Actas del Quinto Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción, Burgos, 7-9 junio 2007, eds. M. Arenillas, C. Segura, F. Bueno, S. Huerta, Madrid: I. Juan de Herrera, SEdHC, CICCP, CEHOPU, 2007. Traditional building techniques: the metrological-chronological analysis of XVIth century yellow tuff masonries in (, )

Caterina Giannattasio

THE STATE OF THE ART and modern Age manufactures in Terra di Lavoro; c) those of the late Middle Age in ; d) tho- Grounded on the state of the art in the field of tradi- se of the XVIIIth century in .3 Indeed, in tional building techniques studies, this contribution spite of the efforts made up so far, in Terra di Lavoro aims at showing the results of the inventory and there is no systematic catalogue of the traditional so- analysis of the XVIth century Terra di Lavoro tuff lutions applied during the XVIth century by the local masonries. Structural aspects and executive modali- builders. ties for their setting up are presented. The method adopted has been already applied in several case studies. In details, this kind of approach, THE METHODOLOGY ADOPTED imported by the medieval archaeology, with the stra- tigraphical definition of elevation structures,1 has On the basis of these above mentioned studies, the ap- been tested in the last twenty years in Italy, producing proach used for the chronological definition of the interesting results with reference to limited territorial XVIth century masonries, applied to the homogeneous ambits, concerning modern and contemporary age constructive area of Terra di Lavoro —now corres- constructions.2 It represents a reliable tool for ancient ponding to the Campania plain area, around the Caser- edifices chronological definition, and helping in their ta district— is founded on the analysis of the relevant conservation management especially for the so called literature regarding building materials (geo-morpholo- «minor» architectures, whose cultural meaning is of- gical characteristics literature; history of architecture ten unrecognised. This identification is very impor- essays; local architectural practical treaties) and of ar- tant nowadays, because of the enlargement of «mo- chive sources (masonries masters guilds statutes; no- nument» notion, that includes both instances of tarial acts for the creation of noble or religious edifi- historical-artistical significance, and traditional urban ces, such as private and suppressed monasteries fabric. archives). With specific reference to Campania, in the last de- In details, the study started with the inspection of cade many metrological-chronological studies have the sources held in National archives of all the region, been carried out, pertaining to traditional building never systematically investigated till now, regarding techniques used between the XVth and the XIXth cen- the edifices put up between Middle Ages and Renais- tury (masonries, floors, roofing, window frames, iron sance. From this consultation emerged a copious elements). They deal with: a) post-medieval architec- number of documents referring to the relevant period, tures of historical centre; b) d’Angiò, Aragon so it was necessary to limit the study-area. The choice 402 C. Giannattasio fell back on Terra di Lavoro area, not studied at that two or three courses of rubbles, rough-hewed just in time, selecting some centres, interesting in terms of the external and support faces. The result was an irre- documents, and of the persistence of ancient architec- gular, coarse opus, with horizontal linings generally tures. Among them, is very remarka- distanced 30–60 cm, characterised by thick joints bet- ble,4 characterised by a XVth-XVIth century architec- ween one another, with poor mortar, sometimes sig- tural heritage, with many examples of «minor» ned by not slaked lime nodules. Very often the setting buildings. Hence, the study consisted in the consulta- up of rubble stony elements took place without pa- tion of notarial acts conserved in the State Archive of ying attention to the stagger of vertical joints. , including sell contracts, marriage contracts, Notwithstanding the above mentioned characteris- etc., in which often there is the description of the pro- tics, this typology was the outcome of an ingenious perties, of the typological scheme, and, rarely, of device, conditioned by economical reasons, i.e. by constructive techniques. the aim of making the most of stones of every size, By this way, it has been possible to date and to in- accurately dressing external angles and using hori- dividuate, in Sessa’s historical centre, the manufactu- zontal elements with stabilizing function, warranting, res mentioned in those acts, and to analyse their tech- this way, structural solidity. nological characteristics, relating them to the age in As a matter of facts, after the D’Angiò and the which they were used. Aragona period, marked by accurate and strict works, A systematic sampling has allowed to identify the in the this kind of practice spread. It peculiarities of XVIth century Terra di Lavoro walls. reproposed the roman opus incertum, and it has been In this sense, the drawing has been very useful, illus- used till the XVIIth century, specifically 1688, when trating metrological and morphological characters of the consequences of a strong earthquake imposed the investigated vertical septa. employment of regular courses. In fact already in In short, the research has gone on with: 1564 the viceroy Perafan de Ribera pressed for aban- doning the use of «cantieri», establishing the stone- – the individuation of architectural elements phi- dresser to respect fixed measure to cut stretchers. Ne- lologically dated; vertheless, the practice has lasted further in time. – the check of documentary information consis- The studies concerning the Parthenopean context tency, through the stratigraphical analysis of demonstrated that in Terra di Lavoro the manufactu- material local context; ring followed the common practice in the region. – the editing of catalogue files, completed with architectural, metrical, materical and photo- graphical surveys. THE CASE STUDIES

The metrological classification of elements has been The historical centres investigated for the individua- accompanied by the geo-lithological and metrological tion of significant cases dated to the XVIth century characterisation of stones, the manufacturing, the basic are: , Falciano di Caserta, , , San components of mortar, the type of masonry faces. By Cipriano, , , Orta di , this way, chronological series of traditional building , , Nocelleto, Formi- structural and finishing solutions have been defined. cola, , , Sessa Aurunca, , . All the examples regard yellow or grey tuff, local THE MASONRY TECHNIQUE material directly extracted from the subsoil or taken from neighbouring quarries. They show the use of di- Referring to the given chronological range, the stu- versified size stones and of various manufacturing dies carried out some years ago in relation to Napoli process, i.e., as said before, rubble pieces or regular have been extremely useful.5 These demonstrate that ashlars. It is also frequent the employ of lengthened during the XVIth century masonries with the «cantie- elements, called «spaccatoni», that arrive to an exten- re» technique were very diffused, both in tuff or in li- sion of about 50–55 cm and to an height of 35 cm. mestone. This practice consisted in the preparation of They are especially placed in stressed points or bet- Traditional building techniques of the XVIth century 403

Besides, it was noticed that between the first years and the end of the XVIth century, some characteristics changed: specifically, at the beginning there was a certain continuity with the practice diffused in the XVth century, when walls had a more regular compo- sition, that got lost during the years, and appeared back, sometimes, after the edict of 1564. Significant in this sense is the ex bishop’s palace of Falciano di Caserta,6 erected at the end of the XVIth century on pre-existent constructions, and interested by extension works during the XVIIth century. The explanatory masonry samples for the illustra- tion of this variation are four. They belong respecti- vely to the XVth, the XVIth, the end of the XVIth,the beginning of the XVIIth and the half of the XVIIth cen- tury. Even if the difference among them is subtle, it is possible to appreciate, especially in the first case, a more accurate composition, with very thin horizontal and vertical joints, and ashlars of similar size, quite regularly disposed. The situation changed in the fo- llowing century, when masonry was characterised by more unequal elements, as well as by not staggered and thick joints. Finally, in the XVIIth century quite uniform and lengthened pieces were diffused (fig. 2). The irregularity of the XVIth century masonry is demonstrated by other several exemplars, as S. Mar- cellino Doge’s Palace (figs. 3–4). Figure 1 It is realized with rubble stones of different size, S. Nicola la Strada (Caserta, Italy), Lazaretto. This sample, never rough-hewed, that define a «cantiere» of about in yellow tuff, is representative of the so called masonry 50 cm, generally composed by two courses, someti- «cantieri» technique mes three, when they present little elements (10 × 10, 5 × 12, 14 × 10 cm). The prevailing pieces have a squared shape (20 × 20, 27 × 24). Here there are also ween two courses with connection function. Another planking holes, distanced both horizontally and verti- kind of component are the «asche», little pieces co- cally about 1.70 m. For practical reasons, they are al- rresponding to manufacture discarding, applied to fill ways aligned with the superior limit of the «cantie- empty spaces. re», as frequently it has been verified. Interstices are Between two courses one can find tiny squaring filled with plentiful gross mortar, abundant of not materials, together with a double mortar layer, high- slaked lime nodules; very often vertical joints are lighting the passing from one another, i.e. the closing aligned. of a module of the masonry and the following restar- Very interesting examples are also a wall in S. Ci- ting of the new one. priano di Aversa, a building in Aversa, and the Car- A relevant sample, synthesizing the characteristics melite monastery in Capua, whose comparison makes of XVIth century masonries, is that of S. Nicola La possible to appreciate the peculiarities of each one. In Strada Lazaretto. It is characterized by a rubble sto- details, the first one (fig. 5) has an accurate masonry, nes wall, with evident horizontal planes indicating with irregular ashlar of similar size, disposing in two the passage between two «cantieri». They are high courses, that define «cantieri» high 45 cm. This di- 50–55 cm, prevalent dimension registered in the in- mension is one of the lower discovered so far, toget- vestigated cases (fig. 1). her with that one characterising Aversa’s structure 404 C. Giannattasio

Figure 2 Falciano di Caserta (Caserta, Italy), ex Bishop’s Palace. The drawing exhibits the evolution of masonry technique between the XVth and the XVIIth century

Figure 4 S. Marcellino (Caserta, Italy), Doge’s Palace, lateral front. The sketch highlights the peculiarities of the masonry

tieri» (51–57 cm) with stony elements, in some points piled, of various shape and size, that impose the ma- Figure 3 king of thick joints: specifically, there are regular S. Marcellino (Caserta, Italy), Doge’s Palace, lateral front. blocks, ashlars and rubble stones, in addition to The sample exhibits a yellow tuff masonry, realized with «spaccatoni» and «asche», used for regularizing the «cantieri» technique disposition of elements, with evident static aims (fig. 7). This type of system is used for mixed masonries (fig. 6), where one can see a sort of «mini-cantiere», too, i.e. realized with yellow and grey tuff employed whose minimum height arrives at 33 cm, thanks to simultaneously or in limestone. Those are, for exam- the use of very small stones. Further different is the ple, a building situated in the historical centre of Ses- sample referred to Carmelite, marked by high «can- sa Aurunca,7 as well as of ’s Castle. The first Traditional building techniques of the XVIth century 405

Figure 7 Capua (Caserta, Italy), Carmelite monastery

Figure 5 S. Cipriano di Aversa (Caserta, Italy), wall in via Capasso

Figure 8 Sessa Aurunca (Caserta, Italy), building in via Spine, 14

one, chronologically defined also by finishes datable at the XVIth century, as the portal and the window fra- mes, has been clearly made with meagre resources, overworking every kind of available piece, with the result of complete irregularity. Besides, there are abundant mortar parts —including not slaked lime nodules— arranged thanks to the creation of horizon- tal level surfaces between two different «cantieri», 50 Figure 6 cm high (fig. 8). This last measure comes down in Aversa (Caserta, Italy), via S. Giovanni, 14 Riardo fortress, reducing to 45 cm. Also in this case, 406 C. Giannattasio the limestone wall is composed by different size rub- ble stones, regularized by evident levelled planes (fig. 9). Frequently it has been observed the existence of parts of the construction, generally used for angles, footings or donjons, that are put up using a regular masonry with squared blocks, in limestone or in Campi Flegrei volcanic tuff called «piperno» (fig. 10). They dictate «cantieri»’s height and arrangement, as we can see in the Marcianise bell tower,8 as well as

Figure 11 Marcianise (Caserta, Italy), Bell tower

Figure 9 Riardo (Caserta, Italy), Castle. The structure is in limestone Figure 12 Capua (Caserta, Italy), town walls. Scheme of angle stones and «cantieri» arrangement

in the Capua’s town walls9 or in the Capua castle,10 where we can find the same pattern. In the first case, dated 1574, the footing is in limes- tone, while the upper part shows yellow tuff «can- tieri», whose composition (2 courses) and height (40 cm) is determined by perfectly cut yellow tuff «spaccatoni» (fig. 11). Capua town walls, built in the second half of the XVIth century, has angular elements formed by «pi- perno» blocks, whose height, equal to about 45 cm each, defines a «cantiere» composed by two smaller elements courses. The latter, very regular, allows the definition of fine joints, with a safe static result (figs. 12–13). Figure 10 Capua fortress, built during the Spanish reign by Capua (Caserta, Italy), castle. View of the angular tower Carlo V in the first half of the XVIth century, differs Traditional building techniques of the XVIth century 407

because of the presence of «cantieri» with rubble sto- nes, implicating the creation of thick joints and the use of levelling «asche». Its height is about 65 cm, and it is composed by two or three courses, corresponding to two angular «piperno» blocks, realized with lengthe- ned stony elements sometimes not staggered (fig. 14). In the Capua’s castle, the angular structure shows big masses of stone, high 35 cm about and large 50–55 cm. Two blocks define a «cantiere», that con- sequently exhibit an height of 70 cm. It is composed by two our three courses of rubble stones, disposed following a very usual practice, consisting in the co- llocation of big elements at the base of «cantiere», and of little ones at its top (fig. 15).

Figure 13 CONCLUSIONS Capua (Caserta, Italy), town walls. Detail of the angle ma- sonry dressing The research results exhibit a series of different sam- ples, referring to the XVIth century common practi- ces, whose chronology is a very important datum for the recognition of unidentified constructions, gene- rally consisting of the so called «minor buildings», when it has lost its formal features. In other words, even if the study is not exhaustive, it offers a sampling that can represent an useful point of reference for recognizing historical manufacture, at disposal of insiders. Besides, one believe that the deep knowledge of constructive characteristics, by a structural, chemical and physical point of view, is the only preliminary re- mark to plan a conservation project, in the respect of materical and figurative consistence of architectural Figura 14 heritage. Capua (Caserta, Italy), castle. Particular of the cornerstones

NOTES

1. Ferrando, Mannoni, Pagella 1989; Francovich, Parenti 1988; Mannoni 1984; Mannoni, Milanese 1988; Parenti 1990; Parenti 1992. 2. AA.VV. 1987; Cagnana 1996; Della Torre (edited by) 1996; De Meo 2006. Esposito 1996; Esposito 1998; Fiorani 1996a; Fiorani 1996b; Esposito, Fiorani 2005; Ghislanzoni, Pittaluga 1989; Mannoni 1974. 3. Fiengo 1983; Fiengo 1996; Fiengo 2001; Fiengo, Gue- rriero 1997; Fiengo, Guerriero 1998; Fiengo, Guerriero Figure 15 (edited by) 1999; Guerriero 1996; Fiengo, Guerriero Capua (Caserta, Italy), castle. The representation reproduces 2002; Fiengo, Guerriero (edited by) 2003; D’Aprile an example of regular masonry shaping the angle 2001. Cfr. also PhD thesis edited by G. Fiengo and 408 C. Giannattasio

L. Guerriero at the Faculty of Architecture - II Univer- De Meo, M. 2006. Tecniche costruttive murarie medievali. sità di Napoli: Menzione 2003. Cavallaccio 2002; Ferri La Sabina. Storia delle tecniche edilizie e restauro dei 2002; Cecere 2004. De Marco 2005. monumenti. Roma. 4. Giannattasio 2003. Di Resta, I. 1974. «Contributo alla storia urbanistica di Ca- 5. Russo 1996; Russo 1999. pua». Nap. Nob., XIII, V. 6. Carafa, Giannattasio 2005; Giannattasio in course of Di Resta, I. 1976. «Contributo alla storia urbanistica di Ca- publication. pua». Nap. Nob., XV, I–II. 7. Diamare 1906; Carelli 1972; Villucci 1995. Esposito, D. 1996. «La tecnica muraria a blocchetti lapidei 8. Costanzo 1991. in area romana». In Storia delle tecniche costruttive…: 9. Di Resta 1974; Di Resta 1976; Jacobitti 1996; Robotti 113–126. 2002. Esposito, D. 1998. Tecniche costruttive medievali. Murature 10. Panfili, Robotti 1995; Robotti 2002. «a tufelli» in area romana. Roma. Esposito, D.; Fiorani, D. (edited by). 2005. Tecniche cos- truttive dell’edilizia storica. Conoscere per conservare. LISTA DE REFERENCIAS Roma. Ferrando, I.; Mannoni, T., Pagella, R. 1989. Cronotipologia. AA. VV. 1987. Conoscenza e sviluppi teorici per la conser- In Archeologia Medievale, XVI: 647–661. vazione dei sistemi costruttivi tradizionali in muratura. Ferri, L. 2002. Infissi tradizionali campani dal XVI al XX (Atti del convegno, Bressanone 1987). Padova. secolo. Cronotipologia e tecniche di conservazione. PhD Brogiolo, G. P. 1988. Archeologia dell’edilizia storica. thesis (tutor L. Guerriero). Aversa. Como. Fiengo, G. 1983. Organizzazione e produzione edilizia a Cagnana, A. 1996. «Rilevamenti di murature in Liguria». In Napoli all’avvento di Carlo di Borbone. Napoli. Della Torre (ed.).1996. Storia delle tecniche costruttive e Fiengo, G. 1996. «Cronologia dei paramenti murari napoleta- tutela del costruito. Esperienze e questioni di metodo. ni moderni». In Storia delle tecniche costruttive…: 53–70. (Atti del convegno, Brescia 1995), 159–170. Milano. Fiengo, G.; Guerriero, L. 1997. «Maestri di muro nella Carafa, R.; Giannattasio, C. 2005. «L’episcopio di Falciano Campania angioina e aragonese». In Magistri d’Europa. in Caserta: lettura stratigrafica delle strutture (XV–XX Eventi, relazioni, strutture della migrazione di artisti e sec.)». In Mochi, G. (ed.). 2005. Teoria e pratica del cos- costruttori dai laghi lombardi. (Atti del convegno, Como truire: saperi, strumenti, modelli. Esperienze didattiche e 1996), edited by Della Torre, S.; Mannoni, T.; Pracchi, di ricerca a confronto. (Atti del Seminario Internaziona- V.: 177–192. Como. le, Ravenna 2005), v. IV, 1409–1419. Ravenna. Fiengo, G.; Guerriero, L. 1998. «Mensiocronologia delle Carelli, E. 1972. «Elementi architettonici durazzeschi e ca- murature napoletane in tufo giallo (XVI–XIX)». In Me- talani a Sessa Aurunca». Nap. Nob., XI, I–III: 33–45. trologia e tecniche costruttive. (Atti dell’incontro di stu- Cavallaccio, S. 2002. Ferramenta «di riparo» dell’edilizia dio, Pescara 1998). Pescara. tradizionale campana dal XVII al XX secolo. Cronotipo- Fiengo, G.; Guerriero, L. (edited by). 1999. Murature tradi- logia e tecniche di conservazione. PhD thesis (tutor L. zionali napoletane. Cronologia dei paramenti tra XVI e Guerriero). Aversa. XIX secolo. Napoli. Cecere, G. 2004. Cronotipologia e caratterizzazione mecca- Fiengo, G. 2001. Case a volta della costa di Amalfi. Napoli. nica delle murature in tufo seicentesche in Terra di Lavo- Fiengo, G.; Guerriero, L. 2002. Il centro storico di Aversa. ro. PhD thesis (tutor G. Fiengo). Aversa. Analisi del patrimonio edilizio, vv. I–II. Napoli. Costanzo, S. 1991. La Chiesa dell’Annunziata in Marciani- Fiengo, G.; Guerriero, L. (edited by). 2003. Atlante regiona- se. Napoli. le delle tecniche costruttive tradizionali (XV–XIX). Lo D’Aprile, M. 2001. Murature angioino-aragonesi in Terra stato dell’arte, i protocolli della ricerca, l’indagine docu- di Lavoro. Napoli. mentaria, v. I. Napoli. Diamare, G. 1906. Memorie critico-storiche della chiesa di Fiorani, D. 1996a. «Le tecniche costruttive murarie medie- Sessa Aurunca, v. II. Napoli. vali del Basso . Metodo e percorsi di una ricerca». Della Torre, S. (edited by). 1996. Storia delle tecniche cos- In Storia delle tecniche costruttive…: 97–112. truttive e tutela del costruito. Esperienze e questioni di Fiorani, D. 1996b. Tecniche costruttive murarie medievali. metodo. (Atti del convegno, Brescia 1995). Milano. Il Lazio meridionale. Roma. De Marco, C. 2005. I solai e le coperture lignee a Napoli ed Francovich, R.; Parenti, R. (edited by). 1988. Archeologia e in Terra di Lavoro dal XVI al XIX secolo. Analisi crono- restauro dei monumenti. Firenze. tipologia e metodi di conservazione. PhD thesis (tutor G. Ghislanzoni, P.; Pittaluga, D. 1989. «Un metodo di datazio- Fiengo). Aversa. ne del patrimonio edilizio: la curva mensiocronologica Traditional building techniques of the XVIth century 409

dei mattoni in Liguria». In Archeologia medievale, XVI: Mannoni, T.; Milanese, M. 1988. «Mensiocronologia». In 675–82. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti, edited by Franco- Giannattasio, C. 2003. «Le fonti per lo studio della produ- vich, R.; Parenti, R.: 383–402. Firenze. zione edilizia in Campania tra XV e XVI secolo: il caso Menzione, G. 2003. La ricostruzione di Benevento dopo i te- di Sessa Aurunca». In Atlante regionale delle tecniche rremoti del 1688 e del 1702. Opere, artefici, norme, tecni- costruttive tradizionali (XV–XIX): 229–239. che e materiali. PhD thesis (tutor G. Fiengo). Aversa. Giannattasio, C. In course of publication. «L’Episcopio di Pamfili, B.; Robotti, C. 1995. Il Castello di Carlo V a Ca- Falciano in Caserta: cronologia delle strutture attraverso pua. Disegni di rilievo, modelli, documenti d’archivio. l’analisi dei paramenti murari». In Francesco Collecini. Lecce. La diffusione della cultura vanvitelliana. (Atti del con- Parenti, R. 1990. «Il metodo stratigrafico e l’edilizia stori- vegno internazionale di studi, S. Leucio 2004). ca». In Il modo di costruire. (Atti del I Seminario Interna- Guerriero, L. 1996. «Note sulle cortine laterizie napoletane zionale, Roma 1988), edited by Casciato, M.; Mornati, dell’età moderna». In Storia delle tecniche costruttive…: S.; Scavezzi, C.P.: 297–310. Roma. 71–81. Milano. Parenti, R. 1992. «Fonti materiali e lettura stratigrafica di un Jacobitti, G.M. 1996. «Il restauro delle mura di Capua». centro urbano: i risultati di una sperimentazione “non tra- In Le cinte murarie urbane della Campania: Teano, dizionale”». In Archeologia medievale, XIX: 7–63. Sessa Aurunca, Capua, edited by Colletta T.: 123–142. Robotti, C. 2002. Il castello di Carlo V a Capua. Permanen- Napoli. ze Personaggi Segni Progetti. Napoli. Mannoni, T. 1974. «L’analisi delle tecniche murarie medie- Russo, M. 1996. «Apparecchi murari “a cantieri” del XVI se- vali in Liguria». In Atti del Colloquio Internazionale di colo in Napoli». In Storia delle tecniche costruttive: 83–96. Archeologia Medievale del Mediterraneo: 291–300. Pa- Russo, M. 1999. «Magisteri murari “a cantieri” nell’età del lermo. viceregno spagnolo». In Murature tradizionali napoleta- Mannoni, T. 1984. «Metodi di datazione dell’edilizia stori- ne…: 71–151. ca». Archeologia medievale, XI: 396–403. Villucci, A.M. 1995. Sessa Aurunca storia e arte. .