THE RESTORATION OF RELIGIOUS HERITAGE AFTER EARTHQUAKE TRAUMA IN CENTRAL ITALY: The Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi and the Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio in L’Aquila
Tessa Beckman BA
THE RESTORATION OF RELIGIOUS HERITAGE AFTER EARTHQUAKE TRAUMA IN CENTRAL ITALY: The Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi and the Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio in L’Aquila.
Tessa Sophie Beckman BA Student number: 10024506 University of Amsterdam [email protected] Graduate School of Humanities 0031 6 38 28 21 98 Master thesis Heritage and Memory Studies Supervisor: dr. G. Vermeer Number of words: 21.653 Second supervisor: M.J. Jonker MA 18 May 2017, final version
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction p. 7
Chapter 1 Theoretical and historical background
1.1 Restoration history and theory p. 11
1.2 Preservation policies and legislation in Italy p. 19
1.2.1 Legislation p. 19
1.2.2 Charters and policies p. 22
Chapter 2 Case study of the Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi
2.1 The history of the Basilica di San Francesco before 1997 p. 26
2.1.1 Functions and stakeholders p. 29
2.2 The 1997-1999 Restorations p. 32
2.2.1 Recent debate on the 1997-99 Restoration p. 37
2.2.2 Becoming UNESCO World Heritage p. 39
Chapter 3 Case study of the Basilica di Collemaggio in L’Aquila
3.1 The history of the Basilica di Collemaggio p. 48
3.1.1 Functions and stakeholders p. 51
3.2 L’Aquila ‘New Town’ p. 54
3.3 The 2009-2017 restorations p. 56
3.3.1 Eni’s project ‘Un giorno a Collemaggio’ p. 56
3.4 The reconstruction of the Basilica p. 58
Conclusion p. 61
Bibliography p. 67
Images p. 83
INTRODUCTION
Italy has many nationally and internationally recognized monumental sites, among them many religious heritage. At the same time earthquakes are a recurrent phenomenon in Italy, an unfortunate combination. In the past couple of months, several earthquakes hit the central part of Italy (see image I.1 for the map of central
Italy, with every registered quake in the period 1 March 2017 - 10 May 2017). One of the most devastating earthquakes occurred in August 2016 and destroyed the historical centre of Amatrice, which dated from the
Middle Ages. Amatrice had been listed among the ‘most beautiful towns’ in 2015 by the Italian association
I Borghi più belli d’Italia (‘the most beautiful villages of Italy’), because of its hundred churches (see image
I.2).1
Two other disastrous earthquakes in Central Italy have occurred in the past twenty years: first in
Assisi in 1997, then in L’Aquila in 2009. In Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco was severely damaged; the frescoes of Cimabue and Giotto, two artists considered the “fathers” of Italian painting, were (almost) completely destroyed. The 2009 earthquake that destroyed L’Aquila was one of the severest earthquakes in
Italy in decades: not only were 309 people killed, but also many towns and monumental buildings in central
Italy were damaged, including its Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio.2 Both Basilica’s are listed as
Monumenti Nazionali Italiani (‘Italian National Monuments’).3
After the immediate and urgent problems were taken care off, i.e. the burying of the dead and the curing of the injured, questions about the restoration arose: what should be reconstructed, how, and when?
The Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi was restored within two years (1997-1999), and it became UNESCO
World Heritage after the restorations (2000).4 Less smoothly was the restoration of the Basilica of L’Aquila, which is in progress and is planned to be finished in December 2017.
This thesis will centralize around the notions that are in play during the restoration of religious heritage in Italy. What can be said about these notions from the perspective of the restorations in Assisi and L’Aquila?
1 ‘Amatrice’, I Borghi più belli d’Italia.
7 In order to establish which notions are involved, it is necessary to outline the functions and stakeholders, or actors, of churches. In the first place, a church functions to hold religious services. But churches also function as a site for religious or cultural and touristic pilgrimage. Furthermore churches take a place in the landscape: they function as urban objects. In connection to this visibility as an object, churches also serve for identity and memory purposes: participating in religious services, for instance, forms who you are. Defining identity means characterizing a very ambiguous concept: according to Brubaker, a Professor of Sociology and UCLA
Foundation Chair at the University of California, identity is a bonding that stresses the unity among people of a group, with similar characteristics or connected to each other in any possible way.5 Memory is about representations of the past and is considered a response to an international and collective reaction on the fear to forget.6 In the history of a town, the church is often one of its first buildings, so through the structure local communities commemorate the past of their home and of their collective identity. This means that when churches are damaged by earthquakes the identity and memory of the site and the community are affected.7
Because a church is both heritage and the symbol of a collective memory, with different functions to fulfil, there are many actors with different interests involved when it comes to restoring the building after earthquake damage in Italy. Therefore, an analysis of these different interests and notions will prove to be useful. The restoration and rebuilding of heritage is often a complicated and long process: parties involved in safeguarding Italian heritage are the local government or municipality, the province, the region and the state. Also the Vatican is involved with its own Restoration Office, the Ufficio per i beni culturali ecclesiastici
(the Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage).8 Other stakeholders are heritage tourists, religious tourists or pilgrims, local communities, and several catholic orders. But also the L’Istituto Superiore per la
Conservazione ed il Restauro (ISCR, the Higher Institute for Conservation and Restoration)9, Il Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo (MiBACt, The Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) are involved.
5 Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper. ‘Beyond Identity’, Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, 2000, p. 7. 6 Laurajane Smith. Uses of Heritage, 2006, p. 58; Rodney Harrison. Heritage: Critical Approaches, p. 167-168. 7 Assmann, Aleida. ‘Memory, Individual and Collective’, The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly (eds.), 2006, p. 220-221. 8 ‘Ufficio Beni Culturali’, Diocesi di Orvieto-Todi.
8 UNESCO was founded in 1945 as part of the United Nations to protect heritage worldwide from destruction as a result of war. In their general statements UNESCO intents to contribute ‘to the assessment and mitigation of natural hazards’, including earthquakes. The organization aims to achieve this through the setup of programmes, which plead for an interdisciplinary approach, through research, training and databases in which information can be exchanged easily.10 UNESCO does not contribute to theoretical discussions on how to restore heritage, but it only focuses on preventing damage.
The cases of Assisi and L’Aquila show that religious heritage in Central Italy is endangered by natural forces. Considering the recent case of Amatrice, this research is not only a current, but also an urgent topic. Since religious heritage is not only important for aesthetical values, but also serves human values such as identity and memory, it seems to be fundamental to restore religious heritage after trauma. This research concentrates on the restoration and rebuilding process of the churches in Assisi and L’Aquila and the consequences for the interpretation of Italy’s notions of preserving its religious heritage. In the past, both restoration theory of art and architecture, and seismology has been extensively researched. However there are only limited sources that combine restoration and earthquakes specifically. Among the few available sources there are some preservation guides and technical studies that aim to prevent earthquake damage of heritage.
The aim of this research is to reflect on the Italian notions of how heritage is restored. What can be learned from the restoration and rebuilding process of the churches of Assisi and L’Aquila concerning Italy’s notions of preserving its religious heritage? Which restoration theories are common in Italy, and more specifically, which can be connected to the reconstruction of the basilica’s of Assisi and L’Aquila? Also, what does rebuilding and restoring -partly- destroyed buildings and artefacts mean for the authenticity and originality of this heritage? And why is one building being rebuilt and another not – or not yet. Which values and stakeholders play a role here? By answering these questions and by analysing the relevant actors and their arguments that could be taken into account when thinking about restoring religious heritage, this thesis aims to contribute to future decision-making.
In order to be able to determine what Italy’s notions on religious heritage are, this thesis consists of two parts: first a theoretical and historical chapter, with as a starting point the unification of Italy in 1861. In
10 ‘UNESCO in a glance’, UNESCO. 2010,
9 this chapter the first development of restoration theory in Europe will be discussed, followed by relevant theorists in Italy. Another subject of this chapter are the national and international restoration charters. The goal of this chapter is to set a framework for analysing the case studies. Therefore also the legislation, and its development in the recent decades will be discussed. The second part consists of two case studies of the restorations of Assisi and L’Aquila. First the history of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi will be analysed, with an emphasis on more recent restorations and earthquakes, followed by an analysis of the restoration process and the current debate on the quality of these restorations. The third chapter, the case study of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio in Assisi follows the same structure, but instead of the debate on the quality of the restoration, it includes an analysis of the turbulent restoration process.
10 CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
In Italy, the procedures for restoring built heritage after natural disasters, such as earthquakes, are led by governmental guidelines and theories that result from academic debates. These theories, policies and legislation are numerous, often conflicting and have fundamentally changed over time. Conflicts and changes during the restoration of religious heritage in Italy are often caused by the different interests of the actors, such as the government, responsible for policies, legislation and financial means for restoration, and the
Italian academics who lead the debate on restoration theory. Particular for the Italian case is the involvement of the Vatican in the restoration of churches: it owns all catholic religious heritage and in order to protect its own ecclesiastical heritage, the Vatican erected the Ufficio Nazionale per i beni culturali ecclasitici
(‘National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage’) in 1995. When the damaged heritage is a World
Heritage Site, UNESCO is involved in the restoration process too. 11 This chapter will start with the framework of European theories and theories that were developed in Italy since its unification. The theoretical framework discussed is used ever since, because it serves as input for the actors that are involved in the restoration of churches. The following section centralizes around the charters and legislation, and the chapter ends with an analysis of the functions and stakeholders involved when restoring churches in Italy.
1.1 Restoration history and theory
Guardians of cultural heritage generally encounter the same problems: is conservation adequate and sufficient or is restoration necessary? In case of restoration, should the emphasis of the restoration be on the function, on the material, or on the aesthetic appearance of the building? So is the material of the structure going to be restored, which means that the original, authentic parts of the building will be conserved. Or is the image of the structure going to be restored, which means that the entire structure gets altered in order to create a uniform image?12 In short, how should the restoration be carried out? From the nineteenth century onwards, different answers to these questions have been given from a theoretical point of view.13
11 Sometimes, for instance after the 2012 earthquakes in Northern Italy, UNESCO documents the damage to non-World Heritage sites as well. 12 Wim Denslagen. Omstreden herstel: kritiek op het restaureren van monumenten: een thema uit de architectuurgeschiedenis van Engeland, Frankrijk, Duitsland en Nederland (1779-1953), 1987, p. 213. 13 The effects of different forms of restoration can be traced back in restorations earlier in time. For an extensive overview of the international history of restoration theory architecture and building structures, with emphasis on Europe, I recommend Giorgio Croci’s The Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage or Wim Denslagen’s Omstreden Herstel.
11 As a scientific discipline, restoration is a nineteenth century, European phenomenon. The theories of
Ruskin (1849) and Viollet-le-Duc (1854) were a starting point for the European restoration theory in the nineteenth- and early twentieth centuries. In Britain, John Ruskin, and later William Morris, led the anti- restoration movement. Ruskin pleaded in The Lamp of Memory (1849) to always leave the building the way it is, because he considered restoration to be the worst kind of destruction one can do to a building. Ruskin held that the authentic parts of the building and its history is lost when adding or replacing parts in different styles and materials.14 He added that ‘we have no right whatever to touch [the buildings of past times, red.].
They are not ours’.15 This is also visible in Ruskin’s critique on the buttresses added at the Colosseum in
Rome in 1807: ‘there is nothing imitative or decorative about this enormous prop built to support the external arcades of the amphitheatre; it is placed there without concealment, simply to reinforce the damaged part of the building’.16 In short, Ruskin prefers to leave the building in the radical historic status, even if this means leaving it a ruin or run-down, because this condition is part of the historical layering and identity of the building.
In the same period in France, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc introduced the stylistic restoration theory. In
1854 he published Restoration in which he argues that the aim of restoring is to bring a monumental building into the perfect finished state - this includes adding new things and making a monument the way it had never existed before: ‘Restoration ... Both the word and the thing are modern. To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to re-establish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time’.17 Viollet-le-Duc gives the example of a twelfth century vault that has collapsed and has been rebuilt several times. According to him, the original version of the vault should be reconstructed, because this would restore the unity of the original structure.18 So Viollet-le-Duc strips a building of its historical layering and its historical value by ‘finishing’ the building in its perfect condition.
14 Ruskin as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, 1996, p. 308-309. 15 John Ruskin. The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1849, p. 181. 16 Ruskin as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, p. 309. 17 Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, p. 314. 18 Idem, p. 315.
12 In 1883, several decades after Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc, the restorer and art critic Camillo Boito
(1836-1914) is one of the first Italian scholars who defines the concept of restoration in Italy. According to
Boito, there are two types of restoration: artistic and historic. Artistic restorations are meant to recover the stylistic and aesthetic appearance of the building, whereas historic restorations also deal with the history of the monument.19 With the history of the building Boito means the visibility and the maintenance of previous restorations that became part of the building. While Boito favours this historic type of restoration, he is nonetheless aware of the problematic aspects of historic restoration: ‘[t]o restore a building means performing it in the building’s style, this way the added parts are not to be distinguished from the original. A beautiful and good falsification takes an extensive part of the monuments historical and archaeological value away, if not all.’20 So, Boito wants to preserve the unity of a building by using different materials in a restoration in order to easily identify restorations. By pleading for this approach, he combines elements from both Viollet- le-Duc and Ruskin, namely the stylistic aspect (Viollet-le-Duc) with the demand that artefacts should not be falsified (Ruskin).21 In addition, Boito is one of the first theoreticians who pleads for proper documentation during restorations, because he argues that a systematic survey is essential for a qualitative good restoration.22
Cesare Brandi had been the director of the Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro from 1939 until 1961. In 1963 he published La Teoria del Restauro (The Theory of Restoration [2005]), in which Brandi defines restoration as ‘the moment in which the historical and aesthetical values of an artefact are acknowledged, with the aim to slow down decay and conserve the artefact, including its function, for future generations’.23 In Theory he argues that the material of the building is restored during restorations, and not the history of the artefact. He implies that material and history are two separate aspects of an artefact; the
19 Michela Grisoni. ‘Camillo Boito (1836-1914).’ in B. Paolo Torsello et all. Che cos’è il restauro? Nove studiosi a confronto, 2016, p. 95. 20 Michela Grisoni. ‘Camillo Boito (1836-1914).’, cit., 2005, p. 97. 21 Camillo Boito and Cesare Birignani. ‘Restoration in Architecture : First Dialogue.’, Future Anterior : Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory and Criticism, vol. 6, no. 1 2009, p. 69. 22 Carla Bartolomucci. Santa Maria di Collemaggio, 2004, p. 134. In Italy it took until the 1960s for a fully elaborated restoration theory. It has been argued that the absence – or underdeveloped nature – of Italian theory and legislations was caused by the stakeholders in Italian cultural heritage such as antiquaries, who preferred to evade restoration theories, laws or debates, because these would end the possibility of looting and selling (thus making profit from) artefacts. Artefacts thus had an economical, rather than a cultural value, which delayed the debate on restoration theory and might explain why Boito’s attempt to define restoration theory did not join in with the valid discourse. Although this might suggest that Italy did not care for its cultural heritage until then, this must be nuanced, because awareness already increased during the fascist period. For more information, see Giorgio Gianighian’s chapter “Italy” in Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation by Robert Pickard (2001). 23 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, 2005, p. 47-48.
13 material is restored because it decays, while the intangible history cannot decay and must therefore not be affected.24 The combination of the history of the artefact, the physical material and the function is called
“oneness”, and it is a concept necessary to Brandi in order to set boundaries for performing restorations.25
Brandi thus seems to imply that the main aim of restoration is to guard for the “oneness” of an artefact by recovering the function for which the artefact has been originally made, this can be achieved only by restoring the material of an artefact and not by changing the history of the artefact.26 When a building is restored in a historical way, as Brandi suggests, it is considered an artefact that was ‘created in a certain time and place, and existing in a certain time and place’, while altering the visible signs from this period means changing the history of it.27 An example of such an historical case is a church that was originally built in Romanesque
Architecture, which got new, pointed gothic windows during the Gothic period; by changing the windows from round to pointed, a part of the buildings’ history is severely altered. Whereas Boito would favour the original state of the building and, therefore argue to go back to the round windows, Brandi would have wanted to keep the adjusted windows. Brandi pleads for the conservation of previous additions as the norm, and removal as the exception.28 The idea that previous restorations must be kept, as a sign of respect towards ‘all previous vandalism and alterations’, is new in the 1960s.29
Considering Brandi’s historical ideals, it could be argued that they are placed more towards Viollet- le-Duc’s stylistic restorations than towards Ruskin. However, unlike Viollet-Le-Duc, Ruskin’s anti- restoration movement does acknowledge the historical layering of a structure and the choice not to restore is founded by the objective to leave the of history of a building unaltered. If looked further than the question to restore or not to restore, then Brandi seems to combine Ruskin’s objectives with Viollet-Le-Duc’s restoration practices.
Brandi specifically uses seismic damage on a building as an example for when restoration is needed; he says that a building, collapsed because of an earthquake, is eligible for reconstruction as long as the
24 Idem, p. 49. 25 Cesare Brandi as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, p. 339. 26 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 47-48. 27 Idem, p. 48. 28 Idem, p. 68. 29 Ibidem.
14 appearance of the outer surface and material remain unaltered.30 This argument is striking, given that Brandi argues in the same book that any form of restoration with the aim to reconstruct is falsification, which leans more towards Ruskin’s anti-restoration theory.31 In the case of the bombed Santa Chiara church in Naples,
Brandi suggests indeed that it is better not to restore the ruins of the church, because this would destroy the authenticity of the building.32 While a restored church can function for religious services, a ruin cannot.
Apparently this function is less important for Brandi than the appearance of the church.33
Recent restorations in Italy have a more interdisciplinary character and combine modern conservation techniques for buildings with traditional restoration theory, as introduced by Cesare Brandi.
The interdisciplinary approach was elaborated by Giovanni Carbonara, an Italian architect, architectural historian and restoration critic and currently one of Italy’s main scholars for restoration theory.34 Carbonara opted for the transformation of restoration practice and theory from a single disciplinary science to an interdisciplinary cooperation. According to Carbonara, restoration in Italy is influenced by the idea that the people in Italy accept the visible traces of time - the historical layering - in a building, leaving all previous interventions visible. Carbonara emphasizes the importance of the historical layering in a lecture in 2012.35
He holds that restoration means adding new things to a monument, and more importantly that a flawless monument entirely restored in one style (Viollet-le-Duc) does not show a dialogue with the past.36 Carbonara
30 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 51. 31 Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, p. 308. 32 In Brandi’s Theory authenticity and oneness are different concepts. With authenticity Brandi means the originality of the material or artefact, while oneness the unity of authentic material, image, history and function. Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 66. 33 In order to understand Brandi’s interpretation of the concepts of authenticity and falsification, and thus why he rejects the reconstruction of ruins, it is necessary to understand that Brandi differentiates three forms of falsification. Firstly, falsification is the reproduction of an object with the only aim to enjoy or document the style or artist, for instance a homemade copy of a work of Giotto to study his technique or simply because you like the image. In this case reproduction is acceptable. The second form is not acceptable according to Brandi: falsification in which the object is deliberately copied with the only aim to mislead. This also applies to the third form of falsification, when the reproduction of an object is not made with the aim to mislead, but to profit from it (for instance images in advertisement). His discussion on the different forms of falsification does not distinguish between different artforms: there is no distinction in the assessment of falsification between small objects like coins, and large buildings like churches. Therefore, the apparent contradiction of Brandi’s arguments in Theory concerning authenticity and falsification in the rebuilding of ruins seem to be caused by the author’s conviction of treating different type of artefacts with the same theory. For Brandi it does not matter if the artefact is as small as a coin or as sizeable as a church, which material is used and which function the artefact had. Restoring something that is destroyed, like the reconstruction of a bombed church, is falsification because it is deliberately falsifying what was once there; Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 87-88. 34 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 256. 35 Lecture at the ‘Nineteenth National Day of Ecclesiastical Cultural Heritage - Restoration of Churches and attention for the market’; Giovanni Carbonara. “Ordinario di restauro architettonico presso l’Università degli Studi.” XIX Giornata Nazionale dei Beni Culturali Ecclesiastici – Restauro di Chiese e attenzione della committenza, 16 and 17 May 2012, CEI Centro Congressi, Rome. Conference. 36 Giovanni Carbonara. “Ordinario di restauro architettonico presso l’Università degli Studi.”
15 prefers to restore in a historical way, which means leaving all historical traces visible, including previous earthquake trauma that is part of the structure’s history. He prefers this method, because removal is irreversible, whereas ‘the filling of the gaps [damage and or decay] may be immediately “recognisable” as well as “reversible”.37 To achieve a historical restoration, collaboration between different disciplines is essential.
According to Carbonara, there has been a “technical change of mind” in the last twenty years.38 As reported by him, a tendency arose in the last two decades that opposes styles and materials (for instance modern material as an addition to historical structures, or an austere style as an addition to for instance
Romanesque architecture) with the belief to do justice to the monument, without affecting the authenticity of a building. By adding something that contrasts with the building, visitors cannot be confused about which parts are old and which parts are not. This is essential in the concepts of authenticity and falsification: original styles and materials are kept, and a new historical layer is added, making the building easily ‘readable’.
Carbonara holds that the historical layering is fundamental for the identity of a building and that trying to recover a building’s unity compromises its identity.39 Nevertheless, invisible restoration is often regarded the best restoration, because the identity of the building is easily preserved this way. The argument concerning the unity of a building suits with Brandi’s notion of “oneness”.
Another aspect of the ‘technical change of mind’ is the need for specific professional knowledge from different disciplines, for which restoration becomes an interdisciplinary subject. Carbonara calls this
“restorazione moderna” (“modern restoration”), and it is necessary to take the Italian restoration of cultural heritage to a higher level similar to the international quality of restoration.40 Restoration is no longer about choosing the right way of restoration and perform it; restoration is also about documenting the restoration, for which Boito already opted in 1883. Carbonara goes even further by demanding profound research on a building’s history, identity and memory, having technical disciplines analyse and consolidate the structure, and handling the public debate in the media and politics.
37 Giovanni Carbonara. “An Italian contribution to architectural restoration.” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 12, no. 1 2015, p. 4. 38 Idem, p. 5. 39 Giovanni Carbonara. “Ordinario di restauro architettonico presso l’Università degli Studi.” 40 Ibidem
16 Even though these theories have been applied to numerous restorations, the theories and the lack of renewal of them have been criticized as well. The archaeologist Laura Domanico voices an often heard critique on Italian restoration theory, namely that the debate takes place exclusively in academic circles.
Ideally there should be a lively and broad public debate about restoration, in which everyone is heard and theories are renewed more often.41 Paolo Fancelli, scholar at the Department of History of Architecture,
Restoration and Conservation of Heritage at the Sapienza University in Rome, attributes this absence to the role of the media in Italy and specifically argues that the media have changed the perception and values of
Italy’s notion on heritage. According to him, the media affect the perception of heritage, because they report negatively on the restorations that were necessary to keep up with high tourist numbers. Fancelli holds that this propagation has led to experts changing their perceptions of cultural heritage into a discourse in which every square meter of the building must be profitable, with as a result ‘disastrously garish reconstructions [of built heritage] […], all with the excuse of trying to metaphorically revive them, with revisions, but actually combining them so as to be unnatural, if not gross’.42 The absence of debate explains moreover why Brandi’s theory plays an important role up until today. He provided a solid theoretical basis for restorations, on which other scholars like Carbonara and Fancelli continued, while excluding voices from other disciplines for a long time.
However, after the earthquake in L’Aquila local journalists did engage in a public debate on restoration through the satirical documentary Draquila: Italia che trema (2010, ‘Draquila: Italy shakes’).
Draquila shows the role of the media and the influence they have in the aftermath and restoration of a town stricken by earthquakes. The film emphasizes the cultural sides of the aftermath of an earthquake: it is not only a structure that needs to be restored, a building exists in much more aspects such as the identity and memory of stakeholders like a local community, that all need ‘restoration’ after a trauma like the 2009 earthquake. In the rebuilding process in L’Aquila, Berlusconi, as a real estate magnate and media tycoon influenced the way L’Aquila was shown in the media. The documentary, in turn, criticizes the idea, propagated by the media, that the local inhabitants agreed with Berlusconi’s wish to build an entirely new town over restoring historical L’Aquila, and attempts to reframe the public debate on the value and restoring
41 Laura Domanico. ‘The invisible landscape: subsoil, environment and the Italian legislation on the cultural heritage.’, European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, p. 160. 42 Paolo Fancelli. ‘Twenty-five years on: still working toward a theory of conservation?’, Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage : Historical Technical Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2012, p. 259.
17 of historical town. The film can be considered an example of the interdisciplinary approach Carbonara pleads for in his arguments concerning the restoration of buildings: it presents a new point of view, in which all different aspects of restoration, can be intertwined.
Restoration theory started in the nineteenth century with Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin, who argued to achieve the perfect state of one architectural style through restoration, including the removal of previous additions, or leave a building in its decayed state, respectively. In Italy Boito tried to establish a definition of restoration that stands between Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin’s ideas. Boito never published his ideas as a theory, which can partly be explained by the different discourse regarding cultural heritage at the time. It took until the publication of Cesare Brandi’s Theory of restoration in 1963, for the first ‘official’ Italian restoration theory. Giovanni Carbonara elaborated Brandi’s theory and has proven that this theory is still used in Italy and is internationally studied up until today. In the ongoing academic debate that concerns restoration theory, the public debate (such as film and other media) plays an increasingly important role. The public is now better aware of everything concerning the restoration process, and at the same time there are more, and easily reachable platforms available to give opinions. Consequently this affects restoration theory, because people do no longer accept a theory as it is given, and moreover it affects the notion of heritage. Restoration theory has come a long way since the 1850s; it used to consist of ‘just’ a concept on how to perform restorations.
Present day restoration is more of an interdisciplinary concept, in which identity, historical layering, cultural voices have become aspects of and important for restoration theory.
To conclude, restoration theory is about ideals, previous restorations, removal and reversibility; when it concerns architecture and, or frescoes, restoration theory seeks answers to questions regarding the historical, which means to restore to a specific time in history, or the aesthetics; restoring to get the most aesthetical version of an artefact.43
43 Giovanni Carbonara. “The integration of the image: problems in the restoration of monuments.”, Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, p. 239.
18 1.2 Preservation policies and legislation in Italy
1.2.1 Legislation
Legislation on heritage protection was late in Italy, compared to other European countries such as France and
England. 44 Since Italy’s unification in 1861 there have been different forms of heritage protection.
Immediately after the unification, there was no proper legislation and restoration was based on experience alone; however, in this period Boito established the concept of restoration. The first cultural heritage legislation was created under fascist rule in order to protect the country’s Roman heritage. In this legislation, heritage is (vaguely) defined as ‘things of artistic and historic interests’.45 Mussolini deployed heritage from the Roman era to create one, fascist, Italian identity and to protect the ruins from being looted he needed heritage laws, while in order to raise the value of the Roman ruins in the public opinion, he deployed the media.46 Mussolini used newsreels to propagate the Roman heritage, while he frequently emphasized its importance for the Italian identity in his speeches (see image 1.1, a shot from a newsreel from 1932, that shows a military parade on the Via dell’Impero with in the background the Colosseum).
With the ending of the fascist era and the Second World War, the Republic of Italy was established through the Constitution in 1947. The Constitution incorporated the heritage laws from 1939 one-on-one, leaving the definition of heritage as “things”. In 1964 this definition was slightly changed, and the term “cultural heritage” was introduced.47 An explanation for this alteration could be the change of European discourse after ‘The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict’ in 1954, that raised awareness for the protection of cultural heritage that was damaged, or lost, during the world wars.48
The European discourse and the new definition of heritage in Italian legislation set a renewed framework in
44 France had its first governmental protection and managing of heritage in 1830, and England followed in 1882 with the creation of the ‘Ancient Monuments Act’. For more information I would recommend Isabelle Longuet and Jean-Marie Vincent. ‘France.’, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 92-112 and John Pendlebury. ‘United Kingdom.’, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 289-314. 45 ‘Tutela delle cose d’interesse Artistico o Storico.’, Legge 1 giugno 1939, no. 1089.
19 which there was space to elaborate on a restoration theory. In this atmosphere, Cesare Brandi’s Theory was developed and published in 1963. The 1970’s saw an administrative change that was important for the implementation of restoration laws: the Regioni (Regions, an administrative level between the state and the provinces) obtained the responsibility for local restorations.49
In 1999 the Italian Government cancelled the sixty year old fascist cultural heritage act and replaced it with a new law, Testo Unico. The introduction of the Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali ed ambientali (‘Consolidation Act of laws in the field of cultural and environmental heritage’) between 1999-2004 has had two possible reasons: first, these laws can be seen in the light of the rise of Silvio Berlusconi’s political movement and the supposed shift towards the ‘Second Republic’ of Italy in the nineties.50 In this period Italian politics wanted to leave the fascist past behind and remove all fascist traces from the legislation. The second reason is to be found in the European context: with the Maastricht
Treaty in 1992 cultural heritage became part of the European political agenda to raise awareness for the definition and protection of cultural heritage.51 In this light the Testo Unico was needed to make the level of protection and the definition of what to protect up to date.
The Testo Unico replaces all existing rules on the subject, and at the same time stipulates for other forms of heritage protection which means that besides restoration, conservation became part of it too.52 The act dedicates an entire article to update the definition of cultural heritage, namely everything that concerns history, art, ethnology, anthropology, archaeology, archival and biblical documents.53 Interesting about this new heritage act is the definition of restoration, that assures conservation and the safeguarding of cultural and historical values, including historical layers which represent alteration from the past.54 In article 34, restoration is defined as the intervention on a thing, the aim to maintain the integrity of materials and to assure the conservation and protection of the cultural heritage values.55 This would make the rigorous
49 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 197. 50 The Second Republic of Italy is an informal term, no new republic has been established. This term marks the political, economic and ethical reformations after the Mani Pulite (translated: Clean hands) scandal in the early 1990s; Sondra Koff and Stephen Koff. Italy: From the 1st to the 2nd Republic, 2000, p. 2. 51 R.H. Van Ooik and dr. T.A.J.A. Vandamme (eds.). Europese Basisverdragen, 2012, p. 67. 52 Daniela Esposito. ‘Decreto legislativo 29 ottobre 1999, n. 490 (Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali ed ambientali, a norma della legge 8 ottobre 1997, n. 352)’ Che cos’è il restauro, p. 130. 53 Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali e ambientali. Art. 1, n. 352. 54 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 194. 55 Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali e ambientali. Art. 1, n. 352.
20 removal of previous additions, such as in the Basilica of L’Aquila in the 1960’s, impossible. The new definition -implicitly- asks for an interdisciplinary approach to restoring artefacts by demanding to conserve historical layering through extensive research and the involvement of technical disciplines. From the Testo
Unico emerges an awareness concerning earthquakes and heritage, and moreover the necessity to act upon the protection of the vulnerable ecclesiastical heritage in Italy: article 34 states that heritage real estate exposed to earthquakes, is allowed to have a structural improvement on the condition that the change in the structure is part of restoration works.56 It must be noted that this act was written at the time of the restoration of the Basilica in Assisi (see chapter 2), which could explain the urgent necessity of redefining the cultural heritage act.
According to Giorgio Gianighian, Professor of Architectural Restoration at IUAV University of
Venice, the heritage act from 1999 is based on the most recent and internationally accepted theories in architectural conservation, although he does not specify these theories. Daniela Esposito, professor at the department of Architecture History, Design and Restoration at the Sapienza University in Rome pleads for a more critical approach and development in the relation between historical reflection and technical interventions on buildings during restorations – like Carbonara does. According to Esposito, this can be achieved by carefully “reading” the building, by having knowledge of historical building methods and striving for consistent structural solutions with respect for the existing architectural system.57 Thus, Esposito also holds that an interdisciplinary approach is necessary in order to have restorations of a higher level with satisfying results.
The Testo Unico remained valid for only five years: in 2004 it was formally replaced by a decentralising law in order to make it possible for the Regioni to gain more power. The definitions of heritage and restoration in the 2004 law is to the same as in the 1999 Testo Unico. Thus the major change is the separation of tasks and responsibilities: the State is responsible for tutela (‘protection’), whereas the Regions are made responsible for valorizzazione (‘assessment’). The decentralisation of power means in practice that the Regioni have all the power over the restorations, and the State remains solely responsible for fundamental
56 Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali e ambientali. Art. 1, n. 352. 57 Daniela Esposito. ‘Decreto legislativo 29 ottobre 1999, n. 490’, p. 133.
21 policies. Although not confirmed, this implies that the Regioni are responsible for the funding of the heritage restorations.58
Besides the decentralisation of power, the Testo Unico only states that conservation of heritage is necessary, but how this must be achieved is not specified. Lucina Napoleone, scholar in Architecture
Restoration at the University of Genova, notes that with the separation of tasks and with the State and the
Regioni partly responsible for the restoration of cultural heritage, the decentralisation of power can create conflicts for (future) restoration.59 It is very likely that Napoleone pleads against the decentralisation because not every region in Italy is equally wealthy, which makes it impossible to apply the tutela and valorizzazione division without creating inequalities. Also the fact that there are different numbers of monuments to restore per Regione is likely to contribute to differences in the quality of performed restorations. While the decentralisation leads to financial inequalities, it could be argued on the other hand that the decentralisation guarantees the architectural differences of the Regione and that it would be unbeneficial, if not impossible - to have a restoration model that suits all Italian heritage.
To conclude, Italy has seriously reformulated its legislation concerning cultural heritage in the last decades, because in every legislational era heritage served a different purpose. In the last two decades, the involvement of the European Union has increased and the last traces of fascist legislation were deleted.
Reformulating heritage laws has an impact on how the restorations have been, and will be, carried out. One of the aspects that became very important in the recent theories and legislation is the historical layering of a building, which sets a trend for restorations that concern more than just repairing the material. While the restoration of Assisi, discussed in Chapter 2, was carried out when the fascist laws, were still in place, different acts are valid during the restorations of L’Aquila.
1.2.2 Charters and policies
After the destructions of the Second World War, Europe became generally more aware of the value of identities and memories passed on from the past. This renewed historical awareness created a discourse that
58 Dario Nardella. ‘I beni e le attività culturali tra Stato e regioni e la riforma del Titolo V della Costituzione.’, Diritto Pubblico, nr. 2, 2002, p. 688. 59 Lucina Napoleone. ‘Decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, ai sensi dell’art. 10 della legge 6 luglio 2002, n. 137)’, Che cos’è il restauro, p. 138.
22 led to the initiation of the Venice Charter of 1964 by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe defines a charter as a guiding document through which the safeguarding of national heritage could both be elevated and managed.60
In a long tradition of charters, besides the internationally known Venice Charter of 196461 and the
Amsterdam Charter of 1975, which both aimed to heighten public awareness of the uniqueness and the necessity of protecting architectural heritage, the Italian Ministry of Education released its own Carta del restauro (‘restoration charter’) in 1972.62 This charter is a sequel to the Venice Charter, which provided a basic framework with guidelines on how to conserve and restore built heritage, and a prequel for the
Amsterdam Charter of 1975, that included the notion of architectural heritage as part of cultural heritage.63
In the Carta del restauro, the Italian Ministery of Cultural Heritage introduces the restoration of archaeology, architecture, paintings and sculptures as related concepts, on which uniform rules should be applied.64 Having proper guidelines for restoration, was considered an urgent matter in the 1970s because Italy wanted to be able to protect both state and privately owned heritage from poor restorations.65
Although it never became an actual part of the Italian cultural heritage legislation, the restoration charter of 1972 is considered to be one of the most important documents in Italian restoration practice, insofar as it determines guidelines on how to restore. The charter consists of twelve articles that first establish for which heritage this charter is valid, and what definitions are handled for ‘restoration’ and ‘preservation’, followed by articles - mainly prohibitions - on plans, approval of plans and responsible actors. The charter defines restoration as every conservative provision with the aim to preserve the material integrity and to make it possible to transfer the built heritage to the future.66 With preservation is meant any operation to maintain efficiency and functionality of the building, and any operation to ease the reading and the transmission of the
60 A charter is a text in which principles on a certain subject are written down, it assists in tuning or evaluating policies, and a charter functions as a foundation for a law. 61 Cesare Brandi contributed significantly to the Venice Charter of 1964. 62 ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria.
23 building to the future. The charter seems to prohibit restoring after the ideas of Viollet-le-Duc, as well as removing or demolishing visible evidence from previous restorations. Furthermore, reconstruction and removal of parts of the structure are not allowed. This means that the main points made in these articles are in line with the Teoria del Restauro by Cesare Brandi.67
Although the 1972 charter is internationally not the most recent charter on protecting heritage, it is still important in Italy, according to both Giovanni Carbonara and Giorgio Gianghian.68 In fact, the charter provides a framework for the ISCR, that uses it to manage and control conservation of the heritage up until today.69 Even though this charter never became an actual law, it has served as a tool to test and judge restoration plans. The plans of both Assisi and L’Aquila needed to be in line with the rules of the charter in order to be approved.
Another actor involved that needs to approve in the case of the restoration of churches in Italy, is the
Vatican. The Vatican is involved not only because it owns the buildings, but also because it provides them with their main function. To safeguard the buildings and their function, the Vatican created in 1995 its own bureau for cultural affairs; the Ufficio Nazionale per i beni culturali ecclasitici (‘National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage’) that provides its own policy and listing with rules and regulation when it comes to restoration of both built religious heritage and restoration of religious objects.70 In these policy documents, the Vatican holds that every restoration of religious heritage needs to be reported and approved by its office. When churches need to be restored, the restorers need to ask for approval both at the National
Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage and at the Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro.
While the Vatican provides in its policy documents that the ISCR has a final say in approving restoration plans, the necessity for approval by two different institutes contributes to a slow, bureaucratic process that extends the duration of the actual restoration process.71
To conclude, another aspect that is part of the framework of restorations besides theories are the charters and policies, that play a substantial role in the restoration process, but must not be confused with
67 ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria, p. 11-13. 68 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 187; ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria, p. 10. 69 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 187. 70 ‘Finalità e struttura.’ Chiesa Cattolica Italiana. 4 November 2014,
24 actual laws. Restoration theory is a relatively new discipline that first started with Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin in Europe. In Italy the development started several decades later with Boito, and matured under Brandi in the
1960s. Brandi’s theory can function as a framework for the restoration of all types of heritage, including religious heritage. A charter, on the other hand, is a tool to check heritage management and plans for restoration and conservation. There are three extensive authorities involved in the restoration process of ecclesiastical heritage in Italy, namely: the government, the Vatican and UNESCO. All three actors provide, through the contribution to charters and policies, for the most adequate manner of restoration. For the case studies of Assisi and L’Aquila the theories, laws, policies, charters and authorities involved in the restoration process formed the framework for those restorations.
25 CHAPTER 2 CASE STUDY OF THE BASILICA OF SAN FRANCESCO IN ASSISI
The Basilica of San Francesco is located in Assisi, a medieval town built on a hill near Perugia in the province of Umbria (see image 2.1, an overview of the Basilica on the hill). Saint Francis (1181/1182-1226) was born in Assisi and consequently the Franciscan Order was erected here in 1209. Assisi is located in a zone endangered by seismic activity, of which the 1997 earthquake that consisted of two heavy quakes within twenty-four hours is a striking example: it has shown to be a risk for monumental buildings and all other heritage in Central Italy. The epicentre of the 1997 quakes were located at Foligno, only ten kilometres from
Assisi. As a result of the second quake, a part of the Basilica of San Francesco collapsed (see image 2.2, plan of the Upper Church that indicates the collapsed vaults) while several people were inside to analyse the previous damage. Among these people was Giorgio Bonsanti, professor in History and Techniques of
Restoration who published two (photo)books of the Basilica afterwards. Coincidently, Bonsanti’s photography project had started just before the disastrous earthquake and aimed to document all the frescoes in the upper part of the Basilica. This means that not only there was excellent, recent, photographic material available for the restoration, but also that the collapse of the vault with the frescoes of Giotto was filmed.72
This chapter is a case study of the restoration of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. This case study aims to analyse the restoration, and to study Italy’s notion of heritage throughout this restoration. In order to do so, the case exists of a brief overview of the history of the site, followed by an overview of all functions and stakeholders of the site, a short site analysis and an overview of the conducted restorations. The second part of the chapter centralises around the debate on the most recent restorations that were carried out after the partial collapse of 1997, and lastly the nomination process to become a UNESCO World Heritage site in
2000 will be discussed.
2.1 The history of the Basilica of San Francesco before 1997 Francesco d’Assisi, a catholic friar and founder of the Order of the Franciscans, became canonized in 1228 and in the same year the construction of the Basilica of San Francesco started. The Basilica, was built to keep
72 Giorgio Bonsanti. Assisi: Die Deckenfresken der Oberkirchen von San Francesco, 1997, p. 9-13.
26 Saint Francis’ remains, because Assisi became a popular pilgrimage site soon after Francesco’s death.73 The building was consecrated by Pope Innocent IV in 1253, and from then on the Franciscan Order took possession of the Basilica.74 To honour the life of Saint Francis, the Vatican started an initiative in 1270 to attract Italy’s leading artists to decorate the extensive walls of the church.75 The Basilica is known for its outstanding interior with frescoes from several important medieval painters like Giotto, Cimabue and
Lorenzetti. Because of this the Basilica is of great art historical value and importance.76 At the same time, the frescoes in the Basilica mark the first examples of the transition of Medieval to Renaissance art and show the unique development of art in that period: Giotto is considered to be the first painter able to add emotion to the faces of his figures.77 This means that, apart from being a religious pilgrimage site, the Basilica also became an artistic and tourist pilgrimage site. So, the Basilica is of cultural-historical value because of the formation of an Order at the site, and moreover because the Basilica shows the development from Medieval art to Renaissance art. In addition, the Basilica’s strategic location on top of a hill emphasizes the buildings value as an urban landmark..
The Basilica of San Francesco consists of two churches: the Basilica Superiore (upper church) and the Basilica Inferiore (lower church), that form an architectural ensemble. The upper church (see image 2.3) consists of a transept and a long, spacious nave that functions as a hallway where people assemble. This space has relatively small windows and extensive plain walls (see images 2.3 and 2.4) compared to, for example,
French cathedrals dating from the same period. The ribbed vaults are made of brick, and supported by pointed arches in masonry that cover the complete length of the nave. The side aisles along the length of the nave of the Upper Church are lower than the nave, which emphasizes the extensive plain walls.78 The frescoes located next to the windows in the nave represent biblical scenes of Genesis and the life of Christ, whereas the frescoes located below the windows in the complete length of the nave show the life and accomplishments of San Francesco.79
73 Horst Waldemar Janson. Janson’s History of Art: The Western Tradition, 2011, p. 438-439. 74 Richard P. McBrien. Live of the Popes, 2000, p.226. 75 Horst Waldemar Janson. Janson’s History of Art, p. 439-440. 76 ‘Nomination file 990’, UNESCO. 2000,
27 The lower church (see image 2.5) is darker and less spacious than the Upper Church, and is based on a traditional catholic church plan: it has a central nave, accompanied by side chapels. In the nave of the
Lower Church, one can find parts of the earliest frescoes, carried out in tempera on dry plaster. These frescoes have severely decayed over time or were destroyed when extra side chapels were added in the period of the late thirteenth century and 1350.80 The frescoes representing The Passion of Christ on the right and The Life of Francis on the left were made by an anonymous painter. In the Lower Church one also finds parts of frescoes made by Cimabue. The building is especially valued because of this ensemble of artefacts and structure this has become the most important reason to protect the building.
The first changes of the Basilica’s structure were carried out only twenty years after its completion in 1253 and consisted of the addition of the side chapels in the Lower Church. From that moment until the unification of Italy in 1861, numerous restorations have taken place. However, only two more recent restorations are relevant for this study.81 The first one was carried out by the Ministero della Pubblica
Istruzione (‘Ministry of Education’) immediately after the unification of Italy, while the second took place in the 1950s. In the late 1860s, when the Basilica became supervised by the Ministry of Education, the building and its interior had seriously decayed. The Ministry of Education immediately started with restorations of the frescoes, because these were held to be the most important artefacts.82 In 1891, less than ten years after Boito tried to define restoration theory in Italy, the Italian government accomplished extensive restoration on the most degraded parts. This was the most comprehensive restoration on the frescoes in the
Basilica until the collapse in 1997. In terms of flawlessness the structure is remarkably intact, especially considering its age and the natural disasters it has survived, which adds to the historical value of the Basilica.
In 1891 the restoration was carried out according to the “stylistic restoration” theory of Viollet-le-
Duc; the restorers chose to restore the degraded parts of the building in the same style as the original building, leaving no visible traces of restoration.83 Thus the Basilica was restored in the style of the existing structure, creating a building entirely in one architectural style. However contradictory it might seem, in so doing the
80 Donal Cooper. The Making of Assisi: The Pope, the Franciscans and the Painting of the Basilica, 2013, p. 6. 81 The restoration history of the Basilica between the construction in the thirteenth century and 1860 will not be addressed here, given that Italy did not exist as a country yet and consequently these early restorations lacked governmental supervision. For an extensive overview of restorations on the Basilica, starting from 1432, I would recommend: Giuseppe Rocchi, La Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi: interpretazione e rilievo, Sansoni, 1982. 82 Giuseppe Rocchi. La Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi : interpretazione e rilievo, 1982, p. 108. 83 Ibidem; After this extensive restoration, smaller interventions at different parts of the basilica (in both the structure and in the artworks) have taken place at least once every ten years.
28 “oneness” of the structure is affected, because the historical layering is erased. Following Brandi, the stylistic restoration in 1891 has affected the historical identity of the Basilica of Assisi because the signs of previous trauma and restorations have been cancelled. The erased signs were therefore both literally and symbolically erased from collective memory.
Adjustments of the Basilica in the 1950’s provided the ceiling of the upper church with concrete beams that were supposed to give more support to the structure.84 Adding new parts to a monument is a phenomenon only recently seen in the restoration field. During the 1950s concrete was reinvented as a building material, with the characteristics of being solid and strong. Reinforcement with concrete was at the time a very modern thing to do, and the restorers believed they made the construction stronger.
In the period before 1997, the Italian state, in particular the Ministry of Education, is thus to be considered as the main actor for restoration. An explanation for this already emerged in Chapter 1, but can be confirmed here: the fact that the Italian state supervises the Basilica and the absence of a proper Italian academic debate and restoration theory, has made the Ministry of Education the only constant reference point.
2.1.1 Functions and stakeholders
While the Basilica of San Francesco is a unique building that has multiple functions, it serves primarily as a religious building and as a symbol of religious identity. As its owner, the Vatican is the most important stakeholder of the building. Besides being the executive party of the religious function, the Vatican is also responsible for providing the financial means of its daily functioning and partly responsible for maintaining the building. Because the daily functioning could not be performed after the collapse of the Basilica in 1997, the Vatican, and more specifically its ‘National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage’, which is assigned to govern the restoration of its property, became responsible for reviving the building’s daily functions and its religious identity. Therefore, the Vatican operates on the foreground of the buildings functions, but it operates on the background in recovering its identity after the earthquake.
84 The concrete beams became highly contested in the 1997-1999 restoration debate, because they might have worsened the damage of the structure due to its specific characteristics. This argument will be elaborated in paragraph 2.2.
29 The stakeholder that fulfils the religious function of the Basilica is the Franciscan Order, which consist of friars living in Assisi and Franciscans living in other communities around the world.85 For the local
Franciscans the building offers not only a space for religious practices – including the hosting of pilgrims
(see below) – but also their home since they still live at the monastery adjacent to the Basilica.86 In addition, the building serves as a symbol of their religious identity, because their particular Order was erected at the site. So, while the collapse of the Basilica meant for the local Franciscans that their religious services could not be performed at the site, it meant the loss of a religious symbol for the entire Franciscan community. The restoration of the Basilica is therefore not only a tool to revive the religious function of the building, but can also be seen as a symbolic reparation of the Franciscan identity.
The third, extensive, group of stakeholders are the local people who are not part of the Franciscan
Order. For the local people, the Basilica serves a minor religious function, as they participate in the religious services. However, the main function of the Basilica for the local community is identity they derive from the
Basilica. The Basilica has been exploited in advertisements for Assisi for a long time, hence also for all stakeholders the building functions as a landmark (see image 2.6, a 1920s travel poster from ‘Ente Nazionale
Italiano per il Turismo’ (ENIT, ‘Italian National Agency for Tourism’, the Italian national tourism board)).
The Basilica is valuable for the area, because the building contributes, or has contributed, to the urban planning and the layout of the area, of which it has become an identifying place.87 The Basilica is thus a landmark that distinguishes the town of Assisi and is therefore a symbol for the “Assisian identity”.
For a subgroup within the local community, namely the people who work in the tourist industry, the
Basilica has an economic function: through tourism, the building generates jobs that support the local economy. These people identify themselves with the building not only because of its urban value, but also because it is a symbol for their profession. After the earthquake, all of these functions and values of the
Basilica were affected. The collapsed Basilica was a visual sign of how the earthquake becomes a traumatic
85 The motto of the Franciscan Order is ‘Pax et bonum’ (‘Peace and the good’), and they live without property, so they can be fully available for ‘God and the needy fellowmen’. Female followers are called “Poor Clares” or “Clarisses”, after Saint Claire, a follower of Saint Francis. See: ‘Mission Statement.’, Franciscanen.
30 part of the identity of the community.88 Because of this, the restoration of the Basilica became an historical layer in the local identity, symbolic for the revival of its functions.
The economical function of the Basilica interacts with the fourth group of stakeholders, the visitors, who can be divided into two different types of tourists: (Franciscan) pilgrims and heritage tourists, who visit
Assisi for the art, history and architecture. Visitors at heritage sites in general have both positive and negative effects on the sites and on the communities in which they are located: while high numbers of visitors catalyze the decay of the building, they also empower the local economy.89 Since the local community of Assisi depends on tourism, it was crucial not only to restore the Basilica but also that the restoration was of high quality, because only then tourism would keep flourishing and only then the building would be able to handle all the tourists.
As a result of being listed as a World Heritage Site after the restoration, the numbers of tourists who visit the Basilica of Assisi has increased and made the Basilica a ‘church-museum’.90 According to UNESCO,
‘[this] is an inevitable destiny: the very reasons why a property is chosen for inscription on the World Heritage
List are also the reasons why millions of tourists flock to those sites year after year.’91 This observation is in line with the view of Laurajane Smith, a professor in Heritage Studies, who argues that for the heritage tourists the site is a theme park: they are the agents of cultural heritage and they appropriate the site.92
Therefore, UNESCO demands a plan from the local municipalities to control the high number of tourists that visit and possibly damage World Heritage sites.93 Tourism not only affects the preservation of the building, but also its function: while the Basilica was originally built for a religious purpose, since the development of tourism the religious community has to share its sacred place with heritage tourists.94
88 For more theory on trauma and memory in communities, I would recommend Kai Erikson. ‘Notes on Trauma and Community’. Edited by Cathy Caruth (eds.). Trauma : Explorations in Memory. John Hopkins University Press 1995, pp. 183-199. 89 Myra Shackley as cited in Christine M. Van Winkle. ‘Agents of Change and Visitors’ Perceptions of the Impacts of Tourism at Heritage Sites.’, Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17-20, 2005. 90 Rodney Harrison. Heritage : critical approaches, 2013, p. 89. 91 ‘Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers’, UNESCO. 2002,
31 The combination of already existing pilgrimage and the increasing number of tourists that have visited Umbria over the last decades, make that nowadays approximately five million people visit the Basilica yearly.95 After the devastating earthquake in 1997, the Basilica of Assisi remained closed for visitors for two years.96 The former Deputy Mayor of Assisi Edo Romoli said: ‘That quake was a death knell for tourism.
Between the quake and July this year [1998], tourism slumped by 85 per cent. As the industry accounts for
70 per cent of the area’s income, that’s a devastating blow.’97 Because of the Basilica’s importance for the local economy, the Italian Government decided to prioritize the restoration, so the Basilica could be open again before the celebrations of the Holy Year of the Catholic Church to mark the year 2000, which was going to attract many visitors.98 To conclude, the quakes are a threat not only for the building itself, but also for the stakeholders who derive their religion, their identity or their economic means from the building.
2.2 The 1997-1999 Restorations
Over time, the Basilica went through at least ten equally, or even stronger earthquakes than the one in 1997.
However, none of these was as destructive. On 26 September 1997 two heavy quakes took place in Central
Italy, the second quake caused the Basilica’s tympanum and two vaults to collapse. The frescoes inside the vaults were lost and parts of the other frescoes were damaged. Numerous volunteers came to Assisi and retrieved approximately three hundred thousand pieces of the scattered fresco’s (see image 2.2 and 2.4 that indicate which vaults collapsed, and image 2.7 that shows one of the collapsed vaults).99 In the international art and heritage field people were shocked. The former director of the Musée du Louvre in Paris, Pierre
Rosenberg, called the collapse in Assisi “a disaster for World Heritage”.100
95 For facts and numbers on tourism in Umbria see ENIT (Ente Nazionale Italiano per il Turismo) or Regione Umbria; 96 Wieteke van Zeil. ‘Negen monumenten die niet verloren mogen gaan.’ de Volkskrant, 19 November 2016,
32 It became clear immediately that the damage in 1997 had seriously harmed the building; besides the collapse of the vaults close to the façade and those near the transept, other parts of the Basilica were damaged as well. For instance, the tympanum at the side of the bell tower was severely cracked and it is very likely this part of the Basilica would have collapsed during one of the aftershocks that continued until October
1997, if it would not have been shored up immediately (image 2.8).101 Giorgio Croci, a professor in structural engineering principles of historic monuments said that “[b]efore October 7, the situation of the tympanum was dangerous. Then [in October] it became tragic.”102 This would have been another true disaster given that the tympanum is located near other Giotto frescoes of inestimable value. Other damage as a result of the quakes were large cracks in several walls (see image 2.9) and a severe, permanent deformations of all vaults of the Basilica.103 Tentatively it could be argued that the damage was severe after the 1997 earthquake partly because of the previous deformation of the roof, caused by numerous alterations during the buildings’ history.
It has also been argued that the replacement of part of the original beams by concrete beams in the 1950’s worsened the situation. However, as not every quake is similar, the concrete beams might have protected the structure during numerous previous earthquakes. In the case of the 1997 earthquake it was specifically the combination of the direction and intensity of the waves of the quake that caused so much damage.104
According to some experts, including Giorgio Croci, the 1950s restoration may have caused the vaults to collapse after the earthquake in 1997, because the concrete beams reacted differently to shocks and movements than the wooden structure of the building. Since wood is lighter and more elastic than concrete, replacing wooden beams for concrete beams increased the stress on the construction (including the vaults).105
As a result of previous restorations, the space between the vaults and the roof were filled up with loose materials of the repairs. This loose material increased the stress on the vaults extensively during the earthquake because it moved at its own frequency, intensifying the movement of the structure.106
101 Giorgio Croci. ‘Emergency Stabilization of the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi’. Cultural Research Management, vol. 23, no. 6 2002, p. 32. 102 Celestine Bohlen. ‘Assisi Holds Its Breath, and Rebuilds Treasures.’ New York Times, 25 October 17,
33 In order to preserve the Basilica of Assisi, the damage had to be restored. The restorations had to be completed in exceptional circumstances. This was firstly because the construction of the building was seriously out of its joint, and secondly the damage was more than “just” cracks in the walls: the damage was severe because part of the structure collapsed. Furthermore the restoration of the frescoes needed a different approach than the restoration of the construction, because a fresco is attached to the structure and cannot be removed, therefor changing the structure necessarily affects the fresco. Giorgio Croci confirms this by arguing that ‘restoration had been made difficult because the structure of the building and the works of art pose different problems’.107
There was no model or standard in the existing restoration theories on how to restore in these kinds of circumstances. If the restorers had applied Ruskin’s theory, this would have meant the Basilica would have been left as it was, and by now it would have been a pile of stones. If the restorers had applied Viollet-le-
Duc, on the other hand, the end result would have been a building restored perfectly in the style of the building in a certain period in history, which could mean that lacunae in the frescoes would have been filled, or that the complete frescoes could have been replaced by reproductions. However, the actual method chosen shows similarities to Brandi’s approach in Theory. For instance, the decision to refrain from filling the lacunae in the reconstructed and restored frescoes suits Brandi’s ideals.
One option considered during the debate on the restoration was to save the remains of the frescoes and exhibit them in a museum.108 However, in this proposal there was nothing planned for the vaults. Another proposal was to fill the lacunae in the newly established vaults with high quality photographs.109 Another solution was offered from abroad: Japanese professionals claimed to have developed a special technique that would enable them to restore the frescoes and “bring them back more beautiful than before.”110 Unfortunately it has not been specified which technique this was, but the Japanese approach seems to be close to the restoration idea of Viollet-Le-Duc, that was not in favour anymore in Italy at that time. It is probably because of this, that the Italians did not accept the offer and chose to reconstruct the original three hundred thousand pieces instead.
107 Giorgio Croci as cited in Michael Leech. “Assisi after the Earthquake.” History Today, vol. 49, no. 1 1999, p. 5. 108 Michael Leech. “Assisi after the Earthquake.” History Today, p. 5. 109 Giuseppe Basile. Giotto com’era, p. 13. 110 Ibidem.
34 The final method applied in the restorations of the structure and the frescoes consisted of scanning and categorizing the fragments, solving the puzzle with the help of one on one scaled images and computer programs, building new bows, strengthening the construction and finally implementing the frescoes. This method was developed in situ and has set a new, interdisciplinary model for future churches that get damaged by earthquakes.111
Throughout the restoration, the Franciscans were very much involved in the decision making process of the restoration. In the end the restorers chose – as a result of the persistent attitude of the Franciscans in
Assisi – to sort the fragments and reposition them at their original place in the vaults.112 The restorers did this by using real size images of the frescoes, with the help of which the pieces could be identified. Since it was almost impossible to distinguish all the colours, patterns and lines by human eye, the restorers used computers and camera’s to scan and catalogue the pieces. Not all parts were recovered and therefore, preventing falsification, lacunae remained in the resorted frescoes.113
At the outset of the restoration program, the Italian public seemed to lack confidence in solving the big puzzle of three hundred thousand pieces. Numerous newspaper articles, published during the aftermath of the earthquake, show the public’s concern that the restoration of the collapsed frescoes would not be successful.114 Restorers and art historians were sceptical as well. According to Bruno Zanardi: ‘Some of
Cimabue's work is now gone for ever. There is an effort under way to use a computer program to piece together the millions of fragments that were gathered after the earthquake, but I can't see how it can possibly succeed in recreating the original fresco’.115 In a survey conducted at the barns in Assisi where the pieces were kept, visitors were asked how they would like to see the restorations implemented.116 95 per cent of the respondents said they would like to see the frescoes to be restored; 84 per cent answered that it would be a
111 Istituto Centrale per il Restauro. ‘Guida al Recupero Ricomposizione e Restauro di Dipinti Murali in Frammenti.’, Istituto centrale per il restauro, 2001, p. 25. 112 Idem, p. 14. 113 Alasdair Palmer. ‘Restoration tragedy’, Calgary Herald, 1 July 2000, LexisNexis® Academic, accessed 19 November 2016. 114 ‘Frescoes May be Unsalvageable’, Saint Paul Poineer Press (Minessota), 16 January 1998, LexisNexis® Academic, accessed 19 November 2016. 115 Alasdair Palmer. ‘Restoration tragedy’. 116 Neither the respondents nor the visitors who filled in the survey could be retrieved, because the original source of the survey as stated in Giuseppe Basile’s Giotto com’era (Marco Causi, Indagine sul pubblico visitatore del cantiere di restauro dei dipinti in frammenti della Basilica Superiore di San Francesco in Assisi, in Dall'Utopia alla realta, 3, cit., Assisi, settembre 2001, pp. 22-23) is not available.
35 bad idea to show the pieces of restored fresco in a museum; and 48 per cent of the people were convinced that it would be best to restore the vaults and leave the lacunae the way they were, and show the fragments of fresco somewhere else.117 Hence, the Italian public was not very confident in the chosen methodology and they assumed the valuable frescoes were lost forever.
After a long process of research and solving the massive jigsaw, the first restorations were carried out: in the roof, tympanum and upper church reinforcements were installed in several critical places.118
Consolidating the vaults was a complex task given that the deformation of the ribs and vaults could not be simply “straightened”, because this would damage the frescoes.119 Hence, the vaults were consolidated though a method that would minimize new damage on the frescoes.120 This method included steel-bars and composite material with aramidic fibres to strengthen the Basilica for future quakes.121
Because part of the original Renaissance bricks had survived, the collapsed vaults were rebuilt partly in the original material.122 For the stones that could not be reused, similar bricks of similar material had to be made. It is interesting to see here how the restorers chose to restore in the style of the existing monument, with the use of the same materials. This means that the building now almost looks as if nothing happened to it. Although this sounds very similar to Viollet-le-Duc, there are some differences. In the restoration of the frescoes, for instance, the lost parts that could not be retrieved, the lacunae, are left empty, instead of repainted as suggested by Viollet-le-Duc. This solution is in line with Brandi’s Theory, in which he emphatically argues against falsification and suggests lacunae as the answer for missing pieces. However, Brandi would not have approved the use of new bricks from the same material for the reason of falsification.123
117 Giuseppe Basile. Giotto com’era, p. 14. 118 Wieteke van Zeil. ‘Negen monumenten die niet verloren mogen gaan.’ 119 Giorgio Croci. ‘General methodology for the structural restoration of historic building’, p. 17. 120 Ibidem. 121 Giorgio Croci and Mario Biritognolo. ‘The restoration of the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi.’ 122 Michael Leech. ‘Assisi after the Earthquake’, History Today, p. 5. 123 Brandi argues for reusing authentic, original materials. He is not in favor of making extra building material from the same source as the original material. According to him, there is a difference in reusing for instance old bricks and making the same bricks new.
36 The collapsed parts that could not be retrieved through computer programs were left open – a solution often used in the restoration of paintings.124 According to Giorgio Croci and Mario Biritognolo the goal of all the restorations was
‘to place the most up-to-date techniques and technologies at the service of culture in order to respect the
historic value of the ancient building and to obtain adequate safety levels whilst changing as little as
possible the original conception. Some of these technologies, like the use of scanners and computer
modelling, were new in the field of restoration. Others, like 1:1 high definition photographs have been
studied specifically for this occasion, offering new and interesting possibilities for the safeguarding of
our architectural heritage’.125
Moreover, this method can be qualified as interdisciplinary, because it combines different techniques from different disciplines in order to create the best possible solution for a specific problem.
2.2.1 Recent debate on the 1997-99 Restoration
Although the speed and thoroughness of the restoration of the Basilica has often been lauded, more recently criticism has been voiced. In February 2015, a debate about the colours of the frescoes after the restoration broke out. According to Zanardi, the restorations have compromised the frescoes because they were carried out over-ambitiously, the result being that the colours in the frescoes are considered to have turned out too bright.126 Zanardi argues that the contrast between restored and not restored parts is striking (see image 2.10 that shows the crucifixion by Giotto and image 2.11 that shows Sant’Angese before and after the restoration).
Giuseppe Basile also criticizes the use of colour in the frescoes, arguing that the technique to choose colours with the use of photographs makes the frescoes too ‘perfect’: traces of previous restoration and intervention are absent, or removed.127 Basile’s critique can be understood from the point of view of the importance of historical layering. Basile seems to criticize the restorers for following the ideas of Viollet-le-Duc.
Also Carbonara openly critiqued the restorers of the Basilica during the XIX Giornata Nazionale dei
Beni Culturali Ecclasiastici (translated: 19th national day of the ecclesiastical cultural heritage) in 2012.
124 Alessandra Stanley. ‘Quake-hit Assisi Basilica Restored, but the people aren’t.’, The New York Times, 26 November 1999,
37 Carbonara’s main argument against the chosen restorers was that they were old fashioned and that they had carried out the restorations based on experience alone, and did not use (modern) knowledge. What Carbonara meant was that the restorers of Assisi did not approach the restorations interdisciplinary. Carbonara believes that involving other disciplines is good for the quality of the restoration, because several projects have already shown that an interdisciplinary approach minimalizes alterations in the existing structure, offering solutions that otherwise would not have been found. Sergio Fusetti, main restorer at the restorations in the Basilica and appointed by the ISCR (the Italian High Institute for Conservation and Restoration, organ of the Ministry of
Cultural Heritage and Activities and tourism), on the other hand claims that the accusation of poor restoration and damaging the frescoes are completely unfounded, by arguing that every intervention was approved by the ISCR. Fusetti therefore assumes that the ISCR guarantees a high quality of restorations, assigning the institution the role of most important actor and not questioning its rules and regulations.128
Just before the debate broke out, officials of the Ministry of Education had visited the heritage site and did not report anything out of the ordinary. The Ministry argued that all restorations were carried out under supervision of Soprintendenza dell’Umbria (‘Supervision of Umbria’) and the ISCR. Therefore an official research was not deemed necessary.129 So, the investigation into the way the restorations had been performed was cancelled.
According to the Italian newspaper La Repubblica this debate is the consequence of the way the restoration process went and the lack of a proper debate beforehand. In the newspaper, it is argued that there are two aspects at stake. First, the Franciscans should not have interfered with the restoration because they are not restoration professionals. Second, the change that gave the Regioni more responsibility for its local cultural heritage (see chapter one) has turned out to be problematic: the Soprintendenza dell’Umbria does not have expertise and lacks the ability to fully oversee and supervise the restoration process.130
128 Rosie Scammell. ‘Italian art restorer denies damaging medieval frescoes.’, The Guardian, 19 February 2015,
38 As expected, the complex restoration of the Basilica in Assisi was expensive: the total costs of the entire restoration project was estimated to be 72 billion lire, 37,2 million euro.131 Besides the financial contribution of the Vatican and the Italian government, soon after the quakes in September donations arrived from all over the world to contribute to the restoration.132 In October 1997, the European Commission promised to contribute 100.000 euro.133 The restoration of the frescoes was partly funded through “Europe
2000”, an initiative by the European Union to safeguard valuable heritage such.134 It is impossible to retrieve data of all donators, because facts and numbers of financial contributors are not transparent. But it can be assumed that all stakeholders involved have contributed to the funding of the restorations. After the fast, but costly restorations, the site was nominated to become UNESCO World Heritage. Nominating Assisi after the restorations can be used to justify the expenses of the restoration.
2.2.2 Becoming UNESCO World Heritage
In 2000 the Basilica received the label “UNESCO World Heritage site”. This was above all a recognition of its significance as heritage site, but possibly also a recognition of the restorations after the earthquake in
1997. With the nomination, attention for the site rose and the rare and non-renewable values it has were emphasized. The nomination led to increased visitor numbers, because the World Heritage label is often used for marketing purposes to attract tourists.135 Simultaneously the Basilica’s future preservation is guaranteed through UNESCO guidelines and international treaties.136 The World Heritage site “Assisi” not only contains the Basilica, but also consists of the whole ensemble of Franciscan sites in Assisi, which means that the almost the entire town of Assisi is part of the World Heritage site.137
When UNESCO wants to add a site to their World Heritage list, the site is nominated and a standard procedure needs to be followed. This procedure consists of a profound research into the history of the site and an analysis of the site to determine its cultural value. With this information an extensive report is written,
131 ‘Riapre la Basilica di Assisi sconfitto il terremoto.’, La Repubblica. 27 November 1999,
39 in which the several cultural values such as the structure of the building and the frescoes inside are addressed and compared to the criteria a World Heritage site requires. In total there are ten criteria. The first six are
‘cultural criteria’, whereas the other four are ‘natural criteria’ for natural heritage such as Mount Etna on
Sicily. The cultural criteria are quite abstract, but include aspects like: to what extent is the site a masterpiece made by humans; the extent of any form of development visible in the object; the uniqueness of the object; being an excellent example or an ensemble, of a building, architecture, landscape or technology; or an excellent example, a representation of a culture for its conventional category of human settlement, use of land or sea; last being connected to traditions.138 For Assisi the reasons to nominate the site were:
‘(i): Assisi represents an ensemble of masterpieces of human creative genius, such as the Basilica of San
Francesco, which have made it a fundamental reference for art history in Europe and in the world.
(ii): The interchange of artistic and spiritual message of the Franciscan Order has significantly contributed
to developments in art and architecture in the world.
(iv): The Basilica of San Francesco is an outstanding example of a type of architectural ensemble that has
significantly influenced the development of art and architecture.
(vi): Being the birthplace of the Franciscan Order, Assisi has from the Middle Ages been closely
associated with the cult and diffusion of the Franciscan movement in the world, focusing on the universal
message of peace and tolerance even to other religions or beliefs.’139
The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), UNESCO’s advisory board, also writes an
‘advisory body evaluation’ on the nomination report and then UNESCO has a final say in appointing a site as a World Heritage site. For Assisi, this procedure took place in December 2000.
From the reasons mentioned above can be concluded that the Basilica of Assisi is valued by
UNESCO both for its contribution to the development of art and architecture and for its religious importance.
Given the fact that the Basilica of San Francesco became nominated after the restorations, it is necessary to investigate how the restorations of 1997-1999 were addressed in the official documents of UNESCO and its most important advisory board, ICOMOS, and if the restorations led to any concerns.
138 ‘The Criteria for Selection’, UNESCO. 2008,
40 The nomination report of UNESCO is divided in several subjects: identification, justification, description, management, factors, monitoring and documentation. UNESCO stated in the nomination file that the cultural heritage present at the site was in a good condition in 2000.140 The condition of the sites in
Assisi is elaborated in the paragraph concerning justification, in which an important subject is “Authenticité et Intégrité” (authenticity and integrity). UNESCO argues that most of the buildings in the nominated zone show traces of previous interventions, in the Basilica this is the change in the structure of the roof.141
However, according to UNESCO, these ‘interventions’ were carried out in line with ‘toutes les norms nationales et internationales en vigueur, ont permis de maintenir inaltéré leur aspect originel’.142 The 1997 earthquake is mentioned early on and is considered to be ‘a unique event’, UNESCO argues in the nomination report that the restorations afterwards have been carried out under the ‘supervision of the most competent restorers’.143 The reason why a critical attitude towards the restorations is absent, can be that UNESCO is the one to assess the restorations, and it is not transparent if the people at UNESCO are specialised restorers. So
UNESCO can only assume the restorations have been carried out according to the best standards, however it is not specified what UNESCO considers to be the “best” way.
The nomination document is written by State parties and UNESCO advisers. If UNESCO takes a nominee into consideration, the nomination file is evaluated by two advisory boards, chosen from: ICOMOS, the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).144 If the advisory boards are positive, the site is officially nominated and the final decision on the sites inscription is made by the World Heritage
Committee.145
During the nomination process of Assisi, ICOMOS was one of the advisory boards involved, it assessed the nomination with a more critical glance than UNESCO. First it addressed the restorations of the
140 ‘Nomination file 990’, UNESCO, p. 9. 141 Idem, p. 8. 142 Translation: All the national and international norms in force, have made it possible to maintain their original aspect unaltered; ‘Nomination file 990’, UNESCO, p. 8. 143 Idem, p. 9. 144 ‘World Heritage List Nominations’, UNESCO. 2011,
41 Franciscan sites in the nineteenth and twentieth century, arguing that ‘the aim has been to respect the character of the building and the type of construction’, this is in consonance with Brandi’s theory on the importance of respecting the history of an object.146 This was followed by a reference and critique on the restorations of the
1950s, when the roof structure of the Basilica was altered: ‘Some of these reinforcements have proved to be too rigid, causing problems in the recent earthquake. In other cases they have helped the historic structure to survive’.147 Furthermore, from this documentation emerges that ICOMOS is more aware of the consequences of the collapse and restoration after the 1997 earthquake for the values of the Basilica than UNESCO. This emerges for instance from the section “Conservation and Authenticity” in which the replacement of the wooden beams in the 1950s is discussed, but it also addresses the ‘major structural repair and restoration of the vaults and the tympanum of the basilica’ stressing that not all parts of the Basilica are equally genuine.148
However, it does not elaborate on how the collapse and restoration may affect concepts such as authenticity.
Instead ICOMOS concludes the documentation with a somewhat generalizing statement: ‘The restoration of the mural paintings will be a long process and is being carried out using the best knowledge available’.149
With this statement ICOMOS already assumes before the completion of the restoration that the ISCR always chooses the best available restorers and methodology, whilst multiple Italian scholars (see above) have criticized the choice of restorers.
Authenticity and falsification are two subjects in both the nomination document of UNESCO, and in the Evaluation report of ICOMOS. But also in Brandi’s Theory these two concepts are key concepts (see
Chapter 1). Giuseppe Basile, art historian and critic, Brandi follower and member of ISCR, pointed out that before the restorations of Assisi started, the restorers involved tried to find a single definition of the concept
“authenticity”, as a reference for the restorations that followed.150 In its nomination document, UNESCO celebrates Assisi for the authenticity of its structures because, compared to other Italian, or other European historical city centres, the structures in Assisi did not undergo profound modifications or transformation.151
Thus, altering the construction of the roof and adding side chapels in the Lower Church of the Basilica are
146 ‘Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS)’, ICOMOS. 30 June 1999,
42 not considered to be profound modifications of the building. ICOMOS nuances this point by arguing that the
Basilica in Assisi, including the frescoes of Giotto and Cimabue, was properly preserved, which contributed to have ‘maintained its historical integrity and authenticity in a remarkable manner’.152 With this remark,
ICOMOS seems to differentiate the degree of originality, which implies that it holds a different definition of the concept of authenticity than UNESCO. Whereas UNESCO defines authenticity as ‘the requirement to be genuine, i.e., the nominated resource should be truly what it is claimed to be’, for ICOMOS, and certainly for Brandi authenticity means historical accuracy.153 Hence, UNESCO rates a site based on the bigger picture in which authenticity does play a role but is not decisive, while Brandi and ICOMOS value the genuineness of heritage.
When reading UNESCO’s and ICOMOS’s reports on the nomination of Assisi, it is striking that both parties seem to have their own criteria in assessing the nomination file: ICOMOS involves tourism into the question of conservation and restoration.154 The Basilica receives over five million visitors yearly and therefore, if measures are not taken, high tourism numbers will increase the deterioration of the building complex. So the fact that ICOMOS includes this aspect into their evaluation report is positive for the awareness of and taking into account all possible actors involved with conservation.155
Unlike the nomination report of 2000, in UNESCO’s 2014 periodic reporting on the Assisi World
Heritage Site it seems to agree with ICOMOS about the conflict between preserving World Heritage sites and the effect tourism has on this. UNESCO’s report examines to what extent tourism has affected the safeguarding and maintenance of the cultural values in the past five years. The conclusion of this report is that tourism, especially the high visitor numbers, is both a chance because it generates money, and a threat because it catalyses the decay of cultural heritage. It is striking that UNESCO describes the rising visitor numbers as a threat, because when a site is nominated as a World Heritage site, a logical consequence is that it receives more attention and thus the visitor numbers will increase.156
152 ‘Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS)’, ICOMOS, p. 98. 153 ‘Meeting on Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context’, UNESCO. 2000,
43 About the 1997-1999 restorations ICOMOS says, like UNESCO, that the earthquake caused ‘some damage’, and that only the best restorers are restoring the collapsed parts following ‘internationally accepted policies.’157 In so stating, UNESCO and ICOMOS seem to be underestimating the damage to the building, the exceptional conditions under which the restorations were to be performed and moreover they seem to neglect the consequences of damage and restoration for the authenticity and falsification of the restored
Basilica. Both parties seem to accept the chosen methods and the quality of the restorations without a critical examination. In the light of the ongoing (international) debate about the quality of the restored frescoes, it is even more striking that ICOMOS settles for the sufficiency of the international guidelines. Hence, it seems that ICOMOS and UNESCO are exclusively focused on safeguarding the frescoes for the future, rather than critically consider the way this conservation and safeguarding is achieved.158
The shared objective of conserving the monument for the future comes with the problem that the concepts of authenticity and falsification have different definitions for UNESCO and ICOMOS, in restoration theory and in Italian legislation, and are given variable importance. This has led to conflicts, of which the current debate about the restoration of the frescoes is a lively example. Given the fact UNESCO provides no restoration guidelines, the protection of authenticity and the prevention of falsification are not guaranteed by the international organisation. Neither does UNESCO’s periodic report, the most recent dating from 2014, consider specifically the quality of the restorations with regards to the concepts. It is especially striking that
UNESCO does not elaborate on the quality of the restoration of the frescoes, given that the (art) historical importance of the frescoes has been one of the five reasons to appoint the Basilica as a World Heritage site.
UNESCO’s uncritical stance towards the restorations of the frescoes undermines restoration theory and
Italian legislation and moreover questions the value of the World Heritage nomination.
In this paragraph it has become clear that UNESCO, ICOMOS and Brandi hold different notions of authenticity, falsification and profound modification. For UNESCO these three concepts are not equally important. From the nomination and evaluation of Assisi appeared that the ensemble of medieval buildings and structures is the most valuable aspect of the site. The fact that parts of it are seriously altered, or
157 ‘Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS)’, ICOMOS, p. 98. 158 From UNESCO’s mission statement emerges that their main aim is to identify, protect and preserve cultural and natural heritage with exceptional value worldwide. Therefore it can be argued that it is not UNESCO’s task to critically contemplate how safeguarding is achieved. However, because UNESCO does interfere with the safeguarding of World Heritage sites after damage, for instance in the Kathmandu Valley in 2015, they do seem to feel it is their task to make sure the restoration of World Heritage is in line with their ideas of restoration.
44 reconstructed after it had collapsed does not demote the value of the site, according to UNESCO. ICOMOS has a slightly more critical attitude towards authenticity, falsification and profound modification in its evaluation report: it mentions that parts of the World Heritage site are reconstructions, or at least racially restored. In Brandi’s Theory it is stressed that historical accuracy, historical layering and the originality of the building are ‘sacred’. For the 1997-1999 restorations in general it means that the performed restorations are lauded, because the sacredness of the building and its artefacts were recovered. The fact that Assisi became UNESCO World Heritage afterwards raises awareness for both its cultural value and its vulnerability.
The analysis of the case study in this chapter has focused on the 1997-1999 restorations of the
Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi with the aim to see what the restoration can say about the notion on heritage in Italy in that decade. From the value assessment of the building appears that the Basilica is of important cultural-historical value: it is a unique building because it represents the development of art history and it express the development of the religious order at the site. To this cultural-historical value contributes the buildings unique ensemble of upper and lower church, of the building and the landscape, and of the building and its artefacts. The building has remained remarkably authentic, especially from a material point of view. It could be argued that, because of the immeasurable cultural-historical value, the restorations have been performed in a predominantly traditional way, repairing the damage and not falsifying lost parts.
However for the reconstruction of the broken frescoes the restorers have called for digital help. This means that the notion of heritage adopted for this project was almost identical to Brandi’s. However, due to the need to solve the giant jigsaw of the scattered frescoes help from various scientific/technical disciplines was also required. This opened up the way for interdisciplinary restoration. The analysis of the restoration in L’Aquila in the next chapter will show that this development has been continued in the new millennium.
45 CHAPTER 3 CASE STUDY OF THE BASILICA DI COLLEMAGGIO IN L’AQUILA
L’Aquila is the capital of the Abruzzo region in central Italy, with approximately seventy thousand inhabitants. This typical medieval city, with a fortified centre, was erected in the thirteenth century.159 On 6
April 2009, an earthquake with a 6.3 magnitude on the scale of Richter destroyed the majority of the historical city centre and twenty-five percent of its inhabitants became homeless.160 Immediately after the earthquake, the Protezione Civile (‘Civil Protection’) appointed L’Aquila a zona rossa, a high environmental risk area, thus closing the entire historical city centre and forcing all inhabitants to leave the town.161 Among the collapsed buildings is the Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio, a Romanesque church built in 1283-88
(see image 3.1 for an bird eye overview, and image 3.2 for the façade).162 The damaged church was included in a list of forty-five endangered monuments, composed by the MiBACt (Ministero dei beni e delle attività culturali e del Turismo, ‘Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities and Tourism’), to ensure the supervision of the restoration of this highly valued cultural heritage. The site’s importance is not only derived from its religion function, but also from its significance for the local identity. The damage of the Basilica after the earthquake in 2009 was severe: supporting structures, the dome and part of the transept collapsed.
Nevertheless, the restoration of the Basilica started in 2014. Carbonara has argued that the restoration of a site must become an interdisciplinary affair, in which technical disciplines are connected with historic and theoretical disciplines.163 This chapter will examine the extent to which Carbonara’s approach has been applied during the restoration of the Basilica.
For the funding of the restoration, the MiBACt set up a system in which each monument could be
“adopted” by a (Italian) city or company. Thereupon, the Basilica was “adopted” by Italian performers -
Artisti uniti per l'Abruzzo (‘Artists united for Abruzzo’) - who made a cover album to raise funds for the
159 ‘La Storia.’ Città di L’Aquila.
46 restoration.164 Italy’s Prime Minister, Silvio Berlusconi, promised immediately after the earthquake that new housing would be available within three months. Simultaneously, the European Union funded several million euros to support the reconstruction of the Abruzzo region, including L’Aquila.165 However, five years after the earthquake nothing in the historical city centre was restored. Instead, Berlusconi had provided for the construction of L’Aquila “New Town”: forty-five hundred new houses – supposedly earthquake proof – in the outskirts of L’Aquila. However, these buildings rapidly started to show signs of deterioration with balconies falling down, because of poor building management.166
In 2013, Eni initiated a project to fund and to supervise the restoration of the Basilica di Collemaggio.
Eni is an Italian multinational company in oil and gas with their headquarters in Rome, founded in 1953 and privatised in 1998.167 The project started with an examination of the structure, which led to an extensive list of damage that had to be restored, including the restoration of columns, the reconstruction of the pillar and the triumphal arch, stiffening of the roof in the area of the nave, reconstruction of the roofs and vaults of the transept, recovery of the apse and side chapels and restoring all damaged walls. This case study will focus on the restoration of the Basilica di Collemaggio, with the main goal to analyse the process of restoration of the Basilica that aims to be finished at the end of 2017. Why did it take so long for the restorations to start and how were the restorations performed? To be able to answer these questions, an overview of the history of the Basilica di Collemaggio before the earthquake of 2009 and an analysis of the main functions and stakeholders of the building are included. How do the used theories and the significance of the restorations relate to the identity of the building and that of the stakeholders? Through the analysis of the history of the building, which defines the historical layering of the site, combined with the analysis of the used restoration theories, it can be determined what this restoration means for the identity of the building and for the stakeholders, such as the local community.
164 ‘Dove sono i fondi per l’Aquila.’ La Stampa. 20 July 2010,
47 3.1 The history of the Basilica di Collemaggio
The Basilica di Collemaggio is located on a hill just outside the city walls: Collemaggio is a composition of the Italian words ‘Colle di Maggio’ (Hill of May). The building was erected in the late thirteenth century by the initiative of Pietro Da Morrone during the origination of L’Aquila. Pietro Da Morrone was the founder of the Celestine order and his election to become Pope Celestine V in 1294 marks the first important event at the site of the Basilica.168 After his death in 1296, Pope Celestine became canonized and his remains were buried in the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio.169 While the location of the Basilica stresses the buildings urban value, the fact that a catholic order was erected at the site, and that the site has been occupied as religious site since the Medieval times, shows that there has been spiritual development at the site which gives it also cultural-historical value.
The Basilica is the most impressive church in Romanesque style in L’Aquila. The façade, which is asymmetric because of the cut-off tower on the right (image 3.2), dates from the fifteenth century, and is carried out in pink and white limestone in a cruciform pattern.170 The right side of the façade shows the remains of an octagonal bell tower that was destroyed after an earthquake in the nineteenth century. In 1873 the remains of the tower were conserved and the top was flattened so that it would look less like a ruin and became more integrated into the architecture of the façade (see image 3.2).171 The façade is built in a different style than the rest of the church: the use of stone and the colour varies. Records on the history of the Basilica are unclear, therefore it is unknown when exactly this façade was built.172 In the façade there are three portals: a large door in the middle, with on both sides a smaller door; the decorations of the doors are slightly different.
The builders used some tricks to divide the surface into smaller pieces, with the use of pilasters and three friezes. The façade contains three different rose-windows: one big and two smaller ones.173 The plan of the
168 Jeffrey H. Denton. Robert Winchelsey and the Crown 1294– 1313, 2002, p. 66; Celestine V was Pope for only five months, and until the resign of Pope Benedict XVI in 2013 Celestine V was the only Pope ever to resign from the job. 169 ‘Saint Celestine V.’ Brittanica Encyclopedia.
48 Basilica is traditional (see image 3.3): the church consists of a nave with two side aisles, divided by a row of connected columns at both sides longitudinally. These ‘rows of column’ serve to support the wooden roof structure (see image 3.5, 3.7, 3.8 and 3.9).174 At the far end of the nave, a transept with a dome and three apsides are located. Distinctive of this Basilica is the use of the pink and white limestone in both the façade and on pavement inside the church (see images 3.2 and 3.8).
As a result of the countless earthquakes in this region, many parts of the Basilica have collapsed before and have been rebuilt over time, which makes the building a collection of different construction stages and consequently a mixture of architectural styles.175 For instance, after the earthquake of 1703, that wiped out the complete historical city centre and made the transept of the Basilica collapse, decorative elements in baroque style were added to the building (see images 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6).176 255 years later, L’Aquila was struck by a severe earthquake with a 5.0 magnitude on the scale of Richter.177 The damage at the dome of the
Basilica after the earthquake of 1958 had to be restored for the Basilica to become functional again. The quake of 1958 led to a long period of reconstruction and restoration: in the early 1960s, the restorers first decided to demolish the dome and to reconstruct it in armoured concrete. This was a controversial resolution and highly debated by scholars of that time.178 In the 1960s, it was common to use concrete in old buildings, with the aim to reinforce them. However, as was the case in Assisi as well, concrete moves differently during a quake than wood and armoured concrete is also heavier than wood. The combination of direction and intensity of the quake, combined with the heavy concrete inside the structure has shown to be devastating during a severe earthquake, and thus the concrete beams did not work and even did more damage to the structure rather than reinforcing it.179 This is seen not only in L’Aquila, but was also one of the reasons several vaults in the Basilica of Assisi collapsed.180 Trough the numerous restorations, the building shows
174 ‘Il progetto.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio.
49 the history of the area and is therefore of historical value. In terms of flawlessness, the Basilica is not known to be authentic in material. But in design on the other hand, it is an exceptional example of the development of local architectural styles. Therefore the building is valued as unique.
In the 1960s another controversial decision was made. The restorers removed all the baroque additions, because the building was to be brought back to its original, Romanesque state.181 The restorers of that time had chosen for this approach, because they were convinced valuable frescoes would be hidden underneath; a conviction that turned out to be false.182 The baroque additions were considered falsifications of history, but with their removal, a layer of the history of the site was removed and thus the historical layering of the building, and also indirectly the identity of the church, was altered. For the same reason, Cesare Brandi advises in Theory not to remove additions. It can be concluded that the 1960s restoration was not in alignment with Brandi’s theory, but more with Viollet-le-Duc. It can therefore be assumed that Brandi’s Theory was not yet the prevailing standard when it was first published in 1963. The decision to use armoured concrete and to remove the additions in the baroque style were not only controversial then, they still are: contemporary scholars, such as Carbonara, argue that the history of a building should not be changed, because removal is not reversible. Reversibility is an important factor in changing structures, because reversibility assures that the historical readability and historical layering remains intact. However, with the introduction of the Testo
Unico it became more acceptable to change structures in order to make them stronger.
What can be deduced from Brandi’s Theory though, possibly because this was part of the restoration discourse of the time, is that the historical and artistic values of the artefact were at stake. Apparently, it was acceptable to remove Baroque additions if this meant that the “oneness” (the unity of the artefact) would be recovered.183 The new interior can be considered to be falsification, but, according to Brandi, if falsification means a restoration of the unity of an artefact, it is allowed.184
181 Chiese Barocce Provincia dell’Aquila.’ Regione Abruzzo. 182 Ibidem. 183 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 66. 184 Idem, p. 87.
50 3.1.1 Functions and stakeholders
The Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio represents a place where religion, culture and social life merge.
Its main function is to serve as a site where the Catholic religion is being practised. The most important stakeholder for this function is the local community. They are the people using the building most of the time for religious festivities such as services and annual feasts. This function and use define the characteristics of the identity that the church represents; the building is a beacon for L’Aquila.
For the religious function the community of Assisi can be divided into two separate stakeholders:
Catholics living in the area of L'Aquila and, Catholics of the Celestine order. Since the establishment of the zona rossa after the 2009 earthquake, parts of the historical city centre have been reopened again. However, image 3.11 shows the most recent delimitation of October 2016 that makes clear that still many parts of the city need to be restored in order to make it safe.185 Although the Basilica was not incorporated in the zona rossa, the main function of the Basilica became superfluous because the stakeholders had to depart, leaving the monumental building as a ruin without a function. This is contrary to the restoration in Assisi, where the church remained open. The inhabitants of L’Aquila are not able to access the site during the restoration, because the building is unstable. Once the restorations will be finished, the Basilica of L’Aquila will be performing its main function again. Another difference with the restoration of the Basilica of Assisi is that the local community of L’Aquila is not directly involved in the restoration process. However, in order to keep the local community up to date, Eni initiated a social media project on which both visitors of the site, local inhabitants and restorers could post pictures and blogs on the website of ‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’.
The website is a platform that collects all memories of the site, through testimonials such as Tweets and images. Due to the impossibility to visit the site during the restorations, the website functions as an alternative to involve (local) people.
The Vatican is stakeholder in every catholic church in Italy, because it owns all the buildings. As a stakeholder in the restoration process, the Vatican holds its own restoration office in order to prevent malicious restoration of ecclesiastical heritage. In the case of L’Aquila, this meant that the Vatican had to approve the restoration plan. Nonetheless the Vatican is not involved in the reconstruction project of the
185 ‘Delimitazione della zona rossa del centro storico, aggiornamento del 6 ottobre 2016.’ Città di L’Aquila. 6 October 2016,
51 Basilica on the level of carrying out restorations. So, tentatively it can be argued that the Vatican is not an important factor during this restoration.
Another stakeholder that is involved in carrying out the restorations of the Basilica is Eni. The gas and oil company became a stakeholder after it had initiated and financed the restoration of the Basilica in
2012.186 Eni is an extraordinary stakeholder because it does not have a special bond with the town, nor with heritage; instead Eni’s role in the project can be described as an instance of ‘corporate social responsibility’, or sustainability, insofar as it wants to ‘encourage a sustainability culture and the realisation of projects tied to the protection of the environment, communities, territories and technological innovation’.187 Corporate social responsibility means managing a business aimed at making profit, protecting people and preserving the planet. To achieve this, several activities can be carried out, such as entering into a partnership with local communities, like Eni has done in L’Aquila, but also protecting the environment and investing socially responsible. Doing this is important for multinationals such as Eni, because brand awareness increases through sustainability. This means that through Eni’s sponsorship, the multinational generates positive attention, which leads to more trust from clients, consumers and employees.188 Being the “saviour” of
L’Aquila is therefore beneficial for Eni’s image. The choice for L’Aquila is in line with Eni’s requirement that it only initiates projects that are located in a country where they operate. However, it is very likely that
Eni chose L’Aquila because it became negatively known after 2009 as a symbol for problems. Unlike
Berlusconi, who intentionally (mis)used L’Aquila’s problems to repair his own image, Eni became associated with L’Aquila to brand its own company.189 At the same time the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio is perfect to try the interdisciplinary approach with the emphasis on strengthening the structure. Given the fact that the Basilica does not contain art historical masterpieces, it is an acceptable building experiment with. Un
Giorno a Collemaggio responds to Eni’s goal to sustain communities and aims to save and repair the local culture and identity.190 With the project, Eni also serves the stakeholder groups ‘local community’ and the
186 ‘Eni e la città dell’Aquila presentano il progetto di restauro della Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio.’ ENI. 1 September 2014,
52 Vatican, because Eni wants to preserve the community of L’Aquila through restoring the Basilica, which will allow it to perform its main function again.
Eni is in charge of deciding the character of the reconstructions.191 The Rome-based company stipulated which other parties were to be involved, and therefore how the restorations were to be performed: it chose to cooperate with La Sapienza, a university based in Rome, that provided a theoretical framework,
Politecnico from Milan, which is a technical university, and the local University of L’Aquila, which had suffered itself from the earthquake.
Unlike in Assisi, tourism plays a very limited role in L’Aquila. Tourists visit the Abruzzo region mostly for skiing and other winter sports, whereas cultural tourism only takes place to a very limited extent.192
So, the number of tourists that visit the Basilica is negligible and therefore it does not affect the function of the Basilica like it affects the Basilica in Assisi. In addition, none of the stone elements, frescoes, plaster, the wooden doors and metallic elements in the Basilica di Collemaggio are made by important, internationally known artists. Therefore, it is not a ‘church-museum’ like the Basilica of Assisi. For the same reason the
Basilica di Collemaggio is not listed as UNESCO World Heritage. However, it has been listed as a national monument by the Ministry of Public Education (Ministero della pubblica istruzione) since 1902, because the structure does hold historical and artistic importance for the local community.193
So in terms of value assessment, L’Aquila’s Basilica has an urban value in representing a landmark for the local identity. Furthermore the building is a historical contribution to L’Aquila’s identity, mainly because the church is among the oldest constructions of the city. In addition, the building is of historical value because it is important for the local architectural history and because the Basilica di Collemaggio represents the historical layering of the Abruzzo region: the building contains many pieces of the different eras in which different building methods, materials and styles were common.194 Furthermore, the Basilica is valuable for the memory of the Celestine order, because the religious order was erected at the site.195 Thus the identity and memory of L’Aquila are interwoven with the Basilica.
191 Enrica Di Battista. ‘Ricostruzione dei beni culturali all’Aquila, lo stato dell’arte.’ ANSA, 6 April 2016,
53 3.2 L’Aquila ‘New Town’
The 2009 earthquake, which made seventeen thousand inhabitants of L’Aquila homeless, had a long and controversial aftermath, which also affected the restoration process of the Basilica. At the time of the earthquake, prime minister Silvio Berlusconi declared that the town would be reconstructed within no time.
Before Eni started ‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’, Berlusconi applied for EU funding to restore L’Aquila: thereupon the Abruzzo region received 493,7 million euro of funding.196 To raise international attention to the afflicted town, Berlusconi moved the G8 summit, which was planned in July 2009 in Sardinia, to
L’Aquila. As a consequence, the suburb that hosted the G8 was quickly renovated; buildings were restored, roads were fixed and even new buildings were constructed, whereas the restoration works at the historical city centre had not started yet.197 Berlusconi, a former real estate entrepreneur decided that it would be better to build an entirely new town. This new town is often referred to as L’Aquila ‘New Town’ and was built instead of renovating the existing structures in the historical city centre. Berlusconi’s idea was to build it
“earthquake proof”.198
Berlusconi’s decision was controversial for several reasons: first, the people of L’Aquila did not want to leave the historical centre when the protezione civile declared it a red zone and the local community wanted to have the historical town reconstructed in order to return. Second, the building of a new town attracted criminal organisations such as the Camorra: corruption had completely kidnapped the reconstruction process of the town.199 Roberto Saviano, journalist and author of the revealing publication Gomorrah (2006), predicted five days after the earthquake that giving Abruzzo so much money would pave the way to corruption: in the so called ‘concrete cycle’ - the speculation of ground and contracts generating subcontracts, the camorristi could easily infiltrate.200 Ten days after the earthquake, L’Aquila set up a team of anti-mafia
196 ‘Working document on Special Report No 24/2012 – The European Union Solidarity Fund’s response to the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake: The relevance and cost of the operations.’ European Parliament – Committtee on Budgetary Control. 23 October 2013,
54 prosecutors that had to prevent organized crime infiltrating into the rebuilding process.201 Corruption has shown to be a recurring problem in Italy. It led to poor building management that caused so much damage in the city centre in the first place. Despite the fact that the local government had tried to prevent corruption, several hundred million euros of EU funding disappeared.202 Therefore, Eni and the Comune di L’Aquila had to sign a newly formulated ‘anti-crime declaration’ before Eni was assigned to restore the Basilica in 2014.203
Another reason that delayed the rebuilding process of the historical buildings was the economic crisis that had started in 2008. With the EU funding gone, the Italian government had to provide money to rebuild the town. However, Italy was seriously affected by the banking crisis, as a result of which not enough money was available.204 The corruption and the failure to rebuild the town has left the inhabitants of L’Aquila desperate. Whereas L’Aquila is still not reconstructed at the time of writing, New Town already starts to fall apart: several reports include incidents of balconies falling down.205
For the Basilica, L’Aquila ‘New Town’ meant a loss of function: without people living in the area, the church could not function as one and thus also its identity was affected. What is more, the Basilica became a symbol of the abuses in L’Aquila, because it remained a ruin for such an extensive period of time before it was taken under Eni’s umbrella to restore and safeguard it for the future. Because of this, the slogans of Eni are particularly relevant: ‘un restauro per costruire il futuro, un progetto per non dimenticarne la storia’ (a restoration to build a future, a project to not forget its history) and ‘diamo alla cultura un’energia nuova’ (we give culture a new energy).206 For the Aquilani, this restoration repairs not only their church, but also the
201 ‘Working document on Special Report No 24/2012 – The European Union Solidarity Fund’s response to the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake: The relevance and cost of the operations.’ European Parliament – Committtee on Budgetary Control. 202 Niels Posthumus. ‘L’Aquila vijf jaar na aardbeving: veel corruptie, trage wederopbouw.’ NRC Handelsblad, 12 January 2014,
55 symbolic value of the Basilica for L’Aquila in which the damage done by the quake becomes incorporated in the identity and historical layering of a building.
3.3 The 2009– 2017 restorations
In this discourse of an earthquake wounding the identity and memory of a local community, literally dislocating society, Eni started a project in 2012 to restore the Basilica in order to give it back to the local community. Initially called ‘Ripartire da Collemaggio’ (to start over from Collemaggio), the project was renamed in 2014 as ‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’ (a day at Collemaggio). As mentioned, the other institutions involved were the University of L’Aquila, the University of Rome La Sapienza and the Politecnico University of Milan. The project was supervised by the ISCR (part of MiBACt).207 In 2013, the University of L’Aquila and Politecnico of Milan started to analyse the condition of the construction. It appeared that the construction of the church – which was still accessible, although no religious services were conducted – was instable and unsafe.208 Consequently, the Basilica was closed.
With the realization of Eni’s operation in 2015, the restoration of the Basilica could finally begin, six years after the collapse.209 The plan was to reconstruct the collapsed parts and reinforce the structure, making the building earthquake proof for the future. With Eni being in charge for the restoration, the company became responsible for the financing too. This is contrary to the restoration of Italian cultural heritage in previous situations, when the Italian government would provide financial means. However, after the banking crisis in 2008, Italy got into a recession that led to retrenchment in expenditure on culture.
3.3.1 Eni’s project ‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’
From the documentary Draquila (2010), but also from numerous newspaper articles published in the five years after the earthquake, emerges that the people of L’Aquila felt forgotten, or even neglected, in the post- earthquake period filled with corruption and without restorations. In this desperate environment, Eni started the project ‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’, that aimed to use the most advanced techniques in order that the
207 ‘Una ricostruzione continua, al passo con la storia.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 5 February 2014,
56 Basilica di Collemaggio could be restored with as little interventions as necessary. To achieve this, the project exists of the combination of an extensive analysis of the structure and of the history of the site, which take into account the historical, cultural, structural and functional aspects of the Basilica and is performed by the
Italian universities involved. The immediate result of the analysis was that the Basilica had to close its doors because its structure turned out to be unstable. The next step was the development of a performance plan of the restoration, in which was decided what, when and how the damage to the Basilica was going to be restored. This was followed by the creation of a digital model that shows the local community what the
Basilica will look like after the restoration is finished. Together, these steps were the preparation for the actual restoration of the building.
The digital model, published in September 2014, shows that the restoration will be carried out in a historical way. The Basilica will be brought back to how it looked before the earthquake, but without affecting previous additions that are still present, such as a couple of baroque elements in the transept. Eni claims that it has developed a new methodology which restricts the amount of restoration to a minimum; through the combination of extensive research and an elaborate digital model, only necessary interventions are performed, so that as much authentic parts as possible can be kept. This is contrary to the previous restoration in the 1960s when all Baroque elements were removed, although this was not necessary for the preservation or conservation of the building. Similarly to the Basilica of Assisi, a digital scanner was used for the reconstruction of the collapsed parts: in Assisi the scanner was used for reconstructing the frescoes and the vault, whereas it was used in L’Aquila to reconstruct the structure.210 As discussed in Chapter 1, Giovanni
Carbonara, lecturer at La Sapienza University argued that restoration had to become an interdisciplinary collaboration in which more profound research is the key for a better end result. According to him, a better end result means restoring with respect for the authenticity of a building, which emphasizes the restriction of the number of interventions during a restoration. This can be achieved by extensive research through which the identity of the building is understood.211
210 ‘Eni e la città dell'Aquila presentano il progetto di restauro della Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio.’ Eni. 1 September 2014,
57 In the extensive study on the Basilica in L’Aquila, carried out in 2004 by Carla Bartolomucci, emerges that there was indeed a lack of proper research into the Basilica. Bartolomucci obtained her PhD in the conservation of cultural heritage at La Sapienza in 2003, and in her publication she argues that a critical examination of the history of the site tends to outline a methodology that could stand as model for the restoration of churches.212 It can be argued, thus, that this project is progressive, or even revolutionary, and that it can perhaps set an example for the methodology in future restorations of religious heritage. The mission statement, mentioned above, confirms indeed that Eni is searching for a new model, or methodology, to restore this type of buildings.
The two motto’s of Un Giorno a Collemaggio about providing a future for the building, recovering its history and culture fit perfectly into the discourse of earthquakes because they show that the restoration of the Basilica is also the restoration of the memory of the local community, that uses the site for different functions. Besides religious service and a place where people meet, the building also represents the local culture. In a sparsely populated area, the restoration is not performed with the only aim to use it, but rather to repair the memory and identity of both the local community and the building after the earthquake and the construction of ‘New Town’. The restoration of this place might lead to other initiatives to restore the houses, which will hopefully allow people to return to live in the historical centre of L’Aquila.213 This underlines the importance of the building for the local community.
3.4 The reconstruction of the Basilica
Before the project group could make a plan on how to restore the Basilica, it first had to establish what exactly needed to be restored. The extensive research on the structure of the Basilica performed by Carla
Bartolomucci was followed by an analysis by La Sapienza. According to Carbonara’s line of thought, a new methodology was chosen in which the project’s aim was to keep the number of adjustments as low as possible, thus only the necessary deterioration was going to be restored. The most important, and visible restoration was the reconstruction of the roof at the place where the dome was located. Instead of rebuilding
212 Carla Bartolomucci. Santa Maria di Collemaggio, p. 11. 213 ‘6 aprile 2014. Il nostro atto di responsabilità è nella ricostruzione che parte dalla memoria.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 4 April 2014,
58 a dome, the restorers choose to replace the gaping hole with a wooden roof structure, similar to the rest of ceiling of the Basilica. To be able to do this, scaffolding was placed throughout the Basilica to support walls, columns and other structures, and a temporary protective covering, as seen from inside on image 3.10, was placed over the Basilica.214
Besides the restoration of the architectural, structural part of the Basilica, Eni is also responsible for the artistic restorations such as stone elements, frescoes, plaster, the wooden doors and metallic elements.215
Unfortunately, there is not much relevant literature available about these artefacts, and also Eni does not provide information about it in their project Un Giorno a Collemaggio. It can be concluded that, unlike the
Basilica of Assisi, the Basilica di Collemaggio is not so much valued for its art. Instead, the structure and function are more important for the local community.
The previous section already pointed out that Eni planned to restore the Basilica di Collemaggio in a historical way, with several invisible changes to improve the strength of the structure and also with some modern adjustments such as heating and lighting, which emphasizes the fact that the building serves the local community. To restore this way is entirely opposite to both Viollet-le-Duc’s and Ruskin’s theories. This restoration aims at returning to the structure’s function. The choice to restore a building provided with modern additions but similar in its appearance, follows from the desire of Italian restorers, but also the stakeholders, to reconstruct a monumental building without major changes in relation to the pre-earthquake situation. This is another confirmation that the Basilica is there for the local community, for whom restoring means recovering from the loss of identity because of the impact of the quakes.
When comparing this type of restoration to Brandi’s Theory, it can be interpreted as falsification: ‘a fake is not a fake until it is recognised as such’.216 According to Brandi, a falsification is only malicious, when someone makes a copy to commit fraud. What is more problematic in Brandi’s eyes, is when the
“oneness” of an artefact gets affected in restoring a building as it was. The oneness of the artefact is, as already emerged above, essential in Brandi’s Theory of Restoration: ‘When both historical and artistic factors are at stake, the reestablishment of the work’s potential oneness should not be pushed so far as to destroy
214 ‘Ripartire da Collemaggio.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 1 September 2014,
59 authenticity: that is, by superimposing a new, inauthentic but overpowering historical reality on the old’.217
Given the fact that Eni decided to keep the number of interventions in the restoration to a minimum to preserve, where possible, the original parts of the building, suits this thought.218 Therefore the columns in the
Basilica have been strengthened, but the appearance of the columns remained unchanged. The choice to restore this way is also in line with Brandi, as he specifically argued in his Theory that in the case of earthquake damage it is accepted to change the structure if that can protect the building for future quakes, as long as this alteration of the structure does not change the look of the artefact.219
The way this restoration is carried out is partly in line with the notion of restoration of Brandi and
Carbonara. If the theory of Viollet-le-Duc would be applied to restore the Basilica, this would mean that the
Basilica would be restored in the original style, which is the Romanesque style, removing every non-
Romanesque feature that is still present and bring the Basilica to ‘Romanesque perfection’. Furthermore the complete Basilica would be restored, including the non–damaged parts. This is contrary to Eni’s project. If the theory of Ruskin and Morris would be applied on the other hand, the Basilica would be left the ruin it was, not restoring it and thus not reconstructing the memory of L’Aquila.
Hence, half a century after the publication of Brandi's revolutionary restoration theory, traces of this theory can still be found in the restoration of both the Basilica of L’Aquila and the Basilica of Assisi.
However, the field of Italian restoration has changed since Brandi first published his Theory, with contemporary scholars such as Carbonara who favour new methods that have an interdisciplinary approach.
So, ‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’ is not only a project that concerns the restoration of the Basilica; it is also concerned with restoring the identity of L’Aquila and conserve the history of the building for the future.
217 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 66. 218 ‘Ripartire da Collemaggio.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 219 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 51.
60 CONCLUSION
This research aimed to compare the restoration and rebuilding process of the churches of Assisi and L’Aquila and to demonstrate the consequences of these cases for the interpretation of Italy’s notions of preserving its religious heritage. Both Basilica’s date from the thirteenth century and they also have in common that a
Catholic order was erected at the sites. In Assisi this was the Franciscan Order, and in L’Aquila it was the
Celestine Order. Another aspect both structures have in common is that they both were damaged and restored after earthquake trauma. The case studies have shown that, while similar types of heritage were involved, the nuances of what is important during the restoration have shifted in the two decades that separate them.
A fundamental difference, external to the notion of restoration and preservation of religious heritage, is the economic situation in each case: the Basilica in Assisi partly collapsed in 1997 and in 1999 the restorations were finished. This restoration was financed by the Italian government and the European Union.
The Basilica in L’Aquila collapsed in 2009 and the restorations are taking at least four times longer and are planned to be completed in late 2017. This restoration was initially financed by a crowdfunding and by the
European Union. The amount of money made available at both restorations is significantly different. In
L’Aquila there was over ten times more money available, however the money disappeared because of organised crime, so the restorations were delayed until Eni initiated and financed the restoration project. It can be assumed that the economic crisis of 2008, and the recession that followed, have a key role in this difference in speed and character of the restorations.
The restoration of Assisi was carried out before and that of L’Aquila after the economic recession of 2008. This means that the way the restorations were funded, and also the amounts of financial means each site received differed considerably. In Assisi the funding was organised by the state and the EU; L’Aquila received an extensive amount of money from the EU and national initiatives. Almost all of L’Aquila’s funding, which was significantly more than in Assisi, disappeared through corruption, leaving L’Aquila – and thus the Basilica – in ruins for years. In 2012, Eni initiated the restoration of the Basilica in L’Aquila, as part of a sustainability project for multinationals. It can be concluded that in the last two decades there has been a change in money flow: it is no longer the Italian government who is fully funding the restorations.
After the recession they could not afford to do this anymore, so solutions had to be found. Eni’s project is not an individual project, but it is part of a larger development “corporate social responsibility” or
61 “sustainability”. The conclusion that the source of money had changed was very recently confirmed in Assisi, when a crowd funding initiative was launched to generate money for future restorations at the Basilica.
The change of funding money is related to another difference between the restorations performed in
Assisi and L’Aquila, which concerns the administrative organisation of the Regioni: Assisi is the Regione
Umbria, while L’Aquila is in Abruzzo. After 1999, so in the final stage of the restoration of Assisi and with the implementation of the new legislation for cultural heritage the power in the Italian government has been decentralized. The government became responsible for the protection of religious heritage, but the Regioni are responsible for the assessment of the restoration plans. For Assisi this did not affect the restoration process, but for L’Aquila it did: Abruzzo is a less wealthy Regione with less means for restorations. The case of L’Aquila has shown that the decentralization of the restoration process can lead to inequalities, because the Regioni are not equally capable to provide financial means for high quality restorations.
From both case studies and the historical overview emerged that the media always affected heritage, and consequently the notion on it, in Italy. Through this thesis it appeared that Mussolini and Berlusconi were both very keen on using the media in order to set an image of heritage, but also after the earthquakes in
Assisi and L’Aquila the media was involved. In Assisi the entire world talked about the loss for art history, and how important the Basilica and the artefacts in Assisi were. Whereas in L’Aquila the documentary
Draquila showed the other side of the coin. This, combined with the fact that media writes about restorations and the quality of it, makes the media also a kind of actor in the establishment of a notion of heritage.
The accessibility of the site in both restorations was also different. In L’Aquila the Civil Protection had declared the historical city centre a “red zone”, while the site in Assisi remained accessible during restorations. In Assisi the visitors were directly involved in the way the collapsed vaults had to be restored, for instance through a survey but also because visitors could enter the rooms in which a giant jigsaw was solved. In L’Aquila on the other hand, the local community was not involved in the way the restorations had to be performed, because they could not access the site. As a result a negative attitude towards actors involved in heritage restoration was created, because it was not a fluent and transparent process which made the local community feel less connected and involved in the project. Eni tried to prevent this, by setting up the website
‘Un Giorno a Collemaggio’, on which people could post stories and pictures.
The two case studies were placed in a theoretical framework, which was outlined in the first chapter, in order to investigate the historical process towards the restoration of the Basilica of San Francesco and the
62 Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio. There is not one theorist in Italy who decides which is the best way to perform a restoration, but there seems to be a dominant theorist. The authors discussed in the first chapter are Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc, Boito, Brandi and Carbonara. Their theories can be placed in a spectrum that exists between historical and artistic restoration, anti-restoration and interdisciplinary restoration theory. In present day restoration theory in Italy, Carbonara, who continues on Brandi’s Theory, is the leading scholar.
He sets a different discourse in which restoration is not only about the actual performing restorations or repairing damage in a certain way. According to Carbonara, restoration includes more aspects, such as memory, identity, history and social life. The interdisciplinary approach was first used during the restorations of Assisi, but becomes more visible during the restoration of L’Aquila. The interdisciplinary character becomes visible in the involvement of the University of L’Aquila, a local actor teaching among other courses engineering related subjects, the Sapienza University of Rome for the theoretical discipline and Politecnico from Milan for technical knowledge. In the case studies of Assisi and L’Aquila aspects of different theories can be recognised, but present are Carbonara and Brandi’s theories. In Assisi, Brandi’s theory can be found in the decision to leave the lacunae in the frescoes of the in the restored vaults. In L’Aquila, Brandi’s theory can be traced back in the prevention of falsification by reconstructing the previous removed Baroque elements.
From the historico-theoretical framework has emerged that the Italian field of restoration is one of extremes, namely old fashion legislation (the pre-Testo Unico legislation) and conservative restoration versus legislation that enables changes to structures and interdisciplinary approach (the post-Testo Unico legislation). As a consequence, the restoration field of the last twenty years is fragmented. Due to the many different theories, charters, legislation and stakeholders involved, there are different notions on cultural heritage that co-exist. Because of this, not only have the restorations in Assisi and L’Aquila been carried out differently, the process towards them and the public debate surrounding them have been remarkably different as well.
A key document from which the Italian notion on heritage can be partly derived is the Restoration
Charter of 1972. In this guide is established that heritage concerns every work of art, broken, intact or restored, and that restoration must be performed to keep the artefact readable. The readability of an artefact is necessary because it shows the historical layering. The Restoration Charter of 1972 also establishes that the Ministry of Cultural Heritage is responsible for safeguarding the artefacts. The case studies of Assisi and
63 L’Aquila have shown that the Restoration Charter is a guide that still sets a framework for restoration in Italy up until today. In Assisi the building was restored in order to make it readable again, without falsifying parts of the frescoes that were lost. In L’Aquila the structure was restored to its previous condition, with invisible additions to strengthen the structure.
When restoring an Italian church, many different stakeholders, or actors, are involved, including the
Vatican, the Italian government, UNESCO and its advisory boards ICOMOS, ICCROM and IUCN. The analysis of the nomination process of Assisi has shown that these internationally known (cultural heritage) organisations each have different definitions of authenticity and falsification, basic concepts in restoration theory. Because of this, it is difficult to compare judgements of UNESCO and its advisory boards about the quality of the restorations. Through analysing them though, it can be said that they value the restoration of
Assisi differently. In L’Aquila on the other hand, Eni and the three universities together defined the concept of authenticity beforehand, so conflicting notions could be prevented. While the Basilica in Assisi was restored under supervision of the ISCR, the restoration of the Basilica in L’Aquila was performed under supervision of MiBACt, with Eni and three Italian universities as executors. The restorations in Assisi experimented with an interdisciplinary approach that was further elaborated during the restoration of
L’Aquila, and can therefore explain the shift in supervision. Given the fact that many disciplines were involved in L’Aquila, combined with the decentralisation of power of the ISCR, it was necessary to have another supervisor in order to have proper supervision on the project. The “supervisor 2.0” needed to be able to understand all disciplines involved, both the cultural and the technical universities in the case of L’Aquila.
The definition of heritage in Italian legislation was updated during the restoration of Assisi, and it now specifically defines that cultural heritage in danger of natural disaster is allowed to have the structure improved in order to conserve it. For L’Aquila this change in legislation meant the strengthening of the structure with use of the interdisciplinary approach of the Politecnico of Milan could be applied easier, because it was legally allowed.
The slow restoration process of L’Aquila, compared to the rare speed of restoring the Basilica of
Assisi, already presumes that the first is considered less valuable, both art historically and economically. This was stressed with the UNESCO World Heritage nomination of the Basilica of Assisi, which received the label after the restoration in 2000. The Basilica in L’Aquila is, and remained, ‘just’ a national monument. In
Assisi, the erection of the Franciscan order (a large catholic order) and the building’s function as art museum
64 made it worth nominating for the UNESCO label. L’Aquila, on the other hand, is important mostly for the local history, and local community. Tourism does not affect this site like it affects Assisi, because L’Aquila’s
Basilica is not as important for art history given that no important artists have worked on this building, nor is the order erected there is as large as the Franciscan order. So, it could be argued that L’Aquila has been an ideal case to experiment with the interdisciplinary approach based on extensive analysis of the church’s structure and history beforehand, because unlike in Assisi, there were less international valuable artefacts at stake.
While the main function of both Basilica’s is religious service, they also function as symbols for local identities. The restoration of Basilica’s that suffered earthquake trauma is not only about repairing physical damage, it is also about repairing the local memory. Especially in L’Aquila the memory and identity aspect of the building play key roles. Besides its function, the restoration of the structure by Eni became the symbolic start to restore the entire city centre, so that L’Aquila can function as a town again. In Assisi, the heritage was seen as the most important thing to restore after the earthquake, while in L’Aquila, heritage was not the top priority because the homeless inhabitants were the most important to rescue first.
In Assisi there is another important function that affects the notion of heritage: it functions as a touristic ‘church-museum’, which means there are different actors involved: heritage tourists, pilgrims and employees. With so many different actors, as many different notions of heritage become visible. Likewise the idea of how to treat this heritage is also differently. For the tourist, heritage is an aesthetical object, for a religious order religious heritage is primarily an instrument to practise religion. The case of Assisi has shown that the public debate is involved as well in forming an Italian notion of religious heritage. The public debate, especially the tone of it, has been very different in Assisi and L’Aquila: in Assisi the restorations have been lauded internationally for its quality and the relatively short period it took to restore the vaults, while in
L’Aquila the restorations, especially their delays, have been criticized in the national media over and over.
The public opinion affects the notion of heritage and the importance of restoration.
Cesare Brandi’s Theory of restoration can be considered a key text in the history of Italian restoration theory. Giorgio Croci’s texts on the other hand are of a more recent time, and offer a technical approach to restoration. This development is in line with the progress in contemporary restoration theory: in the Italian context, Giovanni Carbonara transformed restoration theory into an interdisciplinary subject. With more disciplines involved, an analysis of stakeholders, functions and a buildings’ history is essential in order
65 to have a qualitative result. So it can be concluded that the restoration theory slightly shifted from Brandi in
Assisi towards Carbonara in L’Aquila.
No matter which notion on heritage one complies, one thing that all parties involved have in common is their wish to ‘transfer’ heritage to the future. In L’Aquila the aim of the restoration is to give the building back to the community. To conclude, the restoration and rebuilding process of the churches of Assisi and
L’Aquila have proven to be very distinctive of each other. Two decades have proven to be a period in which transition in how to preserve heritage can significantly change. For the interpretation of Italy’s notion of preserving its religious heritage this meant a change in what aspects are important for heritage: not solely the aesthetic values, but also its intangible values. The development of restoration as an interdisciplinary subject is good for the quality of future restorations, for instance because better research into the structures’ history is central in interdisciplinary studies. But also because new ways to map out damage or decay can bring problems to the surface that otherwise would have been missed. On the other hand unnecessary interventions can be prevented. So for future restorations, for instance in Amatrice, it is recommended to further develop the interdisciplinary character of restoration in order to safeguard the “complete package” of cultural values.
66 BIBLIOGRAPHY
‘6 aprile 2009. La terra trema: 309 morti e migliaia di sfollati.’ Rai News. 5 April 2014,
370bb9318f91.html>, accessed 10 April 2017. ‘6 aprile 2014. Il nostro atto di responsabilità è nella ricostruzione che parte dalla memoria.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 4 April 2014, ‘Advisory Body Evaluation (ICOMOS)’, ICOMOS. 30 June 1999, ‘Amatrice.’ I Borghi più belli d’Italia. 2 October 2016, Antonini, Orlando. I terremoti Aquilani. Tau Editrice, 2010. Ashworth, Gregory J. ‘Heritage, identity and places for tourists and host communities’, Tourism and host communities, edited by Shalini Singh, Dallen J. Timothy and Ross K. Dowling (Eds.), Routledge, 2002, pp.79-97. ‘Assisi Basilica reopens.’ BBC News. 28 November 1999, ‘Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and Other Franciscan Sites’, UNESCO. 2000, Assmann, Aleida. ‘Memory, Individual and Collective’, The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly (eds.), Oxford University Press, 2006, pp. 210-224. Baldini, Luisa. ‘L’Aquila after the earthquake: Why flags do not fly.’ BBC News, 25 June 2013, 67 Bartolomucci, Carla. Santa Maria di Collemaggio: interpretazione critica e problem di conservazione. Palombi editori, 2004. Basile, Giuseppe, Paola Santopadre. Giotto com’era : il colore perduto delle Storie di San Francesco nella Basilica di Assisi. De Luca Edizioni d'Arte, 2007. ‘Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. Bohlen, Celestine. ‘Assisi Holds Its Breath, and Rebuilts Treasures.’ New York Times, 25 October 17, 29 October 2016. Boito, Camillo and Cesare Birignani. ‘Restoration in Architecture : First Dialogue.’, Future Anterior : Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory and Criticism, vol. 6, no. 1, 2009, pp. 68-83. Bonsanti, Giorgio. Assisi: Die Deckenfresken der Oberkirchen von San Francesco. Translated by Anton Ebner, Hirmer Verlag, 1997. Blom, Anita. ‘Stedenbouwkundig erfgoed.’ Eenheid en verscheidenheid : Een zoektocht naar een integrale cultuurhistorische waardestelling van het materiële erfgoed. RCE, 2012, pp. 24-29. Brandi, Cesare. Theory of Restoration. Translated by Cynthia Rockwell, Nardini, 2005. Brubaker, Rogers, and Frederick Cooper. ‘Beyond Identity’, Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, 2000, pp. 1-47. Carbonara, Giovanni. ‘The integration of the image: problems in the restoration of monuments.’, Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996, pp. 239-243. Carbonara, Giovanni. ‘An Italian contribution to architectural restoration.’ Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 12, no. 1, 2015, pp. 2-9. 68 Carbonara, Giovanni. ‘Ordinario di restauro architettonico presso l’Università degli Studi.’ XIX Giornata Nazionale dei Beni Culturali Ecclesiastici – Restauro di Chiese e attenzione della committenza, 16 and 17 May 2012, CEI Centro Congressi, Rome. Conference. Caliente, Massimo. ‘Collemaggio, scarsa sicurezza su scossa importante basilica chiusa fino a restauro completo.’ Il Comune di L’Aquila, 9 August 2013. Press conference. Accessed 2 January 2017. ‘Chiese Barocce Provincia dell’Aquila.’ Regione Abruzzo. Baro2132&tom=132>, accessed 2 January 2017. ‘Chiese Medievali Provincia dell’Aquila.’ Regione Abruzzo. 256&tom=256>, accessed 2 January 2017. ‘Consigli per i lavori di restauro.’ Chiesa Cattolica Italiana. /pls/cci_dioc_new/v3_s2ew_consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=20487>, accessed 31 October 2016. ‘Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of the Convention 1954.’, UNESCO. 14 May 1954, URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html>, accessed 19 October 2016. Cooper, Donal and Janet Robson. The Making of Assisi: The Pope, the Franciscans and the Painting of the Basilica. Yale University Press, 2013. ‘Costituzione di una Commissione d’indagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio storico, archeologico, artistico e del paesaggio.’ Legge 26 April 1964, no. 310. 164, Croci, Giorgio. ‘General methodology for the structural restoration of historic building: the cases of the Tower of Pisa and the Basilica of Assisi.’ Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 1, nr. 1, 2000, pp. 7-18. 69 Croci, Giorgio. ‘Emergency Stabilization of the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi’, Cultural Research Management, vol. 23, no. 6, 2002, pp. 30-32. Croci, Giorgio and Mario Biritognolo. ‘The restoration of the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi.’, 1999. Cross, Julia. ‘After the quake comes a miracle’, The Times (London), 13 November 1999, LexisNexis® Academic, accessed 10 January 2017. ‘Delimitazione della zona rossa del centro storico, aggiornamento del 6 ottobre 2016.’ Città di L’Aquila. =139&id_sez_ori=52&template_ori=6&>p=1>, accessed 2 January 2017. Denslagen, Wim. Omstreden herstel: kritiek op het restaureren van monumenten: een thema uit de architectuurgeschiedenis van Engeland, Frankrijk, Duitsland en Nederland (1779-1953). Staatsuitgeverij, 1987. Denton, Jeffrey H. Robert Winchelsey and the Crown 1294– 1313. Cambridge University Press 2002. Di Battista, Enrica. ‘Ricostruzione dei beni culturali all’Aquila, lo stato dell’arte.’ ANSA, 6 April 2016, Domanico, Laura. ‘The invisible landscape: subsoil, environment and the Italian legislation on the cultural heritage.’, European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, pp. 159-175. Donadio, Rachel. ‘Pope Visits Devastated Earthquake Zone.’, New York Times, 28 April 2009, ‘Dove sono i fondi per l’Aquila.’ La Stampa. 20 July 2010, 2017. 70 ‘Elf doden, grote schade door aardbeving Umbrië.’, Trouw. 27 September 1997, ‘Emergency Aid granted to restore the church of St. Francis of Assisi, Italy’, European Commission. 1 October 1997, ‘Emergenza, Piano di Protezione civile.’, Città di L’Aquila. ‘Eni: the history of a great company’, Eni. 5 December 2016, ‘Eni e la città dell’Aquila presentano il progetto di restauro della Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio.’ ENI. 1 September 2014, ‘Eni e la città dell'Aquila presentano il progetto di restauro della Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio.’ Eni. 1 September 2014, ?lnkfrm=newssearch>, accessed 5 December 2016. Esposito, Daniela. ‘Decreto legislativo 29 ottobre 1999, n. 490 (Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali ed ambientali, a norma della legge 8 ottobre 1997, n. 352)’, Che cos’è il restauro, edited by B. Paolo Torsello, Marsilio, 2005, pp. 130-134. ‘European Charter of the Architectural Heritage – 1975.’ ICOMOS. 2015, Fancelli, Paolo. ‘Twenty-five years on: still working toward a theory of conservation?’ Conservation Science in Cultural Heritage : Historical Technical Journal, vol. 12, no. 1, 2012, pp. 247-308. ‘Finalità e struttura.’, Chiesa Cattolica Italiana. 4 November 2014, 71 ‘Frescoes May be Unsalvageable’, Saint Paul Poineer Press (Minessota), 16 January 1998, LexisNexis® Academic, accessed 19 November 2016. Gianighian, Giorgio. ‘Italy.’ Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 184-206. Giornale Luce. Sfilata militare in occasione del compleanno del Re. 1932. Newsreel. Istituto Luce Cinecittà. Accessed 4 March 2017. Grisoni, Michela. ‘Camillo Boito (1836-1914).’, Che cos’è il restauro, edited by B. Paolo Torsello, Marsilio, 2005, pp. 95-98. Guzzanti, Sabina. ‘Draquila - L'Italia che trema.’ BiM Distribuzione, 2010. DVD. Haller, Vera. ‘Restoration Of Assisi Frescoes Will Cost Millions, Experts Say.’, Washington Post, 28 September 1997, 2563088> accessed 22 March 2017. Hanley, Anne. ‘A Blessing In Disguise; A year after earthquakes wreaked havoc in Assisi, a massive rescue operation is under way.’, The Independent, 20 December 1998, Harrison, Rodney. Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge, 2013. ‘Il progetto.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 2017. ‘Il turismo religioso non conosce crisi’, Ansa. 2010, ‘Il valore della condivisione.’ ENI. 12 May 2016, Janson, Horst Waldemar, Penelope Davies and Sarah Touborg. Janson’s History of Art: The Western Tradition. 8th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011. 72 Koff, Sondra and Stephen Koff. Italy: From the 1st to the 2nd Republic. Routledge, 2000. La Rocca, Orazio. ‘Restauro Giotto, i Francescani: “La Soprintendenza ha verificato ogni intervento”.’, La Repubblica, 19 February 2015, ‘La Storia.’ Città di L’Aquila. January 2017. ‘Le carte del restauro.’ Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria. Leech, Michael. ‘Assisi after the Earthquake.’ History Today, vol. 49, no. 1, 1999, p. 4. Leijendekker, Marc. ‘Aardbevingsschade wordt niet snel hersteld, weten ze in l‘Aquila.’ NRC Handelsblad, 24 August 2016, ‘L’impegno Eni.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. Longuet, Isabelle and Jean-Marie Vincent. ‘France.’, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 92-112. ‘Luoghi da visitare e guide turistiche.’ Città di L’Aquila, ‘Managing Tourism at World Heritage Sites: a Practical Manual for World Heritage Site Managers’, UNESCO. 2002, October 2016. McBrien, Richard P. Live of the Popes. Harper Collins, 2000. 73 ‘Meeting on Authenticity and Integrity in an African Context’, UNESCO. 2000, Ministero della pubblica istruzione. Elenco degli edifizi monumentali in Italia. Tipografia Ditta Ludovico Cecchini, 1902. ‘Mission Statement.’, Franciscanen. Montanari, Tomaso. ‘Assisi, allarme Giotto: "Quel restauro è una minaccia per gli affreschi’, La Repubblica, 19 February 2015, Napoleone, Lucina. ‘Decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, ai sensi dell’art. 10 della legge 6 luglio 2002, n. 137)’, Che cos’è il restauro, edited by B. Paolo Torsello, Marsilio, 2005, pp. 135-140. Nardella, Dario. ‘I beni e le attività culturali tra Stato e regioni e la riforma del Titolo V della Costituzione.’, Diritto Pubblico, nr. 2, 2002, pp. 671-708. ‘Nel 2009 parlavo d’infiltrazioni camorriste nella ricostruzione dell’Aquila, m’accusarono di essere visionario.’ Roberto Saviano Online. 17 March 2015, ‘Nomination file 990’, UNESCO. 2000, ‘Monumenti Nazionali Italiani.’, Il Touring Club Italiano. Version 5.2.2., 13 August 2016, Palmer, Alasdair. ‘Restoration tragedy’, Calgary Herald, 1 July 2000, LexisNexis® Academic, accessed 19 November 2016. Pedlebury, John. ‘United Kingdom.’, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 289-314. 74 Pickard, Robert. Funding the Architectural Heritage: A Guide to Policies and Examples. Council of Europe Publishing, 2009. Posthumus, Niels. ‘L’Aquila vijf jaar na aardbeving: veel corruptie, trage wederopbouw.’ NRC Handelsblad, 12 January 2014, Price, Nicholas Stanley, M. Kirby Talley Jr and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996. ‘Protocollo d’intesa per la prevenzione dei tentativi di infiltrazione della criminalita’ organizzata in relazione all’intervento denominato ‘ripartire da Collemaggio’.’ Comune di L’Aquila. 15 November 2015, ROTOCOLLO%20D.S._pdf.pdf>, accessed 5 January 2017. ‘Rapport périodique – Deuxième cycle franciscains’, UNESCO. 2014, October 2016. ‘Riapre la Basilica di Assisi sconfitto il terremoto.’, La Repubblica. 27 November 1999, ‘Ripartire da Collemaggio.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 1 September 2014, Rocchi, Giuseppe. La Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi : interpretazione e rilievo. Sansoni, 1982. Rossi, Antonio, Andrea Tertulliani and Maurizio Vecchi. ‘Studio Macrosismico del Terremoto dell’Aquilano del 24 giugno 1958.’ Italian Journal of Quaternary Sciences, vol. 18, nr. 2, 2005, pp. 101- 112. Ruskin, John. The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Smith, Elder, & Co, 1849. 75 ‘Saint Celestine V.’ Brittanica Encyclopedia. Saint– Celestine– V>, accessed 2 January 2017. Saviano, Roberto. ‘La ricostruzione a rischio clan ecco il partito del terremoto.’ La Repubblica, 14 April 2009, February 2017. Scammell, Rosie. ‘Italian art restorer denies damaging medieval frescoes.’, The Guardian, 19 February 2015, ‘Sisma in Abruzzo: il recupero dei monumenti. Elenco dei 45 monumenti adottabili e adottati.’ MiBACt. 2009, Sofia, Alberto. ‘Crollo a L’Aquila, Pezzopane (Pd): ‘Il miracolo di Berlusconi? Solo propaganda’.’, Giornalettismo, 4 September 2014, 2 January 2017. Stanley, Alessandra. ‘Quake-hit Assisi Basilica Restored, but the people aren’t.’. The New York Times, 26 November 1999, Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali e ambientali. Art. 1, n. 352. ‘The Commission proposes granting 494 million euros to Italy to help cope with the aftermath of the Abruzzo earthquake.’, European Commission. 23 July 2009, 1185_en.htm?locale=en>, accessed 2 January 2017. ‘The Criteria for Selection’, UNESCO. 2008, 2016. 76 ‘The Declaration of Amsterdam – 1975’, ICOMOS. 2015, ‘The Venice Charter- 1964’, ICOMOS. 2015, ‘Tutela delle cose d’interesse Artistico o Storico.’ Legge 1 giugno 1939, no. 1089. 1939, 939_n_1089.pdf>, accessed 19 October 2016. ‘Ufficio Beni Culturali’, Diocesi di Orvieto-Todi. /cci_dioc_new/v3_s2ew_consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=20483>, accessed 25 September 2016. ‘Una ricostruzione continua: 1424.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 3 February 2014, ‘Una ricostruzione continua: 1476.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 5 February 2014, ‘Una ricostruzione continua, al passo con la storia.’ Un Giorno a Collemaggio. 5 February 2014, January 2017. ‘UNESCO in a glance’, UNESCO. 2010, 188700e.pdf>, accessed 30 October 2016. Van Ooik, R.H. van and dr. T.A.J.A. Vandamme (eds.). Europese Basisverdragen : eU-Verdrag, EU- Werkingsverdrag, EU-Handvest vd Grondrechten. Kluwer, 2012. ‘What is corporate social responsibility?’ University of Edinburgh. 11 March 2016, 77 ‘Working document on Special Report No 24/2012 – The European Union Solidarity Fund’s response to the 2009 Abruzzi earthquake: The relevance and cost of the operations.’ European Parliament – Committtee on Budgetary Control. 23 October 2013, 2009_2014/documents/cont/dt/1007/1007699/1007699en.pdf>, accessed 20 December 2016. ‘World Heritage Committee’, UNESCO. 2016, October 2016. Winkle, Christine, M., Van. ‘Agents of Change and Visitors’ Perceptions of the Impacts of Tourism at Heritage Sites.’, Eleventh Canadian Congress on Leisure Research May 17-20. 2005, Tom Delamere et.al., CCLR, 2005. ‘World Heritage List Nominations’, UNESCO. 2011, 15 October 2016. Zancan, Niccolo. ‘Nella New Town dell’Aquila: ‘Crolla tutto, ma restiamo qui’.’ La Stampa, 6 April 2016, Zeil, van, Wieteke. ‘Negen monumenten die niet verloren mogen gaan.’ de Volkskrant, 19 November 2016, 78 IMAGES Cover page - Fr. Benedict Hughes CMRI. ‘"Papież" Franciszek kontra św. Franciszek Haniebna karykatura Wielkiego Świętego.’, Ultra Montes, 2015, Image I.1 - ‘Map of central Italy, that covers the Regioni Tuscany, Lazio, Umbria, Le Marche and Abruzzo (Central Italy).’ Map. Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia. INGV, 10 May 2017. Web. 10 May 2017. Image I.2 - Francois Delfosse. ‘Help Rebuild Amatrice’, Les Plus Beaux Villages de la Terre, 6 September 2016, Image 1.1 - Giornale Luce. Sfilata militare in occasione del compleanno del Re. 1932. Newsreel. Istituto Luce Cinecittà. Accessed 4 March 2017. Image 2.1 - Claudio Ricci. ‘Basilica Santa Chiara. Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco and Other Franciscan Sites (Italy)’, UNESCO, 1 January 2003, September 2016. Image 2.2 - Giorgio Croci. The Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage, Wit Press, 1998, p. 170. Image 2.3 - Horst Waldemar Janson, Penelope Davies and Sarah Touborg. Janson’s History of Art: The Western Tradition. 8th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2011, p. 439. Image 2.4 - Giorgio Bonsanti. The Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi: Glory and Destruction. Translated by Stephen Sartarelli, Abrams Books, 1998, p. 24. Image 2.5 – Dennis Jarvis. ‘Italy-1781’, Flickr, 14 October 2010, Image 2.6 - Vittorio Grassi. ‘Assisi: travel poster for Enit’, Wikipedia, 1920, < https://en.wikipedia.org/ wiki/Assisi#/media/File:Assisi,_travel_poster_for_ENIT,_ca._1920.jpg>, accessed 20 November 2016. 79 Image 2.7 - Giorgio Bonsanti. The Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi: Glory and Destruction. Translated by Stephen Sartarelli, Abrams Books, 1998, p. 99. Image 2.8 - Giorgio Croci and Mario Biritognolo. ‘The restoration of the Basilica of St. Francis of Assisi.’, Image 2.9 - Giorgio Croci. ‘General methodology for the structural restoration of historic building: the cases of the Tower of Pisa and the Basilica of Assisi.’ Journal of Cultural Heritage, vol. 1, nr. 1, 2000, p. 15. Image 2.10 - Tomaso Montanari. ‘Assisi, allarme Giotto: ‘Quel restauro è una minaccia per gli affreschi’’ La Repubblica. 19 February 2015, Image 2.11 - Tomaso Montanari. ‘Assisi, allarme Giotto: ‘Quel restauro è una minaccia per gli affreschi’’ La Repubblica. 19 February 2015, Image 3.1 - ‘Basilica of Collemaggio as seen from Google Earth.’ Map. Google Maps. Google, 22 November 2016. Image 3.2 - Ra Boe. ‘L'Aquila, Basilica di Santa Maria di Collemaggio. Außenansicht der Westfassade.’, Wikimedia, 2007, Collemaggio_2007_by-RaBoe-1.jpg>, accessed 25 September 2016. Image 3.3 – Carla Bartolomucci. Santa Maria di Collemaggio: interpretazione critica e problemi di conservazione. Palombi Editori 2004, p. 36. Image 3.4 - M. Moretti. Restauri d’Abruzzo, De Luca Editore, 1972, as viewed in Image 3.5 - M. Moretti. Restauri d’Abruzzo, De Luca Editore, 1972, as viewed in < http://www2.regione.abruzzo.it/xCultura/index.asp?template=imgView&imgF=xBeniCulturali/images/imm agini/22/FOTO11.JPG>, accessed 22 November 2016. 80 Image 3.6 - Orlando Antonini. Chiese dell’Aquila. Architettura religiosa e struttura urbana, Carsa Edizioni, 2004, as viewed in &imgF=xBeniCulturali/images/immagini/22/FOTO42.JPG>, accessed 22 November 2016. Image 3.7 - Orlando Antonini. Chiese dell’Aquila. Architettura religiosa e struttura urbana, Carsa Edizioni, 2004, as viewed in Image 3.8 - Orlando Antonini. Chiese dell’Aquila. Architettura religiosa e struttura urbana, Carsa Edizioni, 2004, as viewed in &imgF=xBeniCulturali/images/immagini/27/67-COLLEMAGGIO.JPG>, accessed 22 November 2016. Image 3.9 - Orlando Antonini. Chiese dell’Aquila. Architettura religiosa e struttura urbana, Carsa Edizioni, 2004, as viewed in 2016. Image 3.10 - ‘Monitoraggio sismico sulla basilica di S. Maria di Collemaggio’, NewsAbruzzo.it. 29 November 2011, Image 3.11 - ‘Delimitazione della zona rossa del centro storico, aggiornamento del 6 ottobre 2016’, Città di L’Aquila. 11 October 2016, _doc=139&id_sez_ori=52&template_ori=6&>p=1>, accessed 22 November 2016. 81 82 I MAGES Image I.1 – Map of central Italy, that covers the Regioni Tuscany, Lazio, Umbria, Le Marche and Abruzzo (Central Italy). Every dot indicates a registered quake with a magnitude higher than or equal to 2.0 on the scale of Richter in the period 1 March 2017 – 10 May 2017. 83 Image I.2 – Ruins of Amatrice together with the sign of the I Borghi più belli association. Image 1.1 - Framing of the Colosseum in a newsreel from 1932. 8 4 Image 2.1 - Overview of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. 8 5 86 Image 2.2 - Plan of Upper Church of Assisi. 87 Image 2.3 – Upper church of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. 2.4 - Schematic overview of side aisles along the length of the nave of the Upper Church in the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. 88 89 Image 2.5 - Basilica Inferiore, the lower church of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. Image 2.6 – Travel poster for Assisi with in the centre the Basilica, from the 1920s by ENIT. 90 91 Image 2.7 - Collapsed vault in the Basilica Superiore in Assisi after the earthquake of 1997. 92 Image 2.8 - Damage on tympanum of the Basilica in Assisi after aftershocks in September (l) and October (r) 1997. 93 Image 2.9 - Large crack in the vault of the upper church in Assisi. Image 2.10 - The crucifixion by Giotto before (l) and after (r) the restorations. Image 2.11 - Sant’Agnese before (l) and after (r) the restorations. 94 Image 3.1 – The Basilica of Collemaggio as seen from Google Earth, before (left) and after (right) the earthquake of 2009. 95 96 Image 3.2 – The façade of the Basilica of Collemaggio, with on the right side the remains of a tower. Image 3.3 - Plan of the Basilica of Collemaggio. 97 Image 3.4 - The interior of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio between 1705-1958. 98 99 Image 3.5 - The interior of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio between 1705-1958. Image 3.6 - The entrance of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio between 1705-1958. 100 Image 3.7 - The interior of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio between 1972-2009. 101 Image 3.8 - The interior of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio between 1972-2009. 102 Image 3.9 - The interior of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio between 1972-2009, the dome collapsed during the earthquake of 2009. 103 10 4 Image 3.10 – The interior of the Basilica with temporary cover constructed by ENI in 2014. 10 Image 3.11 – A map of L’Aquila with the most recent version of the zona rossa. The Basilica di Collemaggio is at the blue cross. 5