ANCIENT TRACES IN THE URBAN FABRIC REINTERPRETATION AS A MODEL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE PRESENTATION

Abstract

The paper explores the possible influence of archaeological heritage and archaeological data on urban planning, i.e. the role of archaeology in the contemporary world and the possibilities of presenting and preserving historic traces in the urban tissue.
Based on the analysis of selected cases, the model of reinterpretation is recognized as one of the possible means of presenting and using archaeological heritage. This is a conditional type of archaeological heritage presentation, as it does not include the presentation of visible remains, but rather their urbanistic or architectural reinterpretation in the form of streets, squares, pedestrian paths, passages, construction lines, architectural design, landscape design etc. Use of this type of presentation is applicable to presentation and urban integration of specific types of archaeological heritage in which the application of classical forms of in situ presentation is hampered (urban grid, centuriation, historic roads and paths, historic landscapes, etc.).

Full text

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
1
ANCIENT TRACES IN THE URBAN FABRIC – REINTERPRETATION AS A
MODEL OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE PRESENTATION
Trazas antiguas en el tejido urbano - reinterpretación como modelo de
presentación del patrimonio arqueológico
Authors: Marko Rukavina, Phd (1), Prof. Mladen Obad Šćitaroci, PhD (2)
(1) Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Kačićeva 26, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, mrukavina@arhitekt.hr
(2) Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb, Kačićeva 26, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia, mos@arhitekt.hr
ABSTRACT
The paper explores the possible influence of archaeological heritage and
archaeological data on urban planning, i.e. the role of archaeology in the contemporary world
and the possibilities of presenting and preserving historic traces in the urban tissue.
Based on the analysis of selected cases, the model of reinterpretation is recognized as
one of the possible means of presenting and using archaeological heritage. This is a
conditional type of archaeological heritage presentation, as it does not include the presentation
of visible remains, but rather their urbanistic or architectural reinterpretation in the form of
streets, squares, pedestrian paths, passages, construction lines, architectural design,
landscape design etc. Use of this type of presentation is applicable to presentation and urban
integration of specific types of archaeological heritage in which the application of classical
forms of in situ presentation is hampered (urban grid, centuriation, historic roads and paths,
historic landscapes, etc.).
The research included an analysis of the urbanistic reinterpretation of the ancient
Roman centuriation in the case of the planned city district Split III in Split (Croatia); urbanistic
reinterpretation and integration of the ancient Roman road in the case of the Sopnica-Jelkovec
housing complex in Zagreb (Croatia); the architectural reinterpretation of the Roman forum and
the Late Antiquity building in the case of commercial and residential complex in Ljubljana
(Slovenia).
The paper further explores the possibility of applying this type of presentation in the
case of enhancing urban integration of archaeological heritage in the Spanish city of Alcalá de
Henares, whose historic centre is on the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites. The remains
of the ancient town of Complutum are located outside the historic city centre, in the area of
expansion of the city in the 20th century (setting of WHS). Archaeological remains of the
ancient town are partially presented in an archaeological park as visible remains, while its parts
in the built up area, which partially preserved the ancient urban grid, are not presented and
interpreted. The main streets of the ancient town, the cardo and the decumanus, exist in the
spatial sense in the contemporary city as today's streets and parks, and their presentation and
content reinterpretation are possible.
The aim is to attract more visitors to the archaeological area, achieve better social
integration of archaeological heritage and local inhabitants and create, by using archaeological
heritage, particularity and recognisability of the area, enhance identity, show historic continuity
and raise the overall quality of life in the city district with poor social structure.
KEYWORDS: urban planning, archaeological heritage, urban integration,
reinterpretation, presentation
RESUMEN
Este artículo explora la posible influencia del patrimonio arqueológico y los datos
arqueológicos en el planeamiento urbano. Es decir, el función de la arqueología en el mundo
contemporáneo y las posibilidades de mostrar y preservar rastros históricas en el tejido
urbano.

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
2
Basado en el análisis de casos seleccionados, la reinterpretación es una de las formas
posibles de presentar y utilizar el patrimonio arqueológico. Es una forma indirecta de mostrar
el patrimonio arqueológico, ya que no muestra restos visibles, sino su reinterpretación
urbanística o arquitectónica en forma de calles, plazas, caminos, pasajes, líneas de
construcción, diseño arquitectónico, diseño de paisaje, etc. El uso de este tipo de presentación
se aplica a la integración urbana de tipos específicos de patrimonio arqueológico en los que
es difícil la aplicación de formas clásicas de presentación in situ (rejilla urbana, centuriación,
calzadas y caminos históricos, paisajes históricos, etc.).
La investigación incluyó un análisis de la reinterpretación urbanística de la centuriación
romana antigua en el caso del distrito urbano planificado Split III en Split (Croacia); la
reinterpretación urbanística e integración de la antigua calzada romana en el complejo de
viviendas Sopnica-Jelkovec en Zagreb (Croacia); la reinterpretación arquitectónica del foro
romano y un edificio de la Antigüedad tardía en el caso del complejo comercial y residencial
en Ljubljana (Eslovenia).
El documento explora además la posibilidad de aplicar este tipo de presentación para
la mejora en la integración urbana del patrimonio arqueológico en la ciudad española de Alcalá
de Henares, cuyo centro histórico figura en la lista del Patrimonio Mundial de la UNESCO. Los
restos de la antigua ciudad de Complutum se encuentran fuera del centro histórico de la
ciudad, en el área de expansión de la ciudad en el siglo XX (entorno de WHS). Los restos
arqueológicos visibles de la ciudad antigua se muestran parcialmente en un parque
arqueológico, mientras que en el área edificada, que conserva en parte la antigua cuadrícula
urbana, no se muestran ni se interpretan. Las calles principales de la ciudad antigua, el cardo
y el decumano, existen en el sentido espacial en la ciudad contemporánea como las calles y
parques de hoy, y es posible su presentación y reinterpretación.
El objetivo es atraer a más visitantes al área arqueológica, lograr una mejor integración
social del patrimonio arqueológico y los habitantes locales y crear, mediante el uso del
patrimonio arqueológico, la particularidad y el reconocimiento de la zona, mejorar la identidad,
mostrar una continuidad histórica y mejorar la calidad de vida en este distrito con una
estructura social pobre.
PALABRAS CLAVE: planificación urbana, patrimonio arqueológico, integración
urbana, reinterpretación, presentación
1 INTRODUCTION
The paper explores the possible influence of archaeological heritage and
archaeological data on urban planning, i.e. the role of archaeology in the contemporary world
and the possibilities of presenting and preserving historic traces in the urban tissue. The often
unfavourable relation between spatial development and archaeological heritage, especially
pronounced in the second half of the 20th century, should be substituted with a different
approach based on archaeological heritage preservation and recognition of its value for
contemporary cities in the context of sustainable development and enhancing the quality of
life. The aim is to explore architectural and urbanistic reinterpretation of archaeological
heritage as a possible type of presentation and integration of archaeological heritage in towns
and settlements. The research used case studies to explore the archaeological heritage
reinterpretation in two cities in Croatia (Zagreb, Split) and one city in Slovenia (Ljubljana). A
comparative analysis was based on: results of archaeological research and other
archaeological data; built architectural or urban planning projects; current state; existence of
accompanying interpretive infrastructure and other available data.
The research was conducted within the framework of the Heritage urbanism (HERU 2032)
research project funded by the Croatian Science Foundation.

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
3
2 TYPES OF IN SITU ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE PRESENTATION
Usual types of in situ archaeological heritage presentation in a town/settlement
include
1
:
- presentation of visible remains
This is a type of archaeological heritage presentation which implies visibility of archaeological
finds in situ (architectural remains). It is the most complex type of presentation as it requires a
solution for the physical protection of archaeological finds from the many natural and
antropogenic factors of decay and calls for their integration into a contemporary city/settlement.
It includes presentation in the open air and indoors. Comprehensibility and visibility of this type
of presentation are the highest compared to other conditional forms of presentation in situ,
although this type requires interpretive infrastructure as well.
2
- floor graphics
Most often applied in the case of design of public spaces (squares, streets), represents a
relatively simple and economical solution compared to presenting the visible archaeological
remains. The layout of the discovered remains is shown by using different material, texture,
surface treatment or colour at the walking surface level. The downside of this type of
presentation is reflected in frequent uncomprehensibility and poor visibility to the average
passer-by or visitor without the supporting interpretative information (interpretive panels,
marking etc.). This form of presentation is also suitable for interiors and may include in situ
preservation of actual remains or simply represent a memory of removed remains.
- marking of a site
Usually applied to present movable archaeological finds or the finds of the type that is almost
impossible or very difficult to preserve in situ (organic material). May include the erection of
info boards, replicas, display cases etc. on sites where original finds were found.
3
In practice, the aforementioned types of archaeological heritage presentation are often
combined and complemented.
3 REINTERPRETATION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE AS A TYPE OF IN SITU
PRESENTATION
Based on the analysis of the selected cases (see next paragraph), the model of
reinterpretation
4
is recognized as one of the possible means of presenting and using the
archaeological heritage. This is a conditional type of archaeological heritage presentation, as
it does not include the presentation of visible remains, but rather their urbanistic or architectural
reinterpretation in the form of streets, squares, pedestrian paths, passages, construction lines,
architectural design, landscape design etc. Use of this type of presentation is applicable to
presentation and urban integration of specific types of archaeological heritage in which
the application of classical forms of in situ presentation is hampered (urban grid, centuriation,
historic roads and paths, historic landscapes, etc.).
The established model can include two levels of reinterpretation: the formal/spatial level
and the content level. The formal level of reinterpretation concerns the design while the content
level includes historic use reinterpretation. It is also possible to connect it with other types of
archaeological heritage presentation (visible remains, floor graphics or site marking). This type
of archaeological heritage presentation has a low level of comprehensibility for residents or
1
Types of presentation were researched as part of an unpublished doctoral dissertation Archaeological Heritage
Integration Method in Urban Planning (Rukavina 2015).
2
The ICOMOS Charter for the Interpretation and Presentation of Cultural Heritage Sites (ICOMOS 2008)
3
For example, the Zagreb while it wasn't project - replicas of discovered movable archaeological and
paleontological finds together with interpretive panels were placed in several locations in the city of Zagreb
(Archaeological Museum in Zagreb 2014).
4
Different authors use different terms for this presentation form: reminiscence, referring, evoking etc. (Potokar
2014; Vodopivec 2014; Županek 2008).

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
4
visitors (Županek & Mlekuž 2008) without the use of accompanying interpretive means
(interpretive panels, models, interpretation centre, use of modern technology, etc.).
Just like other types of in situ archaeological heritage presentation, it should be based
on cooperation between archaeologists, the conservation service and urban planners in all
planning stages.
4 EXAMPLES OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE REINTERPRETATION
The research included an analysis of urbanistic reinterpretation of the ancient Roman
centuriation in the case of the planned city district Split III in Split (Croatia), urbanistic
reinterpretation and integration of the ancient Roman road in the case of the Sopnica-Jelkovec
housing complex in Zagreb (Croatia) and the architectural reinterpretation of the Roman forum
and the Late Antiquity building in the case of residential and commercial complex in Ljubljana
(Slovenia).
Figure 1: Marked roads and pedestrian communications of the Split 3 district that overlap with ancient Roman
centuriation lines (Brune Bušića Street 1, Papandopulova Street 2, Marina Getaldića Street 2, Grada Trondheima
Street 3, Vukovarska Street 4, Poljička Road 5). Asterisks mark locations of floor slabs with inscription centuriation.
Note. Drawn on the Google Earth satellite image.
4.1 Split 3, Split
The selected case study is located in Split, the second largest city in Croatia, known
for the Diocletian's palace built in the 4th century, whose ancient remains are integrated into
the medieval historic city centre that has been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List
since 1979. The Split 3 city district was partially built (1970-1979) according to the urban design
concept by a team of Slovenian architects Vladimir Mušić, Marjan Bežan, Nives Starc and
associates which won the first prize at the public competition held in 1968 (Kukoč 2010;
Pasinović 1970). The new city district - a new city for 30 thousand inhabitants on 330 ha with
all accompanying community services was planned at the eastern outskirts of the city at the
time (Kukoč 2010), which, just like the whole Split area, belonged to the town of Salonae ager

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
5
in the Antiquity (Marasović et al. 1958; Suić 1955, 2003). The antique land division into
centuries was executed in regular squares with sides of approximately 710 m. Initially,
centuriation was marked by centuriation stones and communications at the boundaries of
adjacent centuries which, during land cultivation in the Middle Ages and the Modern Age often
took the shape of a continuous drywall and a dirt road (Marasović et.al. 1958; Suić 1955). The
preserved traces of centuriation
5
in the area planned for city expansion were respected by the
selected urban design from 1968. The plan was based on two grids: the Roman centuriation
grid and the Diocletian's palace grid. All buildings and communication network (roads,
pedestrian paths and passages) were placed within these systems (Kukoč 2010, Mušić &
Bežan 1973, Pasinović 1970) (Figure 1). In some places, former centuriation lines
reinterpreted as pedestrian pathways are marked with a stone slab in the floor
6
, but without
additional interpretive infrastructure and hence the comprehensibility of the centuriation
network remained extremely low.
Figure 2: Siscia - Poetovio Roman road in the Sopnica-Jelkovec housing complex in Zagreb reinterpreted as a park
promenade. (Photo: T. Oberman, 2015.)
4.2 Sopnica-Jelkovec housing complex, Zagreb
The analysed example of archaeological heritage reinterpretation is located in Zagreb,
the capital of Croatia which was founded in the Middle Ages and experienced greatest spatial
5
Ancient centuriation in Split is not legally protected, but it is protected by master plan ordinances (Master Plan
Split, Article 94. [Grad Split 2014]).
6
Papandopulova Street, Marina Getaldića Street

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
6
and economic growth in the 20th century. Sopnica Jelkovec housing complex in Zagreb
7
was
built in 2009 on the site of a former pig farm in the most eastern city district of Sesvete through
which, in Antiquity, ran the Roman road Siscia-Poetovio, mentioned in the Antonine Itinerary
(Gračanin 2010, Gregl 1984). After Siscia, the road led to the Roman town of Andautonia
(Dautonia), then crossed the Sava River and continued through the present-day Sesvete
towards Pyrri (Gračanin 2010; Gregl 1984, 1991; Nemeth-Ehrlich & Kušan Špalj 2007). Visible
remains of the ancient road embankment in the Sesvete area
8
were partially preventively
protected by a 1994 decision, but as the decision has not been revised, they are no longer
legally protected as a cultural good
9
(Rukavina, Petrić & Obad Šćitaroci 2015, 2016). The
urban design concept by the team of authors preserved the route of the ancient road in the
new settlement and incorporated it into the central public park area, reinterpreted as a
promenade (Figure 2, Figure 3). No archaeological research/excavation was carried out during
the construction of the housing complex and hence no precise data regarding the position of
the ancient road exists.
Figure 3: Roman road marked on the territory of the Sopnica-Jelkovec housing complex. Note. Drawn on the Google
Earth satellite image.
In an immediate vicinity (Jelkovec), a milestone of Emperor Maximus was accidentally
discovered in 1934 (the only milestone ever found in the Zagreb area) (Gračanin 2010; Gregl
1984, 1991; Nemeth-Ehrlich & Kušan Špalj 2007). The preserved route of the Roman road in
the Sopnica-Jelkovec settlement has still not been accompanied by interpretive infrastructure
7
On the basis of the first prize at the competition held in 2003 as part of the government's social construction
program, a detailed urban plan of the Sopnica-Jelkovec housing complex was developed the same year (Nadilo
2009). The team of authors consisted of architects of the Institute for Urban Planning, Physical Planning and
Landscape Architecture of the Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb: Sanja Gašparović, Darija Maletić
Mirko, Nataša Martinčić, Ivan Mlinar, Marija Premužić and Krunoslav Šmit (Mlinar & Šmit 2008; Nadilo 2009).
8
The route of the ancient road was about 15m east of the present-day road bearing the name the Roman Path
(Rukavina, Petrić & Obad Šćitaroci 1015).
9
Protected by general protection measures in Master Plan Sesvete (Grad Zagreb 2015).

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
7
and hence the road remains unknown to local residents while its heritage value goes on being
unused.
10
4.3 Ferant Garden residential and commercial complex, Ljubljana
The selected case study is located in Ljubljana, the capital of Slovenia, which was
founded in the Middle Ages not far from the remains of the ancient Roman town of Emona.
Ljubljana’s expansion began already in the 18th century, slowly occupying the area of the
former ancient town which nowadays comprises an integral part of its historic centre. The
Ferant Garden residential and commercial complex in Ljubljana was built in 1973 according to
the first award-winning design by architect Edvard Ravnikar
11
and associates
12
on an area of
the ancient Emona's forum. Before the construction, rescue excavations was carried out in the
area designated for construction, led by the City Museum on several occasions (1963-1964,
1968-1971, 1974) (Gaspari 2014). The research discovered remains of the forum, porticus,
basilica, curia, commercial and warehouse buildings and the remains of a rotunda (4th-6th c.)
which most probably served as an early Christian cult building (Gaspari 2014).
Figure 4: Reinterpreted Late Antiquity rotunda at the front of a building along Slovenska Street in Ljubljana. (Photo:
M. Rukavina, 2017.)
10
The Study of the Protection and Presentation of the Potential of the Archaeological Site Kuzelin and Adjacent
Archaeological Sites proposed that the route of the Roman road be included into the archaeological and
recreational path and an interpretive centre of the Roman road to be established within the Sopnica-Jelkovec
library on the route of the ancient road.
11
One of the most prominent Slovenian architects of the 20th century.
12
Jože Koželj, Mika Berlič and Judita Černič (Vodopivec & Žnidaršič 2010)

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
8
The residential and commercial complex built in today's central part of the city reinterpreted
the discovered archaeological finds. On the facade of the building along the present-day
Slovenska Street, a concrete rotunda was built, placed above the ground floor, corresponding
in position and dimensions to the Late Antiquity rotunda, while its layout is also shown on the
street floor with the use of different material - floor graphics (Figure 4). The construction of the
building was carried out in a way to ensure the preservation of remains of ancient walls in the
basement floor intended for public use (gallery) in which the remains of the basilica and the
rotunda are visible in situ (Vodopivec 2014). The inner courtyard of the complex can be
associated with an attempt of reinterpreting an ancient forum (Potokar 2014, Županek 2008,
2010, 2014). The yard was designed in two levels: the public ground floor of the yard contains
commercial and business premises corresponding to the ancient forum, while the basement
floor contains parking spaces for tenants, thus significantly disrupting the experience of the
former Roman forum. According to some authors, even the brick cladding on the facades
evokes the ancient art of brick building (Potokar 2014).
Unfortunately, this attempt of reinterpreting archaeological heritage has not been
accompanied by interpretive infrastructure and remains mostly uncomprehensible to the
average passer-by or visitor (Županek & Mlekuž 2008), although it is included in a sightseeing
tour (Županek 2014). The current state of maintenance and use of business and commercial
spaces does not ensure the liveliness and proper use of the inner courtyard, while the visibility
of archaeological finds, ensured from the public space with the use of glass windows on the
basement floor facing Slovenska Street, disappeared with opaque foils placed on gallery
windows.
5 THE POSSIBILITY OF APPLYING THE REINTERPRETATION MODEL IN THE CITY OF
ALCALÁ DE HENARES
The paper further explores the possibility of applying this type of presentation / model
in the case of enhancing the urban integration of archaeological heritage in the Spanish city of
Alcalá de Henares, whose historic centre is on the list of UNESCO World Heritage Sites.
The ancient Roman town of Complutum with a municipal status was built in the 1st
century on the principle of an orthogonal urban network in the Henares River valley on the
main road Emerita Augusta – Cesar Augusta (Fernández Ochoa & Salido Domínguez 2016;
Sánches Montes & Rascón Marqués 2014). The remains of the ancient town are located
outside the medieval historic centre of the present-day Alcalá de Henares, in the area of the
city expansion in the second half of the 20th century. Rapid urbanization prompted by
industrialization in the 1960s, when the number of inhabitants grew multiple times within just a
decade, led to unplanned construction
13
spreading along the existing roads (Ciudades
Patrimonio de Humanidad). The construction spread onto the previously unbuilt archaeological
area of the ancient town, occupying 50% of its surface area (1970-1974) (Garcés 1978;
Sánches Montes & Rascón Marqués 2014). Archaeological rescue excavations prior to
construction were not carried out, only some of the most significant mosaic finds were saved
and relocated to a museum (Garcés 1978, Sánches Montes & Rascón Marqués 2014). It was
only in 1984 that the remains of the ancient town were protected by provisions replacing the
plan
14
and in 1988 they were proclaimed a monument (BIC
15
), thus putting an end to further
construction and devastation of the archaeological area (Sánches Montes & Rascón Marqués
2014). The first planned housing complex with all accompanying amenities, Puerta de Madrid
(the 1973 detailed plan [Ciudades Patrimonio de Humanidad n.d.]), partially built in the
13
The city did not have a master plan until 1991 (Ciudades Patrimonio de Humanidad n.d.). In the context of
UNESCO's historic centre protection, the surrounding area of the present-day Alcalá de Henares should be seen
as its setting.
14
Normas subsidiarias del Ayuntamiento de Alcalá
15
Bien de Interés Cultural

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
9
archaeological area (Regio VI)
16
, along Calle Nuñes de Guzmán street, once the main
decumanus of the ancient town, assumes/continues the same geometry / urban grid as the
ancient town. The same grid is partially taken over also by other development located directly
in the archaeological area north of Camino de Juncal street (Regio V and Regio VI).
Figure 5: Streets of modern Alcalá de Henares that overlap with the routes of ancient streets: Camino del Juncal
DM, Calle Nuñez de Guzmán DM, Calle Jiménez de Quesada KVII, Calle Magallanes KM, Av. Ntra. Sra. De Belén
KXI, Calle Alfonso de Alcalá K, Calle Hernando de Soto D, Calle Ponce de León D, Calle Menéndez de Avilés
DXIV, Calle Vezquez de Coronado DXIV (ancient street network reconstructed and marked according to Sánches
Montes & Rascón Marqués [2014]). Dotted hatch shows the area of archaeological park. Note. Drawn on the Google
Earth satellite image.
Archaeological remains of the ancient town are presented in the archaeological park
opened in 2009 (Sánches Montes & Rascón Marqués 2014) as visible remains, while its traces
in the built-up area of the city, which partially preserved the ancient urban grid, have not been
interpreted. Although the site was significantly devastated without previous archaeological
research, the streets of the ancient town exist to a certain extent in a spatial sense in the
contemporary city as present-day streets and parks, and their interpretation is possible (Figure
5). By setting up the interpretive infrastructure (interpretive panels, mobile applications, etc.)
and using content reinterpretation (commercial and restaurant facilities), in particular in
present-day Camino del Juncal and Calle Nuñez de Guzmán streets on the route of the main
decumanus which directly connects the archaeological park
17
with the UNESCO protected
historic city centre, it is possible to better integrate archaeological heritage into the
contemporary city and rectify earlier planning mistakes of not recognizing the value of
archaeological heritage for the city and its inhabitants (Figure 6).
The aim of the proposal is to attract more visitors to the archaeological area, achieve
better social integration of archaeological heritage with local inhabitants and, by using
archaeological heritage, create particularity and recognisability of the area, enhance identity,
16
The division of the ancient town according to Sánches Montes and Rascón Marqués (2014) was used.
17
The archaeological park has a relatively small number of visitors compared to the historic city centre (oral
information by Alicia Castillo Mena, May 2017).

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
10
show historical continuity and raise the overall quality of life in the city district with poor social
structure.
Figure 6: Building with porches on the ground floor that follows the former decumanus maximus of the ancient
Complutum - present-day Calle Nuñes de Guzmán street in Alcalá de Henares. (Photo: M. Rukavina, 2017)
6 COMPARISON OF THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE REINTERPRETATION
EXAMPLES AND THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL AREA IN ALCALÁ DE HENARES
The comparison of the explored archaeological heritage reinterpretation examples in
the three cities and the built-up archaeological area in the Spanish town of Alcalá de Henares,
which preserved the ancient urban grid, is presented in table 1. The analysis included: type of
archaeological find; historic period to which the find belongs; implementation of rescue
excavation; legal protection status; location in the city; year of a competition for an architectural
or urban planning project; obligation to present the finds determined by a competition program
or urban planning documentation; realization period; content and spatial reinterpretation of
archaeological traces/remains; existence of interpretive infrastructure; combination with other
types of presentation; and inclusion in sightseeing tours.
The comparison has shown the following:
- the reinterpretation model is applied to different types of archaeological heritage of very
different scales;
- the analysed reinterpreted archaeological traces belong to the Antiquity;
- in three analysed cases (Split, Zagreb and Alcalá de Henares) no archaeological
rescue excavation was carried out prior to construction nor were archaeological
remains legally protected at the time of construction works (two are protected by
planning ordinances);

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
11
- archaeological remains are located in the historic centre only in the case of Ferant
Garden in Ljubljana while in other examples they are located outside the historic
centre;
- in three analysed cases (Split, Zagreb and Ljubljana) architectural or urbanistic
competitions were carried out while the analysed area in Alcalá de Henares was largely
built up without a plan;
- the obligation to present archaeological remains has been confirmed only in the case
from Ljubljana;
- partial content reinterpretation of archaeological heritage is present only in the case
from Ljubljana;
- partial interpretive infrastructure (stone slab with an inscription centuration) was
recorded in the Split III;
- combination with other types of presentation exists in the case from Ljubljana (Ferant
Garden) where the site is also included in sightseeing tours.
Table 1: Comparison of the explored archaeological heritage reinterpretation examples and the archaeological area
in Alcalá de Henares
Ferant Garden
(Ljubljana)
Split III (Split)
Sopnica-Jelkovec
(Zagreb)
Alcalá de Henares
type of find
remains of forum
complex, rotunda
centuriation
road
urban grid
historic period
Antiquity, Late
Antiquity
Antiquity
Antiquity
Antiquity, Late
Antiquity
archaeological
rescue excavation
yes
no
no
no
protection status
Registered cultural
good (Ljubljana –
arheološko najdišče
329)
protective measures
under the Master
Plan Split 2006-
2014
protective measures
under the Master
Plan Sesvete 2003-
2015
registered cultural
good (BIC 1988)
location in the city
historic centre
outside historic
centre
outside historic
centre
outside historic
centre
competition (year)
1964
1968
2003
no
obligation to present
the archaeological
finds stipulated in
the competition
programme or the
urban planning
documents
yes (Master Plan
Ljubljana 1965)
undetermined
information
no
no
realization
1967-1973
1970-1979, partially
built
2007-2009
1970-1974
spatial
reinterpretation
yes
yes
yes
conditional
content
reinterpretation
partial
no
no
no
interpretive
infrastructure
no
partial
no
no
combination with
other types of
presentation
yes
no
no
no
inclusion in
sightseeing tours
yes
no
no
no
7 CONCLUSION
In addition to the usual three forms/types of in situ archaeological heritage presentation
(presentation of visible archaeological remains, floor graphics and site marking), the paper
identified/emphasized the fourth conditional type of presentation - archaeological heritage

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
12
reinterpretation. The analysis of selected case studies was used to show some advantages
and disadvantages of applying this type of archaeological heritage presentation:
- The advantage of this type of presentation lies in its applicability in the case of
presenting specific types of archaeological heritage where the use of other forms of
presentation is hampered (centuriation, historic roads and paths, street grid, historic
landscape, etc.).
- Another perceived advantage is the ability to achieve added value in urban and
architectural projects that reinterpret archaeological traces.
- When it comes to disadvantages, this type of presentation is generally poorly
comprehensible, which is additionally highlighted in the absence of accompanying
interpretive infrastructure.
The paper also shows the possibility of applying this type of presentation on the
example of the Spanish city of Alcalá de Henares in the archaeological area that is presently
built-up, but has partially preserved the ancient urban grid. It suggests content and spatial
reinterpretation of present-day streets that overlap with the routes of ancient streets, especially
the streets on the route of the ancient decumanus maximus, nowadays connecting the
archaeological park with the historic city centre under UNESCO protection with an aim of better
integration of archaeological heritage into the contemporary city and contemporary life as well
as enhancing this urban area in general.
REFERENCES
Ciudades Patrimonio de Humanidad, n.d., La Evolución Urbana de Alcalá de Henares,
Ministerio de Cultura / Ciudades Patrimonio de Humanidad. Available from:
<http://www.ciudadespatrimonio.org/mpublicaciones/urbanismo.php>. [29 December 2017].
Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu 2014, Zagreb while it wasn’t – before the year 1094, AMZ, Zagreb.
Fernández Ochoa, C & Salido Domínguez, Javier 2016, Madrid una historia para todos 5 - El
poder de Roma, Comunidad de Madrid, Madrid
Gaspari, Andrej 2014 Prehistoric and Roman Emona: a Guide trough the Archaeological Past
of Ljubljana’s Predecessor, Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana, Ljubljana
Garcés, Fernando 1978 Estudio de un barrio en crecimiento en Alcalá de Henares, Alcalá de
Henares
Gračanin, Hrvoje 2010, “Rimske prometnice i komunikacije u kasnoantičkoj južnoj Panoniji”,
Scrinia Slavonica, no. 10, pp. 9-69.
Gregl, Zoran 1984, “Pokušaj rekonstrukcije antičke cestovne mreže na području Zagreba”, Iz
starog i novog Zagreba, no. 6, pp. 7-14.
Gregl, Zoran 1991, Rimljani u Zagrebu, Latina et Graeca / Mladost, Zagreb.
Kukoč, Višnja 2010, “Razvoj Splita III od 1968. do 2009. godine”, Prostor, vol. 18, no. 39, pp.
166-177.
Marasović, T, Kalogjera, B, Marasović, J, Pervan, B & Sumić D 1958, “Zaštita, asanacija i
rekonstrukcija urbanističkog naslijeđa u Dalmaciji”, URBS, no. 2, pp. 7-54.
Mlinar, I & Šmit, K 2008, “Urbanistički pokazatelji zagrebačkih stambenih naselja Zapruđe i
Sonica-Jelkovec”, Prostor, vol. 16, no. 35, pp. 117-124.
Mušić, B & Bežan, M 1973, “Urbanizam Splita 3 – od osnova k realizaciji”, Čovijek i prostor,
vol. 20. no. 242, pp. 4-10.
Nadilo, Branko 2009, “Stambeno naselje Sopnica-Jelkovec u Zagrebu”, Građevinar, no. 61,
pp. 663-673.
Nemeth-Erlich, D & Kušan Špalj, D 2007, 2000 Years of Andautonia - From the Roman Town
to the Archaeological Park, Arheološki muzej u Zagrebu, Zagreb.
Pasinović, Antoaneta 1970, “Natječaj za urbanističko rješenje kompleksa istočnog Splita “Split
III””, Čovijek i prostor, vol. 17. no. 202, pp. 4-6.
Potokar, Robert 2014, “Ravnikar, Piranesi, BIO and Biennial”, Piranesi, vol. 22, no. 35, pp. 4-
5.

Proceedings of the 3rd International conference on Best Practices in World Heritage: Integral Actions
Menorca, Spain, 2-3 May 2018
13
Rukavina, Marko 2015, Archaeological Heritage Integration Method in Urban Planning.
Unpablished Ph.D thesis, Faculty of Architecture, University of Zagreb.
Rukavina, M, Petrić, K & Obad Šćitaroci, M 2015, Studija zaštite i prezentacijskog potencijala
arheološkog nalazita kuzelin i bliskih arheloških nalazišta (izabrani dijelovi teksta i grafičkih
priloga), Muzej Prigorja, Zagreb.
Rukavina, M, Petrić K, & Obad Šćitaroci, M 2016, „Analiza i procjena stanja zaštite arheoloških
nalazišta Sesveta – prilog metodi analize i procjene u kontekstu integralne zaštite“, Godišnjak
zaštite spomenika kulture Hrvatske, no. 39, pp. 161-182
Sánches Montes, AL, Rascón Marqués S & Gomez-Pantoja J 2014, Complutum, Ciudad
Romana, 2nd edn, Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, Alcalá de Henares.
Suić, Mate 1955, „Limitacija agera rimskih kolonija na istočnoj jadranskoj obali“, in: Zbornik
Instituta za historijske nauke u Zadru, Zadar, pp. 1-36.
Suić, Mate 2003, Antički grada na istočnom Jadranu, 2nd edn, Golden Marketing, Zagreb.
Vodopivec A & Žnidaršič R (eds) 2010, Edvard Ravnikar, Springer, Vienna.
Vodopivec, Aleš 2014, „A modernist Homage to Tradition“, Piranesi, vol. 22, no. 35, pp. 6-23.
Županek, Bernarda 2010, „Emona: A Roman City and its Legacy“ in Emona: Myth and Reality,
City Museum of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, pp. 9-28.
Županek, Bernarda 2014, Roman Ljubljana, Ljubljana Tourism, Ljubljana.
Županek, B & Mlekuž, D 2008, „Cultural Heritage and New Technologies: A GPS Guide to
Roman Emona“, in: CHRESP: 8th EC Conference on Sustaining Europe's Cultural Heritage,
Ljubljana, pp. 180-181.
Županek, Bernarda 2008, „Heritage on the Crossroads: Monuments of Emona Between
Yesterday and Tomorrow“, Varstvo spomenikov, no. 44, pp. 278-289.
Documents and archival sources:
Grad Split, 2014, Odredbe za provođenje i Grafički dio Generalnog urbanističkog plana Splita
– pročišćeni tekst
Grad Zagreb, 2015, Odluka o izmjenama i dopunama Odluke o donošenju Generalnoga
urbanističkog plana Sesveta
ICOMOS, 2008, The ICOMOS Charter for the interpretation and Presentation of Cultural
Heritage Sites
Urbanistični zavod Ljubljana, 1965, Generalni plan urbanističnega razvoja Ljubljane Osnutek
za javno razpravo
Internet sources:
Republika Slovenija Ministarstvo za kulturo n.d., Register nepremične kulturne dediščine,
Available from: <http://rkd.situla.org/>.