Archaeotecture Archaeology of Architecture Edited by 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 bar@archaeopress.com www.archaeopress.com BAR S1175 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 bar@hadrianbooks.co.uk 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. Ayán Vila, Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Mañana Borrazás Chapter 2 Archaeology of Architecture: theory, methodology and analysis from Landscape Archaeology Rebeca Blanco Rotea, Patricia Mañana Borrazás & Xurxo M. Ayán Vila Chapter 3 1 17 Archaeological analysis and intervention in historical buildings Luis Caballero Zoreda 41 Chapter 4 Methodology and systems of analysis: The Château at Mayenne Rob Early Chapter 5 61 House Ethnoarchaeology in Ethiopia. Some elements for the analysis of domestic space in Benishangul Alfredo González Ruibal & Víctor M. Fernández Martínez Chapter 6 On Architecture & Archaeology. Reading Norberg-Schulz in a prehistoric context Curry Heimann Chapter 7 99 The Architect in Classical Architecture Nick Eiteljorg Chapter 8 107 Presenting the Roman Villa:The Villa di Orazio, Licenza, and the Villa del Discobolo, Capocotta Martin Goalen & Diane Fortenberry Chapter 9 83 113 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 Chapter 12 143 An Estate House at the 15th Excavation Area of the Selitrennoie Site Emma Zilivinskaya 155 i 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, Mutriku (Gipuzkoa, Spain) Jesús Manuel Pérez Centeno & Amagoia Pía Aranguren 189 Chapter 16 The archaeological study of San Esteban de Atán (Lugo-Spain). A PreRomanesque, 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 Chapter 19 213 Conservation plans and Private Sector Development Gerald A. Wait 219 ii List of contributors Fernando Arce Sainz (farcesainz@worldonline.es) Harrison Eiteljorg, II (neiteljo@brynmawr.edu) Instituto de Historia, Departamento de Historia Antigua y Arqueología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Madrid, Spain CSA, Bryn Mawr, PA USA Xurxo M. Ayán Vila (phxurxo@usc.es) CSA, Bryn Mawr, PA USA http://csanet.org/ http://csanet.org/ Nick Eiteljorg (nicke@csanet.org) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia, Spain Víctor M. Fernández Martínez (victormf@eucmax.sim.ucm.es) http://www-gtarpa.usc.es/ Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid, Spain Mindaugas Bertašius (mbertas@takas.lt) Diane Fortenberry (df@academyprojects.com) Department History of Arts Vytautas Magnus University Kaunas, Lithuania Academy Projects (Archaeology • Architecture) LLP London, United Kingdom http://www.academyprojects.com Rebeca Blanco Rotea (phrebeca@usc.es) Dragos Gheorghiu (dgheorghiu@digi.ro) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia, Spain University of Arts Bucharest, Romania / University of Missouri-Columbia, USA http://www-gtarpa.usc.es/ Martin Goalen (mg@academyprojects.com) Luis Caballero Zoreda (caballero@ceh.csic.es) Academy Projects (Archaeology • Architecture) LLP London, United Kingdom Centro de Estudios Históricos, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Madrid, Spain http://www.academyprojects.com Alfredo González Ruibal (a_ruibal@yahoo.co.uk) Universidad Complutense de Madrid Madrid, Spain Sérgio Carnéiro (sergiocarneiro@yahoo.com) Câmara Municipal de Chaves Chaves, Portugal Anna Haralambieva (annahara@hotmail.com) Cultural and Historical Heritage Board Varna, Bulgaria Rob Early (rob.early@oau-oxford.com) Oxford Archaeological Unit Orford, United Kingdom iii Curry Heimann (curry.heimann@archaeology.gu.se) Amagoia Pía Aranguren Department of Historical Archaeology, Society of Sciences Aranzadi Donostia-San Sebastian, Euskadi, Spain Department of Archaeology Göteborg University, Box 200, SE - 405 30 Göteborg, Sweden. Mª Angeles Utrero Agudo (utrero@ceh.csic.es) Patricia Mañana Borrazás (phpatrim@usc.es) Instituto de Historia, Departamento de Historia Antigua y Arqueología, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) Madrid, Spain Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia, Spain http://www-gtarpa.usc.es/ Dr Gerald A. Wait (gerry.wait@gifford-consulting.co.uk) Robina McNeil (robina.mcneil@man.ac.uk) Greater Marchester Arch Unit The University of Manchester Manchester, United Kingdom Associate, Gifford and Partners Ltd Carlton House, Ringwood Rd Woodland, Southampton SO40 7HT United Kingdom Jesús Manuel Pérez Centeno (arkeologia3@aranzadi-zientziak.org) Emma Zilivinskaya (alfimov@nonlin.msk.ru) Department of Historical Archaeology, Society of Sciences Aranzadi Donostia-San Sebastian, Euskadi, Spain Institute of Archaeology, Russian Academy of Science Moscow State University Moscow, Russia iv 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, and in Esslingen (Germany) in 2001, 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, organised according to their subjects or the chronological periods they cover. All of them share a common factor: the study of constructions and architectonic spaces, analysed from an archaeological perspective. The interest shown in the communications presented during these EAA sessions with a common epigraph and complementary focus, together with the need to publicise the studies carried out within the framework of Architectural Archaeology, has led the organisers to promote the publication of the details of these different investigations. Its introduction contains texts with an essentially theoretical and methodological content that make it possible to establish an approximation towards architecture from archaeological perspectives, and then offers a series of examples in which these or other methodologies have been put into practice. Most of these studies focus on constructions from historical periods, essentially motivated by the fact that an important part of our remaining architectonic heritage belongs to these periods, meaning that this is the field in which Architectural Archaeology has developed to its fullest extent. In fact, its appearance was partly motivated by the need to adopt new methodologies that made it possible to study postclassical constructions from an archaeological perspective, as the objects of study were no longer subterranean sites, but instead buildings that were still standing, in many cases still in use, and applying construction techniques using non-perishable materials. This fact excluded its application to other constructions, generally from pre- and proto-historic periods, that were often built using perishable materials, and concentrated on the study of monumental architecture. One of the aims of this volume was to gather together the different analyses that have been carried out into all types of architecture, regardless of their chronology or type, therefore overcoming the above-mentioned situations. The studies gathered in this volume cover a chronological period that starts with Prehistory and continues to the present day, concentrating equally on the analysis of wooden archaeological structures and monumental architecture built in stone. 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, as demonstrated by some of the studies included that discuss the application of Architectural Archaeology in Heritage Management. Since holding these sessions, it is now held that this is the path the discipline should follow, as the disassociation between basic and applied investigation reduces its potential, and poses a hurdle to making the best use of the results obtained from basic investigation. In this sense, the possibilities for application offered by Architectural Archaeology in designing plans for the direction of old towns, the creation of maps detailing regional techniques, carrying out architectonic restoration projects, the conservation of heritage constructions or the interpretation of vanished architectonic spaces, should be taken into account when dealing with architectonic studies from this discipline, which are often reduced to merely using their methodological instruments. Although this volume is not a compendium of all of the theoretical and methodological approximations, perspectives and proposals in use today in Architectural Archaeology, it does offer a detailed description of the different types of projects that have been carried out in Europe in recent years. Xurxo Ayán Vila Rebeca Blanco Rotea Patricia Mañana Borrazás v 1 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Xurxo M. Ayán Vila; Rebeca Blanco Rotea & Patricia Mañana Borrazás Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía - Instituto de Estudios Gallegos Padre Sarmiento (CSIC-XuGa), Santiago de Compostela, Spain Abstract On last decades Architecture gave rise to interesting approaches about new themes. A lot of these subjects were hardly studied from traditional Archaeology. In this way, for example, architectural remains only were analysed starting from a formalist and typological approach, although its importance as material reflection of social processes. Today the need has been imposed to widen the perspectives of investigation, assimilating new lines which make it possible to maximise the information which comes from the constructed space. This need is justified by questions such as the inconsistency of studying the architectonic record, and overcoming the investigative tradition which even defended the impossibility of dealing with a social and integral interpretation of this record. Despite these conditioning factors, alternative studies and analytical instruments were developed recently in a new field of research, designed Architectural Archaeology. This discipline embrace different methodologies: Formal analysis or primitive architecture; the study of vertical stratigraphy, particularly used in the study of Mediaeval sites; the functional and symbolic analysis which recognises the social factors and symbolic aspects of architecture; 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. Therefore, Archaeology of Architecture offers new methodologies of analysis for new visions about built record. However, 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. This is the main objective of this chapter. 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. 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, somewhere to occupy or exploit. From the nineteenth century onwards, in line with bourgeois rationality, space was considered as nature to be exploited, reducing it to its territorial dimension to a dominated space, to be divided up, measured and sold. Within a modern system of knowledge, space has been discredited in relation to time (Criado 1993b): as Foucault indicated, the first is seen as immobile and dead, whereas time is rich and productive, leaving space in the background, following time’s instructions (Foucault 1979). Only the new theoretical concepts of space and their interpretation in the field of Philosophy and Architecture (Van de Ven 1981; Rapoport 1982; Giedion 1988; Baker 1994, 1998; Ching 1995; Hillier 1996) would form the foundations making it possible for archaeologists to interpret the social actions reflected in the architectonic register of past societies. Within the field of Architectonic space investigation has moved between two different approaches (NorbergSchulz 1980: 9-13): Those based on three-dimensional, Euclidean space, which study its grammar: they are based on the development of geometric models in two or three dimensions, forming part of the syntax of architectonic space; Those that attempt to develop a theory about the foundations of psychology of perception, particularly the impressions and sensations of viewers and studies of the effects which they are offered. Both of these types of study are deficient in part. The first is so because it has excluded humanity from the equation, and discusses abstract geometry. The second is because it has reduced space and architecture to impressions, ignoring space as an existential dimension and as a relationship between man and his surroundings. A spatial study of an architectonic construction which is not integrated within the rationality which created it therefore ends up as distorted and meaningless. The concept of space has become a notion with a single meaning (place, three dimensional space, etcetera), to be evaluated multidimensionally, considering both its concept as a physical matrix, and the perception mankind has of it, as well as its implicit cultural significance. This multidimensional space is directly related to the pattern of rationality, which Lévi-Strauss calls thought (Lévi-Strauss 1964) of the society which creates it and lives it out; architecture is also the most evident way of giving a physical aspect to the spatial concepts of this rationality. Perhaps the study of the spatiality of a past society may be the best way of understanding their rationality, as language, the essential communicator of thought, does not endure. These two movements have been precisely the itineraries followed by archaeological practice when dealing with the architectonic form of the object being studied, conditioning the appearance and development of so-called 1 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Archaeology of Architecture (Steadman 1996; Sánchez 1998). The following text is a brief summary of the process followed. the comprehension of a past social formation, then archaeology has to develop a technique which uses spatial and methodological analysis together with social theory as an interpretative framework (Samson 1990). Archaeology of Architecture: the current situation This social Archaeology of Architecture has yet to appear, as the problem has only been dealt with to date from five theoretical-methodological positions, which were originally developed in the European context by the ethnographic discipline: - Formalist and aesthetic interpretation: constructions are conceived as objects studied from a merely descriptive angle, emphasising their most outstanding morphological features. - Typological study: there is a systemisation of the formal variations which appear in the architecture under study; types of floor plan, construction technique, etcetera. - Evolutionist interpretations: changes in construction correspond to a historical process marked by a tendency towards the increasing complexity of an original architectonic type. - Social and geographic diffusion: changes in construction do not correspond to an endogenous evolution, but instead to the arrival of new architectonic concepts. This transformation may, in turn, be the consequence of social contact between different communities or the appearance of members of foreign populations. Unlike other tendencies which have arisen from within our discipline in recent decades (such as Spatial Archaeology or Landscape Archaeology), in the case of Archaeology of Architecture there is still present not only a conceptual and terminological imprecision of the idea, but also of the actual historigraphic field within which it is contained. Archaeology of Architecture here would be yet another demonstration of the fragmentation suffered by the archaeohistorical discourse in the crisis of Post-modernism, the result of assuming an interdisciplinary perspective and a subsequent approximation to other social sciences. Although this movement has been defined within the last three decades in this context, the architectonic record has been dealt with previously by Archaeology using other parameters, as we shall now see. The starting point. Traditional approaches Historical-cultural Archaeology Despite its importance, architecture has been traditionally studied in Archaeology from a formal and typological perspective, more fitting of Art History. 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, this enormously limited vision prevails in the context of archaeological investigation.. If we are to suggest magnifying the information which this part of the record may offer towards TRADITIONAL - Geographic determinism: everything related to architecture is basically determined by environmental factors: the availability of raw materials, meteorological conditions, characteristics of the landscape, etcetera. ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY ARCHAEOLOGY Archaeography / Secondary role of the architectonic record in the investigation Pretheoretical Archaeology Conception of the building as an object in itself. Theory Art History Formalist and typological focus of Art History. Ontology Objects/forms The study of architectonic remains is limited to formal description and the analysis of building techniques. Denomination Method Chronotypological series Stratigraphic reading Technique Excavation (Wheeler method) Objective Periodisation Interpretative framework Evolutionism Diffusionism Historicism-cultural Historic Particularism Epistemology Pretheoretical Positivism Lack of interpretative models: investigation focuses on architectonic form, without exploring its possible function or meaning. Geographic determinism: an architecture determined by environmental factors. is fundamentally Social or geographical diffusionism: constructive changes do not correspond with an endogenous evolution, but are instead the consequence of the arrival of new, foreign architectonic concepts. Built space is not conceived as a social space = methodologies of spatial analysis are not proposed, only descriptions of artefacts. Table 1. 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. Previously, space was identified as merely something which contained the archaeological record, the unchanging backdrop to human activity throughout time. It was with the appearance of Spatial or Ecological 2 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Archaeology in the 1960´s 1970’s that investigations were started into the relationship between man and his spatial environment. This investigative strategy was founded within the field of New Archaeology, basically aimed at giving a scientific explanation (objective and of universal value) of the phenomena which may be observed empirically, concentrating on the discovery of their practical functions. This functionalist archaeology,, both empirical and processual, has gradually moved away from the field of History, inclining more towards the Sciences. This process, which started in both the United States and Great Britain, is exemplified in the work of D. L. Clarke, particularly in his book Analytical Archaeology (1977) which displays the great interest of the New Archaeologists in using more sophisticated quantitative techniques, in which it was possible to use computer technology and concepts from other disciplines, particularly Geography. As well as championing the need to recognise the importance of spatial information in the archaeological record, they called for the classification of its concepts, elements, models, methods and problems through a new theory of spatial archaeology which would be the result of interconnection with other Social Sciences (1977: 7-8). This means the application of methodological techniques used by other disciplines interested in the study of spatial reality (regional ecology, geographical studies, etcetera). FUNCTIONALIST ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY Denomination New Archaeology Architecture is a basic technology and instrument for social reproduction. Theory Social anthropology Ontology Archaeological record The architectonic units found within the settlements (micro level) are the key to understanding the pattern of subsistence and the social structure. Method Hypothetical-Deductive Technique Excavation in area (Harris’ method) Objective Social Process Interpretative framework Neoevolutionism Cultural Materialism Identification of areas of activity, which make it possible to define different spaces, suggest the functionality and approximate a global interpretation of settlements. The analysis of the distribution and associations of artefacts within architectonic structures gives data for a social interpretation of the record. Artefacts (buildings and objects), activities and functions of spaces are the basis for a sociological interpretation of architectonic space. Systemic theory Ecological anthropology Epistemology Neopositivism SPATIAL ANALYSES Tests of spatial randomness Analysis of nearest neighbour OBJECTIVES Definition of spatial patterns via a quantitative and/or statistical focus applied to distributions of sites and artefacts. Regression analysis Dimensional analyses of variance Analysis of tendency surface Table 2. 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, or spatial structure, within which it is possible to define three levels or steps (Clarke 1977: 11-5), each of which is subjected to its own methods and models which make it possible to see differently the factors of individual, economic or social order which characterise all cultures: - Macro level: between-sites system. At Macro level, the most widely used theoretical technique has been economic spatial theory, based on the concept that human communities carry out their economic activities according to three principles: maximising resources, minimising costs, and the law of least effort. Initially conceived in monetary and economic terms, this theory is really a subtheory which developed from the general ecological theory of exploiting resources. In this field locational models were developed taken from Geography (Von Thünen, Weber, Christaller and Chisholm) using quantitative techniques and analytical methods from - - 3 other disciplines (Hodder 1977; Hodder and Orton 1990). Micro level: within the structures (small units grouping together human activities and their consequences: houses, rooms, silos etcetera); at this spatial level, personal and social, individual and cultural factors predominate over economic factors. In this level relationships appear between artefacts and other artefacts, between artefacts and spaces with resources, and between spaces with resources and other spaces with resources. Semi-Micro level: within the sites, 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, domestic settlements, etcetera. At this level relationships appear between artefacts and other artefacts, between structures and other structures, structures and spaces with resources, and between Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture spaces with resources and other spaces with resources. This Spatial Archaeology dealt with, at micro and semimicro scale, the architecture, urbanism and settlement models based on the proposals (Ucko et al. 1972)1: reflected in Table 2. To analyse and deal with this spatial data, methodological tools were applied to the archaeological data which came from other disciplines also interested in the study of spatial reality. For example, Clarke’s investigation into the lake peoples of Glastonbury (Clarke 1972) is a good practical example of this interdisciplinary idea, as it applied new techniques which came from architecture, and others from geography and ecological studies at site scale, which offered a new archaeological perspective of the site being studied. Although there is no doubt about the fundamental contribution2 which this processual Spatial Archaeology has meant for prehistoric investigation and archaeological investigation in general, its governing deterministic matrix limited its projection enormously. Postprocessual theoretical proposals The theoretical proposals used by processual investigators are enclosed within a perspective which belongs to a functionalism which is architectonic, mechanistic and overly-simplistic, which sees the shape of a construction as a response to only physical causes (mainly construction materials, landscape and climate). Postprocessualism would not wish to invalidate the model which has been proposed, 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, a space which also obeys cultural demands (Rapoport 1972). 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, and consequently cultural. 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, conceiving architecture as a tool for constructing a social reality. Here the discipline Here the functionalist perspective may be fully appreciated. 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. It analyses, from a cross-cultural perspective, non-urban settlements as well as the phenomenon of urbanisation, dealing with different conditioning factors such as the subsistence pattern, the presence of resources and environment, etcetera. 1 The main contributions of this movement have been the fostering of space as an important theme within the field of archaeological investigation, the methodological renovation of the discipline, entering into the problems of population in primitive human settlements, and the need to develop a settlement study within a dual system of relationships: the ecological surroundings, and the social surroundings as a whole. 2 opened itself up to the Cultural and Symbolic Anthropology under the growing influence of contributions from structuralism (Lévi-Strauss and M. Foucault). This anthropological and subjectivist turn-around called for an archaeology which deals with the relationships between conscious and unconscious data about ancient social life, through the analysis of the archaeological record. Its application to the study of prehistoric architecture (Hodder 1990, 1994) and historic architecture (Glassie 1975; Johnson 1993) was first made in an Anglo-Saxon context. Architecture as an instrument for social action Starting from sociological investigation (Bourdieu 1977; Giddens 1979) and using a social archaeology of inhabited spaces, Postprocessual Archaeology proposes the hypothesis that dwellings, like the other elements of material culture, are a cultural product aimed at communicating information which was dealt with, consciously and unconsciously, by the collective which lived in the settlement; it is a physical space in which prehistoric social action takes place and is reproduced (Shanks and Tilley 1987). Dwelling domestic space offers a lasting means of imposing schemes of social organisation; it is as much a reflection as an active generator of social conduct, and should not therefore be only interpreted in functional terms, but also in social terms (Locock 1994). The home exists on numerous levels of perception, and may have different meanings, which vary according to gender, age, status, daily activity, etcetera (Bailey 1990). In the same way, architectonic space is essentially a social space which is constructed culturally, a cultural landscape which fully participates in the construction of symbolic apparatus, of the collective imagination and the ritual practices of the community which builds it and inhabits it. Here, for example, architectonic forms appear to be interrelated with sociological variables such as the family, lifestyle, intergroup solidarity or the system of power. Architectonic form may be defined as a human product which uses a given reality (or physical space) to create a new reality: inhabited space, which is therefore social, which is given a symbolic meaning. In this respect, buildings are not reduced to merely architectonic objects, conditioned by a material context: on the contrary, they should be analysed as a living entity which carried out an active role in the social constitution of the archaeological reality. 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; 1994). Architecture as a technology of coercion As a tool for the social construction of reality, architecture functions as yet another method of the governing system of knowledge-power in each historical context, to maintain and reproduce social order (Foucault 1984). Architecture as a substantial element of material culture defines, restricts and reproduces spaces of daily activity, (Miller and Tilley 1984; McGuire and Paynter 1991; Markus 1993; Parker and Richards 1994a, 1994b). 4 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Architecture as communication. a sign of non-verbal The influence of the semiotic proposals within postprocessualism (Barthes 1986; Eco 1968, 1986 and 1987) has made it possible for archaeological investigation to consider a previously unseen face of Architecture, that of its character as a sign of communication. Built space does not only present a pragmatic functionality but is also a symbolic object, as it transmits a message which is assimilated unconsciously within the spatial framework of daily life (Rapoport 1982; Monks 1992). This perspective has been applied to the study of domestic and monumental prehistoric architecture, revealing the existence of real architectonic and iconographic programmes in these societies. Architectonic form is definitively a significant element which transmits cultural meaning (Hodder 1994). POST PROCESSUAL ARCHAEOLOGY ARCHITECTURE AS THE OBJECT OF STUDY SYMBOLIC ARCHAEOLOGY Denomination Post Procesual Archaeology Theory Cultural anthropology Ontology Material Culture Method Hermeneutic Architecture is both a catalyst and product of social action, a technology for constructing the social landscape. It participates in the construction of the symbolic apparatus, the collective imaginarium, and ritual practices. Semiotic Architecture reproduces the pattern of rationality of a society, creating a spatial structure, spatial relationships which reflect a particular social logic. Social theory A building is not reduced to a merely architectonic object; it is a material entity which plays an active role in the social constitution of the archaeological reality. Marxism Techniques Built space does not only respond to social conventions, but also to cultural and symbolic demands. Ethnoarchaeological Historic Archaeology Investigation opts for interdisciplinary techniques, using elements from Anthropology, Sociology and Ethnoarchaeology. Objective Interpretation of the past Interpretative framework Structuralism A notable methodological development; the design of new techniques of spatial analysis. Epistemology Neo-rationalism Post-structuralism SPATIAL ANALYSES Functional and symbolic Hodder, Rapoport, Kent) analysis OBJECTIVES (Blanton, The study of the social and symbolic significance which underlies the patterns of spatial organisation. Formal analysis (Ching, Baker, Criado) The study of the symbolic use of space, non-verbal communication and Syntactic analysis of space (Hillier and Hanson, processes of social construction of reality Steadman) SPECIFIC METHODOLOGIES OBJECTIVES Analysis of accesses, gamma analysis, analysis of To study the permeability of spaces, of the control of accesses and circulatory movement movement; identification of areas of private and public use, of a hierarchical system and spatial organisation. Analysis of visibility Analysis of visibility conditions Dimensional analysis Built: Unbuilt space ratios. (BUB ratios) Dimension of dwellings (HD) The study of the size of domestic units, of demographic pressure in settlements, of the degree of interaction and/or division and social competition. Identification of a symbolic undercurrent in the duration of inhabited structures. 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 Table 3. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Post-Procesual Archaeology 5 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Architecture as a cultural landscape A new conceptual framework is taken as a starting point, which overcomes the formalist concept of space as something which is just there, as a static reality of physical and environmental nature. Space is a social construct, imaginary, in continuous movement and deeply rooted in culture, with a close structural relationship in the strategies of appropriating space between thought, social organisation, subsistence and conception-utilisation of the environment. Landscape, conceived as the objectivisation of material and imaginary social practises, is formed by three different dimensions or levels: landscape as physical, social and symbolic surroundings (Criado 1993a, 1993b, 1993c and 1999). This product is made up of different formal entities which are spatially projected, forming a spatial structure which responds to a certain social logic. 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. Another theoretical and methodological framework used to overcome the deterministic spatial perspective is Landscape Archaeology (Criado 1999). Within this historiographical context (Bernardi 1992; Rossignol and Wandsnider 1992); this orientation was created by way of a particular perspective about archaeological practice and its objects of study, choosing to use the term landscape to overcome the formalist concept of space as something which is just ‘there’, like a static reality of physical and environmental order3. This is a new notion which, unlike the former, makes it possible to consider spatial reality as an eminently social reality which is constructed culturally. (Criado 1993c, 1996b and 1996c). Space, therefore, is a social and imaginary construction, in continuous movement and deeply rooted within culture, with a close structural relationship within the strategies of appropriating space between thought, social organisation, subsistence and the concept-utilisation of the environment, with landscape perceived as the objectification of material and imaginary social practices (Criado 1991 and 1993c). According to this conceptual and theoretical framework, 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, and to simultaneously convert space into the main object of archaeological investigation, although with the object of overcoming the limitations of Environmental Spatial Archaeology. It does not stop with the reconstruction of primitive environments, but instead attempts to create models of the interrelationships between imagined space, the use of space and social organisation in prehistoric communities. the This investigation starts with the theoretical proposal of multidimensionality of landscape, meaning For a criticism of the functionalist, empirical and modern concept of space used in Archaeology, see Criado (1993a: 9-55). 3 archaeological analysis concentrates on its different dimensions: economic (subsistence, exploitation of resources), social (emplacement, monuments, territory), and symbolic, seen in each of the material products from a social group (habitats, architecture, art, ceramics). Each of these fields is determined by spatial codes which are similar and compatible with each other, and which offer relationships of compatibility and give spatial regularity, as they follow the same strategy of social space and pattern of rationality.. Similarly, architectonic space, like the other formal elements of the record, is essentially a social space which is culturally constructed (Blanco et al. 2000; Mañana et al., 2002; Ayán 2001). It is offered as the product or effect of social action. Architecture may be defined as a technology for building a social landscape, which by using artificial objects, tames the physical world, not only by introducing architectonic elements into natural space to organise it according to cultural references, but also by controlling and imposing the way the surroundings are perceived by the individuals who use it (Criado 1999: 35). Architectonic space is a cultural landscape in the widest possible sense, which fully participates in the construction of symbolic apparatus, the collective imagination and ritual practices of the community which builds it and lives in it. Archaeology of Architecture as a methodological instrument Apart from and/or alongside the previously mentioned theoretical proposals, 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. Of particular interest within this field is the study of wall stratigraphy (particularly in the field of post-classic archaeology), and the analyses applied to the study of domestic space. Archaeology of Architecture historical constructions and the study of As we have mentioned, there are various types of analyses applied to the study of historical constructions. Archaeology of Architecture is the application of archaeological methodology to the analysis of the material remains of constructed historical buildings. Human urban activity has created throughout time different material manifestations of cultural material which we refer to as archaeological sites. We should therefore use the same system of analysis for elements which are the consequence of the same historical genesis, buildings and sites, whether these are raised above ground or buried beneath it. Sites are the final expression of human urbanising activity, when habitational groups definitively lose sight of their function. The elements and remains of human activities conserved in these sites are mainly concerned with constructions, undoubtedly contemporary and associable with the elements and activities which gave rise to the standing buildings, and whose remains are conserved within them. These elements and activities which result from constructing buildings are subjected to the same genesis as an underground site, and accordingly we must use the same analytical technique as that used when studying a site. 6 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture We will give a brief description of the analytical methodologies used by Archaeology of Architecture in studying historical buildings. They are denominated chronological indicators for the type of chronology they give rise to. These types of strategy will depend on the characteristics of the object being analysed, or of the problem we are trying to solve: - Reading of elevations or wall stratigraphy: this methodology is based on the consideration of a building as a multi-stratified object, built throughout time according to constructive-deconstructive and diachronic processes. This methodology contains microstratigraphy, dedicated to the interpretation of coverings. Its working instruments are based on the so-called “Harris Method”. - Chronotypology of tools and singular elements. This includes the mensiochronology of modular elements. - Analysis of materials: radiocarbon, analysis of plaster and mortar, dendochronology - Written documentation: plans, documentary sources, epigraphs, etc. 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. However, in the study of historic architecture, in particular from the Mediaeval period, 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 a methodology for the stratigraphic analysis of historical constructions, which together with other types of analyses form Archaeology of Architecture. We will concentrate on this methodology, as it has been the most developed within the study of historical architecture from an archaeological viewpoint. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that this methodology would not be valid unless it has the support of other types of complementary analysis. We know that this is a very recent branch of archaeology, which started to be used in the 1970’s and 80’s, for different reasons: on one hand, the consideration of buildings as historical documents of an archaeological nature – a historical value which Riegl had indicated in 1903, or Torres Balbás in the 1920’s (Latorre and Caballero 1995: 6-8), and which should therefore be studied with an archaeological methodology (Caballero 1992; 1-2); on the other hand, the development of Mediaeval and postMediaeval archaeology, or post-Classic archaeology, according to Parenti (1995: 20). The better conservation of the remains of buildings, with regard to other older periods immersed within conventional archaeology, demanded the need to develop a methodology of archaeological study which was fitted to this need, with the aim of elaborating a more exhaustive and rigorous analysis of constructions from these periods. All this explains why the greatest development in methodologies for the archaeological study of architectures –“integrated as an element of material culture, belonging to the stratification of the site”(Quirós 1994: 141)– has appeared precisely within the field of Mediaeval archaeology. According to Quirós (1994: 14), this methodology is one of the main contributions of Mediaeval Archaeology to Archaeology as a whole. He continues saying that in the short experience of Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval archaeology in Spain, and the arguments which still arise from it, have lead to a lack of more unitary proposals about the application of Archaeology of Architecture. Following this line of development of post-classic archaeology, and corroborating our comments, Mannoni (1994: 65) states that the conservation of a greater wealth of archaeological remains from Mediaeval and post-Mediaeval civilisations, with regard to ancient civilisations, contributed to the increased interest of archaeologists in raised constructions, with increased transfer of methodologies and working instruments from different disciplines to one sector or another. In summary, 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, and an increased interest by post-classic archaeology, which by varying the characteristics of the objects it studied, made necessary the development of a new methodology adapted to its requirements. In order to be able to carry out a study of historical constructions within Archaeology of Architecture, we should start out with the idea that an architectonic building is an archaeological site, which belongs to Material Culture, and as such is susceptible to study using archaeological methods4. We should also remember that architectonic structures are not the abandoned remnants of material culture which are no longer used, but instead living structures, dynamic, which change and evolve throughout time5, as well as having an urbanistic, social and functional value as important as their role as a historical document and archaeological object. This means that we must seek out a suitable methodology for study, characterised by being nondestructive, as is the case with Archaeology of Architecture, compared to “archaeology of the site” – buried away (Caballero 1996b: 2). Buildings are above ground level, meaning it is easy to examine them without dismantling them, being able to easily observe all of the constructed parts. When this is not the case, due to the existence of elements covering others, such as plaster, we do then move on to a destructive process; here the documental and analytical stage comes before any intervention, and must be particularly rigorous, 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, 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, the product of constructive and destructive activity and transformations brought about by man, as well as actions due to natural agents”. 4 According to Parenti, the greater attention paid to construction techniques based on the development of post-classic archaeology, have lead to the observation that fabrication is the result of a series of constructive activities which occur throughout time (1995: 20). 5 7 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture information that could be lost or altered during work is gathered together. “Unfortunately, many of Italy’s palaces and churches are only studied by historians of art and architecture who, only on rare occasions, are experts in stratigraphy” (Carandini 1997: 115). This statement perfectly illustrates the gaps that exist in the study of architecture, limited until now to analysis from a stylistic-artistic viewpoint, or structural-functional, and now, from stratigraphic readings. Although these types of studies obviously give us new data about the building, they are still only partial studies, which need to be completed by analyses which deal with a wider understanding of the building’s history. 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, yet this should not lead to us invalidating other methods. Logically these will fall into disuse (...), if they are indeed less useful than the new instruments, although it is possible that in some cases their abilities are still valid. Furthermore, these methods are our predecessors, and we should see our beginnings reflected in their historiography” 6. We believe that these studies may lend very useful data to our methodology, and accordingly we should bear them in mind and not reject them as out-of-date. Neither should Archaeology of Architecture be limited to a simple reading of its elevations, in the same way that conventional architecture should not be limited to the excavation and recovery of remains of material culture. Archaeology of Architecture should administer, study and conserve part of the Material Culture of past societies. We should point out, however, that there are some authors who do not agree with the priority nature of the stratigraphic methodology of elevation readings, as is the case with Bonelli, who considers that stratigraphic archaeology is no more than a technique at the service of Architectural History (1986: 5), although it would help with obtaining a deeper understanding and enrichment. Neither should we see Archaeology of Architecture as a radical innovation in constructive analysis (Caballero 1996b: 1). Historians of art and architecture, and even archaeologists, have already used analytical processes used for dating and comprehension, using formal typologies or those with chronological value (Gómez 1970: 361-90). Elsewhere, as Quirós states (1994: 141), despite the fact that there are quite regular references to wall stratigraphy and Archaeology of Architecture, although to a lesser degree, there is no full theoretical or methodological debate about the problems related to it, constantly referring to experiences in Italy. We should not forget that this discipline, in particular the study of historical buildings with an archaeological method, has its roots in Italy, 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]. Carandini started to develop this methodology in the 1970’s, although it was defined and perfected in the 1980’s through the proposals of Tiziano Mannoni in the University of Genova, mainly developed by Roberto Parenti in the University of Sienna, and later by Gian Pietro Brogiolo in the University of Padua, and Francesco Doglioni in the University of Venice. However, there are four centres of investigation in Spain which apply an archaeological methodology to historical constructions, from two viewpoints (which have an important historiographic tradition in our country, with Gómez Moreno, Vicente Lampérez or Torres Balbás, among others; see Caballero 1996c: 1): one archaeological, and another restorative. These are the Servei de Catalogació i Conservació de Monuments of the Diputació de Barcelona; the Centro de estudios Históricos of the CSIC, the Departamento de Arqueología de la Universidad de Vitoria, in the Basque Country (with these last two working in close collaboration) and the Laboratorio de Arqueología y Formas Culturales, from the University of Santiago de Compostela. - El Servei de Catalogació i Conservació de Monuments has carried out an approximation to the building from a restorative viewpoint (González et al., 1990). Its working system is aimed at extracting the maximum amount of information, both structural and social, using three basic proposals: - Scientific precision in the recognition and analysis of the building, 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. This historical-archaeological documentation is considered by its members as an essential previous stage before carrying out an architectonic restoration7. - The exact diagnosis of the problems surrounding the buildingK, of its technical aspects, 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, on one hand, the functional role of the building, and on the other the restorer’s creative liberty: “the license to act on a monument giving it new architecture, is born of the monument’s historical essence. If this is the result of adding architecture from different periods, then why deny it the testimony of our own architecture?” (González 1990: 12). Analysis “considering the monument as a historical document demands giving priority to it deserving a scientific historical investigation, within which archaeological excavation is an essential and undeniable aspect. There is less unanimity with regard to the role which historical investigation plays within the restorative process. In our opinion, this role is essentially informative: obtaining all of the useful information, especially that which is given by material remains which may be lost or irreversibly altered by architectonic intervention (González 1990: 12). 7 6 The validity of stratigraphic analysis lies in the fact that “the reading of elevations, and, by extrapolation, Archaeology of Architecture, make it possible to recover, for the history of architecture, architectonic objects which, in any other case, either would not have been considered as architecture, or would not have become a source for our understanding because of their apparent difficulty” (Caballero 1996b: 2). 8 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture of mural stratigraphy is not considered an end in itself, but instead the starting point for recovering the volumetry of different stages of the building, and then to propose a restoration project in which these volumes may be recovered. 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, 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). - Centro de Estudios Históricos del CSIC, directed by Caballero Zoreda, whose work is based on the methodological discussion of the analysis of elevations and its application to restorative diagnosis. Their basic methodological proposals are contained in these four points: - the proposal of an investigative project of a scientific nature, for the study of historical buildings - the detailed examination of buildings using the methodology of elevation readings, in a state of continual reflection and with the advancement of both its techniques and documentation methods, as well as the analysis of historical buildings, particularly with reference to the documentation of the building through stratigraphic readings, and computerised analytical photogrametry (Caballero and Fernández 1996d: 6) - perfect graphic documentation, particularly if restoration is underway - the need to carry out a social projection of these investigations, both with regard to the restoration of buildings and their reassessment and social promotion (Caballero and Fernández 1996d: 7) - Área de Arqueología de la Universidad de Vitoria, lead by Agustín Azkárate. Its investigations pay particular attention to information from written documentation, leaving space for it prior to any intervention, as it may offer a precise chronology about work which has taken place within the building. Thanks to these studies, the constructive panorama of some of the churches of the province of Alava has been enriched, as until recently these had been considered as belonging to a single period (Caballero and Fernández 1996d: 8; Azkárate 1996). We should also mention that in the University of Seville there is a group currently taking shape under the leadership of Miguel A. Tabales Rodríguez. Finally, and bearing in mind the comments of Quirós (1994: 142), we would say that historical constructions, both because of their volume, significance and social role, as well as their functional continuity, are one of the most noteworthy inherited heritage objects. This complexity obliges us to discover a methodology of study which is characterised by analytical systematisation and scientific order, as well as being adaptable to different situations: it must be both scientific and flexible. The starting point is stratigraphic analysis, which makes it possible to interpret material remains historically. Household Archaeology Despite its importance, the study of domestic architecture has traditionally been carried out from a formalist and typological viewpoint more befitting Art History. To maximise the amount of information which may be given by a dwelling in order to understand a past social formation, some archaeologists developed a way of dealing with it which uses spatial analysis as a methodology and social theory as an interpretative framework. These analyses appear within the framework of so-called Settlement Archaeology (Ucko 1972) and Household Archaeology (Wilcj and Rathje 1982; Allison 1999) which trace their origins back to New Archaeology. Here are contained successive investigations which analyse the interaction between architecture and environment, the structure of parentage, domestic space and the spatial articulation of domestic units, using the ethnoarchaeological analogy and cross-cultural studies as a working strategy (Kent 1990; Blanton 1994). With the aim of shedding light on these spatial relationships and defining the areas of activity within domestic space, various methodological instruments have been designed, including the syntactic analysis of space which contemplates methodologies which use analyses of access, visibility and circulatory movement (Hillier and Hanson. 1984; Blanton 1994; Foster 1989; Steadman 1996) Analysis of the significant spatial relationships between objects contained in the record makes it possible to minimally reconstruct their context, and part of their original significance. The study of these spatial relationships between elements, their spatial structure, makes it possible to not only see the spatial logic of a particular community, in this case the collection of interspatial relationships which helped build a society, but also the actual social logic of that space. Purpose and Architecture applications of Archaeology of “Archaeology of Architecture, as a development within Archaeology, forms part of History’s full rights. Its purpose is to infer historical conclusions from the flow of data achieved from its application to a construction, from its chronological sequence to its meaning” (Caballero 1996a: 1). Although this is the main purpose of architecture as a discipline of historical knowledge, it is not the only one, as we will now see. As we have already said, built heritage is a “disordered final product” (Azkarate 1998: 105), a site in which numerous past remains are gathered, making it a historical document, which we have to decode and “read” using analytical techniques from the field of archaeology. Starting with this premise, Archaeology of Architecture becomes an instrument related to other fields apart from history, enriching and widening its perspectives (we refer to Azkarate 1998, from whom we have selected the following purposes and applications of Archaeology of Architecture). - An instrument of historical knowledge. The traditional postures of History of Architecture and Art tend to value constructed heritage based on aesthetic 9 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture - - - - criteria, creating constructive models which tie down the structures in time. They are classified as exclusively belonging to a single artistic style, forgetting that they are often a disordered product which is not the result of one but several styles. The reading of elevations when identifying, 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. An instrument for restorative diagnosis. “the archeologia dell’edilizia storica has a future, as it is beneficial for the projects and objectives of architects themselves” (Azkarate 1998: 106). The production of detailed documentation, including the reading of elevations, comes before the undertaking of the restoration project, may help architects in taking certain decisions, such as the solution of pathologies identified thanks to this examination. Frequently, the restoration projects of some buildings have passed over some constructive stages because of the lack of information about them, and given more attention to other styles. This problem would be solved by a detailed analysis of the building8. An instrument for conservation. Stratigraphic analysis, thanks to the lack of historical documentation, the detailed study of all built elements, 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, thus becoming a first-rate instrument for conservation. Acquisition of new study instruments. By individualising the constructive units of the building and articulating them in a chronological sequence, we are able to characterise constructive techniques. Thanks to this, atlases of building techniques are now being produced, together with mensiochronological studies and tipochronological tables, instruments which support stratigraphic analysis and archaeology and architecture in general. An instrument for the diachronic analysis of urban structure. As we have seen, stratigraphic analysis helps us to establish the diachronic sequence of a building, although if we extrapolate it to wider environments, applying it to urban nuclei, it is possible to establish the evolution of an inhabited centre, and graphically represent its temporal sequence. In summary, considering all that has gone before, the applications of a reading of elevations would be the following: As previously mentioned, and in order to illustrate archaeology as an instrument for restorative diagnosis, 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). 8 - - 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, such as restoration or conservation Creating 3-D models allowing the virtual visualisation of cultural elements Finally, creating documentary archives which contribute to the conservation of constructed heritage. The need for Archaeotecture What is Archaeology of Architecture? Is it a new territory of archaeology, 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. Its field of study appears vague, diffuse and fragmented, with no specific domain of its own, 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, the symbolic undercurrent of architectonic form, the social logic inherent when ordering built space, or the building techniques themselves are all themes which fit within the framework of study of other tendencies, such as Symbolic Archaeology, Social Archaeology or Historical Archaeology. In principle, Archaeology of Architecture attempts to maximise all of the information which architectonic remains give about past societies, from their pattern of subsistence to their symbolic universe. However, this ambiguous, imprecise and general objective converts it into a pot-pourri which absorbs methodological innovations of any kind, from other disciplines. Perhaps it corresponds more to a moment than to a sector of archaeological investigation: today it is attracting new methods towards it, and new problems, as occurred with New Archaeology in its day. Therefore, Archaeology of Architecture offers new methodologies of analysis for new visions about built record. However, 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. This need is justified by questions we have already covered, such as the inconsistency of studying the architectonic record, 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. Despite the enormous limits and conditioning factors which go hand in hand with this problem, we believe that it is essential to propose and develop new techniques which attempt to widen our current knowledge of the subject. We need new proposals and basic principles which may be applied to an alternative study method which, although not necessarily the most suitable or conclusive, at least makes it possible to shape an archaeological vision which prompts new and necessary questions about built space. 10 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Here we opt for a third way, a symbiotic perspective between Archaeology and Architecture, an Archaeotecture which maximises its potential as a discipline integrated within archaeological practice, and which guarantees a truly interdisciplinary character which is of enormous use in investigation, as shown by the group of studies outlined in this paper. It is also essential that this movement is integrated within investigative strategies which, taking basic investigation as a foundation, demystify archaeological ruins and facilitate an understanding and interpretation of the past, responding to the demands made by both market and society (public works, reconstruction and restoration of historical constructions, the appraisal of archaeological sites, etcetera). 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. The cost-effectiveness involved in projecting investigation programmes about prehistoric and historic architecture is remarkable, programmes in which archaeological investigation has had a clearly patrimonial bias. The objective is therefore involved in integral projects of Architectonic Heritage Management, in which basic investigation is the starting point for a process which culminates in the appraisal and popularising of Archaeological Heritage. In these projects, Archaeotecture is not reduced to being a merely interpretative practice, but instead acts as a technique which on one hand adapts and responds to the problems presented by the existence of Archaeological Heritage, and on the other is a source of information which ends up in the hands of society at large. Now, the aim is to also include Archaeology of Architecture within these projects of applied investigation, thus contributing to the evaluation of the archaeological record and widening its prospects for appraisal. Here, 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. In order to reach these objectives it is necessary to define a theoretical-methodological basis which makes it possible to define the character, contents and objectives of this tendency. References Allison, P. M. 1999. The Archaeology of Household Activities. London: Routledge. Aparicio Bastardo, J. A. 1991. Análisis de formas constructivas: aproximación al caso burgalés. II Here we share a particular investigative strategy which defends the final defeat of this false dichotomy, through the appearance of investigation projects proposed as Integral Heritage Management programmes, where information obtained through archaeological work is handed back to society to be publicised and appraised (Criado 1996a, 1996b and 1996c; Criado and González 1994; González 1996 and 2000). 9 Jornadas Burgalesas de Historia, Burgos en la Alta Edad Media (Burgos,1990), 443-456. Burgos. Aparicio Bastardo, J. A. and de la Fuente, A. 1993-1994. Estudio arqueológico e intervención arquitectónica en la iglesia de la Asunción de San Vicente del Valle (Burgos). Numantia, 6: 153-171. Zamora. Ayán Vila, X. M. 2001. Arqueotectura 3: La vivienda castreña. Propuesta de reconstrucción en el castro de Elviña. TAPA (Trabajos en Arqueología del Paisaje), 23. Santiago: USC. Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A. 1994. Ermita del Santo Cristo. Arqueología de urgencia en Álava / 1989-1993: 95-102. Álava: Diputación Foral de Álava, Museo de Arqueología de Álava. Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A. 1996. Iglesia de San Román (Tobillas). Arkeoikusca, 95: 312-38. Vitoria. Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A. and García Camino, I. 1998. Documentación arqueolóxica e contexto urbano na Cominudade Autónoma Vasca. Curso Documento, Espacio e Contorno (Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, do 18 ó 21 de setembro de1996): 101-20. Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura, Comunicación Social e Turismo. Azkarate Garai-Olaun, A., Fernández de Jáuregui, A. and Núñez, M. 1995. Documentación y análisis arquitectónico en el País Vasco. Algunas experiencias llevadas a cabo en Álava-España. Informes de la Construcción, 435: 65-78. Madrid. Bailey, D. W. 1990. The Living House: Signifying Continuity. In Samson, R. (ed.): The Archaeology of houses.: 19-48. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Baker, G.H. 1994. Le Corbusier: análisis de la forma. México: Gustavo Gili. (5ª ed. amp., ed. or. 1985. Le Corbusier. An analysis of form. UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold). Baker, G.H. 1998. Análisis de la forma: urbanismo y arquitectura. México: Gustavo Gili (2ª ed. amp., ed. or. 1989. Design Strategies in Architecture. An approach to the analysis of form. Second edition. UK: Van Nostrand Reinhold). Barthes, R. 1986. Semiology and the Urban. In Gottdiener M. and Lagopoulos, A. (eds.): The City and the Sign: 88-98. New York: Columbia Univ. Press. Bernardi, M. (a cura di). 1992. Archeologia del Paesaggio. Edizioni all’insegna del giglio. Firenze: Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Università degli studi di Siena. Blanco Rotea, R. 1997. Introducción al estudio arqueológico del patrimonio construido: el análisis estratigráfico de paramentos. (Tesis de licenciatura). Grupo de Investigación en Arqueología del Paisaje – Departamento de Historia 1, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela (España). (Inédita). Blanco Rotea, R. 1998a. La arqueología en el muro: lectura estratigráfica de paramentos en San Fiz de Solovio. Gallaecia, 17: 481-500. Santiago de Compostela. Blanco Rotea, R. 1998b. Las construcciones históricas desde una perspectiva arqueológica. In Actas del Segundo Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción (La 11 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Coruña, 22-24 de octubre de 1998): 49-56. Madrid: EFCA. Blanco Rotea, R. (coord.) 2001. Metodologías de Intervención en el Patrimonio Arqueológico. Módulo 5 del Curso de especialización en Gestión Arqueológica del Patrimonio Construido. Santiago de Compostela: Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía e Formas Culturais. USC. Blanco Rotea, R.; Mañana Borrazás, P. and Ayán Vila, X. M. 2000. Archaeology of Architecture: theory, methodology and analysis from Landscape Archaeology. 6th EAA Annual Meeting (Lisbon, 10-17 september 2000). EEA. Unpublished. Blanton, R. 1994. Houses and Households. New York: Plenum Press. Boast, R. and Yiannouli, E. 1986. Creating Space. Archaeological Review from Cambridge, 5 (2): 136-40. Cambridge. Bonelli, R. 1986. Archeologia stratigrafica e storia dell’architettura. Architettura, Storia e Documenti, 2: 510. Bourdieu, P. 1977. Outline of a Theoy of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brogiolo, G. P. 1987. Castello di S.Martino. Analisi stratigrafica delle murature :1ª Parte. Brogiolo, G. P. 1988a. Archeologia dell’edilizia storica. Como: Edizioni New Press. Brogiolo, G. P. 1988b. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. In Francovich and Parenti (ed.). Campionatura e obiettivi nell’analisi stratigrafica degli elevati: 335-46. Firenze: Università degli studi di Siena. Brogiolo, G. P. 1991. Architetture medievali del Garda bresciano. Analisi stratigrafiche. Grafo. Brogiolo, G. P. 1995. Arqueología estratigráfica y restauración, Informes de la Construcción, 435: 31-6. Madrid. Brogiolo, G. P.; Mannoni, T. and Parenti, R. (a cura di). 1996. Archeologia dell’Architettura, 1. Supplemento ad Archeologia Medievale. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Caballero Zoreda, L. 1992. Sobre el análisis arqueológico de construcciones históricas. La experiencia llevada a cabo en Santa Eulalia de Mérida, La Torre de Hércules en La Coruña y S. Pelayo de Arlanza. In III Encuentros sobre Arqueología y Patrimonio de Salobreña. Arqueología del monumento. Forthcoming. Caballero Zoreda, L. 1995. Método para el análisis estratigráfico de construcciones históricas o “lectura de paramentos”. Informes de la Construcción, 453: 37-46. Madrid. Caballero Zoreda, L. 1997. Arqueoloxía e Arquitectura. Análise arqueolóxica e intervención en edificios Históricos. In As Actuacións no patrimonio construido: un diálogo interdisciplinar (Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, setembro de 1995): 129-58. Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura, Comunicación Social e Turismo. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Cámara Muñoz, L. 1995. Un caso de lectura de paramentos y argumentación científica. S. Pedro el Viejo de Arlanza, Burgos-España. Informes de la Construcción, 435: 79-89. Madrid. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Escribano Velasco, C. (ed.) 1996e. El método arqueológico aplicado al proceso de estudio y de intervención en edificios históricos. In Arqueología de la Arquitectura (Burgos, Junta de Castilla y León, 1996). Salamanca: Europa Artes Gráficas. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Feijoo Martínez, S. 1995. Análisis de elementos constructivos en Santa Eulalia de Mérida-España. Informes de la Construcción, 435: 51-61. Madrid. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Feijoo Martínez, S. 1998. La iglesia altomedieval de san Juan Bautista en Baños de Cerrato (Palencia). Archivo Español de Arqueología, 71: 181-242. Madrid. Caballero Zoreda and Fernández Mier, M. 1996d. Análisis arqueológico de construcciones históricas en España. Estado de la cuestión. Incontro en L’Archeologia dell’Architettura (Genova, 1996). Archeologia dell’Architettura, 2. Forthcoming. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Latorre, P. (coords.) 1995a. Leer el documento construido. Informes de la Construcción, 435. Madrid: CSIC. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Latorre , del análisis estratigráfico históricas en el debate monumental. Informes de la Madrid. P. 1995b. La importancia de las construcciones sobre la restauración Construcción, 435: 5-18. Caballero Zoreda, L. and Sáez Lara, F. 1999. La Iglesia Mozárabe de Santa Lucía del Trampal. Alcuéscar (Cáceres). Arqueología y Arquitectura. In Memorias de Arqueología Extremeña, 2. Mérida: Junta de Extremadura, Consejería de Cultura. Caballero Zoreda, L.; Arce, F. and Feijoo Martínez, S. 1996c. Fotogrametría y análisis arqueológico. Revista de Arqueología, 186: 14-25. Madrid. Caballero Zoreda, L.; Latorre González-Moro, P. and Matesanz Vera, P. 1994. La iglesia prerrománica de San Pedro el Viejo (Hortigüela, Burgos). Numantia, 5: 13965. Zamora. Cagnoni, G. 1996. La documentazione del degrado e del dissesto nell’analisi stratigrafica degli elevati. Archeologia dell’Architettura, 1: 65-70. Firenze. Caballero Zoreda, L. 1996a. El análisis estratigráfico de construcciones históricas. In Curso de Arqueología de la Arquitectura (Burgos, Junta de Castilla y León, 1996): 55-74. Salamanca: Europa Artes Gráficas, S.A. Carandini, A., 1997. Historias en la tierra. Manual de excavación arqueológica. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica. Caballero Zoreda, L. 1996b. En torno a algunas experiencias de lectura arqueológica de edificios. Quaderns cientifics i tecnics, 8. Forthcoming. Ching, F. 1995. Arquitectura: forma, espacio y orden. México: Gustavo Gili. (10ª ed., ed. or. 1979. Architecture: Form, Space and Order. Nueva York: Van Nostrand Reinhold). 12 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Clarke, D. L. 1972. A provisional model of an Iron Age Society and its settlements system. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.) Models in Archaeology: 801-869. London: Methuen. Clarke, D. L.1977. Spatial Information in Archaeology. In Clarke, D. L. (ed.): Spatial Archaeology: 1-32. London: Academic Press. Clarke, D. L. 1978. Analytical Archaeology. London: Methuen. Criado Boado, F. 1993a. Límites y posibilidades de la arqueología del paisaje. Spal, 2: 9-55. Sevilla. Criado Boado, F. 1993b. Espacio monumental y paisajes prehistóricos en Galicia. In Asociación Galega de Historiadores (ed.): Concepcións espaciais e estratexias territoriais na Historia de Galicia: 23-54. Santiago: Tórculo Edicións. Criado Boado, F. 1993c. Visibilidad e interpretación del registro arqueológico. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 50: 39-56. Madrid. Criado Boado, F. 1996a. La Arqueología del futuro, ¿el Futuro de la Arqueología?. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 53 (1): 15-35. Madrid. Criado Boado, F. 1996b. La arqueología del paisaje como programa de gestión integral del patrimonio arqueológico. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 14: 15-9. Sevilla. Criado Boado, F. 1996c. Hacia un modelo integrado de investigación y gestión del Patrimonio Histórico: la cadena interpretativa como propuesta. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 16: 73-9. Sevilla. Criado Boado, F. 1999. Del Terreno al Espacio: Planteamientos y Perspectivas para la Arqueología del Paisaje. CAPA (Criterios y Convenciones en Arqueología del Paisaje), 6. Santiago: Grupo de Investigación en Arqueoloxía da Paisaxe, USC. Criado Boado, F. and González Méndez, M. 1994. La puesta en valor del patrimonio arqueológico desde la perspectiva de la arqueología del paisaje. In VV.AA.: Conservación arqueológica. Reflexión y debate sobre teoría y práctica. Cuadernos del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, III: 58-75. Sevilla: Junta de Andalucía. Architettonico: 223-47. Florencia: Univercità degli Studi di Siena. Doglioni, F., Moretti, A. and Petrini, V. (a cura di) 1994. La chiese e il terremoto.Dalla vulnerabilità constatata nel terremoto del Friuli al miglioramento antisismico nel restauro, verso una politica di prevencione. Trieste: Edizioni LINT. Eco, U. 1968. La estructura ausente. Introducción a la Semiótica. Barcelona: Lumen. Eco, U. 1986. Functionalism and Sign: The Semiotics of Architecture. In Gottdiener M. and Lagopoulos, A. (eds.) The City and the Sign: 56-85. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Eco, U. 1987. How an Exposition Exposes Itself. Travels in Hyperreality: 296-9. London: Pan Books. Feijoo Martínez, S. and Rúa Carril, V. 1992. Documentación de las estructuras medievales de las iglesias del Concello de Lalín (Deza). (Proyecto de investigación). Universidad de Santiago de Compostela. Unpublished. Feijoo Martínez, S. and Rúa Carril, V. 1995. La iglesia prerrománica de San Martín de Prado en Lalín, Pontevedra-España. Informes de la Construcción, 435: 91100. Madrid. Flannery, K. V. (ed.) 1976. The Early Mesoamerican Village. New York: Academic Press. Fontenla San Juan, C. (coord.) 1996: Monumentodocumento: diferentes valoracións das aportacións posteriores á fábrica. In Congreso: Os profesionais da historia ante o Patrimonio Cultural: liñas metodolóxicas (Lugar y fecha). Santiago de Compostela: Dirección Xeral do Patrimonio Cultural, Xunta de Galicia. Fontenla San Juan, C. (dir) 1998. Curso Documento, Espacio e Contorno (Santiago de Compostela, Xunta de Galicia, do 18 ó 21 de setembro de 1996). Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura, Comunicación Social e Turismo. Fontenla San Juan, C. 1997. Curso As actuacións no patrimonio construido: un diálogo interdisciplinar (Santiago de Comportela, Xunta de Galicia, setembro de 1995). Santiago de Compostela: Consellería de Cultura, Comunicación Social e Turismo. Cristinelli, G. 1999. El proyecto de restauración y el concepto de monumento. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid, 1998): 139-66. Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. Foster, S. 1989. Analysis of spatial patterns in buildings (acces analysis) as an insight into social structure: examples from the Scottish Atlantic Iron Age. Antiquity, 63: 40-50. Gloucester. Dallas, R. W. A.; Kerr, J. B.; Lunnon, S. and Bryan, P. G. 1995. Windsor Castle: Photogrammetric and Archaeological recording after the fire. Photogrammetric Record, 15 (86): 225-40. Foucault, M. 1984. Vigilar y castigar: El nacimiento de la Prisión. Madrid: Siglo XXI (4ª ed.) Doglioni, F. (a cura di) 1987. Ambiente di dimore medieval a Verona. In Corso di Restauro Architettonico (Venezia, 1987). Venezia: Cluva Editrice. Doglioni, F. 1988. Archeologia e Restauro dei Monimenti. In Francovich, R. and Parenti, R. (ed.). La ricerca nelle struttura edilizia tra Acheologia stratigrafica e restauro Foucault, M. 1979. La Arqueología del Saber. México: Siglo XXI (6ª ed.). Francovich, R. 1985. Archeologia e restauro: da contiguità a unitarietà. Restauro & Città, 2: 14-20. Venezia. Francovich, R. and Parenti, R. (ed.) 1988. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Giddens, A. 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory: Action Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis. London: Macmillan. 13 Archaeotecture: seeking a new archaeological vision of Architecture Giedion, S. 1988. El presente eterno: Los comienzos de la arquitectura. Madrid: Alianza Editorial. Glassie, H. 1975. Folk housing in middle Virginia: a structural analysis of historic artifacts. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Gómez Moreno-Navarro, A. 1999. El uso sensato del patrimonio arquitectónico, requisito de la restauración objetiva. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid, 1998): 139-66. Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. Gómez Moreno-Navarro, A. 1999. La restauración objetiva (Método SCCM de restauración monumental). Memoria SPAL 1993-1998. Servei de Patrimoni Arquitectònic, Diputació de Barcelona. Barcelona: edita Institut d’Edicions de la Diputació de Barcelona. Gómez Moreno-Navarro, A.; Lacuesta, R. and López, A. 1990. Com e per a qui restaurem. Objectius, mètodes i difusió de la restauració monumental. Memòria 1985-1989. Servei de Patrimoni Arquitectònic, Diputació de Barcelona. Barcelona: edita Institut d’Edicions de la Diputació de Barcelona. Gómez Moreno-Navarro, M. 1970. Retazos: Ideas sobre Historia, Cultura y Arte. Madrid: CSIC. González Méndez, M. 1996. El ocio y el reciclado: la conversión del vestigio arqueológico en producto de consumo. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 14: 24-7. Sevilla. González Méndez, M. 2000. Investigación y Puesta en Valor del Patrimonio Histórico: Planteamientos y Propuestas desde la Arqueología del Paisaje. (Tesis doctoral). Departamento de Historia I, Facultade de Xeografía e Historia, USC. Santiago de Compostela. Unpublished. Harris, E. C. 1991. Principios de estratigrafía arqueológica. Barcelona: Editorial Crítica. Harris, E. C. 1993. Practices of Archaeological Stratigraphy. London: Academic Press. Hillier, B. 1996. Space is the Machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hillier, B. and Hanson, J. 1984. The social logic of space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hodder, I. 1977. Some New Directions in the Spatial Analysis of Archaeological Data at the Regional Scale (Macro). In Clarke, D. L. (ed.) Spatial Archaeology: 233351. London: Academic Press. Hodder, I. 1994. Architecture and meaning: The Example of Neolithic Houses and Tumbs. In Parker Pearson, M. and Richard, C. (eds). Architecture and Order. Approaches to Social Space: 73-86. London: Routledge. Kent, S. 1984. Analyzing activity areas: an ethnoarchaeological study of the use of space. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Kent, S. 1990. Domestic Architecture and the use of space. An interdisciplinary cross-cultural study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Latorre González-Moro, P. and Caballero Zoreda, L. 1995. Análisis arqueológico de los paramentos el faro romano llamado Torre de Hércules (La CoruñaEspaña). Informes de la Construcción, 435: 47-50. Madrid. Lévi-Strauss, C. 1964. El pensamiento salvaje. México: FCE. Locock, M. 1994. Meaningful Architecture. In Locock, M. (ed.): Meaningful Architecture: social interpretations of buildings: 1-13. Avebury: Aldershot. López Mullor, A. 1999. Arqueología del patrimonio edificado. Una definición y dos ejemplos. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid, 1998): 139-66. Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. Mannoni, T. 1994. Caratteri costruttivi dell’edilizia storica. Venticinque anni di Archeologia Globale, 3. Génova: ESCUM. Mannoni, T. and Parenti, R. (a cura di). 1996. Archeologia dell’Architettura, 1. Supplemento ad Archeologia Medievale. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Mannoni, T.; Milanese, M. 1988. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. In Francovich, R.; Parenti, R. (ed.). Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 383-402. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. Mañana, P.; Ayán, X. and Blanco, R. 2002. Arqueotectura 1: Bases teórico-metodológicas para una Arqueología de la Arquitectura. TAPA (Traballos en Arqueolxía da Paisaxe), 25. Santiago de Compostela: CSIC-XuGA. Marino, L. 1994. Il relievo per il restauro. Ricognizioni, misurazioni, accercamenti, restituzioni, elaborazioni. Milán: Editore Ulrico Hoepli. Markus, T. 1993. Buildings and Power; Freedom and Control in the Origin of Modern Buildings Types. Oxford: Blackwell. McGuire, R. H and Paynter, R. (eds.) 1991. The Archaeology of Inequality. Oxford: Blackwell. Medri, M. 1988. Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti. In Francovich, R.; Parenti, R. (ed.). Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 305-34. Firenze: All’Insegna del Giglio. Miller, D. and Tilley, C (eds.) 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Monks, G. 1992. Architectural Simbolism and Non-verbal communication at Upper Fort Garry. Historical Archaeology, 26 (2): 37-57. Detroit. Hodder, I. and Orton, C. 1990. Análisis espacial en Arqueología. Barcelona: Crítica. Norberg-Schulz, C. 1980. Existencia, espacio y arquitectura. Barcelona: Ed. Blume. Johnson, M. 1993. Housing Culture. Traditional architecture in an English landscape. London: UCL Press. Ojeda Calvo, R. and Tabales Rodríguez, M. A. 1996. La investigación arqueológica de Bienes Inmuebles: metodología aplicada en la Puerta de Córdoba de Carmona. Boletín del Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico, 15: 41-52. Sevilla. 14 Archaeotecture: Archaeology of Architecture Parcero Oubiña, C.; Méndez Fernández, F. and Blanco Rotea, R. 1999. El Registro de la Información en Intervenciones Arqueológicas. CAPA (Criterios y Convenciones en Arqueología del Paisaje), 9. Santiago de Compostela: Grupo de Investigación en Arqueología del Paisaje, USC. Parenti, R. 1980. Archeologia e storia di un monumento mediceo. In Francovich, R. and Gelichi, S. Archeologia e storia di un monumento mediceo : gli scavi nel cassero senese della Fortezza di Grosseto: 165-76. Bari: De Donato. Parenti, R. 1985a. La torre A: una lettura stratigrafica. Archeologia Medievale, 12: 417-37. Firenze. Parenti, R. 1985b. La lettura stratigrafica delle murature in contesti archeologici e di Restauro architettonico. Restauro & Città, 2: 55-68. Venezia. Parenti, R. 1986. La torre B. Archeologia Medievale, 13: 277-90. Firenze. Parenti, R. 1988a. La tecniche di documentazione per una lettura stratigrafica dell'elevato. In Francovich, R.; Parenti, R. (ed.). Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 249-79. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Parenti, R. 1988b. Sulla posibilità di datazione e di clasificazione delle murature. In Francovich, R.; Parenti, R. (ed.). Archeologia e restauro dei monumenti: 280-304. Firenze: Edizioni All’Insegna del Giglio. Parenti, R. 1995. Historia, importancia y aplicaciones del método de lectura de paramentos. Informes de la Construcción, 435: 19-29. Madrid. Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, S. C. 1994a. Ordering the world: perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time. In Parker Pearson, M.; Richards, C. (eds.): Architecture and Order. Approaches to Social Space: 1-37. London: Routledge. Parker Pearson, M. and Richards, S. C. 1994b. Architecture and order: spatial representation and Archaeology. In Parker Pearson, M.; Richards, S. C. (eds.): Architecture and Order. Approaches to Social Space: 38-72. London: Routledge. Preziosi, D. 1979. The semiotics of the built environment: an introduction to architectonic analysis. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Valladolid: Diputación Provincial de Valladolid e Instituto Español de Arquitectura de la Universidad de Valladolid. Rossignol, J. and Wandsnider, L. 1992. Space, Time, and Archaeological Landscapes. New York: Plenum Press. Samson, R. (ed.) 1990. The social Archaeology of houses. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Sánchez, J. 1998. La Arqueología de la Arquitectura. Aplicación de nuevos modelos de análisis a estructuras de la Alta Andalucía en época ibérica. Trabajos de Prehistoria, 55 (2): 89-109. Madrid. Sanz Gallego, N. 1993. Para una lógica social del espacio en Prehistoria. Complutum, 4: 239-52. Madrid. Shanks, M. and Tilley, C. 1987. Social Theory and Archaeology. Cambridge: Polity Press. Steadman, S. 1996. Current Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundantions. Journal of Archaeological Research, 4 (1): 51-93. New York. Uboldi, M. (a cura di) 1988. Archeologia stratigrafica dell’Italia Settentrionale, 1. Como: Edizione New Press. Ucko, P. J.; Tringham, R and Dimbley, G. W. (eds) 1972. Man, settlement and urbanism. London: Dackworth. Vela Cossío, F. 1995. Para una prehistoria de la vivienda. Aproximación historiográfica y metodológica al estudio del espacio doméstico prehistórico. Complutum, 6: 257-76. Madrid. Ven, C. van de. 1981. El espacio en arquitectura. La evolución de una idea nueva en la teoría e historia de los movimientos modernos. Madrid: Cátedra. Wilk, R. and Rathje, W. 1982. Household Archaeology. American Behavioral Scientist, 25: 617-639. Beverly Hills. Tables Table 1. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Traditional Archaeology Table 2. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Funcionalist Archaeology Table 3. Resume of archaeotectonic analysis of built space in Post-Procesual Archaeology Quirós Castillo, J. A. 1993. Produzioni di laterizi nell’Alta Valdinievole: la Valleriana (XVII-XX sec.). In Atti del Convegno su Pluriattività e Mercati in Valdinievole (XVIXIX secolo): 139-47. Buggiano. Quirós Castillo, J. A. 1994. Contribución al estudio de la arqueología de la Arquitectura. Arqueología y territorio medieval, 1: 141-58. Jaén. Rapoport, A. 1972. Vivienda y cultura. Barcelona: Gustavo Gili. Rapoport, A. 1982. The meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. London: Sage. Rivera Blanco, J. 1999. 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. In Congreso Internacional de Restauración “Restaurar la Memoria” (Valladolid, 1998): 99-121. Xurxo M. Ayán Vila (phxurxo@usc.es) Rebeca Blanco Rotea (phrebeca@usc.es) Patricia Mañana Borrazás (phpatrim@usc.es) Laboratorio de Arqueoloxía Instituto de Estudios Galegos Padre Sarmiento Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC) – Xunta de Galicia (XuGA) Galicia, Spain. http://www-gtarpa.usc.es/ 15