Ways to Urban Landscape Archaeology

Hans Bjur & Barbro Santillo Frizellupon movement as a decisive factor inhistoric and contemporary social constructionprocesses. The first study brings us back to thevery origin of the road when Via Tiburtinaconstituted the artery in a spatial organizationof the landscape, which stretched from theApennine mountains to the plains of Rome.In her contribution “Changing pastures”,Barbro Santillo Frizell discusses the layout ofthe Via Tiburtina from a long-term economicperspective, exploring the pastoral use of thelandscape in an organized system of animalbreeding called transhumance. It requireda geographical setting of complementarycharacter including mountains and plains.Although we can only define this phenomenonfrom the historical period, archaeologyindicates that this organization startedalready in the Bronze Age, thus suggestingthat the origins of Via Tiburtina lies in thisremote time depth. This organization strivedto optimize the economic outcome of thelivestock in catching natural resources by themovement of herds of domesticated animalsover distant geographical areas in a seasonallybased rhythm. The transhumance created anurban net-work of nodes and places and interregionalspaces which crossed geographicaland tribal boundaries. From the earliest timesonwards, the basic needs and conditions ofthe transhumance, such as access to pasture,supply of water, fords where to cross theriver, production and markets, generated themovements on Via Tiburtina which in turndetermined the spatial lay-out of the road.These choices, mainly based on economicrequirements, have greatly influencedsocio-political development and ideologicalattitudes, reflected in visible structures likemarkets and sanctuaries, city gates and roads,which in the end came to serve also otherpurposes.The sulphurous lakes outside Tivoli,Aquae Albulae, were an important naturalresource along the Via Tiburtina. The authorshows how the lakes have determined thelayout of the road in accordance to theirrelevance in the economy of animal breedingand later in history as a spa. The place is animportant feature in the cultural history ofthe territory, deserving more attention fromantiquarian authorities. Unfortunately thelakes of Aquae Albulae are today a sadlyneglected heritage on the road, facing the riskof extinction.By a quick removal in space we arebrought back to the city life of ancientRome. In his study “Navigating the UrbanVia Tiburtina” Simon Malmberg discusseshow the ancient Romans navigated theirurban environment, with special referenceto the urban stretch of the Via Tiburtina.The author uses the analytical tools of path,district, landmark, edge and node promotedby the architect and urban planner KevinLynch. In applying the theories of Lynch onthe Via Tiburtina, he uses archaeological andliterary sources and a third-century marbleplan of Rome. To get a better understandingof what it must have been like to travel thecity, some colouring and life to the cityscapeis added, as this in itself probably was animportant ingredient in knowing your wayround the town: the flow of people, and thesights and sounds of the thoroughfares seemsto have been an important directional tool inthe city maze.Since the Romans generally lacked maps,the main means by which the inhabitantnavigated the urban environment wereprobably small landmarks, while the travellermay have used a strong directional qualitycombined with asking his way round. Tonavigate Rome must have been a chaoticexperience. However, most people probablydid not have to move long distances, butstayed in their own neighbourhood for mostof their lives. Long-distance travellers did not5

Hans Bjur & Barbro Santillo Frizellprobably see much of the city; they movedalong the main thoroughfares, stayed in innsnear the city gates, and perhaps visited a fewof the major wonders of Rome.In his study, “Movement between Romeand the sanctuary of S. Lorenzo”, OlofBrandt investigates how movement, suchas it is reflected in physical structures alongthe urban part of Via Tiburtina, has beeninfluenced by the presence of one of the mostrevered pilgrimage sites in Rome: the graveof St. Laurence, who was buried outside thecity walls 258 AD. The theoretical startingpoint is the presumption that movementcreates structures, and not vice versa. Walls,roads, gates and buildings are created arounda movement, in order to make it possible.Structures remain as imprints of a movementwhen it has ceased to be, constituting sourcesfor knowledge about it.Certain structures prove to be particularlyeloquent. The staircases built by emperorConstantine, for access to the revered graveand another in order to get back up, impliesthat movement to the grave was so extensivethat traffic needed to be directed oneway. At the same time a large basilica thatfunctioned as a covered burial ground waserected in the vicinity. Funerals and recurringcommemorative memorial rites for thedeceased thus generated movements causedby the grave of the saint, which cannot bedescribed as pilgrimages in a strict sense.Porticoes erected from the city gate tothe church of S. Lorenzo, at the latest in the6th century, reflect an extensive circulationof people, but these might have dependedequally much on commercial functions as onmovement motivated by religion. Mediaevalpilgrimage seems to have used other routes,which in contemporary texts were describedwithout references to built structures. Thesetexts indicate an individual pilgrimage, and inother words a rather limited movement. Theauthors’ conclusion is that the “pilgrimage”concept requires a more nuanced definitionbecause there were several different religiouslymotivated movements to the grave. They leftdifferent kinds of traces – or indeed none atall – all cannot be defined as “pilgrimages”.The starting point that movement is aprimary phenomenon, which is reflected inphysical structures, has proved highly fruitfulas a method for research about the past.Kristina Hellerström’s contribution,“Ways of experience” moves the reader twothousand years ahead, right into the turmoil oftodays’s Via Tiburtina. The study is aiming at atentative reading of the vivid urban landscapealong the road. One could say that she uses theperspective of individual spatial cognition. Theauthor, who is an architect and professionalplanner, suggests an extensive reading as afirst phase of strategy of renewal and re-designof contemporary urban peripheries. Theintention is to influence the way we look atand experience these built environments. Thefocus of the study lies with the parametersof movement, speed and velocity, that is,the perception of landscapes in motion. Bysupport of a number of theories and methodsof analysis developed for the ”reading” ofurban landscapes, visible properties along ViaTiburtina are investigated and presented in adocumentation of images and an organizationof impressions. Intangible aspects of the urbanstructure like nodes, borders and key spacesare identified in order to examine how theysupport reading and orientation. The authoralso puts forward some ideas on interventionand re-design, where she suggests an approachwhich takes existing built structures as pointsof departure for increasing the urban qualityand meaning of these districts.In the second chapter are grouped fivecontributions discussing urban space andrelated artefacts. “The Suburb as Centre”is the somewhat paradoxical denomination6

Hans Bjur & Barbro Santillo Frizellof a study carried out by Hans Bjur andSimon Malmberg. It concerns the urbanperiphery of Rome in the period 200 to 500AD. Their thesis is that the periphery in thisperiod obtained a new meaning and graduallybegan to surpass the centre in importance,and that this displacement of activity-nodesand movement created decisive prerequisitesof the polycentric structure which was todominate the urban development of Romeup to the nineteenth century. The mainfocus is on areas and situations contextuallyrelated to the course of Via Tiburtina throughRome within, and somewhat beyond theAurelian Wall. This periphery showed a neverbefore seen expansion, with a planned andmonumental suburbanisation. The reuse ofurban space reshaped the city, both the urbanlandscape and the everyday movements of theinhabitants. The fora in the city centre startedto be abandoned, in favour of a different,possibly mixed public and private use ofspace in the periphery, and at the same timeChristian churches began to play a role as newnodes in a transformed urban and urban/rural context.The authors interpret the meaning of thistransformation as a “monumentalisation ofthe periphery”, an interesting but problematicconcept which is being discussed. They pointout that monumentalisation always seems tohave been crucial to attain an inurbamento,which means to make an area city-like orcreating an urban atmosphere, to give ita certain level of urbanity. Monument,monumentality and monumentalisation arethus both essential and problematic conceptsin research on urban planning, history andarchaeology. In this study it is used as anexplorative tool in order to identify andanalyse both physical and mental changes ofmeaning in the relations between centre andperiphery. The authors thus claim that theclassical Roman city became more and moredisintegrated and developed into a lowerdensitysettlement. Interestingly, one couldnote similarities between these structuralchanges and those dominating majorEuropean cities during the 20 th century.The Via Tiburtina space has through thecourse of history developed into a complexmix-use pattern of settlements, industrialactivities and business. Håkan Hökerberg’scontribution “From Agro Romano to anindustrial zone” is an investigation of the rise ofthe industrial parts of the landscape along ViaTiburtina, mainly in the first half of the 20 thcentury. When Rome became capital of theunited Italy, the dominating reluctant attitudetowards big scale industrialization influencedthe character of the industrialization alongVia Tiburtina: workshops and small factoriesbecame the predominant structures. Theauthor indicates that the industrial activityin the area was modest up to World War 2,mostly dairies and garden centres relatedto the dominating agricultural activity,when the decision to locate Rome’s secondindustrial zone at Via Tiburtina, togetherwith expropriations and financial subsidies,stimulated industrial development in the1950s. The primary reasons for locatingthe second industrial zone in this area werefavourable topographic conditions, and accessto water from the nearby Aniene river, whichwas an essential resource for some of the mostimportant new industries. People, whose oldhomes in the centre were demolished by thefascist government, moved out to new builtsettlements and made an accessible workingclass. Communications along Via Tiburtinawere developed and new connecting roadswere built for the workers commuting.Morphologically, several types ofindustrial structures at Via Tiburtina aredistinguished, like small workshops at thebackyards of new high-rise buildings, andsmall-scale industrial activities, which are7

Hans Bjur & Barbro Santillo Frizellseparated from the residential areas, oftenhaving the character of barracks and sheds,but also the more recent mono-functionalindustrial landscape located closer to Rome’sring road. Several huge industrial complexesare abandoned today, waiting for newfunctions or demolition. As the industrialdevelopment at Via Tiburtina is a fairly recentphenomenon, these buildings have not got“historified”, being classified as industrialheritage (like in Ostiense). The result is anaccelerating decay.In the study “Visible and invisible alongthe Via Tiburtina”, Börje Magnusson sortsout the patchwork of built areas that nowcovers what was once a part of the Romancountryside, the Agro Romano. The authorhas reviewed the historical process, whichled up to its present state, and distinguishedthree main phases of development. Up tothe beginning of the 20th century, the areawas divided into large estates with a verysmall resident population. After 1900, lawsaddressed the backwardness of the AgroRomano, and measures to improve conditionsresulted in an agricultural reform. AfterWorld War II this second structure graduallygave way to urbanization.Traces of the old estates, a number of oldfarmhouses, some incorporating Medievaltowers and Roman walls can still be detected.The study shows that many invisible factorshave determined the development and whatwe see, for example estate borders, which haveinfluenced the form of later settlements. Theagricultural reform resulted in new units and,more importantly, a network of roads that hasdetermined the present settlement pattern.After World War II a number of housingprojects and industrial zones along ViaTiburtina were promoted by the commune,still urbanization was largely a “spontaneous”process and left to private initiative. Legaland illegal initiatives, combined with a lackof efficient public planning have resulted ina piecemeal development. These processeshave interestingly produced very characteristicresults, giving each area a specific identity.There are many telling visual markers, anda detailed investigation into the individualcircumstances will tell the full story.The built environment which canbe experienced along Via Tiburtina thusrepresent many layers and a quite complexcultural heritage to manage. In his study,“Where have all the ruins gone?”, AllanKlynne presents a brief overview of themutual process of archaeological discoveriesand urban expansion along Via Tiburtinafrom the 1870’s to the present day. Itthus serves as a case study for the ongoingdiscussions on cultural heritage managementand the unrestrained development of Italiancities, in order to understand how the presentsituation came about. His contribution startswith a brief outline of the economic impactof road transports and the settlement patternsin the area during the Roman period, whereproblems connected with the interpretationof the archaeological record also are relatedfor. Then follows a survey of the work doneby the archaeological commission of Romefor a period of more than one hundredyears, against the backdrop of shifting urbandevelopment plans, legal enactments anddiscussion on how archaeology ought to beconducted on Italian soil.The shifting ideas regarding interventionand conservation are discussed against thepolitical and economical changes that occurredduring the 20th century, thus showingwhat kind of challenges the archaeologicalexcavations, surveys and cartographic studieshad to face. In the final section, current trendsof cooperation between different partiesinvolved in the transformation of the urbanlandscape are discussed. The integration ofthe cultural assets into the contemporary8

Hans Bjur & Barbro Santillo Frizellstructures of the suburban landscape is todayrecognized as a potential tool for reachingsocial-economic goals of a wider scope. Yet,the good intentions are threatened to cometo an halt, since the cultural heritage laws,the archaeological boards and the politicaleconomicalforces continue to block eachother. There is hope for the future, however,since the key-players recognize a need forchange in order to move away from thepresent “lose-lose” situation. In the widercontext of suburban city planning, the pasthas the potential to play an important rolewhen creating a sustainable future.So far we have mainly been concernedwith how the artefacts of this urban landscapehave grown up, being mixed with ancientlayers, and thus becoming (or not) objectsof interest of cultural heritage management.The last paper in this chapter concerns thecharacteristics of what is in-between: space. Intheir study, “Discovering Space as CulturalHeritage – hidden properties of the urbanpalimpsest”, Mir Azimzadeh and Hans Bjurdeals with the underlying properties of theurban environment. Their thesis is that thepresent urban pattern, and the continuousevolution of urban space, movement andartefacts, is dependant on immanent spatialsystems, which to a large extent determinemovement and urban use. This approach tothe configuration of urban public space triggersoff a fundamental question: can, and should,urban space be considered a cultural heritage?If so, how can we reveal the hidden propertiesof the spatial systems? And how could they becommunicated in order to integrate space as acultural heritage into contemporary planningand social construction processes? In orderto contribute to the reading and deeperunderstanding of the Via Tiburtina space theauthors have put the Space Syntax theory intopractice. The aim has been to understand andexplain the interplay between the historicallygenerated urban layers and the transmissionof the cultural heritage, and explore thecontinuation of the past in present urban lifethrough the mediation of space, using theconcept of palimpsest as a mental tool. Spatialrelations and movement are two fundamentalproperties in the authors theoretical points ofdeparture. There is a direct relation betweenthe configuration of the urban grid andmovement in cities, and as movement hasbeen, and presumably will be the key featureof Via Tiburtina, they have found it adequateto introduce the concept of “movementeconomy”, which directs our interest to therelationship (interface) between movementsin the entire city in its parts, in this and studythe Via Tiburtina space.The last chapter Managing CulturalHeritage deals with questions on publicawareness raising, out-reach and heritagemanagement discussing the practicalimplications of our research. The first paperdiscusses cultural management issues whichneed to be integrated into planning activitiesat different scales and levels. In her study, “Alandscape in transformation”, Katri Lisitzinreflects on how the changing Via Tiburtinaspace can be interpreted, denoted andmanaged adequately, and some innovativemeasures for an integrated management ofthe historical and environmental structuresare discussed. A question is being risen: Canthe Via Tiburtina space be considered alandscape? And in that case, in which context?As it, in terms of research, planning anddecision-making, either evidently belongs tothe historic centre or the rural landscape, inmany ways this sort of terrain vague seems tobe non-existing. The author puts forward theall-encompassing notion of landscape and thespaces of movement as mediators in planningand development processes with potentialto bridge contrapositions between cities andtheir territories.9

ƒig 2. Ponte Mammolo, a messyunconnected urban space in between,marked by movement. In this complexmetropolitan node in spe on theVia Tiburtina, all layers in the urbanlandscape interact: the river basinof Aniene, the ancient bridge PonteMammolo, just behind the 19th centurybridge to the right, the undergroundbridge from the 80s, industries fromthe early 20th century, small remainingallotments, modern settlements…Photo: H.Bjur.Some problems concerning prevalentplanning models are discussed. The first oneis homogeneity as an implicit model to urbandesign and urban cultural management,which is obstructing adequate planningmeasures for milieus in the urban periphery;the author therefore suggests that it shouldbe substituted by a more inclusive model,based on heterogeneity. The second one istiming, a key factor in urban development.As stakeholders are manifold, and national,regional and municipal planning mechanismsare working with different speeds in the urbanlandscape, planning tends to be left behind therapid social and economical transformations.In this study, the potential of a planning tool(PRUSST) which aims at aiming at mediatingbetween plans and projects, has thereforebeen explored. The third one concerns whatmaybe could be regarded as an oppositetendency, how cultural and natural heritagemanagement may have a role supporting eco–cultural systems and simply slowing downthe mainstreamed development.In the article “Heritage on the road:a dead end or a way out”, three authors,Kristina Hellerström, Allan Klynne andHåkan Hökerberg have contributed to adiscussion seeking to pin point divergingand converging opinions on problems andpotentials connected to different culturalheritage practices. The narrative structure isin shape of a dialogue, where the perspectivesof an architect, an antiquarian in builtenvironment and an archaeologist are appliedto some locations at Via Tiburtina. Amongthe questions asked is: Could the preservationof areas and artefacts give ulterior value to amodern periphery often lacking anchorage?The authors have chosen three specific10

Hans Bjur & Barbro Santillo Frizellareas to discuss. The purpose is not to judgebetween “good” or “bad” decisions made bycolleagues, but to discuss if there are certainapproaches which can be described as moresuccessful than others, and if so, why? Themain focus is the present (and future) usesof the habitat, only occasionally taking othermeanings of the landscape, e.g. scenery,nature, environment.The authors conclude that in a worldwhere the pressure for change is a dominantfactor, development and excavations willcontinue to produce “left over” in form ofcultural heritage. As more such heritage isproduced, new uses have to be invented.A traditional strategy of closing in the pastin order to keep it stable tends to createconflict, however, leading to disintegrationand alienation. By separating ancient remainsfrom the dynamics of the present, theybecome empty of meaning, frequently alsoabandoned, thus creating a vicious circle. Theauthors suggest a more active integration ofthe past in the present configuration: placesneed to be defined as targets not only skindeep, but relevant to the citizens and potentialtools for suburban renewal. In this process,the orchestrating of sites and monitoring onlocal level seems a crucial component. Thebuilt environment needs to be infused withmeaning in order to provide an attractiveatmosphere for the living and achieving abetter understanding and reading of thepalimpsest city. A closer coordination andcooperation between archaeologists, architectsand urban planners therefore seems crucialfor the future.How this infusion with meaning couldbe done in a practical case is discussed inthe last study. In their joint contribution“Displaying Via Tecta”, Barbro SantilloFrizell and Jonathan Westin are raising issuesregarding out-reach and public awareness,proposing an exhibition at the sanctuary ofHercules Victor at Tivoli. Their study has adouble aim: the main purpose is to proposeways to interpret the activities in the sanctuaryby creating illustrations and reconstructions,inviting the visitors to an open discussionbased on a pedagogic approach to images. Bycontextualizing Via Tecta the authors wantto bring Tivoli into a larger spatial context ofmovement along the Via Tiburtina, and alsoin a global perspective of a cultural history.The cultural landscape of pastures, meadows,fords and springs is also a mental landscapeof stories, myths, ideologies and mentalitieswhich represents a common “European”history, unifying the northern and southerncountries’ earliest forms of civilised life.Finding approaches for a sustainabledevelopment of this type of landscape is amatter of high interest in European heritagemanagement of today.The authors also discuss issues of howto visualize and communicate the past andinviting the public to participate in theacademic discourse. In archaeology imagesare traditionally not deployed until the finalstages of research in order to show alreadyfully researched items, or, as in cases of moretheoretical studies, scarcely used at all. Theseimages illustrate texts, having the purpose ofbridging the distance between scholar andsociety, between the museums and its visitors.Traditionally, the image thus has a role asan intermediary rather than a means of twowaycommunication, and it is often givenfunction of a popular science synopsis ratherthan as a way of broadening the audienceof a scientific thesis. In this study though,the focus lies on the image as a catalyst forindividual interpretations, and the authorsare discussing how to move the image’s centreof gravity from presenter to communicator,depriving it of its usual role as final truthand instead making it a tool in the researchprocess.11