1  

 

An example of integrated management of an heritage site : Bibracte – Mont Beuvray (Burgundy, France) Vincent GUICHARD1 (1) General Director, BIBRACTE – Centre archéologique européen, F-58370 Glux-en-Glenne (France) vg@bibracte.fr Abstract Bibracte is the name of the former capital of the Aedui, the powerful Gaulish people who occupied a vast area between the Saone and the Allier rivers during 2nd and 1st c. BC. Abandoned shortly after the Roman conquest, the site of Bibracte was rediscovered and intensively excavated during the second half of the 19th century. It thus became one of the key Celtic archaeological sites. Bibracte is also an emblematic place in French national history, as several major episodes of the Gallic Wars took place there. Bibracte has been the subject of an ambitious international research programme since 1985. The programme was lucky to benefit from the new dynamic in archaeology in France over the past twenty-five years, as well as the interest shown by François Mitterrand, a major public figure, in this historical site set in a stunning natural environment. Today, Bibracte is an original research and cultural setting, with high quality facilities established as part of the state’s large-scale public works policy. Bibracte manages a European archaeological centre, hosting researchers and students from a dozen or so European countries. The centre is also a cultural venue and receives large numbers of visitors. This article aims to introduce the centre, which is unique in the sheer scope of its research, cultural and economic missions. Keywords: archaeological heritage, cultural landscape, integrated management

 Introduction The concept of integrated management emerged at the same time as the idea of sustainable development, with the two concepts being considered mutually dependent. For obvious reasons, they have both been applied predominantly to environmental issues, with a symbolic milestone being reached at the 1992 Rio Summit. Since this time, these concepts have increasingly informed environmental policy and law, as is the case with [1], for example. Applying these ideas to cultural heritage would seem to be both obvious and necessary. Explicit mention of integrated management in normative documents relating to cultural heritage remains extremely rare, however. The founding documents of UNESCO concerning cultural heritage, for example, mainly drawn up before the 1980s, have not yet been updated to include this concept, and in French law, only landscapes (seen as cultural objects par excellence) are subject to integrated management under environmental regulations which will, from now on, be combined with town planning legislation. Twenty years on from the Rio Summit, integrated heritage management is mentioned only rarely and inconsistently in the management plans of some of the sites on the world heritage lists, for example (c.f. some case studies in [2]), or in non-normative documents issued by international consultation bodies (such as the European Council in particular). This organisation has, in fact, been integrating the concept into the heritage arena since the 1970s and makes constant reference to it (c.f. The Faro Conventions [3]), advocating a systemic, integrated management based approach to heritage sites [4]. On a much more practical level, integrated management is rarely mentioned when management plans for heritage sites are being drawn up. The fact that the concept is not specifically referred to does not, however, mean that these policies do not advocate integrated management in practice; it is, for example, the underlying principle behind the French Grands Sites policy [5]. From a practical and operational point of view

 

     

this allows us to define as integrated management a formalised and planned management style which has as its primary objective the long-term preservation of a site’s authenticity, based in particular on the knowledge and involvement of local communities on all levels. The particular political context of the time meant that the management structure implemented at the Bibracte heritage site in the mid-1980s corresponds very precisely, in our opinion, with integrated management criteria, even though the concept is not specifically mentioned in the founding documents of the organisation’s management. We hope that this report of our experience will contribute to raising awareness among heritage site managers of the potential of this concept, which guarantees a site’s long term sustainability, while safeguarding the interests of community stake-holders. Bibracte’s triple identity: a site, a research centre and a museum Bibracte is unique in that it brings together three complementary elements: a natural and historic site, a research centre, and an archaeological museum, which are all managed by one public body [6, 7]. Located in the heart of Burgundy, on Mont-Beuvray in the Morvan mountains, Bibracte was founded at the end of the second century B.C. by the Aedui, a Gallic tribe who had their capital here for a century. With its 12km of fortifications and buildings spread over 200 hectares, Bibracte is one of the best preserved and most characteristic of the late Iron Age fortified towns or oppida. It is also a site of historical significance, where Julius Caesar settled after his victory at Alesia to finalise his work on his Commentaries on the Gallic War. Mont-Beuvray is a remarkable natural site, rich in beech forests and panoramic viewpoints which open onto protected landscapes (fig. 1, 2, 3). Since 2008, Bibracte / Mont-Beuvray has been listed as both an historical monument and a Grand Site de France. This title is awarded by the Minister of Ecology to organisations managing major natural sites in an exemplary way. Above all, the site as a whole is suffused with a site-specific atmosphere, experienced by all who visit. Bibracte is a reference site for archaeological research on the Iron Age, benefitting from an ambitious research programme involving several European universities. Thanks to these archaeologists, the town of Bibracte, abandoned two thousand years ago and all but forgotten, is finding new life. Bibracte functions both as a place of fieldwork for researchers and students from a dozen or so countries, and as an archaeological park which is constantly evolving, allowing us to discover an unknown chapter of our history (fig. 4, 5). Bibracte also endeavours to operate as an experimental site for archaeological work, both in terms of museography and research methodology. Welcoming artists to the site is the result of a desire to explore new forms of cultural programming. As the main introduction to the site, the Bibracte museum exhibits the results of the archaeological research which takes place here, and puts this work into perspective (fig. 6). Its aim is to demonstrate, using the example of Bibracte, that the inhabitants of ‘middle’ or ‘temperate’ Europe reached a major developmental milestone just over 20 centuries ago, by inventing an urban model unique to this area. The museum was built by Pierre-Louis Faloci in 1995. The materials used (stone, steel, glass and concrete) were chosen to embody the stages of human progress. The repeated motif of the square, visible in the building’s fabric, evokes the criss-cross pattern of excavated landscapes. The deliberate choice of strong and simple geometric shapes, cinematically framing the landscape, definitively places the architecture in the modern era. The site and its audiences As a result of its triple nature, Bibracte is host to a very diverse set of visitors. First, we receive researchers, students and heritage professionals participating in scientific programmes at the European Archaeology Centre. These visitors are recruited on a Europe-wide scale, principally through partnership agreements with scientific organisations such as university institutions, public laboratories or museums which participate in the Mont-Beuvray research programme (fig. 7). They include several hundred individuals and complete around 8,000 working days at Bibracte per year. The museum, meanwhile, welcomes over 44,000 visitors per year [8]. School trips account for a significant proportion of this number, with 8,000 children and teenagers spending at least one day at Bibracte. The remainder is made up mainly of family visitors, of whom 40% come from the local area, 30% from other regions of France, and the rest from other countries, primarily the Netherlands and Belgium. Among our visitors, those attracted to the Morvan area by its landscape are as well represented as those who come because of a love of heritage and history. In this regard, the breakdown of visitor numbers at Bibracte is somewhat different from that of museums in urban settings. We have demanding visitors who appreciate the quality of our environment as well as its archaeological content, and who are open to new initiatives.

 

     

The particular breakdown of our visitors can be explained by Bibracte’s geographical location, and our location also means that we have to bear in mind a particular set of social obligations. Bibracte is located in a poor, mountainous area which has suffered from massive depopulation since the mid-nineteenth century as a result of the combined effects of emigration and the carnage of the First World War. A region of landscapes clearly scarred by agricultural decline, where austere pine plantations have replaced the old pasture system, Morvan could be tempted to become more inward-looking. The Morvan identity, based on traditional music, language and customs has been reinforced over the last few decades. Paradoxically, newcomers from outside the region, including some from Nordic countries, who have settled in the region in large numbers since the 1990s have contributed a lot to this. Within this context, Bibracte exists in the role of a cultural centre for a local population with very few other cultural opportunities, which is why the museum’s programme is not restricted to archaeological exhibitions (fig. 8). A concerted effort is made to produce alternative events related to artistic creation or contemporary issues, to welcome artists in residence, run multi-disciplinary festivals and arrange sessions with scientists, etc. This cultural openness also helps to demonstrate that archaeology is not a passive approach which can be counted on purely to feed into a traditional view of the land, but is rather an approach which can be used as a resource in support of current issues. An organisation in charge of the integrated management of the site Bibracte’s recent history helps to explain the uniqueness of the organisation charged with the running of the site. In 1981, just after his election as President, François Mitterand initiated the launch of an archaeological research programme at this highly symbolic site of a short-lived Gallic union in 52 B.C., where Julius Caesar wrote the first history of the land which would eventually become France. There was another argument in Bibracte’s favour; the site is located in the constituency which, 35 years previously, had returned Mr. Mitterand to parliament. These exceptional circumstances explain why Bibracte received particular attention from the national authorities and why such a unique management structure was implemented here. The resumption of excavations in 1984 came about as a result of the involvement of various European countries such as Hungary and Czechoslovakia which had until then been isolated behind the Iron Curtain. At the same time, this new activity at the site was attracting an influx of visitors which needed to be managed. The site was eventually included on the list of Grands Travaux de l’Etat in 1989. A management structure in the form of a semi-public company having private legal status (société d’économie mixte) was put in place, bringing together state and local organisations to implement a significant programme of investments consisting of arranging the financial management of the site by setting up a public property of 950 hectares, and creating the facilities which were inaugurated by François Mitterrand in 1995. The société d’économie mixte was replaced in 2007 by an établissement public de coopération culturelle (EPCC). This new type of public organisation was established by legislation passed in 2001 to allow significant cultural facilities such as museums and show venues to be run as partnerships. Under this system, the facility itself is managed by an independent organisation, with policy and financing arranged by a governing board which includes representatives from the founding bodies. This type of management structure has two principal advantages in combining the policies and resources of all the different bodies involved, and in creating a management structure where roles and responsibilities are clearly distributed between the elected representatives (who define overall strategy and direction) and the director (who has responsibility for the operational running of the organisation). In Bibracte’s case, the establishment of the EPCC only reinforced the existing management structure which had been in place under the société d’économie mixte system. Today, “Bibracte” is the name of a public body which simultaneously coordinates and manages: - the Bibracte archaeological site, - the European Archaeological Centre, and - the Museum of Celtic Civilisation. The main members of the organisation are: the French state, the Burgundy Regional Council, the General Councils of the Nièvre and Saône-et-Loire départements and the Morvan Regional National Park. Bibracte directs all operations, including conservation and study of the site, as well as development and visitor management. This structure allows us to avoid the problems often encountered when a large number of institutional bodies are involved at the various stages of this process. Often, there are ministries in charge of ecology and culture involved in the legislation concerning protected sites, other ministries in charge of research and higher education involved in the management of researchers and students, yet more ministries in charge of culture, education and tourism who are involved in the management of public access, not to

 

     

mention the different levels of local administration in a country where tens of thousands of public authorities share management of national policy. In order to deal with the many roles fulfilled by the organisation here, the thirty-strong Bibracte team covers a very wide skill-base. The Director General, an archaeologist by training, is responsible for research, training and cultural development. In addition to general administrative tasks, his three main roles are to coordinate the research programme, to plan cultural events such as exhibitions, and to develop collaborative partnerships. He has two assistants, one in charge of the operational management of the research programme, and one dealing with the cultural programme and communication. His team also includes a collection manager, a restorer, a librarian researcher, a photographer, a topographer, an education team comprising two permanent members of staff and 15 or so temporary/seasonal guides, as well as two administration assistants. Logistics and landscape management is covered by 5 maintenance technicians, 2 purchasing and public marketing officers, 4 front of house staff, one person overseeing tourism advertising, one commercial assistant and one administration assistant. The logistics director also has the support of around 15 members of staff from sub-contracted companies who, between them, provide 10,000 nights’ accommodation and 30,000 meals per year, site maintenance and forestry services, with around 5000 m3 of wood sold annually. The staff is completed by a 3-person administration team. The Director General is supported by 3 advisory committees. - The scientific council comprises eight international experts who help to set scientific and cultural policy

and ensure that this evolves as required. - The site management committee takes decisions regarding site management and development and

includes representatives from the relevant administrative bodies, such as the Ministries of Culture and Ecology.

- The site operating committee brings together all the local public operating groups which partner Bibracte in the area of tourism.

A sustainable management plan The development plan drawn up for the site is the result of a process of trial and error [9]. The in-situ evocation of Gallic towns is always a challenge. Remains are never imposing and are extremely fragile, particularly in the (very common) case of the elusive remains of wooden constructions. In addition, the Bibracte site is spread over a large area covered by a very dense forest. The best time to see the town’s remains, therefore, is when archaeologists are working in the field in the summer. This is why we have always favoured guided trips of excavations on the ‘industrial tourism’ model, demonstrating archaeologists' working techniques as well as the results of their work. Following the restoration and development of various remains carried out in the 1990s, in particular that of the Porte du Rebout, one of the principal entrances to the town, it was quickly understood that these piecemeal interventions would not be enough to demonstrate the scale of the ancient town, or to communicate the characteristics of its layout. Consequently, a pilot research study was carried out, with the assistance of a landscape architect, with a report issued in 2006 under the somewhat provocative title La Mise en valeur des sites archéologiques invisibles [10] (Developing Invisible Archaeological Sites). The study starts from the principle that, as the few visible historical architectural remains are spread over such a wide area, the ‘natural environment’ needs as much attention as the archaeological remains, with the forest, a significant feature of the landscape, being responsible for the ‘magical atmosphere’ of the site. There is a focus on the motif, or ‘features’, which should be the key detail of the context (the ‘templum’), with the whole constituting a ‘place’. There is, therefore, an emphasis on the following elements: - The ‘legibility’ of the relief plans (the geographical scope); - The clarity of the significant areas of archaeological interest. Each set of remains (motif) should be

comprehensible without aids, should absolutely illustrate the precedence of the remains in relation to the elements which make up the modern landscape, and in relation to the development.

- The attractiveness of the ‘spaces’. Each set of remains should be placed in a visually attractive setting. These guidelines led to the establishment of a long-term forestry development project with the aim of opening up the topography of the town and creating a set of development scenarios (fig. 9). These development plans were all integrated into the programme, regardless of their size, from minor landscaping projects to excavations, consolidation of remains to the installation of more large-scale protective measures (fig. 10).

 

     

Summary While Bibracte came about as a project conceived at the highest state levels, it is useful to remember that the current organisation and facilities are the result of largely empirical development, and of a history which has not been without its debates between the state, local politicians and archaeologists. The latter have often seen their plans restricted by the ambitions of politicians to the point where, at times, it could have felt as if the management of the site was slipping from their control. We should remember that the archaeologists who carried out the first excavations here in the mid-1980s could never have imagined the eventual scope of the organisation. Bibracte has benefited from a happy set of circumstances, and the excellent intuition of particular individuals. The research programme was lucky in that it was forced to internationalise (due to a lack of French specialists in the field) just at a time when the European project was on the lookout for symbolic initiatives. The management structure which was meant to be a short-term solution while building work was completed proved to be sufficiently robust and efficient to be sustained for 15 years. This atypical journey has created a unique facility, which is paradoxical in that it combines elements which are usually, if not opposed, then certainly dealt with separately. These include: - The local and the international - A strong link to the Morvan heritage site and operations based on

resolutely European scientific research networks. - The cultural and the rural - Bibracte is the only example of a cultural facility conceived at the national level

and established in such a rural setting, with fewer than 50,000 residents within a 50km radius. - Cultural heritage and the environment - Bibracte / Mont-Beuvray attracts as much attention for its

environment, with its ancient forest, in a protected hedged-farmland setting, as for the archaeological remains of the largest Gallic settlement of Caesar’s time.

- The scientific and the economic - Bibracte is a complex organisation which combines the conservation, study and development of a site with cultural and educational aspects and whose research activities contribute to the constant revitalisation of the tourist experience.

- Local and national politics - The state and the Ministry of Culture are, without question, the most significant of Bibracte’s public partners, but local organisations such as the regional, departmental and regional national park bodies are also closely involved in its management.

We can view Bibracte as a sort of laboratory, where we experiment on ways in which to deal simultaneously with archaeological research, heritage management, international cooperation, and reinvigorating a rural area, using an integrated management structure linked to a symbolic heritage site. The experiences of the past 25 years at Mont-Beuvray, including successes as well as difficulties, have produced a valuable knowledge base which, in our opinion, bears witness to the value of this management structure, considering conservation needs, the knowledge of experts in the field, and the ownership needs of the local community.

 

     

Bibliographical References [1] CAUDAL, Sylvie. Les conditions juridiques de la gestion intégrée de l’environnement. In PRIEUR, Michel. Vers un nouveau droit de l’environnement ? Limoges: CIDCE, 2003, p. 149-164. www.cidce.org/publications/sommaire%20rio.htm [2] MITCHELL, Nora, RÖSSLER, Mechtild, TRICAUD Pierre-Marie. World Heritage cultural landscapes : a handbook for conservation and management. Paris: UNESCO, 2011. World heritage papers, 26. http://whc.unesco.org/documents/publi_wh_papers_26_en.pdf

[3] Council of Europe Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro, 27.X.2005). http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/199.htm

[4] PICKARD, Robert. Guidance on the development of legislation and administration systems in the field of cultural heritage. Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 2011.

[5] Règlement d’usage du label “Grand Site de France”. www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Reglement_d_usage_label-_Version_revisee_2010.pdf

[6] ROMERO, Anne-Marie.. Bibracte : l’aventure archéologique sur le mont Beuvray. Glux-en-Glenne : BIBRACTE, 2006.

[7] GUICHARD, Vincent. Bibracte : une expérience de gestion intégrée d’un site archéologique. In BENKOVÁ, Irena, GUICHARD, Vincent. Gestion et présentation des oppida : un panorama européen, actes de la table-ronde de Beron (CZ), 26 septembre 2007. Glux-en-Glenne: Bibracte, 2008, p. 71-84. Bibracte, 15. www.bibracte.fr/fic_bdd/contenu_fr_fichier/1305033645409.pdf

[8] GUICHARD, Vincent, PLAZA, Pascale. Bibracte, ou l’archéologie en pleine nature. Cahier Espaces n° 109, juillet 2011, Mise en découverte des espaces et sites naturels. www.revue-espaces.com/librairie/8061/mise-decouverte-espaces-sites-naturels.html

[9] BARNOUD, Paul, BOURA, Frédérique, GORLIER, Jacques, GUICHARD, Vincent. L’aménagement de l’oppidum gaulois de Bibracte : chronique de quinze années de tâtonnements. In BALSAMO, Isabelle. Vestiges archéologiques en milieu extrême, actes de la table ronde de Clermont-Ferrand (2000). Paris: Centre des monuments nationaux, 2003, p. 150-163.

[10] GUICHARD, Vincent, CHAZELLE, Claude. Mettre en valeur l'invisible : réflexions sur le site archéologique de Bibracte (Nièvre, France). In BELLET, Michel-Edouard, CHAZELLES, Claire-Anne de. De la restitution en archéologie, actes du colloque de Béziers (2004), Paris: Centre des monuments nationaux, 2007, p. 263-272. www.monuments-nationaux.fr/fichier/editions_livre/662/livre_pdf_fr_restitution.pdf

 

     

Illustrations

Fig. 1: Mont-Beuvray (Burgundy, F), the site of the ancient Bibracte (© René Goguey)

Fig. 2: The main archaeological features of ancient Bibracte are its two lines of fortification, well visible as limits of vegetation and as topographical anomalies on LIDAR survey.

Fig. 3: The forest covering the remains of ancient Bbiracte (here the steps marking the location of the inner line of fortification) creates a unique atmosphere which contributes to the attractiveness of the site.(Antoine Maillier ©BIBRACTE)

 

     

  Fig. 4: The Centre archéologique européen, with the construction site of its extension devoted to the central store of archaeological finds from Burgundy (architect: Pierre-Louis Faloci ; Antoine Maillier ©Bibracte)

Fig. 5: The site of Bibracte is organized as an archaeological and natural park, with the museum located foothills operating as an entrance.

 

     

Fig. 6: Outer and inner views of the museum of Bibracte (architect: Pierre-Louis Faloci ; ©Daniel Osso & Antoine Maillier ©Bibracte)

 

     

Fig. 7: The archaeological research project on Mont-Beuvray brings together teams from ca. 10 European universities (Antpine Maillier ©Bibracte)

Fig. 8: The cultural program of Bibracte comprises archaeological temporary exhibitions, artistic performances and a biennal festival, Repérages, bringing each time artists from a different European stage (Antoine Maillier ©Bibracte)

Fig. 9: The evolution of the landscape of Mont-Beuvray from the original situation (2005) and as it is planned in 2012, 2025, 2090 (©Claude Chazelle / Bibracte)

 

     

Fig. 10: The shelter designed to protect an area of architectural remains of major importance – those of a mid-1st c. BC forum – built without foundation and made of a frame whose pieces weigh only 42 kg each (architect: Paul Andreu ; Antoine Maillier ©Bibracte)