decades following the Second World War, however, a synchronic approach came to dominate the field. This approach is built around a strata-based framework where the present buries, and effectively cancels out, the past. Observations made in the course of rescue archaeology in the 1990s challenged this stratified vision of landscapes, highlighting the true complexity of temporalities, while increasingly strong cross-disciplinary connections between historians, archeologists and environmental specialists changed perceptions of the relationships between societies and environments. These developments formed the backdrop for a resurgence of interest in morphological analysis of historical landscapes, culminating in the emergence of a whole new discipline: archeogeography2. This approach promotes a vision of landscape in which the links between man and milieu play a key role, moving beyond the simple nature/culture division. In this first part, we shall consider the way in which past authors, from the late 19th century onward, envisioned the relationship between space and time in a landscape. We shall also explain why modern archeogeographers must move beyond the morphological analysis methods developed during this earlier period, demonstrating the need for a new and innovative theoretical framework.
1 1 https://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/morphologie, accessed July 24, 2020.
2 2 The French term is archeogeographie; in English, the term “landscape archeology” is also widespread.
1
Landscape: The Resistance of the Past?
1.1. The past in the present
1.1.1. Architectural and morphological persistences
Humanity has long been aware that certain constructions persist beyond the societies that shaped them. As early as the early Middle Ages, printed works and iconographic representations highlighted the presence of ancient constructions in the urban fabric of the city of Rome (D’Amico 2009). These constructions are presented as anchoring elements, ensuring that the city itself remained “eternal” (Djament-Tran 2011). Roads were also identified as permanent features of the landscape (D’Urban 1837, p. 415), and their continued presence is reflected in place names. The persistence of these roads was perceived locally by users well before Nicolas Bergier, a magistrate, made his first theoretical proposals in the early 17th century concerning the conditions under which these great ancient routes had survived the centuries (Bergier 1622).
By the late 19th century, scholars were well aware of the persistence of other, more extended and complex constructions in the landscape: town and city layouts, field patterns, village ground footprints and settlement patterns often followed agrarian structures established in the Middle Ages or even earlier. These elements attracted the attention of historians and legal specialists, philologists, geographers and architects from across the globe. This shared interest is partially explained by the development of increasingly detailed representations of space. Cartography made a significant leap forward at this time due to an increase in the precision of geodesic measurements and to new projection systems. Vast mapping campaigns were carried out over the course of the 19th century, establishing or updating national cartographic references by means of detailed surveys, at scales of 1:10,000, 1:40,000, etc. At the same time, cadastral surveys were carried out on an even larger scale: 1:1,250, 1:2,500, etc. (Steinberg 1982; Maurin 1992). Finally, the increase in the production and availability of travel guides provided further helpful tools for the first city and town planners, who were able to consult and compare existing layouts (Lavedan 1926a, p. 91).
Figure 1.1. Reproduction of an ancient centuriation plan near Bologna, studied by the archaeologist Alfonso Rubbiani, from the 19th-century cartography in Albert Grenier’s Manuel d’archéologie gallo-romaine (Grenier 1934, p. 17)
This new documentation clearly showed the continued existence of ancient forms in the landscape. Concerning ancient planned plots in Campania, for example, the French archaeologist Albert Grenier indicated that the land “appeared to be” divided into square plots with a “very clear grid pattern”. He added that the most striking example was found in northern Italy (Figure 1.1) (Grenier 1934, p. 15). From the 19th century on, philological studies of texts relating to ancient surveying practices, whereby certain territories were divided along rectilinear lines intersecting at right angles into parcels or plots known as “limitations” or “centuriations” (centuriae),1 were compared with material traces. Using cross-analysis of topographic maps, cadastral records, aerial photographs and field observations in Italy, France, North Africa, the Near East, etc., historians attempted to reconcile the material traces with the texts (Chouquer 2008a).
1.1.2. Looking to the present to uncover the past: regressive history
In countries bearing fewer marks of Roman occupation, many researchers focused on medieval agrarian landscape structures. In 1895, August Meitzen, a professor of statistics and economics at the University of Berlin, posited that a type of land division that he had observed on cadastral plans was, in fact, the imprint of legal land plots established in late antiquity and the early Middle Ages (Meitzen 1895). Meitzen’s analytical method was widely disseminated, and historians began to pay increasing attention to cadastral plans as source materials. Inspired by Meitzen’s work, F.W. Maitland (1850–1906), professor of law at the University of Cambridge, began to study the origin of the grouped villages in the open field system and the dispersal of the English bocage. He stated: “Two little fragments of the original one-inch ordnance map will be more eloquent than would be many paragraphs of written discourse” (Maitland 1987, p. 16). Maitland’s work gave rise to a new tradition of research in historical topography in Great Britain, first based on map analysis, and later on aerial photography (Darby and Williams 2002, p.18).
In France, the historian Marc Bloch (1886–1944), familiar with the work then coming out of Germany and Great Britain, formalized the “inverse method” in 1931. Bloch’s approach consisted of “reading history backwards” from texts and cartographic representations produced during the 18th century, a period in which landscapes and agrarian practices began to be better documented (Bloch 1988, p. 49). According to the historian Adriaan Verhulst, the regressive method consists of:
[Beginning with] the least unknown, which is usually also the most recent or closest to us, such as the present landscape or the nineteenth-century cadastral plan, in order to travel backwards into the past by means of clues which become increasingly difficult to interpret the further back we go, but which occur in a clear historical sequence. (Verhulst 1995, p. 20)2
Recent documentation is used for reasons of simple necessity, where no historical equivalent exists for the period in question. For urban historians, planimetric documents are the only practical source for obtaining ancient city plans, since it is impossible to excavate a whole town or city. For Marcel Poëte, one of the fathers of urban morphology in France (alongside Pierre Lavedan)3, there are clear and significant “medieval legacies” in the current layouts of major cities (Poëte 1924, p. 7). Ordnance maps, cadastral documents and modern plans are thus “perfectly acceptable” source documents for the study of medieval cities, and even for the ancient period (Lavedan 1926a, p. 94). Lavedan generalized these into “a principle, which, if not universal