Randomized experiments are widely used to estimate the causal effects of a proposed treatment in many areas of science, from medicine and healthcare to the physical and biological sciences, from the social sciences to engineering, to public policy and to the technology industry at large. Here, we consider situations where classical methods for estimating the total treatment effect on a target population are considerably biased due to confounding network effects, i.e., the fact that the treatment of an individual may impact their neighbors' outcomes, an issue referred to as network interference or as non-individualized treatment response. A key challenge in these situations, is that the network is often unknown, and difficult, or costly, to measure. In this paper, we characterize the limitations in estimating the total treatment effect without knowledge of the network that drives interference, assuming a potential outcomes model with heterogeneous additive network effects. This model encompasses a broad class of network interference sources, including spillover, peer effects, and contagion. Within this framework, we show that, surprisingly, given access to average historical baseline measurements prior to the experiment, we can develop a simple estimator and efficient randomized design that outputs an unbiased estimate with low variance. Our solution does not require knowledge of the underlying network structure, and it comes with statistical guarantees for a broad class of models. We believe our results are poised to impact current randomized experimentation strategies due to its ease of interpretation and implementation, alongside its provable theoretical insights under heterogeneous network effects.