T
HE
R
ESTORATION OF
R
ELIGIOUS
H
ERITAGE AFTER
E
ARTHQUAKE
T
RAUMA IN
C
ENTRAL
I
TALY
:
The Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi and the Basilica di Santa Maria di
Collemaggio in L’Aquila
T
HE
R
ESTORATION OF
R
ELIGIOUS
H
ERITAGE AFTER
E
ARTHQUAKE
T
RAUMA IN
C
ENTRAL
I
TALY
:
The Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi and the Basilica di Santa Maria di
Collemaggio in L’Aquila.
Tessa Sophie Beckman BA
Student number: 10024506 University of Amsterdam
tessa.beckman@student.uva.nl Graduate School of Humanities
0031 6 38 28 21 98 Master thesis Heritage and Memory Studies
T
ABLE OF CONTENTSIntroduction p. 7
Chapter 1 Theoretical and historical background
1.1 Restoration history and theory p. 11
1.2 Preservation policies and legislation in Italy p. 19
1.2.1 Legislation p. 19
1.2.2 Charters and policies p. 22
Chapter 2 Case study of the Basilica di San Francesco in Assisi
2.1 The history of the Basilica di San Francesco before 1997 p. 26
2.1.1 Functions and stakeholders p. 29
2.2 The 1997-1999 Restorations p. 32
2.2.1 Recent debate on the 1997-99 Restoration p. 37
2.2.2 Becoming UNESCO World Heritage p. 39
Chapter 3 Case study of the Basilica di Collemaggio in L’Aquila
3.1 The history of the Basilica di Collemaggio p. 48
3.1.1 Functions and stakeholders p. 51
3.2 L’Aquila ‘New Town’ p. 54
3.3 The 2009-2017 restorations p. 56
3.3.1 Eni’s project ‘Un giorno a Collemaggio’ p. 56
3.4 The reconstruction of the Basilica p. 58
Conclusion p. 61
Bibliography p. 67
I
NTRODUCTIONItaly has many nationally and internationally recognized monumental sites, among them many religious heritage. At the same time earthquakes are a recurrent phenomenon in Italy, an unfortunate combination. In the past couple of months, several earthquakes hit the central part of Italy (see image I.1 for the map of central Italy, with every registered quake in the period 1 March 2017 - 10 May 2017). One of the most devastating earthquakes occurred in August 2016 and destroyed the historical centre of Amatrice, which dated from the Middle Ages. Amatrice had been listed among the ‘most beautiful towns’ in 2015 by the Italian association
I Borghi più belli d’Italia (‘the most beautiful villages of Italy’), because of its hundred churches (see image
I.2).1
Two other disastrous earthquakes in Central Italy have occurred in the past twenty years: first in Assisi in 1997, then in L’Aquila in 2009. In Assisi, the Basilica of San Francesco was severely damaged; the frescoes of Cimabue and Giotto, two artists considered the “fathers” of Italian painting, were (almost) completely destroyed. The 2009 earthquake that destroyed L’Aquila was one of the severest earthquakes in Italy in decades: not only were 309 people killed, but also many towns and monumental buildings in central Italy were damaged, including its Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio.2 Both Basilica’s are listed as
Monumenti Nazionali Italiani (‘Italian National Monuments’).3
After the immediate and urgent problems were taken care off, i.e. the burying of the dead and the curing of the injured, questions about the restoration arose: what should be reconstructed, how, and when? The Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi was restored within two years (1997-1999), and it became UNESCO World Heritage after the restorations (2000).4 Less smoothly was the restoration of the Basilica of L’Aquila,
which is in progress and is planned to be finished in December 2017.
This thesis will centralize around the notions that are in play during the restoration of religious heritage in Italy. What can be said about these notions from the perspective of the restorations in Assisi and L’Aquila?
1 ‘Amatrice’, I Borghi più belli d’Italia. <http://www.borghipiubelliditalia.it/component/borgi/?view=village&id=157&
Itemid=218>, accessed 2 October 2016.
2 ‘6 aprile 2009. La terra trema: 309 morti e migliaia di sfollati.’ RaiNews. 5 April 2014,
<http://www.rainews.it/dl/rainews/articoli/3.32.-6-aprile-2009-64b1bc0c-749f-4834-a65e-370bb9318f91.html>, accessed 10 April 2017.
3 ‘Monumenti Nazionali Italiani.’, Il Touring Club Italiano. Version 5.2.2., 13 August 2016,
<http://www.monumentinazionali.it/index.htm>, accessed 27 October 2016.
In order to establish which notions are involved, it is necessary to outline the functions and stakeholders, or actors, of churches. In the first place, a church functions to hold religious services. But churches also function as a site for religious or cultural and touristic pilgrimage. Furthermore churches take a place in the landscape: they function as urban objects. In connection to this visibility as an object, churches also serve for identity and memory purposes: participating in religious services, for instance, forms who you are. Defining identity means characterizing a very ambiguous concept: according to Brubaker, a Professor of Sociology and UCLA Foundation Chair at the University of California, identity is a bonding that stresses the unity among people of a group, with similar characteristics or connected to each other in any possible way.5 Memory is about
representations of the past and is considered a response to an international and collective reaction on the fear to forget.6 In the history of a town, the church is often one of its first buildings, so through the structure local
communities commemorate the past of their home and of their collective identity. This means that when churches are damaged by earthquakes the identity and memory of the site and the community are affected.7
Because a church is both heritage and the symbol of a collective memory, with different functions to fulfil, there are many actors with different interests involved when it comes to restoring the building after earthquake damage in Italy. Therefore, an analysis of these different interests and notions will prove to be useful. The restoration and rebuilding of heritage is often a complicated and long process: parties involved in safeguarding Italian heritage are the local government or municipality, the province, the region and the state. Also the Vatican is involved with its own Restoration Office, the Ufficio per i beni culturali ecclesiastici (the Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage).8 Other stakeholders are heritage tourists, religious tourists or
pilgrims, local communities, and several catholic orders. But also the L’Istituto Superiore per la
Conservazione ed il Restauro (ISCR, the Higher Institute for Conservation and Restoration)9, Il Ministero
dei beni e delle attività culturali e del turismo (MiBACt, The Ministry of Cultural Heritage and Activities
and Tourism) and UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) are involved.
5 Rogers Brubaker and Frederick Cooper. ‘Beyond Identity’, Theory and Society, vol. 29, no. 1, 2000, p. 7. 6 Laurajane Smith. Uses of Heritage, 2006, p. 58; Rodney Harrison. Heritage: Critical Approaches, p. 167-168.
7 Assmann, Aleida. ‘Memory, Individual and Collective’, The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis, edited by
Robert E. Goodin and Charles Tilly (eds.), 2006, p. 220-221.
8 ‘Ufficio Beni Culturali’, Diocesi di Orvieto-Todi. <http://www.webdiocesi.chiesacattolica.it/pls/cci_dioc_new/v3_s2ew_
consultazione.mostra_pagina?id_pagina=20483>, accessed 25 September 2016.
9 The ISCR is an Italian governmental institute and part of the Ministry of Heritage and Culture, founded in 1939 by Cesare
Brandi, which produces, among other things, lectures and publications about restoring Italian heritage after earthquake damage. Assisi and L’Aquila are among their recent case studies.
UNESCO was founded in 1945 as part of the United Nations to protect heritage worldwide from destruction as a result of war. In their general statements UNESCO intents to contribute ‘to the assessment and mitigation of natural hazards’, including earthquakes. The organization aims to achieve this through the setup of programmes, which plead for an interdisciplinary approach, through research, training and databases in which information can be exchanged easily.10 UNESCO does not contribute to theoretical discussions on how to
restore heritage, but it only focuses on preventing damage.
The cases of Assisi and L’Aquila show that religious heritage in Central Italy is endangered by natural forces. Considering the recent case of Amatrice, this research is not only a current, but also an urgent topic. Since religious heritage is not only important for aesthetical values, but also serves human values such as identity and memory, it seems to be fundamental to restore religious heritage after trauma. This research concentrates on the restoration and rebuilding process of the churches in Assisi and L’Aquila and the consequences for the interpretation of Italy’s notions of preserving its religious heritage. In the past, both restoration theory of art and architecture, and seismology has been extensively researched. However there are only limited sources that combine restoration and earthquakes specifically. Among the few available sources there are some preservation guides and technical studies that aim to prevent earthquake damage of heritage.
The aim of this research is to reflect on the Italian notions of how heritage is restored. What can be learned from the restoration and rebuilding process of the churches of Assisi and L’Aquila concerning Italy’s notions of preserving its religious heritage? Which restoration theories are common in Italy, and more specifically, which can be connected to the reconstruction of the basilica’s of Assisi and L’Aquila? Also, what does rebuilding and restoring -partly- destroyed buildings and artefacts mean for the authenticity and originality of this heritage? And why is one building being rebuilt and another not – or not yet. Which values and stakeholders play a role here? By answering these questions and by analysing the relevant actors and their arguments that could be taken into account when thinking about restoring religious heritage, this thesis aims to contribute to future decision-making.
In order to be able to determine what Italy’s notions on religious heritage are, this thesis consists of two parts: first a theoretical and historical chapter, with as a starting point the unification of Italy in 1861. In
this chapter the first development of restoration theory in Europe will be discussed, followed by relevant theorists in Italy. Another subject of this chapter are the national and international restoration charters. The goal of this chapter is to set a framework for analysing the case studies. Therefore also the legislation, and its development in the recent decades will be discussed. The second part consists of two case studies of the restorations of Assisi and L’Aquila. First the history of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi will be analysed, with an emphasis on more recent restorations and earthquakes, followed by an analysis of the restoration process and the current debate on the quality of these restorations. The third chapter, the case study of the Basilica of Santa Maria di Collemaggio in Assisi follows the same structure, but instead of the debate on the quality of the restoration, it includes an analysis of the turbulent restoration process.
C
HAPTER1 T
HEORETICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDIn Italy, the procedures for restoring built heritage after natural disasters, such as earthquakes, are led by governmental guidelines and theories that result from academic debates. These theories, policies and legislation are numerous, often conflicting and have fundamentally changed over time. Conflicts and changes during the restoration of religious heritage in Italy are often caused by the different interests of the actors, such as the government, responsible for policies, legislation and financial means for restoration, and the Italian academics who lead the debate on restoration theory. Particular for the Italian case is the involvement of the Vatican in the restoration of churches: it owns all catholic religious heritage and in order to protect its own ecclesiastical heritage, the Vatican erected the Ufficio Nazionale per i beni culturali ecclasitici (‘National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage’) in 1995. When the damaged heritage is a World Heritage Site, UNESCO is involved in the restoration process too.11 This chapter will start with the
framework of European theories and theories that were developed in Italy since its unification. The theoretical framework discussed is used ever since, because it serves as input for the actors that are involved in the restoration of churches. The following section centralizes around the charters and legislation, and the chapter ends with an analysis of the functions and stakeholders involved when restoring churches in Italy.
1.1 Restoration history and theory
Guardians of cultural heritage generally encounter the same problems: is conservation adequate and sufficient or is restoration necessary? In case of restoration, should the emphasis of the restoration be on the function, on the material, or on the aesthetic appearance of the building? So is the material of the structure going to be restored, which means that the original, authentic parts of the building will be conserved. Or is the image of the structure going to be restored, which means that the entire structure gets altered in order to create a uniform image?12 In short, how should the restoration be carried out? From the nineteenth century onwards,
different answers to these questions have been given from a theoretical point of view.13
11 Sometimes, for instance after the 2012 earthquakes in Northern Italy, UNESCO documents the damage to non-World
Heritage sites as well.
12 Wim Denslagen. Omstreden herstel: kritiek op het restaureren van monumenten: een thema uit de
architectuurgeschiedenis van Engeland, Frankrijk, Duitsland en Nederland (1779-1953), 1987, p. 213.
13 The effects of different forms of restoration can be traced back in restorations earlier in time. For an extensive overview of
the international history of restoration theory architecture and building structures, with emphasis on Europe, I recommend Giorgio Croci’s The Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage or Wim Denslagen’s Omstreden
As a scientific discipline, restoration is a nineteenth century, European phenomenon. The theories of Ruskin (1849) and Viollet-le-Duc (1854) were a starting point for the European restoration theory in the nineteenth- and early twentieth centuries. In Britain, John Ruskin, and later William Morris, led the anti-restoration movement. Ruskin pleaded in The Lamp of Memory (1849) to always leave the building the way it is, because he considered restoration to be the worst kind of destruction one can do to a building. Ruskin held that the authentic parts of the building and its history is lost when adding or replacing parts in different styles and materials.14 He added that ‘we have no right whatever to touch [the buildings of past times, red.].
They are not ours’.15 This is also visible in Ruskin’s critique on the buttresses added at the Colosseum in
Rome in 1807: ‘there is nothing imitative or decorative about this enormous prop built to support the external arcades of the amphitheatre; it is placed there without concealment, simply to reinforce the damaged part of the building’.16 In short, Ruskin prefers to leave the building in the radical historic status, even if this means
leaving it a ruin or run-down, because this condition is part of the historical layering and identity of the building.
In the same period in France, Eugene Viollet-le-Duc introduced the stylistic restoration theory. In 1854 he published Restoration in which he argues that the aim of restoring is to bring a monumental building into the perfect finished state - this includes adding new things and making a monument the way it had never existed before: ‘Restoration ... Both the word and the thing are modern. To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to re-establish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time’.17 Viollet-le-Duc gives the example of a twelfth century
vault that has collapsed and has been rebuilt several times. According to him, the original version of the vault should be reconstructed, because this would restore the unity of the original structure.18 So Viollet-le-Duc
strips a building of its historical layering and its historical value by ‘finishing’ the building in its perfect condition.
14 Ruskin as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural
Heritage, 1996, p. 308-309.
15 John Ruskin. The Seven Lamps of Architecture, 1849, p. 181.
16 Ruskin as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural
Heritage, p. 309.
17 Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the
Conservation of Cultural Heritage, p. 314.
In 1883, several decades after Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc, the restorer and art critic Camillo Boito (1836-1914) is one of the first Italian scholars who defines the concept of restoration in Italy. According to Boito, there are two types of restoration: artistic and historic. Artistic restorations are meant to recover the stylistic and aesthetic appearance of the building, whereas historic restorations also deal with the history of the monument.19 With the history of the building Boito means the visibility and the maintenance of previous
restorations that became part of the building. While Boito favours this historic type of restoration, he is nonetheless aware of the problematic aspects of historic restoration: ‘[t]o restore a building means performing it in the building’s style, this way the added parts are not to be distinguished from the original. A beautiful and good falsification takes an extensive part of the monuments historical and archaeological value away, if not all.’20 So, Boito wants to preserve the unity of a building by using different materials in a restoration in
order to easily identify restorations. By pleading for this approach, he combines elements from both Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin, namely the stylistic aspect (Viollet-Viollet-le-Duc) with the demand that artefacts should not be falsified (Ruskin).21 In addition, Boito is one of the first theoreticians who pleads for proper documentation
during restorations, because he argues that a systematic survey is essential for a qualitative good restoration.22
Cesare Brandi had been the director of the Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro from 1939 until 1961. In 1963 he published La Teoria del Restauro (The Theory of Restoration [2005]), in which Brandi defines restoration as ‘the moment in which the historical and aesthetical values of an artefact are acknowledged, with the aim to slow down decay and conserve the artefact, including its function, for future generations’.23 In Theory he argues that the material of the building is restored during restorations, and
not the history of the artefact. He implies that material and history are two separate aspects of an artefact; the
19 Michela Grisoni. ‘Camillo Boito (1836-1914).’ in B. Paolo Torsello et all. Che cos’è il restauro? Nove studiosi a
confronto, 2016, p. 95.
20 Michela Grisoni. ‘Camillo Boito (1836-1914).’, cit., 2005, p. 97.
21 Camillo Boito and Cesare Birignani. ‘Restoration in Architecture : First Dialogue.’, Future Anterior : Journal of Historic
Preservation, History, Theory and Criticism, vol. 6, no. 1 2009, p. 69.
22 Carla Bartolomucci. Santa Maria di Collemaggio, 2004, p. 134. In Italy it took until the 1960s for a fully elaborated
restoration theory. It has been argued that the absence – or underdeveloped nature – of Italian theory and legislations was caused by the stakeholders in Italian cultural heritage such as antiquaries, who preferred to evade restoration theories, laws or debates, because these would end the possibility of looting and selling (thus making profit from) artefacts. Artefacts thus had an economical, rather than a cultural value, which delayed the debate on restoration theory and might explain why Boito’s attempt to define restoration theory did not join in with the valid discourse. Although this might suggest that Italy did not care for its cultural heritage until then, this must be nuanced, because awareness already increased during the fascist period. For more information, see Giorgio Gianighian’s chapter “Italy” in Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation by Robert Pickard (2001).
material is restored because it decays, while the intangible history cannot decay and must therefore not be affected.24 The combination of the history of the artefact, the physical material and the function is called
“oneness”, and it is a concept necessary to Brandi in order to set boundaries for performing restorations.25
Brandi thus seems to imply that the main aim of restoration is to guard for the “oneness” of an artefact by recovering the function for which the artefact has been originally made, this can be achieved only by restoring the material of an artefact and not by changing the history of the artefact.26 When a building is restored in a
historical way, as Brandi suggests, it is considered an artefact that was ‘created in a certain time and place, and existing in a certain time and place’, while altering the visible signs from this period means changing the history of it.27 An example of such an historical case is a church that was originally built in Romanesque
Architecture, which got new, pointed gothic windows during the Gothic period; by changing the windows from round to pointed, a part of the buildings’ history is severely altered. Whereas Boito would favour the original state of the building and, therefore argue to go back to the round windows, Brandi would have wanted to keep the adjusted windows. Brandi pleads for the conservation of previous additions as the norm, and removal as the exception.28 The idea that previous restorations must be kept, as a sign of respect towards ‘all
previous vandalism and alterations’, is new in the 1960s.29
Considering Brandi’s historical ideals, it could be argued that they are placed more towards Viollet-le-Duc’s stylistic restorations than towards Ruskin. However, unlike Viollet-Le-Duc, Ruskin’s anti-restoration movement does acknowledge the historical layering of a structure and the choice not to restore is founded by the objective to leave the of history of a building unaltered. If looked further than the question to restore or not to restore, then Brandi seems to combine Ruskin’s objectives with Viollet-Le-Duc’s restoration practices.
Brandi specifically uses seismic damage on a building as an example for when restoration is needed; he says that a building, collapsed because of an earthquake, is eligible for reconstruction as long as the
24 Idem, p. 49.
25 Cesare Brandi as cited in Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural
Heritage, p. 339.
26 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 47-48. 27 Idem, p. 48.
28 Idem, p. 68. 29 Ibidem.
appearance of the outer surface and material remain unaltered.30 This argument is striking, given that Brandi
argues in the same book that any form of restoration with the aim to reconstruct is falsification, which leans more towards Ruskin’s anti-restoration theory.31 In the case of the bombed Santa Chiara church in Naples,
Brandi suggests indeed that it is better not to restore the ruins of the church, because this would destroy the authenticity of the building.32 While a restored church can function for religious services, a ruin cannot.
Apparently this function is less important for Brandi than the appearance of the church.33
Recent restorations in Italy have a more interdisciplinary character and combine modern conservation techniques for buildings with traditional restoration theory, as introduced by Cesare Brandi. The interdisciplinary approach was elaborated by Giovanni Carbonara, an Italian architect, architectural historian and restoration critic and currently one of Italy’s main scholars for restoration theory.34 Carbonara
opted for the transformation of restoration practice and theory from a single disciplinary science to an interdisciplinary cooperation. According to Carbonara, restoration in Italy is influenced by the idea that the people in Italy accept the visible traces of time - the historical layering - in a building, leaving all previous interventions visible. Carbonara emphasizes the importance of the historical layering in a lecture in 2012.35
He holds that restoration means adding new things to a monument, and more importantly that a flawless monument entirely restored in one style (Viollet-le-Duc) does not show a dialogue with the past.36 Carbonara
30 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 51.
31 Nicholas Stanley Price et all. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, p. 308. 32 In Brandi’s Theory authenticity and oneness are different concepts. With authenticity Brandi means the originality of the
material or artefact, while oneness the unity of authentic material, image, history and function. Cesare Brandi. Theory of
restoration, p. 66.
33 In order to understand Brandi’s interpretation of the concepts of authenticity and falsification, and thus why he rejects the
reconstruction of ruins, it is necessary to understand that Brandi differentiates three forms of falsification. Firstly, falsification is the reproduction of an object with the only aim to enjoy or document the style or artist, for instance a homemade copy of a work of Giotto to study his technique or simply because you like the image. In this case reproduction is acceptable. The second form is not acceptable according to Brandi: falsification in which the object is deliberately copied with the only aim to mislead. This also applies to the third form of falsification, when the reproduction of an object is not made with the aim to mislead, but to profit from it (for instance images in advertisement). His discussion on the different forms of falsification does not distinguish between different artforms: there is no distinction in the assessment of falsification between small objects like coins, and large buildings like churches. Therefore, the apparent contradiction of Brandi’s arguments in Theory concerning authenticity and falsification in the rebuilding of ruins seem to be caused by the author’s conviction of treating different type of artefacts with the same theory. For Brandi it does not matter if the artefact is as small as a coin or as sizeable as a church, which material is used and which function the artefact had. Restoring something that is destroyed, like the reconstruction of a bombed church, is falsification because it is deliberately falsifying what was once there; Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 87-88.
34 Cesare Brandi. Theory of restoration, p. 256.
35 Lecture at the ‘Nineteenth National Day of Ecclesiastical Cultural Heritage - Restoration of Churches and attention for the
market’; Giovanni Carbonara. “Ordinario di restauro architettonico presso l’Università degli Studi.” XIX Giornata Nazionale dei Beni Culturali Ecclesiastici – Restauro di Chiese e attenzione della committenza, 16 and 17 May 2012, CEI Centro Congressi, Rome. Conference.
prefers to restore in a historical way, which means leaving all historical traces visible, including previous earthquake trauma that is part of the structure’s history. He prefers this method, because removal is irreversible, whereas ‘the filling of the gaps [damage and or decay] may be immediately “recognisable” as well as “reversible”.37 To achieve a historical restoration, collaboration between different disciplines is
essential.
According to Carbonara, there has been a “technical change of mind” in the last twenty years.38 As
reported by him, a tendency arose in the last two decades that opposes styles and materials (for instance modern material as an addition to historical structures, or an austere style as an addition to for instance Romanesque architecture) with the belief to do justice to the monument, without affecting the authenticity of a building. By adding something that contrasts with the building, visitors cannot be confused about which parts are old and which parts are not. This is essential in the concepts of authenticity and falsification: original styles and materials are kept, and a new historical layer is added, making the building easily ‘readable’. Carbonara holds that the historical layering is fundamental for the identity of a building and that trying to recover a building’s unity compromises its identity.39 Nevertheless, invisible restoration is often regarded the
best restoration, because the identity of the building is easily preserved this way. The argument concerning the unity of a building suits with Brandi’s notion of “oneness”.
Another aspect of the ‘technical change of mind’ is the need for specific professional knowledge from different disciplines, for which restoration becomes an interdisciplinary subject. Carbonara calls this
“restorazione moderna” (“modern restoration”), and it is necessary to take the Italian restoration of cultural
heritage to a higher level similar to the international quality of restoration.40 Restoration is no longer about
choosing the right way of restoration and perform it; restoration is also about documenting the restoration, for which Boito already opted in 1883. Carbonara goes even further by demanding profound research on a building’s history, identity and memory, having technical disciplines analyse and consolidate the structure, and handling the public debate in the media and politics.
37 Giovanni Carbonara. “An Italian contribution to architectural restoration.” Frontiers of Architectural Research, vol. 12, no.
1 2015, p. 4.
38 Idem, p. 5.
39 Giovanni Carbonara. “Ordinario di restauro architettonico presso l’Università degli Studi.” 40 Ibidem
Even though these theories have been applied to numerous restorations, the theories and the lack of renewal of them have been criticized as well. The archaeologist Laura Domanico voices an often heard critique on Italian restoration theory, namely that the debate takes place exclusively in academic circles. Ideally there should be a lively and broad public debate about restoration, in which everyone is heard and theories are renewed more often.41 Paolo Fancelli, scholar at the Department of History of Architecture,
Restoration and Conservation of Heritage at the Sapienza University in Rome, attributes this absence to the role of the media in Italy and specifically argues that the media have changed the perception and values of Italy’s notion on heritage. According to him, the media affect the perception of heritage, because they report negatively on the restorations that were necessary to keep up with high tourist numbers. Fancelli holds that this propagation has led to experts changing their perceptions of cultural heritage into a discourse in which every square meter of the building must be profitable, with as a result ‘disastrously garish reconstructions [of built heritage] […], all with the excuse of trying to metaphorically revive them, with revisions, but actually combining them so as to be unnatural, if not gross’.42 The absence of debate explains moreover why Brandi’s
theory plays an important role up until today. He provided a solid theoretical basis for restorations, on which other scholars like Carbonara and Fancelli continued, while excluding voices from other disciplines for a long time.
However, after the earthquake in L’Aquila local journalists did engage in a public debate on restoration through the satirical documentary Draquila: Italia che trema (2010, ‘Draquila: Italy shakes’).
Draquila shows the role of the media and the influence they have in the aftermath and restoration of a town
stricken by earthquakes. The film emphasizes the cultural sides of the aftermath of an earthquake: it is not only a structure that needs to be restored, a building exists in much more aspects such as the identity and memory of stakeholders like a local community, that all need ‘restoration’ after a trauma like the 2009 earthquake. In the rebuilding process in L’Aquila, Berlusconi, as a real estate magnate and media tycoon influenced the way L’Aquila was shown in the media. The documentary, in turn, criticizes the idea, propagated by the media, that the local inhabitants agreed with Berlusconi’s wish to build an entirely new town over restoring historical L’Aquila, and attempts to reframe the public debate on the value and restoring
41 Laura Domanico. ‘The invisible landscape: subsoil, environment and the Italian legislation on the cultural heritage.’,
European Journal of Archaeology, vol. 2, no. 1, 1999, p. 160.
of historical town. The film can be considered an example of the interdisciplinary approach Carbonara pleads for in his arguments concerning the restoration of buildings: it presents a new point of view, in which all different aspects of restoration, can be intertwined.
Restoration theory started in the nineteenth century with Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin, who argued to achieve the perfect state of one architectural style through restoration, including the removal of previous additions, or leave a building in its decayed state, respectively. In Italy Boito tried to establish a definition of restoration that stands between Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin’s ideas. Boito never published his ideas as a theory, which can partly be explained by the different discourse regarding cultural heritage at the time. It took until the publication of Cesare Brandi’s Theory of restoration in 1963, for the first ‘official’ Italian restoration theory. Giovanni Carbonara elaborated Brandi’s theory and has proven that this theory is still used in Italy and is internationally studied up until today. In the ongoing academic debate that concerns restoration theory, the public debate (such as film and other media) plays an increasingly important role. The public is now better aware of everything concerning the restoration process, and at the same time there are more, and easily reachable platforms available to give opinions. Consequently this affects restoration theory, because people do no longer accept a theory as it is given, and moreover it affects the notion of heritage. Restoration theory has come a long way since the 1850s; it used to consist of ‘just’ a concept on how to perform restorations. Present day restoration is more of an interdisciplinary concept, in which identity, historical layering, cultural voices have become aspects of and important for restoration theory.
To conclude, restoration theory is about ideals, previous restorations, removal and reversibility; when it concerns architecture and, or frescoes, restoration theory seeks answers to questions regarding the historical, which means to restore to a specific time in history, or the aesthetics; restoring to get the most aesthetical version of an artefact.43
43 Giovanni Carbonara. “The integration of the image: problems in the restoration of monuments.”, Historical and
1.2 Preservation policies and legislation in Italy
1.2.1 Legislation
Legislation on heritage protection was late in Italy, compared to other European countries such as France and England.44 Since Italy’s unification in 1861 there have been different forms of heritage protection.
Immediately after the unification, there was no proper legislation and restoration was based on experience alone; however, in this period Boito established the concept of restoration. The first cultural heritage legislation was created under fascist rule in order to protect the country’s Roman heritage. In this legislation, heritage is (vaguely) defined as ‘things of artistic and historic interests’.45 Mussolini deployed heritage from
the Roman era to create one, fascist, Italian identity and to protect the ruins from being looted he needed heritage laws, while in order to raise the value of the Roman ruins in the public opinion, he deployed the media.46 Mussolini used newsreels to propagate the Roman heritage, while he frequently emphasized its
importance for the Italian identity in his speeches (see image 1.1, a shot from a newsreel from 1932, that shows a military parade on the Via dell’Impero with in the background the Colosseum).
With the ending of the fascist era and the Second World War, the Republic of Italy was established through the Constitution in 1947. The Constitution incorporated the heritage laws from 1939 one-on-one, leaving the definition of heritage as “things”. In 1964 this definition was slightly changed, and the term “cultural heritage” was introduced.47 An explanation for this alteration could be the change of European discourse
after ‘The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict’ in 1954, that raised awareness for the protection of cultural heritage that was damaged, or lost, during the world wars.48
The European discourse and the new definition of heritage in Italian legislation set a renewed framework in
44 France had its first governmental protection and managing of heritage in 1830, and England followed in 1882 with the
creation of the ‘Ancient Monuments Act’. For more information I would recommend Isabelle Longuet and Jean-Marie Vincent. ‘France.’, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 92-112 and John Pendlebury. ‘United Kingdom.’, Policy and Law in Heritage Conservation, edited by Robert Pickard, Spon Press, 2001, pp. 289-314.
45 ‘Tutela delle cose d’interesse Artistico o Storico.’, Legge 1 giugno 1939, no. 1089. <http://www.librari.beniculturali.
it/opencms/export/sites/dgbid/it/documenti/Normativa/Legge_1_giugno_1939_n_1089.pdf>, accessed 19 October 2016.
46 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, 2001, p. 184.
47 ‘Costituzione di una Commissione d’indagine per la tutela e la valorizzazione del patrimonio storico, archeologico,
artistico e del paesaggio.’, Legge 26 April 1964, no. 310. <http://www.beap.beniculturali.it/opencms/multimedia/BASAE/ documents/2009/10/30/1256906131579_italgiure_legge_26_aprile_1964_n._310.pdf>, accessed 19 October 2016.
48 ‘Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict with Regulations for the Execution of
the Convention 1954.’, UNESCO. 14 May 1954,
which there was space to elaborate on a restoration theory. In this atmosphere, Cesare Brandi’s Theory was developed and published in 1963. The 1970’s saw an administrative change that was important for the implementation of restoration laws: the Regioni (Regions, an administrative level between the state and the provinces) obtained the responsibility for local restorations.49
In 1999 the Italian Government cancelled the sixty year old fascist cultural heritage act and replaced it with a new law, Testo Unico. The introduction of the Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia
di beni culturali ed ambientali (‘Consolidation Act of laws in the field of cultural and environmental
heritage’) between 1999-2004 has had two possible reasons: first, these laws can be seen in the light of the rise of Silvio Berlusconi’s political movement and the supposed shift towards the ‘Second Republic’ of Italy in the nineties.50 In this period Italian politics wanted to leave the fascist past behind and remove all fascist
traces from the legislation. The second reason is to be found in the European context: with the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 cultural heritage became part of the European political agenda to raise awareness for the definition and protection of cultural heritage.51 In this light the Testo Unico was needed to make the level of
protection and the definition of what to protect up to date.
The Testo Unico replaces all existing rules on the subject, and at the same time stipulates for other forms of heritage protection which means that besides restoration, conservation became part of it too.52 The
act dedicates an entire article to update the definition of cultural heritage, namely everything that concerns history, art, ethnology, anthropology, archaeology, archival and biblical documents.53 Interesting about this
new heritage act is the definition of restoration, that assures conservation and the safeguarding of cultural and historical values, including historical layers which represent alteration from the past.54 In article 34,
restoration is defined as the intervention on a thing, the aim to maintain the integrity of materials and to assure the conservation and protection of the cultural heritage values.55 This would make the rigorous
49 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 197.
50 The Second Republic of Italy is an informal term, no new republic has been established. This term marks the political,
economic and ethical reformations after the Mani Pulite (translated: Clean hands) scandal in the early 1990s; Sondra Koff and Stephen Koff. Italy: From the 1st to the 2nd Republic, 2000, p. 2.
51 R.H. Van Ooik and dr. T.A.J.A. Vandamme (eds.). Europese Basisverdragen, 2012, p. 67.
52 Daniela Esposito. ‘Decreto legislativo 29 ottobre 1999, n. 490 (Testo unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni
culturali ed ambientali, a norma della legge 8 ottobre 1997, n. 352)’ Che cos’è il restauro, p. 130.
53 Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali e ambientali. Art. 1, n. 352. 54 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 194.
removal of previous additions, such as in the Basilica of L’Aquila in the 1960’s, impossible. The new definition -implicitly- asks for an interdisciplinary approach to restoring artefacts by demanding to conserve historical layering through extensive research and the involvement of technical disciplines. From the Testo
Unico emerges an awareness concerning earthquakes and heritage, and moreover the necessity to act upon
the protection of the vulnerable ecclesiastical heritage in Italy: article 34 states that heritage real estate exposed to earthquakes, is allowed to have a structural improvement on the condition that the change in the structure is part of restoration works.56 It must be noted that this act was written at the time of the restoration
of the Basilica in Assisi (see chapter 2), which could explain the urgent necessity of redefining the cultural heritage act.
According to Giorgio Gianighian, Professor of Architectural Restoration at IUAV University of Venice, the heritage act from 1999 is based on the most recent and internationally accepted theories in architectural conservation, although he does not specify these theories. Daniela Esposito, professor at the department of Architecture History, Design and Restoration at the Sapienza University in Rome pleads for a more critical approach and development in the relation between historical reflection and technical interventions on buildings during restorations – like Carbonara does. According to Esposito, this can be achieved by carefully “reading” the building, by having knowledge of historical building methods and striving for consistent structural solutions with respect for the existing architectural system.57 Thus, Esposito
also holds that an interdisciplinary approach is necessary in order to have restorations of a higher level with satisfying results.
The Testo Unico remained valid for only five years: in 2004 it was formally replaced by a decentralising law in order to make it possible for the Regioni to gain more power. The definitions of heritage and restoration in the 2004 law is to the same as in the 1999 Testo Unico. Thus the major change is the separation of tasks and responsibilities: the State is responsible for tutela (‘protection’), whereas the Regions are made responsible for valorizzazione (‘assessment’). The decentralisation of power means in practice that the Regioni have all the power over the restorations, and the State remains solely responsible for fundamental
56 Testo Unico delle disposizioni legislative in materia di beni culturali e ambientali. Art. 1, n. 352. 57 Daniela Esposito. ‘Decreto legislativo 29 ottobre 1999, n. 490’, p. 133.
policies. Although not confirmed, this implies that the Regioni are responsible for the funding of the heritage restorations.58
Besides the decentralisation of power, the Testo Unico only states that conservation of heritage is necessary, but how this must be achieved is not specified. Lucina Napoleone, scholar in Architecture Restoration at the University of Genova, notes that with the separation of tasks and with the State and the
Regioni partly responsible for the restoration of cultural heritage, the decentralisation of power can create
conflicts for (future) restoration.59 It is very likely that Napoleone pleads against the decentralisation because
not every region in Italy is equally wealthy, which makes it impossible to apply the tutela and valorizzazione division without creating inequalities. Also the fact that there are different numbers of monuments to restore per Regione is likely to contribute to differences in the quality of performed restorations. While the decentralisation leads to financial inequalities, it could be argued on the other hand that the decentralisation guarantees the architectural differences of the Regione and that it would be unbeneficial, if not impossible - to have a restoration model that suits all Italian heritage.
To conclude, Italy has seriously reformulated its legislation concerning cultural heritage in the last decades, because in every legislational era heritage served a different purpose. In the last two decades, the involvement of the European Union has increased and the last traces of fascist legislation were deleted. Reformulating heritage laws has an impact on how the restorations have been, and will be, carried out. One of the aspects that became very important in the recent theories and legislation is the historical layering of a building, which sets a trend for restorations that concern more than just repairing the material. While the restoration of Assisi, discussed in Chapter 2, was carried out when the fascist laws, were still in place, different acts are valid during the restorations of L’Aquila.
1.2.2 Charters and policies
After the destructions of the Second World War, Europe became generally more aware of the value of identities and memories passed on from the past. This renewed historical awareness created a discourse that
58 Dario Nardella. ‘I beni e le attività culturali tra Stato e regioni e la riforma del Titolo V della Costituzione.’, Diritto
Pubblico, nr. 2, 2002, p. 688.
59 Lucina Napoleone. ‘Decreto legislativo 22 gennaio 2004, n. 42 (Codice dei beni culturali e del paesaggio, ai sensi dell’art.
led to the initiation of the Venice Charter of 1964 by the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe defines a charter as a guiding document through which the safeguarding of national heritage could both be elevated and managed.60
In a long tradition of charters, besides the internationally known Venice Charter of 196461 and the
Amsterdam Charter of 1975, which both aimed to heighten public awareness of the uniqueness and the necessity of protecting architectural heritage, the Italian Ministry of Education released its own Carta del
restauro (‘restoration charter’) in 1972.62 This charter is a sequel to the Venice Charter, which provided a
basic framework with guidelines on how to conserve and restore built heritage, and a prequel for the Amsterdam Charter of 1975, that included the notion of architectural heritage as part of cultural heritage.63
In the Carta del restauro, the Italian Ministery of Cultural Heritage introduces the restoration of archaeology, architecture, paintings and sculptures as related concepts, on which uniform rules should be applied.64 Having
proper guidelines for restoration, was considered an urgent matter in the 1970s because Italy wanted to be able to protect both state and privately owned heritage from poor restorations.65
Although it never became an actual part of the Italian cultural heritage legislation, the restoration charter of 1972 is considered to be one of the most important documents in Italian restoration practice, insofar as it determines guidelines on how to restore. The charter consists of twelve articles that first establish for which heritage this charter is valid, and what definitions are handled for ‘restoration’ and ‘preservation’, followed by articles - mainly prohibitions - on plans, approval of plans and responsible actors. The charter defines restoration as every conservative provision with the aim to preserve the material integrity and to make it possible to transfer the built heritage to the future.66 With preservation is meant any operation to maintain
efficiency and functionality of the building, and any operation to ease the reading and the transmission of the
60 A charter is a text in which principles on a certain subject are written down, it assists in tuning or evaluating policies, and a
charter functions as a foundation for a law.
61 Cesare Brandi contributed significantly to the Venice Charter of 1964.
62 ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria. <https://www.unirc.it/documentazione/materiale_
didattico/597_2010_253_8833.pdf>, accessed 31 October 2016; ‘European Charter of the Architectural Heritage – 1975.’
ICOMOS.
<http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/170-european-charter-of-the-architectural-heritage>, accessed 19 October 2016.
63 ‘The Venice Charter- 1964’, ICOMOS. <http://www.icomos.org/venicecharter2004/erder.pdf>, accessed 19 October 2016;
‘The Declaration of Amsterdam – 1975’, ICOMOS. <http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts/179-articles-en-francais/ressources/charters-and-standards/169-the-declaration-of-amsterdam>, accessed 19 October 2016.
64 ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria, p. 10. 65 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 187.
building to the future. The charter seems to prohibit restoring after the ideas of Viollet-le-Duc, as well as removing or demolishing visible evidence from previous restorations. Furthermore, reconstruction and removal of parts of the structure are not allowed. This means that the main points made in these articles are in line with the Teoria del Restauro by Cesare Brandi.67
Although the 1972 charter is internationally not the most recent charter on protecting heritage, it is still important in Italy, according to both Giovanni Carbonara and Giorgio Gianghian.68 In fact, the charter
provides a framework for the ISCR, that uses it to manage and control conservation of the heritage up until today.69 Even though this charter never became an actual law, it has served as a tool to test and judge
restoration plans. The plans of both Assisi and L’Aquila needed to be in line with the rules of the charter in order to be approved.
Another actor involved that needs to approve in the case of the restoration of churches in Italy, is the Vatican. The Vatican is involved not only because it owns the buildings, but also because it provides them with their main function. To safeguard the buildings and their function, the Vatican created in 1995 its own bureau for cultural affairs; the Ufficio Nazionale per i beni culturali ecclasitici (‘National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage’) that provides its own policy and listing with rules and regulation when it comes to restoration of both built religious heritage and restoration of religious objects.70 In these policy
documents, the Vatican holds that every restoration of religious heritage needs to be reported and approved by its office. When churches need to be restored, the restorers need to ask for approval both at the National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage and at the Istituto Superiore per la Conservazione ed il Restauro. While the Vatican provides in its policy documents that the ISCR has a final say in approving restoration plans, the necessity for approval by two different institutes contributes to a slow, bureaucratic process that extends the duration of the actual restoration process.71
To conclude, another aspect that is part of the framework of restorations besides theories are the charters and policies, that play a substantial role in the restoration process, but must not be confused with
67 ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria, p. 11-13.
68 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 187; ‘Le carte del restauro.’, Università Meditteraneo Reggio Calabria, p. 10. 69 Giorgio Gianighian. ‘Italy.’, p. 187.
70 ‘Finalità e struttura.’ Chiesa Cattolica Italiana. 4 November 2014, <http://www.chiesacattolica.it/beniculturali/
ufficio/00006065_Finalita_e_struttura.html>, accessed 29 October 2016; The need of the Vatican to create its own bureau for cultural heritage could be seen in the light of the rise of Berlusconi’s anti-cultural politics and as a reaction on the preparation of the Testo Unico.
71 ‘Consigli per i lavori di restauro.’ Chiesa Cattolica Italiana. <http://www.webdiocesi.chiesacattolica.it/pls/
actual laws. Restoration theory is a relatively new discipline that first started with Viollet-le-Duc and Ruskin in Europe. In Italy the development started several decades later with Boito, and matured under Brandi in the 1960s. Brandi’s theory can function as a framework for the restoration of all types of heritage, including religious heritage. A charter, on the other hand, is a tool to check heritage management and plans for restoration and conservation. There are three extensive authorities involved in the restoration process of ecclesiastical heritage in Italy, namely: the government, the Vatican and UNESCO. All three actors provide, through the contribution to charters and policies, for the most adequate manner of restoration. For the case studies of Assisi and L’Aquila the theories, laws, policies, charters and authorities involved in the restoration process formed the framework for those restorations.
C
HAPTER2 C
ASE STUDY OF THEB
ASILICA OFS
ANF
RANCESCO INA
SSISIThe Basilica of San Francesco is located in Assisi, a medieval town built on a hill near Perugia in the province of Umbria (see image 2.1, an overview of the Basilica on the hill). Saint Francis (1181/1182-1226) was born in Assisi and consequently the Franciscan Order was erected here in 1209. Assisi is located in a zone endangered by seismic activity, of which the 1997 earthquake that consisted of two heavy quakes within twenty-four hours is a striking example: it has shown to be a risk for monumental buildings and all other heritage in Central Italy. The epicentre of the 1997 quakes were located at Foligno, only ten kilometres from Assisi. As a result of the second quake, a part of the Basilica of San Francesco collapsed (see image 2.2, plan of the Upper Church that indicates the collapsed vaults) while several people were inside to analyse the previous damage. Among these people was Giorgio Bonsanti, professor in History and Techniques of Restoration who published two (photo)books of the Basilica afterwards. Coincidently, Bonsanti’s photography project had started just before the disastrous earthquake and aimed to document all the frescoes in the upper part of the Basilica. This means that not only there was excellent, recent, photographic material available for the restoration, but also that the collapse of the vault with the frescoes of Giotto was filmed.72
This chapter is a case study of the restoration of the Basilica of San Francesco in Assisi. This case study aims to analyse the restoration, and to study Italy’s notion of heritage throughout this restoration. In order to do so, the case exists of a brief overview of the history of the site, followed by an overview of all functions and stakeholders of the site, a short site analysis and an overview of the conducted restorations. The second part of the chapter centralises around the debate on the most recent restorations that were carried out after the partial collapse of 1997, and lastly the nomination process to become a UNESCO World Heritage site in 2000 will be discussed.
2.1 The history of the Basilica of San Francesco before 1997
Francesco d’Assisi, a catholic friar and founder of the Order of the Franciscans, became canonized in 1228 and in the same year the construction of the Basilica of San Francesco started. The Basilica, was built to keep
Saint Francis’ remains, because Assisi became a popular pilgrimage site soon after Francesco’s death.73 The
building was consecrated by Pope Innocent IV in 1253, and from then on the Franciscan Order took possession of the Basilica.74 To honour the life of Saint Francis, the Vatican started an initiative in 1270 to
attract Italy’s leading artists to decorate the extensive walls of the church.75 The Basilica is known for its
outstanding interior with frescoes from several important medieval painters like Giotto, Cimabue and Lorenzetti. Because of this the Basilica is of great art historical value and importance.76 At the same time,
the frescoes in the Basilica mark the first examples of the transition of Medieval to Renaissance art and show the unique development of art in that period: Giotto is considered to be the first painter able to add emotion to the faces of his figures.77 This means that, apart from being a religious pilgrimage site, the Basilica also
became an artistic and tourist pilgrimage site. So, the Basilica is of cultural-historical value because of the formation of an Order at the site, and moreover because the Basilica shows the development from Medieval art to Renaissance art. In addition, the Basilica’s strategic location on top of a hill emphasizes the buildings value as an urban landmark..
The Basilica of San Francesco consists of two churches: the Basilica Superiore (upper church) and the Basilica Inferiore (lower church), that form an architectural ensemble. The upper church (see image 2.3) consists of a transept and a long, spacious nave that functions as a hallway where people assemble. This space has relatively small windows and extensive plain walls (see images 2.3 and 2.4) compared to, for example, French cathedrals dating from the same period. The ribbed vaults are made of brick, and supported by pointed arches in masonry that cover the complete length of the nave. The side aisles along the length of the nave of the Upper Church are lower than the nave, which emphasizes the extensive plain walls.78 The frescoes located
next to the windows in the nave represent biblical scenes of Genesis and the life of Christ, whereas the frescoes located below the windows in the complete length of the nave show the life and accomplishments of San Francesco.79
73 Horst Waldemar Janson. Janson’s History of Art: The Western Tradition, 2011, p. 438-439. 74 Richard P. McBrien. Live of the Popes, 2000, p.226.
75 Horst Waldemar Janson. Janson’s History of Art, p. 439-440.
76 ‘Nomination file 990’, UNESCO. 2000, <http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/990>, accessed 15 October 2016, p. 1. 77 Horst Waldemar Janson. Janson’s History of Art, p. 449.
78 Idem, p. 439. 79 Ibidem.
The lower church (see image 2.5) is darker and less spacious than the Upper Church, and is based on a traditional catholic church plan: it has a central nave, accompanied by side chapels. In the nave of the Lower Church, one can find parts of the earliest frescoes, carried out in tempera on dry plaster. These frescoes have severely decayed over time or were destroyed when extra side chapels were added in the period of the late thirteenth century and 1350.80 The frescoes representing The Passion of Christ on the right and The Life
of Francis on the left were made by an anonymous painter. In the Lower Church one also finds parts of
frescoes made by Cimabue. The building is especially valued because of this ensemble of artefacts and structure this has become the most important reason to protect the building.
The first changes of the Basilica’s structure were carried out only twenty years after its completion in 1253 and consisted of the addition of the side chapels in the Lower Church. From that moment until the unification of Italy in 1861, numerous restorations have taken place. However, only two more recent restorations are relevant for this study.81 The first one was carried out by the Ministero della Pubblica
Istruzione (‘Ministry of Education’) immediately after the unification of Italy, while the second took place
in the 1950s. In the late 1860s, when the Basilica became supervised by the Ministry of Education, the building and its interior had seriously decayed. The Ministry of Education immediately started with restorations of the frescoes, because these were held to be the most important artefacts.82 In 1891, less than
ten years after Boito tried to define restoration theory in Italy, the Italian government accomplished extensive restoration on the most degraded parts. This was the most comprehensive restoration on the frescoes in the Basilica until the collapse in 1997. In terms of flawlessness the structure is remarkably intact, especially considering its age and the natural disasters it has survived, which adds to the historical value of the Basilica.
In 1891 the restoration was carried out according to the “stylistic restoration” theory of Viollet-le-Duc; the restorers chose to restore the degraded parts of the building in the same style as the original building, leaving no visible traces of restoration.83 Thus the Basilica was restored in the style of the existing structure,
creating a building entirely in one architectural style. However contradictory it might seem, in so doing the
80 Donal Cooper. The Making of Assisi: The Pope, the Franciscans and the Painting of the Basilica, 2013, p. 6.
81 The restoration history of the Basilica between the construction in the thirteenth century and 1860 will not be addressed
here, given that Italy did not exist as a country yet and consequently these early restorations lacked governmental supervision. For an extensive overview of restorations on the Basilica, starting from 1432, I would recommend: Giuseppe Rocchi, La Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi: interpretazione e rilievo, Sansoni, 1982.
82 Giuseppe Rocchi. La Basilica di San Francesco ad Assisi : interpretazione e rilievo, 1982, p. 108.
83 Ibidem; After this extensive restoration, smaller interventions at different parts of the basilica (in both the structure and in
“oneness” of the structure is affected, because the historical layering is erased. Following Brandi, the stylistic restoration in 1891 has affected the historical identity of the Basilica of Assisi because the signs of previous trauma and restorations have been cancelled. The erased signs were therefore both literally and symbolically erased from collective memory.
Adjustments of the Basilica in the 1950’s provided the ceiling of the upper church with concrete beams that were supposed to give more support to the structure.84 Adding new parts to a monument is a
phenomenon only recently seen in the restoration field. During the 1950s concrete was reinvented as a building material, with the characteristics of being solid and strong. Reinforcement with concrete was at the time a very modern thing to do, and the restorers believed they made the construction stronger.
In the period before 1997, the Italian state, in particular the Ministry of Education, is thus to be considered as the main actor for restoration. An explanation for this already emerged in Chapter 1, but can be confirmed here: the fact that the Italian state supervises the Basilica and the absence of a proper Italian academic debate and restoration theory, has made the Ministry of Education the only constant reference point.
2.1.1 Functions and stakeholders
While the Basilica of San Francesco is a unique building that has multiple functions, it serves primarily as a religious building and as a symbol of religious identity. As its owner, the Vatican is the most important stakeholder of the building. Besides being the executive party of the religious function, the Vatican is also responsible for providing the financial means of its daily functioning and partly responsible for maintaining the building. Because the daily functioning could not be performed after the collapse of the Basilica in 1997, the Vatican, and more specifically its ‘National Office for ecclesiastical cultural heritage’, which is assigned to govern the restoration of its property, became responsible for reviving the building’s daily functions and its religious identity. Therefore, the Vatican operates on the foreground of the buildings functions, but it operates on the background in recovering its identity after the earthquake.
84 The concrete beams became highly contested in the 1997-1999 restoration debate, because they might have worsened the
