Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Cultural Urban Heritage pp 97–111Cite as

Archaeological Heritage Enhancement in the City and in the Landscape

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

  • 1454 Accesses

Part of the book series: The Urban Book Series ((UBS))

Abstract

The chapter examines the possibilities of enhancement and planning of immovable archaeological heritage in situ from the perspective of urban and spatial planning. The aim of the research is to develop scientific starting points for the enhancement, preservation and sustainable use of archaeological heritage. The research is based on the deductive method whose results are confirmed by qualitative measurement obtained from field research conducted in Croatia and Italy. The survey included selected sites (case studies) in urban areas and in the landscape. The results of the research are defined spatial models of archaeological heritage planning: archaeological heritage in suburban recreational and leisure areas, archaeological heritage in protected natural areas, urban integration of archaeological heritage, archaeological heritage in tourism areas, archaeological heritage in the vicinity of important road infrastructure or traffic nodes, and the combined model. In addition to the basic planning models, the research includes specific archaeological heritage planning models (Council of Europe Cultural Routes, the European Heritage Label and World Heritage) and the cultural landscape model as a contemporary archaeological heritage planning model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cultural, social and economic criteria are not covered in this research—a multidisciplinary approach is required in further research of the topic.

  2. 2.

    The authors do not seek to evaluate the partial reconstructions done in the archaeological park, which are not a subject of this research.

  3. 3.

    The total population of the region since the 1960s is about 5 million (Regionalverband Ruhr n.d.).

  4. 4.

    The Roman route Römer-Lippe-Route was established in 2013 throughout the Ruhr region connecting numerous archaeological sites at a total length of 479 km (Lippeverband 2018).

  5. 5.

    In the Republic of Croatia, this model can be applied to the archaeological parks of Andautonia near the capital city of Zagreb and Salona near the city of Split.

  6. 6.

    According to the Croatian Nature Protection Act (NN 80/13, 15/18), protected natural areas include: national parks, nature parks, special reserves, strict reserves, regional parks, significant landscapes, nature monuments, monuments of park architecture and forest parks and internationally designated areas (MaB, Ramsar, WHS, Geopark). For national parks and nature parks in the Republic of Croatia, it is mandatory to develop a special spatial plan of the protected area (PPPPO), and for protected natural areas to establish a public management institution and develop a management plan (Republika Hrvatska 2013a, b).

  7. 7.

    The Žumberak Samoborsko gorje Nature Park has about 50,000 visitors annually (Parkovi dinarida n.d.).

  8. 8.

    Protected natural areas are usually characterised by lower population density and a relatively low number of users/visitors, and they can be located in remote areas (Baud-Bovy and Lawson 1998).

  9. 9.

    The obligation to protect, maintain and promote all values of the protected area (Želle 2006).

  10. 10.

    Research on the urban integration of archaeological heritage was the subject of unpublished doctoral research titled “The archaeological heritage integration method in urban planning” in which the town of Pula with 19 visible archaeological sites was analysed (Rukavina 2015).

  11. 11.

    The process of reconstruction and revitalisation of the historic core has not yet been fully completed.

  12. 12.

    473,406 admissions in 2016.

  13. 13.

    In some cases, the urban setting of archaeological sites can be inadequate and its enhancement is needed.

  14. 14.

    In Sardinia, there are almost 9000 nuraghi, located with a density of about 3 per km2 (Lilliu 2002, 428–429).

  15. 15.

    Tourism development of the area started in the 1960s.

  16. 16.

    Cooperative Archeotour.

  17. 17.

    The extra-urban road can become a solid starting point for a large-scale project, which from the Santa Cristina complex can enable the whole territory to be enhanced. Starting from the main road, an important system of connection could be created between the numerous archaeological sites in the territory. However, in Sardinia, the weakness of the infrastructure and public transport network represents a serious weakness for the development of cultural sites. The supra-local road close to the area of Santa Cristina also has a negative effect on heritage because it leads visitors to cross the territory from one point to another (to “skip the space”), without paying attention to numerous “minor sites” situated in the area.

  18. 18.

    Further information on the historical and cultural assets of the park is summarised in a report written by Giovanni Azzena (Azzena n.d.).

  19. 19.

    At the same time, the park (protected natural area) represents the most important suburban recreation and leisure area for the residents of Alghero, which also includes a few coastal tourism resorts.

  20. 20.

    At the Palmavera nuraghe, there is no space for parking, adequate access or visitor facilities (even no spaces for an expansion of the archaeological excavation). This kind of organisation is even worse in the Sant’Imbenia area, where the archaeological remains can only be visited “by appointment”. This is an even more serious weakness considering that the main archaeological sites are located near the “gate of the park”.

  21. 21.

    Most of the sites within the park are not accessible and are often invisible, located on private land and, therefore, deprived of a minimum interpretative infrastructure and possibilities of being perceived.

  22. 22.

    “… model for promoting the principles of the Council of Europe, stimulating trans-border cooperation, encouraging innovative approaches in the fields of cultural heritage, intercultural dialogue and sustainable local development” (COE 2017). The CRs model should not be confused with the ICOMOS concept of cultural routes.

  23. 23.

    Brijuni 181,560 visitors in 2016; Split (basement of Diocletian's Palace) 277,598 admissions in 2016; Narona 17,057 in the same year (Eurostat 2016; Republika Hrvatska 2017; Arheološki muzej Narona n.d.). Of the included sites, Zadar and Split are listed on the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) World Heritage List (WHL) and the Brijuni islands are a national park.

  24. 24.

    Until 2018, a total of 33 European cultural routes were established, five of which are based on archaeological heritage: Viking Routes; The Phoenicians' Route; The Prehistoric Rock Art Trail; The European Route of Megalithic Culture; and Roman Emperors and the Danube Wine Route (COE 2018).

  25. 25.

    There is still no methodology developed to measure the “network effect” (UNWTO 2015).

  26. 26.

    Due to the only recent development of the model (2011), there are no relevant data on its effect.

  27. 27.

    A more complete paper on the case is “The future (?) of effective protection” (Azzena et al. 2017).

  28. 28.

    “The Committee decided to inscribe this property on a basis of cultural criteria (i) (iii) and (iv), considering that the nuraghe of Sardinia, of which Su Nuraxi is the pre-eminent example, represent an exceptional response to political and social conditions, making an imaginative and innovative use of the material and techniques available to a prehistoric island community” (UNESCO 1997).

  29. 29.

    See article 5, paragraph A of the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (UNESCO 1972). The most recent World Heritage guidelines address urban and regional planning instruments in effective management; sustainable use; and sustainable development principles that should be integrated into the management system (UNESCO 2017).

  30. 30.

    Data for this section refer to the surveys of the Ministry of Cultural Heritage, Activities and Tourism on the number of visitors to Italian museums and archaeological sites (Repubblica Italiana 2015).

  31. 31.

    In the proximity of the site, there area privately owned hotel, amusement park and recently built heritage centre G. Lilliu, all disrupting the integrity of the site.

  32. 32.

    There are also some other protected cultural landscapes that are classified as cultural heritage areas or natural heritage areas (significant landscapes) which are not included in the survey.

  33. 33.

    Without a buffer zone (UNESCO 2014).

  34. 34.

    The obligation to develop a management plan is obligatory for cultural heritage sites on the World Heritage List.

  35. 35.

    Law n. 8 provided a decisive impulse towards protection and gave formal protection to each area belonging to a specific legal category including, for the first time, those of archaeological interest (Repubblica Italiana 1985).

  36. 36.

    Code of Cultural Heritage and Landscape, Art. 143–145 (Repubblica Italiana 2004).

  37. 37.

    In 1992, UNESCO introduced a new category of cultural heritage—cultural landscapes.

References

  • Alpan A (2005) Integration of urban archaeological resources to everyday life in the historic city centres Tarragona, Verona, Tarsus. Master of Science thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara

    Google Scholar 

  • Antona A (2005) Il complesso nuragico di Lu Brandali e i monumenti archeologici di Santa Teresa Gallura. Delfino editore, Sassari

    Google Scholar 

  • Azzena G (n.d.) Piano del Parco Naturale Regionale di Porto Conte: Relazione preliminare - Assetto storico-culturale. Available via Parco di Porto Conte. http://www.parcodiportoconte.com/public/docs/gli_aspetti_storici_e_culturali_del_territorio_del_parco_di_porto_conte.pdf. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Azzena A (2011) History for places. In: Maciocco G, Sanna G, Serreli S (eds) The urban potential of external territories. Franco Angeli, Milan, pp 194–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Azzena G, Busonera R, Perini C (2017) The future (?) of effective protection. Archeologia e calcolatori 28(2):549–560

    Google Scholar 

  • Arheološki muzej Narona n.n. Izvješće o radu za 2016. godinu

    Google Scholar 

  • Bafico S (1993) Il nuraghe S.Imbenia di Alghero. In: Sardegna: civiltà di un’isola mediterranea. Bologna, p 59

    Google Scholar 

  • Bafico S, D’Oriano R, Lo Schiavo F (1995) Il villaggio nuragico di Sant’Imbenia ad Alghero (SS). Nota preliminare. Actes du IIIe Congrès international des Études Phéniciennes et Puniques, Tunis 11–16 Nov 1991, pp 87–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Bafico S, Oggiano I, Ridgway D, Garbini G (1997) Fenici e indigeni a Sant’Imbenia (Alghero). In: Bernardini P, D’Oriano R, Spanu PG (eds), Phoinikes b Shrdn/I Fenici in Sardegna: nuove acquisizioni. Oristano, pp 45–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Baud-Bovy M, Lawson F (1998) Tourism and recreation handbook of planning and design. Architectural Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Bundesrepublik Deutschland (1975) Xanten. Detschen Nationalkomitee für das Europäische Denkmalschutzjahr 1975, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Busonera R (2014) Leggere il territorio dell’archeologia: l’area archeologica di Neapolis (OR) tra politiche di tutela e processi di valorizzazione e fruizione, Dissertation, University of Sassari

    Google Scholar 

  • Busonera R (2016) Landscape and archaeology in Sardinia. Between juridical inertia and land management. In: Lai L, Mastinu M, Saiu V, Schirru M (eds), Ricerca in vetrina. PhD in Sardinia: higher education, scientific research and social capital. Franco Angeli, Milano, pp 288–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Caravaggi (2002) Paesaggi di paesaggi. Meltemi, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • COE (2016) Council of Europe cultural routes. Council of Europe/European Institute of Cultural Routes, Strasbourg/Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • COE (2017) Declaration by the Committee of Ministers on the 30th anniversary of the cultural routes of the Council of Europe (1987–2017)

    Google Scholar 

  • COE (2018) Cultural routes. https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes/by-theme. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • D’Oriano R (2001) L’Emporion di Sant’Imbenia. In: Argyróphleps nesos. L’isola dalle vene d’argento, Esploratori, mercanti e coloni in Sardegna tra il XIV e il VI sec. a.C. Bondeno, pp 35–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumbović Bilušić B (2014) Prepoznavanje i razvrstavanje krajolika kao kulturnog naslijeđa. Godišnjak zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske 36:47–66

    Google Scholar 

  • EU (2011) Decision no 1194/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 November 2011 establishing a European Union action for the European Heritage Label

    Google Scholar 

  • Eurostat (2016) Culture statistics. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazzio F (2004) Archaeology and urban planning. Urbanistica 124:2–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Fazzio F (2005) Gli spazi dell’archeologia. Temi per il progetto urbanistico. Officina, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Gücer E (2004) Archaeology and urban planning—a consensus between conservation and development: Aphrodisias and Geyre. Master of Arts thesis, Izmir institute of Technology

    Google Scholar 

  • Hina (2015) Hrvatska na Ruti rimskih careva i dunavskoj vinskoj ruti. Available via Culturenet. http://www.culturenet.hr/default.aspx?id=65526. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Klemenčić M (2006) Temeljna geografska obilježja Žumberka. Žumberak & Latobici. Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, Zagreb, pp 11–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Land Nordhein-Westfalen (1976) Landesentwicklungsplan III. Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Lilliu G (2002) Uomo e ambiente in Sardegna nel suo percorso storico. In: Mattone A (ed) G. Lilliu, La costante resistenziale sarda. Ilisso, Nuoro, pp 424–438

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippeverband (2018) Unterwegs auf der Römer-Lippe-Route 2018. Available via Römer Lippe Route. http://www.roemerlipperoute.de/informieren/kostenfreie-downloads.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Maetzke G (1959–61) Scavi e scoperte nelle province di Sassari e Nuoro. Porto Conte. Resti di necropoli in località S. Imbenia. StSardi, XVII, pp 656–657

    Google Scholar 

  • Manconi (1999) Römische Villa von Sant’Imbenia. BetaGamma, Sassari

    Google Scholar 

  • Matijašić R, Ujčić Ž (2005) Pula antički grad. Arheološki muzej Istre/Buvina/Difo/Laurana, Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittelbach, HA (1972) Die Planung von Erholungs- und Freizeitanlagen für das Gebiet des Siedlungsverbandes Ruhrkohlenbezirk. In: Olschowy G (ed) Landespflege im Ruhrgebiet. Deutschen Rates für Landespflege, Bonn, pp 38–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravetti A (1992) Il complesso nuragico di Palmavera. Sassari

    Google Scholar 

  • Moravetti A (1996) Il territorio dal Neolitico all’età romana. Alghero e il suo volto, Sassari

    Google Scholar 

  • Parco di Porto Conte (n.d.) Il piano del Parco. http://www.parcodiportoconte.it/piano-del-parco.aspx?ver=it. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Parkovi dinarida (n.d.) Park prirode Žumberak – Samoborsko gorje. https://parksdinarides.org/me/park/park_prirode_zumberak_samoborsko_gorje/. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Park prirode Žumberak - Samoborsko gorje (n.d.) http://www.pp-zumberak-samoborsko-gorje.hr/aktivnosti/pjesacenje.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Regionalverband Ruhr (n.d.) Metropole Ruhr - das neue Ruhrgebiet Differenzierte Bevölkerungsstruktur. http://www.metropoleruhr.de/land-leute/daten-fakten/bevoelkerung.html. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Regione Autonoma della Sardegna (1999) Regional Law n. 4, February 26, 1999—establishment of the “Porto Conte” Regional Natural Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Repubblica Italiana (1985) Law n. 8, August 1985—provisions for the protection of areas with particular environmental interest

    Google Scholar 

  • Repubblica Italiana (2004) D.Lgs. 42/04—code of cultural heritage and landscape

    Google Scholar 

  • Repubblica Italiana (2015) Visitatori e introiti di Musei, Monumenti e Aree Archeologiche Statali. Available via: Ministero dei Beni e delle Attività Culturali e del Turismo - Ufficio Statistica. http://www.statistica.beniculturali.it/Visitatori_e_introiti_musei_15.htm. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Republika Hrvatska (2013a) Zakon o zaštiti prirode

    Google Scholar 

  • Republika Hrvatska (2013b) Zakon o prostornom uređenju

    Google Scholar 

  • Republika Hrvatska (2017) Turizam u brojkama 2016

    Google Scholar 

  • Republika Hrvatska Ministarstvo Kulture (2018) Registar kulturnih dobara. http://www.min-kulture.hr/default.aspx?id=6212. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

  • Republik Österreich (2013) “European cultural routes”: a practical guide. Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs/Federal Ministry of Economy, Family and Youth, Department for Tourism and Historic Objects, Vienna

    Google Scholar 

  • Rico, JMF (2010) Formas de inserción de los yacimientos arqueólogicos en áreas fuertemente antropizadas de la Costa del sol: Una aproximación metodológica previa al aprovecamiento territorial da la ruina. Dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid

    Google Scholar 

  • Rukavina M, Obad Šćitaroci M (2013) Arheološki parkovi kao pejsažni prostori grada - Andautonija u kontekstu Zagreba i okolice. In: Božičević J, Nikšić M, Mlinarić TJ, Missoni E (eds) Zelenilo grada Zagreba Zbornik radova s međunarodnoga znanstvenog skupa održanog 5. i 6. lipnja 2013. u Zagrebu. HAZU, Zagreb, pp 108–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Rukavina M, Obad Šćitaroci M, Petrić K (2013) Prostorno-urbanistički aspekti zaštite nepokretnog arheološkog naslijeđa - Međunarodni i nacionalni dokumenti o zaštiti. Prostor 21(46):312–325

    Google Scholar 

  • Rukavina M (2015) Metoda integracije arheološkog naslijeđa u urbanističkom planiranju (Archaeological heritage integration method in urban planning). Dissertation, University of Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

  • Rukavina M, Petrić K, Obad Šćitaroci M (2015) Studija zaštite i prezentacijskog potencijala arheološkog nalazišta Kuzelin i bliskih arheoloških nalazišta (Izabrani djelovi teksta i grafičkih priloga). Muzej Prigorja, Zagreb

    Google Scholar 

  • Saruhan Mosler, A (2005) Landscape architecture on archaeological sites—establishing landscape design principles for archaeological sites by means of examples from West Anatolia, Turkey. Dissertation, Technische Universität München

    Google Scholar 

  • Stadtverwaltung Xanten (2015) Luftkurort Xanten Erleben. Xanten

    Google Scholar 

  • Tosco C (2014) I beni culturali. Storia, tutela e valorizzazione. Il Mulino, Bologna

    Google Scholar 

  • Teatini A (1993–94) Il clomplesso edilizio di Porto Conte. Almanaco Gallurese

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1972) Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (1997) World Heritage Committee Twenty—first session, committee report no. 833. Naples

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2014) Periodic report—second cycle, section II Stari Grad Plain

    Google Scholar 

  • UNESCO (2017) Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Convention

    Google Scholar 

  • UNWTO (2015) Global report on cultural routes and itineraries

    Google Scholar 

  • Želle M (2006) Arheološki park u parku prirode. Hrvatska revija 6(3) Available via Matica hrvatska. http://www.matica.hr/hr/343/arheoloski-park-u-parku-prirode-20987/. Accessed 26 Feb 2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research is part of the scientific project “Heritage Urbanism—Urban and Spatial Planning Models for Revival and Enhancement of Cultural Heritage”. It is financed by the Croatian Science Foundation [HRZZ-2032] and is carried out at the University of Zagreb, Faculty of Architecture.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Marko Rukavina

  2. University of Sassary, Sassary, Italy

    Roberto Busonera

Authors
  1. Marko Rukavina
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roberto Busonera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marko Rukavina .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urban Planning, Spatial Planning, Landscape Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Mladen Obad Šćitaroci

  2. Department of Urban Planning, Spatial Planning, Landscape Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Bojana Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci

  3. Department of Urban Planning, Spatial Planning, Landscape Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

    Ana Mrđa

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Rukavina, M., Busonera, R. (2019). Archaeological Heritage Enhancement in the City and in the Landscape. In: Obad Šćitaroci, M., Bojanić Obad Šćitaroci, B., Mrđa, A. (eds) Cultural Urban Heritage. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10612-6_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation