, especially creature-comfort, infrastructure. They were made meaningful to visitors ‘…through stimulating and arousing their imagination and curiosity…aimed at those people…for whom informal learning about, and appreciation of, the past are important requirements of their leisure…’ [23]. It was then noted that many countryside visitors were ‘…relatively well informed about [nature/wildlife] conservation…They have gained their knowledge from the huge expansion in formal and informal education on every aspect of the environment…they have access to the many hundreds of local guides to the British countryside which are published each year…and to many hours of TV time devoted to this subject.’ [24].

In mainland Europe the truism was recognised that ‘The public’s opinion can be an effective support in the political arena, especially on the local level. However, the problem is that the general public like the politicians, etc. knows almost nothing about earth sciences…the geological education at schools is in most cases far from sufficient…Popularization…can be a great help to bring people in contact with earth-scientific aspects.’ [25]. Much of the early site-based geo-interpretation was focused on scientifically significant obscure geosites [12]. However, if geo-interpretative provision is to better serve the needs of casual geotourists it should focus on lesser scientifically significant, more intellectually accessible, locations or those with additional archaeological interest near paths and trails for cyclists and walkers.

1.4 Geoarchaeology

Geoarchaeology is a multi-disciplinary approach, defined by a UK statutory archaeological conservation body, English Heritage, as ‘… the application of earth science principles and techniques to the understanding of the archaeological record. It is essentially an approach to archaeology, carried out by practitioners with specialist knowledge about the physical environment in which archaeological stratigraphy is preserved, and excavations take place.’ [26]. Its successor body, Historic England, recognised that ‘Geoarchaeological techniques may range in scale from landscape studies to microscopic analysis; they are carried out by practitioners with specialist knowledge about the physical environment in which archaeological stratigraphy is preserved, and excavations take place.’ [27]. Geoarchaeologists’ post-excavation work particularly involves the study of soil and sediments [28, 29], together with the petrology of artefacts such as stone tools. Whilst geoarchaeologists’ main aim is to better understand how archaeological sites form, they contribute to archaeological site preservation, refine field interpretations of archaeological contexts and identify the physical landscape’s temporal changes [27]. The composition of an English Heritage Palaeolithic specialists’ working group of ‘…Palaeolithic archaeologists, faunal specialists, geologists, geographers, dating specialists, curators, museum and education staff…’ [30] underscores Palaeolithic archaeology’s support by other Quaternary workers.

1.5 Cyclists and Cycle Tourism

Surprisingly, until very recently, little research was published on cycling and the nature of cyclists [3]. Most research has focused on urban, or ‘commuter’, cyclists; it has shown that European cycling’s most dramatic growth has been in cities such as London and Vienna where cycling usage at least tripled between 1990 and 2015 [3]. Urban cyclists represent a significant proportion of the continent’s leisure-seeking population. An examination [31] of international rather than domestic Danube (EV6) leisure cyclists, termed them ‘cyclo-tourists’. Leisure cyclists, like geotourists, can also be categorised as ‘Casual’ or ‘Dedicated’. Their motivations, unlike geotourists, centre around pleasure-seeking. Their motivations are the physical challenge, relaxation, escapism; and peace and quiet, the significance of each varying with the specific market segment [32, 33]. Cycle tourism, and its participants, based on UK-based research [34] by the cycling charity Sustrans (from SUStainable TRANSport), can be sub-divided into three main categories:

1. Dedicated Cycling Holidays - of 1-2 night ‘short’ or ‘long’ 4+ nights breaks. Both can be ‘single-centre’ or ‘touring’, on which overnights are at several centres, based. Touring is popular with dedicated and young cyclists. Touring cyclists can be ‘unsupported’ or ‘supported’, depending upon whether their luggage is carried by them or transported by someone else. They use either their own or (especially when flying into the holiday area) hired bicycles.

2. Holiday Cycling - day and half-day cycle rides undertaken as one of several activities on a holiday. Particularly popular with older and family cyclists who usually hire their bicycles.

3. Cycling Day Visits - trips directly cycling away from home or ‘multi-modal’ (using car, bus, or train or ferry for some part) are popular with young and family cyclists mainly using their own bicycles. Routes are circular or linear. Mainly [34] and as much as possible undertaken on quiet country roads and/or traffic-free cycle paths, either on way-marked or map-based trails.

Cycling holidays and day-trips are a form of responsible [35, 36] and sustainable tourism [6, 37] . The 1994 UK Day Visit Survey reported [33] that 2% of all leisure day trips (71.4 million trips) had mountain biking or cycling as their main activity; on another 25-million day-trips, whilst cycling was not the main purpose, bicycles were the principal transport. European cycling has had a renaissance, especially as a form of sustainable and rural tourism development [34, 38], since the 1990s.

Cycling linked to geological enquiry is nothing new. Between 1899 and 1910 the Geologists’ Association (GA) organised over 15 cycling excursions [39]. Concomitantly, Grenville Arthur J. Cole (1859-1924) published on geology-focused cycle tours, including some for his students, in Ireland and mainland Europe [40, 41, 42]. In The Gypsy Road [40], he described his trip from Krakow to Koblenz. Like some of those for his students in Ireland, this was multi-modal, employing various railway journeys. Cole used the knowledge and illustrations gained from his trips to inform his geological publications; for example, Open-Air-Studies: an Introduction to Geology Out-of-Doors [43] and The Growth of Europe [44]. His books, especially their illustrations (Figure 2), like the GA’s excursion publications, can underpin modern geo-historical cycling geotrails [39, 45], including those with geoarchaeological interest.

Figure 2

Illustration from The Gypsy Road: a Journey from Krakow to Coblen – A drawing of a hill near Schaldnig, in what is now the Czech Republic, from the 1894 volume by Grenville Arthur James Cole (1859-1924), that could readily be used in modern geotrail interpretative media

1.6 A European Cycling Network

Europe’s cycling renaissance, which began in the late-twentieth century, is supported by the development of local, regional and international cycling route networks. As an underpinning model (Figure 3) indicates these routes along with associated attractions, are an essential element, appropriately promoted, in developing and maintain cycling provision. In the UK, the development of cycling route networks and some attractions, such as interpretative panels, is largely due to the cycling charity Sustrans (from SUStainable TRANSport), established in 1977. Its first completed project was the Bristol and Bath Railway Path, along which some early geo-interpretation (Figures 4a-4c) was provided [46]; its preparator noted ‘Many of these routes follow disused railway lines where rock exposures can still be seen, giving an unprecedented opportunity to promote our geological heritage to the public…’ [46]. Its flagship national project, the National Cycle Network (NCN), with over 22,500 kms of sign-posted routes, was officially opened in June 2000. Whilst about 70% of the NCN is on previously existing, mostly minor, roads it includes converted abandoned railways. Many of its routes are incorporated within local and regional trails. In rural areas where much less motor traffic is encountered it is used primarily for leisure cycling. Only 35% of urban sections’ usage is for leisure purposes, but that represents a significant proportion of local leisure cycling trips, particularly where cycling infrastructure such as the NCN has been developed [34]. A fifth of NCN cyclists are new or returnee cyclists. Half of all NCN trips are by walkers.

Figure 3

The ‘Bicycle Tourism Product Cycle’ Model – This shows the dependency of cycling attractions upon promotion and how cyclists are drawn to them by routes and services/facilities

Figure 4

Bristol and Bath Cycle Path

a. Interpretative panel – This panel was erected in 1995 at the Saltford bridge exposure of fossiliferous Upper Jurassic Limestones and shales. The leisure cyclist (and the interpretative panel can be seen over her left shoulder) in the foreground is typical of the users of the cycle path. Beneath the bridge can be seen the author’s small-wheel folding bike used for much of the fieldwork underpinning this paper.

b. Interpretative Panel – At the Saltford bridge, the panel is placed in front of an exposure of Upper Jurassic limestones and shales with their entombed ammonite fossils. However, because the panel does not face oncoming cyclists most do not notice its presence!

c. Interpretative Panel – The panel illustrates the three fossils likely to be found in the local rocks, together with an illustration of an ichthyosaur, and provides some palaeoenvironmental information together with a brief geoconservation message

A mainland Europe international cycle network has developed under the auspices of the Brussels-based European Cyclists’ Federation (ECF), founded in 1983. It is coordinating the development of a 70,000-km 15-route EuroVelo (EV) (Figure 5) cycling network, which should be substantially completed by 2020, to connect Europe’s countries. Supplementary local and regional routes increase its coverage and usage. A national German Cycling Network (Radnetz Deutschland) has 12 long-distance D-Routes (D for “Deutschland”) that either complement or form part of the EV network. The 1019-km D-Route 8, the Rheinradweg (the Rhine Route), forms much of the 1,233-km EV15. The 733-km long D-Route 6, Donauroute (Danube Route), from near Basel to Passau, forms part of the 3,653-km EV6 route, The Rivers Route. It follows the courses of some of Europe’s major rivers from the Atlantic coast to the Black Sea. It includes the Danube Bike Path, stretching from Donaueschingen in Germany to the Danube Delta in Bulgaria, Europe’s most popular holiday cycle route.

Figure 5

Map of the EuroVelo routes – This outlines the routes (with their numbers) of the pan-European cycle network

Meanwhile, the European Cyclists’ Federation has developed several projects to promote cycling. Of significance to this study is the ‘Silver Cyclists’ Project’, began in late 2015, intended to increase the number of senior citizens undertaking cycling holidays. Using the EV network as its spine, tourist packages for senior cyclists, partly with the intention of encouraging their sense of European identity through international experiences and extending the tourism season are projected outcomes.

3.1 Outline Framework

Following the broad desktop study, appropriate geological/geomorphological (earth science) themes were identified; likewise, the archaeological/historical themes. These were then matched to a series of UK and mainland Europe case studies based around rivers. Rivers were selected because the various cycling route networks rather focus on them; additionally, especially in hilly and mountainous areas, their cycle routes provide gentle inclines especially suited to the physical capabilities of leisure cyclists. The case studies demonstrate that cycling geotourism can be integrated within current cycle paths and routes instead of completely standalone provision.

3.2 The Themes

The most appropriate geological theme selected, partly recognised from previous research [49, 50], is loess because of its widespread occurrence and inherent climate change record of the past two-million years. Its origins have climate change implications which are topical and easily comprehended by the public for geotourism purposes [51]. The most appropriate geomorphological theme selected is rivers (Figure 6), partly because of their significance in loess distribution and research, and because their valleys are natural routeways. The most appropriate archaeological theme linking loess and rivers identified is the loosely termed ‘The Stone Age’. This incorporates three consecutive periods, the Neolithic (4,000-6,000 years ago), the Mesolithic (6,000-12,000 years ago) and the Palaeolithic (12,000-750,000 years ago in Europe, but older elsewhere). The most appropriate historical theme identified is loosely-termed the ‘Romans’ (some 1,550-2,050 years ago) because many of their, especially excavated, sites can be related to rivers and loess. They sometimes used loess to make bricks, tiles and pottery. Their (particularly funerary) monuments and written records provide some human-interest. There are also numerous archaeological sites and museums with some Roman interest across Europe. The Stone Age peoples’ main migration routes, along major river valleys, were later followed by the Romans for trade and military conquest purposes. The geographical overlap of the loess and Romans themes can be readily appreciated on summary maps (Figure 7).

Figure 6

Map of Europe’s Major Rivers – This shows the differences in the scale of Europe’s rivers. It shows the location of the three case study areas, with the selected sections of the Ver, Flit and Great Ouse rivers of Eastern England (A), the Middle Rhine the Upper Danube (C) indicated

Figure 7

Maps Showing the Geographical Extent the Roman Empire and Loess Deposits in Europe – The Roman Empire, as shown, reached its greatest extent in the 2nd century (around 117 AD, at the time of Emperor Trajan’s death) when it dominated much of northern, central and Mediterranean Europe, as well as the Mediterranean coastlands of North Africa. Thick loess deposits are concentrated, in a broad east-west belt from Britain to the Black Sea. However, where not discretely mapped within that belt it is at least a minor, and usually under-reported, constituent of many soils and river valley sediments

Humankind’s pre-history and the Romans are probably the most universal historical periods with which the public are familiar. The former has gained some popularity with television generated interest in bushcraft (with UK-made but widely networked programmes such as Ray Mear’s Bushcraft), especially when indigenous hunter-gatherers are featured, and in the UK with archaeology television programmes such as Time Team [30]. The Romans is a universally taught subject in junior children’s schools. The Romans have featured in popular major movies (such as Gladiator and The Eagle) and there are numerous well-preserved Roman sites across Europe. The selected archaeological and historical periods are politically neutral. They can be developed and interpreted across Europe without any concern for today’s national boundaries and sometimes volatile ethnic politics.

The German mineralogist Karl Caesar von Leonhard (1779-1862) probably coined ‘loess’ from ‘Loesch’, used by the farmers of the Upper Rhine region for the yellow lime soil ‘Lischen’ or so-called ‘snail-shell soil’ [52]. Loess, silt particles deposited by aeolian processes over extensive areas of the mid-latitudes during glacial and postglacial times, provides a unique palaeoclimatic and palaeoenvironmental terrestrial archive [53, 54] of the of the past 2.6 million years of the Quaternary [55, 56]. Winds picked it up in the northern polar deserts, bordering the ice-caps of the last two Ice Ages, carrying it southward [57] where it accumulated in layers tens of metres thick in mainland Europe but usually much less than a metre in Britain [58]. Also picked up were sand-sized particles; these settled closer to the polar deserts, forming a belt of aeolian sand, sometimes seen as coversands, lying north of the loess belt. Loess is a ‘soft rock’ or even soil sediment [59] but when calcified it supports pseudo-karst landforms such as caves and sinkholes, together with dry valleys, gullies and pyramids [50, 60]. Where loess is particularly rich in clay it is eponymously referred to as “brickearth”. Loess-derived soils till well and were preferred by Europe’s early farmers [61].

Rivers are major erosional land-shaping elements that carry and deposit (as fluviatile sediments) a range of clays, silts, sands and gravels across their valleys. They have provided food and water, transport routes, and settlement sites for humankind since it migrated into Europe around a million years ago, although permanent settlement only began about 500,000 years ago. Pleistocene fluviatile sediments are an important repository for Palaeolithic artefacts, from which a record of early human, especially Lower Palaeolithic hunter-gatherers, occupation can be reconstructed [62, 63, 64, 65, 66]. This is because rivers receive coarse detritus from the landscapes they drain, much of which remains in their valley deposits. Many fluviatile deposits incorporate reworked loess and aeolian sands. Stone artefacts have found their way naturally into these and gravel terrace deposits, whilst other are in them due to human activity such as flint knapping on river beds. Stone Age hunter-gatherers and settlers migrated into Europe from the south and east, following the withdrawal of the Ice Age glaciers.

The Palaeolithic coincides almost exactly with the latter half of the Pleistocene epoch (2.6 million years to about 12,000 years ago) by the end of which Britain was separated from mainland Europe by the creation of the North Sea and the English Channel. It was period of great geographical changes (particularly in coastlines and the courses of major rivers) marked by major cyclical climatic fluctuations and sea levels changes; these affected human expansion, settlement, hunting and farming activities across Europe. Stone Age peoples made practical use of implements fashioned from a limited range of rock types, trading them over great distances. They settled on loess-derived soils because they were easy to till with unsophisticated farming implements and techniques. The last Stone Age migrants left a rich archaeological record, particularly along its major rivers and strategic hill tops. Linking a very few of the Stone Age sites is the Bonn based ‘Ice Age Europe Network of Heritage Sites’ [67], established in 2013 with 15 archaeological sites and their affiliated museums and visitor-centres as founding members. Its foundation indicates that there is an opportunity to develop geotourism resources for geoconservation linked to the geoarchaeology of loess areas.

The Romans expanded their influence and control through trade, settlements and military campaigns, with their empire’s greatest consolidated extent in the 2nd century (around 117 AD, at the time of Emperor Trajan’s death). Its empire dates from when Ocatavian became Emperor Augustus until its fall to the Goths (marking the end of the Ancient World and the beginning of the “Dark Ages”), in 27 BC and 476 AD respectively. Many of the empire’s most productive farming areas, often the archaeologically richest, were on loess-derived soils. Roman buildings were constructed with locally manufactured bricks and tiles, sometimes made from ‘brickearths’ - as was some pottery. The Romans introduced viticulture across Europe; some of the Danube, Moselle and Rhine valley vineyards are on land they first cultivated. Many of the major routeways and their settlements established by the Romans are still in use.

3.3 The Case Study Areas

Several loess areas, associated with rivers and Stone Age/Roman sites were identified, partly on their accessibility to the author and his research colleagues, in three principal regions:

1. Central eastern England (particularly the Great Ouse).

2. Northern Europe (middle valley of the Rhine),

3. South-eastern Europe (the Danube in Serbia).

Within these, potential geotourism sites were identified for consideration on rivers of three loosely defined magnitudes:

Local - Ver (Caddington and Whipsnade) and Flit (Flitwick) rivers.

Small Regional - Great Ouse (Biddenham).

Great Regional and International - Middle Rhine (Bad Honningen, Ariendorf and Andernach) and Middle Danube (Stari Slankamen and Kostoc).

4.1 Central Eastern England

The rivers, respectively in order of length and drainage area, Flit, Ver, and Great Ouse, in central eastern England (Figure 8a), are in a region with loess of mainly Late Devensian age, subjected to late Devensian periglaciation (evident in some river terrace sections) with parts also subjected to the full Anglian glaciation. A south Essex and Hertfordshire loess province has been particularly recognized [68]. In north-east Hertfordshire loess is mainly found in river valleys. Little loess lies where it originally fell and is unaltered. Most has been re-deposited locally by downwash on valley sides, admixture with other deposits through cryoturbation, and further afield by rivers. Maps of the region’s loess deposits do not imply their uniform thickness and continuous cover; at least half of its soils contain either a distinct loess layer 0.3+ m thick, or an equivalent amount mixed with other deposits. It is almost ubiquitous on the Chalk downlands. Loess is indicated as such on maps of the Soil Survey of England and Wales. On British Geological Survey maps it is shown as “brickearth”, “head brickearth”, “river brickearth”, or even “loam”; not all are either pure loess or contain loess. Rarely, it contains the bones of steppe and tundra animals such as mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, reindeer, and voles.

Figure 8

Central Eastern England

a. Map of major loess deposits in Central Eastern England – Whilst loess deposits can be found across, although probably considerably under-reported, much of England and Wales they are often very thin and incorporated within soils. Thicker, up to about 2-m loess deposits can be found in eastern England, especially in a few coastal sections. Equally thick loess deposits were excavated, as ‘brickearth’, in Chalk dolines around the Whipsnade area just south of Dunstable whist loess is a minor constituent of some of the River Great Ouse sediments at least in the Biddenham area, west of Bedford.

b. “Brick Kiln Barns” private housing estate – This 2010s development has been built over a nineteenth century brickyard and kiln site; amazingly, when the author was undertaking fieldwork on the site he found that none of the residents were aware of the site’s geological or industrial archaeology interest!

c. The Five Knolls, Dunstable Downs – This has seven barrows, or burial mounds, and was used for burials from late Neolithic to Roman times. The metal plaque atop a concrete post, probably dating from the late-1950s, provides basic site information; it is the only one of several such remaining intact on the site and will probably outlast the fibreglass interpretative panel emplaced in the 2000s.

Figure 8

Central Eastern England

d. St Albans, Roman town walls – The incomplete remains of the town wall of Verulamium stand up to 4m in height with each major section having a small information panel. The walls consist of cemented local flint rubble, with locally-made red tile coursing. Just off the town lies the site museum and an amphitheatre.

e. Flitwick, late 19^th C. OS 1:12,560 map extract – This shows two gravel pits (the asterisk marks the position of one of them) and a sand pit, together with part of Flitwick Moor - shown as hummocky grass with trees. © Ordnance Survey

f. Flitwick, early 21^st C. OS map extract – The street map extract (reproduced to the same scale as 8e) shows in some detail how almost the entire late-19^th C. rural landscape, including parts of Flitwick Moor (shown bottom right, that is the south-east corner, on both map extracts), has disappeared under relatively modern housing developments. However, the existence of the old gravel pits is marked by road names – the asterisk marks the entrance to ‘Gravel Pit Road’. © Ordnance Survey

Figure 8

Central Eastern England

g. Biddenham Pit, the entrance – The entrance to the pit, via a usually locked gate, is to the left of the interpretative panel and off an upmarket private housing estate cul de sac. The pit, in a hollow below the fencing, is somewhat overgrown, a common problem with such Quaternary sites.

h. Biddenham Pit, the main face – The gravels at the top of the exposed face show the relict effects of periglacial conditions. The large v-shaped dark notch (top left) is an ice-wedge. Its outline has been preserved by wind-blown sand and dust (loess). The walking pole, used for scale, is 1.2m long. i. Biddenham Pit Geo-Interpretative Panel – The panel is noteworthy for its geoarchaeological theme of river dynamics, the Stone Age and climate change

Figure 8

Central Eastern England

j. Map of the Proposed Whipsnade to Biddenham Geotrail route – This links the existing Flitwick (B) geotrail with two others currently in preparation for the Whipsnade (A) and Biddenham (C) areas; all are based upon historical Geologists’ Association excursions. (Map based upon a © GoogleMaps original)

There are ‘…important deposits of Palaeolithic material notably in the Great Ouse valley and brickearth deposits in the Chilterns. However, most of these finds were made in the 19th or early 20th centuries during the excavation of gravels or “brickearths” [69]. Hence, ‘There is considerable value in re-examining sites that have been productive in the past; especially where archaeologically important deposits have survived mineral extraction.’ [69]. The Lower and Middle Palaeolithic legacy archaeological record suggests the areas with greatest potential for new sites are the Ouse Valley gravel terraces and the Chilterns loess deposits. The Upper Palaeolithic is seemingly not represented, perhaps reflecting archaeologists’ lack of awareness and understanding of the nature of the period’s representative artefacts. Sealed, and currently unexploited or unexcavated near-river sites and valley deposits offer the most likely places where Upper Palaeolithic material might be found [70].

Most Mesolithic sites have been identified from surface collection. Its likely locations are rivers valley, good vantage points and high routeways - principally the Chilterns and the Greensand Ridge. Its three principal localities include the Biddenham Loop. The paucity of Mesolithic sites might also reflect archaeologists’ lack of awareness and understanding. Neolithic archaeology is patchy in distribution and context. Settlement remains are rare; the evidence is often ephemeral, difficult to identify and interpret, reflecting the nomadic nature of the ‘settlers’. Artefacts associated with domestic sites are mere near-surface flint scatters. This is generally characteristic of Palaeolithic to Mesolithic sites, but the older sites have often been covered by river silts and gravels. Recorded ceremonial and burial monuments are relatively numerous because they are obvious as ground features and in aerial surveys; they are focused on river valleys, mainly the Ouse and Ivel, and the Chilterns. Some of the significant archaeological sites are statutorily protected; for example, Gaddesden Row [71] and Biddenham’s Deep Spinney Pit [72, 73, 74] as geological Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). A circular cyclists’ geotrail, based on a GA 1905 excursion, for the Flit was prepared in 2017 [39, 45].

4.1.4 Whipsnade to the NCN 51 as a Cyclists’ Geoarchaeological route

The proposed geoarchaeological cyclists’ geotrail has sufficient Stone Age and loess sites to merit its development. However, the major Roman site of Verulamium is difficult to easily and safely, due to the traffic on the local roads, link to the other River Ver sites and Whipsnade, but some consideration could be given to a St. Albans-centred geotrail. Meanwhile, an outline linear geotrail linking the Whipsnade, Flitwick and Biddenham sites (Figure 8j), using the A5120 and B5120 Dunstable to Bedford road as the spine route, is already in development; individual parts of it will also be used for the two new circular geotrails near Bedford (for Biddenham) and Dunstable (for Whipsnade and the Five Knolls) due for initial trialling in 2018.

Figure 9

The Middle Rhine Sites

a. Map of the Middle Rhine localities – This map indicates the broad topography of the Rhine valley in the area and shows the main sites mentioned in the case study. (base map is after Turner 1997)

b. The Drachenfels – The 321-m hill on the banks of the Rhine in the Siebengebirge uplands was formed by rising magma that did break through to the surface; it cooled and solidified to form trachyte which has been quarried since Roman times. The hill’s slopes have the most northerly vineyards along the Rhine

c. Bad Honningen, reconstructed Roman watch tower – This is of stone construction although many of the watch towers were of timber construction, matching the mainly turf and palisade nature of the Roman defensive lines

d. Bad Honningen, aerial view loess pits – A grading and washing plant can be seen in this view of the main working loess pits (modified image, Courtesy of Google Earth)

Figure 9

The Middle Rhine Sites

e. Linz am Rhein stone museum – The entrance to the park setting of some twenty or so labelled stones that represent the local solid geology

f. Linz am Rhein stone museum – Each of the stones, such as this Middle Devonian greywacke, is clearly numbered and labelled with its type, geological epoch, age and original location

4.2 The Rhine Valley

4.3 The Danube

4.3.1 The Middle Danube

The Danube’s middle section is entirely navigable, with popular tourist cruise routes between Belgrade and Novi Sad and upstream to Budapest. Alongside it is the Danube Bike Path, part of EV6. The section is noteworthy for its loess fossil, early human occupation and Roman sites. Whilst the EV6’s Vienna to Budapest section is the most popular with cycle tourists, that from Budapest in Hungary to the Iron Gates in Serbia is the most spectacular and worthy of better promotion and usage.

Loess and loess-like sediments cover almost two-thirds of the region [116] with six loess plateaus (Figure 10a). The sediments are much thicker and older than elsewhere in Europe, recording its last million years’ climate and natural environment [117]. High cliffs on the Danube’s southern bank expose repetitive loess and palaeosol sequences [116], the prominence of which led to their description of the Titel loess plateau [49] in the seventeenth century, in Danubius pannonico Mysicus [118] (Figure 10b), the first scientific description of European loess-palaeosol sequences; it has a rich diversity of minor loess landforms such as cliffs, gullies, caves, and pyramids [119] which can be appreciated from the cycle path between Novi Sad and Stari Slankamen. Because the loess-palaeosol sequences are readily visible in the cliffs, the most convenient way to admire them is either from a river cruise ship or the cycle path.

Figure 10

The Middle Danube Sites

a. Middle Danube Loess and Archaeological Sites Location Map – This shows the location on both banks of the river of the main geotrail sites and their relationship to the major loess features of the region. (based on Vasiljevic et al. 2016)

b. Title Page and Map from Danubius pannonico Mysicus – The volume’s title page (left) and map (right) showing the Titel loess plateau and Stari Slankamen from the first volume of Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli’s (1726) Danubius pannonico Mysicus

Figure 10

The Middle Danube Sites

c. Novi Sad, EurVelo6 cycleway sign – Several of these large blue and white signs are positioned along the Danube side cycleway in the city

d. Novi Sad, cycleway sign – Alongside the cycleway are several small informational signs, such as this for the church of St. John of Nepomuk, about the city’s history

e. Novi Sad, St. John of Nepomuk cycleway sign – All the cycleway signs, like this one, have both Serbian and English texts; this one provides brief historical information about the church which was demolished sometime after 1918. The existing panel has been modified to illustrate how the tentative pan-European cycle route signage could be incorporated in the future

f. Stari Slankamen, cliffs on the Danube – These loess cliffs, first described by Count Luigi Ferdinando Marsigli in 1726, are some 40m high and two palaeosols, clearly marked by two dark bands, can be seen in the cliff

Figure 10

The Middle Danube Sites

g. Kostoloc, mammoth remains in the working pit – Photographed in situ in 2016 prior to their removal to the museum for conservation and exhibition. Two large curved tusks (in the middle of the frame) and several large leg bones from an incomplete skeleton rest on their plinths, formed when the rest of the surrounding material was excavated, on which they would later be lifted out for transport to the museum

h. Starčevo Visitor Centre – The initial proposal for a tourist park at this important Neolithic site included a glass and steel visitor centre, partly built into the site, with a grassed roof, somewhat in the form of a large Stone Age burial barrow

Various descriptions of Danube loess scenery, useful to provide some human-interest element in geointerpretation, were included in the accounts of several nineteenth century foreign tourists. Francis Davis Millet (1848-1912), an American artist, noted ‘…the river has washed away the hills into perpendicular bluffs, which are of earth almost as hard as sandstone…’ [120] and at ‘…O Szlankamen [Stari Slankamen], to the east a long range of flat hills now appeared, marking the course of the sluggish Theiss, and on the opposite bank we saw great rocks, scarcely distinguishable from the hard mud bluffs, but marking a distinct geological change in the landscape…’ [120]. Alfred William Parsons (1847-1920), an English illustrator and landscape painter, accompanied him on one cruise; he subsequently illustrated Millet’s book The Danube: From Black Forest to the Black Sea [120]. The same route is followed by a cycle path, described in a two-volume English language guide [121], EV6.

This is particularly well surfaced, signposted and interpreted in Serbia’s second city, Novi Sad (Figures 10c-10e). The EV6, which has made the three Danube sites accessible by cycle tourists, has been the main reason for the construction and promotion of cycle paths in Vojvodina province. A review [122] of Danube cycling, noted its signage, cycling maps and dedicated web-page were developed for the main EV6 route through Serbia. However, only a third of international Danube leisure cyclists considered the route well-surfaced, a quarter considering it very badly surfaced and 90% found the signage very bad, but many were from countries with long-established high-quality cycling infrastructure and [31]; so, any geoarchaeological route signage can only improve the situation! In Vojvodina the EV6 provides good access to several loess and archaeological sites on and adjacent to the Danube. Three of these are noteworthy for their significant Pleistocene and archaeological interest, coupled with geo-interpretative provision potential: Stari Slankamen; Kostolac, and Starcevo.

5.1 A Pan-European Approach

Despite research-led advice given almost 20 years ago that ‘Readily recognisable geotourism provision requires the acceptance of a pan-European interpretative ‘house style’ by the many and various national agencies and the establishment of a central co-ordinating body to oversee the preparation of: a) web-based virtual field guides and information sites; b) on-site panels; c) development of a programme of guided site visits in popular tourist areas; d) way-marked trails for walkers, cyclists and motorists…’ [1], even with the emergence of geoparks and the EGN, there is little evidence it has been heeded. European geointerpretative provision is still spatially and thematically fragmented. It is very much single site focused. Apart from the EGN branding of geoparks and that attempted by the ‘Ice Age Europe Network of Sites’, it generally lacks a coherent ‘house style’, a necessary pre-requisite to acquiring a recognisable brand identity with the public and casual geotourists such as leisure and touring cyclists. It does rather seem that unless some EU cross-border funding is accessed little or nothing seems to happen to develop international geo-interpretative schemes.

This might well be because of the perceived issues of cost and difficulty in establishing a workable management strategy, coupled with sourcing the relevant expertise in geology, archaeology and interpretation across several countries. One of the few bodies seemingly able to achieve such cross-border work has been ProGEO, as exemplified by its GEOSITES geoconservation project [128]. Possibly the European Geosciences Union (EGU), through a session at its annual General Assembly, could help to advertise and promote such a scheme as an aspect of public outreach, with one of its stated objectives being to ‘Increase public awareness of the scientific work of the EGU membership and facilitate dissemination of information beyond the geosciences community’ and with one of its target groups being ‘Decision makers, the working media and the non-scientific public, primarily but not exclusively in Europe’. However, such a project might best be developed with cycle route network partners, especially Sustrans in the UK and the European Cyclists’ Federation in mainland Europe. Such an approach would perhaps allow the new geoarchaeological trails to be highlighted on the standard NCN and EV route signage (Figure 11).

Figure 11

ECN route sign – This standard route sign is used across the UK to signpost cycle routes; it has been modified to illustrate how the geoarchaeological trail routing would be shown if it were adopted by the National Cycle Network

5.2 Geo-Interpretative Provision

In creating interpretative provision around Europe’s geoarchaeology, and the need for its conservation, through selected loess, river, Stone Age and Roman sites the nature of the media employed needs careful consideration. Although probably a past truism that ‘In examining trailside interpretative provision for tourists and like recreationalists it is informative to focus upon site panels, as these are the most suitable medium for unplanned casual usage. They can draw attention to a site and focus usage within it. They are available through-out the day and all year to users and, for them, they are free!’ [129] there are issues around such panels due to their initial cost, long-term maintenance and ability to cater for users with different language needs. On the latter point, there are many examples along the EV network of mono-linguistic signage or were a command of English is needed. It is perhaps archaic that such traditional, with lengthy reading times, flat-media approaches dominate geo-interpretative provision when the tourism industry is looking to reduce waste and encourage sustainability in its products [130] and the attention span of audiences has fallen; for example, reported research by the University of Western Ontario [131] found that the average human attention span has fallen from a mere 12 to just 8 seconds since 2000, around the time of mobile communications technologies’ growth. More widely in relation to traditional tourism media, AA Publishing announced in 2012 that it was no longer commissioning printed tourist guidebooks. The traditional media seemingly do not meet the information needs of the new younger, Millennials (18-34-year olds), audience of ‘Digital Travellers’ [132] that geotourism must attract, especially if it is to promote future geoconservation support. To maintain the sustainable and environmentally-friendly approach associated with cycling, the use of web-sites and smart-phone applications (with links to on-line guides and maps formatted for print-on-demand), the latter accessed by QR codes, could easily and inexpensively meet the challenge; they also have the advantage that they can, unlike dedicated site and route applications, be produced by relatively digitally illiterate authors more accustomed to preparing hard-copy publications - provided they understand the need to change writing style and publication format for on-screen viewing! Further, such geo-interpretative media are visually unobtrusive and relatively inexpensive to maintain and update. A cost-effective approach to providing the geointerpretative materials is that of generic informational materials on shared topics that are supplemented by site-specific materials. Generic informational themes could include common rocks, loess, fluvial geomorphology, and tectonics. The information on these should particularly stress the importance of these topics to humankind, where possible including archaeological examples. For example, an account of loess could explain its origins as an ice marginal deposit (just not in such terms!), map its distribution and show its use by the Romans for brick, tile and pottery production. Similarly, an account of diorite along the Rhine could explain its volcanic origins, map its distribution, and show its use for hand-axes.

A monochrome lozenge design (Figures 12a-12b), printed on self-adhesive polyester paper and affixed to existing posts and panels with the QR codes linked to web-based resources, is an inexpensive means of promoting such an initial series of thematically linked geotrails. Later, if market research demonstrates their need, A2 and A3 temporary panels, also printed on self-adhesive polyester paper, could be affixed to the back of many existing metal directional signage. A readily identifiable corporate brand for geoarchaeological cyclists’ trails is necessary to link the work of various providers. Such a coherent and recognisable ‘house-style’ could readily be provided on electronic templates distributed via a dedicated website.

Figure 12

Loess Geotourism Trail Lozenge

1. A tentative design for a pan-European cycle route geotrail sign is for one that could easily be incorporated on existing signage (see Figure 10e). It need only be some 15 × 15 cm for the Quick Response Code symbol to be read by a smartphone. The various incorporated logos suggest the nature of what might be found at a specific site; those that could be found would be shown in black, whilst those not present would be shown in dark grey

2. This tentative design for a pan-European cycle route geotrail sign is shown as it would appear for use at a geosite with both Stone Age and loess, but no Roman, interests

5.3 Closing Thoughts

The cycle routes along Europe’s major and regional rivers demonstrably provide ideal access to their adjacent geoarchaeological sites and are ripe for development as cyclists’ geotrails as an added-value product to the normal route guides and signage. It was noted about geoconservation issues surrounding significant and scientifically well-known sites on the Lower River Thames [133] that gravel and sand extraction had almost ceased ‘… and opportunities for examining sections in the…terrace deposits are essentially restricted now to temporary sections, made available during development, and conservation sites… Careful management of these sites… should be given a high priority. In recent years, almost every one… suffered degradation and piecemeal erosion by industrial or residential development…development pressures on a fragile and already greatly diminished geological resource are such that its future protection cannot be viewed with any great degree of confidence…’ [133]. Those remarks could apply to just about any of the riverside geoarchaeological sites noted in the case studies. It is not enough that such sites are well-known and lauded by geologists and archaeologists. Without the knowledge and support of all stakeholders, their overall societal value will not be recognized, and they will eventually be lost to future generations. Geoarchaeological geotourism has the potential to raise general, let alone leisure and touring cyclists’, awareness of such sites and to constituency-build amongst them for their future preservation and ensured continued access.