AHA Conversazione III_Poster

Second International Architecture Summer School in the Roman Forum, Rome, 18-27 June 2021 Often architecture and archaeology are perceived as opposed disciplines, especially in recent years. Every time there is a modern architecture project within an archaeological site, an intense debate arises ending up very often in impeding that project to be built. This opposition is one of the keywords for this symposium which will introduce the works of the second international summer school in the Roman forum. International students (some in presence and some online) guided by numerous tutors, will survey the Horrea Agrippiana and design a temporary socially distanced antiquarium therein for 10 days. The other keyword we proposed is connection. It seems like archaeology, which is indeed a modern discipline is a daughter of architecture as it explores and excavates buildings that some architect designed and built centuries ago. On the other hand architecture is a daughter of archaeology (or to better say of antiquarian studies) as most of the important architects have developed their skills by “seeing with their own eyes and measuring with their own hands the fragments of many ancient buildings”. Raphael, Peruzzi and Palladio, just to name a few within ancient history, but also Schinkel, Le Corbusier and Louis Kahn more recently, developed their projects in strong connection with archaeology. So, who was born first, architecture or archaeology? Should we really consider these disciplines as one against the other? These are some of the research questions that we will try to answer to during the symposium.

Papers from the Institute of Archaeology, 2010

Review of Archaeology conference, held at the British Museum organised by Current Archaeology

New Frontiers in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Annual Student Archaeology Conference 2019., 2020

Introduction to Session 5 of the Cambridge Annual Student Archaeology Conference (CASA) 2019. Part of the Proceedings publication. Kaercher, K., Arntz, M., Bomentre, N., Hermoso-Buxán, X.L., MacLead, R., Kay, K., Muñoz-Mojado, H., Ki, S., Timbrell, L., and Wisher, I. (eds) 2020. New Frontiers in Archaeology. Proceedings of the Cambridge Annual Student Archaeology Conference 2019. Oxford: Achaeopress Publishing.

Azkarate, A. (2020) Archaeology of Architecture – Buildings Archaeology, in Charles E. Orser, Jr., Andrés Zarankin, Pedro Funari, Susan Lawrence, James Symonds, The Routledge Handbook of Global Historical Archaeology, 2020

There are those who believe that the perception of the multidimensionality of architecture is a contemporary conceptual conquest, arising from the interpretative current that followed the questioning of the processual perspective. There is nothing further from the truth. When calling for the semantic diversity of environments built as physical spaces, social spaces and symbolic spaces, one <loes nothing but revive Vitruvio's thinking when he alluded more than two thousand years ago to the three principles that should govern the architecture of public buildings (Vitruvius, 1999: !, 3): firmítas, as an expression of a society's socioeconomic and technological capacities to source, extract, transform, transport and harness raw materials; utilitas, as a reflection of the social, political and religious organization needed to articulate spaces of diverse functionalities and meanings; and finally, venustas, as the embodiment of his thought, his ideology. It is precisely for this reason that it is necessary that these principies combine for their materialization, which is why architecture has rightly been regarded as the ultimate expression of what we understand as material culture (Azkarate, 2013). It is therefore understandable that architectural evidence has been an ÜTesistible focus of attention for many scientific disciplines and that there are extraordinarily rich and varied approximations to the field of built heritage. We are, in short, facing a material reality that contains multiple dimensions, which can be observed on numerous scales, both temporal and spatial - from the mobile homes of hunter gatherers to the cityscape and landscape in general (Steadman, 2015) - and a reality which is usually analysed from the most va1ied theoretical perspectives (Buchli, 2013; Steadman, 2015; Beaudry, 2015). This explains 'the my1iad directions still available in the field ofthe archaeology of architecture' (Steadman, 2015: 18) and the unstoppable growth of a bibliographic production that is extremely difficult both to follow and to synthesize.

A research framework for London archaeology 2002, 2003

A research framework for London archaeology follows The archaeology of Greater London (MoLAS 2000) and is intended to be used in conjunction with it to realise the potential of the London Archaeological Archive, to manage the archaeological resource more effectively, and to generate more focused research. Chronological periods are summarised with reference to current knowledge and research questions. Research priorities are addressed through five major themes: topography and landscape; development; economy; people and society; and continuity and change. Available for download from MOLA at http://www.mola.org.uk/research-framework-london-archaeology-2002

2006

Summary of archaeology activity at the British School at Rome 2013-14

Bulletin of the History of Archaeology, 2010

http://www.southampton.ac.uk/tag2016/sessionsabstracts/session20.page