THE STATUS OF HISTORICAL GARDENS AND PARKS AS MUSEUMS CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

THE STATUS OF HISTORICAL GARDENS AND PARKS AS MUSEUMS CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS

2018

Bruno Bentz. The archaeology of gardens

Bruno Bentz PhD of archaeology, OMAGE

The archaeology of gardens Created in the wake of the development of archaeology of the modern period (16th-18th centuries), the archaeology of gardens has existed in France for almost forty years. Thus, during this period, most of the large estates were subject to archaeological research. However, it is necessary to specify the framework, within which this discipline should be considered, before showing the  main sectors, in which it has brought interesting results. Indeed, the idea that it is the excavations that define the use of archaeology must be dismissed from the outset. The means of intervention, such as excavation, have been constantly improved for several decades, thanks to the contribution of new technologies and to more detailed observations provided by stratigraphy, to such an extent that non-destructive techniques are gaining ground. If, as I believe, excavation is an often indispensable and sometimes necessary means of observation, it should only be considered for the benefit of a more general scientific objective of the study of a feature or an artifact, i.e. a result of human technology application; and gardens of course fall within this definition. Thus, we can describe as an archaeological approach the  garden renovation works carried out since the  beginning of  the  20th century in Vaux-le-Vicomte or later in Villandry, although there were no excavations. The main objective of this work was to restore the previous layout, which amounts to initiating a normal archaeological restitution procedure. However, as long as the study of gardens was based only on written or figurative documentation, in other words on  archives, the  research and reconstruction were not considered as an archaeological practice. Indeed, the development of the history of gardens has followed a way parallel to the archaeology of gardens. It is to be hoped that, from now on, a global approach will bring specialists together regardless of their sources — documentation or artefacts, archives or remains – as the study of gardens cannot do without either of them. Development of garden excavations is relatively recent because archaeology was first reserved for ancient ruins and then for prehistoric remains before gradually venturing into the  medieval period and finally into modern and contemporary times. When Professor Philippe Bruneau created a course in modern archaeology at the  Sorbonne University in 1978, he pursued two objectives to renew the  archaeological discipline.1 First of all, the situation demanded to extend chronological scale to the recent past. Indeed, the development of urban archaeology, driven 1 Philippe Bruneau and Pierre-Yves Balut, “Positions”, Revue d’archéologie moderne et d’archéologie générale (RAMAGE), n° 1, 1982, p. 3-33.

3

The Status of Historical Gardens and Parks as Museums by renovation projects in old city centres, and the consequent expansion of preventive archaeology has forced archaeologists to rediscover the remains of a modern layout. At the same time, the development of aerial archaeology, underwater archaeology and remote geophysical surveying, moving away from a chronological objective and towards a specific observation approach, has led to the  discovery of many sites of modern time. It was therefore in a favourable context of interest for the recent remains that I was able, from 1984, to propose archaeological excavations in the gardens of Marly and Versailles.2 The second objective is still to be justified: it is a question of proposing a general approach, i.e. anthropological one, where the  objectives of  archaeology are not  determined by  the  means of observation at our disposal, nor by  the  quality and quantity of the available documentation, but where they are supervised by human technical capacity. From this perspective, the analysis of the garden that we propose is not determined, however finely it may be, by the researcher’s tools but is governed by manufacturing processes and cultural structures in capacity of human techniques. This means that we can, that we must regard gardens like any industrial production and independently of  the  conservation of documentary sources or any material remains. This is how I recently proposed an archaeological study of the garden of the Hôtel de Retz in Paris,3 although it disappeared irrevocably during the construction of the colonnade of the Louvre! The archaeology of gardens has therefore appropriated the art of gardens. Archaeological questioning brings a certain rigour and methodology: restitution of the states of construction, dating, attribution, but also explanation or interpretation of the choices of layout, the materials used and the manufacturing processes. The  opposition between the  study of  archives and the  study of remains is only temporary. It is a matter of capabilities and distribution of tasks among researchers. Moreover for the modern period it is frequent, that work with various sources is carried out by the same person who sometimes becomes “palaeographer”, sometimes “stratigrapher”. Thus, the question of task distribution seems to be resolved. The  identification of decoration, the  dating of hydraulic lines, the  attribution of  parterres cannot be done with a single method, but with the  help of various clues which may come, according to the circumstances, from a handwritten note, a plan, an engraving or a book, and finally from a stratigraphic discovery or even more simply from the observation of the preserved site. Because in the end, archae2 Bruno Bentz, “Les fouilles modernes et contemporaines”, Revue d’archéologie moderne et d’archéologie générale (RAMAGE), n° 8, 1990, p. 17-39; “Fouilles d’époque moderne à Marly le Roi et à Versailles”, Proceedings of the Journées archéologiques historiques d’Ile de France, Enghien-les-Bains, May 1990, p. 104-107. 3 Bruno Bentz, “La grotte de Paris d’Albert de Gondi”, 2nd seminar, La Renaissance des grottes, nature, art et architecture entre Italie et France au XVIe siècle, Noisy-le-Roi, 2 November 2018 (to be published).

4

Bruno Bentz. The archaeology of gardens

ology, includes all sources and is equally interested in gardens that once existed and in those of the present day. What results are expected from the archaeology of gardens? The subject is difficult to define, but the most general definition of a garden is that of a confined space associated with a house. More generally, a garden is an outdoor area attached to a mansion. The  architecture of buildings is then systematically distinguished from environmental architecture (plants, hydraulics, landscape), although the establishment of one is necessarily linked to the  other and a garden pavilion, terrace or alley is part of both the building and the natural space. It is also difficult to mark a precise boundary between the garden and the park or forest, which may also be made by man. Nevertheless, the qualification of gardens for large estates is based on a permanent terminology that includes both the landscaped works and the work of the gardener, whether it is the designer or the worker in charge of its maintenance. It is actually a set of similar projects that we are dealing with when we study the gardens of Versailles, Chambord, Chantilly, Les Tuileries, etc. The garden is necessarily designed for various purposes, depending on the time, place and its owners. However, the analysis of its functions and uses begins with an understanding of a previously identified and restored garden. Archaeological study is a prerequisite for the historical analysis of a garden. For example, at Marly it is important to emphasize that the initial hydraulic network was autonomous, without any contribution from the waters of the Seine raised later by the Machine: thus, the grandes eaux of Marly and in particular its waterfalls were not foreseen when Louis XIV chose the site. There is another example – the incredible decoration of the ponds covered with tin-glazed tiles, created in 1712, attest to the fact that there was a decorative renewal in the gardens of Marly after the death of Jules Hardouin-Mansart. These observations are based on various modalities of the garden industry that can be analysed separately as divided into five spheres. - Traditionally, archaeology has been interested in building structures. In gardens important places are occupied by ponds, courtyards, paved paths and various structures. Thus, during the excavation of the bosquet d’Encelade in Versailles in 1990, the foundations of the latticework that surrounded the central basin were discovered. The stone bases still kept track of the metal posts that precisely delineated the way of the green tunnel, providing essential clues for the reconstruction of  the  latticework shortly afterwards. In Chantilly, it was the  basis of  a plot for of the Jeu de l’oie (the goose game) that was rediscovered by Jean-Louis Bernard in 2012 and used to recreate the  journey of this outdoor game.4 In  these examples, the remains complement the documentation that was essential for the dating Jean-Louis Bernard, Christian David and Cécile Travers, “Archéologie et histoire d’une attraction ludique de plein air du XVIIIe siècle. Le jeu de l’Oie grandeur nature du Petit Parc de Chantilly”, Archéopages, n° 37, April 2013. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/archeopages/345. 4

5

The Status of Historical Gardens and Parks as Museums of the structures, but not detailed enough to reconstruct their exact configuration. - It is also common for excavations to enrich the knowledge of the decoration if  restoration or reconstruction is not always possible. The  tiling of  the  Marly ponds was restored thanks to the excavations carried out in 1934 and completed in 1985. The  basins of  the  fountains of  the  Labyrinthe  grove in Versailles were discovered by Annick Heitzmann in 20085; the blocks of marble for the Marly waterfall were found in 1988-1989 and those of the great Rivière waterfall — in 20146. The information about the materials and the knowledge of their origin and their implementation were deepened with the discovery of these remains whose authenticity and original appearance had been preserved rather paradoxically by  their demolition. Thus the rockeries, shells, painted and gilded plasters, carved stones from the Noisy grotto found in 2017 illustrate fragile decoration rarely preserved in its original state7. -  Hydraulics was very often integrated into gardens for the  installation of  all kinds of fountains. A large part of the water supply and drainage systems was underground and therefore benefited from good conservation. On the other hand, pipes (lead, cast iron), valves and pumps often disappeared. In Versailles and Marly, but also in Fontainebleau and Saint-Cloud, discoveries are abundant and they are usefully complemented by systematic search for underground structures, which are often abandoned, but whose traces can be found. Sometimes excavations are necessary, sometimes the exploration of the land allows to identify abandoned structures as in Meudon where Jean Ménard found and restored old ditches and old water tunnels8. - Some aspects are still underdeveloped. This is the case of topographic analysis, the study of the earthworks and geotechnical constraints, which have shaped sites that are often large in size. Anne Allimant-Verdillon showed by an example of the Tuileries gardens in Paris in 2012, how Le Nôtre had modified the ground to protect it from floods of the Seine9. The recently restored bosquets have thus benefited from this archaeological approach that pays attention to details. Gen5 Catherine Dupont, “Coquillages et coquilles au château de Versailles aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles: entre repas et rocailles de fontaines”, Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles, 2017. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/crcv/14407. 6 Annick Heitzmann, “Archéologie à Marly: bilan et perspectives”, Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles, 2013. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/crcv/11948; Géraldine Chopin and Annick Heitzmann (dir.), La vie retrouvée à Marly et à Versailles, 25 ans d’archéologie royale, MuséePromenade, Marly-le-Roi, 2016. 7 Bruno Bentz, “Le décor de la grotte de Noisy: résultat des fouilles de 2017”, 1st seminar La Renaissance des grottes, Villa Médicis de Castello, Florence (Italie), 22 February 2018; Opus Incertum (à paraître). 8 Jean Menard, Le réseau hydraulique du domaine royal de Meudon: 331 ans d’histoire, 10 années de restauration, Arhyme 2003-2013, Meudon, ed. Le taureau volant, 2013. 9 Anne Allimant-Verdillon, “Le jardin des Tuileries. Le génie de Le Nôtre”, Dossiers d’archéologie, № 375, May 2016, p. 52-55.

6

Bruno Bentz. The archaeology of gardens

erally speaking, the  constraints of  the  garden are numerous: drainage, traffic, exposure to light and wind, soils. Archaeology makes it possible to understand the reasons for choosing a site and the work done to adapt a garden to natural conditions. - Finally, the  study of garden vegetation is an aspect that is often ignored or poorly documented. However, it is an essential characteristic of  the  layout of a garden, whose arrangements are structured by wooded or herbaceous plantations in coppices, alignments, lawns and flowerbeds. The  soil study makes it possible to isolate former locations of old trees and identify plant species. At Chambord, the flower beds of the garden created around 1730 were restored after a major excavation programme carried out in 2016 by Simon Bryant and Cécile Travers10. The platform bordered by a canal to the north of the palace has thus been able to regain its old level and the alignment of the original plantations. These examples illustrate the many spheres of garden design study: masonry, decoration, hydraulics, earthworks, and botany. In all cases, the archaeology of gardens relies on both documentary and ground data to record previous conditions. Archaeological research is sometimes carried out only for the purpose of analysis (programmed archaeology); however, the  rediscovery of gardens is often a prerequisite for restoration work (preventive archaeology). This problem is not really new since the  alignments and the  layout of some ponds at Marly had been restored in 1932 from the  remains identified in  the  ground or thanks to aerial photographs specially taken for this purpose. However, it was in Versailles, after a devastating storm in 1990, that the  replanting and recreation of several missing groves was planned, for which archaeological excavations were systematically undertaken. The other large gardens have also received special attention for their remains11: Trianon, Fontainebleau, Chambord, Les Tuileries, Saint-Cloud, SaintGermain-en-Laye, Chantilly, etc. From now on, whether it is a question of renovating a garden, restoring it to its original state or reconstructing it when the archives are insufficient, archaeological study is essential. It contributes to preserving the remains as much as to validating or improving the project. Sometimes, the discoveries are important, but the choice of renovation options is not always limited to restoration of an older layout: in Versailles, the Labyrinthe was not restored because the bosquet de la Reine was not 10 Simon Bryant et Cécile Travers, “Ni fait, ni à faire: Chambord, un château à choix multiples”, Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles, 2017, URL: http://journals.openedition.org/ crcv/14356. 11 Annick Heitzmann (dir.), “25 années d’archéologie royale (1990-2015)”, proceedings of the conference organised from 6 to 8 October 2016 at the Château de Versailles, Bulletin du Centre de recherche du château de Versailles. URL: https://journals.openedition.org/crcv/14090.

7

The Status of Historical Gardens and Parks as Museums changed, while a contemporary creation substituted the bosquet du Théâtre d’eau despite the  discovery of  the  remains of  the  fountain. Similarly, in Marly the  excavations made it possible to better understand the  initial state of  many ponds without undertaking a reconstruction project. Thus, the  archaeology of gardens remains a scientific discipline that provides expertise on the subject of gardens. Its results express a continuing enriched knowledge, sometimes criticized or renewed, which can provide a basis for restoration work. However, archaeology cannot make the decision on conservation and enhancement, which is the responsibility of  the  owners, museums or cultural establishments responsible for the  maintenance of gardens, which may be challenged or supported by associations or specialized institutions.

8