This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Archaeology of Architecture
Xurxo M. Ayán Vila Rebeca Blanco Rotea Patricia Mañana Borrazás
BAR International Series 1175 2003
This title published by Archaeopress Publishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED England
Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture
© the individual authors 2003
ISBN 1 84171 543 3 Printed in England by The Basingstoke Press
All BAR titles are available from: Hadrian Books Ltd 122 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7BP England
The current BAR catalogue with details of all titles in print, prices and means of payment is available free from Hadrian Books or may be downloaded from www.archaeopress.com
Contents List of contributors iii Preface v Chapter 1 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Xurxo M. Licenza. Ayán Vila. Reading Norberg-Schulz in a prehistoric context Curry Heimann Chapter 7 The Architect in Classical Architecture Nick Eiteljorg Chapter 8 Presenting the Roman Villa:The Villa di Orazio. Capocotta Martin Goalen & Diane Fortenberry Chapter 9 The Baths of Odessos as a Space Providing Employment for its Citizes Anna Haralambieva 121 Chapter 10 Excavations in the County Gaol of Chaves Sérgio Carnéiro 125 Chapter 11 The Archaeology of Space Robina McNeil 143 Chapter 12 An Estate House at the 15th Excavation Area of the Selitrennoie Site Emma Zilivinskaya 155 113 107 99 83 17 i . Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Mañana Borrazás 1 Chapter 2 Archaeology of Architecture: theory. Patricia Mañana Borrazás & Xurxo M. Some elements for the analysis of domestic space in Benishangul Alfredo González Ruibal & Víctor M. and the Villa del Discobolo. Fernández Martínez Chapter 6 On Architecture & Archaeology. methodology and analysis from Landscape Archaeology Rebeca Blanco Rotea. Ayán Vila Chapter 3 Archaeological analysis and intervention in historical buildings Luis Caballero Zoreda 41 Chapter 4 Methodology and systems of analysis: The Château at Mayenne Rob Early 61 Chapter 5 House Ethnoarchaeology in Ethiopia.
Wait 219 ii . Romanesque or Modern church? Fernando Arce Sainz & Mª Ángeles Utrero Agudo 197 Chapter 17 Rethoric and design in premodern buildings Dragos Gheorghiu 205 Chapter 18 The Propylaea project Harrison Eiteljorg. II 213 Chapter 19 Conservation plans and Private Sector Development Gerald A. Mutriku (Gipuzkoa. Spain) Jesús Manuel Pérez Centeno & Amagoia Pía Aranguren 189 Chapter 16 The archaeological study of San Esteban de Atán (Lugo-Spain).Chapter 13 An Archaeological Vision of A Medieval Town Mindaugas Bertašius 167 Chapter 14 A practical example of the Archaeology of Architecture: Its application within the chronological discussion about the Early-Medieval Hispanic churches Mª Ángeles Utrero Agudo. Luis Caballero Zoreda & Fernando Arce Sainz 173 Chapter 15 The medieval monastery of San Andrés de Astigarribia. A PreRomanesque.
Spain Diane Fortenberry (email@example.com) University of Arts Bucharest.com Dragos Gheorghiu (dgheorghiu@digi. Bryn Mawr. Portugal Rob Early (rob.academyprojects.es) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia.lt) Department History of Arts Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas. Romania / University of Missouri-Columbia.List of contributors Fernando Arce Sainz (farcesainz@worldonline. PA USA http://firstname.lastname@example.org) Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid.com) Câmara Municipal de Chaves Chaves.es/ Luis Caballero Zoreda (email@example.com/ Nick Eiteljorg (firstname.lastname@example.org. Bulgaria iii .com) Oxford Archaeological Unit Orford. United Kingdom http://www.es) Centro de Estudios Históricos. Ayán Vila (phxurxo@usc. United Kingdom Harrison Eiteljorg. Bryn Mawr.org) CSA.csic.com) Academy Projects (Archaeology • Architecture) LLP London. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Madrid. United Kingdom http://www. Spain http://www-gtarpa.ucm.usc.es) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia.org/ Víctor M.uk) Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Madrid. Spain Xurxo M.com) Cultural and Historical Heritage Board Varna. Departamento de Historia Antigua y Arqueología.es) Instituto de Historia.academyprojects. Lithuania Rebeca Blanco Rotea (phrebeca@usc. II (email@example.com) Academy Projects (Archaeology • Architecture) LLP London.es/ Mindaugas Bertašius (firstname.lastname@example.org) CSA. Fernández Martínez (victormf@eucmax. USA Martin Goalen (mg@academyprojects. Spain Anna Haralambieva (email@example.com Alfredo González Ruibal (a_ruibal@yahoo. Spain Sérgio Carnéiro (firstname.lastname@example.org. PA USA http://csanet. Spain http://www-gtarpa.usc.
org) Department of Historical Archaeology.uk) Greater Marchester Arch Unit The University of Manchester Manchester. Society of Sciences Aranzadi Donostia-San Sebastian. Spain Dr Gerald A. Patricia Mañana Borrazás (phpatrim@usc.Curry Heimann (curry. Russia iv .se) Department of Archaeology Göteborg University.uk) Associate.msk. Southampton SO40 7HT United Kingdom Emma Zilivinskaya (alfimov@nonlin. Gifford and Partners Ltd Carlton House.usc. Sweden. Departamento de Historia Antigua y Arqueología. Euskadi.email@example.com/ Robina McNeil (robina. Euskadi. Spain Amagoia Pía Aranguren Department of Historical Archaeology.firstname.lastname@example.org. Society of Sciences Aranzadi Donostia-San Sebastian. SE .es) Instituto de Historia.email@example.com) Institute of Archaeology.csic. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Madrid. United Kingdom Jesús Manuel Pérez Centeno (arkeologia3@aranzadi-zientziak. Ringwood Rd Woodland.co. Spain http://www-gtarpa. Spain Mª Angeles Utrero Agudo (utrero@ceh. Box 200. Russian Academy of Science Moscow State University Moscow.405 30 Göteborg.es) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia. Wait (gerry.
Its introduction contains texts with an essentially theoretical and methodological content that make it possible to establish an approximation towards architecture from archaeological perspectives. that were often built using perishable materials. and in Esslingen (Germany) in 2001. it is now held that this is the path the discipline should follow. In fact. Most of these studies focus on constructions from historical periods. together with the need to publicise the studies carried out within the framework of Architectural Archaeology. and poses a hurdle to making the best use of the results obtained from basic investigation. essentially motivated by the fact that an important part of our remaining architectonic heritage belongs to these periods. concentrating equally on the analysis of wooden archaeological structures and monumental architecture built in stone. in many cases still in use. Another of the objectives of these sessions (as explained in Chapter 1) was to demonstrate that investigation and management are two inseparable elements within the study of heritage constructions. but instead buildings that were still standing. analysed from an archaeological perspective. This fact excluded its application to other constructions. and concentrated on the study of monumental architecture. All of them share a common factor: the study of constructions and architectonic spaces. both of which were co-ordinated by the editors of this volume. Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture is a compilation of the majority of the papers presented during these sessions. as demonstrated by some of the studies included that discuss the application of Architectural Archaeology in Heritage Management. and then offers a series of examples in which these or other methodologies have been put into practice. Xurxo Ayán Vila Rebeca Blanco Rotea Patricia Mañana Borrazás v . Although this volume is not a compendium of all of the theoretical and methodological approximations. has led the organisers to promote the publication of the details of these different investigations. it does offer a detailed description of the different types of projects that have been carried out in Europe in recent years. The interest shown in the communications presented during these EAA sessions with a common epigraph and complementary focus. should be taken into account when dealing with architectonic studies from this discipline. One of the aims of this volume was to gather together the different analyses that have been carried out into all types of architecture. organised according to their subjects or the chronological periods they cover. and applying construction techniques using non-perishable materials. The studies gathered in this volume cover a chronological period that starts with Prehistory and continues to the present day.and proto-historic periods. its appearance was partly motivated by the need to adopt new methodologies that made it possible to study postclassical constructions from an archaeological perspective. regardless of their chronology or type. as the objects of study were no longer subterranean sites. In this sense. as the disassociation between basic and applied investigation reduces its potential. Since holding these sessions. the creation of maps detailing regional techniques. therefore overcoming the above-mentioned situations. generally from pre. the conservation of heritage constructions or the interpretation of vanished architectonic spaces. the possibilities for application offered by Architectural Archaeology in designing plans for the direction of old towns.Preface This volume has been produced by the European Association of Archaeologists (EAA) as a result of the contributions presented by different authors during the sessions held under the general heading of ‘Architectural Archaeology’ in Lisbon (Portugal) in 2000. carrying out architectonic restoration projects. perspectives and proposals in use today in Architectural Archaeology. which are often reduced to merely using their methodological instruments. meaning that this is the field in which Architectural Archaeology has developed to its fullest extent.
the first is seen as immobile and dead. to be divided up. does not endure. Ayán Vila. A lot of these subjects were hardly studied from traditional Archaeology. 1998. architecture is also the most evident way of giving a physical aspect to the spatial concepts of this rationality. and overcoming the investigative tradition which even defended the impossibility of dealing with a social and integral interpretation of this record. following time’s instructions (Foucault 1979). the essential communicator of thought. particularly the impressions and sensations of viewers and studies of the effects which they are offered. and the perception mankind has of it. whereas time is rich and productive. three dimensional space. Only the new theoretical concepts of space and their interpretation in the field of Philosophy and Architecture (Van de Ven 1981. space was considered as nature to be exploited. assimilating new lines which make it possible to maximise the information which comes from the constructed space. Spain Abstract On last decades Architecture gave rise to interesting approaches about new themes. Therefore. leaving space in the background. considering both its concept as a physical matrix. The concept of space has become a notion with a single meaning (place. Both of these types of study are deficient in part. Within a modern system of knowledge. as language.Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento (CSIC-XuGa). for example. although its importance as material reflection of social processes. Today the need has been imposed to widen the perspectives of investigation.1 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Xurxo M. alternative studies and analytical instruments were developed recently in a new field of research. Within the field of Architectonic space investigation has moved between two different approaches (NorbergSchulz 1980: 9-13): Those based on three-dimensional. ignoring space as an existential dimension and as a relationship between man and his surroundings. Santiago de Compostela. This discipline embrace different methodologies: Formal analysis or primitive architecture. A spatial study of an architectonic construction which is not integrated within the rationality which created it therefore ends up as distorted and meaningless. particularly used in the study of Mediaeval sites. The first is so because it has excluded humanity from the equation. the study of vertical stratigraphy. which study its grammar: they are based on the development of geometric models in two or three dimensions. which Lévi-Strauss calls thought (Lévi-Strauss 1964) of the society which creates it and lives it out. forming part of the syntax of architectonic space. Those that attempt to develop a theory about the foundations of psychology of perception. Euclidean space. and discusses abstract geometry. However. This multidimensional space is directly related to the pattern of rationality. architectural remains only were analysed starting from a formalist and typological approach. Hillier 1996) would form the foundations making it possible for archaeologists to interpret the social actions reflected in the architectonic register of past societies. This need is justified by questions such as the inconsistency of studying the architectonic record. These two movements have been precisely the itineraries followed by archaeological practice when dealing with the architectonic form of the object being studied. designed Architectural Archaeology. This lack of critical consideration lead to the use of a traditional concept of space within Prehistory and Archaeology that had become reduced to a natural and geographical problem. Despite these conditioning factors. space has been discredited in relation to time (Criado 1993b): as Foucault indicated. The second is because it has reduced space and architecture to impressions. actually it is necessary a theoretical and methodological systematisation which let to carry out a definition of Archaeology of Architecture like a specific work line within Archaeology. Giedion 1988. Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Mañana Borrazás Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía . as well as its implicit cultural significance. Ching 1995. Introduction The lengthy predominance of an atheoretical Archaeology marginalised the creation of new proposals or ways of archaeologically rethinking the concept of architecture and architectonic space as an object of study within our discipline. etcetera). reducing it to its territorial dimension to a dominated space. Archaeology of Architecture offers new methodologies of analysis for new visions about built record. This is the main objective of this chapter. Rapoport 1982. the functional and symbolic analysis which recognises the social factors and symbolic aspects of architecture. Perhaps the study of the spatiality of a past society may be the best way of understanding their rationality. in line with bourgeois rationality. measured and sold. somewhere to occupy or exploit. From the nineteenth century onwards. conditioning the appearance and development of so-called 1 . Baker 1994. to be evaluated multidimensionally. In this way. the study of the symbolic use of space with non-verbal communication are all aspects which are dealt with in the study of the architecture of past societies.
ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY Secondary role of the architectonic record in the investigation Conception of the building as an object in itself. etcetera. Sánchez 1998). characteristics of the landscape. Archaeology of Architecture: the current situation Unlike other tendencies which have arisen from within our discipline in recent decades (such as Spatial Archaeology or Landscape Archaeology).Typological study: there is a systemisation of the formal variations which appear in the architecture under study. but are instead the consequence of the arrival of new. Archaeology of Architecture here would be yet another demonstration of the fragmentation suffered by the archaeohistorical discourse in the crisis of Post-modernism. but also of the actual historigraphic field within which it is contained. The following text is a brief summary of the process followed. the result of assuming an interdisciplinary perspective and a subsequent approximation to other social sciences. the comprehension of a past social formation.Formalist and aesthetic interpretation: constructions are conceived as objects studied from a merely descriptive angle. Geographic determinism: an architecture determined by environmental factors. Formalist and typological focus of Art History..Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Archaeology of Architecture (Steadman 1996. without exploring its possible function or meaning. then archaeology has to develop a technique which uses spatial and methodological analysis together with social theory as an interpretative framework (Samson 1990). Built space is not conceived as a social space = methodologies of spatial analysis are not proposed.Social and geographic diffusion: changes in construction do not correspond to an endogenous evolution. It was with the appearance of Spatial or Ecological 2 . is fundamentally Social or geographical diffusionism: constructive changes do not correspond with an endogenous evolution.Evolutionist interpretations: changes in construction correspond to a historical process marked by a tendency towards the increasing complexity of an original architectonic type. Table 1. . Although this movement has been defined within the last three decades in this context. but instead to the arrival of new architectonic concepts. be the consequence of social contact between different communities or the appearance of members of foreign populations. Although it is true that in other fields in recent decades there has been a development in theoretical and methodological alternatives for studying the architectonic record. types of floor plan. architecture has been traditionally studied in Archaeology from a formal and typological perspective. construction technique. more fitting of Art History. space was identified as merely something which contained the archaeological record. . Traditional approaches Historical-cultural Archaeology Despite its importance. as the problem has only been dealt with to date from five theoretical-methodological positions. The study of architectonic remains is limited to formal description and the analysis of building techniques. this enormously limited vision prevails in the context of archaeological investigation. as we shall now see. only descriptions of artefacts. emphasising their most outstanding morphological features. Previously. Lack of interpretative models: investigation focuses on architectonic form. in the case of Archaeology of Architecture there is still present not only a conceptual and terminological imprecision of the idea. The starting point. etcetera. the architectonic record has been dealt with previously by Archaeology using other parameters. in turn. This social Archaeology of Architecture has yet to appear. foreign architectonic concepts. the unchanging backdrop to human activity throughout time. If we are to suggest magnifying the information which this part of the record may offer towards TRADITIONAL ARCHAEOLOGY Denomination Theory Ontology Method Technique Objective Interpretative framework Archaeography / Pretheoretical Archaeology Art History Objects/forms Chronotypological series Stratigraphic reading Excavation (Wheeler method) Periodisation Evolutionism Diffusionism Historicism-cultural Historic Particularism Epistemology Pretheoretical Positivism - Geographic determinism: everything related to architecture is basically determined by environmental factors: the availability of raw materials. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Traditional Archaeology Functionalist Archaeology The concept of space in archaeological investigation has become more firmly established thanks to Spatial Archaeology. This transformation may. which were originally developed in the European context by the ethnographic discipline: . . meteorological conditions.
each of which is subjected to its own methods and models which make it possible to see differently the factors of individual. etcetera). they called for the classification of its concepts. Clarke. This means the application of methodological techniques used by other disciplines interested in the study of spatial reality (regional ecology. economic or social order which characterise all cultures: . based on the concept that human communities carry out their economic activities according to three principles: maximising resources. structures and spaces with resources. or spatial structure. Table 2. etcetera. particularly Geography. rooms. methods and problems through a new theory of spatial archaeology which would be the result of interconnection with other Social Sciences (1977: 7-8). activities and functions of spaces are the basis for a sociological interpretation of architectonic space. This process. which make it possible to define different spaces. at this spatial level. L. the most widely used theoretical technique has been economic spatial theory. has gradually moved away from the field of History. concentrating on the discovery of their practical functions. is exemplified in the work of D. In this field locational models were developed taken from Geography (Von Thünen. and the law of least effort. individual and cultural factors predominate over economic factors. between structures and other structures. Initially conceived in monetary and economic terms. and between spaces with resources and other spaces with resources. which started in both the United States and Great Britain. inclining more towards the Sciences. at this level of communal space social and cultural factors are of greater importance than economic factors. The site is conceived as a geographical space which contains a group of human activities (or their consequences) and a group of structures: industrial complexes. In this level relationships appear between artefacts and other artefacts. models. in which it was possible to use computer technology and concepts from other disciplines. At Macro level. basically aimed at giving a scientific explanation (objective and of universal value) of the phenomena which may be observed empirically. This functionalist archaeology. particularly in his book Analytical Archaeology (1977) which FUNCTIONALIST ARCHAEOLOGY Denomination Theory Ontology Method Technique Objective Interpretative framework New Archaeology Social anthropology Archaeological record Hypothetical-Deductive Excavation in area (Harris’ method) Social Process Neoevolutionism Cultural Materialism Systemic theory Ecological anthropology Epistemology Neopositivism SPATIAL ANALYSES Tests of spatial randomness Analysis of nearest neighbour Regression analysis Dimensional analyses of variance Analysis of tendency surface OBJECTIVES Definition of spatial patterns via a quantitative and/or statistical focus applied to distributions of sites and artefacts. suggest the functionality and approximate a global interpretation of settlements. Artefacts (buildings and objects). between artefacts and spaces with resources. domestic settlements. silos etcetera). Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Funcionalist Archaeology The main objective of spatial archaeology would therefore be the study of spatial relationships between objects. Christaller and Chisholm) using quantitative techniques and analytical methods from other disciplines (Hodder 1977.Macro level: between-sites system. within which it is possible to define three levels or steps (Clarke 1977: 11-5). geographical studies. personal and social.. ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY Architecture is a basic technology and instrument for social reproduction. Weber. Semi-Micro level: within the sites.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Archaeology in the 1960´s 1970’s that investigations were started into the relationship between man and his spatial environment. The analysis of the distribution and associations of artefacts within architectonic structures gives data for a social interpretation of the record. this theory is really a subtheory which developed from the general ecological theory of exploiting resources. displays the great interest of the New Archaeologists in using more sophisticated quantitative techniques. both empirical and processual. At this level relationships appear between artefacts and other artefacts. minimising costs. The architectonic units found within the settlements (micro level) are the key to understanding the pattern of subsistence and the social structure. and between - - 3 . elements. Micro level: within the structures (small units grouping together human activities and their consequences: houses. Identification of areas of activity. This investigative strategy was founded within the field of New Archaeology. As well as championing the need to recognise the importance of spatial information in the archaeological record. Hodder and Orton 1990).
from a cross-cultural perspective. entering into the problems of population in primitive human settlements. at micro and semimicro scale. urbanism and settlement models based on the proposals (Ucko et al. Postprocessual theoretical proposals The theoretical proposals used by processual investigators are enclosed within a perspective which belongs to a functionalism which is architectonic. but was merely commenting on an implicit deficiency within it: the lack of emphasis given to the social conventions which give shape to built space. 1994). which offered a new archaeological perspective of the site being studied. Foucault). of the collective imagination and the ritual practices of the community which builds it and inhabits it. its governing deterministic matrix limited its projection enormously. Giddens 1979) and using a social archaeology of inhabited spaces. and the need to develop a settlement study within a dual system of relationships: the ecological surroundings. The home exists on numerous levels of perception. a cultural landscape which fully participates in the construction of symbolic apparatus. consciously and unconsciously. It contains the papers presented at the following the theoreticalmethodological line marked in the preceding meeting about the Domestication and Exploitation of Plants and Animals. but also in social terms (Locock 1994). architecture functions as yet another method of the governing system of knowledge-power in each historical context. It was therefore necessary to widen this perspective with the creation of a new interpretation which considers these factors inherent within architecture as activities which are human. Clarke’s investigation into the lake peoples of Glastonbury (Clarke 1972) is a good practical example of this interdisciplinary idea. dealing with different conditioning factors such as the subsistence pattern. age. for example. Postprocessual Archaeology proposes the hypothesis that dwellings. conditioned by a material context: on the contrary. and consequently cultural. the presence of resources and environment. and others from geography and ecological studies at site scale. (Miller and Tilley 1984. they should be analysed as a living entity which carried out an active role in the social constitution of the archaeological reality. The main contributions of this movement have been the fostering of space as an important theme within the field of archaeological investigation. conceiving architecture as a tool for constructing a social reality. restricts and reproduces spaces of daily activity. are a cultural product aimed at communicating information which was dealt with. Its application to the study of prehistoric architecture (Hodder 1990. From this perspective it is possible to explore the social and symbolic undercurrents beneath the model of spatiality reflected in the interior of sites (Hodder 1990. 1 Architecture as a technology of coercion As a tool for the social construction of reality. Here. as it applied new techniques which came from architecture. This Spatial Archaeology dealt with. the methodological renovation of the discipline. The multidimensionality of the architectonic record The first step forward of postprocessualism in its dealing with the architectonic record would be the recognition of its multidimensional character. 1994b). Architectonic form may be defined as a human product which uses a given reality (or physical space) to create a new reality: inhabited space. 1994) and historic architecture (Glassie 1975. it is as much a reflection as an active generator of social conduct. by the collective which lived in the settlement. Dwelling domestic space offers a lasting means of imposing schemes of social organisation. which sees the shape of a construction as a response to only physical causes (mainly construction materials. intergroup solidarity or the system of power. In this respect. which vary according to gender. daily activity. Architecture as a substantial element of material culture defines. architectonic space is essentially a social space which is constructed culturally. mechanistic and overly-simplistic. which is given a symbolic meaning. Parker and Richards 1994a. it is a physical space in which prehistoric social action takes place and is reproduced (Shanks and Tilley 1987). buildings are not reduced to merely architectonic objects. 2 4 . etcetera. Architecture as an instrument for social action Starting from sociological investigation (Bourdieu 1977. and the social surroundings as a whole. etcetera (Bailey 1990). a space which also obeys cultural demands (Rapoport 1972). opened itself up to the Cultural and Symbolic Anthropology under the growing influence of contributions from structuralism (Lévi-Strauss and M. Here the discipline Here the functionalist perspective may be fully appreciated. and should not therefore be only interpreted in functional terms. which is therefore social. For example. To analyse and deal with this spatial data.Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture spaces with resources and other spaces with resources. Postprocessualism would not wish to invalidate the model which has been proposed. methodological tools were applied to the archaeological data which came from other disciplines also interested in the study of spatial reality. the architecture. and may have different meanings. landscape and climate). architectonic forms appear to be interrelated with sociological variables such as the family. to maintain and reproduce social order (Foucault 1984). McGuire and Paynter 1991. This anthropological and subjectivist turn-around called for an archaeology which deals with the relationships between conscious and unconscious data about ancient social life. 1972)1: reflected in Table 2. In the same way. non-urban settlements as well as the phenomenon of urbanisation. It analyses. Markus 1993. through the analysis of the archaeological record. like the other elements of material culture. status. Although there is no doubt about the fundamental contribution2 which this processual Spatial Archaeology has meant for prehistoric investigation and archaeological investigation in general. Johnson 1993) was first made in an Anglo-Saxon context. lifestyle.
spatial relationships which reflect a particular social logic. identification of areas of private and public use. Eco 1968. This perspective has been applied to the study of domestic and monumental prehistoric architecture. (BUB ratios) Dimension of dwellings (HD) Analysis of space between dwellings (IHSA) Alpha analysis Analysis of the level of convex spatial articulation Analysis of the level of axial spatial articulation Analysis of the index of built space Analysis of relative real asymmetry The study of the size of domestic units. Analysis of visibility Analysis of visibility conditions Dimensional analysis Built: Unbuilt space ratios. It participates in the construction of the symbolic apparatus. as it transmits a message which is assimilated unconsciously within the spatial framework of daily life (Rapoport 1982. Rapoport. Investigation opts for interdisciplinary techniques. gamma analysis. of the control of accesses and circulatory movement movement. Identification of a symbolic undercurrent in the duration of inhabited structures. Kent) analysis object. revealing the existence of real architectonic and iconographic programmes in these societies. Architecture is both a catalyst and product of social action. Baker.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Architecture as communication. the collective imaginarium. Table 3. a technology for constructing the social landscape. A building is not reduced to a merely architectonic object. non-verbal communication and Syntactic analysis of space (Hillier and Hanson. and ritual practices. a sign of non-verbal The influence of the semiotic proposals within postprocessualism (Barthes 1986. Formal analysis (Ching. it is a material entity which plays an active role in the social constitution of the archaeological reality. of a hierarchical system and spatial organisation. but also to cultural and symbolic demands. of demographic pressure in settlements. Monks 1992). Built space does not only present a pragmatic functionality but is also a symbolic POST PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY SYMBOLIC ARCHAEOLOGY Denomination Theory Ontology Method Post Procesual Archaeology Cultural anthropology Material Culture Hermeneutic Semiotic Social theory Marxism Techniques Ethnoarchaeological Historic Archaeology Objective Interpretative framework Epistemology Interpretation of the past Structuralism Post-structuralism Neo-rationalism SPATIAL ANALYSES Functional and symbolic Hodder. 1986 and 1987) has made it possible for archaeological investigation to consider a previously unseen face of Architecture. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Post-Procesual Archaeology 5 . Architecture reproduces the pattern of rationality of a society. using elements from Anthropology. that of its character as a sign of communication. Criado) The study of the symbolic use of space. The study of the social and symbolic significance which underlies the patterns of spatial organisation. of the degree of interaction and/or division and social competition. analysis of To study the permeability of spaces. OBJECTIVES (Blanton. Architectonic form is definitively a significant element which transmits cultural meaning (Hodder 1994). processes of social construction of reality Steadman) SPECIFIC METHODOLOGIES OBJECTIVES Analysis of accesses. creating a spatial structure. Sociology and Ethnoarchaeology. ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY Built space does not only respond to social conventions. the design of new techniques of spatial analysis. A notable methodological development.
Each of these fields is determined by spatial codes which are similar and compatible with each other. exploitation of resources). architecture. social and symbolic surroundings (Criado 1993a. and accordingly we must use the same analytical technique as that used when studying a site. in recent decades a compendium of analytical techniques and instruments has been developed which form a methodological body identified with the field of Archaeology of Architecture. this orientation was created by way of a particular perspective about archaeological practice and its objects of study. Sites are the final expression of human urbanising activity. and symbolic. It does not stop with the reconstruction of primitive environments.. Architecture as a cultural landscape A new conceptual framework is taken as a starting point. Archaeology of Architecture historical constructions and the study of For a criticism of the functionalist. Space. art. social organisation. is a social and imaginary construction.Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture archaeological analysis concentrates on its different dimensions: economic (subsistence. 6 . with a close structural relationship in the strategies of appropriating space between thought. in continuous movement and deeply rooted in culture. These elements and activities which result from constructing buildings are subjected to the same genesis as an underground site. We should therefore use the same system of analysis for elements which are the consequence of the same historical genesis. social organisation. monuments. Landscape. This product is made up of different formal entities which are spatially projected. subsistence and the concept-utilisation of the environment. whether these are raised above ground or buried beneath it. imaginary. 1996b and 1996c). subsistence and conception-utilisation of the environment. (Criado 1993c. but instead attempts to create models of the interrelationships between imagined space. as a static reality of physical and environmental nature. buildings and sites. and which offer relationships of compatibility and give spatial regularity. tames the physical world. Within this historiographical context (Bernardi 1992. choosing to use the term landscape to overcome the formalist concept of space as something which is just ‘there’. and whose remains are conserved within them. Another theoretical and methodological framework used to overcome the deterministic spatial perspective is Landscape Archaeology (Criado 1999). Similarly. territory). conceived as the objectivisation of material and imaginary social practises. Architecture may be defined as a technology for building a social landscape. Archaeology of Architecture is the application of archaeological methodology to the analysis of the material remains of constructed historical buildings. ceramics). the use of space and social organisation in prehistoric communities. Ayán 2001). therefore. not only by introducing architectonic elements into natural space to organise it according to cultural references. empirical and modern concept of space used in Archaeology. social (emplacement. although with the object of overcoming the limitations of Environmental Spatial Archaeology. when habitational groups definitively lose sight of their function. the This investigation starts with the theoretical proposal of multidimensionality of landscape. with landscape perceived as the objectification of material and imaginary social practices (Criado 1991 and 1993c). According to this conceptual and theoretical framework. unlike the former. with a close structural relationship within the strategies of appropriating space between thought. Of particular interest within this field is the study of wall stratigraphy (particularly in the field of post-classic archaeology). This is a new notion which. Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992). The elements and remains of human activities conserved in these sites are mainly concerned with constructions. forming a spatial structure which responds to a certain social logic. like the other formal elements of the record. Space is a social construct. there are various types of analyses applied to the study of historical constructions. 2002. It is offered as the product or effect of social action. is essentially a social space which is culturally constructed (Blanco et al. but also by controlling and imposing the way the surroundings are perceived by the individuals who use it (Criado 1999: 35). is formed by three different dimensions or levels: landscape as physical. 2000. makes it possible to consider spatial reality as an eminently social reality which is constructed culturally. Landscape Archaeology is defined (Criado 1995: 8 and 1996b: 17) as the inclusion of archaeological practice within spatial co-ordinates: it aims to consider the record and Material Culture in a spatial matrix. like a static reality of physical and environmental order3. Mañana et al. This spatial structure is the product of a specific society which by way of certain spatial and architectonic technologies is able to reproduce the prevailing pattern of rationality. 1993c and 1999). the collective imagination and ritual practices of the community which builds it and lives in it. seen in each of the material products from a social group (habitats. Human urban activity has created throughout time different material manifestations of cultural material which we refer to as archaeological sites.. in continuous movement and deeply rooted within culture. which overcomes the formalist concept of space as something which is just there. 3 As we have mentioned. architectonic space. meaning Archaeology of Architecture as a methodological instrument Apart from and/or alongside the previously mentioned theoretical proposals. see Criado (1993a: 9-55). as they follow the same strategy of social space and pattern of rationality. Architectonic space is a cultural landscape in the widest possible sense. and the analyses applied to the study of domestic space. which fully participates in the construction of symbolic apparatus. 1993b. which by using artificial objects. and to simultaneously convert space into the main object of archaeological investigation. undoubtedly contemporary and associable with the elements and activities which gave rise to the standing buildings.
Archaeology of Architecture began to develop fully starting out from the consideration of monuments as historical objects with an archaeological as well as architectonic character. as well as actions due to natural agents”. dendochronology . on the other hand. social and functional value as important as their role as a historical document and archaeological object. meaning it is easy to examine them without dismantling them.Analysis of materials: radiocarbon. dedicated to the interpretation of coverings. which change and evolve throughout time5. as it has been the most developed within the study of historical architecture from an archaeological viewpoint. characterised by being nondestructive. the development of Mediaeval and postMediaeval archaeology. analysis of plaster and mortar. this methodology is one of the main contributions of Mediaeval Archaeology to Archaeology as a whole. This methodology contains microstratigraphy. etc.Chronotypology of tools and singular elements. Following this line of development of post-classic archaeology. with the aim of elaborating a more exhaustive and rigorous analysis of constructions from these periods. 5 7 . which by varying the characteristics of the objects it studied. in particular from the Mediaeval period. This includes the mensiochronology of modular elements. In summary. All this explains why the greatest development in methodologies for the archaeological study of architectures –“integrated as an element of material culture. dynamic. the product of constructive and destructive activity and transformations brought about by man. we often commit the error of considering that Archaeology of Architecture is exclusively the reading of elevations. and we should therefore situate it in its correct place. as the elements which form it in both cases are the product of an archaeological stratification (although in very different states of conservation) and as such. have lead to the observation that fabrication is the result of a series of constructive activities which occur throughout time (1995: 20). and as such is susceptible to study using archaeological methods4. as in this way all the useful We would add some words by Azkarate (1995: 65) which perfectly illustrate this idea: “this working methodology considers the building as a vertical extension of the subsoil. which belongs to Material Culture. the consideration of buildings as historical documents of an archaeological nature – a historical value which Riegl had indicated in 1903. demanded the need to develop a methodology of archaeological study which was fitted to this need. as is the case with Archaeology of Architecture. but instead living structures. the greater attention paid to construction techniques based on the development of post-classic archaeology. and the arguments which still arise from it. . 1-2). We will concentrate on this methodology. Its working instruments are based on the so-called “Harris Method”. or Torres Balbás in the 1920’s (Latorre and Caballero 1995: 6-8). we do then move on to a destructive process. According to Quirós (1994: 14). and which should therefore be studied with an archaeological methodology (Caballero 1992. 4 According to Parenti. or post-Classic archaeology. and must be particularly rigorous. epigraphs. contributed to the increased interest of archaeologists in raised constructions. it is important to point out that this methodology would not be valid unless it has the support of other types of complementary analysis. with regard to ancient civilisations. and corroborating our comments. Archaeology of Architecture and the stratigraphic analysis of elevations Stratigraphic analysis or reading of elevation is an analytical methodology which belongs to Archaeology of Architecture.Reading of elevations or wall stratigraphy: this methodology is based on the consideration of a building as a multi-stratified object. with regard to other older periods immersed within conventional archaeology. here the documental and analytical stage comes before any intervention. Nevertheless. which together with other types of analyses form Archaeology of Architecture. However. We should also remember that architectonic structures are not the abandoned remnants of material culture which are no longer used. which started to be used in the 1970’s and 80’s. In order to be able to carry out a study of historical constructions within Archaeology of Architecture. being able to easily observe all of the constructed parts. in the study of historic architecture. belonging to the stratification of the site”(Quirós 1994: 141)– has appeared precisely within the field of Mediaeval archaeology. and an increased interest by post-classic archaeology. They are denominated chronological indicators for the type of chronology they give rise to. made necessary the development of a new methodology adapted to its requirements. These types of strategy will depend on the characteristics of the object being analysed. with increased transfer of methodologies and working instruments from different disciplines to one sector or another. He continues saying that in the short experience of Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval archaeology in Spain. according to Parenti (1995: 20). Buildings are above ground level. documentary sources. When this is not the case. such as plaster. for different reasons: on one hand. . We know that this is a very recent branch of archaeology. as well as having an urbanistic. This means that we must seek out a suitable methodology for study.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture We will give a brief description of the analytical methodologies used by Archaeology of Architecture in studying historical buildings. compared to “archaeology of the site” – buried away (Caballero 1996b: 2). we should start out with the idea that an architectonic building is an archaeological site. have lead to a lack of more unitary proposals about the application of Archaeology of Architecture. as a methodology for the stratigraphic analysis of historical constructions. due to the existence of elements covering others. or of the problem we are trying to solve: . Mannoni (1994: 65) states that the conservation of a greater wealth of archaeological remains from Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval civilisations. The better conservation of the remains of buildings. built throughout time according to constructive-deconstructive and diachronic processes.Written documentation: plans.
in any other case. the functional role of the building. Archaeology of Architecture should administer. from two viewpoints (which have an important historiographic tradition in our country. with Gómez Moreno. calling for a documental and archaeological investigation – using among these a stratigraphic reading in order to understand the historical stages of the building – previous or parallel to architectonic intervention. from the University of Santiago de Compostela.Scientific precision in the recognition and analysis of the building. on one hand. of its technical aspects.El Servei de Catalogació i Conservació de Monuments has carried out an approximation to the building from a restorative viewpoint (González et al.. using formal typologies or those with chronological value (Gómez 1970: 361-90). then why deny it the testimony of our own architecture?” (González 1990: 12). see Caballero 1996c: 1): one archaeological. study and conserve part of the Material Culture of past societies. and on the other the restorer’s creative liberty: “the license to act on a monument giving it new architecture. especially that which is given by material remains which may be lost or irreversibly altered by architectonic intervention (González 1990: 12). although it is possible that in some cases their abilities are still valid. In our opinion. although to a lesser degree. where Archaeology of Architecture appeared as a consequence of the development of post-classical Archaeology and as an application of the stratigraphic method referred to as the “Harris method” [Caballero 2001: 19]. “considering the monument as a historical document demands giving priority to it deserving a scientific historical investigation. 1990). Historians of art and architecture. using three basic proposals: . Logically these will fall into disuse (. they are still only partial studies. mainly developed by Roberto Parenti in the University of Sienna. are experts in stratigraphy” (Carandini 1997: 115). According to Caballero (1996b: 1) “Our method is better prepared for dating and understanding the building as a historical document – including in its historical facets from the chronological aspect to social and aesthetic interpretation. within which archaeological excavation is an essential and undeniable aspect. Carandini started to develop this methodology in the 1970’s. . . in the Basque Country (with these last two working in close collaboration) and the Laboratorio de Arqueología y Formas Culturales. has its roots in Italy... from stratigraphic readings. Archaeology of Architecture. This statement perfectly illustrates the gaps that exist in the study of architecture. only on rare occasions. the Centro de estudios Históricos of the CSIC. Neither should Archaeology of Architecture be limited to a simple reading of its elevations. by extrapolation. We should not forget that this discipline. there are four centres of investigation in Spain which apply an archaeological methodology to historical constructions. limited until now to analysis from a stylistic-artistic viewpoint. There is less unanimity with regard to the role which historical investigation plays within the restorative process. Its working system is aimed at extracting the maximum amount of information. as is the case with Bonelli. these methods are our predecessors. for the history of architecture. many of Italy’s palaces and churches are only studied by historians of art and architecture who. . and even archaeologists.Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture information that could be lost or altered during work is gathered together. and. as Quirós states (1994: 141). although it was defined and perfected in the 1980’s through the proposals of Tiziano Mannoni in the University of Genova. although it would help with obtaining a deeper understanding and enrichment. constantly referring to experiences in Italy. this role is essentially informative: obtaining all of the useful information. Elsewhere. and accordingly we should bear them in mind and not reject them as out-of-date. and we should see our beginnings reflected in their historiography” 6. in particular the study of historical buildings with an archaeological method. architectonic objects which. We believe that these studies may lend very useful data to our methodology. We should point out. 7 8 .The exact diagnosis of the problems surrounding the buildingK. yet this should not lead to us invalidating other methods. is born of the monument’s historical essence. have already used analytical processes used for dating and comprehension. if they are indeed less useful than the new instruments. make it possible to recover. however. that there are some authors who do not agree with the priority nature of the stratigraphic methodology of elevation readings. the Departamento de Arqueología de la Universidad de Vitoria. in the same way that conventional architecture should not be limited to the excavation and recovery of remains of material culture. which need to be completed by analyses which deal with a wider understanding of the building’s history. and another restorative. and now. despite the fact that there are quite regular references to wall stratigraphy and Archaeology of Architecture. or structural-functional. among others. or would not have become a source for our understanding because of their apparent difficulty” (Caballero 1996b: 2). who considers that stratigraphic archaeology is no more than a technique at the service of Architectural History (1986: 5). Neither should we see Archaeology of Architecture as a radical innovation in constructive analysis (Caballero 1996b: 1). either would not have been considered as architecture. its value of use and its expectations from a historical and aesthetic point of view.An answer adapted to the particular problems of each building considering. If this is the result of adding architecture from different periods. and later by Gian Pietro Brogiolo in the University of Padua. Vicente Lampérez or Torres Balbás. there is no full theoretical or methodological debate about the problems related to it. both structural and social. Furthermore. Analysis 6 The validity of stratigraphic analysis lies in the fact that “the reading of elevations. and Francesco Doglioni in the University of Venice. “Unfortunately.). This historical-archaeological documentation is considered by its members as an essential previous stage before carrying out an architectonic restoration7. These are the Servei de Catalogació i Conservació de Monuments of the Diputació de Barcelona. However. Although these types of studies obviously give us new data about the building.
. in this case the collection of interspatial relationships which helped build a society.the proposal of an investigative project of a scientific nature. Household Archaeology Despite its importance. Its investigations pay particular attention to information from written documentation. visibility and circulatory movement (Hillier and Hanson. To maximise the amount of information which may be given by a dwelling in order to understand a past social formation. The starting point is stratigraphic analysis.the need to carry out a social projection of these investigations. the study of domestic architecture has traditionally been carried out from a formalist and typological viewpoint more befitting Art History. including the syntactic analysis of space which contemplates methodologies which use analyses of access. are one of the most noteworthy inherited heritage objects. their spatial structure. as we will now see. The traditional postures of History of Architecture and Art tend to value constructed heritage based on aesthetic 9 . Allison 1999) which trace their origins back to New Archaeology. particularly with reference to the documentation of the building through stratigraphic readings. whose work is based on the methodological discussion of the analysis of elevations and its application to restorative diagnosis. Blanton 1994. which we have to decode and “read” using analytical techniques from the field of archaeology. Its purpose is to infer historical conclusions from the flow of data achieved from its application to a construction. makes it possible to not only see the spatial logic of a particular community. from its chronological sequence to its meaning” (Caballero 1996a: 1). we would say that historical constructions. Blanton 1994). Their basic methodological proposals are contained in these four points: . The following two investigative groups (Centro de Estudios Históricos del CSIC and Área de Arqueología de la Universidad de Vitoria) have carried out stratigraphic analyses. We should also mention that in the University of Seville there is a group currently taking shape under the leadership of Miguel A. as a development within Archaeology. using the ethnoarchaeological analogy and cross-cultural studies as a working strategy (Kent 1990.the detailed examination of buildings using the methodology of elevation readings. Here are contained successive investigations which analyse the interaction between architecture and environment. Starting with this premise.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture of mural stratigraphy is not considered an end in itself. making it a historical document. but instead the starting point for recovering the volumetry of different stages of the building. Archaeology of Architecture becomes an instrument related to other fields apart from history. and then to propose a restoration project in which these volumes may be recovered. Steadman 1996) Analysis of the significant spatial relationships between objects contained in the record makes it possible to minimally reconstruct their context. using a historical-archaeological evaluation (although in some cases these analyses would have served as the basis for restoration projects in some of the buildings studied). some archaeologists developed a way of dealing with it which uses spatial analysis as a methodology and social theory as an interpretative framework. for the study of historical buildings .Área de Arqueología de la Universidad de Vitoria. but also the actual social logic of that space. both with regard to the restoration of buildings and their reassessment and social promotion (Caballero and Fernández 1996d: 7) . it is not the only one. as well as the analysis of historical buildings. Azkárate 1996). particularly if restoration is underway . as well as their functional continuity. forms part of History’s full rights. domestic space and the spatial articulation of domestic units. Foster 1989. Tabales Rodríguez. in a state of continual reflection and with the advancement of both its techniques and documentation methods. the structure of parentage. as well as being adaptable to different situations: it must be both scientific and flexible. .perfect graphic documentation.An instrument of historical knowledge. Purpose and Architecture applications of Archaeology of “Archaeology of Architecture. With the aim of shedding light on these spatial relationships and defining the areas of activity within domestic space. The study of these spatial relationships between elements. from whom we have selected the following purposes and applications of Archaeology of Architecture). significance and social role. both because of their volume. 1984. built heritage is a “disordered final product” (Azkarate 1998: 105). Thanks to these studies. These analyses appear within the framework of so-called Settlement Archaeology (Ucko 1972) and Household Archaeology (Wilcj and Rathje 1982. as it may offer a precise chronology about work which has taken place within the building. the constructive panorama of some of the churches of the province of Alava has been enriched. As we have already said. and computerised analytical photogrametry (Caballero and Fernández 1996d: 6) . enriching and widening its perspectives (we refer to Azkarate 1998. This complexity obliges us to discover a methodology of study which is characterised by analytical systematisation and scientific order.Centro de Estudios Históricos del CSIC. and bearing in mind the comments of Quirós (1994: 142). lead by Agustín Azkárate. which makes it possible to interpret material remains historically. directed by Caballero Zoreda. and part of their original significance. Finally. as until recently these had been considered as belonging to a single period (Caballero and Fernández 1996d: 8. leaving space for it prior to any intervention. Although this is the main purpose of architecture as a discipline of historical knowledge. various methodological instruments have been designed. a site in which numerous past remains are gathered.
instruments which support stratigraphic analysis and archaeology and architecture in general. the social logic inherent when ordering built space. As we have seen. diffuse and fragmented. such as restoration or conservation Creating 3-D models allowing the virtual visualisation of cultural elements - - Finally. considering all that has gone before. such as the solution of pathologies identified thanks to this examination. the symbolic undercurrent of architectonic form. thus becoming a first-rate instrument for conservation. Therefore. This need is justified by questions we have already covered. from their pattern of subsistence to their symbolic universe. Its field of study appears vague. Despite the enormous limits and conditioning factors which go hand in hand with this problem. but instead is defined as a way of exploring subjects which belong to other sectors of the archaeohistorical discipline: the study of the reflection in architecture of structures of parentage. forgetting that they are often a disordered product which is not the result of one but several styles. the applications of a reading of elevations would be the following: As previously mentioned. although not necessarily the most suitable or conclusive. or the building techniques themselves are all themes which fit within the framework of study of other tendencies. the restoration projects of some buildings have passed over some constructive stages because of the lack of information about them. - - - In summary. Social Archaeology or Historical Archaeology. In principle. However. Perhaps it corresponds more to a moment than to a sector of archaeological investigation: today it is attracting new methods towards it. at least makes it possible to shape an archaeological vision which prompts new and necessary questions about built space. individualising and dating the constructive stages of the building makes it possible for us to recover the final product. although without forgetting the marks of time and all of the building’s historical stages. and new problems. thanks to the lack of historical documentation. An instrument for conservation. Acquisition of new study instruments. as it is beneficial for the projects and objectives of architects themselves” (Azkarate 1998: 106). Stratigraphic analysis. An instrument for the diachronic analysis of urban structure. and in order to illustrate archaeology as an instrument for restorative diagnosis. from other disciplines. We need new proposals and basic principles which may be applied to an alternative study method which. we have the example of the Restoration Projects carried out for the Servei de Catalogació i Conservació de Monuments by Antoni González and his team (González 1999a). Archaeology of Architecture attempts to maximise all of the information which architectonic remains give about past societies. and graphically represent its temporal sequence. this ambiguous. and overcoming the investigative tradition which has commented on and even defended the impossibility of dealing with a social and integral interpretation of this record. with no specific domain of its own. An instrument for restorative diagnosis. 8 10 . “the archeologia dell’edilizia storica has a future. stratigraphic analysis helps us to establish the diachronic sequence of a building. such as the inconsistency of studying the architectonic record. we believe that it is essential to propose and develop new techniques which attempt to widen our current knowledge of the subject. although if we extrapolate it to wider environments.Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture criteria. However. imprecise and general objective converts it into a pot-pourri which absorbs methodological innovations of any kind. Reaching a wider understanding of the building in all its constructive aspects Deconstructing previous reconstructions with the aim of establishing the different constructive stages of the monument Documenting appraisal work. The reading of elevations when identifying. Thanks to this. Frequently. They are classified as exclusively belonging to a single artistic style. creating constructive models which tie down the structures in time. the detailed study of all built elements. actually it is necessary a theoretical and methodological systematisation which let to carry out a definition of Archaeology of Architecture like a specific work line within Archaeology. and given more attention to other styles. The need for Archaeotecture What is Archaeology of Architecture? Is it a new territory of archaeology. such as Symbolic Archaeology. including the reading of elevations. atlases of building techniques are now being produced. By individualising the constructive units of the building and articulating them in a chronological sequence. and different types of graphic representation (such as photogrametric reconstructions) of the buildings. contributes to the creation of documents about constructed heritage which help with its conservation when there has been destruction or aggressive restoration. we are able to characterise constructive techniques. or a new way of dealing with an area of the archaeological record which is the result of the breakdown of the archaeological discourse which has taken place in post-modern times? The answer is difficult. creating documentary archives which contribute to the conservation of constructed heritage. it is possible to establish the evolution of an inhabited centre. together with mensiochronological studies and tipochronological tables. applying it to urban nuclei. may help architects in taking certain decisions. This problem would be solved by a detailed analysis of the building8. as occurred with New Archaeology in its day. Archaeology of Architecture offers new methodologies of analysis for new visions about built record. The production of detailed documentation. comes before the undertaking of the restoration project.
Espacio e Contorno (Santiago de Compostela. 1999. A. We proposed that Archaeotecture has to answer the demands of a new socio-political context in which the field of Heritage Protection and Management has gone from strength to strength in the present day. Le Corbusier. 1990. and de la Fuente. 9 11 . Blanco Rotea. Análisis de la forma: urbanismo y arquitectura. Propuesta de reconstrucción en el castro de Elviña. D. Burgos en la Alta Edad Media (Burgos. R. 6: 153-171. and Núñez. and Lagopoulos. 1998. La arqueología en el muro: lectura estratigráfica de paramentos en San Fiz de Solovio. Aparicio Bastardo. Arkeoikusca. 1997. ed. through the appearance of investigation projects proposed as Integral Heritage Management programmes. R. Documentación y análisis arquitectónico en el País Vasco.. Curso Documento. (Inédita). M. an Archaeotecture which maximises its potential as a discipline integrated within archaeological practice.. A. A. 17: 481-500. (eds. (Tesis de licenciatura). Estudio arqueológico e intervención arquitectónica en la iglesia de la Asunción de San Vicente del Valle (Burgos). contents and objectives of this tendency. Análisis de formas constructivas: aproximación al caso burgalés. reconstruction and restoration of historical constructions. González 1996 and 2000). Bernardi. In Gottdiener M. Archaeotecture is not reduced to being a merely interpretative practice. A. and on the other is a source of information which ends up in the hands of society at large. 1985. 1989. 1993-1994. W. P. 23. An approach to the analysis of form. II Here we share a particular investigative strategy which defends the final defeat of this false dichotomy. J. demystify archaeological ruins and facilitate an understanding and interpretation of the past. Second edition. 1994. Press. 1986. do 18 ó 21 de setembro de1996): 101-20. In order to reach these objectives it is necessary to define a theoretical-methodological basis which makes it possible to define the character. Burgos. M.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Here we opt for a third way. A. Introducción al estudio arqueológico del patrimonio construido: el análisis estratigráfico de paramentos. Vitoria. Madrid. (5ª ed. Edizioni all’insegna del giglio. 1991. In these projects. and which guarantees a truly interdisciplinary character which is of enormous use in investigation. A. the work of Archaeology of Architecture forms part of the technique developed within the current debate about the problems of dividing archaeological practice between Investigative Archaeology and Management9 Archaeology. ed. programmes in which archaeological investigation has had a clearly patrimonial bias. R. Algunas experiencias llevadas a cabo en Álava-España. The objective is therefore involved in integral projects of Architectonic Heritage Management. Azkarate Garai-Olaun. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. I. Xunta de Galicia. It is also essential that this movement is integrated within investigative strategies which. Baker. Le Corbusier: análisis de la forma. R. G. In Samson. Jornadas Burgalesas de Historia. etcetera). Museo de Arqueología de Álava. Here. A. (a cura di). London: Routledge. Grupo de Investigación en Arqueología del Paisaje – Departamento de Historia 1. 435: 65-78. UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold). Aparicio Bastardo. 2001.H. Las construcciones históricas desde una perspectiva arqueológica.. where information obtained through archaeological work is handed back to society to be publicised and appraised (Criado 1996a. Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura. Arqueotectura 3: La vivienda castreña. Archeologia del Paesaggio.): The City and the Sign: 88-98. The cost-effectiveness involved in projecting investigation programmes about prehistoric and historic architecture is remarkable. Gallaecia. 1996b and 1996c. Criado and González 1994. 95: 312-38. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (España). 1995. 1998b.H. New York: Columbia Univ. (ed. Informes de la Construcción. An analysis of form. A. the appraisal of archaeological sites. Fernández de Jáuregui. G. Santiago: USC.): The Archaeology of houses. México: Gustavo Gili. amp. Blanco Rotea. A. Barthes. M. R. 1994. Firenze: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche. 1992.: 19-48. in which basic investigation is the starting point for a process which culminates in the appraisal and popularising of Archaeological Heritage. Arqueología de urgencia en Álava / 1989-1993: 95-102. as shown by the group of studies outlined in this paper. amp. Documentación arqueolóxica e contexto urbano na Cominudade Autónoma Vasca. Baker. 1998a. J. Bailey. The Archaeology of Household Activities. The Living House: Signifying Continuity. and García Camino. responding to the demands made by both market and society (public works. 1998. or. Semiology and the Urban. Azkarate Garai-Olaun. Azkarate Garai-Olaun.1990). Comunicación Social e Turismo. Iglesia de San Román (Tobillas). Design Strategies in Architecture. X. Ayán Vila. taking basic investigation as a foundation. México: Gustavo Gili (2ª ed. thus contributing to the evaluation of the archaeological record and widening its prospects for appraisal. 443-456. Blanco Rotea. Zamora. Santiago de Compostela. TAPA (Trabajos en Arqueología del Paisaje). Now. In Actas del Segundo Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción (La References Allison. the aim is to also include Archaeology of Architecture within these projects of applied investigation. Università degli studi di Siena. Azkarate Garai-Olaun. a symbiotic perspective between Archaeology and Architecture. Álava: Diputación Foral de Álava. M. Numantia. 1996. or. Ermita del Santo Cristo. but instead acts as a technique which on one hand adapts and responds to the problems presented by the existence of Archaeological Heritage. UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold).
Forthcoming. 6th EAA Annual Meeting (Lisbon. P. L. 1992. Caballero Zoreda. 1987. Informes de la Madrid. 1999. Nueva York: Van Nostrand Reinhold). Analisi stratigrafiche. (coords. Análisis de elementos constructivos en Santa Eulalia de Mérida-España. L. Analisi stratigrafica delle murature :1ª Parte. ed. 1995b. F. P. Consejería de Cultura. 1997. New York: Plenum Press. Archeologia dell’Architettura. Alcuéscar (Cáceres). 1986. Archivo Español de Arqueología. 1996c. G. Brogiolo. In Francovich and Parenti (ed.Martino. Mérida: Junta de Extremadura. 1995. Análisis arqueológico de construcciones históricas en España. Brogiolo. and Matesanz Vera. 2. R. Informes de la Construcción. and Sáez Lara. 1977. Caballero Zoreda. 1. Archeologia stratigrafica e storia dell’architettura. Architetture medievali del Garda bresciano. S. Madrid. and Feijoo Martínez.) 1995a. Firenze. Mañana Borrazás. Unpublished. 1998. Módulo 5 del Curso de especialización en Gestión Arqueológica del Patrimonio Construido. Archeologia dell’Architettura. L. USC. Caballero Zoreda. Estado de la cuestión.Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Coruña. and Parenti. 435. Junta de Castilla y León. Caballero Zoreda. Metodologías de Intervención en el Patrimonio Arqueológico. Salamanca: Europa Artes Gráficas. 1996a. 1: 65-70. Madrid. G. espacio y orden. México: Gustavo Gili. El método arqueológico aplicado al proceso de estudio y de intervención en edificios históricos. and Cámara Muñoz. Arqueología y Arquitectura. Caballero Zoreda. Arce. P. Caballero Zoreda. Brogiolo. Grafo. Numantia. 1994.) 1996e. 1995. R. Madrid: CSIC.A. 435: 79-89. P. Revista de Arqueología. Caballero Zoreda. Fotogrametría y análisis arqueológico. Madrid. Caballero Zoreda. G. 1996b.. El análisis estratigráfico de construcciones históricas. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. L. P. Creating Space. 1996). Caballero Zoreda. Architettura. L. 453: 37-46. Informes de la Construcción. (10ª ed. Caballero Zoreda. S. Outline of a Theoy of Practice. 1996). Sobre el análisis arqueológico de construcciones históricas. In Curso de Arqueología de la Arquitectura (Burgos. Un caso de lectura de paramentos y argumentación científica. (a cura di). Supplemento ad Archeologia Medievale. La importancia de las construcciones sobre la restauración Construcción. Arqueología estratigráfica y restauración. and Latorre . Houses and Households. L. In Memorias de Arqueología Extremeña. Quaderns cientifics i tecnics. G. 2: 510. Madrid. L. Brogiolo. La Iglesia Mozárabe de Santa Lucía del Trampal. Mannoni. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica. 1979. Manual de excavación arqueológica. 10-17 september 2000). or. 435: 5-18. Como: Edizioni New Press. Storia e Documenti. L. L. 1995. P. S. E. Madrid. Cagnoni. 2000. 1996d. Informes de la Construcción. Arqueología del monumento..). R. 1995. 1988a. La documentazione del degrado e del dissesto nell’analisi stratigrafica degli elevati. T. Caballero Zoreda. Burgos). 1994. L. 2. P. In As Actuacións no patrimonio construido: un diálogo interdisciplinar (Santiago de Compostela. Campionatura e obiettivi nell’analisi stratigrafica degli elevati: 335-46. In III Encuentros sobre Arqueología y Patrimonio de Salobreña. Historias en la tierra. Salamanca: Europa Artes Gráficas. Brogiolo. Castello di S. 1997. G. Incontro en L’Archeologia dell’Architettura (Genova... Madrid. A. setembro de 1995): 129-58. 71: 181-242. Análise arqueolóxica e intervención en edificios Históricos. Caballero Zoreda and Fernández Mier. 1996. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. methodology and analysis from Landscape Archaeology. Burgos-España. Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura. Comunicación Social e Turismo. P. and Ayán Vila. Bonelli. Santiago de Compostela: Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía e Formas Culturais. 1986. Boast. 1996. G. 5: 13965. 22-24 de octubre de 1998): 49-56. La iglesia altomedieval de san Juan Bautista en Baños de Cerrato (Palencia). and Latorre. R. Blanton. L. P. Space and Order.. Leer el documento construido. and Escribano Velasco. La Torre de Hércules en La Coruña y S. Cambridge. 8. Blanco Rotea. 435: 31-6. Firenze: Università degli studi di Siena. Xunta de Galicia. C. Archeologia dell’Architettura. Junta de Castilla y León. 1991. Blanco Rotea. Arqueoloxía e Arquitectura. In Arqueología de la Arquitectura (Burgos. Archaeology of Architecture: theory. X. Madrid: EFCA. F. P. and Feijoo Martínez. M. and Yiannouli. Archaeological Review from Cambridge. La iglesia prerrománica de San Pedro el Viejo (Hortigüela. Forthcoming. L. 5 (2): 136-40. Pedro el Viejo de Arlanza. Informes de la Construcción. Caballero Zoreda. F. P. and Feijoo Martínez. R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 435: 51-61. Ching. L. (coord.. R. (ed. 12 . L. Método para el análisis estratigráfico de construcciones históricas o “lectura de paramentos”. G. Brogiolo. Archeologia dell’edilizia storica. S. Pelayo de Arlanza. S. Arquitectura: forma. En torno a algunas experiencias de lectura arqueológica de edificios. Carandini. 1988b. Forthcoming. 186: 14-25. Zamora. Bourdieu. P. Architecture: Form. Caballero Zoreda. 1995. Informes de la Construcción. del análisis estratigráfico históricas en el debate monumental. EEA. Caballero Zoreda. Latorre González-Moro.) 2001. La experiencia llevada a cabo en Santa Eulalia de Mérida. L. 1996): 55-74. M.
Fontenla San Juan. L.) Models in Archaeology: 801-869.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Clarke.). 2: 14-20. Francovich. London: Pan Books. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. C. La ricerca nelle struttura edilizia tra Acheologia stratigrafica e restauro Architettonico: 223-47. S. B. Foster. setembro de 1995). L. In Clarke. 1996a. (ed. Sevilla. Venezia: Cluva Editrice. 1994. Visibilidad e interpretación del registro arqueológico. Madrid. Criado Boado. 1968. La Arqueología del Saber. 1985. Criado Boado. Lunnon. In Clarke. Santiago: Tórculo Edicións. Comunicación Social e Turismo. Feijoo Martínez. 1986. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid. (ed. R. In Congreso: Os profesionais da historia ante o Patrimonio Cultural: liñas metodolóxicas (Lugar y fecha). Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura. México: Siglo XXI (6ª ed. V. Gloucester. and Rúa Carril. 435: 91100. Feijoo Martínez. U. Foucault. Fontenla San Juan. C. ¿el Futuro de la Arqueología?. Ambiente di dimore medieval a Verona. D. 1988. A. Espacio monumental y paisajes prehistóricos en Galicia. and Bryan. Criado Boado. Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. 1972. Unpublished. Espacio e Contorno (Santiago de Compostela. and Parenti. The Early Mesoamerican Village. 1996b. Restauro & Città. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. and Lagopoulos. Doglioni. Criado Boado. Doglioni. Giddens. 2: 9-55. Venezia. Moretti. Trabajos de Prehistoria. 1978. Trabajos de Prehistoria. Antiquity. F.Dalla vulnerabilità constatata nel terremoto del Friuli al miglioramento antisismico nel restauro. 6. Madrid. Flannery.) Francovich. 1997. F. Archeologia e restauro: da contiguità a unitarietà. 1996c. Functionalism and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture. In Gottdiener M. V. Criado Boado. P. M.. R. El proyecto de restauración y el concepto de monumento. Dallas. (a cura di) 1987. London: Methuen. Trieste: Edizioni LINT. and Rúa Carril. La estructura ausente. F. G. 16: 73-9. Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings (acces analysis) as an insight into social structure: examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. 1993b. Barcelona: Lumen. 1979. M. Clarke. Santiago de Compostela: Dirección Xeral do Patrimonio Cultural. In Corso di Restauro Architettonico (Venezia. Spatial Information in Archaeology. Windsor Castle: Photogrammetric and Archaeological recording after the fire. A. (ed. Foucault. A. Kerr. Eco. 1999. and Parenti. Archeologia e Restauro dei Monimenti. La chiese e il terremoto. 13 . F. Travels in Hyperreality: 296-9. Criado Boado. (eds. In Francovich. New York: Columbia Univ. R. F. Introducción a la Semiótica. 1979. 1987). Documentación de las estructuras medievales de las iglesias del Concello de Lalín (Deza). 1995. Vigilar y castigar: El nacimiento de la Prisión. 1993a. do 18 ó 21 de setembro de 1996). Hacia un modelo integrado de investigación y gestión del Patrimonio Histórico: la cadena interpretativa como propuesta. Doglioni. (coord. G. London: Methuen. U. Santiago: Grupo de Investigación en Arqueoloxía da Paisaxe. Límites y posibilidades de la arqueología del paisaje. (ed. London: Macmillan. Sevilla. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. R. S. In Asociación Galega de Historiadores (ed. 53 (1): 15-35. Press Eco. 1995. III: 58-75. D. L. Eco. Reflexión y debate sobre teoría y práctica. How an Exposition Exposes Itself. London: Academic Press. (dir) 1998. Criado Boado. La iglesia prerrománica de San Martín de Prado en Lalín. Xunta de Galicia. S. Cuadernos del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. F. Pontevedra-España. (a cura di) 1994. F. Analytical Archaeology. Curso Documento. In VV. C. Madrid: Siglo XXI (4ª ed. Informes de la Construcción. Spal.): Spatial Archaeology: 1-32.) 1988. 1999. and González Méndez. Comunicación Social e Turismo. 1992. A provisional model of an Iron Age Society and its settlements system. V.. Cristinelli. Clarke. Xunta de Galicia. 50: 39-56. R. Fontenla San Juan.1977.: Conservación arqueológica. 15 (86): 225-40. 14: 15-9. R. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. Del Terreno al Espacio: Planteamientos y Perspectivas para la Arqueología del Paisaje.): Concepcións espaciais e estratexias territoriais na Historia de Galicia: 23-54. and Petrini. Florencia: Univercità degli Studi di Siena. M. New York: Academic Press. U. D.) 1976. 1998): 139-66.) 1996: Monumentodocumento: diferentes valoracións das aportacións posteriores á fábrica. 1984. La arqueología del paisaje como programa de gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico. La Arqueología del futuro. Curso As actuacións no patrimonio construido: un diálogo interdisciplinar (Santiago de Comportela. 63: 40-50. Criado Boado.) The City and the Sign: 56-85. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. 1993c. D. K. F. Xunta de Galicia. Sevilla. L. verso una politica di prevencione. A. Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura. 1987. La puesta en valor del patrimonio arqueológico desde la perspectiva de la arqueología del paisaje. J. L.. V. (Proyecto de investigación). F. W. (ed. USC. Madrid. Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. S.). Photogrammetric Record. D. 1989.AA. CAPA (Criterios y Convenciones en Arqueología del Paisaje). F. F.
Avebury: Aldershot. Lacuesta. Sevilla. López Mullor. Arqueotectura 1: Bases teórico-metodológicas para una Arqueología de la Arquitectura. D.. T. (eds). Caratteri costruttivi dell’edilizia storica. Detroit.. Memòria 1985-1989. London: Routledge. (ed. espacio y arquitectura. S. Hillier. In Clarke. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid. Markus. Existencia. A. X. London: UCL Press. mètodes i difusió de la restauració monumental. México: FCE. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. M. Parenti. Some New Directions in the Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data at the Regional Scale (Macro). 1996. A. Monks. Gómez Moreno-Navarro. I. M. Oxford: Blackwell. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study. Il relievo per il restauro. Principios de estratigrafía arqueológica. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 15: 41-52. Gómez Moreno-Navarro. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. Locock. Archeologia dell’Architettura. 1993. Kent. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. R. M. Departamento de Historia I.). Madrid: CSIC. and Blanco. Santiago de Compostela: CSIC-XuGA. Mannoni. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. and Richard. R. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ideology. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. and Hanson.) 1984. Approaches to Social Space: 73-86. restituzioni. H and Paynter. Blume. 1996. M. 1993. 14 . Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Analyzing activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of the use of space. The social logic of space. M. 1988. C. In Locock. 1990. Gómez Moreno-Navarro. Supplemento ad Archeologia Medievale. misurazioni. R. Meaningful Architecture. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid. A. C. Análisis arqueológico de los paramentos el faro romano llamado Torre de Hércules (La CoruñaEspaña). R. El presente eterno: Los comienzos de la arquitectura. D. Una definición y dos ejemplos. C. USC. 1994. and Parenti. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. Johnson. Lévi-Strauss. La restauración objetiva (Método SCCM de restauración monumental). Cultura y Arte. and Caballero Zoreda. Hodder. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica. Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy.) 1991. 1999. Mannoni. and López. La investigación arqueológica de Bienes Inmuebles: metodología aplicada en la Puerta de Córdoba de Carmona. McGuire. 1993. In Parker Pearson. TAPA (Traballos en Arqueolxía da Paisaxe). J. Mannoni..): Meaningful Architecture: social interpretations of buildings: 1-13. M. L. (ed. 1991. Marino. 1988. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 305-34. Hillier. Diputació de Barcelona. M. Memoria SPAL 1993-1998. Ricognizioni. R. Investigación y Puesta en Valor del Patrimonio Histórico: Planteamientos y Propuestas desde la Arqueología del Paisaje. requisito de la restauración objetiva. Informes de la Construcción. C. Arqueología del patrimonio edificado. Kent. 1999. Madrid. R. 26 (2): 37-57. Miller. Space is the Machine. 1994.) Spatial Archaeology: 233351. A. 1998): 139-66. Norberg-Schulz. Architecture and Order. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. London: Academic Press. elaborazioni. González Méndez. Sevilla. T. Análisis espacial en Arqueología. Objectius. C. Housing Culture. Retazos: Ideas sobre Historia. El ocio y el reciclado: la conversión del vestigio arqueológico en producto de consumo. P. L. 1990. M. Milán: Editore Ulrico Hoepli. 435: 47-50. Harris. 3. B. Oxford: Blackwell. R. Hodder. T. M.. Facultade de Xeografía e Historia. R. Gómez Moreno-Navarro. A. (Tesis doctoral). Unpublished. Glassie. Servei de Patrimoni Arquitectònic. G. H. Barcelona: edita Institut d’Edicions de la Diputació de Barcelona. C. Folk housing in middle Virginia: a structural analysis of historic artifacts. El uso sensato del patrimonio arquitectónico. Power and Prehistory. Traditional architecture in an English landscape. 1995. L. and Orton. 1992. 1977. Génova: ESCUM. 1999. Ayán. 1998): 139-66. El pensamiento salvaje. 1964. 1994. Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. Barcelona: Ed. Ojeda Calvo. (a cura di). 2000. accercamenti. A. Servei de Patrimoni Arquitectònic. 1975. S. Architecture and meaning: The Example of Neolithic Houses and Tumbs. 1980. 2002. Diputació de Barcelona. 1996. Com e per a qui restaurem. Parenti. Latorre González-Moro. I.). Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. Harris. 1996. 1994. (eds. T. Buildings and Power. 14: 24-7. The Archaeology of Inequality. 1. 1988. and Tabales Rodríguez. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 383-402. 1970. (ed. B. and Tilley. E. Venticinque anni di Archeologia Globale. Medri. Barcelona: edita Institut d’Edicions de la Diputació de Barcelona. 1990. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In Francovich. In Francovich. Barcelona: Crítica. London: Academic Press. (ed. R. I. Milanese. González Méndez. S. Santiago de Compostela. Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Buildings Types.Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Giedion.. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. C (eds. Historical Archaeology. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Mañana. 25. 1984. E. Architectural Simbolism and Non-verbal communication at Upper Fort Garry. P. Hodder. R. M. Domestic Architecture and the use of space. 1984.
Buggiano. Approaches to Social Space: 1-37. Tringham. 1. A. Restauro & Città. M. C. El espacio en arquitectura. 1999. 55 (2): 89-109. American Behavioral Scientist. Architecture and order: spatial representation and Archaeology. 1985b. Parenti. Aplicación de nuevos modelos de análisis a estructuras de la Alta Andalucía en época ibérica. Sanz Gallego. Parenti. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid. Parenti. and Richards. 1999. Social Theory and Archaeology. CAPA (Criterios y Convenciones en Arqueología del Paisaje). In Parker Pearson. In Parker Pearson. 1994a. Para una prehistoria de la vivienda. van de. R.es) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia. 1972. Richards. M. C. 1986. Rivera Blanco. Beverly Hills. F. Firenze. 2: 55-68. Parenti.). Quirós Castillo. Arqueología y territorio medieval. Rapoport. R. (eds. Space. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Madrid. and Gelichi. Historia. La Arqueología de la Arquitectura. Uboldi. Samson. Produzioni di laterizi nell’Alta Valdinievole: la Valleriana (XVII-XX sec. C. Spain. Complutum. (ed. Xurxo M. Archeologia e storia di un monumento mediceo : gli scavi nel cassero senese della Fortezza di Grosseto: 165-76. Contribución al estudio de la arqueología de la Arquitectura. Shanks. 1: 141-58. J. Archeologia e storia di un monumento mediceo. 1992. 4: 239-52. P. Complutum. In Atti del Convegno su Pluriattività e Mercati in Valdinievole (XVIXIX secolo): 139-47. J. Parker Pearson.Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Parcero Oubiña. M. 1981. W. Aproximación historiográfica y metodológica al estudio del espacio doméstico prehistórico. M. 1998): 99-121. The meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Vela Cossío. London: Routledge. Ven. 4 (1): 51-93. New York: Plenum Press.es) Patricia Mañana Borrazás (phpatrim@usc. and Richards. 1980. Tendencias de la restauración arquitectónica en Europa en el final de siglo: los problemas de la materia yy de la forma y la idea de autenticidad. Parenti. Santiago de Compostela: Grupo de Investigación en Arqueología del Paisaje. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. La torre B. Jaén. Wilk. 1995. R. Archeologia Medievale. S.) 1990. R. Preziosi. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 280-304. Steadman. 1993. Rossignol. (eds.. M.). M. La lettura stratigrafica delle murature in contesti archeologici e di Restauro architettonico. Madrid: Cátedra. La torre A: una lettura stratigrafica. La tecniche di documentazione per una lettura stratigrafica dell'elevato.. Venezia. Parenti. 1994b. R. J. C. A. Journal of Archaeological Research. 13: 277-90. (ed. N. Archeologia Medievale. Madrid. importancia y aplicaciones del método de lectura de paramentos. Vivienda y cultura. Archeologia stratigrafica dell’Italia Settentrionale. S. R. R. and Rathje. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. 9. Firenze. Ayán Vila (phxurxo@usc. A. G. Time. Parenti. 435: 19-29. D. R. The semiotics of the built environment: an introduction to architectonic analysis. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Post-Procesual Archaeology 15 . and Archaeological Landscapes. 1985a. Méndez Fernández. L. 1993. New York. Ordering the world: perceptions of Architecture.es/ Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid.). Informes de la Construcción. R.. Para una lógica social del espacio en Prehistoria. 1998. Como: Edizione New Press. F. 1982. http://www-gtarpa. R. Quirós Castillo.. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 249-79. R. W. Sánchez. 1988b. R. Sulla posibilità di datazione e di clasificazione delle murature. (eds) 1972. J. and Tilley. 1995. R. 1982. Cambridge: Polity Press.): Architecture and Order. Current Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundantions. S. and Wandsnider. In Francovich. Richards. S. Ucko. Parenti. R and Dimbley. 25: 617-639. USC. Approaches to Social Space: 38-72. Trabajos de Prehistoria. 1994. R. Space and Time. 6: 257-76. La evolución de una idea nueva en la teoría e historia de los movimientos modernos.. J. In Francovich. Rapoport. El Registro de la Información en Intervenciones Arqueológicas. London: Dackworth.usc. London: Sage. S. The social Archaeology of houses. Madrid. London: Routledge. Household Archaeology. (a cura di) 1988. Parenti. 1988a. settlement and urbanism. 1987. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.es) Rebeca Blanco Rotea (phrebeca@usc. Man. J. C. Bari: De Donato. (ed. C. Tables Table 1. 12: 417-37. 1979. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Traditional Archaeology Table 2. R. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio.. Parker Pearson. In Francovich. and Blanco Rotea. A. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Funcionalist Archaeology Table 3.): Architecture and Order. 1996. Madrid. C.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?