R E N O V A T I O A R C H I T E C T U R A E

THE RUIN AS AN ARCHITECTURE GENERATOR

DISSERTATION PAPER 2009 REF. NO. 1208

Renovatio architecturae, in other words, “Architectural RE-birth” comes from the Latin word “renovatio”
that means to be born again and renewal, renovation,restoration and “architecturae” – architecture. Thus,
the phrase could be interpreted as something that triggers a relationship of the restoration=re-birth type.
The goal is to establish the re-birth of lost architecture – in ruin – into a new architectural shape, yet reborn
and renewed through the eyes of today’s thinking...
The case study and hand-on checking of the way in which such re-birth can take place discusses the Ko-
rnis Castle, a 16th century renaissance residence. As to the case study, the title of my thesis, “Renovation
architecturae” alludes to the re-birth of a renaissance ruin.

COVER 1: the author; superposition of an archive image of the Kornis castle 1945, with a present day
photograph
COVER 4: the author; the roof of the tower gate
CONTENTS:

Rationale.....................................................................................................................................................III

Chapter 1: The heritage and its elements: the MONUMENT and the RUIN................................................1
1.1. The heritage...............................................................................................................................1
1.2. The monument...........................................................................................................................2
1.3. The ruin......................................................................................................................................4
1.4. The significance of the ruin of the historic monument..............................................................10
1.5. The delisting of the ruin of the historic monument....................................................................12

Chapter 2: Interventions on the ruins... .......................................................................................................13

2.1. Types of possible approaches..................................................................................................13
2.2. General principles.....................................................................................................................15
2.3. Types of intervention................................................................................................................16
2.4. The principles of modern restoration........................................................................................18

Chapter 3: The ruin and the historical monument as ARCHITECTURAL GENERATORS..........................19

3.1. New architecture as a result of the intervention on the old or on the ruin................................19
3.2. Restoration and the architects..................................................................................................21

Chapter 4: „A castle with unicorns”: The ruin of Kornis ensemble...............................................................24

4.1. Existing condition .....................................................................................................................24
4.2. General context - the background-...........................................................................................25
4.3. The history of the ensemble.....................................................................................................26
4.4. Petit historires .........................................................................................................................27
4.5. The importance and necessity of restoration...........................................................................29

Chapter 5: Instead of conclusions: About a possible future.........................................................................31

GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................................34

Ilustration source........................................................................................................................................39

Annex 1: Mentions on the evolution of the notion of historic monument.....................................................41

Annex 2: Types of values attached to a monument
Annex 3: Protection areas
Annex 4: Intervention principles according to the prevailing value
Annex 5: Restoration from a legal perspective
Annex 6: Brief history of the origins of the restoration principles

I
Annex 7: Case studies
Annex 8: Restoration and the architects: Concepts
Annex 8.1. Ghost Lab
Annex 8.2. Sverre Fehn
Annex 8.3. Alvaro Siza
Annex 8.4. Peter Zumtho
Annex 8.5. Herzog and DeMeuron
Annex 8.6. Rem Koolhaas
Annex 8.7. Renzo Piano
Annex 9: Historic background of the Kornis family
Annex 10: Transylvanian aristocratic residences

II
Figure 1: Martinuzzi Castle, Vintu de Jos, Alba Figure 2: Bocskay Castle, Aghiresu, Cluj

Figure 3: Haller Castle, Coplean, Cluj Figure 4: Kornis Castle, Manastirea, Cluj

Figure 5: Lonyai-Wesseleny Castle, Mediesu Aurit Figure 6: Karoly Castle, Ardud, Satu Mare

Figure 7: Boylai Castle, Buia, Sibiu Figure 8: Residence, Uroi, Hunedoara

RATIONALE:
„Nur wer die Vergangenheit kennt, hat eine Zukunft”1 – Only those who know the past have a future.
Wilhelm von Humbold

Ruins exert a certain fascination similar to that for the things we don’t understand. „Reading the
ruins” means more than understanding a space; it requires the investigation of all the proofs still lingering
in the old remains. The fascination for ruins comes not only from the attraction bestowed by the fragment
afflicted by the passage of time. For some of us this fascination derives from the intellectual pleasure of
deciphering incomplete stories and facts.
In what the scientific approach is concerned, the architect student, barely familiarized with the theory
of restoration, finds it difficult to even understand the notion of “monument”.
The associated values, the treatment approaches are difficult to grasp, in part because of their in-
terpretative nature. As a concept, the “Monument” has been theorized throughout history. The Romanian
and European legislation have set out general guidelines, operational guides, procedures and policies that
establish and outline both the status and the possible means of intervention for different types of monuments.
Thus pinpointing “the Ruin” becomes an even more difficult task, since there is the temptation to consider IT a
particular case of “monument”. Although the ruined monument is the most common case, history proves that
there are ruins that become monuments. The apparent confusion begins with the relation between “Monument”
and “Ruin”.
The present study explores “the ruin” as a notion and concept in architecture, mainly from the
“Monument’s” point of view, attempting to complete the knowledge gathered in the higher education courses.
Apart from clearing up a set of notions, the paper tackles issues like how can a ruin become the center of the
architecture it generates, or when is it justifiable to interfere with the original remains of a ruin in any other way
aside from conservation and consolidation.
The city, as well as the building, is a living organism that evolves and changes together with its occupants.
Should the ruin – seen as the last stage in a building’s existence- generate new architecture, will the fusion
between new and old be considered a new “organism” in which the ruin acts as a genetic code?
Looking for answers, and with the desire to know first hand the seduction of the monuments and their
ruins, a number of architect students, later forming the group “moNUmenteUITATE” [forgotten monuments],
journeyed in western Romania. Their objective: aristocratic residences.
We came to realize that, in what the Transylvanian history of architecture is concerned, the existing
data haven’t adequately been studied. Romanian studies and professional literature haven’t placed noble
residences in their Romanian and European context.
While insufficiently studied, noble residences were often victims of abandonment and destruction
because of ownership ambiguity, lack of funding, poor management, malice or sheer ignorance. Unique or
not, part of the world heritage of not, these monuments, patrimonial values represent non-renewable cultural
resources that are going extinct: the Martinuzzi castle from Vintu de Jos [fig 1.], the Bethlen castle from Sanmi-
claus, the Bocskay castle from Aghiresu [fig 2.], the Haller castle from Coplean [fig 3.], the Kornis castle from
Mănăstirea [fig 4.], the Wesseleny castle from Hodod [fig 5.], the Lonyai- Wesseleny castle from

1
Cramer, Johannes; Breitling Stefan, Architecture în existing fabric, ed. Birkhauser, Berlin 2007, pg. 45.

III
Mediesu Aurit, the Karoly castle from Ardud, the Bethlen castle from Racoşu de Jos, the Haller castle from Gâr-
bou, the Bolyai castle from Buia, the Candresti residence from Rau de Mori, the Uroi residence, are just a few
examples of monuments that can no longer be used –not with their initial function-. The restoration practices in
use consider that their original form can no longer be recovered. At first glance, keeping these residences as
ruins seems to be the most morally correct and sincere option considering the original monuments.
Although the list of historic monuments published in 2004 seems to cover every building, there are
some nobility residences that have not been entered this data base or the field literature. Unlisted, unprotected
by law, unaccounted for, and never studied, residences like the one in Uroi – Hunedoara County– wait to be
uncovered.
Aside from the desire to understand the concept of “the Ruin”, to understand the possible means of
intervention, or ways in which the ruin can generate new usable architecture, there is a need to react to the
progressive decay and disappearance of our cultural heritage.
Many nobility’s residences fron Transylvania disappear before being studied by professionals, thus bringing
them to the public’s attention is not possible. Idealism, optimism and passion will compel the connoisseur to
seek solutions toward the salvation and recovery of these values, or at least to document the scarce remains
that survived.

IV
CHAPTER 1: The Heritage and its elements: MONUMENT and RUIN

1.1. The Heritage:

The layperson thinks that the disappearance of a monument or ruin is all the more blameable if that
happens to be a historic, listed one. To understand the reality beyond some terms means to start invariably
with the understanding of the terms themselves. The serious case caused by the disappearance of a ruin
should not be, in fact, so tightly interwoven with the notion of “monument” or “heritage”, but rather with its value
in relation with the context. It is equally true that the fact of belonging to “heritage” is a proof to its value, yet
that is not reciprocal. The other way round, any object belonging to the “heritage” is theoretically valuable, yet
not every valuable object is included in the “heritage”.
There is a nuance in the “heritage” – a widely comprehensive term gathering meanings like: the
economic, the social, the social, and judicial. In this case, we are going to discuss about the historic heritage
as a fund reuniting cultural values including the monument or its fragment, even if one cannot clearly disjoin its
various meanings. Even if the minor economic and social components are to be dealt with whenever we will
refer to culture, being the most generous heritage category.
Francoise Choay defines the heritage „as something naming a fund meant to entertain a community
as large as the planet itself, made by the steady additions of various objects that all belong to the past being
works or masterpieces or applied art, works or artefacts belonging to every science or human skill.” 2 The
Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language has a more pragmatic definition: „The totality of assets
belonging to the community and that are administrated by state; public asset. Spiritual assets belonging to the
people (running down from ancestors); cultural heritage; by extension, spiritual assets belonging to mankind.” 3
Thus, the planetary dimension that Choay assigned to it could reach the size of a community or even a
people. Its size or rather its area of influence will have an impact on the intervention manner and preservation
strategies applied to the heritage element. As for the economic component: the more significant the historic
heritage and implicitly monuments are for a larger group of people, the more available and potential funds will
be found, while the maintenance interventions and policies will be more comprehensive and thus the heritage
will be preserved better.
However, there is one dimension of the cultural heritage connected to highly spiritual objects that have
neither memorial, economic or historic values.
Immortality is one of the ancient wishes of mankind, and the need to protect some profoundly religious
objects from the consequences of their earthly disappearance points to a different kind of heritage border-
ing the sacred. This idea has been expressed by Andre Chastel as follows: „In every society, beginning with
pre-history the feeling of sacredness invites and deals with certain objects, places, assets that escape the rule
of actual utility. The history of human evolution is connected to attitudes towards the dead, and also to those
attitudes and rules governing some privileged objects that deserve to evade natural calamities (…) Venice laid
the foundation of heritage issues.”4

2
Choay, Franciose; Alegoria Patrimoniului; ed. Simetria, Bucharest 1998, pg.1.
3
Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, 2004, source dexonline.ro.
4
Jean Pierre Babelon, Andre Chastel; La notion de patrimoine; Liana Levi, Paris 1994, p.11-12, 17.

1
 Ideally, the monument should contain the memorial function, as well as special and significant cultural
and historic values for the society that lists it, and should be globally relevant. However, none of these “ideal”
features may be present, and yet the object could be so valuable that its preservation is essential.
It is important to understand that it is not its belonging to the heritage that makes it valuable thus
leading toward an intervention and its rescuing, but it is the value of the monument that leads us to see it as a
cultural resource included into a type of heritage (global, national) and to consider the necessity of the inter-
vention.

1.2. The Monument:

There is another widely spread idea that if the architectural object is a monument, then it should be
kept as such; consequently, the thought of losing or altering it is not accepted. Certainly, that is a quite tender
subject, and thus one can very easily reach the “frozen city”, if one does not consider it from every possible
perspective.
As a lively body, the city is subject to the constant change of the architectural elements that define it,
and yet it preserves its landmarks. Architecture, no matter its kind, cannot and must not be “frozen” – in the
sense of the “hands-off” attitude – because otherwise that would be the surest way to alienate its essence,
including the monument.
According to the Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, a “monument” is „A work of
sculpture or architecture meant to perpetuate the memory of one remarkable event or personality; exten-
sively, sizable or extremely valuable architectural building” its etymology being the Latin word “monumentum”
– something addressing memory – derived from the verb “monere” (to let know, to remind someone of).
However, the first thing we should notice is that it is particularly used in relation to architecture and its memorial
role, its connection to something (usually belonging to the past) is what confers its character of being a monu-
ment.
Obviously, there are monuments created to remind us of something – funeral architecture, for instance
– and there are monuments that come to remind us of “something” although the memorial value had not been
included in the design initially. These two types of monuments classified as “intentional” and “non-intentional”
by Riegl in his “The modern cult of monuments: its character and origin” reflect their status as to the initial goal.
It is obvious that people feel that the intentional monuments should be kept unaltered, since that is
their role; however, in the case of non-intentional monuments, the problems of conservation are more intricate.
The “non-intentional” monument becomes historic through time. In this case it is significant for the
history, culture, and civilization it refers to. Consequently, the historic monument acquires memorial values
through time, while the “intentional” one, historic ones. Thus, it possesses both historic and memorial values
through its very evolution.
The attribute “historic” refers to „all that was and is no longer present, being unable to re-produce itself,
whatever is a non-transferable and irreplaceable link within a chain of becoming.”5 Consequently, “historic”
becomes implicitly “unique”, hence its attributes are unrepeatable.
One can see the three characteristics of the monument that lead and partly justify the public awe
before monuments: their memorial and historic values and their uniqueness.

5
Riegl, Alois;The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and its Origin] Published with the support of the Tempus-Phare pro-
gramme, Bucharest 1998. pg. 2. 2
Our times are defined by something hard to capture sometimes – pragmaticism. Beyond the theories,
definitions or perceptions6 about “the historic monument”, if the final goal of referring to the concept is a
potential intervention strategy, there is the need to objectify the approach from contemporary perspective. In
this aspect, the definition from the acting legislation sets the pragmatic perspective on concepts.
In Romania, the Act no. 422/July 18, 2001, clarifies the notion of “monument” defining it as „real estate
belongings, buildings and terrains on the Romanian territory or across its borders, properties of the Romanian
state, significant for national and world history, culture, and civilization.”7 However, it is interesting to notice
that the Romanian legislation does not reduce the scope of historic monuments to those on the state territory
or belonging to its heritage but it deals also with real estate, which widens the meaning of the term to all assets
standing on earth that cannot be moved without losing their value (the economic one particularly) and to the
real estate assets directly and immediately associated with them (tacked to a real estate together with which it
makes a whole).
Real estate property can refer to buildings, terrains, “crops that are rooted and fruit that have not been picked
up yet” 8, to the components of a building, to the bricks in a wall, it canbe found on the ground, under the
ground or underwater.
According to this perspective, as long as the object holds a significant historic value, whether part of
a building, one of its interior or exterior elements, a works of art, both from the public forum or funerary, in all
situations it could be equally defined as a historic monument.
Legally, the historic monument is seen in the same light, no matter if it is an ensemble, an object or
part of an object.
The historic ensemble is „culturally, architecturally, from the urban or museographic viewpoints, be
it rural or urban building, a coherent group that together with the adjoining terrain makes a topographically
defined unit that bears significant cultural-historic evidence from the architectural, urban, archaeological, his-
toric, ethnographic, religious, social, scientific or technical perspective”9. Thus, the ensemble is defined by its
components that, although might have different value, do contribute to its unity and the definition of the whole.
The analysis is distorted if one analyzes the components separately and does not relate them to the group.
From the viewpoint of the general context (climatic, topographical, historic), the ensemble behaves
with the object, being uniquely determined by a sum of specific factors. Two ensembles can enjoy a similar
context, yet never identical. From this viewpoint, both the approach and analysis of groups could be performed,
if we take into account only tendencies and similarities, since a clear relationship of determination could not
be established. The architectural context of the ensemble is different from that of the object because it has two
kinds of horizons: the immediate horizon in which the ensemble itself plays the role of background and context
for its components, and the larger context of the ensemble in relation with its vicinities.
Unlike the object, the ensemble can afford to be completely introverted and noncompliant to its vicini-
ties – specific to fortified compounds – demanding, in general, a relatively large space around, which favours
global perception.
The object as historic monument is defined by its material and layout unity and by relation to its
context. As long as it is “historic”, the monument is tied to its time context, to historic reality and contemporary
reality.

6
Annex 1: Mentions on the evolution of the notion of historic monument
7
Act no. 422 of July 18, 2001, published in Romania’s National Gazette, part I, no. 407, of July 24, 2001.
8
Civil Code, Book II, title I, chapter I, art. 465
9
Act no. 422 of July 18, 2001, published in Romania’s National Gazette, part I, no. 407 of July 24, 2001,title i, art. 3b

3
Figure 9:
THE MAJOR RUIN
Colosseum, Rome
interior image
2005
 It works as a link, as evidence of time and society’s development. Its dialog with the vicinities is done
within a certain area of influence, protected and subject to norms and rules in the service of the monument
more often than not. You cannot create replicas of the monument or of its fragments in any other place; neither
can they be translated or measured beyond their defining parameters. The geographic, topographic, and
climatic contexts, the orientation and position of historic objects leave their mark on the adopted forms and
reflect their compliance with the environment in a given period of creation. The built context can leave its mark
on the manner in which the monument forms the urban space and dictates, theoretically at least, the way in
which the city will change around it.

1.3. The Ruin:

The monument, in general, and the historic one in particular, bears the signs of the passage of time
and those of specific deteriorations. We could say that the moment the building is over and the last worker
leaves the building, time starts working and the object begins to deteriorate. However, Sagrada Familia is an
exception. In this specific case, the deterioration process works in parallel to the one of building. Building and
restoration sites function for the same object at the same time.
Any architectural object bears traces of its material deterioration, varying from simple evidence of its
use, and consequently to its being worn-out, to destructions of its face of the wal, to structural deteriorations
that endanger the stability of the building.
Conceptually, the ruin is a specific category of the historic monument and is represented by the
fragment that can illustrate and remind us only partially that which the whole monument could have.
„A ruined site or monument could be defined as a building that has lost its shape and initial substance to such
extent that its potential functional, structural unity is equally lost.” 10
In other words, the major feature of the ruin lies in its incapacity of functioning, particularly in relation to the
initial function of the ensemble it belongs to. Any attempt of classifying and listing its features, should start from
its origin, from the ensemble from which the analyzed fragment originates.
An additional characteristic is the irretrievable loss of its initial substance. The ruin is a fragment that
can inform on the original object, yet it cannot possibly make it up again.
As a concept, “the ruin” does not refer to the “historic monument”, since there is no determination relationship
between the two. It is very likely that the historic monument should be equally a ruin, or the ruin should be a
historic monument, yet that is not necessary. Thus, we can mention several types of ruins.
1. Major ruin [fig.9], or the ruin of major architecture, of those symbolic and essential buildings that
preserve the main features and values associated with the initial object. In this case, the ruin is so valuable that
it is considered a historic monument of international importance.
This is the case of ancient ruins, of vestiges; the ruin is a unitary, essential, symbolic, representative
element for a given historic age, for the civilization it encapsulates and thus it can be considered as a “major
ruin”.

10
Derer, Hanna , Un alt fel de istorie, Valente ale patrimoniului construit, [A Different Kind of History; Hypostases of the Built Heri-
tage], Universitara “Ion Mincu”, Publishing House, Bucure ti 2007, p. 15, apud Feilden, Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew,
Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites - ICCROM, Roma, Italia, 1993, p. 65 4
Figure 10:
THE RUINED
MONUMENT
“The little Trianon”
Floresti, Prahova
County
2005

Figure 11:
THE HUMBLE RUIN
29 Anton Pann
street
Bucharest, 2006
The cultural values they possess address and relate to the world’s heritage, to the contemporary cultural group
to its fullest. It is but natural that this kind of ruin, given its significance, gets the highest protection status and
that the legislative measures regarding any sort of intervention are the most restrictive ones.
A monument’s fragment loses most of its historic value by losing its initial substance, yet it gains „the
value of being old” by the traces left by various events that brought it to the current state. Because it holds
“traces from the past, remains of some old things that are long gone (and has also a documentary, cultural
significance” 11 this kind of ruin becomes a “vestige” that, according to Venice Charter of 1964, has educational
values.
2. The ruin = historic monument [fig.10] is a larger category belonging to major architecture. The
cases in which the ruin is thought to be a historic monument are more numerous than those in which it is listed
as major ruin. If we are dealing with a nationally and culturally significant ensemble, made up of elements of
different values, the ruin can no longer be deemed major as a whole. The ensemble can hold a high cultural
significance, yet some of its parts, such as the outbuildings, taken separately, may not have any cultural value.
Then, it is necessary to keep them for the sake of the unity of the ensemble. In other words, the quality of being
a historic monument can be transferred from a major to a minor element of the ensemble due to the “dialog”
between the two and to the resulting unity. Thus, the ruin of the minor object “borrows” from the qualities of the
major element, yet it cannot be listed as “major ruin”. In this particular case, as much as in those cases when a
significant historic monument for the local heritage is at stake, the ruin is a historic monument, yet it is not a
major ruin.
In its substance and value, the ruin as historic monument can be considered from three different
directions: firstly, the ruins that were listed as historic monuments initially, those we have inherited as ruins and,
in general, are vestiges, that is, major ruins; secondly, functional monuments that at a given time became
derelict and could no longer be used, and thus the ruin becomes a fragment of a historic monument; thirdly,
the ruin that is listed as a historic monument due to the very process of becoming a ruin, that is, historic
monument = ruin.
The case of historic monument = ruin is a particular situation of the created ruin, to be analyzed,
and, as a witness to some significant events, becomes a monument after its deterioration. Its being a witness
– memorial function – justifies its new status. “Kaiser Wilhelm” memorial church in Berlin is an example in
which the ruin of a historic monument becomes more valuable due to its being a witness to the events that led
to its deterioration.
In general, historical events are either too painful to be remembered – and in this case the choice is to
reconstruct the ruins or to reconstruct from ruins, or to wipe off the traces – either thought of as significant les-
sons of the past, as events that shape and give a new turn to the present – a case in which the are preserved
as such.
3. The “humble” ruin12 [fig.11], defines that fragment that, although somewhat valuable, is thought to
be outdated and thus superfluous. In this context, “humble” refers to value or reduced significance. In the case
of such ruins, the economic, and often the political interests of investors have a saying against those cultural
values that may no longer be visible. The identity value is the only that firmly relates to this kind of ruin, which
makes it vulnerable to the subjectivity of its “beneficiaries”.

11
Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian Language, 2004, source dexonline.ro
12
Derer, Hanna , Un alt fel de istorie, Valente ale patrimoniului construit, [A Different Kind of History; Hypostases of the Built Heri-
tage], Universitara “Ion Mincu”, Publishing House, Bucure ti 2007

5
Figura 12:
THE ANONYMOUS
RUIN
Around Icoanei
street
Bucharest, 2006

Figure 13:
THE RUIN THAT
BECAME
Cârţa church
Cârţa, Hermannstadt
county
2004
 The humble ruin originates in modest, minor architecture that was hardly valuable even during the
period when it was used. There are several edifices that, although nobody thinks they are historic monuments,
do have artistic values – either in the façade decorations or in their volumetric shape or in the relationship with
what is there – and some historic or time-honoured values. Such edifices of humble value will generate modest
ruins.
The two choices for this type of ruin are either their retrieval or their demolition, since their usage as an
exponent of some educational value is not relevant.
Vincent Guallart defines demolition as “an action carried out when architecture is worh less than the
space it occupies”. He adds that if architecture is no longer functional, it is more costly to persist in error than
to have the building demolished. Finally, he thinks that there are buildings as destructive as the bombs that
destroy everything around; thus, demolition is sometimes as harmful as buliding.13 Obviously, the ultimate
justification for demolition is the harmfulness of the demolished element; in this case, the humble ruin decays
suddenly from the status of historic monument to that of noxious architecture due to a subjective judgement.
So, the chance for the ruin to survive depends on the professional’s skill to demonstrate its identity
value in relation with society and its context.

4. The “anonymous” ruin14 [fig.12] defines that kind of ruin with no cultural value whatsoever.
“Anonymous” does define that kind of fragment that says nothing about its author or origin; instead,
it refers to that type of vague object, of no importance, that, once its origin has been established, provides no
information about the past and contains no cultural values.
Anonymous architecture decays to the status of construction and its ruin becomes a constructive
fragment, a leftover that acts like a parasite for its environment. By removing it we do no harm, but quite the
opposite.

Besides the classification based on the importance of the ruin for the heritage, a further classifica-
tion could be made according to the way in which the ruin appeared. No matter its importance, from vestige
to anonymous ruin, the process of decay falls into two types: firstly, a progressive one, developing through
time, thus the monument becomes a ruin as an effect of the course of time and action of external factors of
the environment, and secondly, a more rapid one, where dilapidation is abrupt, which leads us to define it as a
“created” ruin.

5.“The ruin that becomes” [fig.13] as a results from the decay of the monument in time is given
value with the passage of time. Most intervention treaties and methodologies think that this is the case with the
majority of ruins by comparison with the second, recommending minimal conservation and intervention.
The aesthetic value of this sort of ruin is mostly given by its patina and the texture of the materials, and the
“pyramid-like” deterioration; in this case „the ruin liberates matter from its subservience to form (…) and form
from its subservience to function”15. thus allowing the viewer to see whatever is hidden as a rule, protected from
inquisitive eyes, to have access to the most private parts of the building. By gradually freeing itself from the
shell of the functional, the clothes of the envelope and roof, the building reaches the climax of exposure.

13
The metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture, „demolition”, p155.
14
According to the Explanatory Dictionary of the Romanian language, “anonymous = 2. Adj. (about a text or work of art) whose
author is unknown; 4. Adj. Fig. That thing that remains unknown, without personality.”
15
Ginsberg, Robert; The Aesthetics of Ruins; Rodopi Amsterdam - New York, New York 2004, pg. 1, 15.
6
 Figure 14:
THE CREATED
RUIN
Church
Viile Tecii, 2008

Figure 15:
CREATED
RUIN = MONUMENT

Kaiser Wilhem Church

Berlin
The viewer who usually lives with and within an architecture defined by form and control, has to deal for a mo-
ment with the fragment that expresses the material and materialness behind every form, beyond control, and
in front of those forms that express themselves apart from the function they could serve. The disappearance
of function pours life into forms that become aesthetic manifestations, and thus the frame no longer marks the
border between interior and exterior but is just a frame surrounding perceptions of reality. The ruin thus purifies
the form, freeing it from functional constraints; the fragment becomes a truly formal manifestation of archi-
tecture – the genuine „follies”16 . The “ruin that became” can be used for tourist purposes; it is part of those
clichés with sunsets and serves an aesthetic purpose.

6. The created ruin [fig.14] results from an event that produces instant and brutal deterioration of a
monument or ensemble. The ruin is “created” by identifiable human or natural causes that can be easily traced
in time. Natural or cultural “calamity”, earthquakes, storms, tornados, floods or tsunamis, landslips, fires, wars,
revolutions, civil conflicts, programmed looting are associated with this kind of ruin. They all bring about the
deterioration of the monument and its transformation into a ruin.
Unlike the case of the ruins that “become”, what is important here is the moment of observation in
relation to the time when the brutal deterioration took place and to its future evolution. If from the moment of its
deterioration to that when it is taken into consideration the ruin changes and the locals become aware of it as
it is, the environmental factors integrate it into a semi-natural, half-built milileu, belonging to both, and the frag-
ment finds itself in symbiosis with its environment and context; it can no longer be considered as being “cre-
ated”, since its becoming is longer, and thus specific. No matter how violent the destruction of Palmyra might
have been by the Roman troops of Emperor Aurelian in 272, its reconstruction makes no sense today, because
the value of the ruins has been cut off the initial object. This ruin, which has been created by human conflicts,
is one that has been changed through time, and lives in symbiosis with the desert where it stands. Palmyra is a
ruin-town for which the passage of time wiped off the traces of the devastation that had created it.
Thus, the “created ruin” is a young, “fresh” ruin that has kept obvious traces of the event that had
created it. The Parthenon could also be thought as a “created ruin” since its major destruction can be clearly
connected with an event that is relatively recent as to the decision of intervention17. The type of the interven-
tion that was later operated was justified by the type of deterioration it suffered. Besides the cultural values
inherited from the initial monument, the created ruin has a symbolic and sentimental load and causes nostalgia
and regrets, remorse and quilt, since it works like an open wound that will not let you forget about it.
The created ruin never forgives or forgets; it has no positive aesthetic attribute due the strong contrast
between past and present, between what it once was and what it became; it reproves and accuses. This kind
of ruin claims and justifies interventions; if restored, it should look as close as possible with the initial object.
In principle, as fragment of the historic monument, the ruin preserves the values of the initial
monument just like the initial substance left after its complete disappearance.

16
The 17th-18th century England promotes architecture by starting from extravagant structures that served strictly formal, decorative
elements meant to add aesthetic value to a composition or landscape that had a memorial role. The built structure often appear to
be ruins used for their aesthetic values, mostly used in parks, gardens or open spaces. That kind of ruin has no authenticity, being
completely fake.
17
The battle between the people of Venice and the Ottomans in 1687, when the latter used the building as a warehouse for the
gunpowder, and on September 26, 1687 a cannon ball blown out the warehouse. Following this event, in 1975, a decision was made
to restore the Parthenon partially by anastylosis and partially by reconstruction.

7
 Figure 16:
THE CITY OVER
RUINS
Rome, 2005

Figure 17:
RECYCLED RUIN
“The dwelling from the temple”
Bosra, Syria
2008
 The European legislation stipulates that the ruin of a historic monument can lose its value to the point
to which it becomes irrelevant for the cultural heritage, making its retrieval impossible. By being ruined, the
object can lose its qualities that made it a historic monument.
The Romanian legislation on the other side argues that the ruin of a historic monument preserves its
qualities indefinately and recommends protection until it has disappeared completely.

At a larger scale, the ruin can be considered from the perspective of its continuity as town over and
of ruins [fig.16] and as recycled ruin [fig.17].
As a rule, whenever we approach the problem of continuity of dwelling, we have in mind the big cities,
especially those from the Orient that preserve lively traces of the past on which they have built their present.
Jericho (cca 11,000 year old), Damascus (cca 6,000 years old), Aleppo (cca 4,000 years old), Byblos (cca
7,000 years old), Beirut (cca 5,000 years old) are just a few examples of cities built over the ruins of the past.
The archaeological diggings in Jericho unveiled 20 successive layers of settlements, the first dating back to
9000 B.C, thus proving the continuity of living in the same place. The legend has it that the hill on which the
current city stands is not a natural but a man-made one resulting from overlapped settlements built in the same
place, one over the other. However, these successive layers do not necessarily show the dynamics of some
world, but the strong tie with the past and man’s capacity to adjust and reuse his resources and creations.
Palmyra is one of the cities in which the new and the ancient coexist and complete each other. At first
sight, the reason why the ancient vestiges have survived in good condition is the geographic context, mainly
the climate that does not deteriorate matter as temperate weather might do. Some might explain the man-
ner in which the dwellers and new architecture relate to the ancient city through the specific mentality of the
Asiatic peoples, and through the presence of ruins in a climate that allows them to be preserved without further
interventions. Bosra is a similar case, yet the difference between this one and Palmyra consists in the fact
that people kept on living here. Moreover, the dwellers of Bosra inhabit the ruins of the Roman temples, use
Roman streets, and actively reuse the spaces and fragments of the ancient city. This case illustrates the way in
which ruins can be inhabited. Mentality, customs, clothes, people’s physiognomy has hardly changed in the last
1500 years, or at least this is the impression you get. Again, some explain the difference in attitude as to ruins
between the Asiatic people and the Europeans by the former’s conservative attitude of the Oriental society. It is
only there that living beside or within ruins is possible, because the ever changing modernity finds the reuse of
ruins absurd and thinks that only novelty can generate architecture.
Nonetheless, even in the European countries with “aggressive” climate and speedy development
apparently in denial of the past, there are a few examples of reused ruins, such as the Colosseum – used as
fortress, church and graveyard or castle until early 19th century. Rome itself is an example of urban stratifica-
tion over more than 3,000 years (or better said, 2762 on April 21st, as the legend has it). Today’s London is
built over its Victorian “ruins”, the city dating back to the 1st century A. Ch. Yet, Paris is a little bit older, since
the first settlement dates back to 4200 B.C. By comparison, Bucharest is a young city. Even here, our present
is built over the ruins of the past. The Old Court, Lipscani area with the recent archaeological diggings around
the National Bank testify that “the old centre” was built over a much older place, on the ruins of the former
settlement.

8
 Thus, this continuity of dwelling, of reusing the ruins, overlapping of settlements, welding of the new
and old, dwelling on the ruins of former cities does not happen only in Asia. Most European cities have their
ruins and vestiges, which they revere, reuse or exhibit as ties with their origins, with a past that justifies the
present and as identity elements. In the Oriental world, the overlapping of the old and new is more obvious,
more distinct, and the reuse of the historic heritage is not only achieved at the object level but also at the urban
level.
In the case of objects, the recycling of ruins has always been a practice, mainly for economic rea-
sons. There are many examples showing that the ruins of the old edifices are used – by stealing parts from
them – for building a new monument. Densus, in Romania, is a good example for a question that might be
posed sometime: when it will be re-discovered, 2000 years from now, will they think it was a Roman temple or
an Orthodox Church?
Historic and world practice show that the spoliation and recycling of ruins start from two reasons: the
economic and philosophical-spiritual one. As to the economic reason, people think that by robbing a place
things are cheaper and it comes in handy to reuse whatever has been already created, from building materials
to components and decorative elements. From the philosophical-spiritual perspective, which is a rare case and
depends on the robbers’ culture, the latter invest the new edifice with the values and attributes of the robbed
building through the reused fragment. However, this is an extremely sensitive case, since the wholeness of
a potentially valuable element is decomposed and recomposed as fragment and layer belonging to another
edifice, a component that might become equally valuable.
Let us consider this hypothetical monument: an 11th -13th century preserved monument resulting
from the recomposition of a monument, let us say, from an ancient one (1st-3rd century).
So, we are dealing with a double determination and the “2 in 1” particular case. It is impossible to reconstruct
and complete both monuments at once or to take them separately since the value analysis and the intervention
decision depend on the simultaneous analysis of the two monuments. The final object needs a totally different
approach from the one employed with “the created ruin”.
The subject matter of robbing and fragmentary recycling is both a comprehensive and sensitive issue
from the intervention perspective and proposes a particular case each time, depending on the origin of the
robbed elements, the nature of the final object and the manner in which the fragments have been reused.
As a whole, the continuity of using the ruins is either connected to the holiness of space, to the
awareness of the past and tradition or is justified for financial reasons, or it simply happens; it is indeed an
universal phenomenon, one of our days and, why not, a characteristic of humanity. The problem to be solved is
how one could find responsible means of approaching the ruins on which we build our present.

9
1.4. The significance of the ruin of the historic monument:

To analyse, carry out, criticise or evaluate the intervention decision on a ruin one should analyse its
value, and before, identify its attached values. As it degrades, the ruin doesn’t lose its qualities that define it as
a monument, but might present specific cultural values.
The value analysis is carried on two levels; firstly, by taking into account the initial values of the
original monument and their importance in its context and, what is more, the analysis of the existing values that
appeared later or were preserved and their influence on the current context. Thus, by knowing the elements
entering the initial value of a monument, we could extend our understanding to what and where we could
consider the preserved value of its ruin as historic monument.
In general, when the value analysis is done, we should take into account the relative subjectivity of the
professionals that study the scientific value of the object within the framework of today’s facts, of the built-in
values of the object; however, we should be sure about the identity of the beneficiary. A ruin is not useful,
except the case when it is used for educational purposes and is exhibited as such, and so, its usefulness
consists in the fact of being exposed.
The historic monument does not relate to its beneficiaries just as “something used”. It can contain sym-
bolic, representative, memorial values, which do not depend on the use. In this case, as long as these values
are preserved, that is equal with the initial monument.
The global value of the ruin is established by the addition of its constituent values, by the evaluation
of all cultural intrinsic or extrinsic values that could be attached and analyzed together, since the global value of
a monument is higher or equal to the sum of its values.
There are numerous subjective values that are hard to capture and show in a classical value diagram;
they depend on the perception of the object and its social context. However, the interest for the works of the
past does not stop at its “historic value” or the passage of time; it looks to its becoming. For instance, the ruins
of a castle that are scarce and cannot evoke its form, constructive technique, which cannot fill in gaps in art
or cultural history that might have not been documented in their initial form still cast a spell on us, a spell that
comes from the historic fragment: they are indeed the “enchantment of ruins”.
The admiration for the “decrepit remains of the past” is opposed by the obssession for the modern.
There is the other perspective, where the pleasure and delightment found in the modern are being opposed by
the ruin, thus its rejection. This phenomenon can sometimes be explained through the will to deny any signs of
destruction, of the degraded, that we create and are victims of, and other times through belonging to a society
that changed its values. „The voluptuousness of pain, diminished by innocent idyllic moments, gives aesthetic
value to the baroque pathos19 and is opposed by modern man’s sensitivity that cannot take “the value of being
old” associated, for instance, “to the signs of violent destruction seen on the ruins of castles.”
For a layperson – as the majority of users are –the charm of the monument that decays and becomes part of
nature is given by its value of being old. What really disturbs one is the monument that has been turned into
ruin abusively and violently, in which the wounds of recent and artificial destruction are obvious, that loses its
value of being old, of being a part of history, of being used, of being an object of art as a result of ignorance
and wickedness.

18
Annex 2: Types of values attached to a monument
19
Riegl, Alois; Cultul modern al monumentelor - esenţa şi geneza sa - [The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and its Origin];
Published with the support of the Tempus-Phare programme, Bucharest 1998.
10
 Thus, this kind of object resulting from violent changes or traumas will be subject to a different kind
of thinking, while the interventions to be performed later will be influenced by this fact. The “created” ruin will
not hold the value of being old as a ruin, while the historic value will be attached only to the original object
and, although the authenticity of the initial matter will be equally important, it will not rule out the variant of
reconstruction or repairs; the identity value will be attached to a ruin only if the event generating it had a special
impact on society or the group it relates to.
The analyzed value of the ruin, just like the case of any historic monument, determines several quali-
ties and features that enable it to be listed in the cultural heritage. Four of them are described in „Management
Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites”20 :
UNIQUENESS: to be a unique achievement, a masterpiece of creativity;
INFLUENCE: to have manifested a big influence over a period of time and a cultural territory of
the world on the evolution of architecture, monumental art, urban-planning or
landscape architecture
WITNESS: to possess unique or exceptional traces of one civilization or cultural tradition long gone;
CONTINUITY: to be directly or indirectly associated with living traditions and events, with ideas,
beliefs, or art or literary works of exceptional world value;
AUTHENTICITY: to prove its authenticity in matter of design, material, and constructive techniques.

The clarification of the significance and values of the monument are important for the elaboration of intervention
strategies. Some edifices are important for the community, yet they are not listed as historic monuments, and thus
the community has the right to get involved if it has resources and professional skills.
If the edifice is listed as historic monument, the interest it provokes goes beyond the community and naturally,
the maintenance, restoration funds as well as the involved professionals should not necessarily be from the
local community; however, the users can no longer single-handedly undertake the task have of intervention and
maintenance. The value of a historic monument leads to a paradox. Theoretically, on the one hand, it is protected
against the interventions that might alter its initial substance and diminish its value, and its evolution is surveilled
and controlled by specialists. On the other hand, the natural development of the monument is hampered and so
happens with its chance of changing organically and similarly to its vicinities and context, thus risking to become
an outdated, frozen element within a lively context.
The analysis of the values of the monument is essential in order to establish some prevailing values over
the others and thus find a wider range of possible interventions. Even if the object does not change, the values
to which it relates, the analysis method and the analyst’s viewpoint change from one type of culture to another,
from analyst to analyst. The professional’s perspective will always be different, according to the society, culture,
historic period he/she belongs to; this is why one should take into account the reversibility of interventions.
Due to the amount of subjectivity involved in the value analysis, the possible interventions cannot start
from norms, doctrines, and unalterable, precisely formulated methodologies but they must reflect the meanings
each civilization or generation gives to the cultural heritage and the weight and values attached to the object with
reference to the society’s “landmark”.

20
Feilden, Sir Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew; Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites - ICCROM;
Roma, Italia, 1993, pg. 6

11
1.5. The delisting of the ruin of the historic monument:

The major goal of value analysis and further interventions is to identify the valuable cultural elements
and their rescuing or to mention their disappearance. The theoretical principles serving this purpose cannot
exist if there are no rules to apply; from this point of view Romanian and European legislations are different. If
in the case of European legislation21 the delisting22 of the historic monument comes as a result of the decay
of the value of the object, in Romania that happens when it disappears. The European legislation is more
natural just because they periodically analyze the constituent values of a monument and their relevance on the
current context, thus determining the manner and level of protection. Once these values are lost and the re-
assessment of the object does not show obvious reasons why it should be maintained as “historic monument”
it will be delisted.
According to the Romanian acting legislation23, this issue is more firmly solved; deletion is mentioned
in two cases: exoneration from archaeological responsibility or the complete disappearance of the monument.
The very same legislation stipulates that a monument could be moved from one category into another in case
the qualities that led to its inscription into one list have changed.
According to the Romanian legislation, which enables one to operate an intervention, the ruin ceases
to be considered as a “historic monument” only if it has disappeared completely, that is, if the decay of the ruin
completely destroys the entire initial substance or the moment when later interventions alter the authenticity of
the initial substance and it can no longer be retrieved. If the intervention on the ruin are extensive and nothing
from the original substance has been left or its form and features are no longer recognizable, then it ceases to
exist as such and loses it status of historic monument.

21
Operational Guidelines, chapter IV, art. 176, source: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf; „„when there is evidence that
the property has deteriorated to the point where it has irretrievably lost those characteristics which determined its inscription on the
List, the Committee may decide to delete the property from the List.”
22
In Romanian the equivalent word has a completely different meaning. Delisting known as de-classing, means to degrade, decline,
decay, to become corrupt , to move the subject to an inferior category; the term refers to the loss of some parts or values of the
subject, and thus its degradation. In Romania there are 2 groups or of historic monuments: of local interest or of national interest, the
former posessing less value than the latter. Delisting in this context also means crossing into a different category.
23
Act no. 422, July 18, 2001, published in the National Gazette [Monitorul Oficial] part I, no.407 July 2, 2001

12
CHAPTER 2: Interventions:
„A heritage resource that is substantially reconstructed today would become a product of the present.”
Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites - ICCROM pg. 16

2.1. Types of possible approaches:

Let us assume that there is a ruin in the place in which we would like to create space for a cer-
tain function, to hold a formal aesthetic and beauty and be used safely. In other words, we wish to create
architecture within the context of a pre-existing ruin. Thus, we have the following options:
To demolish the ruin and build a new object in its place;
To build close to the ruin and completely ignore it or transform it into a museum exhibit;
To remake the initial ruin by a specific intervention and the reconstruction of the initial object;
To reuse and retrieve it: building-with-the ruin from-the ruin by respecting the heritage and the
values of the past by bringing them into present.
The way of action is determined by the type and significance of the ruin, in other words, all variants are
perfectly valid and applicable under certain circumstances. The demolition is an option, yet the morality and
responsibility of the action depends on the nature of the ruin. The ruin of the historic monument should not and
could not – not even conceptually – be available for demolition no matter its level of decay.
1. The “major” ruin, which contains the highest values, should be kept as such. In this case it is
immoral to think that you could do new architecture that would impact on the existing ruin; even the construc-
tions meant to protect, applied when you cannot use other conservation techniques, are a sensitive case.
Taking into account that any kind of intervention alters the initial substance of the object, one can say that the
intervention assumes a certain level of dishonesty in the restored monument; if it had been left untouched, it
would not have looked or evolved that way.
A cultural resource is authentic as long as it preserves the authenticity of the context. That means that
all the edifices, spaces, and configurations related to the monument and that determine some of its specific
features – and belong to the context – should be left untouched and establish the same relationships with the
heritage resource. In this respect, both the historic monument and its area of influence are treated at the same
time as protection area24 . Although the object holding cultural value is obviously dominant and easily recogniz-
able, and some would include working on it exclusively, we should consider the whole ensemble it belongs to,
with all the elements that participate into a dialog. Taking into account the importance of architectural authen-
ticity and truth a ruin contains, as well as its significance as a stone archive and symbol for the contemporary
life, the interventions that alter the initial substance, thus damaging its values, are unacceptable. You cannot
reconstruct something that once was, without falsifying the authenticity of the object, since „he reconstruction
of something that has been lost inevitably leads to the invention of a monument that is no longer authentic (…)
even if an identical replica of something holds a cultural significance, different from the original”25 It is generally
believed that the intervention on the vestige or major architecture could be phrased in “preserve as found” with
minimum intrusion.26

24
Annex 3: Protection areas
25
Ashurst John; Conservation of ruins; Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford 2007,pg. 7.
26
Ashurst John; Conservation of ruins; Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford 2007, pg. 88.
13
2. The ruin as historic monument is approached according to its significance and old age, and so, we
can find to which extent it should be kept or maybe altered, and how.
Any kind of protection action assumes the alteration of the ruin, while non-intervention is an option
when a minimal decay through time is at stake. There is a long list of examples, particularly with underground,
buried ruins, protected from the actions of the environment that, although have been preserved in a relatively
altered state for hundreds of years, once an intervention was operated and they were taken out, the process of
decay has started due to a poor intervention policies. In many cases, the absence of funds for an appropriate
conservation ends up in burying them back – after it had been covered with geotextiles – that is the wisest non-
destructive option.
The uniqueness of the ruin of a historic monument that is not a vestige is limited, in general, to its
components and context, the initial substance being less important than its historic and educational informa-
tion. In this case, the elements that render its historic value should be augmented and partial additions could
be operated in order to help it.
From among the four directions of intervention and taking into account that legally historic monuments
are protected no matter their conservation state, and the ruin is a historic monument until it disappears, demoli-
tion is a crime.
Building next to a ruin can be allowed only if the regulations of the adjoining protected area are ob-
served.
The reconstruction of the initial object is similar to “forging documents”. From the point of view of resto-
ration practice, this is a case of deterioration and loss of initial values, yet it is legally allowed. In this case, one
should weigh both the lost and gained values of the ruin following the reconstruction, considering also the final
significance of this act that can be justified under certain circumstances.
Its reuse is not recommended by current documents and methodologies, yet that is not unlikely, if one
sticks to certain general rules and principles. The reuse and assignment of a new function assumes also the
diminishing of certain values and the fact that it will be perceived differently from its context. The value analysis
is the only way in which we could answer the reuse of the ruined historic monument as a new architectural
layer.
3. The humble ruin has not that much value and cannot be considered a historic monument and thus
protected, yet it has some value, which means that by its complete alteration or replacement we lose its
potential values. Many times the intervention is carried out by non-professionals that being either indolent or
uninformed destroy its real valuable elements. Once we establish the values attached to this type of ruin, we
can decide if the intervention assumes just the alteration or reuse of some of its parts or we are going to give it
up for good.
Its preservation, museification or reconstruction is not justified since the monument has but little value.
Reconstruction is not immoral though, if the object is not listed as historic monument because every user has
the right to change or approach the architecture that influences its existence as he/she finds it appropriate
Its demolition, though possible and allowed in many circumstances, should be carefully weighed and,
in general, the best way to do it is to keep the valuable elements and give up on those without any value.

14
4. The anonymous ruin,as we have mentioned in the previous chapter, is that ruin resulting from an
anonymous object of minor architecture; it results from an ordinary event or gradual deterioration. More than
often, this type of ruin is a parasite for its environment and has a negative influence on the perception of space
and surrounding buildings. Since it has no cultural value, it can be replaced completely.
5. The ruins that became or was created each lead to a different type approach. The ruin that “be-
came” is important and owes its current values to its becoming. It is resulting from a gradual process that can-
not be reversed or cancelled out. Even if it were possible, by cancelling it, we would diminish the quality of the
ruin. So, ruin that “became” is, in general, that kind of ruin that, if not preserved as such, as it had been found
and a decision was made to have it preserved, it has to be allowed to manifest within its physical context
and keep most of its initial attributes. The created ruin is one abusively reduced to a fragment, thus the
process is potentially reversible. Its being ruined is an abuse and leads to the loss of values that could have
been retrieved in most cases. More than often, we deal with its identity value, with its function as a landmark
and with its being an element that polarizes the space. Under these circumstances, the intervention meant to
complete it, the reconstruction or reintegration into the functional environment is not only allowed but
also recommended.

2.2. General Principles of Intervention27:

„In general, the minimal effective intervention proved to be the best policy.” 28

A monument is unique in relation to its historic age, being defined by three time layers: the creation
layer, the evolution one that encompasses the period of time between the moment of creation and present
time, and the current layer of assessment. Since the evolution of a given monument never coincides with the
evolution of another monument, we could say that each one is a unique resource and, due to its relationship
with the historical thread, it non-regenerable. Consequently, each intervention is unique in its way, adjusting to
the monument it deals with; however, the diversity of intervention and the absence of some clear and universal
norms and methodologies are one of the major difficulties of intervention on the existing object.
Another difficulty in intervention resides in the fact that the various associated values assume funda-
mentally different ways of intervention, which will have an impact on the global value of the object, no matter
our choices. For instance, when its antiquity is at odds with its artistic value, we should reach a compromise
and take into account both practical and artistic reasons. „The modern work of art should not remind of previ-
ous ones either by concept, approach of the formal or chromatic detail. This claim refers to separate manifesta-
tions, as much as possible, of novelty in relation to antiquity.”29
Thus the intervention strategy takes into account whatever is lost if one does not intervene, what has
been lost after the deterioration of the initial object, what values could be saved and to what extent, and what
features of the ruins should be kept whatever the cost.
Any treatment or intervention assumes a certain amount of loss of some properties of cultural value,
which are justifiable through gains or the level of preservation of the essential wholeness resulting from the
intervention.

27
From Feilden, Sir Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew; Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites – IC-
CROM; Rome, Italy, 1993, pg.11, pg.61.
28
From Sir Feilden, Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew; Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites – IC-
CROM; Rome, Italy, 1993, pg.11.
29
Riegl, Alois; Cultul modern al monumentelor - esenţa şi geneza sa - [The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and its Origin];
Published with the support of the Tempus-Phare programme, Bucharest 1998, p. 55. 15
It was necessary that some principles should be elaborated, since there is a a wide range of situations when
the intervention on the historic monument is chosen – they have a degree of complexity and and show major
differences regarding the possibilities of intervention. Although they do not have legislative or prescriptive
value, they can offer general, universal guidelines. Thus, any approach should take into account the following
problems:
1. The first priority is to establish and keep the cultural values and qualities that led to their
inscription on the World Heritage List.
2. It must be reversible:
If technically possible, materials whose effect can be reversed should be used
The intervention should not affect the future ones, when those might be necessary.
The intervention should not hinder or prevent any future access to the original substance or to
various built-in evidence;
3. The authenticity must be preserved:
The ruin should be considered as a whole. Its essence should not be altered by restoration
because its authenticity partially consists of the manifestation of its being a ruin
To allow the preservation of the greatest amount possible of the original material.
To ensure that is in harmony with the design, technique and initial manufacturing (colour, texture,
form, scale).
To not allow additions to prevail over the initial substance and respect its archaeological potential.
4. The heritage resource should be allowed, as much as possible, to keep its traditional function as
long as it does not endanger its wholeness. When its function is workable again, one should take into account
what function is the most appropriate to show the universal value and the educational role of the monument.
Human activities, no matter how scarce, render a value of use to the monument that no matter how insignifi-
cant it is in relation to the current form of the monument.
5.1.The reverence of the present towards the past: the ruin should be considered from the perspective
of today’s life, and not abandoned. It should be brought to the level of today’s culture, without allowing the latter
to impose its own forms and meanings. The ruin should be brought to today’s life but its forms and significance
of its pre-existing values should be respected.

2.3. Intervention Types:

Even if we deal with repairs, extensions, “improvements”, any kind of building will support interventions
through its existence. The interventions on the historic monument as a good reason for its strong symbiosis
with its contexts, do not include only actions on the physical matter but also those actions that alter or influence
the context or the perception about it..
From the point of view of the action on the monument and its context, the interventions on monuments
are defined by legal acts30 as follows: „all research studies, building, extension, repair, reinforcement, conser-
vation, restoration, landscape arrangements and other work that modify the substance or the aspect of monu-
ments, including the habitual repairs, maintenance, lighting, castings of various parts of the monument, final or
temporary insertions of surroundings, constructions meant to protect it, pieces of built-in furniture, advertise-
ment panels, companies, logos or any other sign on the monument, change of function and use;

30
Act no. 422, July 18, 2001, published in Romania’s National Gazette, part I, no. 407 of July 24, 2001
16
 displacement, fitting out of access ways, pedestrian routes or roads, signs or utility mains anywhere in the
proximity of the monument”. Thus, any action performed on the monument, its context or inside the protection
area is thought to be an intervention, no matter its size or direct influence on the monument.
From the point of view of the intervention typology and relation to the ruin, the interventions are defined
as such : 31

1. Protection: It assumes those actions allowing the ruin to survive. Protection can be legal or physical.
However, it presupposes a minimal intervention is done and the preservation will not harm the initial substance.
2. Preservation: Its goal is to keep the ruin as it was found when the intervention was decided by repair-
ing some elements so as to maintain the wholeness of the resource. In fact, measures are taken against the
causes of constant deterioration, taking into account the removal of infiltrations, bugs, rodents, micro-organ-
isms, plants, chemicals.
3. Conservation: Its goal is to keep the ruin untouched from the moment the intervention was carried
out and to protect it against any destructive agent or change of initial substance with a view to prevent altera-
tion, decay and thus extend its time of use. The difference between preservation and reinforcement is that
preservation looks to the causes of deterioration and their removal with minimum intervention on the monu-
ment, while conservation seeks to keep the properties of a monument on which interventions such as repairs,
reinforcements, consolidations, and maintenance actions were performed. The major goal of consolidation is to
maintain the authenticity and wholeness of the cultural resource by interventions on the elements that endan-
ger its stability and wholeness.
4. Consolidation: It presupposes physical additions of material, either constructive or as some adhesive
substances or resins meant to ensure structural stability, wholeness and endurance to some decayed parts or
materials or in danger of crumpling.
5. Reconstruction: It assumes the building of a new object by using old, new, or mixed materials and it
mainly addresses disjointed or destroyed elements that once belonged to the monument. This kind of interven-
tion is especially recommended if the destruction was particularly violent from causes like natural calamities,
fires, and wars; however, the object can no longer be used if it is to improve the appearance of a monument.
6. Anastylosis: 1.It comes from the Greek “ana” = again, and “stylosis” = to raise, to build, and it came
to signify the reassembling of the component parts, still existing yet disjoined. This procedure is applied to
decomposed structures whose components are identifiable within the site; being well preserved, they can be
reassembled.
All such interventions can be applied to the ruin of the historic monument – the intervention, however,
is conditioned by the value analysis and underlines the prevailing values of the ruin.32 .
7. The most complex form of intervention from the point of view of how it is applied is restoration. The
most common meaning of the term refers to the work that recovers the initial appearance. In fact, if we ana-
lyze the acting legislation, the conclusion is that restoration reunites all those types of accepted interventions
applied to the heritage resource. According to Venice Charter, the goal of restoration does not only consist in
keeping the wholeness of the resource, but also in underlying its cultural values and easy up the reading of
the initial design. In modern terms, restoration should illustrate as faithfully as possible, the initial form of the
resource taking into account what has been left from the original substance and by no means to reconstruct a
lost form with new resources.

31
From Feilden, Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites - ICCROM,
Rome, Italy, 1993, pg. 61-64
32
Annex 4: Intervention principles according to the prevailing value
33
Annex 5: Restoration from a legal perspective
17
Though it does not completely deny the principles stated as early as the 18th century34 by various restoration
doctrines, modernity proposes on the one hand to interpret them in its own ways and to enrich them, while on
the other hand, it tries work out a selection based on practice; however, both are filtered through contemporary
values.
Restoration has known several definitions through time. Currently, it is defined as „the procedure through which
an object is restored to its initial form”35, and according to the Venice Charter, „its goal is not only to preserve
the heritage resource but also to enhance its cultural characteristics as a means to facilitate the understanding
of the initial design.”
„The goal of restoration is to uncover the initial form within the limits of the remains of the original substance
and is different from the goal defined in the past as restoring to the original form by reconstruction as well. The
most appropriate term is “enhancement”.”36

2.4. The principles of modern restoration :

1. Principle of prudence, art. 9 Venice Charter:

Any restoration is preceded by a comprehensive study done by the field specialist to establish the directions
of any action. Later interventions will appeal to scientifically verified techniques that have been validated by
experience, and will not endanger the values of the historic monument. Any intervention must stop at the point
where conjecture begins.
2. Principle of minimum intervention: It was found that minimal intervention is the best protection
measure of the monument, and it should affect the historic material as little as possible.
3. Principle of the use of traditional materials and techniques: art. 10 Venice Charter. In principle,
the use of modern materials and techniques is recommended where traditional materials and techniques prove
inadequate for the type of intervention. In general, traditional prevails over the modern.
4. Principle of intervention reversibility: hat can be seen as a complement to the principle of caution,
in the sense that any intervention should allow possible interventions in the future. In many cases the existing
documentation for the monument, no matter how scientifically it might be analyzed, could lead to conclusions
that might be overturned or partially modified by the discovery of an additional document. Reversibility helps
those extrinsic values subjectively considered from one period to another and such interventions supporting
these values that are seen differently from one society to another may be changed or cancelled out.
5. Principle of marking the intervention: art. 12 , Venice Charter.The replacement of some elements
of the initial monument and additions should be subsequently marked to avoid the falsification of artistic or
historic evidence and maintain the authenticity of the monument.
6. Principle of conservation: The conservation of initial elements of the historic monument and preser-
vation of continuity in the case of those fragments that prove the authenticity have priority against any sort of
intervention.
7. Principle of preserving the authenticity: One should take into account the authenticity of the mate-
rial, concept, execution, and location. Authenticity is preserved by ensuring the continuity of the initial building
materials, the preservation of the traditional type of material, traditional execution techniques, and last but not
least, the preservation of the monument in its generally determined context.
34
Annex 6: Brief history of the origins of the restoration principles
35
Feilden, Sir Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew; Management Guidelines
for World Cultural Heritage Sites – ICCROM; Rome, Italy, 1993, pg. 62.
36
Ashurst, John; Conservation of ruins; Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford 2007.
18
Figure 18
ALTE PINAKOTHEK
wartime ruin
Munchen

Figure 19
ALTE PINAKOTHEK
after restoration
arch. Hans Döllgast
Munchen
CHAPTER 3: The RUIN and HISTORIC MONUMENT as ARCHITECTURAL GENERATORS:
Alvaro Siza: „Architects do not invent anything; they transform reality”

3.1 New architecture as a result of the intervention on the old or ruin – general approach:

The creation process of the architectural project starting from a ruin is no less difficult or demanding
than the design of a new building. The elaboration of functional and efficient planimetric layout and in harmony
with the acting norms, the coherent concept of the project coordinated with the choice of optimal materials
is important for both those starting from an old existing fund and those seeking to create a completely new
architecture.
At the same time, the existing building should not be confined within a rigid, artificial concept in
relation to the existing situation and should not be maimed or added to so that no one could recognize it,
thus losing its qualities. The specific difference in the case of quality architecture done on an existing building
lies in the tension between its individual qualities, which evolved through time, and the desire to get to a
coherent approach and harmonious design. The architectural concept should not only explore and make use
of the qualities the building has but also to contribute and add elements of the contemporary discourse thus
enhancing the final value of the object and ensure its sustainability. By comparison with “new” architecture, in
restoration the quality of the work, finishing and the skill of the workers are decisive in the final product.
New architecture could ignore its context and it is not tied through invisible ties to the history of its
becoming, which could be as short as the building site is working. By contrast, the architecture created on an
existing site, be it ruined, should take into account the existing object that becomes a context along with its
elements, from those of historic, spiritual to those of geographical nature and the dialog with its milieu and the
additional restrictions involved in the activity with a valuable historic material. The architect should decide upon
the way in which he/she is going to relate to the existing object and the manner in which he/she will show the
dialog between the old and the new.
This particular challenge of working on an ancient and sometimes deteriorated building has been
accepted by several architects in the aftermath of WW II. Projects such as the reconstruction of the old painting
gallery from Munich by Hans Döllgast indicate the beginning of the new path of modern restoration.
Although the project of the new painting gallery is rather a reconstruction, the preservation of the evidence
on the facades, the initial matter and the clear stamp of the interventions by showing differences in texture
and finishing correspond to the principles of restoration-conservation. The new architecture completes the old
objects and, although the language is similar to the one of the initial object, the interventions are relatively easy
to notice.
In the 1960s-1970s, Carlo Scarpa became one of the key-figures of architecture in historic con-
text promoting thorough design and defending the tradition of arts and crafts. His manner of work, the
presentation of historic fragments and the way in which he marked individual, mostly formal, values
have inspired his followers, among which we could mention Karljosef Schattner, Guido Canali or Massimo
Carmassi. Being stark defenders of modernism, they advocate the break from the past and uncompromised
innovation by respect towards the historic context. They would cut a line between the new and the old in both
form and principle.

19
Figure 20:
SAN MICHELE IN BORGO
arch. Massimo Carmassi
Pisa, Italy
 In their architecture, the old seems a relic from a past that, though hard to read sometimes, is al-
ways present in its dignity. The values of the past are underlined by the means of modern architecture that is
separated from the old one through materials, structural concepts, expression, and sometimes concept.
In the 1980s, Massimo Carmassi appeals to the analytical method of fragmentation to enhance the
superimposed layers within the initial work. By way of framing and underlining various patinas, by emphasizing
the old superimposed against a different background, sometimes neutral, both the historic and ancient values
are brought to light and enhanced. Projects like “Restoration of a medieval building in Via dell’Occhio”, “Casa
Balbarini, Pisa”, San Giovannino Monastery – transformation into the Pizzorusso House, Pisa”, “The trans-
formation of San Francesco Monastery into a Library”, “San Michele in Borgo – residence and commercial
spaces” [fig.20]”37 illustrate his choice of emphasising each layer of the old object used today.
His architecture is a somewhat paradoxical mixture of harmony and lack of unity, stylistic coherence and on
site approach of an object lacking style or continuity in terms of materials, textures, decoration. From this point
of view, Carmassi is a master of superimpositions.
One of the methods often used in approaching the architecture that starts from an existing object,
especially in the case of urban insertions, is based on the analysis of genius loci, in other words the method
by which one establishes rules and principles, geometrical and structural proportions, geometrical patterns
that make up the basis for new architecture and a connection between the old and the new. The new archi-
tecture seems to complete the old by appealing to similar rhythms, proportions, taking its inspiration from the
formal features of the old architecture in order to enhance it. All these characteristics could be translated by
preserving some rhythms on the façade, axes of symmetry, the preservation of the sizes of gaps. In some of
their projects proposed for Berlin, Peter Eisenmann and Daniel Liebeskind use the analysis of certain particular
aspects of the context, such as the houses of certain people, or the shape of the historic fabric that supply
certain landmarks. Thus, they generate masses of lines to design planes and facades. The attractiveness of
this approach is given by the understanding of constant changes of the built fund and of the city as organism,
the understanding of the historic evolution of such places that help us foresee its future development as a
consequence of the architectural phenomenon perceived as human continuity.
Another method is the “objet trouve” promoted by Allison and Peter Smithson who argue that
every historic building is unique and special, each urban context has its specificity and value that have to be
discovered, decoded, exposed and made use of by the architect.
In recent years, architecture promotes the idea of integrating the new as to continue the existing
or, in other cases, of the new ennobled with stamps of the past, which it shows off or contains in itself. By
becoming functional again, by assigning a new function and additions that make it usable, the ruin grows into
architecture and ceases to be “the ruin”. It becomes a layer, a fragment of the new object yet tightly related
with its milieu.
Usually, this kind of approach is based on a powerful contrast between the old and the new paying
the price of architectural unity. However, the contrast does not deny homology, the continuity between the old
and the new. The absence of unity does not involve a lack of harmony. The contrast can manifest at various
levels and in different manners. If the old fragment is richly decorated, the addition will be deliberately plain and
simple. If the old building is ample, the addition will be reduced in size and “hidden” behind the existing build-
ing. Whenever the old building has gable roof, the addition will choose terrace roofing, and if the initial materi-
als are wood and stone, the new addition will choose metal and glass.

37
http://www.carmassiarchitecture.com
20
Figure 21:
DOCUMENTATION CENTRE IN
THE REICHS;
PARTY CONGRESS COMPLEX
IN NUREMBERG
arch. Günther Domenig
Nuremberg, Germany
 Many principles used in the architect’s work with the existing buildings were borrowed and used in new
architecture, such as the principle used by those from Mecanoo and Erick van Egeraats for the conference
room of the ING-Bank of Budapest; that was later borrowed by the architecture of DG Bank, Frank Gehrz’s
new building in Berlin.
The articulation of the old and the new is one of the thorniest issues that has to be solved when-
ever one works with the existing. The quality of the final architecture results from the architect’s capacity of
interrelating and finding the right limits, of weaving old and new, and thus creating a new object. The articula-
tion of the two types of architecture determines the position of the existing object as either central element
or support for the new architecture. To define the separation, neutral zones between the old and the new are
used, such as: glazed areas, strips of glass or separation lines. Structurally, a joint between the two structures
is necessary, but it is the architect who has to mark this contact zone. This joint is the major separation element
between the old and the new, between present and past, and works as both separator and bridge. Another
separation method, particularly when there is no articulation, is to make the wall thicker in the area of the new
addition, which will make one perceive a shade between the new and the old. This procedure is preferable
whenever the colour and the façade materials are uniform and contain both the old and the new wing. In other
words, the new façade level will not coincide with that of the old, because there is a shadow line.
Integrating by contrast, can be done whenever the new element penetrates the old more or less
aggressively. One of the most telling examples of forced penetration of the new into the old – suggesting
intentional penetration – is that in the Documentation Centre of the Nazi Party from Nuremberg, Germany,
designed by Gunther Domenig in 1990 [fig.21].38
There are several examples showing that the intervention on the existing object is done by taking
into account the old, by bringing it to the fore plan and including the initial form and significance. The diversity
of approaches equals the multitude of existing cases: keeping the valuable skin and enhancing the interior,
keeping the ruin untouched and adding some minimal elements that would allow it to be used, the local re-
thinking of the ruin and the additions that would help its structural coherence, covering the ruin and the creation
of an interior protected space that could be used after a few interventions, the additions and retrieval that will
give back its function.39

3.1 Restoration and architects:40

Without jeopardising the historic heritage in his/her intervention, each architect succeeds in expressing
his/her own style, whether we speak about Scarpa’s poetical architecture or the pedagogical method of the
“window to the past” where, by opening the new structure or envelope, one can read the initial substance of the
historic building, or Karljosef Schattner’s ironical language that “falsifies” historic evidence.
The restoration project could be found in every “complete” architect’s practice. In fact, every architect will show
his/her style and way of thinking in both new architectural designs and as well as in those of restoration, since
the latter never confines the architect’s conceptual or artistic skills.

38
Building in Existing Fabric; editor Christian Schittich, Birkhauser publishers, Edition Detail, 2003, p. 156.
39
Annex 7: Case studies.
40
More in Annex 8: Restoration and the architects: Concepts
21
 In 1990, the architect Brian MacKay Lyons begins a theoretical and didactic project applied on ruins
just to defend his concepts on architecture starting from ruins and to prove that, no matter how theoretical such
concepts might be, they could be applied in practice one way or another. The goal of the “Ghost Lab”, which
is still going on, was to create memories and not leave traces, to re-create an image and not re-establish a
certain reality, to show a dramatic attitude as to the new, yet protective with the existing object.
Sverre Fehn, the regionalist of genius, focused on genius loci, in restoration, just like in most of his
designs, keeps to the idea of a strong relationship with the earth and both the general and particular context.
In his projects one can see various layers and aspects of understanding and existence in all their fullness. As
to restoration, Fehn says that „the discovery of the initial spatial idea is as difficult as the discovery of a new
spatial formula; to understand the old is an act of creation.”41 Thus, both restoration and intervention on ruins
are almost natural architectural acts within his usual practice and ideology, given the strong contextual nature
of the intervention on ruins; for instance, the conversion of the barn from Hamar into a museum.
The complex architecture of Alvaro Siza belongs at once to place, history, landscape, tradition,
innovation, technology, vernacular, and universal. The architect thinks that in restoration, just like in
architecture, the continuity and honesty of the architectural act are essential. His kind of restoration, includ-
ing ruins, claims to recover the lost values of the monument, although becoming is the crucial element which
should be stated and kept in the fullness of its manifestations. Siza thinks that „History always appears to be
a guideline, even if it is by opposition. Guideline for the transformation of the city and the transformation of
man”42
Peter Zumthor thought that restoration equals architecture and art because „There is no difference
between new and old art, yet there is one between good and bad art. That can be said about architecture as
well.”43 Both architecture and restoration should respect the existent and the context, promote quality no matter
the cost, and the marketing strategies and “consumable” architecture of today’s society should not enter their
scope. His attitude towards ruins and the existent does not promote spectacular gestures; it pays due respect
to the values of the past, which he humbly protects and enhances in such a way that the final result should
be a symbiosis of the new with the old and with the rest of the context. His restorations are spectacular in the
things he does, not in the flashy performance.
At the opposite end of this attitude, Herzog and DeMeuron promote a surprising architecture, of
spectacle, in which the major attribute is the unusual. When approaching restoration and ruins, they seek the
utmost impact, although in many cases that is aggressive against the nature of the monument. Carlos Jimenez
said about the two that „(...)One of the most compelling aspects of the work of Herzog and de Meuron is its
capacity to astonish. They transform what might otherwise be an ordinary shape, condition or material into
something extraordinary”44. This is true for all their work, no matter their if the projects are about ruins or not.
Renzo Piano defends the dialogue between the new intervention and the existent. „Architecture is a
process of creation but also of selection and self-constraint.”45 Creativity results from all sorts of constraints,
because rules are milestone and safety net in architectural practice; their absence in favour of complete
freedom leads to confusion rather than pleasure. Piano’s architecture favours the negotiation with limitations,
and from this point of view restoration is that niche in which the rules set up and generate new architecture,
while their multitude facilitates the process of negotiation and, consequently, the making of the project.
41
Architect Sverre Fehn, intuition – reflection – construction; editor Marianne Yvenes, Eva Madshus, print Zoon Grafisk AS, Oslo, The
National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design 2008.
42
El Croquis nr.140, Alvaro Siza 2001-2008, interview pg. 19-31.
43
Online interview: http://0lll.com/archgallery2/zumthor_kolumba/index.htm
44
Discours for the Pritzker Prize.
45
Interview for Detail magazine april-may 1996, pg. 286. 22
 For Rafael Moneo architecture works on several levels and contains many layers. He is one of the
few who has pursued the dialog with the historic.The architect finds it hard to oversimplify his work and does
not want to reduce architecture to a single gesture as many do today. He does attempt at clearly expressing an
entanglement of elements and gestures. For him, monuments and history render the city its character; he is for
the design that takes the context into account.
These are just few examples. Probably, Norman Foster, Carlo Scarpa, Rem Koolhaas, Eduardo Souto
de Moura and others should be equally mentioned. For architects, restoration or intervention practice on the
existent is as different in style and approach as they themselves are, and assumes the same principles like
new architecture. Each of them has his own opinions. In this respect, the examples of the diverse attitudes
towards restoration could be exhausted to the extent to which the discussion about architectural style and
practice could.

23
Figure 22:
GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT
Manastirea
CHAPTER 4: “A castle with unicorns”: The ruin of Kornis ensemble

4.1. Existing condition:

The situation chosen in order to test and analyze the theories described so far refers to the Kornis
Castle from Manastirea village, Cluj County. Situated at about 7 km from Dej , 50 km from Cluj and about 10
km from Gherla, Manastirea village [fig.22] also known as Benediug, St. Benedek or Szentbenedek, is still
dominated by the castle ruin.
As Kadar Jozsef put it, the locality was mentioned in 1308 under the name of Scentbenedec, and in
1393 as Zent-Benedec, which apparently reflected the name of a church dedicated to St Benedict situated in
the center. Some presume that there was a monastery in this place, yet Dr. Voit Pal argues that:
1. It is very likely that in the Middle Ages there should have been a fortress because the king Charles
Robert of Anjou donated to Mikos, the lord of the castle Ugurasu a fortress named Szentbenedek, in 1319.
2. It is very likely that the fortress should have been owned by the Benedictin monks.
When analyzing the plans of the locality [fig.23], we can guess that the 16th century Catholic Church
was one of the polarizing points of the place. The 18th century wooden Orthodox Church was built on the bor-
der as a secondary place of interest. However, the major focus of the place was the castle. The gothic arches
and frames found in the basement of the building bring evidence to the fact that in the place of the castle there
could have been a Benedictine monastery, yet the archaeological diggings have not proved it so far.
From the old residence, which Gh. Sebestyen thinks as a Renaissance landmark in Transylvania,
today one can only see the gate tower [fig.24-26], the southern bastion, a part from the western one along
with the wall of the precinct, the northern façade of the castle and other fragments of the outer wall and, finally,
the fountain. From the distance you can see the second ruin – a 19th century palace once used as a school
[fig.28,29].
Why should one choose to restore an ensemble that has preserved so little from its initial origin, and
why is this castle so important for the Romanian Cultural Heritage? These questions could only be answered if
we place the object within its cultural-historic background and undergo a historic and architectural study.

24
Figure 23:
LOCALITY PLAN
Manastirea
4.2. General context - the background- :

The historical background as well as the history of the Kornis family is essential to the outline of the
Kornis ensemble. 46
The fact that the Kornis family was one of the most influential families in Transylvania’s history is a
documented fact and sustained by the great number of governors coming from this family47 the length of their
rule and the vast properties they owned. The value analysis of the Kornis ensemble cannot overlook its impor-
tance it in the context of nobility residences from Transylvania48, as well as its significance for the formation and
development of Manastirea village.
The locality grew in the west of Transylvania Plain, on the bank of the Somesul Mic, north-south,
parallel to the main road and to the water course; together with Dâmbu Mare, Mica, Nires, Sânmărghita, Valea
Cireşoii, Valea Luncii they make the Mica region.
If you travel from Cluj to Manastirea, you pass by Bontida, Gherla and finally reach Dej, the first
road to the right being the access way to the locality. From 1C national road, more precisely, from Nima, you
can perceive on the right the compound of the castle across the road and railway tracks. In summer time
the perspective is obstructed by vegetation, yet in winter, the compound can be seen from quite a distance,
blocked here and there by some industrial halls built on the side of the national road.
Initially, Manastirea developed around the castle, while most villagers were villains on the property of
the Hungarian count. In 1553, the locality had 7 villains and 8 “jeleri” [in Transylvania, farmers without any sort
of property] that inhabited 15 houses, while 16 were abandoned. In 1599, the count had 22 houses. According
to the 1696 inventory, the coopers, the wheelwrights, the blacksmiths, tanners, potters, cooks, carpenters,
joiners, and locksmith had their own place within the castle, in general joined to the precinct wall, and each
inhabited a room in the precinct or in the village houses, most of the time. At the time, the craft centre was in
the castle – the major income source – also the centre for a wide range of activities, from agriculture to culture.
In 1750, the most prominent craftsmen were the blacksmiths, the coopers, the basket weavers, the adobe
makers, and roofers.
In 1945, the count and other well-off people were expropriated, while their lands were abusively cut off,
and new parcels and households were done on their lands. 67 villagers were put in possession at that time. In
the very same year, the count fled to Hungary, and left his castle and estate to the state that took it. The village
teacher says that at that time all the villagers became “workers” overnight and the course of their lives changed
radically. Many of the local crafts ceased to be practiced after the communists coming to power, and were not
picked up again until 1990, since the ensemble had vanished and they were useless. In 1959, the 232 families
joined their lands and agricultural tools it what used to be called “8 Martie” Agricultural Cooperative; thus the
plum brandy workshop and tanneries appeared as community functions. Noneof them is working today. Now,
each villager looks after his/her own property – craftsmanship is long dead, yet people did not forget about
their former activities.
Currently, the locality survives in the neighbourhood of the town of Dej to which it owes its vitality. All
problems of urban function are made up for by its vicinity to urban areas.

46
Annex 9: Historic background of the Kornis family;
47
Sigismund Kornis governor of Transylvania in 1713 – 1731; Ioan Kornis governor of Transylvania in 1838-1840.
48
Annex 10: Transylvanian aristocratic residences

25
Figure 24 : Kornis Castle, view from the village Figure 28: Kornis 19th century palace, main facade

Figure 25: Kornis Castle, view from inside Figure 29: Kornis 19th century palace, secondary facade
the compound

Figure 26: Kornis Castle, main body, 2008

F Figure 30: Kornis Castle,
decoration from the main body

Figure 27: Kornis Castle, main body, 1945

F
4.3. The history of the ensemble:

Kornis Castle is placed within this context, being built in 1575-1593 by Kristof Kereszturi of Dej
borough. The Prince of Transylvania and King of Hungary, Stefan Bathory, donated him the Manastirea estate.
From what we can see today, the first to be built was the castle, with basement, semi-basement,
higher ground floor and upper floor, a unique example for Transylvanian Renaissance both in plan type and in
the way certain elements, to be found somewhere else, are joined yet never like here (Hungarian decorative el-
ements, clearly discernable if referred to Sarospatak, and Polish elements function in the very same ensemble
coherently). The volume of the main wing is compact and is tacked to the precinct walls, opening to the south
onto a large balcony.
The Kornis family becomes the owner of the estate only in 1602, when Kristof Kereszturi’s daughter
married Boldizsar Kornis, who thus is given the nobility privilege on October 26, 1603 (Dr. Voit Pal). It is sure
that in 1712, the title of the Kornis family is re-confirmed.
It is assumed that in 1720, Sigismund Kornis, a descendent of Baltazar Kornis, built the gate tower,
yet Dr. Voit Pal does not think so because: „It is unlikely that the huge gate tower or corner bastions, part of
the little fortification, should be built in the 18th century. The 1720 inscription on the gate tower refers to the
renovation and addition work (carried out by the “gobernor” Zsigmond Kornis), as well as the date of 1886 that
marks Viktor Kornis’ steady renovation and embellishments (ascertained by Petrik Albert)”.50
The building of the castle stands on the southern side of the rectangular precinct of the compound
comprising 3 octagonal corner towers, a wedge-like bastion and a gate one (all added by Zsigmond Kornis
in 1680), the inner fountain and the annexes leaning to the precinct wall. According to the justifying report of
“REMON Proiect”, the western bastion was built around 1650, thus together with the octagonal bastions and
the precinct wall.
The gate tower was damaged during the rebellion of Francisc Rakoczi’s soldiers and remade in the
present shape in 1720. On the same occasion, the castle was raised, extended to the south and decorated
with frescoes still visible after 1945.
The castle was surrounded by a ditch and the access was done through a wooden drawbridge.
Probably after 1720, once the gate tower was rebuilt, part of the bridge was replaced with a brick one.
The palace situated north of the ensemble, was built in the 19th century. The village teacher, Pavel
Rusu, tells how the building was initially erected as an outbuilding of the existing castle, and later transformed
into secondary residence, “the new wing of the castle”. The decoration, the façade composition, the coherence
of walls that does not show evidence of previous voids, does not confirm the idea that it had been used as a
storage place. It is certain that in 1850, Viktor Kornis donated the building to the locality to be converted into
a Greek-Catholic confession school, which was in use until 2000, when the new school was built on the same
parcel. Between 2000 and 2008, the whole roof was dilapidated; most of the structural elements of the attic
ceiling being affected by humidity decayed, while the veranda and its roofing were completely destroyed.

50
Dr. Voit Pal; SZENTBENEDEKI UDVARHAZ (Kornis Mansion from Mănăstirea), „Epiteszet” architectural review, 1944 vol. IV,
fascicle 1, p. 21

26
Figure 31: ARCHEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS PLAN, Kornis, Manastirea, 1975

Figure 32:
PAINTING, UNKNOWN DATE
Documentation from the village’s
monography
Kornis, Manastirea,
 A period painting shows how the ensemble and palace worked after the latter was built. The eastern
precinct wall was completely dismantled as it had been evinced by the 1975 archaeological diggings [fig.31],
and the whole precinct opened to vast garden extending eastwards [fig.32]. The northern wall was partially
perforated to create direct communication with the new palace. This kind of connection between the two
spaces support the idea that the classical palace was once inhabited. No information as to the organization or
geometry of the garden or the estate after the palace had been built was found.
The ensemble suffered several destructions during WW II and in its aftermath. Once the communist
regime came to power and beginning with the agrarian reform of 1945, the deterioration of the castle and the
estrangement or ransacking of its assets went on rapidly. In 1948, the Ministry of Domestic Affairs and Somes
County Prefecture officially demand that the ransacking and destruction of the castle should stop. However,
the robberies continued until 1949, when the mayor the locality, Augustin Pop, was found guilty for trafficking
goods stolen from the castle. In 1949, the Ciceu Agricultural Ward takes over the severely damaged building of
the castle of 544 sq m on each level, composed of 7 rooms in the basement, 15 rooms on the ground floor, and
12 rooms on the first floor. The southern bastion functioned as Cultural Home until 1980.
In 1975, the first restoration work of the castle was started by the Department of Historic Monuments,
yet when that was dissolved in 1977, the works were stopped which further damaged the building. However,
spoliation has gone on even to our days; in our trips, from September 2008 and February 2009, we recognized
materials taken from the compound.
The castle and the other buildings belonging to the count were given back to the Kornis family, to
Gabrilla Kornis, more exactly, aged 84, and living in Budapest. Although she was initially interested, she never
took official steps to urgently have the place restored.

4.4. Petit histoires:

The little tales told by locals or visitors do not seek to tell a historic truth nor do they claim to be
real documents or evidence. Although many seem just racy stories meant to excite, scientifically, their value
might be marginal. The scientific interest is given by the identity and identification values associated with the
monument and justified by the number and type of these “little tales”. If a monument is in people’s mind and
imagination, it means that it populates their consciousness and makes them think about its existence one way
or another.
The legend of the Benedictine Convent: has also a grain of historic truth. It is supposed that in the
centre of the locality there was a Benedictine convent built around 1300, which gave the name of the place.
The current castle was built over the convent, and some of it could be found in the basement. From the assets
of the convent there remained a pair of shoes, some monk clothes, and a chalice, now lost, but the villagers
swear the they saw them at least once in their lifetime. Even in the field literature there are speculations about
the former church edifice, and one of the evidence the authors claim is the gothic arcade from the basement.
In reality, by analyzing the plans and building stages of the castle, we discover that the basement supposed to
have resulted from the one side of the Benedictine church was -3.50 cm below the courtyard ground. It is very
unlikely that the Benedictine church should have had the footprint 3 m below the exterior footprint, and indeed,
it is very unlikely that some space may have been under this side – for instance, the vault.

27
Figure 33: BLACK MADONNA, Częstochowa Figura 34: STONE ICON, Kornis, Manastirea, 1955

Figura 35: UNICORN - STATUARY GROUP AT THE ENTRANCE Manastirea, 2008

 The archaeological diggings have not uncovered walls from the convent walls or evidence of the church
beside the current castle or in its neighbourhood. However, the story gives a holy aura to the place, thus
creative a positive image in the relative awareness of the locals.
The legend of the weeping icon: is a documented story by both the Kornis family archives and the
archives of the Catholic Church. In 1681, Luca from Iclod, a minister, painted a wooden icon, a replica of The
Black Madonna from Częstochowa [fig.33], Poland, which he put in the Nicula wooden church from Gherla.
Beginning with March 15, 1694, the icon starts weeping with consecrated oil, an event investigated by Catho-
lic Church through its emissaries and recorded as a miracle. At that time, the Gherla estate belonged to the
Kornis family, and Sigismund Kornis, the count in that period, demanded, in 1699, that this icon be moved to
the castle chapel from Manastirea. The congregation grew angry so the count had to give the icon back one
year later. From then on, the story of the icon gets more complex and the chain of miracles goes on, though
unrelated to the Manastirea ensemble. In 1713, Sigismund Kornis orders two replicas of miracle-making icon
and puts them as protectors of the compound, one above the gate tower and the other above the entrance to
the castle .51 These stone icons remained untouched until 1992, when a first attempt of stealing was stopped.
The village teachers saved just in time the icon placed above the entrance to the castle [fig. 34],and gave it to
the History Museum from Dej. The second icon was stolen from the gate tower in 2003 and it seems to be on
the wall of a house from Gherla.52 The villagers mourn this loss, because they thought the icon belonged to the
“castle” and to the “village”, which shows that the villagers identified with some signs of the place.
The legend of the unicorn : has it that the locality was haunted by a wicked unicorn that „disturbed
people’s homesteads and the Benedictine monks that had built there a monastery. One ancestor of the Ko-
rnis family waited for the unicorn to come and drink and, while it was riding on the bridge, he thrust a scythe
in his belly. He was knighted for his valor and then he put a unicorn on his coat-of-arms”53 Thus, the yielding
and kneeling unicorn guards the entrance of the castle; elements of similar kind could be seen through the
ensemble.
In the Middle Ages, the unicorn stood for the savage power of the protector who, with its horn
dissipated the darkness and evil, cancelled the effect of poisons and was triumphant over vicissitudes.
The fact is that Kristof Kereszturi fought in the service of Prince Stefan Bathory, and in 1575 saved
his life by protecting him against an arrow. Thus, as a token of gratitude, he was donated the Manastirea
estate, and his aristocratic title re-confirmed and he was given the coat-of-arms with an unicorn – the guardian
– carrying an arrow in its mouth.
At that time, it was assumed that any member of the aristocratic family who wanted to separate from
the major family line should keep the coat-of-arms and partially change it accordingly just to mark the new
family branch. It is very likely that through his marriage to Kereszturi’s daughter, Boldizsar Kornis should have
given the right to include the unicorn on his coat-of-arms and slightly change it in order to mark the different
branch of the family. The coats-of-arms of the Kereszturi and Kornis families are very similar, since they share
the symbol of the unicorn, the first having the animal with an arrow in its mouth, which we cannot see in the
second. They are both standing as sculptures on the gate tower and as a statuary group with unicorns flanking
the arched bridge through which you can access the compound. However, on the castle we can see only the
Kereszturi coat-of-arms, since the main wing was built by Kristof Kereszturi.
51
Along with the inscription: „Mira Dei Genitrix Nostra stillavit in aula, Filius ut sacris concilietur aquis, Maternaque Deum, quid
mirum, flexerit unda Kornisia his lachrimis surgit in alta Domus.” - Mother of the miraculous God has wept within these walls and
begged his Son with Her holy tears. How admirable of Her! Mother’s tears impressed Our Lord and the Kornis House rose through
tears.
52
Foaia Transilvana: http://www.ftr.ro/icoana-de-la-nicula-reprodusa-si-furata-5909.php
53
Toma Roman in “Jurnalul National” newspaper of the 26th of june 2007.
28
Figure 36:
THE KERESZTURI COAT
OF ARMS

Figure 37:
THE KORNIS COAT OF
ARMS
The rest of the ensemble has the Kornis coat-of-arms, while at the entrance the statuary group with unicorns
has no relation to the two coats-of-arms.
The legend of human sacrifice: In 1905 and 1910, Karoly Kornis financed the building of a micro
hydro power station and the village dam. As in the legend of Master Manole, whatever was built during the day
was destroyed at night. To purify the place and pacify the spirits, a two or three month old baby was sacrificed
and walled in the foundations of the new building. The rural legends do have sometimes this freaky component
as the impact on the listener is therefore more powerful. The village teacher argues that his grandfather had
been the child’s godfather, and in 1961 he met the baby’s mother – an old gypsy woman from the Cengheri
family. Apparently, the child had a severe birth deformity and could not have survived, and thus, the “sacrifice”
was something in-between a natural death and inflicted one. In the period documents, there was no remark
about the difficulties encountered at the building of the dam or about a baby being sacrificed. One thing is for
sure: both the hydro power station and the dam are still working today. Whether a baby was sacrificed or not,
the villagers take great pleasure in telling the legend.
Besides, there is a multitude of little tales, some heard around the ruins of any castle: the story of a
tunnel reaching the next village … the church, across the river”, “the haunted dungeon”, or romances about
princesses who met in secret with the officers from the garrison.
These tales are extremely emotional, thus illustrating the love of the locals for the Kornis ensemble
and whatever surrounds it. If there had not been any identification or identity value, these stories would have
disappeared from the local folklore, and the castle would have been perceived as “the ruins on the hill”, and not
as it is today: “The Kornis’ Castle with Unicorns”.

4.5. The importance and necessity of restoration:

The castle is one of the few nobility’s representative residences built on Transylvania’s territory during
Renaissance and that shows a particular planimetric layout and evolution.54 Its uniqueness is being a feature
more or less associated with all nobility’s residences from Transylvania.
In fact, there are no two similar residences, or residences of little cultural value, yet there is a growing
number of highly deteriorated residences that are about to be lost for good.
Transylvanian Renaissance was a special phenomenon not for being unique in the world or for having
some local specificity but because it took place almost at the same time as the Italian one, being mediated by
the Hungarian trend. Although the residences were not so opulent like the Hungarian ones, the trend produced
unique ensembles through their defensive-functional character that lasted longer. Despite the rather sluggish
local economy, the renaissance decorations in Transylvania are similar to those from the Hungarian Kingdom.
This kind of residence was unique in Romania.
The ruin of the Kornis Castle could fall into the “ruin=historic monument” category or “created
ruin”. The ruin appeared immediately after the monument lost its usefulness: the castle in 1945, the southern
bastion in 1989, and the 19th century palace in 2000. The gate tower was restored in 1975, and because it was
not deteriorated it cannot be listed as a ruin. The gate tower is an abandoned yet whole fragment.

54
Annex 10: Transylvanian aristocratic residences
29
 There is no doubt about its historic value, the residence being the archive in stone of the Kornis
family, a result and witness of the history it created and that created it. Its oldness is related to the origins
of the castle built in 1575 that developed until 1945 in a natural way and reflected the architectural trends
in Transylvania, as well as the building techniques, the evolution of the way of life and ideas, the economic
situation in various ages and the social tensions that went along with it.
The identity value or rather its loss is partly justified by the depopulation and disaggregation of
the entire locality. The ensemble was a sort of focus of rural activities; it gave direction to the village being a
resourceful landmark. The development of the entire locality depended on the centre – the castle – and the
main road. Though it is true that depopulation and loss of identity is a general phenomenon in Romanian
villages, mostly in those in the vicinity of cities, we cannot overlook the fact that the disappearance of the castle
– the economic centre of rural activities – was a decisive factor. This can also be seen in the demographic
fluctuation starting with 1945 and associated with constant migration to the city.
The artistic value of each ensemble is to be judged separately by taking into account the surviving
artistic and decorative elements. As concerns the ruin of the Kornis Castle, without carrying out the artistic
evaluation of the initial monument, we can plainly notice the decorative elements supporting the global artistic
value of the ruin. From the stone frames of the doors and windows that Dr. Voit Pal compared to those from
Saropatak, to the wooden railing posts carved by Albert Molnar, to the coats-of-arms of the Keresturi and
Kornis families and the miracle-working icons, replicas of the famous Polish ones, to the decorative elements,
some preserved in the museums of Cluj and Dej, some let in situ and most of them stolen, they all sustain
the unique artistic value of the castle. Neither the composition nor the global artistic value can be assessed
because the formal unity of the castle has been lost and the existing ruin cannot reflect the aesthetic qualities
of the original object.
By being a sort of stone quarry, unfortunately, the castle has also economic value. Its spoliation will
cease when all materials will be gone for good. From window frames, parts of the walls, wooden elements or
even tin and the protection elements added later, all such elements that can be reused are despoiled to the
detriment of the cultural value of the castle.
The ruin of the historic monument was created beginning with 1945, and its wholeness was lost in
the 1970s as consequence to barbaric spoliation partly encouraged by the regime.
Being a non-renewable cultural resource, the ruin of the Kornis Castle needs attitude and intervention.
Saving the monument means more than the recovery of an essential cultural value for the Romanian culture,
it can determine the recovery of a village and of a way of life in an area with economic potential. Thus, we
are not talking here about the recovery of an object or ensemble but about the retrieval of a way of life and
atmosphere specific to Transylvania.

30
CHAPTER 5: Instead of conclusions: About a possible future:

The avant-garde, in both art and architecture, denied the rules and the past in order to express the
future more powerfully. The avant-garde and, in general, the revolutionary attitude tends to deny society’s
habitual values. By denying the past and shocking the present, one could imagine the outline of a radically de-
veloped future, unpredictable and revolutionary. Without understanding of the past, it cannot be either denied
nor accepted, or regarded as a vital element in the continuum of development. Despite the statement made by
modern architecture – a laid back, sustainable one, a revolutionary and rebellious one, or a respectful architec-
ture showing its personality – , it all has to take into account what “was”. The architecture that forms on top of
the existing, takes matters a step forward, as it uses the past as basis and starting point for future action.
In today’s society, in which globalization and uniformization – not only in architecture – are the major
trends, the need to keep regional individuality appears as a necessity. For the historic monument, the identity
and identification values become meaningful; through its own powerful contextual nature, it is an extremely
specific object. The architecture that uses the monument or the existing as a base for development has no
other choice but being specific because it starts from something powerfully connected to the context Whereas
one can argue whether “new” architecture is one “of the place”, the layered architecture formed on top of
the existing is deeply rooted. The existing strata, the ruin, can be reused in certain situations, especially if it
receives functional value that would allow its architectural use.
As to Romanian architecture, the communist period was a moment of cultural rupture, and marked a
point of discontinuity in the architectural development. This break could not be totally made up for after 1989,
and the mentality of the beneficiaries, still under the influence of the old regime, could not be changed. At the
same time, the architectural heritage was profoundly damaged through the communist era and, unfortunately,
things did not change much today. The tendency to disapprove of the “bourgeois” cultural values is so deeply
rooted in people’s minds, especially in the rural areas, that the respect, preservation, and maintenance of
monuments could only be cultivated if the community spirit is revived and people become aware of their iden-
tity values. Aggressive spoliation, demolition and destruction can be stopped either through an extensive and
intensive continuous intervention from the authorities, or through the revival of local interest and identity.
In this respect, the recovery of those monuments that were brutally reduced to the state of ruin, and their use
as a layer of new architecture that the community will find useful and, preferably, lucrative, is the best choice.
However, the term “lucrative” should be understood as efficient action, and by no means, a way to make profit.
The museification of a monument or ruin is a viable choice only if they can be integrated within an infrastruc-
ture that would allow tourist use.
In the case of the Kornis ensemble is not difficult to awake the community’s interest and spirit or to
reinstate of the identity values specific to the place, in part because the monument is placed in the centre of
the locality. Its brutal transformation into a ruin as well as its degree of deterioration justifies a comprehensive
intervention meant to fill in what has been taken and to change the existing strata into new architecture.

31
 Keeping its initial function or adopting new ones compatible to the original strengthen the identity
value of the monument, and allows it to regain its place of merit formally and functionally. The intervention ap-
proach will consider the retrieval of the historic monument as well as the preservation of the old values and the
addition of new ones as priorities. The added value can be a pre-existent one that disappeared – the relative
artistic or technical value, the urban value - or it can be an entirely new value gained as a result of the new
additions. The recovery and completion of the ensemble can be acquired by keeping the same relation to the
locality, the same urban figure, by emphasising the valuable existing substance and by functional recovery.
The most important aspect is that through the recovery of the monument, it can be possible to revive the entire
place that holds it to its centre. Manastirea is a locality born together with the monument, that evolved with the
monument and that dies with the monument, and if we were to save the place, we must save its centre.
Initially the ensemble was a residence that functioned as a self-sufficient organism, gathering all the
activities it needed: production, storage, operation activities. It had somehow the air of a self-contained for-
tress concentrating all vital functions. Thus, the proposed function is also a mixed one, merging dwelling and
leisure with the traditional activities of the castle. The major reason of restoring the former crafts is that they
were never lost, and there are still craftsmen living in the village. A traditional handicraft centre in Manastirea
has a great economic potential and restores part of the identity of the place. Moreover, taking into account
that the demand for natural and artisan work is constantly growing, being a rarity on the market, a commercial
space, situated close to the manufacturer and also no more than 50 km from Cluj, and 4 km from Dej, could be
extremely profitable.
The main building will retain its initial function as luxurious residence – with guest suites on the two
upper floors. The most representative level – the piano nobile – will be opened to the public and will become a
restaurant while the kitchen as well as the wine cellar will be placed in the basement. The annexes used to be
workshops, but they disappeared altogether by the end of the 1950s. The newly proposed annexes provide en-
closure to the ensemble, and will be rebuild using contemporary means. The original functions will be kept as
far as possible on the same position. Some modifications will be made due to health regulation in that produc-
tive and food related functions will be separated, although historically they were mixed. The bakery, traditional
product shop, the traditional winery with all its by-products, will be grouped together with the restaurant on the
southern side of the ensemble while the production workshops: carpenter, tanner, blacksmith, glassblower,
basket maker, tailor, weaver, potter, are gathered on the opposite side. Aside from the rough functional division,
the main functional difference between the original annexes and the newly proposed ones is the character
of each new workshop unit. They will consist of a sale and demonstration area, opened to the public, on the
ground floor and a workshop and relaxation area, more private, on the top floor.
Formally it is important to keep all elements of value, and to subordinate the new additions and the
new architecture to the original substance of the monument, and to the existing ruin. The fundamental ele-
ments for the identity of the ensemble will be restored in a modern manner by clearly separating the new and
the old. The 19th century palace is the first to greet the visitor, and it functioned as a school most of its exis-
tence.
Its degradation started in the year 2000 when the new school was built and went on until today. The
less accelerated rhythm of decay as compared to that of the castle, as well as the date of its abandonment
means that the palace is in a far better shape than the castle itself.

32
The interventions will consider its conservation, some repair work, since the restoration will need just a few
minor additions to the roofing. The main proposed function for this building is reception area, with gift shop and
workshop halls, and will not interact directly with the rest of the ensemble.
There is a corpus of information, documents and direct analyses of the monument as well as a wide
range of choices of interventions that had been already studied – for instance, the feasibility study and the
proposal for restoration carried out by Mrs. Arch. Constanta Carp in the 1970s; thus, the implementation of a
project is feasible. Although the interventions could only start from the financial entity that will provide funding,
there is a documentary resource base that could help in making a better informed decision.
The Kornis ensemble is not a rare case – there are several aristocratic residences in Transylvania.
Although each of them requires a specific analysis and intervention policy adapted to its particular state, the
overall recovery and intervention strategy could be similar.

Reclaiming valuable elements like the non-renewable and irreplaceable heritage resources, is not only
a necessity, is an obligation.

33
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY:

CHAPTER 1:

BOOKS:

1. Cramer, Johannes; Breitling Stefan; Architecture in existing fabric; ed. Birkhauser, Berlin 2007.
2. Choay, Franciose; Alegoria Patrimoniului; [The Allegory of Heritage] ed. Simetria, Bucureşti 1998.
3. Riegl, Alois; Cultul modern al monumentelor - esenţa şi geneza sa - [The Modern Cult of Monu-
ments: Its Character and its Origin]; Published with the support of the Tempus-Phare programme, Bucharest
1998.
4. Derer, Hanna; Un alt fel de istorie, Valenţe ale patrimoniului construit; [Another Kind of History,
Valences of the Built Patrimony], the “Ion Mincu” Universitary Publishing House, Bucharest 2007.
5. Nistor, Sergiu; Protecţia patrimoniului cultural în România – Culegere de acte
normative; [Protection of the Cultural Heritage in Romania - Collection of legal documents] the “Ion Mincu”
Universitary Publishing House, Bucharest 2002.
6. Gausa, Manuel; Guallart, Vicente; Muller, Willy; Soriano, Frederico; Porras, Fernando; Morales,
Jose; The metapolis dictionary of advanced architecture, 2003.
7. Ginsberg, Robert; The Aesthetics of Ruins; Rodopi Amsterdam - New York, New York 2004.
8. Feilden, Sir Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew, Management Guidelines for World
Cultural Heritage Sites - ICCROM, Roma, Italia, 1993.
9. Kovacs, Kazmer;Timpul monumentului istoric; [The Historic Monument’s Time] Paidea Publisher
house, Bucharest 2003.
10. F.A. Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, AMS press, NY 1967 – partial
scan.

STUDIES - RAPORTS:

1. De la Torre, Maria, ed. - Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage - Research Report, The Getty
Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, S.U.A, 2002.

WEBSITES:

• http://dexonline.ro - the romanian explanatory dictionary, 2004.

• http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf - UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention

34
 CHAPTER 2:

BOOKS:

1. Ashurst, John; Conservation of ruins; Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier, Oxford 2007.

2. Curinschi, Gheorghe; Restaurarea Monumentelor; [The restoration of historic monuments] The
Tehchnical Publishing House, Bucharest 1968.
3. Feilden, M., Bernard; Conservation of Historic Buildings; Architectural Press publishers, Oxford,
third edition, 2003.
4. Feilden, Sir Bernard; Jokilehto, Jukka; Thornburn, Andrew, Management Guidelines for World
Cultural Heritage Sites - ICCROM, Rome, Italy, 1993.
5. Riegl, Alois; Cultul modern al monumentelor - esenţa şi geneza sa - ;[The Modern Cult of Monu-
ments: Its Character and its Origin]; Published with the support of the Tempus-Phare programme, Bucharest
1998.
6. Nistor, Sergiu; Protecţia patrimoniului cultural în România – Culegere de acte
normative; [Protection of the Cultural Heritage in Romania - Collection of legal documents] the “Ion Mincu”
Universitary Publishing House, Bucharest 2002.

STUDIES – REPORTS:

1. Jokilehto, Jukka, History of conservation - ICCROM, Roma, Italia, 1993.

2. Avrami, Erica; Mason, Randall; De la Torre, Maria, ed. - Values and Heritage Conservation, Re-
search Report, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, S.U.A, 2000.
3. General Conclusions of the 1931 Athens Conference, chapter IV.

WEBSITES:

• http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/reports.html - documentation archive related to

restoration charters and guidelines.
• http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide08-en.pdf - UNESCO Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention
• http://dexonline.ro - the romanian explanatory dictionary, 2004.

35
CHAPTER 3

BOOKS:

1. Cantacuzino, Şerban; RE-Architecture, Old Buildings / New Uses; Abbeville Press, New York
1989.
2. MacKay-Lyons, Brian; GHOST – Building an Architectural Vision; Princeton Architectural Press,
New York 2008.
3. Building în Existing Fabric; editor Christian Schittich, Birkhauser - Publishers for Architecture,
Edition Detail, 2003.
4. Architect Sverre Fehn, intuition – reflection – construction; editor Marianne Yvenes, Eva
Madshus, print Zoon Grafisk AS, Oslo, The National Museum of Art, Architecture and Design 2008.
5. Cramer, Johannes; Breitling; Architecture in existing fabric; Birkhauser - Publishers for
Architecture, Berlin, 2007.
6. Balkow, Dieter ;Schittich, Christian; Schuler Matthias; Sobek, Werner; Staib, Gerald; Glass
construction manual, Birkhäuser - Publishers for Architecture, 1999, second edition 2007.

PERIODICALS:

1. El Croquis no.140, Alvaro Siza 2001-2008, interview pg. 19-31.

2. El Croquis, Alvaro Siza, no. 66-69.
3. El Croquis 134/135 / 2007 OMA Rem Koolhaas 1996-2007.
4. El Croquis, Rem Koolhaas, no. 53, 79, 131/132.
5. El Croquis, Herzog & DeMeuron 2002-2006, no. 129-130.
6. El Croquis, Rafael Moneo no. 64.
7. El Croquis, WORLDS [one] , no. 88-89/1998, Peter Zumthor.
8. Detail, april-may 1996.
9. Detail, october, 2002.

WEBSITES:

• http://www.carmassiarchitecture.com – website of architect Massimo Carmassi

• http://vernissagetv.com/blog/2007/09/24/peter-zumthor-speaks-about-museum-kolumba-co-
logne-part-12/ - Peter Zumthor about Kolumba Museum
• http://0lll.com/archgallery2/zumthor_kolumba/index.htm - Peter Zumthor about Kolumba Museum

36
 CHAPTER 4

BOOKS:

1. Neagu Djuvara; O scurtă istorie a românilor povestită celor tineri; [Short History of the Roma-
nian People Narrated to the Young]; Humanitas Publishing House, VII edition, Bucharest 2008.
2. Constantin C. Giurescu; Istoria Românilor, [History of the Romanian People] All Publishing House;
V th edition ; Bucharest 2007
3. Virgil Vătăşianu; Istoria artei feudale în Ţările Române, [History of Feudal Art in the Romanian
Principates] volume I, Technical Publishing House, Bucharest.
4. Gheorghe Curinschi Vorona, Istoria arhitecturii în România, [History of Romanian Architecture]
Technical Publishing House, Bucharest 1981
5. Gh. Sebestyen si V. Sebestyen; Arhitectura renaşterii în Transilvania; [Renascence Architecture
in Transylvania] Technical Publishing House, Bucharest 1963.
6. Sebestyen, Gheorghe; O pagină din istoria arhitecturii României – Renaşterea; [A Page from the
Romanian History of Architecture - Renascence] Technical Publishing House, Bucharest 1987.

STUDIES – REPORTS:

1. Documentation for the Kornis Castle restoration project, 1978, drawn up by Mrs. Arch. Con-
stanta Carp, historical study by Mrs. Arch. Ilona Csortan.
2. Dr. Voit Pal; SZENTBENEDEKI UDVARHAZ (the Kornis manor from Mănăstirea), „Epiteszet”
magazine (Architecture), 1944 vol. IV, pg. 21-25.
3. Kadar Jozsef, Szolnok-Doboka Varmegye Monographiaja (Monografia comitatului Solnoc-
Dabarca), Vol. 4, dej 1903, p. 310-326.
4. B. Nagy Margit; Reneszansz es barokk Erdelyben (Renscence and Baroque şi baroc in
Transylvania); Kriterion Publishing House, Bucharest 1970.
5. B. Nagy Margit; Fortresses, Castles and Curiae, Bucharest 1971 - translated extras-.
6. The Archive of the Kornis Family – The Archive of the Academy’s Library, Cluj.
7. MASTERPLAN Mănăstirea: Written documents and the Local Urban Regulations 2000.

ONLINE BOOKS:
• The Cultural-Scientific Society „George Bariţiu”, coordinator dr. Anton Drăgoescu, Istoria României
– Transilvania, [Romanian History - Transylvania] „George Bariţiu” publishing house, Cluj-Napoca, source:
www.istoriatransilvaniei.ro

WEBSITES:
• http://www.ftr.ro/icoana-de-la-nicula-reprodusa-si-furata-5909.php - Petit Histoires: the Weeping
Icon
• http://www.heraldica.org – The meaning of the unicorn placed on the family crest

37
ACTS AND CHARTERS USED THROUGHOUT THE PAPER:

1. The Athens Charter CIAM 1933

2. The Venice Charter 1964
3. Law no. 422 from the 18th of july 2001 regarding the protection of historic monuments, M.O., Part I
407/24 iuly 2001
4. Law no. 5 from the 6th of march 2000 regarding the approval of the National Masterplan – Section
III – protected areas.
5. The Civil Code, book II, title I

38
ILLUSTRATION SOURCE:

RATIONALE:

Figure 1: The Author

Figure 2: The Author
Figure 3: The Author
Figure 4: The Author
Figure 5: author: Ady Winkler at
http://www.rumaenienburgen.de/maramures/images-maramures/010mediesuaurit01.jpg
Figure 6: autori: Crişu Dona, Pascu Ştefana, Zgripcea Cristiana, “moNUmenteUITATE” group
Figure 7: autor: Ady Winkler at
http://www.rumaenienburgen.de/transilvania/images-transilvania/buia_andrea003.jpg
Figure 8: autor: Ady Winkler at
http://www.rumaenienburgen.de/transilvania/images-transilvania/uroi-schl03.jpg

CHAPTER 1:

Figure 9: The Author

Figure 10: The Author
Figure 11: The Author
Figure 12: The Author
Figure 13: The Author
Figure 14: The Author
Figure 15: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2841048300_8d030070e7_o.jpg
Figure 16: The Author
Figure 17: The Author

CHAPTER 3:

Figure 18: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=429&storycode=3105892&c=1

Figure 19: http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=429&storycode=3105892&c=1
Figure 20: http://massimocarmassi.com
Figure 21: http://www.mimoa.eu/images/7912_l.jpg

CHAPTER 4:

Figure 22: The Author

Figure 23: The Author
Figure 24: The Author
Figure 25: The Author
Figure 26: The Author

39
CHAPTER 4 :

Figure 27: REMON PROIECT archive

Figure 28: The Author
Figure 29: The Author
Figure 30: The Author
Figure 31: Archeological diggings by REMON PROIECT, leading architect Arch. CONSTANTA CARP
Figure 32: Painting by unknown author in the Monography of Manastirea, pg.19.
Figure 33: Wikipedia: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/Czestochowska.jpg
Figure 34: autor: students from IAIM, 1955, under the guidance of prof. arch. Grigore Ionescu
Figure 35: The Author
Figure 36: From the Monography of Manastirea, pg. 13.
Figure 37: Image provided by Pavel Rusu, school master in the village of Manastirea

40
ANNEXES:

Due to space requirements the annexes mentioned in the contents were not included in the present translation.
The annexes function as an additional theoretical support for the paper, but their absence doesn’t hinder
the understanding of the dissertation. Total number of pages occupied by the Annexes: 37 pages. Original
dissertation spanned on 84 pages.

41