By comparing the way in which London and Paris have updated their urban past since the XVIIe century, Stéphane Van Damme is interested in the birth of urban sciences: how urban archeology became both mass consumption and a science necessary for public action ?
On September 29, 2012, Parisians could discover historic Paris, from the Gallic village to the construction of the Eiffel Tower, thanks to 3D reconstructions projected on the nine giant screens installed on the square in front of the Hôtel de Ville. This multimedia project, entitled “ Paris, the city to go back in time », mobilizes several scholarly institutions and museums including that of Carnavalet. But while this enterprise clearly testifies to the fascination of a wide public for archeology and the fact that preventive archeology has become a concern of municipalities, the history of urban archeology remained to be written. . Refusing the genealogical approach, Stéphane Van Damme becomes the archaeologist of archeology: he brings to light “ science in the making » by understanding scientific practices as social facts and by being interested in the links between knowledge and power. In the wake of the sociologist of science and archaeologist of the contemporary city, Bruno Latour, the author aims to show how “ invisible magnitudes » archaeological documents become visible and readable. In doing so, it fits into the field of sociology of science opened in England by Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer. The evidentiary regime of experimental science, which appeared in England in the 1660s, required scientists to work collectively in order to validate the results of the experiment, hence the importance given to controversies and discursive activity, as well as as to the relations of scholars with politics.
By emphasizing the places where science is done – scholarly institutions, museums, libraries – sociologists have entered the city. The latter was first addressed by the theme of advertising: the aim was to study science as public consumption and to trace the birth of a market of citizen-consumers. But, significantly, Habermas does not appear in the index of Stéphane Van Damme’s book. From the metaphorical approach to space, we have, in fact, moved to a concrete approach, thanks to the spatial turn (“ spatial turn “) historical studies. The geography of knowledge now favors urban space, as evidenced by the company recently led by Christian Jacob. In line with the work on capital cities of Georg Simmel and Walter Benjamin, the metropolitan condition has become a central theme of cultural history. This book thus adopts a comparative approach between Paris and London and even, beyond that, Edinburgh and New York. What interests the author is now less the city of sciences than the birth of urban sciences: how urban archeology became both mass consumption and a science necessary for action public ? Three spaces are successively addressed: scholarly, public and political.
An archeology of archeology
The first part, entitled “ the Metropolitan Palimpsest » with reference to Olivier Mongin, shows that the transformations of the urban fabric played a major role in the birth of archaeology, with town planning work having brought the buried city to light. This excavation is contemporary with a “ visual turning point » initiated by the birth of experimental science. Scholars study the basements and floors of the capital as well as the material remains they contain, consequently establishing a regime of archaeological evidence which overturns that of written proof hitherto favored by antiquarians.
Stéphane Van Damme thus demonstrates the proximity of archeology to natural sciences in XVIIIe century: following the work of Sabine Barles, he studies the relationship between regional planning and archaeology. The growth of archaeological research is linked to the important urban planning operations of the City of Lights. Subsurface engineers and hydrographic engineers are interested in the material remains of the past. At XIXe century, archaeological knowledge is closely linked to public action, as illustrated by the fact that the project to write a general history of Paris was led by Baron Haussmann.
If engineers and scientists think in historical terms, conversely historians will appropriate the methods of experimental sciences. Since the Renaissance, antiquarians have been primarily interested in writing, in line with the philological practices of the Renaissance. This “ paper archeology » collapses from the end of the XVIIe century: material evidence replaces textual evidence and archeology takes precedence over criticism of written sources. The search goes from “ register of chance “, amateur archaeologists commenting on accidental discoveries, to a “ frame register »: in the 1750s, the famous antiques dealer Caylus enlisted the care of the engineers of the Ponts et Chaussées for the collection of archaeological information. The exploration of “ body »urban is now systematic. The involvement of architects in the excavations will, however, lead to favoring large monuments at the expense of small archaeological material. The archaeologists of Paris XIXe century are thus the engineer Jean-Baptiste-Prosper Jollois (1776-1842), who presented his research at the Académie des Inscriptions, and especially the architect Théodore Vacquer (1820-1899) who directed the excavation sites from the mid-century.
However, neither the Academy of Inscriptions nor the University recognizes the archeology of the city as a discipline in its own right. Amateurs therefore maintain an important role alongside professionals.
“ Old Paris » & « Old London »
In the second part “ From controversy to admiration: The recognition of metropolitan greatness », Stéphane Van Damme studies the emergence of the feeling of attachment to urban archaeological heritage. This is primarily the case for amateurs who are outraged by the real or fantasized pillaging of objects ; certain controversies become state affairs like that of the arenas of Lutèce. Their discovery, in 1869, was due to the work of the Compagnie des omnibus. The archaeologists organized a press campaign which succeeded in mobilizing two political figures of national stature, Victor Duruy and Victor Hugo. This collective action pushed the city to buy the land and establish a square there in 1892. The notion of heritage extended to the entire urban core with the appearance of the concept of “ old town » under the impetus of antique dealers and enthusiasts. A new sociability is taking over the place “ where the reification of the urban past takes place “, that is to say the antique shops, the public courtyards, the historic walks… The old city is fetishized, as the author nicely writes. New audiences are interested in it, particularly women. The shift in the meaning of the word “ antique dealer “, from the archaeologist to the seller of objects, could be a sign of this broadening of the public, as well as the proliferation of objects, such as postcards, as well as popular practices such as guided tours.
The creation of new places in the city – museums, archives and libraries – is the result of the initiative of amateur antique dealers and not of those in power. This is the case for libraries: in London, the Guildhall Museum was created in 1826 by the City Corporation ; in Paris, it was a collector, Jules Cousin, who was behind the opening, in September 1871, of the Historical Library of the city of Paris which replaced the one which had just been burned. While the idea of national heritage led to the creation by the State of archaeological museums in capitals, such as the British Museum in London in 1759 or the Cluny Museum in Paris in 1843, municipal councilors were reluctant to open a museum archaeological, considered dusty and not reflecting the metropolitan grandeur. The City of London refuses to buy the private collection of the great collector Charles Roach Smith (1807-1890) ; it was a petition from antique dealers which allowed its purchase by the Treasury and its payment to the British Museum. This role of amateurs led to social rivalries: the Guildhall Museum, financed by City merchants, competed with a rival museum, the London Museum, set up in 1911 by the landowners and aristocrats of the West End: these owners of the There are many collections of antiques on the ground, so much so that today it is the largest urban archaeological museum. In Paris, the opening in 1880 of the Carnavalet museum, dedicated to the history of the capital, is linked to a multitude of local learned societies, the most famous of which is the Society of the History of Paris and the Island. de-France, which contrast with the existence of district societies with a worldly and feminine composition.
Archaeology, the future of the past
Urban archeology is constructed under the supervision of political authorities, the scholarly and political registers being confused. The last chapter, “ Paper metropolises. Publish Greatness », studies the transition from visible to readable. Archaeological research first gave rise to local monographs. Urban histories are financed by city councilors: the municipality of Paris employs a historiographer from the middle of the XVIIe century ; it also financed large enterprises such as the History of Paris by the Bénédictin Dom Félibien (1725). Finally, in 1759, she opened a historic library in the town hall. The political stakes of the story are obvious: it is a question of defending local privileges against central power and the greatness of the city against rivals.
In the 1860s, the general history project of Paris was no longer directed by the city body, as in the XVIIIe century, but by a sub-commission, that of the Historical Service of the city of Paris created within the Seine department: bringing together members of the prefecture, the town hall and archivists, it monitors archaeological activities. This bureaucratic system is at the origin of a real “ excavation police »: the filing and writing of archaeological reports is as much a scholarly activity as an administrative one. The mission assigned to archaeologists by the public authorities is twofold: it is a question of saving the documents after the fires of the Town Hall and the Palace of Justice in 1871. Subsequently, the papers of Théodore Vacquer were deposited and classified at the Historical Library of the City and became the basis of the archives of Parisian archeology. In 1898, the creation of the Old Paris Commission was followed by a sub-commission for the Inventory: the aim was to anticipate possible demolitions. “ In anticipation, writes Stéphane Van Damme, rescue archeology turned into preventive archeology » (p. 108).
Archaeology, a science of the past, has become knowledge focused on the future and therefore now considered necessary for the training of municipal executives. The creation of the School of Advanced Urban Studies by the General Council of the Seine, in 1919, responded to the ambition of teaching “ municipal science », according to the expression of Renaud Payre. “ Urban history fully participates in the knowledge of municipal action which gradually emerges, with the creation of municipal schools responsible for training the future executives of the city, and belongs to a reform nebula » (p. 236), concludes Stéphane Van Damme. As this fascinating book demonstrates, archeology is indeed the future of the urban past.