This paper examines the background of conflicts in the resource management of a specific type of 'utmark' in the agrarian landscape. The historical relationship between empirically experienced 'utmark' and the resource management of archaeological heritage and environment surrounding it is analysed. The landscape perceptions of two professional management regimes are used as platforms to gain a wider understanding of worldviews in relation to the 'utmark' environment. The landscape orders are based on a landscape cosmology of prehistoric origin, but which modern versions are scaled differently, mirroring changes of worldviews. One management on the other superimposes an extreme dissonance of inferiority between contradictive landscapes aesthetics.
THINKING WITH, ABOUT AND IN-BETWEEN LANDSCAPESWhen dealing with the topic of landscape perception a striking dichotomy is apparent. The landscape could represent a territory, which can be apprehended visually, and a set of relationships between people and places, which provide the context for everyday conduct (Thomas 2001:181). Hence a land-scape refers to a picture in painting and drawing, or to natural parts of a country and a province or to a condition, custom and practice (NRO 1937(NRO :2860. While a picture or province may involve thinking about landscape as the perception of an object from outside, a condition, custom and practice explain thinking with landscape as the maintenance of cultural order and tradition of everyday life. When approaching relationships between resource managements of agrarian and cultural heritage landscapes the following questions could easily arise: how do human agents form connections in-between these relationships of landscape perceptions, and what constitutes the connections and disconnections between them?