ARTHQUAKES, RECONSTRUCTION AND MONUMEN- ETAL HERITAGE Giovanni Carbonara*2 Scuola di Specializzazione in Beni Architettonici e del Paesaggio, “Sapienza” Università di Roma, Rome, Italy Keywords: earthquake, restoration-conservation, reconstruction, small towns, landscape 1. Introduction One of the first misconceptions to be dispelled in addressing the topic under ex- amination, is that of the (presumed) irremediable conflict between ‘conservation’ and ‘safety’ which today, even more so than in the past, carries with it a great many nega- tive consequences. It is rashly exalted by the media and easily adopted as a slogan by several influential political representatives, compromising an approach to the whole issue that should be more rational than emotional. From this misconception comes the serious and irreversible damage done by human hand to what remained of the city of Amatrice after the sequence of three earthquakes between the end of 2016 and early 2017 (recently almost completely razed to the ground) (Figure 1). Figure 1. Amatrice (Rieti) at the beginning of 2018, after the complete mechanical removal of the rubble. It also involved the demolition of the surviving walls of ancient buildings that formed an integral part of the historical fabric but were ‘unlisted’. CONSERVATION SCIENCE IN CULTURAL HERITAGE * Corresponding author:
[email protected] 41 Only the most important churches were saved, as they were considered real ‘monu- ments’ due to the fact they were ‘listed’ and protected by law. It is as if the centuries-old historical fabric were worthless and not, strictly speaking, a ‘monument’ in itself, considered to be “material evidence of civilization” as laid down in the well-known Franceschini declaration of the Italian Parliamentary Commission in 19671.