Environmental Preventive Conservation

Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw Volume published in cooperation with the Institute of Art History of the University of Warsaw 10 ARCHAEOLOGICA HEREDITAS

Preventive conservation of the human environment 6. Architecture as an element of the landscape edited by Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch, Zbigniew Kobyliński and Louis Daniel Nebelsick

Warsaw 2017 Archaeologica Hereditas Works of the Institute of Archaeology of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński in Warsaw

Editorial Board: Editor-in-chief: Zbigniew Kobyliński Members of the Board: Tadeusz Gołgowski, Jacek Lech, Przemysław Urbańczyk Secretary of the Board: Magdalena Żurek

Editorial Board’s address: 1/2 Wóycickiego St., Building 23, PL 01-938 Warsaw, Poland tel. +48 22 569 68 17, e-mail: [email protected] www.archeologia.uksw.edu.pl

Technical editing and proofreading: Zbigniew Kobyliński Layout: Bartłomiej Gruszka Cover design: Katja Niklas and Ula Zalejska-Smoleń Linguistic consultation: Louis Daniel Nebelsick and Wojciech Brzeziński

Cover picture: part of the imperial garden Summer Palace in Beijing, China; photo by Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch

Publication recommended for print by Professors Martin Gojda and Andrzej Pieńkos

ISBN 978-83-946496-4-7 ISBN 978-83-948352-2-4 ISSN 2451-0521

Publisher: Res Publica Multiethnica Foundation 44 Cypryjska St. PL 02-761 Warsaw, Poland http://res-publica-multiethnica.pl/ CONTENTS

5 Preface 37 The corporate and cultural: honoring Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch, the monumental in Kansas City, Zbigniew Kobyliński Missouri and Louis Daniel Nebelsick Cynthia M. Ammerman * 47 Damaged landscape of ancient Palmyra and its recovery 7 Environmental preventive Marek Barański conservation Andrzej Tomaszewski 57 The art of (architectural) reconstruction at archaeological sites in situ within the context 11 The idea of preventive conservation of cultural landscapes of human environment Ewa M. Charowska Zbigniew Kobyliński and Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch 73 Lessons from landscape, landscape archetypes * Urszula Forczek-Brataniec, Ana Luengo and Tony Williams 15 Preventive conservation of the human environment: 83 The city for people – the image architecture as an element of post-industrial sites in modern of the landscape city Lazare Eloundou Assomo Joanna Gruszczyńska 17 The role of the architecture 95 Sustainability by management: in the creation, enhancement a comparative policy study and preservation of cultural landscapes of the World Heritage cities Stefano De Caro of Amsterdam, Edinburgh and Querétaro 21 World Heritage SITES for DIALOGUE: Eva Gutscoven, Ana Pereira Roders and Koen heritage for intercultural dialogue, Van Balen through travel, “Life Beyond Tourism” Paolo Del Bianco 105 Polychromy in architecture as a manifestation of the link * between man and environment Tetiana Kazantseva 23 Role of cultural sustainability of a tribe in developing a timeless 119 Capturing architecture – the poetic cultural landscape: a case study vision of cultural heritage of the Apatani tribe in the inter-war Polish pictorial Barsha Amarendra, Bishnu Tamuli photography and Amarendra Kumar Das Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch

Archaeologica Hereditas 10 127 Landscape with ruins: 283 The meanings of ruins for the preservation and presentation history of the cultural landscape of archaeological relics on the example of the remains of architecture of the castle complex at Wyszyna Zbigniew Kobyliński Kamil Rabiega 153 Educating architects: the problem 303 Dissolving materiality: ruins and with agricultural buildings plant relicts in the landscape parks Diederik de Koning by Denis McClair in Volhynia Petro Rychkov and Nataliya Lushnikova 163 Historic gardens and climate change. Conclusions and perspectives 323 Memory of the landscape: revela- Heiner Krellig tion through architecture and built environment at the Çamalti Saltern 177 The monastic landscape – carrier Işılay Tiarnagh Sheridan of memory and potential catalyst in conservation and adaptive reuse 333 Pre-Hispanic walkscapes processes of material and imma in Medellín, Colombia terial heritage Juan Alejandro Saldarriaga Sierra Karen Lens and Nikolaas Vande Keere 345 The invisible and endangered land- 187 The missing landscape scape: the case of the margins of Yuanmingyuan: preservation of the Cascavel Stream in Goiânia, and revitalisation of a Chinese Brazil imperial garden Carinna Soares de Sousa Mingqian Liu and Almir Francisco Reis 195 Seeking the traces of a former mon- 361 Diamond mines shaping -astic landscape in the vicinity the South African landscapes of Samos Abbey (Galicia, Spain) Aleksandra Stępniewska Estefanía López Salas 369 (Un)wanted heritage in the 213 Landscape and national identity in cityscape – arguments for destruc- Portugal tion or reuse. The case of the city Fernando Magalhães of Kaunas Ingrida Veliutė 225 The city that penetrates the sky Romano Martini and Cristiano Luchetti 379 The Nordic Pavilion projects at the 2016 Venice Biennale. 231 Siting penal heritage: a history of Scandinavian approach Wellington’s prison landscape to architectural landscape Christine McCarthy Anna Wiśnicka 243 Phantom heritage: Thingstätten 389 Architecture in the cultural land- and “sacred” landscapes of the -scape of the Prądnik Valley Third Reich Dominik Ziarkowski Louis Daniel Nebelsick * 265 21 st Century Garden with exhibition pavilion in Royal Łazienki Museum 403 Notes on authors in Warsaw Ewa Paszkiewicz Environmental preventive conservation

Andrzej Tomaszewski

Primum non nocere. This ancient warning has for cen- Preventive conservation is of course nothing new. turies applied to the medical treatment of humans, and While not being known by name, it has long been ap- only recently has it been transferred to the treatment plied more or less unconsciously in conservation prac- of cultural property. It lies at the basis of a new trend in tice. The advance of the past two decades has been our discipline, applied experimentally in the 1980s, and the attempt to define its principles, which probably still defined at the beginning of the 1990s. The methodologi- requires further discussion and its – and this is unchal- cal principles of preventative conservation derive from lenged – advance to the forefront of the methodology of the bad experiences of the past and are formulated with conservation. hope for the future. On the one hand we see great and […] irreversible changes in the substance of cultural property The current theoretical discussions about preventive caused by conservators (the doctors proved more dan- conservation concern almost entirely works of art (indi- gerous than the disease), on the other hand we believe vidually or in collections in museums). Only sporadically that future conservators will possess more advanced dia- is the context of some of these in archaeological ruins gnostic methods and techniques and new materials of and sites recalled, and considering the need for their known properties. protection against atmospheric effects and interference These two factors have gradually led conservation with their structure. There is also a lack of theoretical towards the philosophy of preventive conservation: not studies considering the application of the principles of to touch the substance of a work of art, or – if it is abso- preventive conservation to the conservation of architec- lutely necessary – to restrict this interference to the ac- tural monuments, urban complexes and also the cultural ceptable minimum and create for the object or collection landscape. Is it possible to apply the principles of preven- the optimum microclimate and a systematic dia-gnostic tive conservation on the macroscale to these too, and if control of their state of preservation and in this manner so, in what form? halt or at least considerably delay the process of deterio- If we wish today to take a step forward and propose an ration. This is an approach which is the closest to the ide- integrated strategy of preventative conservation, we have als of the Venice Charter, which encourages the preserva- to define the possibilities of its application at all scales. tion of historical monuments “in the full richness of their Let us examine the situation with respect to the built authenticity”. It is also a reflection of the ethics of the heritage from the point of view of the three basic princi- conservator. This goes beyond the operations bringing ples of preventive conservation: out the aesthetic values of ancient works of art, and re- A. Not to interfere with the substance of the monu- gards of importance only the “natural aesthetics”, being ment, the result of the historical process, the “natural authen- B. Providing the optimum climate/microclimate for its ticity” of monuments, untouched by the conservator. continued existence, Such a possibility exists in museums, archives and li- C. Ensuring continual monitoring of its state of pre- braries in which works of art, archives and incunabula servation. are stored, though requires costly investments in diffe- Ad. A. rent storage conditions for individual groups of objects The situation differs in the case of two categories of -ar and diagnostic apparatus. It is more difficult to apply in chitectural monuments: the case of private collections (and those for example in • those fulfilling a double role (functional and cultural), the interiors of churches). It is also so difficult in the case • those only fulfilling a cultural role. of architectural monuments and their complexes that in The functional role of architecture often changes in general the problem is not even raised. its life, since it must serve a use. As functional architecture it must therefore be in a good technical state and

Archaeologica Hereditas 10 7–9 Andrzej Tomaszewski

serve the needs of the epoch. Its modification and mo- the staff of those museums and the conservation ser- dernisation are unavoidable though must be the result vices, the attempt to apply them to the architectural of a wise compromise and restricted to a bare minimum, and urban scale requires the co-operation of many en- the exceeding of which creates a threat to the authentic- tities and institutions, political, economic, cultural and ity of the building or architectural complex. In the last scientific. This need results from the character of the two decades, a great danger has appeared, the modifica- intervention which it is necessary to undertake in order tion of historic buildings or complexes to serve the needs to fulfil the three primary desiderata of preventive con- of mass “cultural” tourism. Instead of showing tourists servation: monuments preserved in their authentic state, we fal- Ad A. sify them by presenting a fabricated and deformed pic- In the case of architectural monuments and their com- ture. We create Disneylands from historical centres. This plexes which fulfil a functional and cultural role, the is a trend which is difficult to oppose because behind restriction of intervention to the absolute minimum re- it stands the interests of international and local tour- quires us to concentrate on structural conservation, to ism industries, supported for financial reasons and for maintaining the status quo: the day-to-day maintenance nationalist-political ends by state governments. of the structure in good repair. The fulfilling of this ideal This tendency is equally strong in the case of historic will involve an important difference in approach from buildings and groups of buildings which fulfil a cultural those required by works of art in museum collections. role. Historic buildings and archaeological sites undergo The degree of intervention by museum conservators is partial or full reconstruction, often based on pure fanta- inversely proportional to the correctness of the environ- sy, which are then exhibited to tourists as historical truth. mental conditions. In the conservation of architecture Those same economic and historical forces support and and architectural complexes, these conditions will never encourage the process of the destruction of the authen- be optimal, and the environment will have a permanent ticity of archaeological ruins. destructive effect on the monument, thus the process of Ad B. minimal conservation will of necessity be a permanent While our interference with the historical fabric of mon- one. This is the “absolute minimum” for the preserva- uments, either the aggressive adaptation to modern tion of the monument in unchanged form. In the case of functional needs, or their beautification in order for the the introduction of changes intended to modernise the needs of the tourist industry lead to the degradation of monument or adapt it to a new use, this “absolute mini- their authenticity, they are also threatened by another mum” must be defined as a result of the conducting of great danger: the pollution of the environment. The his- diagnostic investigations of the monument. These must torical centres of towns, surrounded by new suburbs are combine historical, archaeological and technical inves- drowning in a sea of smog. Urbanisation has swallowed tigations (defined by different names in the European up originally isolated archaeological complexes. Industry, terminology – German: die historische Bauforschung, located near towns and their monuments, pollutes the French: l’archeologie du monument historique). Only air and water, including rainwater. on this basis can one define the permitted scope of the Ad C. modernisation and adaptation of the building without The continual monitoring of the technical state of the disturbing its historical values. These will be the result of buildings and their complexes is exceptional. Instead of a compromise, different in each case, between the prin- systematic maintenance of buildings in a state of good ciples of conservation and the needs of the user. If the repair, by the immediate repair of damage as it occurs, it changes carried out disturb the historical substance or al- is usually the case that nothing is looked after on a day- ter the spatial arrangement of the building, they must be to-day basis, which leads to a devastation of a structure scientifically-documented. Here we enter the domain of or the rise of a threat, and only then is a fundamental “conservation by documentation” the saving of the scien- repair programme embarked upon, which generally gives tific record of the original state of the monument before rise to threats to their authenticity. The historical maxim it is changed for future generations of investigators. of Georg Dehio: konservieren, nicht restaurieren! is still In the case of monuments or their groups which fulfil an unrealised desideratum. The situation is especially only a cultural role, the “absolute minimum” must be tragic in the case of abandoned or ownerless structures restricted entirely to maintaining the status quo – protec- which due to the lack of a user and resources are slowly tion against the destructive effects of atmospheric fac- falling into ruin. tors with the elimination of all manner of reconstruction. In the case of archaeological remains, this will mean the restriction of all archaeological investigations (since only * unexplored sites maintain their “full authenticity”), and the restriction of the exposition of excavated remains Although the application of the philosophy of preventive (since backfilling the site has proven to be the best way conservation in museums depends to a great degree on of preserving uncovered relics).

8 Archaeologica Hereditas • 10 Andrzej Tomaszewski Environmental preventive conservation

Ad B. As a result of this there are a number of fundamental We cannot create a specific microclimate/microenviron- suggestions for our considerations: ment for architectural monuments and their groups, The strategy of preventive conservation of cultural which are exposed to the macroenvironment. The de- property at all scales (and not only on the microscale of gree of the contamination and toxicity of the latter has the museum) must be amalgamated with the ecological basic importance for the preservation of monuments of programme for the protection of the environment. architecture. Each – even if minimal – decrease in the It cannot be only a conservation programme, because pollution of the environment in which the monument or then it would be condemned to isolation. group of monuments finds itself will be a partial fulfil- It must be based on the close co-operation of the ment of the requirements of preventive conservation. monuments protection services with the services re- Such operations as the restriction of vehicular traffic in sponsible for the protection of the natural environment historical town centres are a step towards the realisation and based on the scientific principles of the disciplines of these aims. it represents. Ad C. It must have the character of a political programme, The establishment of monitoring requires the fulfilment in which international organisations, national and local of two conditions: governments should all be involved. Each monument must have its owner or user, who It must become ENVIRONMENTAL PREVENTIVE CON- feels responsible for it and continually observes and sys- SERVATION. tematically corrects all changes detrimental to the state […] of preservation of the structure. Philosophy of preventive conservation becomes the There exists an efficiently-operating local conservation most important way of thinking and acting in protection service, working with the owner of historic monuments, of cultural heritage, having great perspectives of prolif- and carrying out systematic inspections of their condition eration in the 21st century. However, originating from and giving concrete and reasonable directions to their the experience of museums, it has to encompass the owners. whole heritage.1 If we carefully examine the application of these three […] rules of preventive conservation to architectural monuments and their complexes we observe that they are the 1 The text is based on the paper delivered by Professor Andrzej To- same as those which ecologists postulate for the pro- maszewski during the international symposium Strategies for the tection of the natural heritage: minimal intervention, re- world’s cultural heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices, perspectives, that accompanied the 13th General striction of the pollution of the environment, and contin- Assembly of ICOMOS in 2002 Madrid (http://www.icomos.org/ma- ual monitoring of the condition of the natural resources. drid2002/actas/264.pdf, with minor omissions).

Preventive conservation of the human environment 6 • Architecture as an element of the landscape 9

Notes on authors

Barsha Amarendra – BA, architect; Visvesvaraya National Weronika Kobylińska-Bunsch – MA, art historian; doc Institute of Technology, Nagpur, India. toral student at the Institute of Art History, University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland. Cynthia Ammerman – historian and preservation strate- gist; director of the Polis: Cultural Planning, LLC in Kansas Zbigniew Kobyliński – Professor Dr habil., archaeologist City, Missouri, and of the Cass County Historical Society and manager of cultural heritage; director of the Institu- in Harrisonville, Missouri, USA. te of Archaeology of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński Uni- versity in Warsaw, Poland. Lazare Eloundou Assomo – Deputy Director of UNESCO’s World Heritage Center, Paris, France. Diederik de Koning – MA, architect and environmental and infractructural planner; PhD candidate at the Delft Marek Barański – Dr eng., architect, conservator of histo- University of Technology, Faculty of Architecture and the ric monuments; Kielce University of Technology, Faculty Built Environment, Borders and Territories Research Gro- of Building Engineering and Architecture, Kielce, Poland. up, Delft, the Netherlands.

Ewa M. Charowska – Dr eng., architect, historian and Heiner Krellig – Dr, art historian, independent scholar, historic preservationist; independent scholar working in working in Berlin, Germany and Venice, Italy. Toronto, Canada. Amarendra Kumar Das – Professor; Department of De- Paolo Del Bianco – President of the Romualdo Del Bian- sign, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India. co Foundation, Florence, Italy. Karen Lens – MA, architect; doctoral student at Hasselt Stefano De Caro – Dr, archaeologist; Director-General University, Belgium. of ICCROM, former Director-General of Antiquities with the Italian Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities, Mingqian Liu – MA, historian of art and architecture; Rome, Italy. PhD student at the Department of Architecture, Texas A&M University, USA. Urszula Forczek-Brataniec – Dr; lecturer at Cracow Uni- versity of Technology, Cracow, Poland. Secretary General Estefanía López Salas – Dr, architect and restorator; of the European Region of the International Federation Professor at the School of Architecture, University of of Landscape Architects. A Coruña, Spain.

Joanna Gruszczyńska – MSc. Eng. Arch., architect; doc Cristiano Luchetti – Assistant Professor; American Uni- toral student at the Warsaw University of Technology, versity of Sharjah, United Arab Emirates. Faculty of Architecture, Warsaw, Poland. Ana Luengo – MA, MSc, PhD, landscape architect; former Eva Gutscoven – MSc; architect and conservator working President of the European Region of the International in Belgium. Federation of Landscape Architects –IFLA EUROPE.

Tetiana Kazantseva – Dr, Associate Professor; Depart- Nataliya Lushnikova – Dr Eng., Associate Professor; Na- ment of Design and Architecture Basics, Institute of tional University of Water and Environmental Engineering, Architecture, Lviv Polytechnic National University, Lviv, Institute of Civil Engineering and Architecture, Department Ukraine. of Architecture and Environmental Design, Rivne, Ukraine.

Archaeologica Hereditas 10 403–404 Notes on authors

Fernando Magalhães – PhD, anthropologist; Interdisci- Carinna Soares de Sousa – BA, architect and urban de- plinary Venter of Social Sciences (CICS.NOVA), Polytech- signer; MA student in urban planning at the Federal Uni- nic Institute of Leiria’s School of Education and Social versity of Santa Catarina in Florianópolis, Brazil. Sciences, Leiria, Portugal. Aleksandra Stępniewska – MA student of architecture Romano Martini – PhD, theoretician of law and politics; at the University of Social Sciences in Warsaw, Poland. Adjunct Professor at Niccolo Cusano University, Rome, Italy. Bishnu Tamuli – Doctoral student at the Department of Design, Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, India. Christine McCarthy – PhD, architect and art historian; senior lecturer at the Victoria University, Wellington, Işılay Tiarnagh Sheridan – BA, MSc, architect; research New Zealand. assistant at the İzmir Institute of Technology in Faculty of Architecture, Izmir, Turkey. Louis Daniel Nebelsick – Dr habil., archaeologist; Profes- sor at the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in War- Andrzej Tomaszewski (1934-2010) – Professor dr habil., saw, Poland. historian of art and culture, architect, urban planner, in- vestigator of Medieval architecture and art; director of Ewa Paszkiewicz – MA; main scenographer at The Royal ICCROM (1988-1992), General Conservator of Poland Łazienki Museum in Warsaw. (1995-1999).

Ana Pereira Roders – Dr, architect and urban planner; Koen Van Balen – Professor at the Catholic University of Associate Professor in Heritage and Sustainability at the Leuven and director of the Raymond Lemaire Internatio- Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands. nal Centre for Conservation, Belgium.

Kamil Rabiega – MA, archaeologist; PhD student in the Nikolaas Vande Keere – MA, civil engineer architect; Institute of Archaeology, Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński Uni- Professor in charge of the design studio of the Interna- versity in Warsaw, Poland. tional Master of Interior Architecture on Adaptive Reuse at the Hasselt University, Belgium. Almir Francisco Reis – Dr, urban planner; Professor at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Florianópolis, Ingrida Veliutė – Dr; lecturer at the Vytautas Magnus Brazil. University Faculty of Arts and member of ICOMOS Lithu- ania. Petro Rychkov – Dr, architect; Professor at the Lublin University of Technology, Faculty of Civil Engineering Tony Williams – former President of the Irish Landscape and Architecture, Department of Conservation of Built Institute and President of The European Region of the Heritage, Lublin, Poland. International Federation of Landscape Architects.

Juan Alejandro Saldarriaga Sierra – Dr, cultural geogra- Anna Wiśnicka – Dr, design historian; teacher at the In- pher; teacher at the Faculty of Architecture of the Natio- stitute of Art History of the Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński nal University of Colombia in Medellin, Colombia. University in Warsaw, Poland.

Dominik Ziarkowski – Dr, art historian; Cracow Universi- ty of Economics. Chair of Tourism, Cracow, Poland.

404 Archaeologica Hereditas • 10