 | The examples and perspective in this articledeal primarily with France and do not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(June 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
Buildings archeology orarchaeotecture[1] is a branch ofarchaeology that focuses on the study of above-ground structures, orelevations, of various types of buildings. These include religious structures (churches,abbeys), civil constructions (houses, apartment buildings, industrial, commercial, and agricultural structures, transportationinfrastructure, and hydraulic works), and military edifices (castles,fortifications). The term "archaeology of elevations" reflects its focus on these standing structures, which are typically built with durable materials like stone, though less commonly with perishable materials such as wood orwattle and daub.[2]
Archaeology is often associated with excavating subsurface remains, but the archaeology of construction has always included the study of above-ground structures. This discipline involves two primary approaches:
Similar to traditional archaeology, every modification or element in a building—floors, plaster, wallpaper, paint, walls, or doors—is treated as astratigraphic unit. However, in construction archaeology, the stratigraphy is vertical rather than horizontal.[5]
Archaeologists, when time permits (particularly inpreventive archaeology, which often imposes tight schedules), conduct a "stone-by-stone" survey of facades to detect construction breaks and phases. Increasingly, they rely onarchaeometry, includingcarbon-14 dating,thermoluminescence, rock identification, and mortar analysis.[6]
Key areas of study include:
The archaeology of construction traces its roots to the 15th century, withinclassical archaeology, whenantiquarians during theHumanist period, such asCyriac of Ancona,Flavio Biondo,Poggio Bracciolini, Antonio Loschi, andPomponio Leto, who founded theAccademia Romana in 1466, began studying ancient structures. The antiquarian movement peaked in the 18th century and waned in the late 19th century as archaeology became a distinctscientific discipline, independent ofphilology orhistory. This was driven by three pillars: the classification ofartifacts throughtypology,archaeological stratigraphy, and thehistory of technology.[8]
In France, theFrench Revolution sparkedpatriotism and a "sentimental interest" in monuments preserving national memory, exemplified by the establishment of theMusée des Monuments Français byAlexandre Lenoir in 1795. The term "National Antiquities," coined in 1790 byAubin-Louis Millin in his workAntiquités Nationales ou recueil des monuments qui peuvent servir à l'histoire de France, referred to medieval or modern artworks declared national heritage. Interest in classical archaeology grew alongside enthusiasm for monumental archaeology (focusing on major, often religious, monuments) from the second quarter of the 19th century. Influenced byRomanticism (Victor Hugo'sNotre-Dame de Paris,Eugène Viollet-le-Duc,Arcisse de Caumont), the focus shifted fromancient monuments (e.g.,amphitheatres,theatres) tomedieval ones (e.g.,Carcassonne,Fontevraud Abbey).[9][4]
In France, the discipline was formalized in the 1970s and 1980s, driven by researchers like Nicolas Reveyron, Rollins Guild, Jean-François Reynaud, Daniel Prigent, Catherine Arlaud, Christian Sapin, and Joëlle Burnouf.[4] It is often modestly termed "archéologie du bâti," though some prefer "archaeology of elevations." The variety of terms reflects challenges in defining this approach clearly, both semantically and in practice, as well as in legislative recognition.[10] It emerged frompreventive archaeology (also known as rescue archaeology) operations in urban centers, particularly during renovations of protected historic buildings, and distinguished itself from monumental archaeology through its methods, focusing on four approaches: the archaeology ofconstruction materials, techniques of material implementation, interior and exterior fittings, and three-dimensional spatial studies to understand architectural choices and modifications.[11]
Construction archaeology is extensively applied to themedieval period, where a greater number of standing structures survive compared to earlier eras. Both civil and religious buildings, whether well-preserved or in ruins, provide rich insights into their design and construction techniques.[12]
Textual sources, such as notarial deeds and accounting records, vary by region and period but can offer detailed information about construction and maintenance. Combining these written sources with archaeological evidence enables a detailed reconstruction of medieval buildings. For example, construction accounts can clarify missing parts of a structure (e.g., upper sections or lost walls) or details like the presence of glass windows or painted plaster. Material studies (stone, wood, earth) reveal the economics of construction sites, while archaeological remains address gaps in textual records, identifying tools, techniques, and the evolution of a building over time.[4]
As noted by René Dinkel, author ofL'Encyclopédie du patrimoine, conservators and architects are often challenged by the diversity of techniques and the heterogeneity of walls. Traditional decorative criteria alone can lead to oversimplifications, such as assuming older walls are beautifully crafted with neatly cut stones, while later ones are rougher. Modern research by art historians and archaeologists provides a more nuanced chronology of forms, guiding restoration efforts based on construction techniques.[13]
Analysis focuses on changes in masonry patterns, repairs, or seams, establishing a relative chronology that serves as the architectural history of a monument, even without written records. Preserving original facades is critical, avoiding excessive new stone, aggressive cleaning that erases tool marks, or inappropriate plastering. Comprehensive sanitary and archaeological analysis is essential not only for walls but also for foundations and surroundings, particularly for semi-troglodytic sites or those with altered bases, where geological and archaeological study is crucial.[note 1][14]
Detailed documentation, compiled by independent researchers, study centers, or organizations like theSociété française d'archéologie, theCentre d'étude des châteaux forts, or GRAHAL, includes chronologies, historical summaries, analytical reports, and iconographic collections. These serve as essential references for any intervention on a building or site.[15]
Restoration projects require detailed surveys conducted by archaeologists, architectural historians, or skilledrestorers. Statistical studies of masonry, such as those atFontevraud Abbey, Otterberg Abbey in the Palatinate, and the Montpellier region, exemplify recommended approaches.[16][17][18]
Accurate documentation is vital to support faithful archaeological analysis of walls, ensuring a reliable record for future study and intervention.[19]
On 26 February 1849, theCommission des Arts et Édifices Religieux, includingEugène Viollet-le-Duc andProsper Mérimée, issued guidelines emphasizing the need for thorough structural analysis before restoration.[20] Architects were urged to study the style and construction of monuments to understand their weaknesses and appropriate repair methods. For example, Romanesque buildings north of the Loire, built until the late 12th century with small stones and poorly bonded walls, required cautious repairs due to weak internal fill. In contrast, 13th- and 14th-century structures, with well-bonded, thin walls, should retain degraded surfaces rather than replace them with shallow stones. For 15th-century buildings, often made of soft stone in large blocks, maintaining original dimensions was critical to stability.[20]
The commission noted that monuments from the same period and region share similarities due to shared materials and practices, urging architects to study local churches alongside major cathedrals to inform restoration.[21]
The stones of Champichard: history of a hamlet. A study of construction archaeology was conducted on five buildings in the heart of the Mercantour National Park, revealing chronologies, particularly of construction timbers from the late 16th to the late 19th century, predating the avalanches of 24 and 27 January 1805.
Chapter II "Lumières sur les pierres", pp. 33–51; Notices "Analyse archéologique des murs", p. 385, and "Archéologie", pp. 392–393
