ARCHAEOLOGY AND INSIDE HOUSES/ BUILDINGS lector drd. arh. Raluca DIACONESCU Universitatea Spiru Haret, Facultatea de Arhitectura

Archaeology; Role and Impact – Influence on the Urban Settlements

Archaeological discoveries, regardless the manner they are undertaken, thus be it accidentally or consequently to some scientifical research, once they are accomplished would ceaselessly influence the city planning as well as the entire surrounding area. These influences may be of historical value, while also for the urban planning of the proximity zone, thus intending a great impact.

Urban archaeology and the built environment are mutually influencing: they both can impose some special measures to take in terms of esthetic and special steps at built area level.

A balance between discovery and preserving the archaeological vestiges, then “bringing new value” to them is rather a delicate matter.

The archaeological maps are definitely important as related to find out some strategies for urban archaeology. In Belgium, the atlases for historical urban settlements around Brussels are already issued, while in Turkey, the archaeological maps for cities like Ankara and Foca (Phokaia) are under printing. Many countries have been used in terms of using the pattern of this archaeological maps project, for instance Ireland and Northern Ireland. Some other countries are also preparing these archaeological maps, like Estonia and Romania. The database and cartography are both strongly linked to the

metodology of any urban settlement evolution. Important references for completing this evolution were in Finland, Lombardia area – Italy, as France and United Kingdom are in the process of preparing them.

As a scientific domain, archaeology is endowed with plenty of evidence that can lead to reinterprete the history of the settlements. This reinterpreting can urge us to regard with a different awareness degree the fact that we are practically involved into the past, anchored there with our origins, with our core and that is why reaching a special type of broaching the present times appears so necessary. On a city scale, this care for historical evidence can be enabled at a visibly more difficult pace, because some label it as petty, but in terms of the interior decorations, the archaeological vestiges are often present, thus building out a broach of uniqueness and expressivity merged into a special ambiental area.

The lawful norms for archaeology as science are provided by two great conventions: Granada Convention in 1985, October 3 – Convention for Protecting the Architectural Patrimony of Europe (following the Paris Convention in 1954) and Valetta-Malta Convention in 1992, January 16 (adopted by

Romania in 1997 and enforced by the Law Order No. 150, published in Official Monitor No. 175, in 1997, July 29)

Archaeology within the Process of Urban PlanningThe presence of numerous ancient vestiges under the cities and villages was made public by

printing some maps in 17th century. Since that period, the old age interests started to have a visible impact on the most remarkable areas, such as “catacombs” and classic vestiges, are visible and can be easily accessed. However, no digging works were undertaken by late 19th century or early 20th century. Moreover, by the same period of time, no protection and preservation measures had been taken, but later, within the urban areas – namely in the classic zones of Rabat – and therefore some important parts of these historical and architectural areas brought to the public knowledge in the Roman Museum of Antiquities. These years of research led to the existance of Museum of Departments and introduction of the first laws of the Patrimony.

The principle of instituting a national governmental body to enable the protection of archaeological monuments - especially the bodies mainly concerning the development and planning of the matter - is the ground for Maltese Codes of Laws, that would have a great impact on the Patrimony. In spite of some recent improvements, the patrimonial district of the Maltese islands requires a constant attention, therefore both existing codes of rules recommend the enforcement of periodical revisions as well as the mandatory establishing of Governmental Body as a Department of the Museums. On daily bases, the operational mechanisms and the rules are decisive in terms of urban archaeology resources management. This management is vital for urban archaeology in terms of two major compartiments. The first component is Legislation, then frequently, the lawful statute of the Patrimony is defined by the Antiquity Act (1925), the Environmental Act (1991) and the Development Planning Act (1992).

The second act comprises the National Executive Bodies and their operational frame. The action on the vestiges stipulates the first frame that the Museum Department can intervene on the inspector executive of Maltese vestiges. This action has been adjusted several times, thus responding by increasing the pressure in different sectors. Establishing the Authority Planning has not only the attribution of checking and instituting the rules, but also focus on the protected buildings that were bombed during the World War II, as well as to increase the activity of protecting the present Patrimony bz means of political upgrades and procedures. Among the various innovations taken over from the British model, the Authority was also empowered to appoint the Protected Urban Areas and to attach the plans for preserving these if necessary. Future Politics

In spite of these dramatic improvements, a fundamental re-consideration of the Maltese patrimony supervision and management. It is obvious the necessity of allowing the country to keep the line of pressure, if regarding the fact that all discoveries being unavoidably placed in the centers of historical cities. This means that such an exercice is to become relevant in terms of culture and long-term development, as well as to imply more than a re-consideration of some various legislative documents related to the archaeological patrimony management.Improved Legislation and Patrimony Management

These are to be constituted on the grounds of a well-documented approach and quite suggestive of the archaeological resources. The same it attempts to refers to the Maltese society pressing needs for

development - creativity and values – and this leads to an inherent archaeological record. Nowhere else is more critically felt this urge as in the urban archaeology area. A short review of the same matters that affect the urban patrimony management of Ireland should be helpful for highlighting the key-characteristics of the contemporary infrastructure management that deserves reconsideration.

Existing ProblemsOne central problem of the entire issue of archaeological management within the urban areas is

the conceptual fragmentation of the Patrimony resources. In this manner, the present preserving plan can be grounded for sustaining the practices thus programmed or classified according to the zones, and thus setting a predetermination of the value scales.

The 1990 structural plan also can encourage the archaeological resources to be split in a certain number of composing fragments and monuments, as an archaeological city is usually seen as containing a serial of catacombs, churces or classical ruins. A monument is based on the principle that it might not always be enough to deal with the different archaeological requirements and exigency, which is actually

synonimic with the urban European phenomenon. A more classical approach is necessary to manage the changing aspects of the urban European landscape under all its knowledgeable facets.

Archaeology in Romania - General Description

The earliest evidence of the urban settlements in Romania were found within the space between Danube and Black Sea, in Dobrudja area. The three Greek colonies Histri (Istria nowadays) set in 657 B.C., Tomis (Constanţa) and Callatis, near Mangalia were discovered in 6th century B.C. by the colonists of Miletos and Pontic Heraclea. The Roman ruling in Dacia between 2nd and 3rd centuries, then in the area between Danube and Black Sea (1st to 7th A.C.) led to a policy meant to establish urban centers – colonies and municipal areas – as well as to encourage a quasi-urban life for the communities that lacked the lawful status of municipality. In order to understand the history of urban development, it is of essence to know the advantages that municpality status provided to various communities. In terms of searching for the urbanization process, identification in the field by using archaeological studies and the photographic archive related to this, may be the most relevant technique. In Dacia, the following Roman cities were identified by archaeological means: Ulpia Traiana, Sarmisegetusa, Apulum, Napoca, Romula, Drobeta, Dierna, Ampelum, Potaissa, Porolissum and Tibiscum. Written sources inform us about some other settlements: Scythia Minor went to decline under the Otoman Empire ruling.

The Roman-Byzantine age was defined by a serial of urban typologies – fortified settlements like Tropaeum Traiani, Histria, Noviodunum, Dinogetia, Halmyris , Carsium, Aegissus, Ulmetum, Axiopolis and Capidava. The fortresses of these towns vary depending on the evolution of the Empire politics and on the migrations in the area. Some important activities can be identified in building domain, meant to reinforce, to extend the defence system or to add a suburban area.

Modifications were applied to the city planning in the Roman-Byzantine age.Forums, temples, pagan religious sites and the thermal places become Christian properties or centers of towns, like markets, for instance. These fortified settlements reach the level of important economic and religious centers, while their density within the provinces at the Roman Empire borders would grow, thus creating a link between the domination and the supervision of the inhabitants, including those from the North of Danube River. The urban discoveries were affected by the code of rules enforced by the Roman Empire, later collapsing also as a consequence of the migrations during the last third of the millenium.

We have today some evidence of reconstruction of the newest parts if the Roman and Byzantine fortresses – Capidava, Dinogetia, Noviodunum, Aegyssus, la fel ca şi cele nou construite: Pacuiul lui Soare, Nufăru. Toate aceste centers initially used to be military centers and they were built to overview the Danube borders, but soon they got a well-off economic leading status, especially in terms of trade.

The three factors that contributed at the process of medieval towns formation within the intra and extra-Carpathian area around year 1000 are the following:1. demographic growth2. establishing the feudal relations

3. returning to Byzantine rules in the Southern Danube zone. There can be identified the workshops for trading boats, vaults with coins and some patterns for settlements, with streets that facilitated the traffic and lined the activity areas. The next three centuries were critical for urban development in Romania, but the documentation is scarce. Byzantine and Mongolian domination, the Italian colonies and the German colonialists – all these played an important role. Starting with the middle of 13th century, Wallachia and Moldavia Cities become economic centers

and their population increases in terms of occupied territories. In Transylvania, towns as Alba Iulia (Apulum), Sibiu-Hermanstadt, Turda-Potaisa are mentioned as municipal areas. The urban centers of Brasov-Kronstadt and Rodna are also in expansion.

Documentary and archaeological research in Moldavia and Wallachia bring to light some information on the 14th century towns - Câmpulug Muscel, Curtea de Argeş, Târgovişte, Suceava, Brăila, Siret, Iaşi, Ramnicu Vâlcea, Piteşti – as well as about some developed towns within urban settlements as Bucharest, Brăila, Slatina.

In Transylvania, the episcopalian centers Alba Iulia, Oradea (Nagyvared), Cenad and Sibiu are stated as towns from the political and eclesiastic points of view, while in the towns Dej, Hunedoara, Cetatea de Baltă and some others, the economic criteria are of major consideration.

Many of these towns sprang out during the medieval period of Romanian history, thus being founded some of the most important urban centers of the country.

Urban archaeological research has mostly focused around the royal courts and the fortresses, while the main aspect studied has been their urbanistic role.

Documentations and inventories: The research centered on the urban archaeological patrimony were undertaken in Arad, Bacau, Iaşi, Targovişte, Buzau, Suceava, Piteşti, Bucureşti, Campulung Muscel, Craiova, Braila, Constanţa, Siret, Botoşani, Timişoara, Alba, Cluj, Drobeta, Orşova, Turda and Zlatna.

The database linked to urban archaeology is the List of Historical Monuments Istorice, issued by Ministry of Culture and designed as a computer-assisted documentation followed by state financial support. Systematically, the archaeological research are completely subsidized by State. Sponsorship in this domain is not agreed by law. In some cases, preserving or conservation expenses of the laboratory objects are covered by the beneficiary’s investment. However, in several cases, when keeping the objects is decided, this is state decision. In absence of any specialization in urban archaeology, those who gained experience in the field are acknowledged as urban archaeologists.

Only few of them exclusively work in this domain. Most of these specialists work in the museums, research labs, educational or specialty institutions. Even if it seems that a certain tradition has been established in Romania, in urban archaeology, the domain is still at the beginning regarding the urban planning. There is no balance in terms of keeping and using the objects, because there are still many obstacles in prevailing the archaeological research within the urban area. One can still bitterly remark that city planning is made by archaeologists and they are determined to freeze the city in its “present” state. Another factor is lacking the real cooperation among them, thus we can note as exceptions the cases where the archaeological vestiges are very thoroughly presented in Iaşi, as well as in Constanţa.

Presentations and pubications: The impact of archaeological vestiges on the residents of a city is a very feeble one. Archaeological research are important for understanding the dynamics of the development in Romania. The research result is scientifically shared by publications often issued by institutions or museums. Studies and historical monograms of the urban settlements are dramatically seldom published. Preliminary reports of the diggings are yearly published in Archaeological Materials and Research. In 1993, CIOR printed its first issue in Urban History.

Museums exhibitions are not part of the national program, even if there is a strategy generated by the Ministry of Culture and linked to the Cultural Patrimony. This is combined with the fact that archaeological research undertaken in the urban areas, usually is not systematically organized and most of the times is made by perilous digging works. Conservation of “in situ” vestiges is rather rare. There is a sole case, în Constanţa, where a museum was built above the ruins of a public edifice that contained a 3rd century mosaic, A.C. The difficulties are definitely caused by the funds deficit, the small number of specialists in restoring the historical monuments as well as the lack of interest from the public authorities and residents’ part.

Conservation of archaeological vestiges and interior decorations Out of the above presentation, we can conclude that archaeology is not just a simple word

and it is not a local fact, but a general one.There is a need for traces, for vestiges, for coping some landmarks, at least for our mere space-

and-time orientation. Our life is spinning within a frame where we crave for space “memories” and we can get them by those few time factors that we can have at our disposal by discoveries. Connecting ourselves to history is also made by creating these old-times insertions within a new architecture.

Signs are interpreted at least poetically, if not scientifically and this might be made through own will and intentionally by the interior decoration.

Signs are apparently abandoned, while the vestiges lead us to reinterprete the objects. Practically, at this level, archaeology reminds us permanently what we used to be, at the same time thus amplifying the quality of our historical and architectural experience, by preserving it as sheer presence.

We can ask ourselves what a place is, just staring from a ruin, in the same manner we can prove what a “place” can become by reinterpreting the interior decoration. From a technical, living space, this way it can become a fairy tale space, by multiple aspects - lights, colour, adjacent materials or functions – giving us what we want to be. Archaeological object, translated in interior decoration, can capture the development of its own story – a scenographic stage. At this level, I do not think we can speak of a stylistic ecleticism, overlapping some objects of different “ages”, for adding some expresivity to a background. In their intimate, “inner” life, the archaic objects with a decorative purpose inherit their utility from one generation to the other, thus passing towards a more serious level – the memory rank, the lanscape-memory stage.

What can a place mean starting from a ruin? It can mean the physiological living in the same place, with more significance that we become more aware of, thus making space and time to belong to each other and this way to transform everything into a living poetry. Traces mean everything linked to the place behind and I hereby want to pledge for preserving them, so to understand what happenede before us. The remaining trace is, actually, architecture understood as a sign.There are more significance-keys, for every fragment from a vestige. Overlapping several places and, at the same time, several “things” in the same context, can create significant values that the one guiding the interior decoration is made aware and, firstly, responsible of. By creating effects, sensations, appealing to the “past” plan frim the space and time point of view, one can create feelings linked to spatiality and comfort.

Giovanni Morelli made a study regarding the activity of traces. The lost element defines “the trace as memory”, while design intention is to build.

The way of highlighting the postures, the positions, the balance between past and present, in fact creates the difference between “remembrance” and “remind”, thus binding a correspondence which brings us in frontline the museum science, with a re-memorizing role.

In conclusion, when taking into consideration the fact that archaeology is omnipresent, stratified, rememorizing spaces and actions, we can create that type of transdisciplinarity between “to create” and “to excavate”, as well as between “to understand” and “individuality”.

Bibliography :

Primary sources:

NECULCE, Ion , Buletinul Moldovei, Iasi , 1921-1933 MITICAN, Ion , Vechi locuri si zidiri iesene, vol 1, 2007, Iasi, Tehnopress, vol 1-2 ELIAN, Alexandru, Bizantul, biserica si cultura romaneasca. Studii si articole de istorie, 2003, Bucuresti, Trinitas  CURINSCHI VORONA, Gheorghe, Arhitectura, Urbanism, Restaurare, 1996, Bucuresti, editura Tehnica BRANGA, Nicolae, Urbanismul Daciei Romane,1980, Timisoara, editura Facla DUMITRU,Tudor, Orase, targuri si sate in Dacia Romana, 1968, Bucuresti, editura Academiei HARHOIU, Dana, Bucuresti un oras intre Orient si Occident, 1997, Bucuresti, Editura Simetria , Uniunea arhitectilor din Romania si Arcub

Selective Bibliography:

UNESCO, Patrimoniul Mondial : situri arheologice si centre urbane, 2002THOMSON DE GRUMMOND, Nancy ,O enciclopedie a istoriei de arheologie clasica, 2000, volumul 1,editura Institutului de arheologie al SUA, JACQUETTA HAWKES, Hopkins, Atlas de arheologie, 1974, New York , Mc Graw-HillSCARRE , Christopher, Explorari preistorice in Europa, 1998, Oxford University PressCUNLIFE , Barry, The Oxford illustrated history of prehistoric Europe, 2001, Oxford, Barry Cunlife The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, 1996, Edited by Brian M. Fagan, HardbackReport on the situation of urban archaeology in Europe, vol 1 &2 , Publicaţii ale Academiei de Ştiinţe din Bulgaria, Sofia 1984Atlas de Arheologie, Marile descoperiri ale civilizatiilor antichitatii, 2007, Oradea, ed. Aquila

Sites:

http://www.cultura.ro/Documents.aspx?ID=66 http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iași#Cl.C4.83diri_.C8.99i_monumente_istorice http://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iași#Etimologie http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/Anthropology/ArchaeologyPrehistory/WorldPrehistory/?

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/he/subject/Anthropology/ArchaeologyPrehistory/WorldPrehistory/?view=usa&ci=9780192854414

http://www.pravaliacucarti.ro/Enciclopedie-Atlas-de-Arheologie-p-17093-c-261-p.htmlhttp://books.google.ro/books?id=tYEYAAAAIAAJ&dq=urban%20archaeology,%20iasi&source=gbs_slider_thumbhttp://books.google.ro/books?id=YIAVAQAAIAAJ&dq=urban%20archaeology,%20iasi&source=gbs_slider_thumb

http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Archaeology/?view=usa&ci=9780195076189

http://www.scritube.com/geografie/geologie/ARHEOLOGIE-CULTURA-SI-SOCIETAT2041710183.php www.premiopiranessi.net