Editorial

Ædificare = to Build; but also, Virtually, to Reconstruct

Beginning in the new millennium,1 scholars have increasingly come to recognise the built environment as a dynamic process, in continuous evolution, and not simply as the final, static result of an architectural project. When studying ancient buildings, we no longer limit ourselves to a simple description of the monument, perhaps categorisable under a typology. Indeed, in elaborating a proposed reconstruction, we understand the essentiality of studying the entire process, from development of the original design to actual construction, with analysis of the on-site building activities and techniques, the materials used, the modifications and transformations during construction and as these continued over time, contextualising the results through the study of epigraphic, historical and archival sources. Only in this way can we finally propose an adequate reconstruction.

This shift in approach, when supported by adequate in-depth study and research work, applying well-defined and correct research methodologies, has led to considerable progress in the knowledge of ancient constructions, and has been proven fundamental in the operational development of consolidation and restoration projects; it has also allowed for unexpected drifts and less positive implications.

Both the broadening and refining of investigative themes have called for the participation of multiple disciplines, aiming at the productive and fruitful involvement of different scholars. In some cases, however, the approach has unnecessarily privileged specific fields, to the detriment of global and balanced interpretation. Above all, archaeologists and scholars of ancient architecture, typically hypercritical in evaluating results within their own investigative fields, have been too quick to accept 22the findings from archaeometric and chemical investigations, without considering the possibility of different or even contrasting interpretations of material data, such as those based on variability in data collection and analytical systems, or even in conceptual definitions.2

Taking advantage of the possibilities offered by modern techniques of petrographic and chemical investigations, the analysis of the composition and provenance of constituent materials, such as concrete, has often become determinant both in the assessment of the socio-economic relations involved in the construction of a building, and in giving an “exact” definition of the relevant historical period. Among other problematic aspects, these analyses are sometimes carried out on a very limited number of samples, without the necessary expertise to distinguish the different construction or restoration phases of buildings that have survived for hundreds of years.3

Since the 1990s, consolidation and restoration projects, and also virtual reconstructions, have placed considerable stress on researching building site activities, from the point of view of construction processes, the different building phases, and the identification of caesurasand restorations in masonry structures, all in the service of more in-depth reading of the ancient buildings.

Increasingly, however, and particularly following the work of J. De Laine on the Baths of Caracalla in Rome,4 interest has turned to quantifying the material components of the elevations and architectural 23decorations, in terms of the numbers of bricks, blocks, marble slabs or mosaic tesserae, in order to specify correlations with the days of work necessary for execution, the different trades and their qualifications, the relative numbers of workers, and the costs of materials.5 These approaches, however, have at times favoured the simple collection of quantitative data, nowadays readily enabled by computer systems, at the expense of the much more demanding synthesis of data and qualitative reports truly necessary for decision making on maintenance and reconstruction, and the identification of the construction site economy, of great interest but not necessarily decisive, with the study of the building.

Now we are able to access sophisticated indirect surveying and data collection technologies, reworked using specific software, for example the BIM digital information system,6 to generate dynamic interdisciplinary models containing vast amounts of information. Ostensibly we could use these technologies to propose and plan the most reliable reconstruction of a building, yet all this may well be counterproductive. Given the expertise and experience required for the proper operation of such complex software, the project often ends up divided between the reference scholars and the necessary technical team, with the latter engaged in the surveying, mapping, and data processing tasks. Once this division occurs, there may be a net loss in the effective exchange and integration of the individual results. The final outcome may be a superficial study, consisting largely of quantities of point clouds, 3D renderings and interactive paths, as if the use of cutting-edge technology had ipso facto guaranteed the correct selection and development of interpretative theses, when in fact these remain quite unfounded. Realistically, such difficulties can only be overcome when the figures of researchers and technical operators coincide, and therefore data collection and analysis are carried out by the same person, capable of managing all aspects of the cognitive processes as a whole.

Fig. 1 – Rome, Basilica of Maxentius, 4th century AD: 3D reconstruction
in transparency, for the evaluation of the articulation of internal structures.
© Carla Maria Amici.

Fig. 2 – Istanbul, Hagia Sophia, 6th century AD: 3D reconstructive section, partly in transparency, for the simultaneous evaluation of the internal articulation and the external and internal view. © Carla Maria Amici.

On the one hand, therefore, reconstruction can assume a strong focus on material data and data collection systems, at times overwhelming the true object of thematic study. On the other hand, attention is sometimes exclusively focused on monothematic readings of ancient buildings, which neglect the physical realities, instead favouring personal perspectives without support from in-depth preliminary knowledge or adequate technical analysis. Emblematic of this would be the so-called “archaeo-astronomy”, in which the study of the monument, both superficial and artificial, then results in an interpretation of real or presumed relationships of the articulation of particular sectors with respect to the positioning of celestial bodies. Such reconstructions proceed with great ease: eluding, circumventing or even ignoring discrepancies, not easily resolved even by resort to centuries of calendar reforms.7

The desire to reach new research insights, to offer new interpretive perspectives, to innovate, in themselves absolutely legitimate, increasingly lead to arbitrary and sometimes even comical personal interpretations, not supported by proper research methodology and in-depth study.8

The production of critically acceptable and realistic results in the study of ancient buildings, with consequent reconstructive proposals, can only proceed via rigorous cognitive processes, from a basis of direct observation of the remains and the specific orographic and topographic contexts. These processes require well-developed skills in the examination of the various structural components and construction procedures, integrated with thorough knowledge of the spatial and architectural conceptions of the various historical periods. Only subsequently, and only in cases where the remains are objectively sufficient, is a virtual reconstruction of the building acceptable. Such reconstructions must consider the building in all its phases9 and aspects, and where possible the functional possibilities and conceivable uses, up to the complementary architectural furnishings.

In the current state of affairs, we are confronted with reconstructions that lack attention to basic architectural fundamentals. We must never forget that just as in construction, reconstruction demands that the building conceived must possess structural integrity, that it would indeed have been able to stand, and that this should be subject to verification.10 In practical terms this means that we must place great emphasis on the understanding of roofing systems, since these play a dominant role, constraining foundations and elevations. Altogether, the study of these different systems then provides the data for defining the interior spaces, and only once these basic elements have been convincingly hypothesised 27or definitively ascertained is it legitimate to extend the speculative field to any other aspects that may have characterised a specific building. Without adherence to these conceptual and methodological approaches, there will be no limits to individual scholars advancing subjective proposals for reconstruction,11 but it is highly doubtful that there will be objective advancement in the knowledge of ancient monuments.

Carla Maria Amici

September 2022