Protective structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and evaluation of contemporary architectural solutions

Klaudia Stala

doi:10.37190/arc250308

Abstract

This article analyzes and evaluates contemporary architectural solutions for protective structures in archaeological reserves. The research examines various approaches to sheltering and preserving archaeological sites, balancing the need for protection with visitor accessibility and interpretive requirements. The study provides a comprehensive overview of current practices and innovative solutions in archaeological site preservation architecture.

Full article view is only available on bigger screens.

2025

3(83)

Klaudia Stala*

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves.

Analysis and assessment

of contemporary architectural design

DOI: 10.37190/arc250308

Published in open access. CC BY NC ND license

Abstract

The design of architecture within areas of archaeological heritage, where immovable surface relics, stratied cultural deposits, and the sur

rounding landscape are subject to protection, is not only a creative but also a scientic and conservation challenge. This article examines the most

recent approaches to the design of protective shelters for archaeological reserves. Given the intrinsic relationship between archaeological sites,

their cultural landscapes, and the natural environment, contemporary design must address the preservation of these interdependent dimensions

simultaneously. Current standards for protective interventions dier substantially from those of the mid to late20

century and continue to evolve.

This transformation is informed in large part by comprehensive analytical studies conducted since the early 21

century, which demonstrated that

existing shelters were often ineective and, in some cases, even harmful to the relics they were intended to safeguard. These ndings necessitated

a critical revision of prevailing guidelines. The article presents the author’s research on the evaluation of recent archaeological shelter designs and the

new predesign standards that inform their development.

Key words: archaeological shelter, archaeological reserve, design for conservation

Introduction, research objective

and methods

Open archaeological reserves require continuous mon

itoring, as exposed relics are highly vulnerable to external

factors. Particularly fragile remains should be protected

with shelters specically designed to reduce degradation

risks. This article evaluates such protective structures built

in the 1

quarter of the 21

century, drawing on data from

postdesign monitoring of environmental conditions be

neath the shelters and their eects on the preserved relics.

The analysis addresses both the design and conservation

measures undertaken, as well as the technical and material

solutions applied.

Among the 40 archaeological sites selected for research,

14 are sites where archaeological shelters were constructed

in the last century, but due to design errors, including the

selection of inappropriate materials, they were demolished

and replaced with modern, new structures. In assessing the

causes for the failure of the 20

century projects, the au

thor relied mainly on the research ndings and experiences

of Italian and Turkish conservators concerning the process

of progressive degradation of historic substances, with par

ticular emphasis on Franco Minissi’s work, noting that this

topic is not the main theme of the article, but only a side

issue explaining the reasons for the changes that had to take

place in the design of protective coverings in the 21

cen

tury (Stala 2019). The compilation and analysis of the col

lected data made it possible to identify contemporary trends

in the design of archaeological shelters and to evaluate the

appropriateness of the solutions applied. The selection of

sites was guided by the following criteria:

1. The shelters must have been constructed in the 21

century.

2. The scope of the study was limited to European coun

tries, including Turkey, which – though only partially lo

cated in Europe – has been actively engaged in developing

protective structures in the 21

century as part of a consistent

* ORCID: 0000000172228504. Faculty of Architecture, Cracow

University of Technology, Poland, email: klaudia.stala@pk.edu.pl

82 Klaudia Stala

pol

icy of safeguarding and promoting archaeological her

itage.

3. The selected sites and relics were, and remain, ex

posed to adverse environmental factors, both climatic and

anthropogenic.

4. Systematic postdesign monitoring of the relics’ con

dition had been conducted at the sites to verify the eec

tiveness of the applied solutions, supplemented, where pos

sible, by predesign monitoring.

5. The examples provided welldocumented and accessi

ble technical and design data.

The research work used a broadly dened method of

analysis, including a monographic analysis of each of the

40 selected examples, together with an analysis of the ar

chaeological site in terms of the value of the preserved her

itage and conservation issues. Each example was critically

analysed in terms of compliance with imposed standards

and strict conservation guidelines, and the research results

were compiled and compared.

The selected archaeological sites with relics protected by

shelters are presented in table, which summarizes data on

the materials used for the coverings, supporting structures

and fastening systems. The table also includes an analysis

of the supporting structures and fastening systems in terms

of their invasiveness into archaeological layers and historic

fabric, as well as an assessment of their reversibility, mod

ularity, and passivity.

State of research

Since the turn of the 21

century, the scientic commu

nity has become increasingly critical of the criteria guiding

the design of archaeological shelters, particularly in light

of numerous projects that created conditions detrimental to

the relics they were intended to protect. An early contri

bution to this debate was Zaki Aslan’s paper on protective

structures in the conservation and presentation of archae

ological sites, presented at a conference in Tunis (Aslan

1997). The author, both an architect and a conservator, is

well acquainted with this subject and actively contributes

to international fora, engaging in discussions and publica

tions (Aslan 2007). In the broader discourse on archaeo

logical shelters, important contributions include the work

of May Cassar on sustainable heritage (Cassar et al. 2001),

Koen Van Balen and Aziliz Vandesand (2021), Sadamichi

Maekawa (2006), Jacques Neguer and Yael Alef (2008),

Martha Demas (2013), and Cristina Cabello Briones (2016;

2017). Maria Concetta Laurenti was among the rst to pub

lish research on archaeological coverings, including mate

rial analyses and the development of a risk map (2006).

Similarly, Sandro Ranellucci (2011) carried out a detailed

study of the environmental conditions generated beneath

such structures. With the increasing demand for archaeo

logical shelter design, the body of scholarship in this eld

continues to expand.

Outline of the research problem

By the end of the 20

century, an increasing number of

reports addressed the condition of relics at archaeological

sites under conservation, particularly those wholly or partial

ly covered by protective structures. Alarming ndings, espe

cially from Europe and the Middle East, indicated that the

state of many relics was deteriorating, as the microclimatic

conditions beneath the shelters often proved more harmful

than those outside. This prompted a series of studies and ex

pert assessments, notably in Italy, where the condition of 100

relics under shelters was examined, and in Israel, where 106

cases, primarily mosaics, were analysed. The results were un

favourable: only 38% of the shelters eectively safeguarded

the relics, while many others not only failed to full their

protective function but also created adverse conditions that

endangered their preservation (Cabello Briones 2017, 35).

A prominent example of this phenomenon can be found

in the work of Franco Minissi, a renowned Italian architect

specialising in the design for conservation of historic build

ings and archaeological sites, whose greatest professional

activity lasted from the 1960s–1980s. Minissi’s projects,

distinguished by their author’s deep respect for historical

context, formal simplicity, and an innovative aesthetic based

on material transparency, earned numerous awards and be

came part of the canon of architectural conservation (Ala

gna 2008; Villani 2012, 34–45). However, they ultimately

failed to withstand the test of time. Criticism from both the

public sphere and the conservation community arose as the

condition of the protected relics visibly deteriorated beneath

Minissi’s structures. Research has demonstrated that design

aws – most notably the inappropriate selection of materials

– were the primary cause. The shelters not only aged rapidly

due to the poor durability of these materials but also gen

erated or intensied harmful environmental factors, thereby

aggravating the degradation of the relics. A notable example

is the Roman Villa del Casale in Piazza Armerina, Sicily,

where the shelter’s structure caused the interior temperature

to rise by 6–7°C above the outside air, reaching approximate

ly 40°C during the summer months, while relative humidity

increased by 10%. Additional new harmful factors included

the oxidation of iron reinforcement bars within the concrete

foundation slabs, water inltration, and excessive microbial

growth. These conditions endangered the valuable mosaics

– many of which began detaching from their substrate – and

also posed risks to human health (Vivio 2015, 205, 206).

This led to the gradual dismantling of the structure and

its replacement with a new shelter designed in accordance

with contemporary standards (Rizzi 2008). Similar mea

sures were taken with two other Sicilian projects by Minis

si: the protective shelter over the Capo Soprano walls in

Gela and that of the theatre in Eraclea Minoa (Stala 2019).

These cases exemplify the challenges faced by conserva

tors, archaeologists, and museologists at the end of the 20

century – challenges that required both urgent and substan

tive responses. Another factor contributing to the harmful

eects of earlier shelters was that many structures erected in

the 1970s and 1980s had originally been intended as tempo

rary solutions, yet remained in place for decades, ultimately

causing more damage than protection. Comparable situa

tions can be observed across much of the Mediterranean ba

sin, with notable examples in Turkey, including the sites of

Karatepe, Zeugma, Arslantepe, Ephesus, and Çatalhöyük,

which are discussed in this study (Ertosun 2012, 94–150).

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 83

Analysis of contemporary principles

in the design of archaeological shelters

Pre- and post-design research

In light of the aforementioned examples and the deterio

rating condition of many archaeological sites, one of the rst

essential measures has been to identify the causes of dam

age and to establish permanent monitoring of the environ

mental conditions beneath archaeological shelters and their

eects on the relics. The risks are not conned to poorly

designed shelters; broader environmental factors also play

a decisive role. Climate change, in particular, has become

a critical threat, contributing to increasingly frequent and

intense atmospheric phenomena, higher summer tempera

tures, weather instability, and rapid uctuations occurring

in the environment within even one day (Sardella et al.

2020). Additional stressors include air pollution, ultraviolet

radiation, and the impact of tourist trac. Sites located in

urban areas are further exposed to noise from adjacent infra

structure, vibrations associated with transportation systems,

and other pressures resulting from intensive land use. Even

modest increases in temperature beneath a shelter – such as

those documented at the Villa del Casale – become more

dangerous in the context of contemporary climate change.

In Sicily, summer temperatures now frequently exceed 40°C

for several consecutive days or even weeks, causing relics

to reach surface temperatures of 45°C and higher. Extreme

cases have been recorded in poorly designed temporary

shelters, such as at Karatepe in Turkey, where wallsurface

temperatures reached 65°C (Ertosun 2012, 119).

Climate change has increasingly exposed relics in open

air archaeological reserves – many of which had remained

stable for decades – to degradation processes not previous

ly observed. An illustrative example is the reserve at Ħaġar

Qim in Malta. Rising summer temperatures and the grow

ing frequency of heavy rainfall at the turn of the 21

cen

tury placed this site, which had functioned as an openair

exhibition since the 19

century discovery of its megalith

ic temple, at considerable risk. These changing conditions

resulted in extensive damage of a stone, including crack

ing, surface aking, delamination, and localized collapses,

particularly in areas where rainwater accumulated due to

inadequate drainage. Studies have also identied wind as

a signicant factor contributing to the deposition of biolog

ical material on stone surfaces. In addition, intense solar ra

diation created further stress, with air temperatures during

summer months reaching up to 40°C.

A similar situation was observed at the temples of Mnaj

dra and Tarxien, where intense solar radiation and elevat

ed temperatures directly contributed to the deterioration of

the stone, while in Tarxien air pollution was an additional

aggravating factor. Consequently, it became necessary to

construct protective shelters over all three sites in order

to eliminate, or at least mitigate, conditions detrimental to

their preservation. Prior to the design phase, comprehensive

monitoring was undertaken, enabling the development of

sitespecic guidelines – for example, determining the re

quired transparency and degree of light reection for roong

materials. At Ħaġar Qim, a membrane of expanded polytet

rauoroethylene (ePTFE) with 12% light transparency was

adopted, compared with 8% at Mnajdra, while both shelters

employed a uniform light reectance coecient of 60%.

The cover at Ħaġar Qim was completed in 2009–2010, and

at Mnajdra in 2015. Since the year 2000, systematic mon

itoring and analysis of climatic and anthropogenic factors

have been carried out at the site of Ħaġar Qim.

Research at the site continued intermittently until the

completion of the protective shelter, after which systemat

ic monitoring was undertaken to verify the eectiveness of

the roong and the extent to which harmful factors were re

duced. The results of both pre and postdesign studies were

compiled by JoAnn Cassar and her team. For example, June

temperature data collected in 2005 (prior to construction)

were compared with measurements from 2012 taken both

under and outside the cover. In 2005, temperatures on the

exposed relics reached 40°C. By contrast, in 2012 the tem

perature beneath the shelter was up to 15°C lower, while

outside the cover it uctuated around 37°C. In August,

the reduction was smaller, approximately 5°C, whereas in

January the membrane provided thermal protection, main

taining temperatures several degrees higher than the exter

nal minimum of 2.8°C (Cassar et al. 2018). The cover also

eectively reduced wind exposure, limiting the spread of

biologically active organisms. However, dust accumulation

remained high, most likely due to the characteristics of the

natural substrate.

The impact on salinity proved more complex. No sig

nicant reduction was observed in 2012–2014, leading Ca

bello Briones (2016) to highlight this as a shortcoming of

the shelter, despite extensive predesign analysis. By 2015,

however, conditions began to improve slightly, suggesting,

as Cassar and colleagues observed a gradual longterm sta

bilization beneath the shelter (Cassar et al. 2018). Other

monitored parameters showed marked improvement, with

most adverse changes proving reversible.

These observations demonstrate that both predesign re

search and postdesign monitoring are indispensable com

ponents of architectural design at archaeological sites (Stala

2024). Determining the minimum duration of predesign

research is particularly important to ensure reliable project

data. According to Rosina et al. (2011), one year of monitor

ing is sucient to identify the principal challenges of a giv

en site. Postdesign monitoring, however, must extend over

a longer period, as illustrated by the case of Ħaġar Qim,

where a measurable reduction in stone salinity was achieved

only ve years after the shelter’s construction (Fig. 1).

Selection of materials

– covering and supporting structures

The selection of appropriate materials is fundamental to

ensuring both the safety of the relics and the creation of

suitable environmental conditions beneath protective shel

ters. Lessons learned from 20

century practice, together

with the contemporary challenges posed by climate change

and the rapid development of new technologies, have un

derscored the need for highquality, durable materials.

This study examined the materials employed in selected

archaeological shelters. In most cases, these were selected

84 Klaudia Stala

by designers on the basis of predesign analyses, frequently

supported by simulation studies conducted under both nat

ural and laboratory conditions. The ndings indicate that

textile membranes are currently the most widely used cov

ering material, accounting for 35% of the cases analysed

(Fig. 2).

This type of solution has been implemented at all three

megalithic temples in Malta, at sites in Serbia and Slovenia,

in France, at Capo Soprano in Sicily (replacing Minissi’s

unsuccessful design), and at three sites in Turkey (Table 1).

The most commonly used materials include polyethy lene,

PVC, expanded polytetrauoroethylene (ePTFE, widely

known as GoreTex), polyurethane (PU), ethylene tetrau

oroethylene (ETFE), and berglass. Their popularity stems

from properties highly relevant to conservation projects, as

these materials satisfy complex technical and preservation

requirements. As demonstrated by the research of Salva



tore Viscuso, Alessandra Zanelli, and Marta Barozzi (2018,

115), such materials oer eective protection against ad

verse environmental factors – including solar radiation, pre

cipitation, wind, and snow – while remaining waterproof

and breathable. Moreover, depending on the thickness of

the coating, their transparency and light reectivity can be

precisely regulated.

Textile materials may be applied in single, double, or

multilayer congurations, allowing performance parame

ters to be tailored to the specic requirements of each ar

chaeological site. All textiles currently employed in shelter

design are treated with antiUV coatings. By carefully se

lecting transparency and lightreectance values, designers

can prevent excessive heating of the cover and thereby limit

heat transfer to the relics. These materials are highly dura

ble, typically carrying warranties of at least 20 years, even

under challenging environmental conditions. Their elasticity

provides considerable exibility in shaping roof structures,

while the degree of coverage can be adjusted in response

to external factors. This adaptability is crucial for eective

protection, enabling shelters to be modied from simple

overhead coverage to neartotal enclosure, which is partic

ularly advantageous in conditions of strong winds or heavy

rainfall. Furthermore, textile coverings are lightweight, re

ducing the need for heavy supporting structures that might

otherwise intrude upon archaeological layers much more.

According to Cabello Briones (2017), textile membranes

consistently perform best in the evaluation of archaeologi

cal shelters. The use of alternative materials, as demonstrat

ed by the author’s research, is considerably less common.

Among the 40 shelters examined, 13% employed wood

for roong, 12% utilized highquality metal sheets (often

coated), and 10% used transparent polycarbonates, which,

Fig. 2. Percentage breakdown of materials used in roofing

and overall in protective structures (elaborated by K. Stala)

Il. 2. Procentowe zestawienie materiałów użytych w zadaszeniach

i całościowo w konstrukcjach osłonowych (oprac. K. Stala)

Fig. 1. Devices monitoring climatic conditions under cover in Tarxien:

a) multifunctional environmental monitoring station with remote telemetric data transmission (Enviro Technology Services),

b) temperature and relative humidity sensor with radiation shield (Vaisala),

c) drawing of a multifunctional automated weather station with a rain gauge and photovoltaic panels (information board, Tarxien) (photo by K. Stala)

Il. 1. Urządzenia monitorujące warunki klimatyczne pod osłoną w Tarxien:

a) wielofunkcyjna stacja monitoringu środowiskowego ze zdalnym telemetrycznym przesyłem danych (Enviro Technology Services),

b) czujnik temperatury i wilgotności względnej powietrza z osłoną radiacyjną (Vaisala),

c) schemat wielofunkcyjnej zautomatyzowanej stacji pogodowej mającej deszczomierz i panele fotowoltaiczne (tablica informacyjna, Tarxien) (fot. K. Stala)

a b c

35%

30%

12%

16%

22% 20%

13%

12%

27%

10%

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 85

Table 1. The results of the research (elaborated by K. Stala)

Tabela 1. Wyniki przeprowadzonych badań (oprac. K. Stala)

Country

Archaeological reserve /

date of shelter implementation

Material Assembly/Installation

Modularity

Reversibility

Passivity

covering

antiUV coating

fastening system

supporting structure

supporting

structure

fastening

system

of tourist routes

Cyprus

Villa of Theseus

Nea Pafos

2019

mixed technique

⸙Ꚛ◊

rafters

⸙

–

type 3

– e m, p

France

Gallic villa

Bibracte

2003

textile

○∆

grid

aluminium

type 1

– d – m, r, p

GalloRoman Villa

Séviac

2018

textile

○

grid

–

type 3

– – –

Greece

Town ruins Akrotiri

205/2011

volcanic soil

⸙*

frame *

□*

tpe 2

– d e

m, p

bio

climatic

Nestor Palace

Pylos

2013

mixed technique

*⌂

steel

profiles*

–

type 3

a – –

Necropolis of Orthi Petra

Eleutherna

2013

steel

profiles*

–

type 3

– e m, p

Spain

Roman remains

Cartagena

2011

Ꚛ

mesh

grid

–

type 3

– e –

Al.Andalus town

Siyâsa

2020

mixed technique

□⌂

– –

–

type 3

– g –

Ruins of Monastery San

Juan

Burgos

2015

mixed technique

⌂⸙

–

grid

–

type 3

– g –

House of Grifos

Complutum Madrid

2011

mixed technique

*∆

–

grid

domeshaped *

–

type 3

– – –

86 Klaudia Stala

Table 1 cont. The results of the research (elaborated by K. Stala)

Tabela 1 cd. Wyniki przeprowadzonych badań (oprac. K. Stala)

Country

Archaeological reserve /

date of shelter implementation

Material Assembly/Installation

Modularity

Reversibility

Passivity

covering

antiUV coating

fastening system

supporting structure

supporting

structure

fastening

system

of tourist routes

Malta

Megalithic Temple

Ħaġar Qim

2009

textile

membrane

○∆

mesh

arches

–

type 3

d – r

Megalithic Temple

Mnajdra

2009

textile

membrane

○

mesh

arches

–

type 3

d – r

Megalithic Temple

Tarxien

2015

textile

membrane

○

mesh

arches

–

type 3

d – r

Germany

Ironworks remains

St. Antony

Oberhausen 2011

galvanized sheet

metal

–

steel profiles*

□ –

type 3

– e –

Ruins behind the House

of Luther Wittemberg

2010

foil

textile

○

beams

grate

□

type 1

– – g –

Pałac w Vlotho

after 2000

–

beams

based on the crown

of the wall steel mesh *

–

type 3

– g –

Poland

Ruins of Palatial

complex

Ostrów Lednicki

2008

⸙

– –

*□

type 2

– – f –

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 87

Country

Archaeological reserve /

date of shelter implementation

Material Assembly/Installation

Modularity

Reversibility

Passivity

covering

antiUV coating

fastening system

supporting structure

supporting

structure

fastening

system

of tourist

routes

Italy

Basilica of

Villa Romana del Casale

Piazza Armerina

20072012

⸙◌

–

⸙◌ *◌

–

type 3

– f –

Roman walls Capo

Soprano

2008

textile

membrane

○

* *

–

type 3

– – –

Roman House of Coiedii

Castellone di Suasa

2017

mixed technique

oxidized sheet metal

*⸙⌂◌

–

rafters⸙ grid*

–

type 3 (g)

– f –

Roman Bath of Agrippa

Pianosa

textile

membrane

○

–

grid

ropes

vertical pipes*

–

type 3

– – –

Building 2

Ostia Antica

2021

steel, sheet metal

–

panels

boxload

bearing *

–

type 3

–

Titus Marcus House

Aquleia

2015

⸙◊

–

beams ⸙

*□

–

type 3 (g)

–

Bronze Age Foundry

Aqua Fredda

Bedollo

2000

oxidized steel

*⸙

–

coffered

ceiling*⸙Ꚛ

gxidized

pipes*

–

type 3

d f –

Roman city

Claterna

2018

⸙

–

⸙

*⸙□

–

type 3

d – –

Roman House

with frescos (Affreschi)

Luni, La Spezia

2022

⸙Ꚛ

–

⸙

□

type 1

– d –

m, r

Basilica Church

Caucana

Santa Croce Camerina

2011

mixed technique

*⸙

–

steel grate

steel

–

type 3

– – –

88 Klaudia Stala

Table 1 cont. The results of the research (elaborated by K. Stala)

Tabela 1 cd. Wyniki przeprowadzonych badań (oprac. K. Stala)

Country

Archaeological reserve /

date of shelter implementation

Material Assembly/Installation

Modularity

Reversibility

Passivity

covering

antiUV coating

fastening system

supporting structure

supporting

structure

fastening

system

of tourist

routes

Serbia

Prehistoric site

Lepenski Vir

2011

panels

Ꚛ

–

oxidized steel

grid

oxidized steel*

–

type 4

d – –

Roman villa with the

Peristyle

Mediana

2013

textile

●

–

arches and crossbeams ⸙

⸙*

–

type 3 □

d – –

Roman Mausoleum

Viminacium

2004–2005

textile

●

–

rafters

⸙

rafters⸙

–

type 3

a – –

Slovenia

3 Baptistery

Ancient Emona

Lubljana

2012

membrane

○

–

grate

arches*

poles*

–

type 3

– e –

Roman hause

Ancient Emona

Lubljana

2016–2017

mixed technique

*⸙Ꚛ

–

strips

poles□

–

type 3

– e –

Switzerland

Abbey of St. Maurice

SaintMaurce

2010

stone –

grid

ropes

type 1

– – – –

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 89

unlike the Plexiglas applied in the 1960s and 1970s, exhibit

superior performance characteristics and greater resistance

to scratching, as well as mechanical and thermal stress. The

second most prevalent roong solution is the mixed tech

nique, currently accounting for 27% of the examples an

alysed. This method combines several types of materials,

typically arranged in layered sequences with appropriately

designed expansion joints. Such congurations create an in

sulating zone – most often for thermal and light regulation

– enhancing the protective performance of the shelter.

At Akrotiri, for instance, the inner roof surface of the

shelter was constructed with solid wooden slats, while the

exterior was clad in sheet metal and then covered with vol



canic soil to harmonise with the surrounding environment.

A dierent approach can be seen in the San Juan church

in Burgos, where an exceptionally rened design employs

Country

Archaeological reserve /

date of shelter implementation

Material Assembly/Installation

Modularity

Reversibility

Passivity

covering

antiUV coating

fastening system

supporting structure

supporting

structure

fastening

system

of tourist routes

Turkey

Remains of Megaron

Troja

2003

stretch membrane

○

– * * –

type 3

–

⸙

–

Neolithic settlement

Building 5

Çatalhöyük Southern

2003/4

panels

∆

–

grid

* –

type 4

– e

–

Chalcolithic settlement-

Building 77

Çatalhöyük northen

2008

panels

Ꚛ

–

arches

⸙

□⸙

–

type 4

– e

–

Ancient palace

Arslantepe

20082011

⸙ –

frame

beams

vertical *

type 1

– – b

m, r

Roman Villa Zeugma

2010

mixed technique*

mesh sides⌂

open roof Ꚛ

–

grid

*□

type 2

– – e

m, p

Göbekli Tepe 2016–2018

textile

○

mesh

pillars*

–

type 3

a e –

Ruins beside Trajaneum

Pergamon 2004

mixed technique

*⸙

– * * –

type 3

– – –

Legend

Materials: * sheet metal/steel, ⸙ wood/timber, ꚚPC, ◊ ceramics, ○ PTFE, ePTFE, ● PCV/ ETFE, ⌂ glass, ◌ copper, ∆ fiberglass,

□ concrete/reinforced concrete

Foundation: nondestructive , destructive

Archaeological sites where ineffective protective covers were removed and new ones installed

Methods of installing tourist routes within the archaeological reserve: a – suspended, b – encircling, c – enclosing, d – placed on the ground,

e – placed on the top of the wall without interference, f – installation outside the walls – point installation, g – installation in relics

m – modularity, r – reversibility, p – passivity, x occurs, – not occurs or no data available

90 Klaudia Stala

highquality materials: an outer shell of laminated glass com 

bined with an inner lining of densely arranged wooden slats.

This conguration not only provides subdued light

ing and

a cooling eect conducive to the preservation of architectur

al relics, but also creates a spiritual atmosphere appro

priate

to a sacred site. The most common mixedtechnique solu

tion combines transparent polycarbonates or various types

of sheet metal with wooden elements. These coverings are

typically permanent and nonmodiable, which limits their

eectiveness in adapting to variable external con ditions.

However, they dominate in terms of aesthetic value.

In the selection of materials for supporting structures and

fastening systems, metals – particularly steel – predominate.

Wood is also frequently employed, valued not only for its

aesthetic qualities, historical associations, and contextual

relevance, but also for its excellent performance in coastal

environments with high air salinity, where it demonstrates

notable strength and longterm durability.

Supporting structures and fastening systems

– protection of cultural layers and historic substances

An important aspect in the design of archaeological shel

ters is the method of placing the supporting structure in the

ground and the method of attaching the structures support

ing the roof and tourist routes in relation to the relics. Ex

perience from the 20

century highlights numerous errors

in this regard, many of which resulted in the disturbance

and degradation of archaeological heritage. Contemporary

practice therefore favours minimal foundations and limited

fastening of structural elements within archaeological sites.

On the basis of comparative analysis, the author identied

four principal types of supporting structures.

Type 1: Non-invasive structures. These supports do not

penetrate the ground and therefore avoid disturbing cultural

layers. A persistent misconception among some designers

is that only the surface remains require protection, whereas

the true archaeological heritage lies primarily in the stratig

raphy. Sequences of undisturbed cultural layers are partic

ularly valuable and may be irreparably damaged even by

excavation. It must be emphasised that an archaeological

site generally extends beyond the area of exposed relics, and

the entirety of the heritage – including what remains hidden

– should be protected. For this reason, the development of

noninvasive methods for xing loadbearing structures is

of critical importance. Such solutions are especially feasible

when employing lightweight membrane roofs, which con

servationists should consistently recommend in shelter de

sign. An exemplary case is the GalloRoman site at Bibracte

in France, where vertical supports weighted with gabions

lled with rubble rest on a horizontal frame of two paral

lel rails. This system provides stability and durability while

remaining fully reversible, as it can be dismantled without

damaging the historic substance or archaeological layers

(Fig. 3).

Type 2: Secondary-installation method. This might be

considered an invasive approach, as the supporting struc 

tures are anchored in the ground. However, they do not

destroy cultural layers, since the elements are inserted into

postholes of dismantled earlier enclosures or into areas

where stratigraphy had already been disturbed by previous

excavations. In this sense, the method is often conditioned

by the existence of earlier shelters. A notable example is the

archaeological shelter at Akrotiri on the island of Santorini,

where the supporting posts were placed in the locations of

earlier structural elements. In this case, the shafts reached

depths of up to 18 m, cut directly into the natural volcanic

substrate (Fintikakis 2005).

Type 3: Limited – is an invasive and destructive type. It

involves creating small diameter point foundations or drill

ing holes for anchors and bolts used to fasten ropes and steel

proles supporting tentlike textile covers. This method is

also applied in the construction of heavier roofs supported

by slender pillars or beams, thereby limiting the area of in

terference with the ground (Fig. 4). At present, this is the

most widely employed technique, representing 88% of inva

sive projects with comparatively low destructive potential.

Examples include shelters in Italy – such as the cover over

the House of Titus in Aquileia and at Castellone di Suasa

– as well as in Turkey, notably at Göbeklitepe and several

other sites.

Type 4: Extensive – this method typically employs strip

footings or other largearea foundation systems. It is the

most intrusive method of foundation laying at archaeolog

ical sites, carrying a higher risk of damaging or destroying

Fig. 3. Type 1 of a support structure – noninvasive structure

from the Bibracte site in France

(designed by P. Andreu, Tess Atelier D’Ingénierie;

source: https://www.tess.fr/en/projet/excavationshelter)

Il. 3. Typ 1 konstrukcji nośnej – konstrukcja nieinwazyjna

ze stanowiska Bibracte we Francji

(autor projektu P. Andreu, Tess Atelier D’Ingénierie;

źródło: https://www.tess.fr/en/projet/excavationshelter)

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 91

cultural layers. Owing to these risks, it is now rarely ap

plied today; studies indicate that such solutions account for

only about 8% of invasive installation techniques.

Types 3 and 4 require preliminary archaeological inves

tigations, and in the case of Type 3, at least continuous ar

chaeological supervision (Fig. 5). A recurring trend in the

century – particularly between the 1960s–1980s – was

the attachment of structural elements directly to the relics

themselves. This practice applied to supporting systems for

roong, suspended side panels, and even visitor walkways.

Such solutions, which directly compromised the historic

fabric, were frequently employed by the Italian school. No

table examples include Villa del Casale and the Capo So

prano walls (prior to their dismantling), as well as the castle

hall in Vlotho, Germany

– the latter being a contemporary

realization and the only one among the 40 cases analysed in

which this approach was used.

The author classies hanging, framing, enclosing, and

groundmounted systems, along with structures placed on

horizontal bases such as rails laid directly on the surface or

stabilised with weights, as noninvasive installations. How

ever, solutions mounted on the crown of walls – without

additional supports – may have an impact on the historic

substance, depending on the weight of the structure and the

securing mechanisms employed. Conversely, installations

positioned outside the walls are invasive to the archaeolog

ical layers, but these generally involve pointxings that

minimize disturbance. The last type is the most harmful in

vasive installation directly in the relics, as previously noted.

An alternative typology of fastening systems, with concise

descriptions, was proposed by Iranian researchers Ahmad

Moghaddasi and Mansour Khajepour (2013) (Fig. 6).

In the medieval castle in Vlotho, due to its condition, it was de

cided to cover the palatial aula with an archaeological shelter. The re

maining relics of the castle buildings did not require such solutions.

Reversibility and modularity

One of the most important features in the design of ar

chaeological shelters is their reversibility. The need for re

versible solutions arises primarily from the nature of archae

ological sites. In this context, reversibility means that the

structure does not permanently alter the site or the cultural

landscape, and can be dismantled without causing damage to

the archaeological heritage or its surroundings. Reversibil

ity is also signicant in light of rapid climate change: shifts

Fig. 4. Type 3 of a support structure:

a) example of spacelimited fastening of structural elements from the archaeological site in Tarxien, Malta,

b), c) example of a cover from the House of Titus in Aquileia with point foundation of loadbearing structures,

in this case also embedded in the crown of historic walls (variant g) (photo by K. Stala)

Il. 4. Typ 3 konstrukcji nośnej:

a) przykład ograniczonego powierzchniowo mocowania elementów konstrukcyjnych ze stanowiska archeologicznego w Tarxien na Malcie,

b), c) przykład osłony z Domu Tytusa w Aquilei o punktowym posadowieniu konstrukcji nośnych, w tym przypadku osadzonych także

w koronie zabytkowych murów (wariant g) (fot. K. Stala)

a b

Fig. 5. Diagram of the typology shelters foundation methods

at archaeological sites (elaborated by K. Stala)

Il. 5. Schemat typologii metod fundamentowania osłon

na stanowiskach archeologicznych (oprac. K. Stala)

a b

NoN-

destructive

type 1

iNvasive

secoNdary

iNstallatioN

type 2

iNvasive

limited

type 3

iNvasive

exteNsive

type 4

NoN-destructive

fouNdatioN

destructive

prelimiNary

archaeological

excavatioNs

92 Klaudia Stala

in external conditions may render a shelter unnecessary for

certain periods, in which case it can be easily removed.

The issue of reversibility is closely linked to the use of

modular systems in archaeological shelters. Modular sys

tems make it possible to extend or reduce the covered area

depending on needs and existing conditions. They are par

ticularly eective in situations where the exhibition and

public display of relics coincide with ongoing archaeologi

cal excavation, allowing the protected area to expand grad

ually as work progresses.

The reversibility of shelters is most readily achieved

through the use of textile coverings. Their dening feature

is adaptability: both the shape and the size of the sheltered

area can be modied as needed. They can be assembled into

modular sails, enabling multiple congurations based on

sitespecic requirements, while also facilitating ecient

packaging and transport (Zanelli et al. 2013). Membrane

structures are additionally characterised by rapid assembly

and disassembly. Owing to their low weight, they typically

require only shallow foundations or smalldiameter sup

ports, allowing the use of minimally invasive anchoring

systems. The potential for modifying textile covers in re

sponse to changing external conditions was demonstrated

by Barozzi, Viscuso, and Zanelli (2018), who developed

si mulation models for the mosaic shelter project in Nora,

Sardinia. Three congurations were proposed: Congura

tion 1, a winter layout; Conguration 2, oriented to prevail

ing wind and sun; and Conguration 3, a summer layout,

in which the slope of the arches adjusts to pretension the

membrane. An exemplary case of a reversible and modular

system is the aforementioned shelter at Bibracte, France.

While reversibility is more dicult to achieve with mate

rials other than textiles and in tentlike structures – and is

therefore less common – modularity is often feasible when

using alternative materials, typically within mixedtech

nique solutions. Examples can be found at Akrotiri on San

torini, Arslantepe in Turkey, and Orthi Petra Eleutherna in

Greece.

Aesthetics and context

as a protecting the cultural landscape

Archaeological shelters impact the cultural landscape. In

this case, structures using mixed techniques, employing ma

terials such as transparent polycarbonate, glass, metals in

cluding steel, galvanized sheet metal, oxidized copper, and

traditional wood, oer signicantly greater aesthetic value

and integrate seamlessly with the historical and surrounding

context. As mentioned, each site is analysed individually,

and on this basis, problems are diagnosed and conservation

guidelines are drawn up. A similar procedure applies to the

aesthetics of the cover. There are covers that aim to mini

mise interference with the landscape at the expense of spec

tacular external architectural forms. A good example is that

of the reserve in Akrotiri. It is admired for

its aesthetic inte

rior, while the intervention in the landscape is minimal, to

the extent that the external structure is practically hidden in

its surroundings. Such solutions are preferred when an ar

chaeological site is located in a valuable natural landscape.

Some of the roong shelters are highly aesthetic, such as

the one in the Church of San Juan in Burgos (Fig. 7). How

ever, it should be remembered that aesthetics cannot be

treated as superior to the protective function of archaeo

logical shelters, as was the case in Minissi’s projects. They

were architecturally and aesthetically perfect, but they did

not function properly. Another important message related

to the protection of cultural landscapes and their integration

into the historical context is the awareness among archi

tects that protective structures cannot dominate over relics

and should remain at least in balance with the protected

heritage. A controversial example is the covering of Ro

man relics in Cartagena, Spain, which is appreciated as an

Fig. 6. Percentage values

of the use of nondestructive and

destructive foundation installation

methods at archaeological sites,

based on an analysis

of 40 selected examples

(elaborated by K. Stala)

Il. 6. Procentowe wartości

zastosowania nieniszczących

i niszczących metod

fundamentowania i montażu

na stanowiskach archeologicznych

opracowane na podstawie

analizy wybranych 40 przykładów

(oprac. K. Stala)

35%

21%

29%

88%

43%

65%

non-destructive

on a ground

suspended

points foundation strip installation in a relic

based on the surface of the relic

installation in previous holes

destructive

Destructive supporting and installing structures

Non-destructive supporting and installing structures

Supporting and installing structures

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 93

architectural design, but is oversized, heavy, and complete

ly overwhelms the Roman ruins, additionally aggressively

inscribing itself into the city’s panorama (Stala 2015).

Conclusion

The design process for structures covering archaeolog

ical sites is a multifaceted and interdisciplinary challenge,

requiring the cooperation of many specialists and goes far

beyond the rules of ordinary architectural design – it is

strictly a conservation activity. It requires the development

of research and design principles as well as guidelines for

the implementation of this type of structure. It is import

ant that the standard procedures include simulation tests

on materials selected by the designer before installation

in situ.

Thus, in architectural design at an archaeological site it

is necessary to:

– Carry out pre and postdesign monitoring of the im

pact of harmful factors;

– Work in an interdisciplinary team;

– Minimise intervention in the historic substance and

archaeological layers;

– Minimise harmful external factors by using materials

with appropriate parameters (thermal resistance, light re

ection and transparency coecient, antiUV coating, du

rability and exibility, shape, etc.);

–

Create reversible and modular structures, passive where

possible, allowing archaeological research to continue with 

out interfering with tourist trac;

– Integrate the structure into the cultural and natural

land scape.

The results of the research here indicate that contempo

rary trends in shelter design are heading in a positive direc

tion. Most of the examples analysed met basic conservation

requirements, and architects collaborated in interdisciplin

ary teams, implementing the data and guidelines received

into their designs. Research shows that, compared to 20



century practices, there has been a marked improvement in

the awareness of the need to protect cultural layers when

using loadbearing structures and fastening systems. Of the

40 examples examined, as many as 35% were nondestruc

tive solutions, i.e., types 1 and 2. Among the destructive

so lu tions, type 3, which is economical and minimises the

des tructive impact on archaeological stratigraphy, clearly

do mi nated. They accounted for as much as 88% of the de

structive solutions. It should also be added that in type 3

solutions, constructors use supports with an increasingly

smaller diameter of 30 cm or less, which minimally threat

ens underground cultural sequences.

What is more, their use does not require preliminary ar

chaeological research, but only supervision and sampling

from a borehole made under the structural element. Instal

lation directly into the relics, which was frequently used

throughout the 1960s–1990s, has now been almost com

pletely abandoned. The modularity and reversibility of

shelters is still negligible, although progress can be seen in

the number of projects using this type of solution. Similarly,

the passivity of covers is becoming an important element of

the design, as evidenced by recently awarded competitions

for new shelter, which are still in the implementation phase

(e.g., in Nea Pafos, Cyprus).

The use of new techniques and technologies as well as pro 

ven highquality materials should also be viewed po si tively.

Plexiglas has been completely eliminated and multilayer

Fig. 7. Various aesthetic forms of contemporary archaeological covers:

a) GalloRoman villa in Seviac, design: Carrilho da Graça Arquitectos

(photo Elusa Capitale Antique, source: https://www.armagnacdartag

nan.com/en/culturalheritage/galloromanvillaofseviac),

b) San Juan Burgos monastery, design: BSA Barrio & Sainz de Aja

(photo: Santiago Escribano Martinez, source: https://www.european

heritageawards.eu/winners/roofruinsmonasterysanjuanburgos/),

c) Nestor’s Palace in Pylos (design: A.V. Karapanagiotou,

D. Kosmopoulos, S.R. Stocker, J.L. Davis) (photo by Chrissy,

source: https://unfoldinggreece.com/palaceofnestorinpylos/)

Il. 7. Różne formy estetyczne współczesnych osłon archeologicznych:

a) willa gallorzymska w Seviac, proj. Carrilho da Graça Arquitectos

(fot. Elusa Capitale Antique, źródło: https://www.armagnacdartagnan.

com/en/culturalheritage/galloromanvillaofseviac),

b) klasztor San Juan Burgos, proj. BSA Barrio & Sainz de Aja

(fot. Santiago Escribano Martinez, źródło: https://www.europeanheri

tageawards.eu/winners/roofruinsmonasterysanjuanburgos/),

c) Pałac Nestora w Pylos (proj. A.V. Karapanagiotou, D. Kosmopoulos,

S.R. Stocker, J.L. Davis) (fot. Chrissy,

źródło: https://unfoldinggreece.com/palaceofnestorinpylos/)

94 Klaudia Stala

roong (mixed techniques) with antiUV covers is used to

protect the relics from overheating. The popularity of textile

roong is also noticeable due to the parameters of this type

of solution described in the article, which responds very well

to the requirements related to the protection of relics against

variable and intense external factors. Such roong is not new

and was used in the 20

century not only for archaeological

covers. It was also widely used as a temporary solution to

enable archaeological work to be carried out in high tem

peratures and strong sunlight. In the 21

century, however,

the widespread use of such covers for longterm protection is

evident, with the possibility of modifying the surface of the

roong and the degree of coverage of the exhibition

Research has shown that these solutions dominate in

terms of quantity and account for 35% of the 40 sites sur

veyed. Thus, the postdesign monitoring of conditions un

der archaeological covers should be viewed positively. Re

search data indicate that most of the structures mentioned

eectively protect relics by reducing harmful factors. Re

search concerns relatively new realizations, so monitoring

must be continued over the coming years in order to sup

plement the data.

Translated by

Iwona Reichardt

References

Alagna, Alessandra. “Franco Minissi Restauro e Muzealissazione dei

Siti Archeologici in Sicilia.” PhD diss. Universita degli Studi di Na

poli, 2008. Accessed February 1, 2025, at http://www.fedoa.unina.

it/3224/1/Alagna_Franco_Minissi_PDFA_cmyk.pdf.

Aslan, Zaki. “Protective Structures for the Conservation and Preserva

tion of archaeological sites.” Journal of Conservation & Museum

Studies 3 (1997): 16–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/jcms.3974.

Aslan, Zaki. “The Design of Protective Structures for the Conservation

and Preservation of Archaeologial Sites.” PhD diss. University Col

lege London, 2007. Accessed August 12, 2025, at https://discovery.

ucl.ac.uk.

Barozzi, Marta, Salvatore Viscuso, and Alessandra Zanelli. “Design Novel

Covering System for Archaeological Areas.” In VII International

Conference on Textile Composites and Inatable, Structural Mem-

branes, Barcelona 2015, edited by Eugenio Oñate, KaiBletzinger,

and Bernd Kröplin. International Center of Numerical Methods in

Engineering (CIMNE), 2018.

Cabello Briones, Cristina. “The Eects of Open Shelters on the Preser

vation of Limestone Remains at Archaeological Sites.” PhD diss.

University of Oxford, 2016.

Cabello Briones, Cristina. “How to Evaluate Shelters for Archaeologi

cal Sites: Some Recommendations Based on the Use of Exposure

Trials.” Ge-conservación, no. 11 (2017): 34–41. https://doi.org/

10.37558/gec.v11i0.442.

Cassar, JoAnn, Shirley Cefai, Reuben Grima, and Katya Stroud. “Shelter

ing Archaeological Sites in Malta: Lessons Learnt.” Heritage Science,

no. 6 (2018): 2–18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s4049401802016.

Cassar May, Peter Brimblecombe, Taryn Nixon, Cliord Price, Cristina

Sabbioni, Cesareo Saiz Jimenez, and Koenraad Van Balen. Techno-

logical Requirements for Solutions in the Conservation and Protec-

tion of Historic Monuments and Archaeological Remains. European

Parliament, 2001.

Demas, Martha. “Protective Shelters for Archaeological Sites.” In Mo-

saics in Situ. An Overview of Literature on Conservation of Mosaics

in Situ, edited by Thomas Roby and Martha Demas. The Getty Con

servation Institute, 2013.

Ertosun, Atiye Işil. “Evaluation of Protective Structures in Archaeologi

cal Sites for In Situ Conservation of Architectural Remains and Arti

facts.” MSc diss. Middle East Technical University, 2012.

Fintikakis, Nikos. “Aristotle’s Theory as a Tool for Inspiration in Ar

chitecture. The Shelter of the Archaeological Site at Akrotiri.” In

International Conference Passive and Low Energy Cooling for the

Built Environment, edited by Matheos Santamouris. Heliotopos Con 

ferences,

2005.

Laurenti, Maria Concetta. Le coperture delle aree archeologiche, Museo

Aperto. Gangemi Editore, 2006.

Maekawa, Sadamichi. “Comparison of Shelters’ Performance at Joya

de Ceren, El Salvado.” In Proceedings of the International Confer-

ence on Heritage, Weathering and Conservation, edited by Rafael

Fort, Monica Alvarez de Buergo, Miguel GomezHeras and Carmen

Vazquez Calvo. Vol. 1, Taylor & Francis, 2006.

Moghaddasi, Ahmad, and Khajepour Mansour. “Typology of Protective

Shelters in Archeological Sites. Advantages and Disadvantages.” In

SOMA (2012) Identity and Connectivity: Proceedings of the 16

Sym-

posium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Vol. 2. Archaeopress Pub 

lishers of British Archaeological Reports Gordon House, 2013.

Neguer, Jacques, and Yael Alef. “Rapid, Assessment of Shelters over

Mosaics: Initial Results from Israel.” In Lessons Learned: Reect-

ing on the Theory and Practice of Mosaics Conservation. Proceed-

ings of the 9

ICCM Conference Hammamet, Tunisia, November

29–December 3, 2005, edited by Aïcha Ben Abed, Martha Demas,

and Thomas Roby. The Getty Conservation Institute, 2008.

Ranellucci, Sandro. Coperture archeologiche. Allestimenti protettivi sui

siti archeologici. DEI, 2011.

Rizzi, Gionata. “Sheltering the Mosaics of Piazza Armerina: Issues of

Conservation and Presentation.” In AIA Site Preservation Program,

Heritage, Conservation and Archaeology. Archaeological Institute

of America, 2008. Accessed June 15, 2025, at https://www.archaeo

logical.org/pdfs/site_preservation_Oct_08.pdf.

Rosina, Elisabetta, Alessandra Zanelli, Paolo Beccarelli, Marco Garga

no, and Elena Romoli. “New Procedures and Materials for Improv

ing Protection of Archaeological Areas.” Materials Evaluation 69,

no. 8 (2011): 979–89.

Sardella, Alessandro, Elisa Palazzi, Jost von Hardenberg, Carlo Del

Grande, Paola De Nuntiis, Cristina Sabbioni, and Alessandra Bo

nazza. “Risk Mapping for the Sustainable Protection of Cultural He

ritage in Extreme Changing Environments.” Atmosphere 11, no. 7,

700 (2020): 2–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11070700.

Stala, Klaudia. “The Role and Signicance of Archaeological Heri

tage in the Contemporary Urban Space.” Czasopismo Techniczne.

Architek tu ra 6A, (2015): 197–215. https://doi.org/10.4467/235373

7XCT.15. 248.4651

Stala, Klaudia. “Współczesne aspekty projektowania osłon w rezerwa

tach archeologicznoarchitektonicznych. Z zagadnień ochrony i eks

pozycji dziedzictwa archeologicznego.” Wiadomości Konserwator-

skie 60 (2019): 105–15. https://doi.org/10.17425/WK60SHELTERS.

Stala, Klaudia. “Rola wyprzedzających badań analitycznych w projek

towaniu konserwatorskim na stanowiskach archeologicznych na

Until now, archaeological reserves have been divided into three

basic types: open, semiopen, and closed. The latter allow for the cre

ation of articial environmental conditions and maintaining them at

a constant, unchanging level. In the case of textile covers, it is possible

to change not only the size of the covered area, but also, depending on

changing external conditions, to modify the socalled degree of exposure

(covering), from open, through various levels of coverage, to complete

closure.

Sheltering structures in archaeological reserves. Analysis and assessment of contemporary architectural design 95

Streszczenie

Konstrukcje osłaniające w rezerwatach archeologicznych.

Analiza i ocena współczesnych rozwiązań architektonicznych

Projektowanie architektury bezpośrednio w obszarze dziedzictwa archeologicznego, gdzie ochronie podlegają nieruchome relikty zachowane na po

wierzchni, ale też układ nawarstwień kulturowych oraz otaczający krajobraz, jest wyzwaniem nie tylko twórczym, ale też naukowym i konserwatorskim.

Tematem niniejszego artykułu jest przedstawienie najnowszych tendencji w procesie projektowania osłon w rezerwatach archeologicznych. Ponieważ

stanowiska archeologiczne są bardzo często mocno powiązane z otoczeniem, projekt powinien również uwzględniać kwestie ochrony krajobrazu zarów

no kulturowego, jak i przyrodniczego. Obecne standardy takich działań różnią się od tych z połowy, a nawet końca XX w. i pozostają w fazie zmian i roz

woju. Dzieje się tak za sprawą wyników przeprowadzonych na początku XXI w. badań analitycznych dotyczących istniejących osłon archeologicznych.

Dzięki nim wykazano w wielu przypadkach nieskuteczność, a czasem nawet szkodliwość powstałych obiektów wobec chronionych reliktów, co z kolei

spowodowało konieczność werykacji dotychczasowych wymogów. W artykule przedstawiono wyniki badań autorki dotyczące oceny skuteczności

współcześnie projektowanych osłon archeologicznych oraz nowych standardów przedprojektowych.

Słowa kluczowe: osłona archeologiczna, rezerwat archeologiczny, projektowanie konserwatorskie

wybranych przykładach.” Wiadomości Konserwatorskie 77 (2024):

58–71. https://doi.org/10.48234/WK77ANTICIPATORY.

Van Balen, Koenraad, and Vandesand Aziliz. “The Value of Heritage

in Sustainable Development and Spatial Planning.” In A Research

Agenda for Heritage Planning, edited by Eva Stegmeijer, and Loes

Veldpaus. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2021.

Villani, Stefano. Le protezioni delle aree archeologiche – Architettura per

l’archeologia. PhD diss. Università degli Studi di Roma Tre, 2012.

Viscuso, Salvatore, Alessandra Zanelli, and Marta Barozzi. “Textiles

and Ar chaeological Sites: Towards a Methodology for Designing

Light weight Protective Structures.” Advanced Materials Research

1149 (2018): 109–18. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientic.net/AMR.

1149. 109

Vivio, Beatrice A. “The ‘Narrative Sincerity’ in Museums, Architectural

and Archaeological Restoration of Franco Minissi.” Frontiers of Ar -

chi tectural Research 4, no. 3 (2015): 202–11. https://doi.org/ 10.1016

/ j.foar.2015.06.002.

Zanelli, Alessandra, Elisabetta Rosina, Maei Roberto, Paolo Beccarelli,

Guglielmo Carra. “Innovative Solutions for UltraLightweight Tex

tile Shelters Covering Archaeological Sites.” In Structures and Ar-

chitecture. New concepts, applications and challenges, edited by

Paulo J. Cruz. CRC Press, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1201/b15267.