Garden archaeology emerged as a new field of research in Sweden during the 1990s, initially on a small scale. Excavations of historic parks and gardens at estates, manors, and castles were undertaken as part of restoration and research projects, primarily to confirm or refute structures identified in historic maps and illustrations. The pioneering garden archaeologists, such as Katarina Frost, Inger Ernstsson, and Ingrid Dyhlén Täckman, drew inspiration from British garden archaeology and contemporary projects in the Netherlands. These early excavations were relatively small in scale compared to those conducted today and were fewer in number. Nevertheless, these initial projects have played a crucial role in developing garden archaeology in Sweden (Andreasson Sjögren 2016; Andreasson Sjögren 2025:9ff).

This branch of garden archaeology, focusing on the parks and gardens of the elite in past societies, has expanded significantly over the past two decades. More recent examples include Rosenlund in Jönköping, Johanneberg in Gothenburg, Axmar Bruk in the province of Gästrikland, and Djurgården in Stockholm (see below) (Franzén 2019; Lindeblad et al. 2019; Bramstång Plura et al. 2021; Blennå & Lindeblad 2022). These historic parks and gardens are often, to some extent, still in use, meaning that remnants of historic elements such as trees, fences, and stone structures remain visible. In restoration projects, collaboration between landscape architects, art historians, scientific specialists, and archaeologists is essential to acquire the broadest possible understanding of these gardens and parks.

Since the turn of the millennium, studies and excavations of historic gardens have become more frequent within contract archaeology. As a result, most of the garden archaeological research has been conducted within this framework. In most cases, the precise locations of these gardens remain unknown before excavation, as they are not visible in advance. These gardens are concealed by modern-day built-up areas in both urban and rural areas. Once excavated, these gardens are not intended for reconstruction. The fact that they are entirely invisible today and that the objective is not to physically reconstruct them distinguishes them from the projects mentioned above, not only in terms of methods and analysis but also in research questions.

In this branch of garden archaeology, methods, analyses, and questions have been inspired by Scandinavian landscape and agrarian archaeology, as well as British and American garden archaeology. The objects of research and research questions are constantly broadened, and the latest excavation methods and analyses are used. One example of an important development is the systematic use of archaeobotanical analyses as an integrated part of the excavations (Currie 2005; Lindeblad 2006; Lindeblad & Petersson 2009; Heimdahl 2010; Gleason 2013; Lindeblad & Nordström 2014).

Most archaeological excavations in historical gardens have been carried out in kitchen gardens within medieval and early modern towns (figure 1). This is primarily because garden remains tend to be better preserved in urban environments than in rural areas. Although a few excavations of gardens at farmsteads in the countryside have taken place, there remains a significant gap in our understanding of these historical gardens and their horticultural practices.

Garden archaeology is a subfield of historical archaeology (cf. Andrén 1998), meaning that archaeological evidence is integrated with other sources such as historical maps, written records, photographs, paintings, and other visual materials. In garden excavations, archaeological remains serve as the primary source material, providing insights into garden soils, various constructions, and artefacts. These elements reveal information about the garden’s size, design, and the materials used in its construction. Discarded artefacts found within garden soils, along with scientific soil analyses, allow for the dating of garden features and help address questions related to plant cultivation, fertilisation, irrigation, and composting.

This underscores the necessity of a multidisciplinary approach when studying historic gardens to generate innovative knowledge. Maximising interaction throughout all stages of the project–from planning and fieldwork to analysis and final research outcomes–is crucial. Close collaboration between archaeologists and other specialists is therefore essential. A key development in this regard has been the shift of certain microscopic analyses from the laboratory to the field, allowing for rapid examination of materials still in situ. This enables archaeologists to gain insights into the micro-content of layers during excavation, facilitating more nuanced interpretations. Additionally, the archaeobotanical analyses benefit from in situ studies of deposits, further enriching archaeological interpretations.

Results from the past two decades of garden archaeology have demonstrated that features such as paths, terraces, cultivation beds, enclosures, compost bins, and water sources are often remarkably well preserved. Artefacts frequently survive within the buried garden soil and other cultural deposits, providing valuable insights into the individuals who cultivated the garden and the social status of the household that owned or used it. Furthermore, these artefacts can offer evidence of the tools and garden pots once employed in maintaining the garden (cf. Currie 2005; Lindeblad & Nordström 2014).

When excavating the remains of historic gardens, a modified contextual method is particularly useful, specifically adapted for garden remains (Currie 2005; Gleason 2013; Lindeblad & Petersson 2009; Lindberg & Lindeblad 2013:79; Lindeblad & Nordström 2014). This method has been developed with the understanding that garden and horticultural remains differ significantly from those of buildings, streets, waste deposits, and conventional occupational layers. Garden soils are typically formed over an extended period and are often largely homogenised due to repeated cultivation. As a result, cultivation layers frequently lack distinct stratigraphy and/or visible structures (figure 2).

To identify the former garden soils, the following criteria are essential:

Defining the placement and form of cultivation layers and beds is essential when identifying garden soils in situ. Placement and form refer to the stratigraphic morphology and spatial distribution of the strata interpreted as cultivation soil. In general, buried garden soils are characterised by a homogeneous stratum with a thickness of 0.2–0.4 metres, often compressed. In some cases, the continuous addition of new material has resulted in the formation of metre-thick, homogeneous garden soils. Garden features such as paths, fences, and terraces are typically best preserved in the upper surface of the garden soils and/or in the contact surface between the cultivation layers and the subsoil.

A general three-step method has been developed when excavating and studying the buried soils (cf. Currie 2005; Gleason 2013; Lindeblad & Nordström 2014). The excavation focuses on and has different methods for each of the three levels of the garden soil that empirically holds the most relevant information:

With this in mind, it is essential to emphasise that this is a general method for investigating garden soils. As each historic garden possesses its unique characteristics and features, the method must be adapted accordingly to suit the specific garden under examination.

Through the development of these methods, it has become possible to formulate new questions and perspectives that offer insights into past societies–particularly in relation to horticulture, aesthetics, and the individuals who managed and worked in the gardens, among other aspects. In the following section, we will illustrate these themes with recent excavation results from Stockholm and Uppsala.

As previously mentioned, several park restoration projects have been carried out in Sweden, all involving collaboration between various specialists, including landscape architects, archaeobotanists, quaternary geologists, gardeners, and archaeologists with expertise in garden archaeology. In all restoration projects, it is essential to establish a consensus within the team regarding which historical phase of the park or garden will be restored. This requires a thorough analysis of the construction and preservation of garden structures from different periods.

Below, we present results from two restoration projects where ground-penetrating radar (GPR) was utilised. The GPR surveys were conducted and analysed by an archaeologist with specialised competence in 3D documentation. The advantage of this method is that large areas can be examined without causing damage to vegetation, particularly the roots of older trees. Both examples are situated in Royal Djurgården, a large island in Stockholm that has been administered by the reigning monarch from the medieval period to the present day. During the medieval period, Djurgården functioned as a royal hunting park. However, by the Mid-18th Century, this purpose had fallen out of fashion, and parts of the island were made accessible to members of the royal circle. The land was either leased or purchased by private individuals, leading to the construction of smaller mansions with accompanying parks.

The park is situated in the southern part of Djurgården, directly adjacent to the sea. In 1759, the former hunter’s residence changed ownership, and the new proprietor erected buildings and established a park (Bolin et al. 1925:109ff; Laine 2003:27–32; Lindeblad et al. 2021). The natural topography of this location is striking, featuring significant variations in elevation and prominent rock outcrops. The park’s design was shaped by and enhanced these natural features, incorporating avenues and pathways that linked seating areas, viewpoints, and a constructed pond. The park remains remarkably well preserved, with many historic elements still discernible in the landscape. Frisens Park represents an early example of an Englishstyle landscape park, combined with pronounced Baroque influences at its centre. Contemporary observers regarded the park as a novelty. The recent restoration efforts have primarily focused on the pond and its immediate surroundings. A significant number of historical maps of the park exist, including a highly detailed and precise map from 1777 that accurately depicts various elements of the garden (figure 3).

According to the map, the pond had a gently undulating shape and was strategically positioned within the landscape. It was not entirely visible from the south, where the main building was located, but gradually revealed itself upon approach. The surveyor of the map refers to the pond as a ”Reservoir.” Excavations revealed that the pond had been filled with waste, both from the household and from visitors using the park for recreation. Once emptied, a dry-stone wall lining the interior of the pond became visible, along with a stone foundation for a bridge crossing the pond.

The fundamental question regarding the pond was how it was supplied with water and how the water level was regulated. Archaeological investigations identified the inlet and outlet of the pond through limited excavations but were unable to document the full extent of the channel system. To overcome this, ground-penetrating radar was used to survey the larger area containing the channel network. This method allowed the inlet channel to be traced well beyond the excavated sections, thereby providing a more precise understanding of the pond’s water supply system.

During the 19th Century, Djurgården evolved into a popular recreational area, and the establishment of Rosendal Palace by King Charles XIV John in the 1820s marked the beginning of a new era. A park soon emerged around the palace. The archaeological survey aimed to enhance knowledge of this historic park, focusing particularly on its paths, plantations, seating areas, and viewpoints.

In this example, the restoration focused on a section of the park known in the 19th Century as the Pleasure Grounds. It was created on a former meadow west of the palace and designed to be experienced by carriage or on foot.

Today, this section of the historic park serves as pastureland and has almost entirely lost its park-like character, with no visible remnants above ground. The terrain is flat, featuring only a few natural elevations. Several of these small hills were used as planting and seating areas, as indicated on the 1834 map (figure 5a). To investigate this relatively large area, a ground-penetrating radar (GPR) survey was conducted. The results clearly revealed the locations of the historic pathways, which largely corresponded with their placement on the 1834 map (figures 5a and b).

Subsequent excavations were guided by the GPR data, with several trenches dug across paths, planting beds, and seating areas. The excavations confirmed that the historic park remains were well preserved just beneath the surface vegetation. The paths uncovered had two distinct widths, both aligning with an old Swedish unit of measurement called ”aln” (equivalent to 2 feet or 59.38 centimeters). They measured 1.8 and 2.4 meters, respectively, and were paved with yellow-brown gravel, notably different from the finer, reddish-toned gravel used in the palace courtyard. The archaeobotanical analyses revealed that the paths were not bordered by formal flower beds but rather by natural meadow vegetation, possibly interspersed with individually planted bulbs and other similar elements (Lindeblad et al. 2019).

As previously mentioned, many studies have examined urban gardening in recent decades (figure 1). The above-mentioned archaeological methods and analyses have made it possible to highlight and systematically study urban cultivation more extensively. This recent research indicates, among other things, that town dwellers were more self-sufficient in food production than previously assumed. Gardening was a significant and essential part of daily life, and there is strong evidence to suggest that urban cultivation was an integral aspect of town planning and development from the outset (Lindeblad 2006:30–32; Björklund 2010; Lindeblad & Nordström 2014; Ahrland 2019).

Results from urban excavations also show that town dwellers’ gardens varied significantly in size depending on time, location, and ownership. A nobleman’s garden in early modern Stockholm could cover up to 50,000 m², while kitchen gardens in late medieval Vadstena measured around 200–300 m². In early modern Kalmar, they were even smaller, only 20–40 m² (Hedvall 2002; Tagesson & Carelli 2016:290–318; Hållans Stenholm & Lindeblad 2023). These variations provide a basis for discussions on the social and economic aspects of urban gardening. Here, we present results from a garden archaeological excavation of a 17th-century vicar’s summer residence in southern Stockholm.

The written historical sources concerning Stockholm mention gardens, herb gardens, and cabbage gardens as early as the 15th Century. These older terms were used at least until the 19th Century. Although the distinctions between them were fluid and changed over time, a cabbage garden referred to a vegetable plot, a garden was an orchard, and an herb garden was used for growing spices and medicinal plants (cf. Larsson 2009; Larsson 2014; Dyhlén-Täckman 2020).

Malmgårdar, which were garden estates with manor-like residences built of stone or wood, were first mentioned in Stockholm in the mid-16th Century (Bengtsson 2007:64). By the 18th Century, there were around a hundred malmgårdar in the capital, with the largest number located on Södermalm. They were owned by wealthy burghers or noblemen, many of whom resided on Stadsholmen and used their malmgårdar as summer retreats and for horticulture. Large gardens and cultivated plots were an integral part of urban life both in the medieval period and in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were labour-intensive, and according to a census from the 1670s, no fewer than 50 gardeners were working in Södermalm (Bengtsson 2007; Ahrland 2019). The malmgårdar of Stockholm remain largely unexplored archaeologically. However, a major archaeological investigation of a malmgård has been carried out in the Riddaren block on Östermalm, where the terraced garden was dated to the 18th Century (Lindeblad & Hållans Stenholm, in manuscript). Smaller excavations have also been conducted in garden settings, including Piperska Trädgården on Kungsholmen and Björns Trädgård near Medborgarplatsen on Södermalm (Dyhlén-Täckman 2020).

The excavated garden was located in the Rosendal quarter, on the outskirts of 17th-century Stockholm, and was owned by a vicar in the latter half of the century. He was a highly prestigious individual, serving as the priest to the court and queen (Hållans Stenholm & Lindeblad 2023). The garden remnants in Rosendal appear to be unique within a Swedish urban context due to their complexity, variability, and exceptionally diverse and well-preserved archaeobotanical material. Plant residues, as well as finds related to fertilisation and soil improvement, were abundant. These discoveries significantly contributed to understanding the varieties of cultivated plants and historical garden management practices. The excavation provided a rare and detailed insight into the design and development of a well-preserved 17th-century urban garden. The garden was quite large, circa 1 700 m², which raises questions about surplus production.

The artefacts discovered in historical gardens have so far been a relatively underutilised resource in Swedish research. Garden soils often contain a diverse range of artefacts with varying origins and informational value. These artefacts can be categorised into three main groups (cf. Currie 2005; Lindeblad & Nordström 2014):

Not all artefacts found in historical gardens can be divided into these categories, but they can be helpful when analysing the finds material. Like the case of contextualising the plants found in the gardens, the archaeological method used is crucial to successfully analyse the artefacts and retrieve the most information possible from them. In the following section, we will show how different types of flowerpots may be used to interpret various aspects of horticultural issues and the identity of the household owning and using the garden.

The Linnean Garden in Uppsala is the oldest Botanical Garden in Sweden, established in 1655 by the Swedish natural scientist, Olof Rudbeck the Elder (1630–1702). The academic Botanical Garden in Uppsala was the largest and most well-known in Sweden. Carl Linnaeus arrived in Uppsala in 1728, moved in with the Rudbeck family and became responsible for the tours of the academic botanical garden to the other medical students. According to some biographers, Linnaeus was quite distraught with the state of the garden, which had suffered greatly in a devastating fire which befell Uppsala in 1702 (Windahl Pontén 2020). It was during this period he laid the foundation for the groundbreaking work of Systema Naturae (the new binomial classification system for plants and animals). In 1741, Linnaeus was installed as Professor of Medicine and Botany at Uppsala University and subsequently, he and his family moved to the newly renovated Prefect accommodations adjacent to the likewise renovated botanical garden (figure 10). The renovated botanical garden was designed based on Linnaeus’s new classification system and organised after the seasons. In the back of the garden, a modern orangery had been built for cultivating and preserving exotic tropical plants.

In the autumn of 2022, we had the opportunity to excavate part of Carl Linnaeus’s (1707–1778) home in Uppsala (figure 8). This excavation did not cover the actual botanical garden adjacent to the home. The excavation encompassed the outbuilding, part of the courtyard and part of the stables (figures 8 and 9). The building was constructed of a stone foundation, probably with wooden walls, and two storeys high. The house was divided into two rooms, separated by a passage, and both rooms had foundations for fireplaces (figure 9). The house has been interpreted as living and working quarters for people employed in the Linnean household. An overview of the finds’ assemblage implies a wealthy burgher household, with the difference that a large part of the ceramic profile consisted of planting pots and urns. The artefacts contribute to our knowledge of the management and cultivators of the Linnean Botanical Garden, as well as answering questions regarding the socioeconomic status and identity of the Linnean household (Nordström 2025a, in prep, Nordström 2025b).

During the past 20 years, we have studied a previously unused, often well-preserved and varied archaeological record. Regardless of what kind of garden you study, a multidisciplinary approach is essential to reach good results in your research. Another important factor is that we, in the past 20 years, have simultaneously experienced a theoretical, methodical and technological development within Swedish contract archaeology, which has encouraged us to formulate better-informed scientific questions.

The fact that we have been re -searching a variety of gardens has also proven very beneficial. The results have shown that the gardens are an important part and a reflection of past societies. Our results show that garden archaeology answers questions not only regarding horticulture, design, and aesthetics but also about self-sufficiency, economy, division of labour and gender issues. In short, garden archaeology encompasses several dimensions of past societies.