Balancing Natural and Built Environments in the Conservation of Architectural Remains

RUIN AND REBIRTH: BALANCING NATURAL AND BUILT ENVIRONMENTS IN THE CONSERVATION OF ARCHITECTURAL REMAINS

A THESIS SUBMITTED ON THE SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER 2016 TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PRESERVATION STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE OF TULANE UNIVERSITY FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF PRESERVATION STUDIES

BY JOHN MARSHALL BROWN

APPROVED: ______John Stubbs Director

______Laura Ewen Blokker Assistant Director

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... 4

List of Figures ...... 4

Acknowledgements ...... 6

I. Introduction ...... 7

II. Abstract ...... 9

III. Methodology ...... 10

IV. Heritage Conservation and the Meaning of Ruins ...... 10

V. Influences on Memory and Interpretation ...... 13

VI. Romanticism and its Influence on the Built and Natural Environments ...... 14

VII. Examination of Preservation Theory ...... 21

VIII. A Review of the Prevailing Western Preservation Theoretical Continuum ...... 24

IX. John Ruskin and Eugène-Emanuelle Viollet-le-Duc ...... 24

X. Italian Preservation Theory, Law, and Practice ...... 30

XI. Primary Contributors to the Development of Italian Architectural Conservation Theory

XII. Italian Legal Framework for Architectural Conservation ...... 37

XIII. Relevant International Architectural Preservation Charters ...... 39

XIV. The Past in the Present: Interpretation of Time in the Conservation of Ruins and Other Historic Sites ...... 42

XV. The Legacy of Ruins and a Philosophy for Conservation ...... 43

XVI. A Philosophy for the Conservation of Ruins ...... 44

XVII. Visitation and Access to Ruins ...... 47

XVIII. The Interpretation and Display of Ruins ...... 49

XIX. Approaches for the Conservation of Masonry Ruins and Nature at Historic

Sites 54

XX. Biodeterioration and Approaches to Prevention and Maintenance at Ruin Sites .... 55

XXI. Balancing the Ecological Needs of Ruin Sites with Architectural Conservation .... 58

XXII. Biologically-Based Conservation Methods for Architectural Ruins ...... 61

XXIII. New Technologies and Techniques for Old Ruins: A Proposal ...... 67

XXIV. Case Study: Ruins and Site Management of the Gardens of Ninfa,

Province of Latina, Italy ...... 70

XXV. A Brief History of Ninfa and the Caetani Family ...... 71

XXVI. Past Interventions, Methods of Display, and Management Strategies used at Ninfa

XXVII. The Project to Restore and Conserve the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa,

2002 - 2015 ...... 78

XXVIII. Conclusions ...... 93

Appendix I: Garden of Ninfa Image Gallery ...... 96

Appendix II: Plants in the Ruins Garden at Afton Villa ...... 99

Appendix III: Plants for Preservation and Conservation ...... 101

Bibliography ...... 106

List of Tables

Table 1: Appearance of biological alterations of cultural heritage on stones. Adapted from Pinna and Salvadori...... 66 Table 2: Types of Damage, Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa...... 81 Table 3: Quantification of vegetal damages at Ninfa...... 88

List of Figures

Figure 1:"Cottage Villa in the Rural Gothic Style" from A.J. Downing's "The Architecture of Country Houses." ...... 16 Figure 2: Temple of British Worthies, Stowe, England. (Courtesy: Richard Dear/Creative Commons) ...... 18 Figure 3:"Carmontelle présentant les clefs du parc Monceau au duc de Chartres" ("Carmontelle giving the Keys of the Parc Monceau in Paris to the Duke of Chartres"). Painting by Louis de Carmontelle (Public Domain) ...... 19 Figure 4: The "Ruins Garden" at Afton Villa, St. Francisville, Louisiana. (From "Afton Villa: The Birth and Rebirth of a Nineteenth-Century Louisiana Garden, by Genevieve Munson Trimble)...... 20 Figure 5: “Judith Holding the Head of Holofernes Aloft,” 1850, Viollet-le-Duc and Michel Pascal. This capitol replaced a previous Medieval-era capital depicting a siren. Limestone. Nave of La Madeleine, Vézelay. (Nick Havholm/Nineteenth- Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century Visual Art)...... 27 Figure 6: Nineteenth-century view of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice, Italy. (Photograph by John Ruskin/DailyMail UK)...... 29 Figure 7: Details of Valadier's restoration of the Arch of Titus in Rome, 1818. Different finishes were used to replicate missing elements (lacunae) and create a sense of form for the missing pieces. (Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation)...... 45 Figure 8: Unobtrusive signage at ancient Roman ruins, Carsulae Parco Archaeolgico, Province of Terni, Italy. (Photograph by author.) ...... 52 Figure 9: "Le son-et-lumière de Château Royal de Blois." A son-et-lumière show at the Royal Château of Blois, France. (Photograph courtesy: Agence de Développement Touristique – Loire et Cher, Coeur Val de Cher)...... 53 Figure 10: Types and quantites of root growth on masonry structures. (Photograph courtesy of Caneva, Nugari, and Salvadori)...... 60 Figure 11: "Hard-capped" wall tops at Carsulae archaeological site, Province of Terni, Italy. (Photograph by author)...... 62

Figure 12: "Alvastra klosterruin." The soft-capped ruins of the twelfth-century Alvastra Abbey, Östergötland, Sweden, currently under the stewardship of the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet). (Photograph courtesy: Visit Östergötland)...... 63 Figure 13:Caixa Forum, Madrid, Spain. Vertical garden design by Patrick Blanc. (Photograph courtesy: Herzog and de Meuron, and www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com)...... 68 Figure 14: Floating grass plain at the Mercati di Traiano in Rome, Italy. Designed by Dutch firm Wonder 8, this “living system” allows exploration of the ruins without direct interaction. By hovering over exposed ruins, the installation does not touch sensitive remains. Additionally, it becomes part of the interpretive scheme of the site, for better or worse. (Photograph courtesy: West 8)...... 69 Figure 15: Ada Caetani and her family. (Photograph Courtesy: Fondazione Roffredo Caetani)...... 74 Figure 16: Ninfa as depicted by Sir Edward Lear in "Illustrated Excursions in Italy," 1846. (Public Domain)...... 74 Figure 17: "Pianta delle Rovine di Ninfa" from the Domus Caetana, by Prince Gelasio Caetani. This plan depicts the extent of the ruins at Ninfa. Author has highlighted the southeastern outer walls. (Photograph courtesy: Fondazione Roffredo Caetani, Ilaria Rossi-Doria)...... 79 Figure 18: Biodeterioration mapping on the southeastern outer walls of Ninfa. (Image courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria)...... 86 Figure 19: Presence of lichens at Ninfa. (Photograph courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria)...... 87 Figure 20: AKEOGARD IAV test area. Left side, without chemically-enhanced mortar, right side, with chemically-enhanced mortar. (Photograph courtesy: Ilaria Rossi- Doria)...... 90 Figure 21: Operation to consolidate lichen-covered mortar, preserving the lichen's presence on the wall. (Photograph courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria)...... 91 Figure 21: Repaired "corner falls" with traces of the intervention visible by placing repaired areas back from the established surface of the wall. (Photograph courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria)...... 92

Acknowledgements

While there is a seemingly endless list of people who I wish to thank for their help, patience, and kind words. The first two people who I wish to thank are two women without whom I would not have completed this thesis, my grandmothers: Lottie Hawkins

Lynch and Betty Tilley Brown. Their love, patience, and support have enabled me to complete the travel, research, and work necessary to complete this thesis, and to them it is dedicated.

I would like to thank many colleagues in Italy and the United States for their help in research along the way, most importantly, Ilaria Rossi-Doria, architect, Rome, who’s lecture on her project of the restoration of the southeastern outer wall at Ninfa helped inspire and inform this thesis. Nikos Vakalis and Max Cardillo of the International

Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies in San Gemini, Italy, were kind and wise advisors to the ways of Italian preservation practice. The Fondazione Roffredo

Caetani was supportive of my endeavors, and I thank them for their help. My advisors at

Tulane, John Stubbs and Laura Ewen Blokker were of great support to me throughout my studies at Tulane and I appreciate all of their help.

I would like to thank my family for their love and support, my mother Kathie

Lynch Brown and my father Douglas Marshall Brown, my brother Jordan, sister-in-law

Samantha, niece Morgan, and (of course) my dog Oscar. Lastly, I would like to thank Mr.

Bradley Davis for his steadfast support and love throughout this entire process.

I. Introduction

In determining historical significance of a place or of an object, one must acknowledge that the items in question encompass both tangible and intangible pieces of the past. A historic place encompasses much more than the buildings and objects present, for it has been shaped by an untold number of hands through generations of time. Each person passing through the site has left a mark on its surface, however imperceptible. In determining the historic significance and value of a place, the historian and conservator face a difficult task: What is valuable? Who has assigned it value? And Why is it valuable?

Despite the advancement of historic preservation and conservation theory, these questions remain to be grappled with by practitioners and theoreticians alike. As the field continues to advance, it becomes important not to lose sight of the precious echoes of the past that are indeed still present among us. Importantly, as a profession, historic preservationists must see that the intangible and the tangible are equally important aspects of heritage conservation – as much as body and soul are to mankind. But why should we preserve the objects, structures, and other features that constitute our surrounding built and natural environments? The historic preservation theorist Robert E.

Stipe enumerates seven reasons on why we should preserve:

1. “First, we seek to preserve because our historic resources are all that physically link us to our past. Some portion of that patrimony must be preserved if we are to recognize who we are, how we became so and, most important, how we differ from others of our species.

2. “Second, we strive to save our historic and architectural heritage simply because we have lived with it and it has become part of us. The presence of our physical past creates expectations and anticipations that are important parts of our daily lives. We tend to replace them only when they no longer have meaning, when

other needs are more pressing, and do so with caution, knowing how our environment creates us and how we create our environment.

3. “Third, we save our physical heritage partly because we live in an age of frightening communication and other technological abilities, as well as in an era of increasing cultural homogeneity. In such a situation we subconsciously reach out for any opportunity to maintain difference and uniqueness.

4. “Fourth, we preserve historic sites and structures because of their relation to past events, eras, movements and persons that we feel are important to honor and understand. Nostalgia and patriotism are important human emotions for preservation, and important human emotions must be served. But the important point is that the historic associations inherent in preserved structures and sites should encourage much more than mere nostalgia and patriotism. They are potential sources of imagination and creativity in our attempts to understand and appreciate the past – a past distant from us, but a time that can still offer much to guide us.

5. “Fifth, we seek to preserve the architecture and landscapes of the past simply because of their intrinsic value as art.

6. “Sixth, we seek to preserve our past because we believe in the right of our cities and countryside to be beautiful. Here, with much regret, we must reorganize the essential tawdriness of much contemporary design and construction. Much of it is junk; it assaults our senses. We seek to preserve the past not only because it is unique, exceptional, architecturally significant and historically important, but also because in most cases what replaces it will be inhuman and grotesque. Potentially, of course, many old buildings could be demolished and replaced with contemporary structures of equal functional or aesthetic value. Yet, recent experience has shown that this is not likely, and until it is we shall preserve our past in order to preserve what is left of our pleasing and humane urban and rural landscape.

7. “Finally, and most important of all, we seek to preserve because we have discovered – all too belatedly – that preservation can serve an important human and social purpose in our society. Ancestor worship and aesthetic motivations are no longer enough: our traditional concern with great events, great people and great architects will not serve society in any full measure. The problem now is to acknowledge that historic conservation is but one aspect of the large problem,

basically an environmental one, of enhancing, or perhaps providing for the first time, a quality of human life.”1

Professor Stipe’s seminal list on why we as a people preserve what came before us elegantly describes why the intangible and tangible are equally important considerations in historic preservation. Each historic site presents a unique set of challenges that the preservationist must consider when creating a plan for conservation and preservation for future generations. But what happens when seemingly conflicting conservation ideologies and methods meet in one site? What balance can be struck between these sometimes opposing forces?

II. Abstract

This thesis will examine theories and methodologies regarding the balance of natural aesthetics and architectural conservation in the preservation of architectural remains. Ruins have been used as historic garden “follies” for centuries, this thesis will examine how practitioners have balanced the ecological needs of the gardens with the conservation and preservation of ruins. The primary case study used for this thesis will be the Gardens of Ninfa in the Province of Latina, Italy, where conservators and landscapers have worked to preserve the gardens of the noble Caetani family and the Roman and

Medieval ruins contained within the gardens for centuries. This thesis will examine how they chose to treat, interpret, and display the ruins within the existing garden landscape.

This thesis will also explore the consequences of this approach based on the backdrop of the established theoretical principles of John Ruskin and Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-Le-

1 Robert E. Stipe, “Why Preserve?” in A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, ed. Robert E. Stipe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003), p. xiii – xv.

Duc, as well as the prevailing Italian theories on restoration of ancient ruins as given by prominent Italian theoreticians. Also examined will be the demonstrated capability and discussion of biologically-based conservation methods used in ruins conservation practice.

III. Methodology

The objective of this thesis will be to examine the strategies, methods, and ideals used by the caretakers of the Gardens of Ninfa in the conservation of (primarily) the architectural ruins present in the garden complex. Research has been carried out in a variety of ways: (1) direct contact and interview with architects and landscape architects who have worked at Ninfa and examination of their work including documentation provided by them, (2) interviews with the administration of the Fondazione Roffredo

Caetani, which manages and owns the Gardens, and (3) examination of literature pertinent to the study of ruins conservation, preservation theory, and landscape design.

The outcome of the thesis will be to review the methods for conservation at Ninfa against the backdrop of prevailing preservation theory.

IV. Heritage Conservation and the Meaning of Ruins

In the broader context of heritage conservation, architectural ruins hold a place of fascination for many. But why is this so? Why should a seemingly unassembled mass of stones be held to such fascination? A simple answer to this question is often hard to find, and indeed the answer may be different from person to person. The definition of what constitutes a ruin depends on whom one asks – an art historian, architect, and archaeologist would probably give very different answers. In the most elementary sense, a ruin is “a building which, having lost substantial parts of its architectural form, has

11 ceased to function as such;” a building which has lost its natural defenses such as its roof, windows, walls, plasters, and et cetera, which is undefended from the elements and which has lost its intended purpose and function. A ruin occupies a precarious spot, somewhere between architecture and nature, in a progressive state of decline and transit from building, to ruin, to nature once more.2 Some ruins are valued for their antiquity, for becoming as much a part of the landscape in human memory as hills, rivers, and mountains, while others are valued for their artistic significance, as an example of a style or method long-since passed from practice; and others still, valued for what they have witnessed in the course of their history. The fascination of ruins lies in how they are perceived by its audience. To this stage enters the conservator, the responsibility with whom lies the job of safeguarding such ruins for display, and to render what he or she has secured as intelligible for the ruin’s intended audience.3

The meaning of conservation, broadly, is “the preservation of cultural material for the foreseeable future in a way that allows the maximum information to be retrieved by further study and analysis.” Also used, often interchangeably with conservation, is preservation, defined as “the re-presentation of an object or structure in such a way that it can be more readily understood by both scholars and the general public.”4 The fundamental work of conservators to secure ruins can itself be considered an exercise in

2 Gionata Rizzi, “Preface” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. xx. 3 M.W. Thompson, Ruins: Their Preservation and Display (London: British Museum Publications, Ltd., 1981), p. 22. 4 Kate Foley, “The Role of the Objects Conservator in Field Archaeology” in Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, ed. N. P. Stanley Price (Rome: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), 1995), p. 11 - 12.

12 interpretation. For some ruins, such as earthen structures or those largely submerged either underground or underwater, the safety of such archaeological remains may depend on being left undisturbed. Other ruins, such as those of Roman or Medieval stone masonry construction, once painstakingly excavated are often rebuilt or reset in their positions; sometimes even, a modern shed or tabernacle is built over ruins to shelter the remains in place.5

The German engineer and conservationist Hartwig Schmidt has articulated three general categories into which ruins may fall: (1) intellectual ruins, (2) natural ruins, and

(3) objective ruins. Intellectual ruins are those in which the conservation approach and interpretive scheme relies on the intended audience’s intellectual capacity to comprehend the historical significance of the ruins. This approach often requires minimal effort to make the site intelligible to visitors. “Natural ruins” are those in which the presentation and display of ruins is meant to be in a naturalistic, heavily vegetated state, as those which can be found in English-style gardens as follies. In this category, intervention to ruins can involve total reconstruction and repurposing of fragments to create an effect of antiquity. The third category conceived by Schmidt is the “objective” ruin, in which the nature of the object is reconstructed or partially reconstructed and reinterpreted via a scientific methodology based on existing historical knowledge.6

In repositioning or resetting these ancient stones, does the conservator not impart some bias in his or her interpretation of these ruins? With the conservation of ruins comes the interpretation of the site. There are two broad categories to explore when it comes to

5 Thompson, Ruins: Their Preservation and Display, p. 22. 6 Jukka Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation (New York: Routledge, 2011), p. 310 – 311.

13 this juncture, interventions made to the ruins in the interest of safety to visitors, and interventions made to satisfy the intellectual needs of the audience. Would it not be better to leave them alone in their present position, as evocative vine-strewn monuments to the past? Any such intervention inevitably destroys the patina of age, yet it is the duty of conservators to remove this heavy vegetation from ruins in order to arrest decay, understand its construction methods, era of significance, and further our understanding of the past.7 But which story of the past is to be told?

V. Influences on Memory and Interpretation

Every historic site or cultural object has a story to tell. The story that is told is more or less accurate, according to a variety of factors; sometimes history can become skewed by the passage of time, of telling and retelling, and indeed, even bias. The roles that memory, interpretation, and interpersonal connections go into the telling of a story undoubtedly influence the final script. When it comes to the interpretation and display of architectural ruins, one must look back at the evolution of thought regarding how we perceive ruins. Perhaps no other time in history has society perceived ruins in such a manner as during the “romantic” period; a time in the mid-to-late nineteenth century in

Western cultures when romanticism and its ideals influenced perception of ruins as an object of fascination. The literature, art, and philosophy which emerged from this time period has left an undeniable impact on how modern society conceives of ruins which to this day.

7 Thompson, Ruins: Their Preservation and Display, p. 29.

VI. Romanticism and its Influence on the Built and Natural Environments

The “Romantic” or “Picturesque” landscape movement correlated with a larger movement now termed as “Romanticism” in Western Europe in the late eighteenth- century climaxing in the mid-nineteenth-century, influencing painting, music, architecture, landscape architecture, and literature amongst others. This movement in intellectual thought also carried over into the historiography and critique of Western cultures, challenging previously held concepts about Western society. Primarily,

Romantic thought rejected previously held concepts about order, calm, and rationality that previously prevailed under Enlightenment thought and characterized Classicism and

Neoclassicism in the late-eighteenth-century. “Romanticism emphasized the individual, the subjective, the irrational, the imaginative, the personal, the spontaneous, the emotional, the visionary, and the transcendental.”8

This mode of thought was a rebellion against the previously-held prevailing artistic and philosophical norms in Europe at the time: emotion over rationality and reason; intellect, genius, and personality over strict adherence to rules and accepted procedure. Art, architecture, landscape architecture, and literature tended to swing towards the fantastic and the exotic, develop a fascination with the natural world,

Classical- and Medieval-eras, with budding Nationalism, traditional folkloric customs, and with legend and lore.9 In essence, Romanticism sought to achieve a transcendental escape and transportive effect on its audience.

8 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Romanticism", accessed August 18, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/art/Romanticism. 9 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Romanticism", accessed August 18, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/art/Romanticism.

I. “Romantic” Architecture

In architecture, Romanticism and the “Romantic style” is a loose term that embraces a variety of revival styles that emerged in the mid- to late-nineteenth-century encompassing various Exotic (i.e.: Moorish, Egyptian, Oriental), Gothic, Greek ( as well as Roman or “Classical”), and Italianate-styles.10 Contributing to this Romantic emergence was a rapid social change brought on by Industrialization, resulting in a movement towards a nostalgic architecture that evoked the image of a nation’s past.11

Whether or not these styles were true to historical form was less important than the symbolism that it represented, demonstrating the transportive desires of Romanticism.

The Romantic movement in architecture, also known as “Eclecticism” was an approach to architectural design that stressed visual association with a past time in history, preferably one seen as enlightened, pleasurable, and idyllic. With nostalgia and fantasy being the primary drivers in this movement, architects took inspiration from

European forbearers and created residential and public buildings emulating Greek and

Roman antiquity, and while the Gothic style was seen as appropriate for religious buildings.12 During this time, pattern books spread popular design throughout the

Western world, and in the United States, pattern books on architecture became very popular with both professional architects and the general public. Following the broader

10 Cyril M. Harris, American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1998), p. 279. 11 John H. Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation (Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2009), p. 57. 12 Leland M. Roth, American Architecture: A History (Cambridge: Westview Press, 2001), p. 107 – 108.

16 concepts of the Romantic movement, a rebellion of thought against the formality of aristocracy and autocracy in deference to a more “sentimental celebration of the homes of the rural poor” became popular, in part through the spread of such pattern books. Perhaps the most influential and popular writer of architectural pattern books was A.J. Downing, whose book The Architecture of Country Houses was very influential in spreading a

romantic notion of the “home” in the

United States. With his designs for a

“Small Gothic Cottage” and “Small

Tuscan Cottage,” Downing presented

a view of American life based in an

idyllic fantasy “to awaken the finer

sentiments of our nature.”13 Writers Figure 1:"Cottage Villa in the Rural Gothic Style" from A.J. Downing's "The Architecture of Country Houses." and painters too celebrated the theme of humble over the grandiose; in Walden, the transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau called upon his readers to opt for the least pretentious style when choosing a house. The idyll of the ordinary and commonplace were romanticized without acknowledgement of some of the less desirable aspects of the life of the “common man;” it was all illusion, fantasy, and rhapsody.14

13 A.J. Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1969), p. 258. 14 Gwendolyn Wright, “Independence and the rural cottage,” in American Architectural History: A Contemporary Reader, ed. Keith L. Eggener (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 150 – 151.

II. The Picturesque Garden

The Romantic movement also influenced the design of landscapes and gardens.

Romanticism defined an entirely new attitude towards landscape design, viewing the natural world from spiritual and aesthetic as well as scientific viewpoints.15 Proponents of the Picturesque-style garden criticized the artificial formality of Baroque-style gardens as a hubristic subjugation of nature by man.16 During this time period, English “picturesque gardens” were particularly popular for their seemingly natural, but purposefully designed, landscapes. The incorporation of ruins – even faux-ruins purposely built – as focal points and follies were incorporated into English landscape design to offer the illusion of antiquity and the exotic.17 Drawing inspiration from picturesque landscape painters, landscape architects imitated the “ruggedness, ruins, and rusticity” found in many eighteenth-century paintings: ruins or crude structures subsumed by nature. Especially important as muse and inspiration to Romantic landscape designers was the long history of Italy and its abundant remnants. While, as in architecture, a fascination with the

Classical antiquity of Greece and Rome did not result in a revival, but rather in a poetic attachment to the ruins themselves and to a time long past. Indeed, a sojourn in Italy was the backdrop for many leading figures in art, architecture, landscape architecture, and literature in forming their oeuvre. The deep artistic past of Italy not only served to tutor

15 Elizabeth Barlow Rogers et al., Romantic Gardens: Nature, Art, and Landscape Design (Jaffrey: David R. Godine, Publisher, 2010), p. 11 – 12. 16 John B. Jackson, The Necessity for Ruins and Other Topics (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1980) p. 48. 17 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 57.

18 many artists in the works of old Renaissance masters, but also to serve as muse in depicting the country’s vast collection of ruins.18

English picturesque gardens were heavily influenced by these Romantic notions, and held great influence over other designs for other European interpretations of the picturesque style that were to follow. One early leading figure in picturesque and naturalistic English landscape design movement was William Kent, and his noble sponsor the Lord Burlington. A tour through Italy’s vast ruin-strewn landscape served as inspiration for Kent and Burlington, who soon began to embellish his estate at Stowe with small Classical garden follies.19 Among the faux-ruins at Stowe, monuments to

Lycurgus, Socrates, Homer, and other “Illustrious chiefs, who made Virtue their only

Pursuit, and the Welfare of Figure 2: Temple of British Worthies, Stowe, England. (Courtesy: Richard Mankind their only Study.” Dear/Creative Commons)

Along with monuments to eminent Classical figures, Kent installed a Classically-styled, distinctly nationalistic “Temple of British Worthies” dedicated to leading figures of

British thought and Empire. Here, the message was clearly intended to illustrate a continuity with the Empire of Rome and the enlightened ideals of Greece, and to show

18 Rogers et al., Romantic Gardens: Nature, Art, and Landscape Design, p. 12. 19 Ibid., p. 13.

Britain as inheritor and steward of these great ideals.20 Certainly, the effect and desire of

such design is to evoke emotion, portray a certain view of history, and stir a certain

patriotism amongst those who would stroll the gardens.

Soon, many fine gardens throughout England and Europe began to follow in suite

with Lord Burlington’s inspiration. Once of Europe’s most fantastic example of the

jardin pittoresque was built by anglophile Phillipe d’Orleans, duc de Chartres, at his Parc

Monceau estate, now

in the eighth district

(arrondisement) of

Paris. The designer of

the gardens, Louis de

Carmontelle, was

instructed by his

patron to create a

Figure 3:"Carmontelle présentant les clefs du parc Monceau au duc de Chartres" garden “based on ("Carmontelle giving the Keys of the Parc Monceau in Paris to the Duke of Chartres"). Painting by Louis de Carmontelle (Public Domain) fantasy… the

extraordinary, the amusing.” Carmontelle, also a playwright, set designer, and master of

ceremonies, designed a garden as theatrically as could be expected considering these

other talents.21 Strewn with ruins, Parc Monceau is a fine example of the elegiac emotion

of the picturesque garden and Romantic ideals, designed to transport its audience away

20 John Dixon Hunt, Gardens and the Picturesque: Studies in the History of Landscape Architecture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992), p. 80 – 82. 21 Rogers et al., Romantic Gardens: Nature, Art, and Landscape Design, p. 36 – 37.

20 from the present to a past which may only have existed in fantasy. (But that is, indeed, the point.)

Not all Romantic or Picturesque gardens were designed within the strict timeframe of the Romantic movement. One notable garden in the United States was designed rather more recently, as itself an elegiac monument to a dream remembered to time and place gone by. The Afton

Villa Gardens in St. Francisville,

Louisiana, surround the ruins of the

Barrow family’s 40-room Gothic- style plantation house of the same name, lost to fire in 1963. The design of the great house was purportedly inspired by a grand tour through France, where Susan

Barrow saw a Gothic chateau she Figure 4: The "Ruins Garden" at Afton Villa, St. Francisville, Louisiana. (From "Afton Villa: The Birth and Rebirth of a 22 Nineteenth-Century Louisiana Garden, by Genevieve Munson wished to emulate. The Gothic Trimble).

Revival-style in America became popular along with a number of “Revival” styles in the period between 1785 to 1820, in a time where the country moved more into the mainstream of Western Romanticism.23 The gardens around Afton Villa were designed with the prevailing picturesque-style of the time, in the English manner. After many ups-

22 Genevieve Munson Trimble, Afton Villa: The Birth and Rebirth of a Nineteenth- Century Louisiana Garden (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2016), p. 3 – 5. 23 Roth, American Architecture: A History, p. 107.

21 and-downs in the fortunes of the gardens changed in 1972, when rejuvenation of the gardens began. Interestingly, the Gardens at Afton Villa in their newest incarnation were envisioned as “preservation and conservation” of the spirit of the gardens – a notion that is in itself a modern iteration of the Romantic movement.24 Indeed, the Trimble family, which now own the gardens at Afton Villa, were inspired by a visit to see the Romantic

English gardens of Sissinghurst, created around ruins of a sixteenth-century castle, and by

Classical statues viewed in Vicenza, Italy. Soon, the new gardens at Afton Villa began to take shape amongst the ruins of the great plantation house, even to the point of planting

“sedum, or stonecrop” (sedum acre) on remnant walls. Hereto, amongst the ruins, the

Trimble’s engaged an architect to build a faux-Gothic ruin across a pond as “once seen by a pond in Europe.” Although the “ruin” was never built, it remains a part of the garden’s overall vision.25 The Romanticist vision of the Trimbles has clearly taken root at

Afton Villa. (See Appendix II for a plant list from the “Ruins Garden” at Afton Villa.)

VII. Examination of Preservation Theory

In every field of study, there arise a vast array of opinions, ideologies, methods, and theories. Often, these theories are at opposite ends of their respective theoretical spectrum. In the field of historic preservation, the theoretical ends of the spectrum often revolve around the levels of intervention which are deemed appropriate for any architectural conservation project. How much is too much intervention? Should the building be preserved in situ as showing its accumulated patina? Should the patina be

24 Trimble, Afton Villa: The Birth and Rebirth of a Nineteenth-Century Louisiana Garden, p. 16. 25 Ibid., p. 19 – 41.

22 removed in order to let the original design intent and details be exposed? Should previous alterations be removed or conserved as testament to the building’s ongoing history?26 All of these questions and more are the responsibility of the conservator who must make a judgment call on each project for which he or she is responsible.

Critical to the study of “historic preservation” is an understanding of the levels of intervention that practitioners in the field will encounter. Although generally termed as

“historic preservation” the work that practitioners will perform in the field can be divided into five comprehensive categories based on levels of intervention appropriate to a particular situation: (1) preservation, (2) restoration, (3) reconstruction, (4) rehabilitation

(adaptive reuse), and (5) conservation. Below is a list of definitions based on those given by the National Park Service which further define these important distinctions within the broader field of historic preservation and architectural conservation:27

1. Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures to sustain the existing form, integrity, and material of a building or structure, and the existing form and vegetative cover of a site. It may include initial stabilization work, where necessary, as well as ongoing maintenance of the historic building materials.

2. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately recovering the form and details of a property and its setting as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of removal of later work or by the replacement of missing earlier work.

3. Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of reproducing by new construction the exact form and detail of a building, structure, or object, or a part thereof, as it appeared at a specific period of time.

26 James Marston Fitch, Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1990), p. 83. 27 Norman Tyler, et al., Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009), p. 191 – 202.

4. Rehabilitation (adaptive reuse) is defined as the act or process of returning a property to a state of use through repair or alteration which makes possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions or features of the property which are significant to its historical, architectural, and cultural values.

5. Conservation is defined as the preservation of specific materials and the development of management strategies for the future use and viability of historic sites and objects. Conservation actions include actively examining and documenting historic buildings and/or objects and determining treatment actions through scientific analysis and research., The creation of a preventative maintenance regimen is usually considered a part of conservation action.

For architectural conservators, it is a generally agreed upon maxim that the most successful intervention is the one that is the least visible. The concept of “minimal intervention” entails conservation projects in which the least amount of work is undertaken in order to preserve as much of the original historic fabric as possible. As with any project, any work that is undertaken must be “reversible” or “re-treatable,” meaning, any work that is undertaken on a historic object or building must be able to be someday rescinded in order to conserve as much of the original fabric of the building as possible.28 Each project will entail its own unique circumstances relative to the project’s site, ownership, history and cultural significance, aesthetic and artistic value, and a host of other considerations. It is the decision of the practitioner in the field to recommend and execute the most prudent course of action, and any action undertaken is inevitably based on the established theoretical principles in the field of historic preservation. The section that follows will review and detail the established theoretical principles found in western historic preservation practice.

28 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 121 – 122.

VIII. A Review of the Prevailing Western Preservation Theoretical

Continuum

Essential to any historic preservation project is an understanding of the well- known principles that guide the profession. As in any field of study, there will be conflicting theories that will act as a contrast to each other; ultimately, a “conservative” and “liberal” opinion. While some feel that historic buildings and objects should be preserved in their original state, undisturbed, others argue that these cultural objects should be kept in their original state inasmuch as possible, but if alterations have been made, to accommodate those changes as a part of the object’s history and accumulated fabric.29 Among the many luminaries in the field of preservation theory, none represent these two polemic opposites of the theoretical spectrum better than Englishman John

Ruskin and Frenchman Eugène-Emanuelle Viollet-le-Duc (Le Duc). For modern historic preservation practitioners, the two points of view held by Ruskin and Le Duc resonate today as a point and counterpoint in preservation theory.

IX. John Ruskin and Eugène-Emanuelle Viollet-le-Duc

To better understand the positions of Le Duc and Ruskin, one must consider the time period in which their opinions emerged: nineteenth-century Europe. Le Duc, of

France, and Ruskin, of England, both came from countries with an immense collection of architectural heritage. Their views emerged contemporaneously with the dawn of the

Romantic movement in Western culture, where a greater awareness of the archeological and historic resources of the past were becoming more well-known. During this time

29 Tyler, et al., Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice, p. 18-19.

25 period, along with so much growth and flourishing of artistic and literary thought, architecture, architectural history, and archaeology, became focused didactic disciplines in their own right.30

The dawn of the Romantic age in Europe sprouted from the socio-economic upheavals of the early nineteenth-century industrial revolution, fomenting the beginning of widespread interest in the art, literature, and architecture and Classical- and Medieval- era Europe.31 As well, nationalism influenced, to a degree, the perception of historic structures as embodiments of patriotic pride – monuments to the state. These ideals in turn influenced the way buildings and other cultural objects came to be restored: with an eye towards evoking a certain time and place, regardless of whether or not it was truly historically accurate. This type of architectural historicism is exemplified most by the theories of Le Duc. From this romantic point of view came a reaction more supportive of a rationalistic perspective of architectural conservation, embodied most by the theories of

John Ruskin. Ruskin espoused the view that any project to restore historic structures was bound to be historically inaccurate and erase the honest patina of age. To this end, he strongly advocated for a maintenance only approach to architectural conservation.32

Indeed, he was perhaps the most well-known mouthpiece for a group of concerned individuals that perceived Britain’s rapid industrialization and changing way of life as threatening to heritage and tradition.33

30 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 203. 31 Fitch, Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World, p. 21-22. 32 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 205. 33 Ibid., p. 223.

Viollet-le-Duc’s theories on architectural preservation and restoration were grounded in his extensive knowledge of European building traditions, with specific emphasis on the French mode of Gothic architecture. In one of his most influential written works, Entretiens, Le Duc encouraged architects to “revive” the basic form of the

34 structure in restoration. The prevailing theory among French restoration experts during the mid-nineteenth-century began to evolve away from a more conservative approach to one now termed as “stylistic unity;” a theory which promoted the unity and homogeneity of design in the repair and restoration of ancient structures.35 Le Duc, in his massive and monumental work Dictionnaire raisonné de l’architectecture française de Xle au XIV siècle clearly sums up his philosophy (and that of “stylistic unity”) by stating: “To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to reestablish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given moment (moment donné).”36 For some practitioners in the modern historic preservation field, this philosophy is sometimes considered an overzealous approach since its most prototypical projects often involved the outright replacement and augmentation of architectural features which enhance the structure to a form of completion that may never have existed in the object’s previous history.37 One of Le

Duc’s early projects is an exemplary case study of his favored approach to restoration. At

34 Michael Barker, “An Appraisal of Viollet-le-Duc (1814 – 1879) and His Influence,” The Journal of the Decorative Arts Society 1850 – the Present 16, (1992), p. 7. 35 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 214 – 215. 36 Aron Vinegar, “Viollet-le-Duc and Restoration in the Future Anterior,” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism 3, No. 2 (2006), p. 55. 37 William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (Hoboken, John Whiley and Sons, Inc., 2006), p. 2-3.

27 the church of La Madeleine de Vézelay (inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List in 1979),38 Le Duc required new stone sculptures to be carved which duplicated and

replaced the original damaged sculptures,

while at the same time ordering the

installation of new statuary that he himself

considered historically appropriate. These

new stone elements were not a part of the

church’s original design, but deemed a

historically appropriate way to “complete”

the building.39 Here, a romantic and

somewhat quixotic take on the restoration

Figure 5: “Judith Holding the Head of Holofernes Aloft,” of the church at Vézelay is clearly 1850, Viollet-le-Duc and Michel Pascal. This capitol replaced a previous Medieval-era capital depicting a siren. Limestone. Nave of La Madeleine, Vézelay. (Nick illustrated by the actions of Le Duc, where Havholm/Nineteenth-Century Art Worldwide: A Journal of Nineteenth-Century Visual Art). now it appears changed, dissimilar to any point in its history, but to an appearance that Le Duc deemed appropriate for its venerable age. For modern preservationists, Viollet-le-Duc’s theories and actions are mostly discouraged as a method of architectural conservation, and stand at one ideologically extreme end of the theoretical spectrum for practitioners in the field.40 Still, for many, including his pupil Camillo Boito (to be discussed later), his lasting influence is still felt.

38 UNESCO, “World Heritage Centre: The List,” Vézelay, Church and Hill, http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/84 (accessed 29 Aug. 2016). 39 Tyler et al., Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice, p. 20. 40 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 216

On the opposing end of this continuum is the Englishman John Ruskin, who with nearly apoplectic passion wrote and spoke at length about what he considered careless changes to the ancient buildings of Britain which he deemed insensitive to their historic integrity and “artistic honesty.”41 Ruskin’s romantic ideals decried the “scraping down of walls” to reveal purer stone underneath the earned patina of age, destroying its aged appearance. For Ruskin, buildings were artifacts of a bygone era that should be preserved and protected as they appear at the present moment.42 Elucidating his thoughts further, he wrote perhaps is most famous literary work concerning architecture in 1849, the Seven

Lamps of Architecture, in which he wrote that architecture is the embodiment of “Polity,

Life, History, and Religious Faith of the nations.”43 In this work, which would prove to be influential to successive generations of architectural conservationists, he describes seven “lamps” or defining characteristics of good architecture: (1) Sacrifice, as proof of man’s obedience to God, (2) Truth, in honesty of craftsmanship and materials, (3) Power, or the expression of a sublime nature, (4) Expression, in the beauty of craftsmanship and work, (5) Life, as a physical impartation of expression of the craftsman who build these buildings, (6) Memory, as a dedicated reminder of the culture from which time and place the building comes, and (7) Obedience, to English values and traditions in its reflected form.44

41 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 224 42 Michael A. Tomlan, Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy (New York: Springer Publishing, 2015), p. 10 43 Wilson, Richard Guy, “Architecture and reinterpretation of the past in the American Renaissance,” in American Architectural History, ed. Keith L. Eggener (New York: Routledge, 2004), p. 233 44 John Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture (New York: John Wiley, 1849)

Subscribers to his “let-it-alone” philosophy advocate for maintenance of historic structures, but decry almost any other intervention into the historic fabric of a structure.45

Upon a visit to Venice in the winter of 1876, Ruskin viewed the restoration of St. Mark’s

Cathedral, which was undertaken according to the stylistic unity philosophy, and lamented: “No such scene existed elsewhere in Europe, in the world: so bright, so magically visionary… I pass the same place now with averted eyes. There is only a ghost,

- nay, the corpse, - of all that I so loved.”46 For Ruskin, restoration was tantamount to condemnation and death for historic buildings.47 Ruskin’s “English approach” to architectural conservation theory are today considered more acceptable than those of Le

Duc’s.48 Yet, as with

Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin’s

theories still are viewed

as being on one extreme

end of the architectural

conservation spectrum.

Figure 6: Nineteenth-century view of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice, Italy. (Photograph by John Ruskin/DailyMail UK).

45 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 216 46 Jukka Jokilehto, “A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German, and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property” (DPhil thesis, University of York, 1986), p. 332 – 333. 47 Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America, p. 3 48 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 224

X. Italian Preservation Theory, Law, and Practice

The architectural and cultural heritage of Italy have long been a destination for writers, artists, and tourists alike, dating to the time of the European Grand Tour. Italy’s cultural wealth was muse and inspiration for so much Romantic thought during the mid- to late-nineteenth century. To that end, it becomes important to examine how Italians have approached restoration and conservation theory. Among the early conservation movements in Europe, the Italian experience has done much to inform Western thought and theory on the matter. Despite the country’s vast history and the cultural collection of many millennia, however, a consolidated approach to preservation and conservation theory only began in earnest after the unification of Italy in 1870.49

In the early nineteenth century, the prevalent treatment for historic buildings in

Italy was to “complete” them, following a branch of the “stylistic unity” theory whereupon a nineteenth-century interpretation of earlier architectural styles were applied to historic structures. This can be exemplified by the nineteenth-century “competition” of the façade of the cathedral of Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence, whereupon its Medieval façade was destroyed by the installation of a new design intended to invoke the original plans for the façade of the cathedral in early Tuscan Gothic style.50 Following the upheavals of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, the first true conservation efforts in Italy began during French occupation, where excavations of the Roman Forum were undertaken at the behest of Napoleon. During this time, architectural conservation was

49 John H. Stubbs and Emily G. Makaš, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas (Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2011), p. 13. 50 Jukka Jokilehto, “A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German, and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property,” p. 329 - 331.

31 closely linked with archaeology. Italians eagerly took up the mantle of architectural conservation as knowledge of the literary and architectural works of John Ruskin and

Viollet-le-Duc spread throughout Europe, now turning their focus on their own immense collection of architectural heritage. As interest grew, debate raged over how much intervention was appropriate in ancient and historic buildings; and in typically Italian fashion, the deliberation was quite lengthy. Coupled with this conversation was the ongoing industrialization and modernization of the continent – widening of roads, construction of modern commercial buildings and dwellings – and a threat to many great historic urban centers. Urban reforms of the late nineteenth-century engendered much debate about the fate of old cities in the public realm. With the unification of the country from disparate city-states into the Kingdom of Italy, a more consolidated approach to protecting and preserving Italian historic architecture emerged. Amongst the earliest and most notable Italian architectural conservation theorists to emerge were Camillo Boito,

Gustavo Giovannoni, Giacomo Boni, and Cesare Brandi.51

XI. Primary Contributors to the Development of Italian Architectural

Conservation Theory

Much of Italian thought and theory on architectural restoration, conservation, and preservation came from observations based on what was happening in Ruskin’s England and Le Duc’s France. To these perspectives, early Italian theorists added their own voices to these evolving approaches to conservation of ancient architecture. The prevailing theory that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century was one distinctively evolved from both Ruskin and Le Duc: a middle path.

51 Stubbs and Makaš, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, p. 13 – 17.

One early Italian leader in this budding debate was the Venetian Giacomo Boni, a trained archaeologist and architect who corresponded at great length with John Ruskin.

Boni was heavily involved in many restoration works in his home city of Venice and in

Rome, where he was later placed in charge of excavations at the Roman Forum. Boni’s philosophy, broadly, was one that favored minimum intervention, preservation rather than restoration. For instance, he stressed the peculiarities of old historic structures were part of the architect’s or builder’s original intention, and it was this intention that should be preserved. This is not to say that he did not advocate for the stabilization and safeguarding of ancient buildings; indeed, Boni was among the first to use modern (at that time experimental) conservation techniques in Italy. His prevailing viewpoint which he emphasized often was that he wished to preserve the authenticity of historic buildings.52 Also important to Giacomo Boni’s philosophy of preserving such intrinsic

“authenticity” was his opinion that conservators should protect the “monumental flora” of sites in addition to their work to conserve architectural remains. Boni emphasized that sites which have been excavated should be re-planted with appropriate flora as a way of presenting the site that would be more consistent with a traditional appearance. For example, Boni ordered the replanting of cypress trees at the Roman Forum as during his tenure overseeing archaeological investigations there.53 It was the flora as well as the ruins that he considered holistically important to the presentation of these important monuments. By stressing both the stabilization and conservation of ancient and historic buildings and sites as well as preserving the authentic patina of age, Boni laid much

52 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, p. 199 – 200. 53 Georgina Masson, “Garden Restoration in Italy,” Garden History 3, no. 1 (1975), p. 45.

33 groundwork for the creation of what is now standard conservation practice in Italy and the world.

As the debate between John Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc continued in enlightened circles throughout Europe another figure in Italy emerged, resolved to find a middle ground in this theoretical spectrum: Camillo Boito. A trained architect, restorer, and critic, Boito’s views on architectural restoration in Italy were reflective of the time in which his career began: during the unification of the Italian peninsula into a unitary nation. Once a pupil of Viollet-le-Duc, Boito evolved his opinions to believe that restoration of an architectural relic should not be done so as to trick or fool the public into seeing a version of completeness that never existed – a rejection of the school of thought known as “stylistic unity” that Le Duc favored. He did not quite advocate minimum intervention methods either, stating that intervention to ancient buildings should be made distinguishable so as to make plain that conservation work had been undertaken – unlike much of what Ruskin advocated. This approach to conservation and restoration theory has been credited with providing the theoretical underpinnings of the Italian practice of

“philological restoration” (restauro filologico), based on historical scholarship and fact.54

This practice of philological restoration seeks to portray truth, rather than historicism, in restoration. Proponents of this approach see cultural objects, such as ruins or historic buildings, as a verifiable record and testament to human history. Any restoration that would misrepresent or skew the creator’s original intent was considered a falsification of

54 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 208 – 209.

34 that record, therefor, restorations were to be made plainly visible and distinguishable to the naked eye.55

One of Camillo Boito’s most important contributions to Italian, and indeed

Western, historic preservation theory and thought was his observations on architectural conservation given at the Third Congress of Engineers and Architects in Rome (1883), the theme of which was whether restorations should imitate the original architecture or contrast with the original architecture as to make plain what work had been done.56 In typically Italian verbosity, he stated:

1. “Architectural monuments, once the need to intervene on them is indisputably demonstrated, should be consolidated rather than repaired, and repaired rather than restored, thus avoiding with every care additions and renovations to them.”

2. “In the case that such additions and renovations to be absolutely indispensable for the solidity or four other insurmountable causes, and in the case that such additions and renovations concern parts that never existed or no longer exist and for which is sure knowledge of the original form is missing, additions or renovations should be realized with a character different from the monument’s own, cautioning that, if possible in the perspectival all the parents the new forms do not clash too much with the monument artistic aspect.”

3. “When, instead, it is a question of completing things destroyed or originally never finished for accidental reasons, or of remaking parts so damaged that they can no longer survive in the building [durare in opera], and when nevertheless there remains the old type to be precisely reproduced, then it will be advisable in every way that the added or restored [rinnovati] pieces be made with the primitive form but be of an evidently different material or carry a carved sign or, better, the date of the restoration, so that not even on this may the attentive observer be deceived. In the monuments of antiquity or in other monuments notable especially for their archaeological relevance, the parts of completion indispensable for the solidity and conservation of the building should be done with only simple planes and the

55 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, p. 200. 56 Jokilehto, “A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German, and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property,” p. 335.

squaring [riquadrature] of the geometric outline, even when they seem nothing but the continuation or the sure counterpart of other molded and decorated ancient parts.”

4. “In the monuments that take the beauty, the singularity, the poetry of their appearance from the variety of marbles, of mosaics, of paintings, or from the color of their old age, or from the picturesque circumstances in which they find themselves, or even from the ruinous state in which they are, the works of consolidation, reduced to what is strictly indispensable, should if possible not lessen at all those intrinsic and extrinsic reasons of artistic attraction.”

5. “Those additions or alterations that in various times were introduced in the original building will be considered as monuments and treated as such, except in the case when, being of manifestly lesser artistic and historical importance than the building itself and at the same time distorting or masking notable parts of the building, it will be recommended that they be removed or destroyed.”

6. “It will be necessary to execute, before and even small work of repair and restoration, photographs of the monument, then, step-by-step, photographs of the primary faces of the work, and finally photographs of the completed work.”

7. “A plaque to be affixed to the building will record the dates and the primary works of restoration.”57

With these observations, Camillo Boito was able to give Italian historic preservationists the foundation on which the rest of Italian national theory and law developed. Indeed,

Boito continued to refine and expand upon his message, which eventually was incorporated into the first national Italian charter on restoration.58

Into the twentieth-century, Italian architectural historian and urban planner

Gustavo Giovannoni sought to synthesize Boito’s principles and call extra attention to the restoration concept that a visibly discernable trace of restoration work should be left to

57 Camilo Boito and Cesare Birignani, “Restoration in Architecture: First Dialogue,” Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism 6, no. 1 (2009), p. 80-81. 58 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 209 - 210.

36 highlight what intervention had been executed, and how that work had been completed.

He sought to further define conservation theory, and move it beyond a focus on large and important sites from antiquity into a more holistic approach to heritage conservation. He initiated a move towards expanding historic preservation beyond the Classical monuments deemed important to what others considered “minor architecture” of urban centers: homes, shops, and spaces that contributed to the feeling of an Italian sense of place. “Modest elements of the environment, which often represent better than the masterpieces the architectural traditions, and which more than these are subject perils and dangers.”59 Giovannoni sought to apply the methods of architectural conservation more broadly, advocating for a studied, scientific approach to restoration (restauro scientifico) that addressed the particular peculiarities of a given site – not a blanket approach.60 One important theme introduced much at Giovannoni’s behest was the principle of anastylosis, or the reinstatement of “any original fragments that may be recovered” whenever possible and if new materials are used in consolidation of overall architectural form to “in all cases be recognizable” as new.61 Giovannoni’s efforts in part resulted in the Athens Charter of 1931 and one of the first Italian national laws regarding preservation, the Carta Italiana del Restauro of 1932.62

59 Jokilehto, “A History of Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German, and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property,” p. 351. 60 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 210. 61 ICOMOS Online. “Charters and other standards,” The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments – 1931, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and- texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/167-the-athens-charter- for-the-restoration-of-historic-monuments (accessed 11 Sept. 2016). 62 Stubbs and Makaš, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, p. 16 – 17.

Following both Camillo Boito and Gustavo Giovannoni comes another of Italy’s most highly regarded theorists of architectural conservation: Cesare Brandi. Brandi was instrumental in creating the county’s foremost academic institution dedicated to architectural conservation, the Rome-based Instituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il

Restauro.63 Brandi defined restoration as “consist[ing] of the methodological moment in which the work of art is recognized for its physical being, and in its dual aesthetic and historic nature in view of its transmission into the future.” Further, he states that

“restoration should aim to re-establish the potential oneness of the work of art, as long as this is possible without committing artistic or historic forgery, and without erasing every trace of the passage through time of the work of art.”64 Here, it is evident to see that

Brandi is echoing and continuing the message of Boito and Giovannoni that authenticity is of utmost importance in any restoration to be carried out and continue theories in the

Italian tradition of following a middle-ground between the dueling sides of the Ruskin-Le

Duc continuum.

XII. Italian Legal Framework for Architectural Conservation

Building on the foundation laid by Giacomo Boni, Camillo Boito, Gustavo

Giovannoni, Cesare Brandi, and others, the legal framework of Italian architectural conservation began in earnest in 1902 with what is known as the Monument Act. This act established the governmental agencies, procedures, and processes by which conservation can proceed in Italy, as well as laws concerning the treatment of historic sites and objects.

By 1939, Italian conservation laws were expanded with the addition of two laws of

63 Stubbs and Makaš, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, p. 17. 64 Cesare Brandi, Theory of Restoration, ed. Giuseppe Basile, trans. Cynthia Rockwell (Rome: Instituto Centrale per il Restauro, 2005), p. 48 – 50.

38 significance: Law N. 1089 “Protection of Objects of Artistic and Historical Interest”

(Tutela delle Cose d’Interesse Artistico e Storico) which focuses primarily on objects of cultural patrimony, and the Law N. 1479 “Protection of Natural Beauties” (Protezione delle Bellezze Naturali) which focuses primarily on conserving aesthetically beautiful natural environments.65 In addition, various regional legal laws may affect historic sites throughout Italy, based on what laws have been put into place by regional governments.

One such law of importance is regional law DPR 125/2000, which stipulates the process by which natural monuments may be declared and gives allowances towards maintenance of such sites.66

Amongst the latest additions to the Italian legal framework regulating architectural conservation is the 1987 Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural and Art

Objects. This charter, informally known as the Italian Restoration Charter of 1987 is the latest in a continuation of Italian restoration theory that follows a studied, middle ground between Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc. Contained in the Charter is a formal prohibition on

“completion” of historic works whether in an analogous or simplified style or not, demolitions which may “erase evidence of the object’s passage through time,” or alterations to patina unless they have been irreversibly compromised. In addition, the

Charter stresses the concept of “reversibility” or “restorability” in restoration works – making any intervention to the cultural object plainly visible and treatable to future

65 Stubbs and Makaš, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, p. 25 – 27. 66 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

39 conservators. Following Giovannoni’s stressing of the “minor works,” the 1987 charter specifically calls out the preservation of urban cores.67

Following the destruction caused to the country’s natural and built environments brought about by World War II, the protection and conservation of Italy’s collection of built heritage entered the popular realm. Two nation-wide private foundations emerged, supported by the public sector: Italia Nostra and the Fondo per l’ambiente Italiano (Fund for the Italian Environment), fostering the idea of a common ownership of the country’s cultural patrimony.68 Though challenges remain, Italy’s robust laws place much priority on the care and maintenance of the country’s architectural heritage, and are in many ways a model for the world.

XIII. Relevant International Architectural Preservation

Charters

When considering the antiquity of ancient ruins, it is important to note and recognize that through their great age, these culturally significant objects have taken on a greater intrinsic and material importance than just defined by their regional or national location. With such venerated ruins, their importance is elevated to the international level, becoming part of a human global patrimony. The general growth in and awareness of cultural patrimony in many nations across the world in the late nineteenth-century

67 San Gemini Preservation Studies, “Italian Restoration Charters,” Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural and Art Objects (1987), Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo, trans. Massimo Cardillo, ed. Paul Berk, http://sangeministudies.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Italian-Restoration-Chart-of- 1987-MC.pdf (accessed 9 Aug. 2016). 68 Stubbs and Makaš, Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas, p. 25 – 27.

40 engendered support for their continued preservation among the general public; coinciding with an increasing number of threats to these architectural remains due to population growth, industrialization, development, and war. Advocates for the conservation of sensitive architectural remains, much under the influence of either John Ruskin or

Viollet-le-Duc, emerged helping to form some of the first supra-national conventions for the preservation and conservation of architectural remains.

As explored previously, early Italian conservation theorists carved out a middle path between the opposing camps embodied by Ruskin and Le Duc. This “Italian way” gave the theoretical underpinning to the first truly international charter concerning monuments of international importance in 1931: The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Ancient Monuments.69 The Athens Charter’s creation was heavily influenced by early

Italian thought, where seven main resolutions were codified into what became known as the “Carta del Restauro”:

1. “International organizations for Restoration on operational and advisory levels are to be established.

2. Proposed Restoration projects are to be subjected to knowledgeable criticism to prevent mistakes which will cause loss of character and historical values to the structures.

3. Problems of preservation of historic sites are to be solved by legislation at national level for all countries.

4. Excavated sites which are not subject to immediate restoration should be reburied for protection.

5. Modern techniques and materials may be used in restoration work.

6. Historical sites are to be given strict custodial protection.

69 Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation, p. 242.

7. Attention should be given to the protection of areas surrounding historic sites.”

The general recommendations of the Athens Charter reflect, very much, the Italian middle way by encouraging the conservation and preservation of ancient remains, while

“respecting” their value as aesthetic, artistic, and cultural monuments. Hereto, the influence of Giacomo Boni’s holistic view is incorporated into the language of the charter respecting the use of vegetation at ruins. The Charter calls for a study into “ornamental vegetation most suited to certain monuments or groups of monuments from the point of view of preserving their ancient character.”70 Following this sentiment many years later, another charter of importance to the conservation of monuments and their landscapes is one which focuses on the protection of historic gardens: [the] Florence Charter of 1981.

This charter recognizes the garden as an “architectural and horticultural composition of interest to the public from the historical or artistic point of view.”71

While the Athens Charter laid the groundwork for the first truly international perspective on conservation of architectural heritage, the Venice Charter of 1964 built upon and further defined those points. Primarily, the Venice Charter builds upon the idea that both the monument and its setting is of critical importance when considering conservation. “The concept of a historic monument embraces not only the single architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a significant development or a historic event. This applies not only

70 ICOMOS Online. “Charters and other standards,” The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments – 1931, http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and- texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/167-the-athens-charter- for-the-restoration-of-historic-monuments (accessed 11 Sept. 2016). 71 ICOMOS Online. “Charters and other standards,” The Florence Charter 1981, http://www.icomos.org/charters/gardens_e.pdf (accessed 8 Oct. 2016).

42 to great works of art but also to more modest works of the past which have acquired cultural significance with the passing of time.” Here, the Venice Charter comes full circle, advocating for the inclusion of setting and landscape and critical to the preservation and interpretation of historic objects.72

These three particular international charters have shaped the international approach to conservation and management of historic objects and sites, which have in turn, helped influence the creation of national-level policies and laws in nations around the globe.

XIV. The Past in the Present: Interpretation of Time in the

Conservation of Ruins and Other Historic Sites

The interpretation of a historic sites occurs on two distinct theaters: the professional and the popular, or public. The first “theater,” being the professional, is one in which the historic preservation professional examines all historical evidence. This evidence can be physical materials (buildings, fragments), written and/or spoken word, and remnants both above and below ground. This informational material becomes the basis for a hypothetical “reconstruction” of the lost material so that it can become an object of learning. Taking information gleaned from the historical evidence, the work of the professional preservationist begins in earnest on an interpretation of the site or object deemed most appropriate.73

72 ICOMOS Online. “Charters and other standards,” International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter) - 1964, http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf (accessed 8 Oct. 2016). 73 Fitch, Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World, p. 335.

The question of how to interpret “ruins,” as the remnant of civilizations long- since past, is as hard to answer as it is easy to ask. What myriad factors go into the setting, display, and interpretation of these ruins? What level of intervention is appropriate to conserve ruins? Are these active or passive sites? Are they in part still used? And if so, by whom? These are questions that theorists such as John Ruskin and

Viollet-le-Duc, Camillo Boito and Cesare Brandi, and others have sought to answer.

“For, indeed, the greatest glory of a building is not in its stones, nor in its gold… Its glory is in its Age,” wrote John Ruskin.74 And while all of these arguments may exists in written form, it is but still up to the conservator as a practitioner and professional to put those decisions into practice. How does one make these decisions? The debate between the “techno-scientific” and “historico-humanist” camps is not a question easily answered.75

XV. The Legacy of Ruins and a Philosophy for Conservation

Ruins occupy a curious position within the heritage conservation field; whereas a historic building can be repaired in order to keep it habitable and in use, the ruin is different. Ruins exist in a state of partial destruction, and it is this partial destruction that is valued because it has become a part of the story of that site, and therefore worthy of conservation. In essence, conserving a ruin is safeguarding an irreplaceable historical

74 John Ruskin, “The Lamp of Memory I” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, ed. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr., Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), p. 42-43. 75 Paul Philippot, “Restoration from the Perspective of the Humanities” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, ed. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr., Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), p. 216 – 217.

44 narrative. When the conservation professional arrives at a site (be it an archaeologist, architect, conservation professional, et cetera), they happen upon a site frozen in time – at the “scene of the crime,” so to speak.76 In the ruined city of Ninfa, in the province of

Latina, Italy, for example, the city was abandoned after conflict in the thirteenth-century and its wholesale destruction made the site too much to repair and reconstruct for the inhabitants. Its walls toppled, houses and churches abandoned, it became a shrine to that vanished community in an instant. Abandoned and largely forgotten, Ninfa crept into memory, just as vines crept over the ruins. Only during the flourishing of “romantic” ideals and the newfound fascination with romantic ruins did Ninfa once again emerge to take on a second life.

XVI. A Philosophy for the Conservation of Ruins

To conserve the “scene” as it was found is a challenge for the conservator, since keeping the context of the site intact with as little intervention as possible tends to be the maxim of heritage conservators. Difficulty can arise when considering how to proceed with a conservation program which will leave intact the authentic integrity of the site – what level of intervention is appropriate? The concept of a “minimal intervention” is a familiar principle for heritage conservationists, but it is somewhat of a misnomer.

Minimal intervention does not mean “do little” but, rather, to intervene only when and where deemed necessary to preserve the structural integrity and long-term viability of the cultural object in question – in this case, ruins. It is the duty of the heritage conservationist to assess and analyze both the material and structural properties of the

76 John Ashurst and Colin Burns, “Philosophy, technology and craft” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 83.

45 ruin, and recommend a treatment which is historically compatible and technically appropriate.77

In creating a design framework for a ruins conservation project, conservators must inevitably address the problem of the “missing objects” or lacunae at a ruin site. Since ruins are indeed valued for their ruined state, the “completeness” of a structure no longer seems necessary to preserve as it would to a sculpture, other art object, or less-historic building to this interruption of continuity. The aim of a restoration or conservation project in this case would be to minimize the overall distraction that the lacunae cause to the site.

In order to achieve this, there must be a clear distinction made between what is original and what is new in order to preserve the authenticity of the site. Conservators in the past have used this method (anastylosis) when restoring ancient monuments and ruins by using contrasting yet similar materials, as Giuseppe Valadier did in his famous

restoration of the Arch

of Titus in Rome. The

aim of this sort of

philological restoration

technique is to

preserve the feeling of

the site as

unobtrusively as

Figure 7: Details of Valadier's restoration of the Arch of Titus in Rome, 1818. possible – to make the Different finishes were used to replicate missing elements (lacunae) and create a sense of form for the missing pieces. (Stubbs, Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation).

77 John Ashurst and Colin Burns, “Philosophy, technology and craft” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 88 – 89.

46 lacunae fade into the background so that original material elements shine through.

Choosing to use the anastylosis method is often hard to justify, since it may muddle the historical accuracy at the ruin site, distract the visitor from accurate comprehension, and is never sure to be correctly accomplished.78 For ruins specifically, interventions must be performed surgically so that reintegrated materials are done so for safety and the stability of the object in question.79

“Leaving aside innumerable other examples, we can only reiterate the concept that the ruin, also for aesthetic requirements, must be treated as a ruin, and the action to be undertaken must be conservation rather than integration.”80 The words of Cesare

Brandi in his Theory of Restoration encapsulate what has become the modern standard for the treatment of ruins. To “reintegrate” remains in the structure of ruins, rather than re-place certain lacunae is an important distinction to make. Reintegration of wholesale parts leads to a falsification of the original intent of the ruined structures – “unique objects of unrepeatable singularity.”81 The idea of the singularity of ruin sites is a very important distinction to highlight when it comes to the philosophical ideals that govern ruins conservation. This principle may dictate how individual ruin structures are treated,

78 Bernard M. Feilden, Conservation of Historic Buildings (Oxford: Elsevier, Ltd., 2003), p. 268. 79 Paul Philippot, “Historic Preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines, II” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, ed. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr., Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), p. 358 - 362. 80 Cesare Brandi, “Theory of Restoration, III” in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, ed. Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr., Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1996), p. 377. 81 Brandi, Theory of Restoration, p. 65.

47 but another facet of ruins conservation which is critical to the interpretation of ruins sites is the context of the site itself.

XVII. Visitation and Access to Ruins

Owing to the inevitable popular interest in ruins – for their picturesque beauty or otherwise – visitation of sites and how it is chosen to be interpreted becomes another aspect of ruins conservation. For professional conservators, it is important to address context of the ruins site itself so that it may be properly interpreted for visitors. To this end, it is important to address concerns of tourism and visitors to sensitive ruin sites.

Tourism is defined as the movement of people to a destination location outside of their normal places of work and residence, along with the activities undertaken during their stay at these destinations. Tourism infrastructure typically includes the construction, renovation, and maintenance of facilities intended to service the needs of the visitor.

Tourism can be undertaken for a variety of reasons, including business, leisure, education, family obligations, and cultural immersion, and the timeframe for travel can include a span of time ranging from days to weeks to months.82

As the heritage tourism industry continues to expand, the increased numbers of visitors to sensitive sites of ruins also increase; consequently, the volume, complexity, and type of threats to ruin sites also increase. To those charged with the care and maintenance of ruin sites, it becomes necessary to have a thoroughly-constructed management plan which anticipates and addresses issues of visitor-ship to ancient ruin sites. In order to be successful, strategies implemented to control the flow of visitors to such sites must be holistic, sustainable, and maximize positive outcomes for ruin sites

82 Tomlan, Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy, p. 160.

48 while mitigating negative aspects. For instance, visitor numbers (and profits generated therefrom) must not be allowed to overtake projected maintenance costs for the historic fabric of the site (structures, flora, and fauna). Included in these management strategies should be protective measures meant to keep unwanted visitors (vandals and looters) from entering the site and damaging the ruins.83 One particularly successful technique to control the flow of visitors to the site is to offer guided tours through sites led by trained docents. A successful docent-led system requires that docents be properly trained and education in the history and significance of the site itself, and that the docent themselves be personable and accountable.84

The physical infrastructure needed to accommodate tourists should be a paramount concern of heritage conservation professionals as well. Any roads, parking lots, visitor centers, and even toilet facilities should be planned and constructed in a manner that will not detract or distract from the ruins themselves. Ideally, openings and footpaths through historic sites should follow, as much as possible, the original pathways.

Any infrastructure that is needed at historic ruins sites should help the lay public easier understand the history of the site which they have come to visit.85 Policies such as this are essential to ensuring the continued viability of the historic values of ruins continues into the future.

83 Amanda White, “Interpretation and display of ruins and sites” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 247 – 248. 84 Fitch, Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World, p. 343. 85 Thompson, Ruins: Their Interpretation and Display, p. 32 – 34.

XVIII. The Interpretation and Display of Ruins

For many, a visit to the site of ruins is often a memorable and pleasurable experience. The presentation and display of these monumental sites should, more than anything, bring history to life, and strive to display the past in the present. At the same time, sites should allow the visitor to experience the passage of time as a way to experience the reality of past events and the passage of time which shaped the site.

“Presentation” of sites is the method by which the “display” of ruins is rendered in lay speech. The display and interpretation of ruins sites is a process only achieved through scholastic study and sensitivity to the realities of the site, each being unique. Ruins are, by definition, monuments to past events and people which exist in a dynamic, ever changing setting. Ruins are not static didactic displays which one may find in a museum.

This distinction compels heritage conservation professionals to create a scheme of interpretation and display that is both comprehensive, sensitive, and honest.86

An appropriate way to interpret a ruins site depends on the physical evidence and surrounding landscape present; on this the conservation professional can built an interpretation scheme for the site. To be successful, however, this interpretation depends on three primary rules: it must be (1) sensitive to the fragility of the remains, (2) historically and scientifically accurate, and (3) aesthetically pleasing to the eye.

Additionally, it is important to consider and incorporate in any interpretive scheme the physical demands on the site from infrastructure deemed necessary to accommodate visitors. It must be understood that by its very nature, the act of interpreting ruins sites is not entirely without bias or preconceived notions. The challenge for the heritage

86 Thompson, Ruins: Their Interpretation and Display, p. 29.

50 conservation professional is to make judicious choices in what story is told, and where necessary, consult with specialists who may be able to contribute valuable information in the composition of such an interpretive scheme.87

The ideal way for the heritage professional to begin the process of creating an interpretation for historic sites is to start on a macro-scale and work towards the micro: consider the surrounding landscape and its history first. Sites with a large volume of remains will be somewhat limited in how expansive their interpretation scheme will be, while sites with less physically remnant structures can afford to be more creative in the creation of their programming.88 It is imperative for those in charge of creating an interpretive scheme to consider the intangible landscape as well – that ruins themselves are not a “static strata” but a place deeply involved with human history. Visitors who come to the site of ancient ruins are seeing the real, tangible evidence of history in situ, rather than in a display case at a museum. Sites should communicate the story of the former inhabitants, their lives, and the civilization that once was and is no more. “Ruins are reflections of political struggles, cultural fashions, technological skills, artistic impressions, religious beliefs, and other aspects of human behavior.” Creating an interpretive display that is both engaging and authentic is the challenge that any interpretation must strive to achieve.89 Indeed, maintaining the “integrity” of the site is a cardinal rule for any conservator to uphold when constructing an interpretive program for

87 Renée Sivan, “The Presentation of Archaeological Sites” in The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, ed. Marta de la Torre (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1997), p. 51 – 53. 88 Thompson, Ruins: Their Interpretation and Display, p. 29. 89 Renée Sivan, “The Presentation of Archaeological Sites” in The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, ed. Marta de la Torre (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1997), p. 53.

51 the display of ruins. Integrity refers to both the material remains of a given historic site as well as the “wholeness, completeness, and entirety” of the feeling of the site.90

Proper interpretation of a ruin site relies on the scholastic analysis of many facets of the site. Conservators must take into account the four primary values that constitute what makes the site a ruin: (1) emotional values, (2) symbolic values, (3) cultural values, and (4) use values. Emotional values are those which speak to the sense of temporal continuity and wonderment embodied by ruins. Symbolic and cultural values of ruins represent the art, history, aesthetics, architecture, archaeology, and the cultural landscape values of ruin sites. Lastly, the “use value” of ruins encapsulates their functional, social, economic, educational, and political attributes. These four values are to be respected when forming an interpretative scheme for presentation of historic ruin sites so that the physical remains of the site are protected and its history honestly represented.91

Interpretations should be as minimally invasive as possible, in keeping with the overall conservation philosophy of “minimal intervention.” Visitors to the ruins site should ideally be focused on the site itself and not the interpretive infrastructure – this means creating footpaths, interpretive signage, and other appurtenances that do not distract or overwhelm visitors from the visual definition of the ruins, but add to their

90 Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation, p. 298 – 299. 91 Feilden, Conservation of Historic Buildings, p. 261.

complete experience. What

infrastructure that is

present on the site itself,

such as any informational

signage, should be

unobtrusively placed and

not unduly wordy.92 In

some cases, it may be

necessary to construct a Figure 8: Unobtrusive signage at ancient Roman ruins, Carsulae Parco Archaeolgico, Province of Terni, Italy. (Photograph by author.) protective shelter or tabernacle to cover sensitive exposed ruins. These structures may help shelter archaeologists and other conservators working on the site, as well as provide visitors to the site with an experience more akin to a museum site. Shelters have, in some cases, been constructed to suggest a massing and form which alludes to the now-vanished ancient structure, which is itself an exercise in historical interpretation.93 Site interpretation can be executed in both static and dynamic ways, both on and off the historic site itself. Informational brochures, pamphlets, guidebooks, documentaries, and visitor center displays (models, dioramas, or other three-dimensional displays) can be a

92 Renée Sivan, “The Presentation of Archaeological Sites” in The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, ed. Marta de la Torre (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 1997), p. 52 – 54. 93 Antonella Altieri and Daniela Pinna, “Prevention of Biodeterioration – Outdoor Environments” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 288.

53 useful way to disseminate a large amount of information to the general public which has no impact on the site itself.94

Modern technology’s progress in present times has allowed for interpretations to historical sites to become an immersive experience now as well. The use of visual elements such as sight and sound can help excite the imaginations of visitors and bring to

life long-past eras of

time. Many of these

technological tools

have the benefit of

being almost

completely unobtrusive Figure 9: "Le son-et-lumière de Château Royal de Blois." A son-et-lumière show at the Royal Château of Blois, France. (Photograph courtesy: Agence de Développement Touristique – Loire et Cher, Coeur Val de Cher). and non-injurious to fragile architecture. A particularly spectacular tool is the son-et-lumière, or “sound and light,” technique which originated in France that utilizes recorded sounds (voices, music, and/or sound effects) and projected-light shows to tell a story (typically held at night). It has the benefit of causing no harm to fragile sites, while providing an exciting and informative display.95

In all things, the interpretational scheme constructed by the managers of historic sites and conservation professionals must be one that is ever evolving to meet the demands of the public. In many ways, public visitation presents both a danger and a salvation for ruins. Ruins can be damaged by overzealous or careless visitors, yet the

94 Fitch, Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World, p. 339. 95 Ibid., p. 343 – 348.

54 economic necessities of such fragile remains mean that they will be wholly dependent on a steady flow of revenue gathered from visitors themselves. Therein is the job and challenge for heritage conservation professionals.

XIX. Approaches for the Conservation of Masonry Ruins and

Nature at Historic Sites

Conservation, rather than restoration, is defined as the stabilization and prevention of further deterioration.96 Stone masonry ruins are delicate objects, and a careful analysis is the first step in considering a conservation approach. Often times, this can be a complex and time-consuming task, so in the interim, the shoring-up and temporarily stabilization of ruins becomes necessary. The image of ruins draped in a luxuriant cover of vegetation may be picturesque, one deeply imbedded in the Romantic notions of how ruins are popularly perceived, but the damage that continued vegetative growth can cause is a very real and present danger.97 The presence of vegetal growth on stone masonry ruins is often indicative of a level of deterioration and lack of maintenance.98 Damage caused from plants or other organic objects to a non-organic object is known as

“biodeterioration” or changes caused in the material properties of a non-organic object which may be undesirable caused by the vital functions of organisms or “biodeteriogens.”

96 Martin E. Weaver, Conserving Buildings: A Manual of Techniques and Materials (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997), p. 71. 97 Richard Fawcett, The Conservation of Architectural Ancient Monuments in Scotland: Guidance on Principles (Edinburgh: Historic Scotland, 2001), p. 44. 98 Feilden, Conservation of Historic Buildings, p. 133.

Changes and/or damage caused can vary from minor aesthetic harm to irreversible transformations of the material object from the substrate down to the core of the object.99

The ecological characteristics of plants which grown on stone masonry ruins have specific biological characteristics which allow them to survive in an environment that many other varieties of plants find inhospitable. As soil and water are often in short supply, the size and variation of plant species is generally limited, as are the areas on which these plants grow on stone masonry ruins. Generally, plant colonization at such sites begins with mosses and other autotrophic organisms being pioneer plants which collect atmospherically-delivered particulate matter, and concentrate its presence on the substrate. From this, other larger vascular and woody plants will develop on weakened surfaces by seed deposit – wind or animal borne. Through vegetative reproduction, these plant species will spread across the architectural ruin in time.100

XX. Biodeterioration and Approaches to Prevention and Maintenance at Ruin

Sites

Biodeterioration primarily causes two forms of damage to historic objects, such as ruins: physical and aesthetic. It is not, however, always easy to distinguish between the two, dependent on the type of organism and the host material it inhabits. Aesthetic damage is frequently the most recognized (and most likely to get attention) yet is,

99 Daniela Pinna and Ornella Salvadori, “Processes of Biodeterioration: General Mechanisms” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 15, 32. 100 Ettore Pacini and Maria Adele Signorini, “Structural, Functional, and Ecological Characteristics of the Main Biodeteriogens – Vascular Plants” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 87 – 96.

56 perhaps, the least important aspect of biodeterioration. Depending on the environmental conditions of the site, and the particular “biotic community” which inhabit ruin sites, various processes may occur which can lead to disaggregation, loss of cohesion, rupture, and many other forms of mechanical weakening of the physical object. These processes occur simultaneously, but one type of degradation will typically prevail, depending on the environmental conditions present at the site. The conditions for which these occur depend on what types of biota (or vegetative organism) which inhabit a particular site. It is important to distinguish between two particular forms of organisms which may inhabit ruins sites: autotrophs and heterotrophs. Autotrophic organisms are those which are able to derive their food source from the environment around them, examples being bacteria, algae, lichens, thallophytes, and mosses, while heterotrophic organisms are certain forms of bacteria, fungi, and animal species, which depend on external food sources for nourishment. These organisms’ ability to colonize a site and grow are dependent on the material properties available on which they will find sufficient nutrients.101

The primary considerations that conservators must approach when determining what intervention techniques to apply revolve around a few key points: (1) identification of the cause(s) of damage, (2) suitability of intervention techniques, and (3) the risks associated with the chosen intervention technique (to both the conservation staff and the object in question). Identification of the damage and its quantification will help the conservator establish the appropriate methods of intervention, be it by mechanical and/or

101 Daniela Pinna and Ornella Salvadori, “Processes of Biodeterioration: General Mechanisms” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 15 – 17.

57 physical methods or indirect methods.102 Direct intervention to remove, maintain, or mitigate biological organisms on outdoor, in situ remains depends on several factors.

Biological growth tends to collect on surfaces where there is sufficient moisture and nutrient-rich content to support growth – surfaces exposed to the elements such as the driving rain, sunlight, ventilation (or lack thereof), and areas in contact with soil.103 A preliminary examination of the structure(s) can determine which areas need immediate stabilization through the installation of brackets or supports on bulging or leaning walls, widening cracks, and loose masonry joints. Some sites may require the removal of vegetation in order to gain access to the ruin itself. This can also be a complex task; as certain types of plants cannot be removed hastily without causing immediate damage to the historic fabric. It is considered a best practice to apply an herbicidal agent and allow the plant to die off before removal so that root system can weaken and wither away from historic masonry materials. It is important to note, however, that larger woody plants may end up playing a role in the overall stability of the structure, and consideration must be given to the effects that a release of such an applied loading to the wall will have once

102 Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori, “Control of Biodeterioration and Bioremediation Techniques” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 309 – 312. 103 Antonella Altieri and Daniela Pinna, “Prevention of Biodeterioration – Outdoor Environments” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 285 – 286.

58 removed.104 One remedy to effectively slow the growth of large woody roots is to place copper nails, closely positioned to one another, along the trunk.105

XXI. Balancing the Ecological Needs of Ruin Sites with Architectural Conservation

Ruins exist somewhere in between landscapes – no longer buildings, yet not quite a natural landscape. Nature, if left unchecked, will reclaim the landscape, covering remaining ruins in a heavy mantle of vegetation. This landscape, in the process of recovering itself from years of human habitation, will become home once again to numerous residents, this time in the form of new plants and animals. The landscape, while reverting to its “natural” state will not recover to its previous state entirely, as the remnant ruins left on the site will inevitably become the home of new species of plants and animals that may not have previously existed on site or are even indigenous to the area, but have migrated there. For instance, weathered stones and lime-rich mortars can provide suitable environments for numerous plant and animal species, vertical surfaces may become home to hardy drought-tolerant plants, and cracks, crevices, and shaded areas may become the ideal home to mosses, lichens, and numerous other types of vegetation. The particular peculiarities of ruin sites may also lend itself to the creation of micro-climactic conditions, leading to the creation of a unique variety of plant and animal species which may reside in this location, but not elsewhere farther afield. The considerable biodiversity that may result from such evolution over time is one of great scientific interest for academicians and the lay public alike. The work of traditional

104 John Ashurst and Colin Burns, “Philosophy, technology and craft” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 88 – 93. 105 Fawcett, The Conservation of Architectural Ancient Monuments in Scotland: Guidance on Principles, p. 45.

59 architectural conservationists may, through the course of their scope of work, overlook this complex biodiversity in the interest of conserving the stability of the ruins. Indeed, the idea of conserving the ecology of a ruin site seems at odds with prevailing conservation practice and theory.106

Considering that the attraction of ruin sites lies largely within its image of a

“romantic” vegetation-strewn ruin, any practical conservation plan should take into account the preservation of vegetative remains at the site as well. A plan such as this requires, by its very nature, a team of professionals which is diverse in background and expertise in order to address both the natural and built environments. A comprehensive plan for the conservation of both natural and built environments of ruin sites must begin with a detailed survey and analysis of the built ruins present on the site, the state of these remains, and the type of vegetation that is present on the site. A biological survey of the ruins site will serve to highlight how important vegetation is to the character and spirit of ruins sites. By fully accounting for all aspects of the site, the heritage conservation team can more accurately assess the scope of conservation work that will be necessary.107

In consideration of how important the vegetation then becomes to the character of ruins, one must not lose sight of the fact that ruins are still unstable places. The seeming conflict of interest of preserving this vegetation must not be perceived, however, as neglect of the historic architectural fabric. Vegetation that covers leaning walls, voids, cracks, and other impairments that may contribute to the destabilization of the building should be cleared. However, it is important to also recognize that this vegetation must be

106 Sara Ferraby, “The ecology of ruin sites” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 195 – 199. 107 Ibid., p. 195 – 197.

60 cleared in a manner that will not hasten the deterioration of the historic fabric or damage the habitat of rare or sensitive fauna that are present. Locations of significant woody root systems and extensive vine growth must be catalogued so that plans can be made for their safe removal from particularly sensitive areas. It is important to note that some mature root systems may have begun to play a structural role in the ruins, however, where the passage of time has allowed root growth to become integral to structural stability and removal may pose the danger of settlement and dislocation of ruins.108

Besides the vegetation that has taken up residence on ruins sites, heritage conservationists must be cognizant of the other inhabitants that have taken up at the site:

animals. Specifically, the unique nature of ruins

sites may lend themselves to inhabitation by rare

and endangered species of animals that will require

careful consideration. Areas of nesting and roosting

sites for certain avian species, burrows for

terrestrial animals, and waterways that shelter

aquatic life may restrict the type and quantity of

work that is able to be carried out at any given site.

The biologist, an integral member of any

conservation team, should be consulted on when it

Figure 10: Types and quantites of root growth on masonry structures. (Photograph courtesy of is best to enter these sites to perform work – for Caneva, Nugari, and Salvadori). instance, during migratory seasons when faunal

108 Sara Ferraby, “The ecology of ruin sites” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 196 – 201.

61 inhabitants may be absent from the site. Consider, too, the benefits of certain animal species to the conservation process. The introduction of goats to a site in need of clearance, for example, is an environmentally friendly and sustainable way to clear vegetation.109

Provisions should, however, be made for the safe return of flora and fauna deemed contributing to the character of the site in a manner which will not contribute further damage to architectural remains. Biological surveys of ruins sites should also consist of samples made of the natural elements present: stones, soils, and even mortars.

Testing of these natural materials will help inform what types of plants are suitable to grow in that environment. The survey should also include a detailed assessment of what type and quantity of plants are present at any given site, locations of root systems, and other natural features on site. Impacts from various plants must also be categorized, and sites of particularly sensitive ruins (intricate carvings, fragile remnants, and/or inaccessible areas) must be considered with special emphasis.110

XXII. Biologically-Based Conservation Methods for Architectural Ruins

In recent years, studies have advanced knowledge of how plants interact with ruins, and a greater awareness for the capacity of plants to preserve architectural and archaeological objects has arisen. While traditional architectural conservation practice has been to reduce the threat of damage from vegetative growth, this new knowledge has led to the wider acceptance and use of plants as a gentler, more sustainable method of architectural conservation.

109 Sara Ferraby, “The ecology of ruin sites” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 201 – 204. 110 Ibid., p. 196 – 197.

Traditionally, in the process

of conserving ruined walls

(typically composed of rubble

stone veneer with a soil core),

conservators applied a “hard cap”

of lime, hydraulic lime, cement, or

other modified soil to the exposed

Figure 11: "Hard-capped" wall tops at Carsulae archaeological site, tops of walls. This technique is Province of Terni, Italy. (Photograph by author). intended to protect the exposed surfaces of walls, and is favored for its relative ease of application and low expense. The hard-capping method has several drawbacks, however, the least of which being its need for constant monitoring and maintenance. Hard-capping, especially when executed in cement, tends to be far too rigid for fragile ruins and can lead to localized cracking and dislocation of masonry joints. Additionally, this type of rigid topping increases water runoff down unprotected surfaces which in turn will lead to water penetration and retention within the ruined walls. Increased moisture content within the walls can expose the ruins to risk of elevated damage to freeze-thaw cycles, elevated salt crystallization

(sub-florescence and efflorescence), decreased stability, and vegetative growth.111

The alternative and more environmentally sustainable measure that can be used in this instance is known as “soft capping” ruins. When properly executed, using a “soft” vegetative cover over exposed masonry ruins may help protect vulnerable surfaces while

111 Alex B. Lim, Frank G. Matero, and Michael C. Henry, “Greening Deterioration: Soft Capping as Preventive Conservation for Masonry Ruin Sites,” APT Bulletin 44, no. 2/3 (2013), p. 53 – 54.

63 also having the added benefit of contributing an aesthetically pleasing element to the ruins by adding a more naturalistic appeal to the site by using native plants whenever Figure 12: "Alvastra klosterruin." The soft-capped ruins of the twelfth-century possible. The use of Alvastra Abbey, Östergötland, Sweden, currently under the stewardship of the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet). (Photograph courtesy: Visit Östergötland). vegetative covers is termed a “soft” cover because, unlike cement covers, is flexible and will not introduce a hardened rigid component to ruin sites which are less able to withstand movement and freeze/thaw cycles without causing further damage. Additionally, vegetation has the added benefit of retaining moisture within the plant and soil covering itself as well as slowing the runoff of water over ruin surfaces, thus reducing the amount of water penetration within the masonry structure and the associated problems that may arise from such a condition. Limiting factors of the soft capping technique are mostly due to the peculiarities of individual sites, ranging from whether or not the masonry wall top is thick enough to support a vegetative cover system, to what types of plants are appropriate and hardy enough to withstand exposed surfaces while at the same time possessing a root system that is not overly aggressive.112

112 Alex B. Lim, Frank G. Matero, and Michael C. Henry, “Greening Deterioration: Soft Capping as Preventive Conservation for Masonry Ruin Sites,” APT Bulletin 44, no. 2/3 (2013), p. 54 – 57.

Beyond direct intervention techniques, vegetation has the ability to indirectly shelter and safeguard ruins in a variety of ways. Taking a cue from the Romans, historic site managers may choose to use thorn, bramble, or nettle hedges as a form of passive security.113 (Granted, the Romans used thorn hedges in defensive ditches at fortifications as a deterrent to invading armies, but one may make the argument that the use of thorn hedges at ruin sites is still a useful tool to again deter invading vandals.) Additional

“passive” measures that utilize vegetation as a means of protective cover is one of utmost simplicity: windbreaks. The elemental forces of nature are the chief causes of deterioration of architectural ruins (besides time itself); and the power of wind poses a significant threat to the stability of fragile ruins. Taking into consideration the topographical features of given ruin site, conservators may choose to plant a buffer of wind-breaking trees to shelter fragile ruins from the prevailing winds.114 It should be noted, however, that trees with large root systems should be placed far enough away from delicate ruins to not cause dislocation of architectural elements by root-jacking.115 The plantation of trees and shrubs also serves to reduce temperature fluctuation in their immediate vicinity by providing shade. In addition, trees and shrubs may serve as a barrier to wind-borne pollutants and other particulate matter which may otherwise deposit on the surface of ruins. Finally, the plantation of trees and shrubbery serves to

113 Sara Ferraby, “The ecology of ruin sites” in Conservation of Ruins, ed. John Ashurst (Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2007), p. 201. 114 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016. 115 John H. Stubbs, “Protection and Presentation of Excavated Structures” in Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, ed. N.P. Stanley Price (Rome: ICCROM, 1995), p. 76 – 77.

65 mechanically stabilize the immediate vicinity of conservation sites, by preventing landslides, erosion, and subsidence due to the stabilizing attributes of root system growth.

In all cases, conservators who choose to implement such practices at ruins sites should endeavor to choose plant species which are native to the site itself in an effort to recreate a landscape which is historically cohesive, compatible, and coherent. Giacomo Boni, in his writings on the inclusion of appropriate flora at archaeological sites, distinguished between the “classical flora” historically used in antiquity and the “ornamental flora” which could be used to hide or disguise the conservation of archaeological ruins, as well as “parasitic flora” which were to the detriment of classical ruin sites.116

Another example of the utilization of nature to an advantage in architectural conservation may take some architectural conservators by surprise, as it may seem contrary to traditional conservation works: using plants as environmental bio-indicators.

It is no secret that plants are reactive to their surroundings, so using the natural vegetation that envelops many ruin sites as a monitor of environmental conditions should be regarded as one of the tools in the conservator’s tool box. Lichens, for instance, find an ideal home amongst masonry ruins as the ancient stones provide a place for shelter and sustenance. Lichens are autotrophic microorganisms, in the same family as algae, moss, fungi, and bacteria, which need essentially only light, moisture, and sodium to live.117

Lichens cause damage and disfigurement to stones by their relatively small root system,

116 Antonella Altieri and Daniela Pinna, “Prevention of Biodeterioration – Outdoor Environments” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 292 – 293. 117 Nikos Vakalis, “Alteration of stones.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 6, 2016.

66 which attaches directly to the stone’s surface. Lichens are also considered one of the chief “romantic” vegetative elements, providing a multi-colored visual compliment to ruins’ appearance. This multi-colored appearance (endopigmentation) is due to the sensitivity of these lichens to their surrounding environment, and the chemical composition of the nutrients that lichens ingest via air, water, and from the substrate on which it attaches.118,119

Table 1: Appearance of biological alterations of cultural heritage on stones. Adapted from Pinna and Salvadori.

APPEARANCE of BIOLOGICAL ALTERATIONS of CULTURAL HERITAGE on STONES120

ORGANISM APPEARANCE Autotrophic bacteria Black crusts, black patinas, exfoliations, powdering Heterotrophic bacteria Black crusts, mucilaginous patinas, exfoliations, color change, stains Actinomycetes (anaerobic bacteria) Grayish-white powder and patinas, grayish-white efflorescence Fungi Staining, exfoliation, pitting Cyanobacteria and Algae Patinas and films of varying consistency Lichens Incrustations, patching, pitting Mosses and Liverwarts Greenish/grey thalli and greenish stains in the initial stages of growth Higher plants (grasses, shrubs, woody Fracturing, collapsing of structures, and species) detachment of materials

By monitoring the color of lichens, managers of historic sites can better understand the surrounding environment in terms of air and water quality (and any

118 Gerald J. Niemi and Michael E. McDonald, “Application of Ecological Indicators,” Annual Review of Ecology, Environment, and Systematics 35, (2007), p. 94. 119 Daniela Pinna and Ornella Salvadori, “Processes of Biodeterioration: General Mechanisms” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 28 – 29. 120 Ibid., p. 33.

67 particulate pollution present). In addition, preliminary research has shown that lichens attached to porous stones, like those which may be found at ruins sites, may reduce the damaging effects of high intensity water, wind, and pollution exchanges over the surface of stones by acting as a buffer between the stone substrate and the offending element(s).121 Many types of vegetation besides lichens and other thallophytic plants can perform a similar function. (See Appendix III.)

While many architectural conservators may regard vegetative growth on ruins solely as a problem to be remedied, it becomes incumbent upon conservators in the modern era to consider now some of the positive effects that vegetation may play in the conservation of ruins. Indeed, besides possible structural, protective, and/or bio- indicative roles which plants may play, it is crucial to recognize that plants contribute that intangible elegiac feeling for which ruins are known. And it is this feeling which draws many visitors to sites which in turn, increases popular awareness of the plight of these singularly unique objects, and hopefully bolsters efforts for their protection and conservation.

XXIII. New Technologies and Techniques for Old Ruins: A Proposal

For many, the attraction to ruins is contained in their romantic image, as illusions of faded grandeur and a testament to the passage of time. This image is composed of two primary components: the ruined architecture itself and its often dramatic drapery of vegetation. Existing as they do in a precarious state between the natural and built

121 Daniela Pinna and Ornella Salvadori, “Processes of Biodeterioration: General Mechanisms” in Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, ed. Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori (Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008), p. 17.

68 environments, ruins present a unique challenge for conservationists and managers of historic sites to preserve this tenuous balance. While traditionally, vegetation has been regarded as part of the problem by architectural conservationists, recent experimentation and observation has concluded that there may indeed be another way to approach vegetation at ruins sites by harnessing their protective attributes to the benefit of ruins.

Considering vegetation within the scope of conservation work, and including it in conservation plans has the added advantage for also preserving that intangible aspect of ruins, which would be the spirit and feeling of romanticism.

As conservation technology and materials continue to improve, creative inquiry should also be encouraged in the application of techniques concerning ruins conservation.

A melding of architectural support structures and plant systems can together create a

“living system” of support for ruins all the while protecting and preserving the romantic

image so vital to ruins

conservation. The French

landscape architect Patrick

Blanc has patented a system

which allows plant species to

grow on formerly blank wall

surfaces, which he has termed

the “vertical garden.” This

Figure 13:Caixa Forum, Madrid, Spain. Vertical garden design by system, typically installed on Patrick Blanc. (Photograph courtesy: Herzog and de Meuron, and www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com). large blank façades of modern buildings, consists of some form of synthetic media (typically felt, polyurethane, or

69 geosynthetic textile) on which hold plant roots, an irrigation system, and the plants themselves.122 Vertical landscapes require “living systems” in which organic materials and architectural structures are combined to facilitate plant growth over a scaffold, tensile cable, mesh, and/or beam framework which support soil or other synthetic material.123

Appendix II contains a list of products and technologies that may be utilized in living systems.

Depending on the interpretive regime utilized by a particular ruins site, two broad categories of living systems can be hypothetically defined for use: (1) the discreet system

Figure 14: Floating grass plain at the Mercati di Traiano in Rome, Italy. Designed by Dutch firm Wonder 8, this “living system” allows exploration of the ruins without direct interaction. By hovering over exposed ruins, the installation does not touch sensitive remains. Additionally, it becomes part of the interpretive scheme of the site, for better or worse. (Photograph courtesy: West 8). and (2) the exposed system. In the first category, a discreet system could be used to cover structural reinforcement at ruin sites where an architectural stability support system is deemed necessary for the safeguarding of ruins. The “discreet system” is one in which

122 Patrick Blanc, The Vertical Garden: From Nature to the City (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 2008), p. 97 – 103. 123 Liat Margolis and Alexander Robinson, Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture (Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag AG, 2007), p. 14.

70 the structural support members are essentially camouflaged by vegetation so that the image of romantic ruins is preserved. The “exposed system” is one which takes the polemic opposite approach, by being visible to the naked eye by thoughtful, creative, and artful construction. This approach blends the living system into the message of interpretation of the site by becoming an additional component to the site’s strata and the visitor’s overall experience to a site.

Living systems, much like any architectural and/or organic system, will require maintenance and care to continue to function properly. If living systems are incorporated into the overall conservation plan for a historic ruin site, so too should provisions for their maintenance and upkeep be considered. As modern technologies and conservation methods continue to advance, heritage conservation professionals should avail themselves of such advances in considering modern interpretive schemes for ancient sites.

XXIV. Case Study: Ruins and Site Management of the

Gardens of Ninfa, Province of Latina, Italy

Described by author Charles Quest-Ritson as “the most romantic garden in the world,” the Gardens of Ninfa, located south of Rome, embody the principles of

Romanticism and the Picturesque perhaps unlike any other contemporary example. The fantastically unique cultural landscape of Ninfa includes rare and exotic species of flora and fauna, as well as the ruins of the former city of Ninfa, abandoned in the Middle Ages.

The ruins of the old city of Ninfa within gardens embody the history and experience of the Italian conservation movement, as a living laboratory for the research and execution

71 of architectural conservation practices. The gardens are located approximately forty-five miles (seventy kilometers) south of Rome, in the province of Latina (part of the larger

Lazio region). The lands in and around Ninfa have, for the majority of its history, been under the dominion of the noble Caetani family. When the last member of the Domus

Caetani died in 1977, the world-renowned gardens came under the stewardship of the

Fondazione Roffredo Caetani, who still own and manage the grounds today.124

XXV. A Brief History of Ninfa and the Caetani Family

The city of Ninfa was founded in the eighth-century at the foot of the Lepini

Mountains in a fertile plain fed by springs. The name for the city comes from the springs themselves (Nymphaeus), dedicated to the worship of nymph goddesses during the era of the Roman empire.125 By the year 750 the Ninfa settlement and surrounding estates came under the stewardship of Pope Zacharias who amassed a vast landed estate stretching from the foot of the Lepini Mountains fifteen-miles (twenty-five kilometers) to the

Mediterranean Sea. The settlements in this area, which included Ninfa, began to grow due to its location along an ancient Roman consular road, the Via Piedemontana, which connected Rome and Naples. The Via Piedemontana, as its name would suggest, was located at the foot of mountains, and became the primary transportation route when the

Via Appia (Appian Way) became impassable by the flood-prone Pontine Marshes, which made travel impossible. The town prospered due to this fortunate location and became a fortified town through the successive embellishments of various Popes, which can still be evidenced in the ruins of the town’s seven churches and fortifications. In 1159, Pope

124 Fondazione Roffredo Caetani, “Ninfa: the garden,” Garden of Ninfa, http://www.fondazionecaetani.org/giardini.php (accessed August 27, 2016). 125 Ibid.

Alexander III was crowned as pontiff in the now-ruined church of Santa Maria Maggiore at Ninfa.126

The Caetani family, long Ninfa’s caretakers, came to possess Ninfa and its environs when Pope Boniface VIII gifted the estate to his nephew Pietro Caetani in 1297.

The Caetani family worked “assiduously” to affirm control of their new fiefdom by making the estate a profitable enterprise by improving agriculture and further developing industry. At the peak of prosperity for Ninfa in the fourteenth-century, the city boasted a double-perimeter fortified wall with a system of watchtowers, seven churches, over 150 houses, fourteen towers, a castle, town hall, many mills, and approximately two-thousand inhabitants. The town came to an end during the Great Schism of the Catholic church which saw the (temporary) removal of the papal court from Rome to Avignon, France, in what is now known as the “Babylonian Captivity.” During this time, there were two popes: the “anti-pope” who resided in Avignon, and one which resided in Rome.127 The

“anti-pope” Pope Clemet VII, being an adversary of the Caetani and the Pope whom they supported, Pope Urban VI, led ultimately to war which would see the end of Ninfa.

Soldiers from France and the Basque country seized the city in 1381, and finally, bands of mercenaries from surrounding areas sacked what was left of the city, and Ninfa ceased to exist. The following centuries would see the abandonment and isolation of the ruined city, although it remained within the Caetani family’s vast landholdings.128

126 Lauro Marchetti, Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment (New York: The Vendome Press, 1999), p. 11 – 24. 127 Harry Hearder and Jonathan Morris, A Short History of Italy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), p. 87 – 88. 128 Marchetti, Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment, p. 32.

The beginnings of the Caetani family’s legacy of gardening and conservation works at Ninfa commence with the building of a garden within the ruined city’s walls during the seventeenth-century by Francesco Caetani. Francesco, described as a true embodiment of a “Renaissance man,” possessed a highly-cultivated genius and passion for horticulture. Here, he enlisted the help of Francesco de Volterra to create a formal

Italinate-style garden within the ruined walls (Hortus Conclusus) which was befitting his rank as Viceroy of the Two Sicilies and Governor of Milan.129, 130 During the eighteenth- and nineteenth-centuries, the gardens amongst the ruins became popular amongst writers, painters, and tourists alike for its romantic decay, with German historian Gregorovius going so far as to describe the ruins of Ninfa as the “Pompeii of the Middle Ages” in

1860 due to the thick mantle of vegetation overtaking the ruins.131, 132 So renowned were the ruins at Ninfa, that the site became an important and well-known stop along the so- called Grand Tour of Europe, taken by societal elites, artists, and literati in the 1800s.

The ruins at Ninfa became the subject of many pastoral and melancholy engravings by many artistic minds of the nineteenth-century, including Sir Edward Lear in his

“Illustrated Excursions in Italy” in 1846.133

129 Fondazione Roffredo Caetani, “Ninfa: the ancient town,” Garden of Ninfa, http://www.fondazionecaetani.org/giardini.php (accessed August 27, 2016). 130 Ibid. 131 Ibid. 132 Marchetti, Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment, p. 42. 133 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

Figure 15: Ninfa as depicted by Sir Edward Lear in "Illustrated Excursions in Italy," 1846. (Public Domain).

The shape of the modern gardens at Ninfa are largely the vision of its last three caretakers from the Caetani family. Prince Gelasio Caetani began the first restoration of the gardens in the 1920s, which lasted into the 1950s. Like his ancestor Francesco, Prince

Gelasio was a man of many talents and vision. He, along with his English-born mother

Ada, began the restoration of the gardens by clearing underbrush and excavating and restoring several ruins in Ninfa, including those of various churches, houses, and walls.

Many houses were made habitable once again in order to house garden workers, while the old town hall

(Municipio), restored to be the Caetani family

Figure 16: Ada Caetani and her family. (Photograph Courtesy: Fondazione villa. With work on Roffredo Caetani).

75 their “romantic” garden proceeding, the form that took shape was not one of Italianate formality, but of a free-form naturalistic garden that complimented the elegiac beauty of the ruins, rather than dominated them. This “free and informal style” followed many of the gardening ideals promoted in romantic English-style gardens, ostensibly at the influence of English-born Donna Ada. 134

The next caretakers of the gardens were Prince Gelasio’s brother and sister-in- law, Roffredo, and his American-born wife Marguerite. Roffredo and Marguerite expanded their vision at Ninfa by upholding the enlightened traditions of their forbearers and nurtured the continued development of the gardens at Ninfa. Under their stewardship, the gardens became a center of inspiration for writers and artists alike.135 Duchess

Marguerite was herself the scion of a notable American family with origins dating back to 1635 with relatives including T.S. Eliot, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and Presidents Taft and Cleveland. During her life, Marguerite cultivated an enlightened circle of colleagues and friends while she ran a well-regarded literary review, the Botteghe Oscure, which she accomplished at the same time as overseeing the numerous restoration and planting projects at the family’s estates in Rome and most especially at her garden at Ninfa.136 The last Caetani to own and manage the Gardens at Ninfa was Donna Leila Caetani and her husband Hubert Howard, who are largely responsible for the appearance of the gardens as they are today, and with the establishment of the Fondazione Roffredo Caetani.137 Donna

Leila, following in the creative footsteps of her forbearers, was a talented painter and was

134 Marchetti, Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment, p. 39 – 48. 135 Ibid., p. 51. 136 Helen Barolini, Their Other Side: Six American Women and the Lure of Italy (New York: Fordham University Press, 2006), p. 179 – 183. 137 Marchetti, Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment, p. 51.

76 greatly interested in and influenced by landscape paintings. She channeled this interest into the garden itself, creating an ever-more picturesque garden setting at Ninfa based on light, reflection, color, and variety of scales. Donna Leila is also responsible for creating a botanic archive of the plants in the garden at Ninfa.138

XXVI. Past Interventions, Methods of Display, and Management Strategies used at

Ninfa

The Gardens at Ninfa have a long history, one deeply intertwined with the land and the Caetani family itself. Although the Romantic period may have officially lasted until the mid-nineteenth century, the Gardens at Ninfa can be considered one of the last blossoms of the picturesque garden in Europe. The garden is free-form and follows the concepts of the Romantic movement’s desire to transport its audience into the idyll, to promote imagination, the exotic, and fantasy. The circle of cultured friends cultivated by the last generations of the Caetani family left a profound influence on how the gardens themselves were created, and especially in how they are managed. Between the 1920s and 1970s, the special “Ninfa management method” was created to administer changes to and maintenance of the garden. Special attention was given to the interpretation of “time passing and [the evidence of] biological patina” when considering what new interventions were to be made. For example, construction materials were carefully chosen and used to preserve the look of age and the passage of time. The idea of the “precious relationship between vegetation and constructions” was highly valued. From the 1920s, new trees and shrubs were placed in the gardens after careful removal of overgrowth

138 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

77 around the ruins in order to “rediscover” the city, yet preserve the feeling of the heavy mantle of vegetation at the site. To this end, the first restorations were carried out that emulated the patina of age. In these restorations, coffee powder was added to traditional hydraulic lime mortars to add an age-darkened appearance to the new mortar, and seeds of plants with light root systems placed within the mortar to sprout within the ruins themselves. It was from these early experimentations that the idea of the maintenance ethic that now prevails at Ninfa emerged, where gardeners and masons work hand-in- hand continuously to control the vegetation and stabilize ruins to preserve the effect of

“romantic decrepitude” at Ninfa.139

Maintenance of the garden, now entrusted to the Fondazione, is a delicate balancing act between the built remains of Ninfa and the flourishing nature of the gardens. Care of the ruined ancient churches, houses, and walls of the former city of

Ninfa are crucial to the “structure” of the garden and are performed with delicacy and precision. To this end, a “gardener for buildings” has emerged among the staff of caretakers to monitor plants, either cultivated or native, that grow amongst the stones – even on the very walls of the ancient remains. This staff member ranks among the many garden caretakers of the facility, but looks to monitor the growth of plants occurring on the ruins themselves and works to ensure that root damage or water damage does not occur.140 This unique caretaker works to differentiate plants that cause varying levels of

139 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016. 140 Marchetti, Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment, p. 72.

78 damage and uses this strategy to neutralize the negative effects of aggressive plant species while conserving those which cause little-to-no damage.141

The Fondazione Roffredo Caetani works diligently to preserve and maintain the delicate form of the gardens and the ruins contained within by both active and passive means. Among the methods used is to (1) limit opening days and control the flow of visitors to the site, (2) utilize docent-led tours of the garden with a predefined itinerary,

(3) take consideration of appointments or scheduled tours when not on established opening days, (4) use public funds and grants to ensure the long-term protection of the gardens and ruins.142

The balancing act of restoration, maintenance, conservation, and preservation occurring at Ninfa highlights the interesting dichotomy of the Fondazione’s management regimen in balancing the built and natural environment at Ninfa. What is being maintained? How is it being displayed? Is this management style the most beneficial to the care of the architectural ruins at Ninfa? As conservation of the garden and ancient remains continues at Ninfa, this management strategy is put into play.

XXVII. The Project to Restore and Conserve the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa,

2002 - 2015

One of the many things that make the Garden of Ninfa so unique is the management strategy that is taken at the site. The prevailing management strategy is one that values the garden’s romantic aesthetics. Projects undertaken at the site are conceived

141 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016. 142 Ibid.

79 in a manner that will not alter or affect too much of a change on the appearance of the gardens. One particular project was executed at Ninfa in two phases between 2002 and

2015 to stabilize and conserve the southeastern outer walls of the ancient city of Ninfa.

The project was financed in part by the application for and receipt of “Imposta sui

Redditi delle Persone Fisiche” (income tax generated) grants for heritage protection issued through the Italian state (Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri).143

The project was conceived with the help of a variety of interdisciplinary professionals, ranging from architects, engineers, landscape architects, biologists,

geologists, masons, and

gardeners to form a

project that is thorough,

wide-ranging, and

technically sound. The

aim of the overall project,

focusing on the

southeastern outer walls

only, was to “preserve the

image of the ruins [in] the

garden [and to highlight

the] symbiosis between

architecture and nature.” Figure 17: "Pianta delle Rovine di Ninfa" from the Domus Caetana, by Prince Gelasio Caetani. This plan depicts the extent of the ruins at Ninfa. Author has highlighted the southeastern outer walls. (Photograph courtesy: Fondazione Three predominant Roffredo Caetani, Ilaria Rossi-Doria).

143 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, email to author, 21 Sept. 2016.

80 concepts were laid out in the conceptual phase of the project, (1) to control aesthetical alteration (to avoid alteration of the “traditional image” of the site), (2) to balance the visibility of ruins and respect for nature, and (3) to integrate biological forms in the image of the ruin respecting conservation issues. By this restoration methodology, the project team sought to preserve the “traditional image” of the ruined walls in its present state of advanced decay through various actions. The project team’s goals included (1) slowing down the rate of degradation at the walls, (2) reconstruction of severely deteriorated areas only where necessary to avoid collapse, and (3) to define a proper maintenance program for the future.144

The preliminary works on the project consisted of clearing away some natural vegetation around the work site to provide access to the wall structure, and to provide visual clearance for the photographic survey of the site in order to define priorities for the scope of work. Once the photographic documentation was completed, the next phase carried out was an analytical phase in which the project team assessed and analyzed historical aspects of the site, construction typologies and mortars, mapped biological alterations to the site from the photographic documentation, and analyzed the construction materials (types of stones, mortar compositions), phases of construction, soil types and geology, landscape typologies, and structural conditions of the site. To do this, the photographic survey was synthesized and merged into large continuous sectional elevations which were then input into a CAD environment to map present conditions of deterioration on the project site. The conditions mapped were then weighted into

144 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

81 categories based on their construction material, masonry technique, and type of work.

The table* below includes a list of structural damage and material degradation noted by the mapping survey:

Table 2: Types of Damage, Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa.

TYPE OF DAMAGE DESCRIPTION IMAGE NOTED

Out of plumb Sections of wall which, through time, have shifted from its original position.

Corner falls Complete loss of corner areas. See “lacks” below.

Wall detachment / Detachment or bulge deformation of superficial layers of the material, including the substrate, which generally precedes the loss of layers.

Corner and connection A form of areas damage “detachment” which effects the corner areas of structures.

Structural instability Instability caused by weathering and degradation through time.

Stable cracks Deterioration which appears as the formation of discontinuities in the material with macroscopic separation of one part from another.

Lacks Lost or missing material.

Mortar disintegration Lost or missing mortar joints due to weathering.

Highly damaged mortar Mortar damaged through mechanical or natural (root) forces.

Top wall material Deteriorated wall caps degradation / due to water breakdown penetration.

Un-cohesive plaster Areas of missing or discontinuous plaster.

Detached plaster The result of a complete break or failure of original plaster construction.

Inappropriate structures Incompatible modern present interventions to the site.

*Categories based on those given by Ilaria Rossi-Doria. Definitions by author based on Italian Normal 1/88 “Alterazioni macroscopiche dei materiali lapidei: lessico” or “Macroscopic alteration of stone materials: glossary” by Normal Recommendation ICR - CNR (Instituto Centrale per il Restauro - Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche). All photos courtesy of Ilaria Rossi-Doria and Fondazione Roffredo Caetani.

Figure 18: Biodeterioration mapping on the southeastern outer walls of Ninfa. (Image courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria).

Mortar analysis was also completed on several areas of the wall to assess the composition of mortar present in the walls, and to help inform the type of mortar mixture that is to be replaced in repaired sections of the wall.145

The project team also took a close look at the vegetation growing on the ruins at

Ninfa, acknowledging that the vegetation growing on the ruins is the primary cause for deterioration, while also one of the main factors contributing to the pastoral beauty of the gardens at Ninfa. Knowing that the legacy of the gardens and the preservation of its romantic blanket of vegetation is key to the continued life of the garden, the project team endeavored to distinguish the “type and quantity of damage” plants can cause to architectural remains, and rank them to their relative effects on the stability of the walls at

Ninfa. For example, herbaceous plants have relatively light and shallow root systems which may not endanger the structural stability of ruins as much as tree roots. However,

145 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

87 some plants may also play a positive role in the protection of the ruins, as it was noted by the project team that trees planted by the Caetani family in the

1920s now served as a windbreak for some fragile ruins. In addition, the presence of lichens and other thallophytes can serve as “environmental bio- indicators” of moisture levels and the level of pollutants in the surrounding environment. While the project team did Figure 19: Presence of lichens at Ninfa. (Photograph acknowledge that thallophytic plants can courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria). cause damage to stones by chemical digestion, it was determined that this form of deterioration was not of great cause for concern, and was a contributing factor to the aesthetics of the garden.146

The diagnostic study of the vegetative growth on the southeastern outer walls at

Ninfa as an end result, identified the forms of bio-deterioration present, assessed the type and extent of damage within the project’s locus, gave rank and priority to areas of extensive damage, and defined methods for control. The table below gives an example of the forms of bio-deterioration and the rank of their danger given by the project team:

146 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

Table 3: Quantification of vegetal damages at Ninfa.

TYPE OF VEGETATION LEVEL OF DAMAGE

Stumps/trees and shrubs High danger

Stumps/trees and shrubs Medium-High danger

Creepers and liana Medium-High danger

Dry creepers and liana Medium-High danger

Thallophytes Variable danger

Herbaceous plants Low danger

Shaded surfaces (of tallophytic nature) Low danger

The survey concluded that 57% of the vegetation found on the walls consisted of small to medium size plants, characterized by species such as the Common Fig tree (Ficus carica) and the Bay laurel (Laurus nobilis), one-third of which was found on the top of the walls.

In addition to the technical aspects of the project to be performed, the project team took close examination of the Caetani family’s legacy in creating the gardens, their reasons for making the decisions that they did, and the modern day realities of those decisions at

Ninfa.147

Once the analytical phase was completed by the project team, the design phase commenced. The design phase was in some ways dictated by the stipulations of the grants received to fund the project, and consisted of four primary objectives: (1) preliminary work to ameliorate negative effects caused by biological degradation on the

147 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

89 ruins, (2) restoration of targeted sections of the wall, (3) planning a system of control for the site, and (4) defining principles of a correct maintenance regimen for the ruins. The central ethos of the conservation philosophy and strategy created by the project team was one that “respected the symbiosis between architecture and nature.” 148

It was determined that the most appropriate course of action was one that utilized traditional materials and methods to restore and conserve the remnant walls, with a nod to the “Ninfa management method” devised by the last generations of the Caetani caretakers. To this end, examples of work performed by the project team included, for example, reconstruction of corner falls, lacks, and tops of wall sections using traditional pozzolana mortar, which is historically appropriate. (Pozzolana is a hydraulic lime-based cement mortar which includes (usually) volcanic ash or slag, which has been used in Italy since the era of the Roman empire.)149 To this traditional pozzolana mortar mixture, the project team added used coffee grounds into the mortar mixture to imbue the mixture with a darkened color which would preserve the image of antiquity, as the Caetani forbearers did before them. After testing its effectiveness on portions of the wall, the project team again altered the traditional pozzolana mortar, noting that some areas in the project site were not readily accessible OR visible to the public viewshed, altered the traditional pozzolana mortar mixture again; this time by adding a polymeric-chemical which contains both hydrophobic and herbicidal properties (AKEOGARD IAV developed by Syremont) to prevent water accumulation and plant growth in these

148 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016. 149 Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "pozzolana", accessed October 01, 2016, https://www.britannica.com/technology/pozzolana.

90 inaccessible areas.150, 151 The application of this chemical polymer to the traditional pozzolana mortar mix has been, in the years since its application, successful in preventing new plant growth in these inaccessible areas.152 Figure 20: AKEOGARD IAV test area. Left side, without chemically-enhanced mortar, right side, with chemically-enhanced mortar. (Photograph courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria). In accord with the project’s aim of preserving the romantic decay of the ruins at Ninfa, largely caused by the growth and appearance of the vegetation in the gardens, the project design took into account plants which could be safely integrated into these newly conserved areas. Following the project team’s quantification of the types of plants and the types of damage caused by those plants, the project team worked to strategically place plants into areas that could be monitored and maintained. Conservators established a layer of Sedum (crassulacea) or

Stonecrop on portions of the ruins to imitate the image of romantic decay. Sedum requires little water or soil to maintain itself, and was seen as an appropriate choice for installation in the project grounds. The use of Sedum and other shallow-rooted plants was suggested by Giacomo Boni in the early 1900s as part of the management plan for archaeological sites.153

150 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016. 151 See: “2/3 CHIMICA & RICERCA - DOVE PASSAVA LUI NON CRESCEVA PIÙ L'ERBA” at http://www.ctseurope.com/dettaglio-news.php?id=21, accessed 1 Oct. 2016. 152 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, email to author, 21 Sept. 2016. 153 Ibid.

The project team, recognizing the relatively low danger that thallophytes (or lichens) caused to the stone masonry and its relatively high value for aesthetics chose to conserve its presence in the project area. Specific high-visibility areas in the project scope were chosen for an interesting experimental operation where conservators carefully consolidated mortar in and around lichen-covered stones via injection of a liquid pozzolana hydraulic cement. This method was utilized in order to carefully approach consolidation and stabilization of the wall while keeping the patina of lichen-covered stones intact.154 This technique is an interesting adaptation of traditional techniques to repair plaster detachment. In this operation, conservators can begin by removing small portions of the surface from the substrate to clean and apply a bonding agent (in this case pozzolanic mortar) before re-attaching the material to the substrate. A similar plaster

conservation

method used on

some areas of the

project site at Ninfa

utilizes injection of

fluid mortar behind

surfaces in the

beginning stages of

Figure 21: Operation to consolidate lichen-covered mortar, preserving the lichen's delamination in presence on the wall. (Photograph courtesy: Ilaria Rossi-Doria). order to strengthen

154 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

92 the object and bind the loose fragments to the substrate.155 Conservators at Ninfa adapted these traditional methods in order to reattach lichen-covered stones to the wall, thus preserving the appearance of the time-accumulated patina. This technique has been successful, as monitoring of the site in the nearly ten years since the project’s execution has shown that the repaired areas are holding up well.156

In limited areas, the project team chose more stringent measures to stabilize areas of instability found in the walls. In these areas, the conservators chose to insert artificial fiber (carbonium) bars in holes carefully drilled into the stone walls.

Additionally, the corner falls, cracks, and lacks were repaired through targeted rebuilding of the areas damaged through time. In each instance, the damaged areas were repaired using traditional methods

Figure 22: Repaired "corner falls" with traces of the and materials. The project team’s design intervention visible by placing repaired areas back from the established surface of the wall. (Photograph courtesy: philosophy also stipulated that each Ilaria Rossi-Doria). intervention be left intentionally visible, so that future conservators will be able to easily identify these previous interventions, the ruins will be stabilized, and the repair work

155 Robert A. Young, Historic Preservation Technology (Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2008), p. 330. 156 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, email to author, 21 Sept. 2016.

93 made as unobtrusive as possible to the layman.157 This practice follows established Italian theory regarding the conservation and presentation of architectural remains.

Overall, the project team’s design philosophy was one of preserving the image of

Ninfa as a garden set amongst the romantic ruins of a long-vanished city. Throughout the design and analytical phase, the team member’s composed a strategy that was both minimal in its intervention, thus preserving the greatest quantity of historical artifacts, while balancing that with the need to repair, stabilize, and consolidate the historic architectural remnants at Ninfa. The end-result of the project is one that has left the southeastern outer walls of the once-thriving city in a much more stable state and the image of the romantic garden thriving.

XXVIII. Conclusions

The conservation of ruined architectural remains is a complex task for any conservator, which requires patience, fortitude, and diligent scholarship. Since ruins exist somewhere between historic architecture and nature, common conservation methods are often in need of adaptation to the unique cultural landscape of ruin sites. The components that make up our collective mental image of ruins is one based in the mythology of romanticism, which takes into account the intrinsic as well as extrinsic values of ruins.

Often difficult to categorize, ruins mean many things to many different people, and the job of interpretation at these sites has been the subject to much debate since the rise of the

Romantic-era in the 1800s. Two titans of architectural conservation theory, John Ruskin

157 Ilaria Rossi-Doria, “Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina.” Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini, Province of Terni, Italy, June 7, 2016.

94 and Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-Le-Duc stand at the polemic opposites on this theoretical continuum; Ruskin placing the highest value on the congress of historical patina and integrity, and Le Duc, disvaluing patina in favor of the original stylistic intent of design

(which itself was open to interpretation). In between these two points-of-view emerged a group of Italian theorists who, looking to their own lengthy history and cultural heritage, developed a manner of architectural conservation thought that exists on the middle ground between Ruskin and Le Duc. The technologies, methods, and theories developed by these early pioneers of architectural conservation theory remain relevant today, and have influenced much of international conservation policy and law.

The Gardens of Ninfa exist as an exotic living laboratory of Italian ruins conservation, of interpretive display, and innovative management. The ruined city of

Ninfa, now subsumed by lush vegetation, is a perfect example of the notion of romanticism – a monument to feeling, expression, artistry, and cultural design as well as to the legacy of the Caetani family. The last generations of the Caetani family shaped

Ninfa into a reflection of their interests, while the current caretakers act as stewards of this artistic legacy. Through the millennia of time which has passed at Ninfa, the chosen time of interpretation is the final years of its steward family, the Caetani.

Conservation work undertaken at Ninfa strives to preserve the spirit of the Caetani legacy in an interesting reinterpretation of the ideals of John Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc,

Camillo Boito, and others. Indeed, conservation works at Ninfa do not easily fit into many already established categories of conservation work. John Ruskin opined about the honorable legacy imbued to structures by the passage of time, stressing the need to preserve historic buildings just as they are. At Ninfa consideration of this point-of-view

95 was reinterpreted by the careful and studied preservation of the vegetative covers on site

– Ninfa’s patina is its plants. With the integrity and functionality of ancient Ninfa’s buildings no longer cohesive, the image of ruin itself has become Ninfa’s patina. Ninfa’s caretakers have realized that the image of a romantic ruin is heavily dependent on the shroud of vegetation, which is reflected in their management strategies, placing both mason and gardener in partnership to preserve the image of Ninfa’s carefully curated garden atmosphere while caring for the structural stability and conservation of architectural ruins.

The extraordinary Gardens of Ninfa demonstrate that there is a way to conserve sensitive and fragile ruins while also keeping the image of “romantic decay” which is of so much interest for the visiting public. This smart management strategy balances respect for nature and ruin, and uses nature – long the villain to conservators – for the benefit of the ruins themselves. The management strategies employed at Ninfa are a testimony that biologically-based conservation methods have been successful when executed and diligently maintained.

Appendix I: Garden of Ninfa Image Gallery

Appendix II: Plants in the Ruins Garden at Afton Villa

Below is a list of plants contained in the “Ruins Garden” at Afton Villa in St.

Francisville, Louisiana. The Ruins Garden contains the remnants of the former 40-room

Gothic Revival-style villa which burned in 1963.158

COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME BLOOMING SEASON

Agapanthus Agapanthus africanus Late spring and summer Angelonia Angelonia spp.* Late spring to fall Blue wonder Scaevola aemula Spring to fall, in pots Boxwood Buxus microphylla (Evergreen shrub) Cat whiskers Orthosiphon stamineus Summer to frost Cleome Cleome hassleriana Spring to freeze Daylily Hemerocallis fulva Late spring and summer Fern, cedar Selaginella pulcherrima (Green all year) Fern, maidenhair Adiantum capillus-veneris (Green all year) Foxglove Digitalis purpurea Spring Guara/Wand flower Guara spp.* Late spring to fall Delphinium Delphinium grandiflorum Spring Four o’clock Mirabalis jalapa Spring to fall Hosta Hosta spp.* Late spring to early summer Hydrangea Hydrangeo macrophylla Late spring Impatiens Impatiens walleriana Spring to frost Jessamine, Carolina Gelsemium sempervirens Spring Jasmine, Confederate Trachelospermum Late spring jasminoides Jonquil Narcissus jonquilla Spring Lantana Lantana camara Late spring to fall Lantana, trailing Lantana montevidensis Late spring to fall Louisiana Iris Iris “Louisiana” Spring Marigold Tagetes spp.* Fall Mint Mentha spicata Year round Narcissus Narcissus pseudonarcissus, Winter to mid-spring Narcissus tazetta Pansy Viola tricolor, Viola x Winter to mid-spring wittrockiana Pentas Pentas lanceolate Late spring

158 Trimble, Afton Villa: The Birth and Rebirth of a Nineteenth-Century Louisiana Garden (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2016), p. 97 – 98.

100

Petunia Petunia x hybrid Late winter to spring Phlox Phlox divaricate Early spring Plumbago Plumbago auriculata Spring to fall, in containers Pyracantha Pyracantha coccinea Spring (bloom); fall (berries) Sage, blue anise Salvia guaranitica Late spring to fall Sage, scarlet Salvia splendens Late spring to fall Sage, mealy blue Salvia farinacea Late spring to fall “Victoria” Sedum/Stonecrop Sedum acre Late spring Snowflakes/Snowdrops Leucojum aestivum (L. Early spring vernum) Society garlic Tulbaghia violacea Spring to fall Spirea/Bridal Wreath Spiraea prunifolia Spring in containers Strawberry geranium Saxifraga stolonifera Late spring Tibouchina Tibouchina spp.* Fall Torenia/Wishbone flower Torenia fournieri Spring to fall Tulip “Golden Oxford” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “Ivory Floradale” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “Maureen” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “Mondial” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “Monte Carlo” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “Mount Tacoma” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “Roi du Midi” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “West Point” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Tulip “White Triumphator” Tulipa gesnerana Spring Verbena/Homestead Purple Verbena x hybrid Late spring to summer Vinca Vinca major Spring Vinca, periwinkle Catharanthus roseus Summer to frost White flag Iris x germanica Spring Wisteria Wisteria sinensis Spring Zinnia Zinnia elegans spp.* Spring to fall *”Spp.” indicates multiple types of species within a genus of plant.

101

Appendix III: Plants for Preservation and Conservation

The following table lists various plants that may be used in ruins conservation, separated by potential uses and suggestions for where plants should be placed on the site itself. It should be noted that all plants listed require maintenance and observation, which should be undertaken as part of a comprehensive conservation program.159, 160, 161, 162

POTENTIAL USE IN PLANT NAME DESCRIPTION CONSERVATION PLACEMENT / PRESERVATION

LARGE TREES and other WOODY PLANTS

Black Cherry Woody plant with Environmental bio- At least 20 feet (Prunus serotina) dark, broken bark indicator from structures and long, shiny leaves. Small white flowers. Yellow Poplar or Large tree known Environmental bio- At least 20 feet Tulip Poplar for its “tulip” indicator from structures (Liriodendron) resembling flowers and green foliage. White Ash Primarily found in Environmental bio- At least 20 feet (Fraxinus riparian zones. indicator from structures americana) Light colored bark and spade-shaped leaves.

159 Pennsylvania State University Department of Plant Science, “What are Bioindicator Plants?” Bioindicator Plants – Wild, http://plantscience.psu.edu/facilities/air-quality- center/what-are-bioindicator-plants/bioindicator-wild (accessed 20 Oct. 2016). 160 University of Minnesota, “Extension Service,” Selecting Trees and Shrubs in Windbreaks, https://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/selecting-trees- shrubs-windbreaks/docs/windbreaksrevised_1.pdf (accessed 20 Oct. 2016). 161 University of Massachusetts at Amherst, “UMass Extension Fact Sheets,” Drought Tolerant Plants for the Landscape, https://ag.umass.edu/fact-sheets/drought-tolerant- plants-for-landscape, (accessed 20 Oct. 2016). 162 Kent Kobayashi et al., “University of Hawai’i at Mānoa College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources Publications, Barrier Plants, http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/l-20.pdf (accessed 20 Oct. 2016)

102

Sassafras Orange-brown Environmental bio- At least 20 feet (Sassafras albidum) bark, large lobed indicator from structures leaves with small flowers and fruit. Can grow very tall. Sugar Maple (Acer Grey bark with Environmental bio- At least 20 feet saccharum) five-pointed leaves indicator, from structures known for colorful Windbreak autumn foliage. Sweetgum Grey, grooved bark, Environmental bio- At least 20 feet (Liquidambar) with variably lobed indicator from structures leaves. “Gumball” fruits, with numerous woody spikes. Sycamore Flakey bark of Environmental bio- At least 20 feet (Platanus green, brown, or indicator from structures occidentalis) grey. Pale green leaves which turn brown in autumn. River Birch (Betula Frequently found in Windbreak At least 20 feet nigra) riparian areas. Heat from structures tolerant. Peeling, paper like brown bark with green, ovate leaves. Pin Cherry (Prunus Small tree with Environmental bio- 10 – 20 feet from pennsylvanica) narrow round indicator, structures crown. Thin foliage Windbreak with clumps of flowers. Crabapple (Malus Knotty grey-brown Windbreak 10 – 20 feet from spp.)* bark with spade- structures shaped leaves and pink flowers. Produces small apples. Black Walnut Grows in riparian Windbreak At least 20 feet (Juglans nigra) zones. Fragrant from structures narrow leaves and fruits. Dark grey- black, ridged bark. White Cedar (Thuja Evergreen tree with Windbreak, Deer At least 20 feet occidentalis) fan-like scaly deterrent from structures leaves and dark brown bark which

103

peels in narrow strips.

SMALL TREES, SHRUBS and HERBACIOUS PLANTS

Milkweed Perennial plant, Environmental bio- 6 – 10 feet from (Asclepias spp.)* with small rounded indicator structures pinkish blooms. Blackberry (Rubus Bushy plant which Environmental bio- 6 – 10 feet from friticosus) can create a dense indicator, Passive structures thicket. Produces Security small white flowers and fruit. Dogbane and/or Reddish stems Environmental bio- 6 – 10 feet from Indian Hemp which produce indicator structures (Apocynum spp.)* small leaves with white hairy undersides. Produces small pinkish flowers in most verities. Poisonous. Big Leaf Aster Deep lavender or Environmental bio- 6 – 10 feet from (Eurybia purple, sometimes indicator structures macrophylla) white flowers. Elderberry Serrated leaves Environmental bio- 6 – 10 feet from (Sanbucus spp.)* with small, clusters indicator, structures of white flowers. Windbreak Produces small berries. Hazelnut (Corylus Can grow bushy in Windbreak 6 – 10 feet from spp.)* shape. Dark grey structures bark and small rounded leaves with serrated edges. Sandbar Willow Found in riparian Windbreak Minimum 20 feet (Salix interior) areas. Aggressive, from structures water-seeking roots. Narrow green, grey leaves on long vine-line branches. Trumpet Twining vine, Aesthetic 0 – 5 feet from Honeysuckle which can grow up structures (Lonicera to 20 feet or more. sempervirons) Flowers are small

104

trumpet-shaped, pink, which grow in clusters. Wisteria (Wisteria Climbing vine. Aesthetic 0 – 5 feet from frutescens) Slender leaves with structures purple clustering flower blooms. Lavender Drought tolerant Aesthetic 0 – 5 feet from (Lavendula plant, highly structures angustifolia) aromatic with green leaves and purple (lavender) colored flowers which grow in clusters on slender stems. Sage (Salvia spp.)* Drought tolerant, Aesthetic 0 – 5 feet from light purple structures flowers. Shallow root system. Sedum or Various species of Aesthetic 0 – 5 feet from Stonecrop (Sedum drought and heat structures spp.)* tolerant plants with shallow root systems. Thyme (Thymus Small, herbaceous Aesthetic 0 – 5 feet from spp.)* plant with shallow structures root systems. Fragrant, small clustered green leaves. Common lichens Composite Aesthetic, 0 feet from (variety) organism which bioindicator structures lives directly on substrate. Variety of colors, growth patterns, and sizes. Bougainvillea Thorny vine which Aesthetic, Passive 0 – 10 feet from (Bougainvillea produces brightly security structures spp.)* colored leaves, generally purple- pink. Rose (Rosa spp.)* Perennial plant of a Aesthetic, Passive 1 – 10 feet from variety of species Security structures which produce large brightly

105

colored flowers. Thorny stems. Hawthorn Smooth/ridged grey Aesthetic, Passive 10 – 15 feet from (Crataegus spp.)* bark with thorny, Security, structures sharp tipped Windbreak branches. Produces white flowers and small fruits. *”Spp.” indicates multiple types of species within a genus of plant.

106

Bibliography

Altieri, Antonella, and Daniella Pinna. 2008. "Prevention of Biodeterioration - Outdoor Environments." In Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, edited by Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari and Ornella Salvadori, translated by Helen Glanville, 287-294. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Ashurst, John, and Colin Burns. 2007. "Philosophy, technology and craft." In Conservation of Ruins, edited by John Ashurst, 83-145. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Barker, Michael. 1992. "An Appraisal of Viollet-le-Duc (1814 - 1879) and His Influence." The Journal of the Decrative Arts Society 1850 - the Present 16: 3-13. Blanc, Patrick. 2008. The Vertical Garden: From Nature to the City. Translated by Gregory Bruhn. New York City, New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc. Boito, Camillo, and Cesare Birignani. 2009. "Restoration in Architecture: First Dialogue." Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism (University of Minnesota Press) VI (1): 68-83. Brandi, Cesare. 2005. Theory of Restoration. Edited by Giuseppe Basile. Translated by Cynthia Rockwell. Rome, Lazio: Instituto Centrale per il Restaure. Bucher, Ward, and Christine Madrid. 1996. Dictionary of Building Preservation. New York City, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Caneva, Giulia, Maria Pia Nugari, and Ornella Salvadori. 2008. "Control of Biodeterioration and Bioremediation Techniques." In Plant Biology for Cultural Heriage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, edited by Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari and Ornella Salvadori, translated by Helen Glanville. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Connolly, Peter, and Hazel Dodge. 1998. The Ancient City: Life in Classical Athens and Rome. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. de la Torre, Marta, Margaret G.H. MacLean, and Randall, Meyers, David Mason. 2005. Heritage Values in Site Management: Four Case Studies. Edited by Marta de la Torre. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. D'Epiro, Peter, and Mary Desmond Pinkowish. 2001. Sprezzatura: 50 Ways Italian Genius Shaped the World. New York City, New York: Anchor Books. Downing, A.J. 1969. The Architecture of Country Houses. New York City, New York: Dover Publications, Inc. Encyclopædia Brittanica. n.d. Romanticism. Accessed August 18, 2016. https://www.britannica.com/art/Romanticism. Fawcett, Richard. n.d. The Conservation of Architectural Ancient Monuments in Scotland: Guidance on Principles. Edinburgh, Scotland: Historic Scotland. Feilden, Bernard M. 2003. Conservation of Historic Buildings. 3rd Edition. Oxford, England: Elsevier, Ltd. Ferraby, Sara. 2007. "The ecology of ruin sites." In The Conservation of Ruins, edited by John Ashurst, 195-211. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Fitch, James Marston. 1990. Historic Preservation: Curatorial Management of the Built World. Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia .

107

Foley, Kate. 1995. "The Role of Objects Conservator in Field Archaeology." In Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, edited by N. P. Stanley Price, 11- 19. Rome, Lazio: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). Fondazione Roffredo Caetani. n.d. Gardens of Ninfa. Accessed August 27, 2016. http://www.fondazionecaetani.org/giardini.php. Grimmer, Anne E. 1984. A Glossary of Historic Masonry Deterioration Problems and Preservation Treatments. Department of the Interior, Washington: National Park Service. Harmon, David. 2006. "The Antiquities Act and Nature Conservation." In The Antiquities Act: A Century of American Archaeology, Historic Preservation, and Conservation, edited by David Harmon, Francis McManamon and Dwight Pitcaithley, 199-215. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. Harris, Cyril M. 1998. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York City, NY: W.W. Norton and Company. Hearder, Harry. 2001. Italy: A Short History. Edited by Jonathan Morris. Cambridge, England: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Hunt, John Dixon. 1994. Gardens and the Picturesque: Studies in the History of Landscape Architecture. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. —. 2004. The Picturesque Garden in Europe. London, England: Thames and Hudson. International Council on Monuments and Sites. n.d. "International Charters for Conservation and Restoration." International Council on Monuments and Sites. Accessed August 9, 2016. http://www.icomos.org/charters/charters.pdf. Jabbour, Alan. 2003. "Folklife, Intangible Heritage, and the Promise and Perils of Cultural Cooperation." In A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert E. Stipe, 423-448. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press. Jokilehto, Jukka. 2011. A History of Architectural Conservation. New York City, New York: Routledge. Jokilehto, Jukka. 1986. Architectural Conservation: The Contribution of English, French, German, and Italian Thought towards an International Approach to the Conservation of Cultural Property. D.Phil Thesis, Institute of Advanced Architectural Studies, University of York, York: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). King, Julia A. 1996. "'The Transient Nature of All Things Sublunary': Romanticism, History, and Ruins in Nineteenth-Century Southern Maryland." In Landscape Archaeology: Reading and Interpreting the American Historical Landscape, edited by Rebecca Yamin and Karen Bescherer Metheny, 249-277. Knoxville, Tennessee: The University of Tennessee Press. King, Thomas F. 2013. Cultural Resource Laws and Practice. 4th Edition. Lanham, Maryland: AltaMira Press. Kobayashi, Kent, Andrew Kaufman, Stephanie Tsugawa, Alberto Ricordi, and Patti Clifford. 2008. "Barrier Plants." University of Hawai'i at Mānoa. College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. December. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/l-20.pdf.

108

Lim, Alex B., Frank G. Matero, and Michael C. Henry. 2013. "Greening Deterioration: Soft Capping as Preventive Conservation for Masonry Ruin Sites." APT Bulletin (Association for Preservation Technology International) 44 (2): 53-61. Macaulay, David. 1974. City: A Story of Roman Planning and Construction. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company. Marchetti, Lauro. 1999. Ninfa: A Roman Enchantment. Translated by Esmé Howard. New York City, New York: The Vendome Press. Margolis, Liat, and Alexander Robinson. 2007. Living Systems: Innovative Materials and Technologies for Landscape Architecture. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag AG. Masson, Georgina. 1975. "Garden Restoration in Italy." Garden History (The Garden History Society) III (4): 45-47. McCarthy, Linda, and Darrick Danta. 2003. "Cities of Europe." In Cities of the World: World Regional Urban Development, edited by Stanley D. Brunn, Jack F. Williams and Donald J. Zeigler, 168-221. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Miller, Maureen C. 2000. The Bishop's Palace: Architecture and Authority in Medieval Italy. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Milner, John, Edward Sayre, Harley McKee, and Giorgio Torraca. 1976. "Masonry and Masonry Products: Mortar, Plaster/Stucco and Concrete." In Preservation and Conservation: Principles and Practice, edited by Sharon Timmons, 177-212. Washington, District of Columbia: The Preservation Press. Murtagh, William J. 2006. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America. 3rd Edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Niemi, Gerald J., and Michael E. McDonald. 2004. "Application of Ecological Indicators." Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics (Annual Reviews) 35: 89-111. Pacini, Ettore, and Maria Adele Signorini. 2008. "Structural, Functional, and Ecological Characteristics of the Main Biodeteriogens - Vascular Plants." In Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, edited by Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari and Ornella Salvadori, translated by Helen Glanville, 87-96. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Pennsylvania State University. 2016. Bioindicator Plants - Wild. Department of Plant Science. Accessed October 20, 2016. http://plantscience.psu.edu/facilities/air- quality-center/what-are-bioindicator-plants/bioindicator-wild. Philippot, Paul. 1996. "Historic Preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines, II." In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Malucco Vaccaro, 358-363. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Philippot, Paul. 1996. "Restoration from the Perspective of the Humanities." In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 216 - 229. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Pinna, Daniela, and Ornella Salvadori. 2008. "Processes of Biodeterioration: General Mechanisms." In Plant Biology for Cultural Heritage: Biodeterioration and Conservation, edited by Giulia Caneva, Maria Pia Nugari and Ornella Salvadori,

109

translated by Helen Glanville, 15-34. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Riesenweber, Julie. 2008. "Landscape Preservation and Cultural Geography." In Cultural Landscapes: Balancing Nature and Heritage in Preservation Practice, edited by Richard Longstreth, 23-34. Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press. Rizzi, Gionata. 2007. "Preface." In Conservation of Ruins, edited by John Ashurst, xix- xxiii. Oxford, England: Butterworth-Heinemann. Rogers, Elizabeth Barlow, Elizabeth Eustis, and John Bidwell. 2010. Romantic Gardens: Nature, Art and Landscape Design. Jaffrey, New Hampshire: David R. Godine, Inc. Rogers, Jerry. 2006. "The Antiquities Act and Historic Preservation." In The Antiquities Act: A Century of American Archaeology, Historic Preservation, and Nature Conservation, edited by David Harmon, Francis McManamon and Dwight Pitcaithley, 176-186. Tucson, Arizona: University of Arizona Press. Rossi-Doria, Ilaria. 2016. Restoration and Conservation of the Southeastern Outer Walls of Ninfa, Latina. Lecture, International Institute for Restoration and Preservation Studies, San Gemini: San Gemini Preservation Studies. Roth, Leland M. 2001. American Architecture: A History. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. Ruskin, John. 1996. "The Lamp of Memory I." In Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by Nicholas Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley Jr. and Alessandra Melucco Vaccaro, 42-43. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. —. 1849. The Seven Lamps of Architecture. New York City, New York: John Wiley. San Gemini Preservation Studies. 2011. "1987 Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural and Art Objects." Italian Restoration Charters. Edited by Massimo Cardillo and Paul Berk. Accessed August 9, 2016. http://sangeministudies.info/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Italian-Restoration- Chart-of-1987-MC.pdf. Sivan, Renée. 1997. "The Presentation of Archaeological Remains." In The Conservation of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region, edited by Marta de la Torre, 51-59. Los Angeles, California: The Getty Conservation Institute. Stipe, Robert E. 2003. "Why Preserve?" In A Richer Heritage: Historic Preservation in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Robert E. Stipe, xiii-xv. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Press. Stokes, Samuel N., A. Elizabeth Watson, and Shelley S. Mastran. 1997. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. 2nd Edition. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Stubbs, John H. 1995. "Protection and Presentation of Excavated Structures." In Conservation on Archaeological Excavation, edited by N.P. Stanley Price, 73-83. Rome, Lazio: International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM). —. 2009. Time Honored: A Global View of Architectural Conservation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

110

Stubbs, John H., and Emily G. Makaš. 2011. Architectural Conservation in Europe and the Americas. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Thompson, M. W. 1981. Ruins: Their Preservation and Display. London, England: British Museum Publications, Ltd. Tomlan, Michael A. 2015. Historic Preservation: Caring for Our Expanding Legacy. New York City, New York: Springer Publishing. Trimble, Genevieve Munson. 2016. Afton Villa: The Birth and Rebirth of a Nineteenth- Century Louisiana Garden. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University Press. Tyler, Norman, Ted J Ligibel, and Ilene R Tyler. 2009. Historic Preservation: An Introduction to its History, Principles, and Practice. 2nd Edition. New York City, New York: W.W. Norton and Company. UNESCO. n.d. World Heritage Centre: The List. Accessed August 29, 2016. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/84. University of Massachusetts at Amherst. 2011. UMass Extension Fact Sheets. Edited by Roberta Clark and Deborah Swanson. September. Accessed October 20, 2016. https://ag.umass.edu/fact-sheets/drought-tolerant-plants-for-landscape. University of Minnesota. 2012. "Extension Service." Selecting Trees and Shrubs in Windbreaks. Accessed October 20, 2016. https://www.extension.umn.edu/environment/agroforestry/selecting-trees-shrubs- windbreaks/docs/windbreaksrevised_1.pdf. Vakalis, Nikos. 2016. Alteration of Stones. Lecture, International Institute for Restoration Studies, San Gemini: San Gemini Preservation Studies. Vinegar, Aron. 2006. "Viollet-le-Duc and Restoration in the Future Anterior." Future Anterior: Journal of Historic Preservation, History, Theory, and Criticism (University of Minnesota Press) III (2): 54-65. Weaver, Martin. 1997. Conserving Buildings: A Manual of Techniques and Materials. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Wilson, Richard Guy. 2004. "Architecture and the reinterpretation of the past in the American renaissance." In American Architectural History: A Contemporary Reader, edited by Keith L. Eggener, 225-245. New York City, New York: Routledge. Wright, Gwendolyn. 2004. "Independence and the rural cottage." In American Architectural History: A Contemporary Reader, edited by Keith L. Eggener, 142- 156. New York City, New York: Routledge. Young, Robert A. 2008. Historic Preservation Technology. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.