Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
Our heritage of historical buildings is an archive of the material history of
construction and a documentary source for our knowledge of history in general.
These concepts force us to question the conservation strategy for our building
heritage. This paper proposes some guidelines for the conservation of the historic
heritage in line with the theoretical framework we have set out.
1 Monument as document
Taking as his starting-point the premises of historical culture, Jacques Le Goff
wrote: "the collective memory and its scientific version, history, can be applied
to two types of materials: documents and monuments",(Le Goff [l]). Yet already
during the 1 9 century
~ collections of documents came to be regarded as
"monuments". In the prevailing vision of history it becomes vital for the
conservation of our heritage to invert the tendency and focus on the monument
as document. A monument retains its value over the course of time above all for
its documentary significance, as a "document in stone". Thus our heritage of
historical buildings can be seen as an archive of the material history of
construction, but also, and indeed more importantly, as a documentary source for
our knowledge of history in general.
There is another reason for adopting this vision: the historical building heritage
is in fact now part of our archaeological heritage, because it is a product of a
construction culture which has been definitively superseded by the onset of a
technological culture, bringing radical innovations in the design, materials and
techniques of modern architecture, (Bellomo, D'Agostino [2]). These concepts
force us to question the conservation strategy for our building heritage: the
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 55, 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509
strategy must both safeguard its documentary value and ensure a sustainable,
dynamic mode of use. In this connection the dichotomy
archaeological/architectonic artefact becomes largely, if not entirely,
superfluous, for the conservation of both entities involves a series of common
requisites. Just as archaeologists carry out stratigraphical studies on the historical
building heritage, so many of the requisites governing conservation are seen, on
close scrutiny, to be very similar: from the identification of the degree of
vulnerability to problems of access and use, and of course the constant impact of
technological innovation. When considering, for example, problems of access
and use, attention is usually paid only to passive use for archaeological sites, in
the name of culture and tourism, and active use for those historical city centres
which are the pulsing nerve-centres of a metropolis. But on more careful
consideration, in methodological terms the conservation issues are the same: the
two million visitors who swarm over a restricted area of ancient Pompeii every
year produce the same sort of wear and tear in the ancient relics as the hordes of
tourists visiting Venice. Thus we can say that the two fundamental principles for
the conservation of the historical building heritage are static improvement and
programmed maintenance.
on to engulf the suburbs with anonymous estates. All this had nothing in
common with the traditions of building in the city.
It is in fact this dichotomy between the historical building and the new
installations that brings out the archaeological nature of the historical heritage.
This nature has to be recognised and respected in structural matters, but at the
same time it must allow for the access and use which cannot be denied for a city
centre, however "hlstorical". This is the essential condition for the conservation
of historical city centres, going hand in hand with their socio-economic
development, and the challenge which faces them over the next few decades.
a
be an to lose its hold as new materials became available. The first half of the
20 century saw a revolution: the conception of building changed completely as
new materials entered into common use. At Pompeii various restoration projects
were carried out using reinforced concrete, particularly in repair work on
buildings which suffered war damage.
Finally, the conservation of the ancient city was significantly affected by
structural interventions following the 1980 earthquake, when it was classified as
a seismic zone, albeit of reduced intensity. This led to widespread
cementification and reinforced bracing, definitively disrupting the ancient
building conception. Many signs give hope that here too we have rediscovered a
"middle way" able to pay close attention to both past interventions and the
proposals of technological innovation that ensures respect for the material
document rather than its disruption (D'Agostino [3]).
4 Conclusions
Once the archaeological status of historical buildings has been established, every
effort must be made to spread the culture of documentation, setting up effective
and accessible data banks which can constitute an archive of material history for
all surviving historical centres. These centres must continue to be inhabited,
which means encouraging the network of commerce and handicrafts on which
they have always thrived and restricting the presence of offices and public
services which all too often smother day-to day life. At the same time,
pedestrianised areas should be extended and well connected with other parts of
the town or city. If these priorities are linked with social monitoring throughout
the territory, avoiding the terrible urban decay that has characterised so many
inner cities, then conservation should be successful. Here too it is a question of
ongoing and programmed maintenance which will obviate both occasional
restoration projects and, above all, those wholesale interventions which go under
the name of "urban upgrading". The strategy of conservation outlined above
envisages an interdisciplinary and intersocial project with the participation of
archaeology and architecture, engineering with all its multiple competences, and
social and commercial interlocutors. It is based on a series of criteria: the
material history of each construction must be identified, documenting the
succession of transformations it has undergone, and a complete survey drawn up,
backed up by comprehensive photographic documentation; the architectonic
conception which informed its construction must be identified, tracing its
evolution in the course of time if appropriate, and matching it to the history of
architecture and the socio-political developments which influenced its evolution.
Particular attention must be paid to its relationship with the urban context in
which it is set; the original construction conception must be established,
identifying the rules of the builder's art, the materials, techniques and state of
conservation, analysing the state of decay and achieving a complete geotechnical
and structural knowledge of the construction, using non-destructive assays if
necessary. The fundamental criterion for static restoration is "improvement"
using materials and techniques which match the original ones. Any
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 55, 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509
References
[ l ] Le Goff J., Documento-Monumento. Enciclopedia Einaudi Vol V, G. Einaudi
Ed., 1978
[2] Bellomo M,, D'Agostino S., Ingegneria strutturale e costruito storico come
costruito archeologico, Proc. 4th Inter. Symp. on the Conservation of
Monuments in the Mediterranean, National Technical University, Atene,
483-494 pp, 1997.
[3] D'Agostino S., La reintegrazione nel restauro dell'antico: conservazione
strutturale tra tradizione costruttiva e innovazione tecnologica. Proc. Study
Symposium, ARCO, Paestum, Gangemi 23-32 pp, 1997.