Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Criterios de intervención
en la arquitectura de tierra
The COREMANS Project. Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Proyecto COREMANS
Criterios de intervención
en la arquitectura de tierra
ÍNDICE / INDEX
5
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
6
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Introduction to Coremans-Earth
C. Mileto and F. Vegas (project coordinators) .............................................................................................. 132
7
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
8
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
9
Proyecto COREMANS
Criterios de intervención
en la arquitectura de tierra
Introducción sobre
el Proyecto Coremans
Carlos Jiménez Cuenca (IPCE)
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Una adecuada conservación del patrimonio cultural requiere el establecimiento de criterios ba-
sados en el conocimiento interdisciplinar y la experiencia contrastada. Conscientes de ello, des-
de el Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE) venimos orientando una gran parte de
nuestros esfuerzos hacia iniciativas de investigación y difusión de criterios metodológicos y
técnicos, desarrollados en coordinación con otras instituciones públicas y con especialistas en la
materia. Especial mención merece en este sentido la elaboración de los Planes Nacionales de
Patrimonio Cultural. Fruto, en buena medida, de la filosofía de los Planes, y compartiendo el
mismo espíritu, nació el Proyecto Coremans.
Este proyecto es una iniciativa del IPCE, desarrollada en estrecha colaboración con profe-
sionales e instituciones de todo el país, dedicados a la investigación y preservación del patrimo-
nio cultural. Su objetivo es elaborar y difundir documentos que sirvan de referencia para los
tratamientos de conservación y restauración de bienes culturales, de acuerdo con sus singulares
características materiales y constitutivas.
Sirva una vez más este volumen como homenaje a Paul Coremans (1908-1965) insigne
científico y pionero de la conservación del patrimonio cultural, fundador y primer director del
Real Instituto del Patrimonio Artístico de Bélgica (KIK-IRPA) que en 1961 llevó a cabo en España
la misión de la UNESCO que daría lugar a la fundación de lo que hoy es el IPCE.
12
Introducción
sobre Coremans-Tierra
C. Mileto y F. Vegas (coordinadores del proyecto)
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Es una satisfacción presentar este documento en torno a los criterios de restauración de la arqui-
tectura de tierra. Según la línea de los documentos redactados en el marco del Proyecto CORE-
MANS promovido por el Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE), se trata de un do-
cumento que tiene la función de delinear unos criterios generales para la conservación y restau-
ración de la arquitectura de tierra y unas pautas metodológicas para su estudio y conservación.
También es una satisfacción presentar este documento porque coloca como foco de aten-
ción la propia conservación de la arquitectura de tierra. Estas construcciones deben ser conser-
vadas como patrimonio por los valores materiales e inmateriales que constituyen la base de
nuestra cultura. Es importante destacar la necesidad de entender la arquitectura de tierra como
un patrimonio al igual que el patrimonio construido en ladrillo, piedra o madera, que debe ser
conservado. Que la tierra se considere un material más fácilmente degradable respecto a otros
no tiene por qué conducir a su sustitución y refacción. Se trata más bien de buscar los caminos
adecuados para su conservación, de investigar en las técnicas y materiales que permitan mante-
nerla y conservarla. Por otra parte, la arquitectura de tierra representa una estupenda ocasión
para aprender para el futuro gracias a sus cualidades cada vez más apreciadas por el mundo de
la arquitectura sostenible y la bioconstrucción.
Por último queremos agradecer al Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE), y en
especial al anterior director Alfonso Muñoz Cosme y al presente director Carlos Jiménez Cuenca,
la confianza que ha tenido en encargarnos la coordinación de este documento.
14
Conservar la arquitectura
de tierra, condición de futuro
de una modernidad recreada
Hubert Guillaud
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
1
Desde antiguo se ha construido con tepes o céspedes, procedimiento que se está recuperando en la actualidad (en Uru-
guay, por ejemplo).
2
Véanse dos obras de referencia: Houben, H. et Guillaud, H. 1989, Traité de construction en terre, Parenthèses, Marseille;
y Anger, R. et Fontaine, L. 2009, Bâtir en terre; du grain de sable à l’architecture, Belin, Paris.
3
El Programa de las Naciones Unidas para los Asentamientos Humanos (ONU/Habitat) evoca más bien una cifra del orden
del 50% de hábitats tradicionales considerando también la vivienda reciente. El Banco Mundial propone estadísticas simi-
lares. Igualmente opina en Estados Unidos el Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (USFoE)
«Earthen Building Techniques: Reading and Resource List http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/reading_resources/
ve6.html (sitio web consultado el 19 de septiembre 2004, no accesible actualmente).
4
Alva, A. 2001, «La conservación de la arquitectura de tierra», manuscrito traducido y publicado en inglés, en The Getty
Conservation Institute Newsletter, ‘Conservation’, Vol. 16, Número 1, pp.4-9, GCI, Los Angeles.
16
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Representación a la vez mental y física de la relación con el entorno natural, con sus recursos
materiales y con el clima local, con las estructuras sociales y con los modos de vida, con la es-
piritualidad, con la economía del territorio, la agricultura, el artesanado, la industria, pero también
con las amenazas físicas en forma de los sistemas defensivos de los antiguos asentamientos hu-
manos. O incluso memoria de las catástrofes naturales (seísmos, inundaciones, ciclones), que ha
contribuido a concebir extraordinarias culturas constructivas frente al riesgo (Ferrigni 2005)5, cuya
inteligencia y eficacia en estas vicisitudes a menudo despiertan admiración.
5
Ferrigni, F. 2005, «The Local Seismic Culture», en F. Ferrigni et al., ed. Ancient buildings and earthquakes. The local Seismic
culture approach: principles, methods, potentialities, Edipuglia, Bari.
6
http://whc.unesco.org/fr/nouveauxbiens/
7
Los sitios africanos contemplados en la Lista de la UNESCO han sido objeto estos últimos años de una progresión rápida
con el objetivo de recuperar un retraso considerable.
8
World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme, lanzado oficialmente en Bamako, Mali, con ocasión de la 10ª Conferencia
Internacional sobre la restauración de la arquitectura de tierra.
17
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Hoy, en 2015, de los 1.007 bienes clasificados por la UNESCO11, 173 bienes culturales están
construidos con tierra en su mayor parte. Esto representa un 21% de la Lista de Patrimonio Mun-
dial. De la misma forma, de las 265 ciudades inscritas a día de hoy en la lista de la Organización
de las Ciudades de Patrimonio Mundial, 30% de ellas, esto es, 78 ciudades, se construyeron con
tierra o poseen un importante tejido histórico construido con este material. Este patrimonio ar-
quitectónico de tierra de valor universal reúne bienes de una gran diversidad tipológica. No se
puede enumerar aquí la lista exhaustiva de todos estos bienes culturales y bienes mixtos de
valor universal, parcial o mayoritariamente construidos con tierra, pero valgan aquí algunos
ejemplos. Son el núcleo de las ciudades históricas de la kasbah de Argel (Argelia), los centros
históricos de São Luis, Diamantina o Goiás, en Brasil, la ciudad vieja de La Habana en Cuba, la
ciudad de Djenné en Mali, los centros históricos de Oaxaca, Puebla, Morelia y Zacatecas, en
México, la Antigua de Guatemala, las medinas de Fez y de Marrakech, la ciudad de Meknes, en
Marruecos, la villa de Cuzco y el centro histórico de Lima, en Perú, los centros históricos de
Évora, de Oporto y Guimarães en Portugal, los de Bujara et de Shakhrisabz, en Uzbekistán, la
villa de Coro en Venezuela, las antiguas ciudades de Shibam, Sana’a y Zabid, en el Yemen o la
antigua ciudad de Gadamés en Libia. Existen también sitios arqueológicos de gran valor históri-
co y cultural como Joya de Cerén, en El Salvador, Choga Zanbil y Persépolis, en Irán, la zona
arqueológica de Paquimé, Casas Grandes, en México, el yacimiento de Volubilis en Marruecos,
las ruinas de Mohenjo-Daro, en Paquistán, el sitio de Cártago, en Túnez, la zona arqueológica de
Chan-Chan, en Perú. O incluso fortificaciones como los muros de la ciudad de Bakú en Azerbai-
yán y varios tramos de gran longitud de la Muralla de China. Pero también paisajes culturales y
parques históricos que contienen vestigios o arquitecturas de tierra, como la Valle de M’Zab, en
Argelia, el área de Guanacaste, en Costa Rica, la ciudad de Bam y su paisaje cultural, en Irán, la
Colina Real de Ambohimanga, en Madagascar, la falla de Bandiagara, en Mali, el valle de Kat-
mandú, en Nepal, el Parque cultural Merv, en Turkmenistán, el Parque histórico nacional de la
Cultura Chaco, en New Mexico, Estados Unidos. Y monumentos y edificios palaciegos o religio-
sos, como los Palacios Reales de Abomey, en Benin, la Alhambra de Granada, en España, los
Templos Asante de Ghana, los monumentos históricos de Kyoto y Nara, en Japón, las mezquitas
de Tombuctú, en Mali, el Mausoleo del Primer Emperador Qin, en China. ¡Una riqueza patrimo-
nial inaudita!
19
Comité Científico Internacional sobre el Patrimonio Arquitectónico con Tierra, http://isceah.icomos.org/
10
Esta Cátredra UNESCO, inaugurada en 1978 en la Ecole Nationale Supérieure de Arquitectura de Grenoble, Francia, pilo-
tada por CRAterre reunió ese día 41 miembros institucionales y entidades profesionales de 21 países. La Universitat Poli-
tècnica de València y su Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura, España, es uno de los últimos miembros integrados
en la red mundial de esta cátedra.
11
En 2012, CRAterre recibió el encargo del Centro de Patrimonio Mundial de elaborar un inventario de los sitios construidos
con tierra que formaran parte de la prestigiosa lista con el fin de realizar un diagnóstico de la situación junto con las insti-
tuciones culturales de las naciones que tienen a su cargo su conservación y valorización. Este inventario se actualizar cada
año: http://whc.unesco.org/en/earthen-architecture/
18
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
De este modo, se reduce la diversidad de la identidad cultural regional y local. Sin duda,
la arquitectura de tierra sufre principalmente por las amenazas medioambientales, pero sobre
todo por las humanas. La lluvia, el hielo, la sequía, los choques térmicos, la salinidad y el viento,
son factores activos de degradación. Pero los prejuicios desfavorables frente a la tierra, la falta
de mantenimiento, las intervenciones duras o empíricas, los desafíos y los intereses todavía
opuestos de las disciplinas científicas –en particular entre la arqueología y los restauradores–, el
vandalismo, son mucho más devastadores. De hecho, la industria turística posee un impacto
considerable, a nivel social, económico y cultural, sobre el proceso de desarrollo local. Pero el
turismo de masa, en particular, es un factor de riesgo mayor para los países donde la economía
reposa principalmente en este sector, con efectos negativos de expoliación y destrucción. Este
factor de riesgo es más alto en los yacimientos arqueológicos y en los edificios históricos erigidos
con tierra con una protección deficiente, pero también a causa de un turismo irresponsable y
predador que no contempla el futuro de la arquitectura de tierra desde una perspectiva sosteni-
ble. Así, sigue siendo necesario redefinir un nuevo equilibrio entre los aspectos más técnicos de
la práctica de la conservación y los procedimientos de gestión, porque si se desvinculan, cual-
quier exceso de consideración por una o por la otra es por desgracia perjudicial.
19
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
sible con el medioambiente, barata en energía y no contaminante (reducción del gas de efecto
invernadero). Los esfuerzos llevados a cabo por múltiples naciones para la actualización del
marco legal y de los instrumentos jurídicos para el patrimonio arquitectónico, urbano y paisajís-
tico serán decisivos. Aquellos que tienen en cuenta la perspectiva de una conservación sosteni-
ble, promueven los inventarios, apoyan la protección del patrimonio construido por su valor
material e inmaterial, estableciendo nuevas ordenanzas y procedimientos de financiación para
facilitar las inversiones públicas y privadas. La investigación científica realiza también avances
muy prometedores en mineralogía y cristalografía, en transferencia hídrica, en el estudio de los
componentes orgánicos y la degradación biológica, en la comprensión de los mecanismos de
cohesión y de pérdida de cohesión del material y en la posibilidad de estabilizar los materiales
con biopolímeros. El presente es testigo igualmente del desarrollo de una investigación especí-
fica sobre la arquitectura de tierra y el riesgo sísmico tras sucesos dramáticos como la destrucción
de la ciudadela de Bam-Bam (Irán) en diciembre de 2003. La evolución del criterio de gestión
de los sitios patrimoniales construidos con tierra, en modo que se garantice una cooperación
transdisciplinar para una documentación exhaustiva y un análisis transversal más riguroso basa-
do en respuestas conservadoras razonadas y concertadas, teniendo en cuenta y valorando la
participación de los actores locales, para promover una aproximación más integrada de la con-
servación de la arquitectura de tierra, tan necesaria. En este planteamiento, las claves consisten
en reforzar la educación, la promoción del estudio del patrimonio, la sensibilización a través de
todos los medios disponibles para activar una consciencia política y pública del valor y del res-
peto del patrimonio, la consolidación de las redes institucionales y profesionales multiplicando
las ocasiones de intercambio. La promoción de una industria y de una economía basada en el
turismo sostenible en torno al patrimonio, fundada sobre la importancia concedida a la preser-
vación y la continuidad de la diversidad cultural, fruto de nuevos caminos más responsables.
Afirmando el vínculo entre la diversidad cultural y el desarrollo, la «Convención sobre la protec-
ción y la promoción de la diversidad de las expresiones culturales» (2005) revela los retos del
diálogo entre las culturas y del pluralismo cultural como factores de fortalecimiento de la diver-
sidad cultural. La arquitectura de tierra, evidencia incontestable de esta diversidad, no hará sino
beneficiarse de ello.
12
Guillaud, H. et Houben, H. 2010, «Earthen architecture and sociocultural challenges», en Terra em seminario 2010, 6° Se-
minário Arquitectura de Terre em Portugal, 9° Seminário Ibero-Americano de Arquitectura e Construção com Terra, Argu-
mentum, Lisboa, p. 218-222.
Guillaud, H. 2013, «Cultural values of earthen architectures for sustainable development», en CIAV 2013 - 7° ATP VerSus in
Vila Nova de Cerveira, CRC Press, Londres, p.9‑13.
13
Yapa, L. (2003). «Déconstruire le développement». Défaire le développement. Refaire le Monde. Paris : Edition l’Aventurine
/ Parangon, 410 p. pp.111-124.
20
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
2003, p. 114). En efecto, la arquitectura de tierra puede contribuir a subvertir este enrarecimien-
to, pero también a descentralizar mejor y conferir una autonomía desde varios puntos de vista:
14
Mauss, M. (1923-24). «L’Essai sur le don. Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et anthropologie». Paris: Revue l’Année sociologique,
1923-1924. Reedición, Puf, coll. Quadrige, 2001.
15
Picq, P., Serres, M., Vincent, J.D. 2003, Qu’est-ce que l’humain ? Editions Le Pommier, Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie,
Paris.
21
La restauración de la arquitectura
de tierra: algunas premisas
de la disciplina
Giovanni Carbonara
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
La restauración de la arquitectura de tierra, desde las técnicas constructivas hasta sus formas
específicas de degradación, pasando por los tipos de intervención, protección y mantenimiento,
pertenece al ámbito más amplio de la restauración y no constituye una realidad autónoma, au-
torreferencial, a tenor de los que dividen la disciplina de manera errónea en función del tipo de
materia o de técnicas que conforma el edificio histórico en cuestión.
Bajo esta perspectiva se puede afirmar de inmediato que a los principios de la restauración
crítica definidos hace más de cincuenta años y hoy todavía plenamente válidos, se han añadido
recientemente nuevos enfoques que han exacerbado por una parte la componente estética (de
alguna manera reintegradora y restituidora de la restauración), y por otro la componente histó-
rica (más conservativa como es natural). Se han intentado superar las sólidas bases filosóficas de
la restauración crítica a través de una interpretación extrema de las dos instancias propuestas por
Cesare Brandi (Teoria del restauro, Roma 1963, Torino 1977), esto es, la estética y la histórica,
los polos dialécticos en torno a los cuales ha girado desde sus orígenes toda la disciplina.
Aproximadamente veinte años después, Giuseppe Valadier (1826) fue interpelado para re-
solver el mismo problema técnico en el otro extremo del anillo del anfiteatro, dañado y abierto
desde tiempo atrás. Valadier resolvió la cuestión de modo bastante diverso, simulando, de alguna
manera, una suerte de colapso escalonado naturalmente a modo de esperón o contrafuerte incli-
nado, con un sistema de arcos dispuestos en número decreciente de abajo a arriba. Se trata de
una restauración claramente inspirada más en el respeto de la imagen del monumento y de su
estética de conjunto más que en la historicidad adquirida en el tiempo, hasta el punto que el ar-
quitecto recurrió a arcos análogos a los antiguos, repitiendo molduras, cornisas, bases y capiteles.
Las dos intervenciones atestiguan una disparidad evidente de actitudes y opiniones, que
incluso hoy siguen siendo evidentes en su sustancia. La obra de Valadier en el Coliseo expresa
ya una intención estilística de aproximación a la preexistencia mediante mecanismos imitativos,
atenuando o ignorando completamente la necesidad de distinguirse expresivamente y la volun-
tad de limitarse al mínimo indispensable como en el proyecto de Stern. Aquí se detecta que el
clima cultural ha mutado y se abre el camino a las restauraciones estilísticas del siglo xix que
verán en el arquitecto francés Eugène E. Viollet-le-Duc el exponente principal y en el concepto
de unidad de estilo una referencia fundamental. Toda esta fase tenderá a privilegiar la unidad
formal de la obra, juzgando como prioritaria la componente estética sobre la histórico-documen-
tal o, si se quiere, testimonial o arqueológica.
23
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
La revisión de este tipo de pensamiento tendrá lugar tiempo después, con las primeras
propuestas de la denominada restauración filológica, expuestas y difundidas por Camillo Boito,
que refleja el fermento científico propio de su tiempo, pero también las ideas románticas de John
Ruskin donde prevalecía la individualidad de cada monumento, considerado como un elemento
único determinado por sus propias vicisitudes históricas irrepetibles, a conservar por tanto en
toda la riqueza de sus estratificaciones y de las trazas del tiempo transcurrido.
Por tanto, Boito asume esta lección y la combina con su convicción personal de la nece-
sidad de recuperar la integridad y la imagen del monumento, la restitución si no de «como habría
debido ser», según las reglas de la analogía estilística, al menos de «como fue efectivamente», en
una determinada época, la de su máximo esplendor, sobre la base de los resultados de una
atenta investigación histórica y de archivo. Por esta razón, esta formulación justamente definida
como una teoría intermedia que, después de Boito, se reforzó en el pensamiento de Gustavo
Giovannoni en Italia y, con él, de Leopoldo Torres Balbás y también de Ricardo Velázquez Bos-
co en España, pensamiento que tuvo una influencia positiva durante toda la primera mitad del
siglo xx. Una visión que hizo escuela también en el ámbito internacional hasta el punto de que
fue asumida por la misma Carta de Restauración de Atenas (1931).
A este punto vale la pena recordar los principios guía y preceptos operativos que comen-
zaron a delinearse desde la mitad del siglo xviii para posteriormente consolidarse en la formula-
ción contemporánea de la restauración hasta el punto de tomarse por descontados en la actua-
lidad:
c) La autenticidad expresiva, según la cual, todo elemento que se añada debe constituir
un testimonio inequívoco de nuestro tiempo, manifestación de la cultura histórica y
figurativa contemporánea, a condición de que su inserción en la obra no resulte estri-
dente o violento.
d) La mínima intervención, esto es, limitarse a intervenir solo cuando resulte indispen-
sable para la conservación, alterando lo menos posible las preexistencias. Por ejem-
plo, escogiendo no empotrar en los muros antiguos las canalizaciones y tuberías de
las instalaciones y dejándolas externas, quizá oportunamente ocultas a la vista, bien
utilizando, donde sea posible intersticios ya existentes, bien sistemas ligeros y prefa-
bricados. En pocas palabras, estudiar y analizar para actuar poco, solo lo indispen-
sable.
24
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
caso del cemento, dañino si se emplea para inyecciones cuando se trata de muros con
frescos o de escasa calidad mecánica, o bien resinas que presentan problemas de esta-
bilidad en el tiempo, no del todo aclaradas a día de hoy.
Además merece la pena tratar la cuestión del empleo de materiales modernos en la restau-
ración, a menudo acríticamente demonizados, y la utilización de los materiales y técnicas tradi-
cionales, mitificadas como radicamente inocentes y apropiados por sí mismos. Se trata de un
falso problema porque el nudo de la cuestión no reside en los materiales o en las técnicas sino
en la conciencia y la capacidad de quien los usa adecuadamente o no. Se pueden resolver mag-
níficamente problemas complejos de restauración o infligir graves daños con el cemento, por
una parte, o con la cal y los ladrillos, incluso con los elaborados manualmente, por otra parte,
si se actúa de manera inconsciente.
Por último, se debe considerar con la debida distancia y sin actitudes entusiastas la intro-
ducción en el ámbito de la restauración de conceptos extraídos del campo de la física técnica,
como «estrato», «superficie de sacrificio» (como los antiguos enlucidos coloreados en masa), trans-
feridos a la disciplina de la restauración sin una mediación teórica adecuada. De hecho, una
investigación precipitada y equívoca sobre los estratos de sacrificio en la edificación ha reforza-
do la convicción de la necesidad de su renovación fisiológica, como si se tratase de un material
biológico o de organismos vivos y no de testimonios de arte y de historia.
25
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
consideradas menos importantes de un antiguo códice. Por ello, mínima intervención y opera-
tividad en forma de conservación y, cuando sea necesario, de añadidos, nunca de sustracción,
al menos, de partida.
Sobre el valor de las trazas del tiempo se han sucedido reiterados testimonios en el curso
de los últimos dos siglos, surgidos especialmente de la sensibilidad de escritores y literatos como
Víctor Hugo, Anatole France, Marcel Proust y, más recientemente, Marguerite Yourcenar (El tiem-
po, grande escultor, Alfaguara, Madrid 1989), que trata de esa belleza involuntaria e inimitable
de modificaciones sublimes que añade el tiempo.
Toda solución deberá buscarse con esfuerzo, caso a caso, con un trabajo de estudio y de
valoración histórico-crítica y con una técnica específica. Y en consecuencia, caso a caso, pacien-
temente, se deberá decidir si reintegrar o no las trazas conservadas del enlucido antiguo; si
proteger o no, con una lechada o veladura, las superficies descarnadas por el tiempo o por la
acción del hombre; si prolongar o no el voladizo de una cubierta alterada para restituirle su
correspondiente función protectora.
Pero los buenos ejemplos no faltan, y se han hecho muchos progresos en el respeto de la
autenticidad material y del aspecto y el significado del edificio antiguo, sin recurrir a atajos o
simplificaciones sino más bien profundizando en los requisitos de la disciplina de la conservación
entendida científicamente.
26
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Estos requisitos no se deben juzgar como condicionantes incómodos sino como ocasiones
de estímulo para afrontar de manera adecuada, esto es, «crítica» y «creativa», una cuestión ardua
de por sí. Baste pensar en aspectos como la limpieza, la consolidación, la reintegración, la pro-
tección de una delicada superficie de tierra; en la responsabilidad y el control figurativo que
comporta también un simple acto de veladura de cal, más o menos densa, más o menos estu-
diada cromáticamente; en términos todavía más comprometidos, en una intervención consisten-
te pero indispensable de consolidación estructural, quizá sobre una arquitectura compleja par-
cialmente arruinada. Si a todo esto se añaden aspectos como el mantenimiento programado, la
prevención y la puesta en valor, y el uso en seguridad y plena accesibilidad de este delicado
patrimonio de tierra, es fácil concluir cómo se trata de un reto difícil que, sin embargo, el pro-
grama Coremans de Arquitectura de Tierra y la sucesiva difusión de sus resultados a fin de crear
una cultura operativa en la materia, ha afrontado de la mejor manera posible.
27
Criterios de intervención
en la arquitectura de tierra16
16
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Camilla Mileto y Fernando Vegas y posteriormen-
te ha sido revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión Coremans
de Arquitectura de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
El presente documento continua el proyecto COREMANS promovido por el Instituto del Patri-
monio Cultural de España (IPCE), cuya finalidad es la redacción y publicación de una serie de
cartas de recomendaciones y criterios de intervención para los distintos tipos de materiales que
constituyen el patrimonio cultural.
Este documento pretende proporcionar unos criterios generales para una restauración y
rehabilitación compatible, respetuosa y sostenible de la arquitectura de tierra monumental y no
monumental. Para su redacción se formó una comisión de trabajo con expertos en la materia
internos al IPCE y pertenecientes a otras instituciones de diferentes especialidades interesadas
en el proceso de estudio, caracterización, conservación y restauración de la arquitectura de tierra.
Esta Carta para la conservación del patrimonio construido con tierra puede ser adoptada por
cualquier profesional o responsable que pueda estar vinculado con el estudio, catalogación,
protección, conservación, restauración y rehabilitación de la arquitectura de tierra.
Marco normativo
Uno de los objetivos del mundo de la restauración y conservación durante todo el siglo xx ha
sido la formalización y la redacción de unos principios aceptados a nivel internacional sobre
la conservación y restauración del patrimonio cultural. Tras la formación de las ideas a través
del pensamiento de los padres de la conservación y restauración de los monumentos durante
el siglo xix (entre ellos evidentemente destacan Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc y Boito), durante el si-
glo xx se trataron de formular unos principios comunes que constituyeran las bases comparti-
das para esta nueva disciplina. Este largo recorrido, que empieza oficialmente en 1931 con la
redacción de la Carta de Atenas como documento internacionalmente reconocido, ha ido
ampliándose cada vez más con una enorme colección de documentos que persiguen una me-
jor definición de los principios generales y una mayor definición de las ideas y de los concep-
tos en los casos específicos. Los documentos que han ido redactándose hasta la fecha tienen
diversa naturaleza legal y aplicación y han sido promovidos por diversos organismos interna-
cionales, europeos y nacionales.
Los organismos que se ocupan de redactar los diversos tipos de documentos para regular
la conservación y restauración del patrimonio a nivel internacional son: UNESCO (Organización
29
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
de las Naciones Unidas para la Educación, la Ciencia y la Cultura) que se crea en el seno de la
ONU después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial (1946) para contribuir a la conservación de la paz
y la seguridad estrechando la colaboración de las naciones a través del fomento de la educación
y la cultura; ICOMOS (Consejo Internacional de Monumentos y Sitios Históricos-Artísticos), fun-
dada en Varsovia en 1965 como aplicación de lo establecido por la Carta de Venecia en 1964,
que consiste en una organización no gubernamental para la promoción de la teoría, metodología
y tecnología aplicadas a la conservación y protección de los monumentos, conjuntos y sitios;
ICCROM (Centro Internacional de Estudios para la Conservación y la Restauración de Bienes
Culturales) que es una organización creada en Roma en 1959 por voluntad de la UNESCO para
promover la conservación a través de la formación de profesionales, la información, investigación,
cooperación y sensibilización. A nivel europeo, es el Consejo de Europa (creado por 10 países
en 1949 y compuesto en la actualidad por 46 países europeos) el organismo que promueve la
firma de los Convenios Europeos en materia de Patrimonio. Por otro lado, la Unión Europea,
institución formada por los estados miembros, crea políticas y legislación en materia de patrimo-
nio y asigna una financiación económica. En España, la política y legislación en este terreno
corre a cargo tanto de la Administración General del Estado como de las Administraciones de las
Comunidades Autónomas.
30
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
31
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Por otra parte, la arquitectura de tierra manifiesta una importante peculiaridad que reside
en su estrecha relación con el entorno natural en el que se sitúa y, sobre todo, en el material y
las técnicas que se emplean en su construcción. La arquitectura de tierra, sea monumental, ver-
nácula, defensiva, residencial, etc. tiene como importante factor común su construcción con el
material tierra y con una enorme riqueza de técnicas constructivas y variedades de puesta en
obra. Este factor común ha ido definiendo en el tiempo una especificidad de la arquitectura
construida con tierra sobre todo a nivel de investigación sobre el material y las técnicas y más
recientemente sobre los materiales y técnicas de intervención, que se han ido definiendo en
proyectos de investigación y experiencias de conservación y restauración17.
Desde un punto de vista de la reflexión sobre los valores de esta arquitectura y los princi-
pios y criterios a emplear en su conservación y restauración se debe señalar la actividad desa-
rrollada por el ISCEAH – International Scientific Committee on Earthen Architectural
Heritage de ICOMOS. Según los estatutos de ICOMOS, los Comités Científicos Internacionales
(ISC) constituyen el vehículo a través del cual ICOMOS cumple sus objetivos mediante la reali-
zación de estudios especializados y las investigaciones científicas en los diferentes ámbitos dis-
ciplinares específicos. El comité ICOMOS-ISCEAH se ocupa del patrimonio paisajístico, arquitec-
tónico, arqueológico y cultural construido con tierra. Este comité lleva a cabo investigaciones
científicas y estudios especializados, así como trata de promover el desarrollo de las mejores
prácticas y métodos para la protección y conservación del patrimonio construido de tierra en
todo el mundo. Desde los años setenta ICOMOS y más tarde ICOMOS-ISCEAH, en colaboración
principalmente con ICCROM, CRAterre-EAG y el Getty Conservation Institute, se han ocupado
de organizar importantes momentos de debate sobre la conservación del patrimonio construido
con tierra que han tomado forma en una serie de conferencias internacionales que desde el
Premier colloque international sur la conservation des monuments en brique crue, organizado
por ICOMOS en Yazd (Iran) en 1972, hasta Terra 2016 - XIIth World Congress on Earthen Archi-
tecture (Lyon, Francia, 2016) han tenido 12 ediciones: Yazd, Iran (1972), Yazd, Iran (1976), Anka-
ra, Turkey (1980), Lima and Cuzco, Peru (1983), Roma, Italia (1987), Las Cruces, New Mexico-
U.S.A. (1990), Silves, Portugal (1993), Torquay, England (2000), Yazd, Iran (2003), Bamako, Mali
(2008), Lima, Peru (2012), Lyon, Francia (2016).
Entre los proyectos de investigación dirigidos al estudio de la arquitectura de tierra y su conservación, véase: Terra (In)
17
cognita. Architecture de terre en Europe (Comunidad Europea, 2006-7); Terra Incognita: Conservatoire Européen des
Architectures en Terre (Comunidad Europea, 2009-11); ResTAPIA. La restauración de la arquitectura de tapia en la Penín-
sula Ibérica. Criterios, técnicas, resultados y perspectivas (BIA 2010-18921; Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad / Mi-
nisterio de Ciencia e Innovación, 2011-2013); SOS-TIERRA. La restauración y rehabilitación de arquitectura tradicional de
arquitectura tradicional de tierra en la Península Ibérica. Líneas guía y herramientas para una intervención sosteni-
ble (BIA2014-55924-R; Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad, 2015-2017).
32
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Estos encuentros han representado hitos importantes para el debate y la puesta en común
de la investigación del patrimonio construido con tierra y su conservación. En algunas ocasiones,
en el seno de estas reuniones se han desarrollado unas recomendaciones que no han llegado a
tener una categoría de documentos oficiales y que, sin embargo, poseen interés por poner el
acento en algunos temas cruciales para la conservación del patrimonio construido de tierra. Los
dos primeros encuentros, realizados en Yazd en 1972 y 1976, sentaron las bases para la definición
del patrimonio construido con tierra y su conservación, así como indicaron el camino para futu-
ras investigaciones científicas necesarias sobre el comportamiento de los materiales y de los
tratamientos. La necesidad de desarrollar una investigación científica específica emerge también
en un encuentro realizado en Santa Fe (New México, USA) en 1977, organizado por US-ICOMOS
e ICCROM. En esta ocasión ya se reclamaba la compatibilidad de los materiales a emplear en las
intervenciones, su legibilidad, la conservación de las diversas etapas del edificio, la protección
de los edificios con estructuras provisionales mientras se realizan los indispensables estudios
previos a la intervención y, por último, la importancia de emplear materiales y técnicas tradicio-
nales para la conservación y el mantenimiento. En el encuentro de Ankara en 1980 se introdujo
por primera vez el término «arquitectura de tierra». En Lima en 1983 se destacó la necesidad de
implantar programas específicos de formación a todos los niveles, cuestión que se retomó con
fuerza en el encuentro de Roma de 1987 donde se aprobó un programa intensivo de estudios en
conservación de la arquitectura de tierra a verificarse bianualmente en las estructuras de Craterre-
EAG. Más recientemente, en ocasión del décimo encuentro realizado en Mali (2008) se presentó
una serie de conclusiones y recomendaciones para la conservación de la arquitectura de tierra
entre las cuales destacan: la conservación debe integrar el patrimonio material e inmaterial; el
conocimiento local y tradicional puede aportar indicaciones para la conservación; la conservación
debe realizarse de la mano de la comunidad local; los conocimientos tradicionales, científicos y
derivados de la práctica deben tener todos un papel en la intervención; la conservación y el
progreso deben tener un punto de encuentro basado en el desarrollo sostenible; monitorización
y mantenimiento son fundamentales para la conservación; la difusión de conocimiento tiene que
respetar los mecanismos tradicionales así como emplear todo tipo de mecanismo contemporáneo
de divulgación; la formación debe integrar la teoría y la práctica.
También se debe destacar la actividad desarrollada en los últimos años por UNESCO a
través de la realización del World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme (WHEAP) que, entre
otras actividades como la recuperación de algunos conjuntos patrimoniales piloto (Timbuktu,
Djenné, Lalibela), ha supuesto la realización de un Inventario de la Arquitectura de Tierra (2012).
En este inventario aparecen en los 150 sitios UNESCO construidos con tierra entre los 962 sitios
totales declarados por la UNESCO en el año 2012. Cada sitio ha sido inventariado explicitando
los criterios de su selección a tenor de las técnicas de construcción empleadas, los riesgos y
amenazas, el uso, etc. De estos 150, solo 4 están situados en España: el conjunto de la Alhambra,
el Generalife y el Albaicín en Granada; el conjunto de la Catedral, el Alcázar y el Archivo de
Indias en Sevilla; el centro histórico de Córdoba; la ciudad antigua de Cáceres.
33
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
En primer lugar el patrimonio construido con tierra es amplio y comprende todo tipo de
patrimonio cultural, arquitectónico, arqueológico, monumental, vernáculo, paisajístico, etc., que
tenga relación con el empleo de la tierra como material de construcción. Este conjunto de bienes
hoy en día constituye un patrimonio material e inmaterial ligado a unas culturas constructivas a
su relación con el lugar en el que se desarrollan, a unos modos de vida, etc. La conservación de
este patrimonio constituye en la actualidad un ejemplo para el desarrollo sostenible en virtud de
unos valores como la relación con el territorio, el empleo de los recursos locales, o el estableci-
miento de comunidades locales. La conservación de la arquitectura de tierra también puede re-
presentar un importante elemento para el desarrollo de la economía local a través de la formación
de los oficios y el empleo de los materiales y recursos locales.
34
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
distingue de una arquitectura nueva con formas antiguas o de una reconstrucción ficticia en un
parque temático, y se mantiene firme y digna en su ancianidad; los valores funcionales, sociales
y políticos ligados al papel que el edificio ha tenido y sigue teniendo en la sociedad o que pue-
de adquirir a través de la restauración; el valor económico no sólo vinculado al propio valor del
objeto sino a la economía que puede generar a su alrededor; etc.
Por otra parte, la arquitectura de tierra, en cuanto arquitectura ligada a los materiales y
técnicas tradicionales y al territorio, encierra también una serie de otros valores más cercanos a
la propia arquitectura vernácula. Esta arquitectura, en especial, es aquella que nace ligada ínti-
mamente al paisaje, fruto de la sabia combinación inmediata de la materia disponible en ese
entorno, según sistemas constructivos y técnicas artesanales creados por la mano de sus residen-
tes en el transcurso de generaciones que responden a una estricta funcionalidad. El advenimien-
to de la industrialización ha cambiado completamente las condiciones de producción de la ar-
quitectura que no surge ligada a la materia prima del entorno, sino a los materiales de construc-
ción comerciales. En muchos rincones del globo, la arquitectura tradicional, y entre ella la arqui-
tectura de tierra, ha dejado de existir como fenómeno activo. En el resto del mundo, la arquitec-
tura tradicional sobrevive ligada al aislamiento y la escasez de medios, pero es previsible su
abandono como alternativa a corto y medio plazo. Estos valores específicos, tanto de integración
y simbiosis en el medioambiente como de documento histórico de una cultura constructiva sos-
tenible en su propio entorno cultural y climático, convierten a la arquitectura tradicional en algo
todavía más valioso en un momento en que la sostenibilidad se está proponiendo como impe-
rativo. El estudio de la materialidad del edificio permite un conocimiento de los materiales y las
técnicas tradicionales con los que se construyó el edificio y su relación con el entorno medioam-
biental, cultural y social. Este tipo de estudio pondrá también en evidencia procesos y mecanis-
mos de protección frente al riesgo o de mantenimiento que pueden ser útiles para planificar las
intervenciones de conservación, consolidación y mantenimiento.
No siempre es posible u oportuno emplear las técnicas tradicionales para las acciones de
conservación y consolidación pero es importante que los materiales y técnicas que se emplean
18
Entre otros, como libro que recoge una amplia variedad de casos de restauraciones de arquitectura de tapia en la Penín-
sula Ibérica en los últimos treinta años, véase: Mileto C., Vegas F. (Ed.), La restauración de la tapia en la Península Ibérica.
Criterios, técnicas, resultados y perspectivas, Argumentum-TC, 2014. Por otro lado, una gran cantidad de casos de inter-
vención en arquitectura de tierra monumental y no monumental a nivel nacional e internacional está recogidos en los
volúmenes: Mileto C., Vegas F., Cristini V. (ed.), Earthen Architecture. Past, Present and Future, CRC - Taylor & Francis Group
– Balkema, 2015Mileto C., Vegas F., García L., Cristini V. (ed.), Rammed Earth Conservation, CRC - Taylor & Francis Group
– Balkema, 2012.
35
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
sean compatibles a nivel material y estructural con el edificio y sostenibles a nivel medioambien-
tal y social con el entorno y la comunidad. En este sentido sería importante que en los procesos
de restauración se emplearan materiales y técnicas locales o que tengan en cuenta del contexto
local. En el proceso de restauración es también importante mantener la diversidad de las técnicas
evitando cualquier concesión a la globalización de las técnicas de intervención, factor que no
significa necesariamente el empleo de la misma técnica en la restauración pero que debería
emplear la restauración como un momento de estudio y puesta en valor de las peculiaridades
locales de los materiales y las técnicas presentes en el edificio. Las técnicas que se emplean en
la restauración pueden nacer también de un trabajo de investigación científica de innovación de
la técnica a partir del conocimiento de la tradición.
Por otra parte sería importante emplear oficios locales para formentar su recuperación y
la formación de nuevos artesanos. De esta forma la restauración favorece la recuperación y/o el
mantenimiento de los oficios y, por tanto, el desarrollo socioeconómico local. En el proceso es
importante involucrar a la comunidad con acciones participativas de formación y difusión para
que se establezca un vínculo de concienciación, apropiación y valorización con el bien o el
conjunto que se restaura, aspecto que puede ser especialmente interesante en el caso de la ar-
quitectura de tierra que todavía sufre de un menosprecio debido a considerase la tierra como un
material pobre y poco resistente ligado a la arquitectura de la escasez de recursos.
La primera fase fundamental de la restauración, se trate de una arquitectura de tierra o no, con-
siste en el conocimiento que se debe tener del edificio en todos sus aspectos históricos, cons-
tructivos, estructurales, funcionales, culturales, simbólicos, etc. Sin este conocimiento no es po-
sible emprender ninguna restauración. Se debe llegar a entender el edificio o conjunto en todos
sus aspectos para poder identificar claramente sus valores específicos y, sobre todo, el camino a
seguir para su conservación.
36
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Cualquier tipo de estudio, por profundo y multidisciplinar que sea, o cualquier metodología, por
seria y rigurosa que aparezca, no garantizan una intervención correcta en el proceso de restau-
ración arquitectónica, tanto monumental como no monumental. Estudios detalladísimos de un
edificio en ocasiones se corresponden con intervenciones posteriores que arruinan completa-
mente su esencia o tergiversan su carácter. Esta circunstancia se verifica porque la disciplina de
la restauración no constituye una ciencia exacta. Los estudios que se realizan en el edificio para
alcanzar el mayor conocimiento posible provienen de las ramas más avanzadas de la ciencia, que
cada día nos permite acercarnos más al conocimiento íntimo de la materia y de su historia. Pero
37
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
la ciencia termina en este punto. A partir de este momento, el proyecto de restauración pertene-
ce a otro ámbito disciplinar que no viene amparado por la credibilidad y la imparcialidad de la
ciencia. En búsqueda del éxito de las intervenciones, a lo largo de más de dos siglos de debate
la disciplina de la conservación y la restauración ha ido formulando una serie de principios base 19
que deben respetarse en las intervenciones para garantizar el respeto de los valores del patrimo-
nio arquitectónico y cultural.
Estos principios básicos que se han ido identificando a lo largo del tiempo a través del
debate internacional y de las cartas de restauración20 son:
–– la mínima intervención, que garantiza la conservación del edificio sin necesidad de ejecu-
tar ninguna actuación que no sea estrictamente necesaria y, menos todavía, cualquier in-
tervención que pueda perjudicar la conservación de los valores del edificio.
19
La definición de los criterios es parte integrante del proyecto de restauración de forma que ha sido siempre un nudo
central de las teorías de la restauración arquitectónica y sería imposible dar una breve bibliografía de referencia. Sin em-
bargo, existen algunos textos que tratan del tema de forma explícita y que sirven como referencia general: Torsello,
Paolo B., «Proyecto, conservación, innovación», en Loggia - Arquitectura & Restauración, n. 8, Valencia, 1999; EARL, John,
Building Conservation Philosophy, Donhead, Dorset, 2003; Oxley, Richard, «Values and Principles», en Id., Survey and
Repair of Traditional Buildings. A Sustainable Approach, Donhead, Somerset, 2003, pp. 28-46; AA.VV., «Il progetto di res-
tauro», en Carbonara G. (coord.), Trattato di restauro architettonico, vol. 3, UTET, Turín, 1996; Mileto C., Vegas, F., «Crite-
rios de intervención en la arquitectura tradicional», en AA.VV., Método Rehabimed. Arquitectura Tradicional Mediterránea.
II Rehabilitación. El edificio, CAATB, 2007, pp. 255-265.
20
Parte de estos principios son nombrados por Giovanni Carbonara en su texto introductorio en este mismo documento.
38
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
–– la durabilidad de la intervención que no sólo significa que las partes intervenidas o nuevas
tengan una cierta garantía de durabilidad (cuestión que atañe a la propia ética profesional),
sino que exista una cierta homogeneidad entre la durabilidad de los materiales antiguos y
los de nueva aportación para garantizar un envejecimiento homogéneo.
21
Este principio ha sido inicialmente formulado sobre todo por John Warren: Warren J., Conservation of earth structures,
Butterworth, Oxford, 1999, p. 188.
22
Estos criterios y otros están tratados de forma específica y detallada en: VEGAS F., MILETO C., Renovar Conservando.
Manual para la restauración de la arquitectura rural del Rincón de Ademuz, Mancomunidad del Rincón de Ademuz, Valen-
cia, 2007.
23
Mileto, C., Vegas, F., «La restauración de la arquitectura tradicional como recuperación de los valores culturales y desa-
rrollo económico. La experiencia en el Rincón de Ademuz (Valencia)», en Muñoz G. (coord.), Actas del II Congreso inter-
nacional de patrimonio cultural y cooperación al desarrollo, UPV, Valencia, 2006, pp. 256-265.
39
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Propuesta de intervención
Como consecuencia de los resultados aportados por los estudios realizados sobre el edificio, el
diagnóstico completo de su estado de conservación y el respeto de sus valores y de los principios
generales de la disciplina, la intervención deberá responder a los siguientes criterios:
–– Las soluciones adoptadas deben tener el mayor grado de neutralidad posible garantizando
la legibilidad de la intervención y el principio de la autenticidad.
40
La tierra como material
de construcción24
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Màrius Vendrell y posteriormente ha sido revisa-
24
do, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión Coremans de Arquitectura
de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
La tierra
Las construcciones de tapia, adobe, entramado, pared de mano, etc., se construyen usando como
material la tierra, acepción genérica utilizada para un amplio abanico de composiciones que en
lenguaje coloquial denominamos con esta palabra. El mismo razonamiento se podría aplicar a
la tierra empleada como mortero de asiento en las fábricas, como aislante e impermeabilizante
en cubiertas planas e inclinadas, como pavimento, etc.
Aquí es interesante señalar que el concepto petrológico del término «arcilla» se refiere ex-
clusivamente a una fracción granulométrica de diámetro fino, típicamente igual o inferior a las
mencionadas 5 micras, mientras que el mismo término en mineralogía describe un grupo de
minerales del grupo de los filosilicatos. Es evidente que la arcilla (petrológica) contiene una
importante cantidad de arcillas (mineralógicas), a la vez que cuarzo, calcita y quizás otros mine-
rales en proporciones variables. Por tanto, cuando se menciona un porcentaje de arcillas forman-
do parte de tierra, el contenido en minerales arcillosos suele ser notablemente inferior.
Así pues, la tierra usada para construcción es una mezcla de granos de tamaños y compo-
siciones diversas que constituye un material que, bajo ciertas condiciones, puede mantener la
forma que se le dé artificialmente. Cabe mencionar que la composición mineral de la arquitec-
tura de tierra no es relevante para su buen funcionamiento como material de construcción, sino
que es mucho más significativo la granulometría o distribución de tamaños: la mayor parte de
los minerales constituyentes de la tierra son inertes en el proceso de construcción, con la excep-
ción de las arcillas, como se verá más adelante. Su papel en el conjunto está mucho más condi-
cionado por su tamaño que por su naturaleza.
Dado que las construcciones de tierra emplean el material disponible a pie de obra por
razones obvias de economía, la variabilidad de composiciones y granulometrías de los edificios
erigidos con esta técnica es enorme. Tradicionalmente, se acepta que la composición del material
utilizable para construcción con tierra debe tener una distribución granulométrica entre los si-
guientes límites:
42
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Esto delimita unos márgenes muy amplios, aunque indica la necesidad de que contenga,
al menos, arcilla, limo y arena, como se comentará más adelante.
Esta mezcla, que puede ser natural o preparada expresamente, puede contener otros com-
ponentes añadidos para mejorar sus propiedades, a tenor de cada técnica, cada variante especí-
fica y la disponibilidad en cada lugar. Estos aditivos pueden ser de origen mineral, por ejemplo,
cal (hasta un 15%), betún de Judea (en la antigua Mesopotamia), etc.; de origen animal, a saber,
crines, pelos, cerdas, excrementos; o de origen vegetal, esto es, fibras, paja, ramas, savia, etc.
En las construcciones actuales de tierra se recurre también a otros aditivos, como el ce-
mento para mejorar las propiedades mecánicas, aunque su uso es poco recomendable por los
problemas inherentes a la lixiviación de elementos alcalinos y la consecuente formación de sales;
o silicatos alcalinos, que aumentan la cohesión entre partículas y por tanto, las propiedades me-
cánicas, especialmente la resistencia a compresión. En este texto no se consideran estos aditivos
en tanto que se trata de analizar las construcciones tradicionales y por tanto, con los aditivos
históricamente utilizados.
En algunos casos, los muros de adobe se reciben con mortero de cal, o se dispone en la
tapia un estrato de cal vertido entre hilos o extendida bajo cada tongada en una variante de la
tapia calicostrada: se trata de una capa no plástica bajo ninguna condición, aunque se moje, que
aporta consistencia y estabilidad a los muros, come se verá más adelante.
El basamento
En la mayor parte de los casos, las construcciones de tierra se construyen sobre un basamento
que a veces alcanza toda la altura de la planta baja, un zócalo formado por una fábrica más o
menos regular de piedra recibida habitualmente con morteros de tierra y/o cal. La idea de su
presencia consiste en crear un sistema que impida o al menos limite el ascenso capilar del agua
del terreno y de la escorrentía superficial al muro construido con tierra propiamente dicho: el agua
ascenderá hasta cierta altura del basamento por capilaridad sin alcanzar a humedecer la tierra que
forma la parte superior de los muros, garantizando de esta manera su conservación y durabilidad.
43
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Como se ha comentado anteriormente, la composición mineral de las tierras usadas para la for-
mación de los muros de tierra no es tan relevante como su granulometría. Cada una de las fases
de diferente granulometría, así como los posibles aditivos, posee un papel significativo en la
estabilidad, la durabilidad y el comportamiento de la arquitectura de tierra, que se explica a
continuación.
Limo: Actúa de forma similar a la arcilla, pero con mucha menor capacidad de adsorción
de agua y como la mayor parte del limo no está formado por arcillas (mineralógicamente ha-
blando), su papel cohesionador resulta fuertemente limitado. Su presencia es necesaria para
formar la masa de tierra, llenando los espacios que quedarían si sólo existieran arenas y gravas
y la limitada cantidad necesaria de arcilla.
Arena y grava: Son los componentes no plásticos de la tierra, aportan gran parte de la
estructura de la misma y su papel importante consiste en la limitación de las líneas de plasticidad
creadas por las arcillas al mojarse. Por tanto, su presencia reduce y controla la plasticidad de la
mezcla, como el desengrasante de la cerámica y el árido de los morteros. Una escasa cantidad
de estas fases daría lugar a una mezcla demasiado plástica, tanto en el momento de prepararla
(por ejemplo, en la fabricación de adobes), como si se moja accidentalmente una vez puesta en
obra.
Cal: La adición de cal a la tierra para hacer tapia no es estrictamente necesaria, si bien se
constata su presencia en algunos casos. Agregar cal viva a la tierra tiene poca utilidad si contie-
ne materia orgánica, pero en tierras arenosas reduce la plasticidad, absorbe parte del agua aña-
dida y ayuda a la floculación y aglomeración de la mezcla. Porcentajes del 1 al 3% en peso se
utilizan para reducir la plasticidad, la retracción en el secado y el aumento de volumen de las
arcillas al adsorber agua; porcentajes del 3 al 10% se consideran suficientes para obtener una
buena estabilización química del material.
Fibras y similares: Son inclusiones no plásticas que actúan como la arena y la grava, limi-
tando la plasticidad de la mezcla y reduciendo la retracción al perder agua. Adicionalmente,
pueden aumentar la capacidad de tracción del material, si bien estructuralmente no sería nece-
sario disponer de resistencia a la tracción en una fábrica pensada para actuar a compresión
simple. Son frecuentes las adiciones de paja en revestimientos de barro (material con mucha
arcilla) o en la confección de adobes, que de otro modo se convertirían demasiado plásticos.
Lechos de mortero de cal: Al secarse –aun sin carbonatar– se convierten en niveles no plás-
ticos intercalados entre los de tapia o entre las hiladas de adobe, en el caso de estar recibidos
44
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
con mortero de cal. Por tanto, se debe imaginar que si el muro se mojara y se volviera excesiva-
mente plástico, esta plasticidad quedaría limitada entre los niveles inmediatos de mortero supe-
rior e inferior, de tal manera que difícilmente una tongada de tapia de varios centímetros de al-
tura y, menos aún, una hilada más reducida de adobe, podría generar empujes laterales impor-
tantes por deslizamiento plástico. Así pues, la alternancia de lechos de tapia y mortero de cal,
así como eventualmente, la cal como mortero de asiento en las fábricas de adobe, ayuda decisi-
vamente en la estabilidad del muro en caso de mojarse. Un razonamiento similar se puede rea-
lizar con los lechos o juntas de pasta de yeso, también frecuentes en parte de nuestra geografía.
Agua: Normalmente, una buena pared de tapia debe contener entre el 5% y el 10% en su
peso de agua. Otras técnicas de construcción con tierra requieren por lo general mayor humedad
en el momento de su confección. En general, esta suele ser la cantidad de agua espontáneamen-
te absorbida por el material, en gran parte adsorbida por las arcillas que lo forman. Su presencia
colabora a la cohesión entre los granos que forman la tierra debido a la polaridad de su molé-
cula, de la misma forma que ocurre con la arena para formar esculturas en la playa o las grandes
dunas del desierto del Sahara. La creencia de que un muro de tierra debe estar completamente
seco es un error común cometido en la conservación de esta arquitectura.
Morteros de revestimiento: Estos morteros asumen el doble papel de protección del muro
de tierra frente a los agentes externos, especialmente del impacto directo y de la escorrentía del
agua, pero a la vez contribuyen eventualmente al confinamiento del material que forma el muro,
sobre todo en el caso del mortero de cal y el yeso, y por tanto, colaboran decisivamente en su
comportamiento mecánico bajo compresión. También es posible atribuir otros efectos a los mor-
teros de revestimiento, como por ejemplo la limitación y contención de las posibles líneas de
plasticidad en caso de que el muro de tierra se moje porque fuera demasiado rico en arcillas; o
que sirvan como indicadores de movimientos de compresión del muro, que se pondrían de ma-
nifiesto mediante fisuras en los revestimientos antes de que el muro llegue al colapso, entre otros.
45
Técnicas y puesta en obra
en España25
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Juana Font, Fernando Vegas y Camilla Mileto y
25
posteriormente ha sido revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión
Coremans de Arquitectura de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Se puede afirmar que la Península Ibérica es un territorio increíblemente rico en técnicas, varian-
tes y modalidades de puesta en obra de la arquitectura tradicional de tierra. Pocas regiones
geográficas del mundo, quizás con la excepción de la llanura panónica en torno al río Danubio,
poseen tantas y tan variadas manifestaciones de construcción con tierra reflejadas en la arquitec-
tura vernácula. España también destaca por la gran cantidad de antiguos monumentos, iglesias
y fortalezas construidas fundamentalmente con tapia, que se cuentan a miles repartidos por toda
la geografía española al sur de los Pirineos y de la Cornisa Cantábrica.
Figura. 1. Muro que combina fábricas de sillería y piedra y ladrillo recibidos con tierra, tapia, verdugadas de ladrillo y adobes
en la coronación. Al fondo, a la izquierda, fragmento de muro de adobes y, a la derecha, muro de entramado relleno de ado-
bes. La Valdavia, Palencia (J. Font).
47
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
48
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Tierra apilada
Es una acumulación deliberada de tierra para formar un muro, que puede ser objeto de un
posterior perfilado a mano o con una herramienta o no ser objeto de ningún trabajo pos-
terior.
Es un muro que se forma por amontonamiento de tierra con posterior refilado de los paramentos.
El trabajo se inicia disponiendo la tierra sobre un zócalo previamente realizado con canto rodado,
mampostería, sillería o ladrillo. La presencia de esta base evitará no sólo las humedades por capi-
laridad sino también los daños producidos por las salpicaduras, causa muy frecuente de la erosión
en la base que suele acarrear fatales consecuencias. La cantidad de tierra que se coloca cada día,
en pequeñas porciones, a mano o con alguna herramienta adecuada para ir formando la pared,
viene determinada por las características de cada tipo de tierra, más o menos capaz de mantener
49
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
50
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Tradicionalmente, se han obtenido piezas de tierra con formas muy variadas utilizando procedi-
mientos diferentes, que se describen a continuación.
51
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 9. Muro de tepes en Lavandeira, Ourense Figura 10. Muro de glebas. Grand Ateliers de l’Isle d’Abeau, Isère,
(Vegas & Mileto). Francia (J. Font).
52
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Piezas modeladas
53
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Piezas moldeadas
Están realizadas con ayuda de un molde, de mayor o menor tamaño y con un procedimiento de
elaboración que varía, según el tipo de tierra empleada, la cantidad de agua del amasado, la
conveniencia de usar estabilizantes o conglomerantes, fibras y otros productos.
Adobes. Los adobes son las piezas obtenidas con molde, generalmente paralelepípedos
rectos rectangulares (fig. 13), aunque existen también formas cúbicas y trapezoidales para reali-
zar hornos, bóvedas o cúpulas y formatos aplantillados para formar aleros, golas o impostas
(fig. 14). En primer lugar, se determina si la masa de barro necesita o puede prescindir de la
ayuda de fibras (tallos de cereal, crines…) para evitar la fisuración en el secado. Posteriormente
se amasa la tierra o la mezcla con el grado de humedad necesario, se procede a llenar los moldes,
se enrasan y después se desmoldan finalmente las piezas, procurando que su secado se produz-
ca al aire, preferiblemente a la sombra (figs. 15, 16, 17, 18). Habitualmente se colocan mediante
la ayuda de morteros realizados a base de tierra, cal o yeso, o mezclando dos de estos elementos
(figs. 19, 20). Aunque existen adobes extraordinariamente cohesionados que no precisan reves-
timientos de protección, se suelen revocar habitualmente con tierra y cal, barro y paja, yeso o
con un simple trabadillo (figs. 21, 22, 23). Lo mismo ocurre si los adobes se disponen como re-
lleno de entramados de madera, uso para el que suele preferirse la colocación en espiga o en
espina de pez porque facilita la adaptación de las piezas a las irregularidades de la madera. Los
54
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 14. Adobe aplantillado para formar una cornisa en Figura 15. Gradillas vacías, Amayuelas de Abajo, Palencia
Husillos, Palencia (J. Font). (J. Font).
55
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 18. Adobes con paja, Villanueva de la Condesa, Valladolid (J. Font).
Figura 19. Adobes y mortero de tierra en Masegoso de Tajuña, Guadalajara (Vegas & Mileto).
56
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 20. Tabique de adobes recibidos con mortero de cal, Abarca de Campos, Palencia (J. Font).
Figura 21. Revoco imitando sillería en el Monasterio de La Ñora, Murcia, sobre muro de tapia con verdugadas y machones de
ladrillo (L. García).
57
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 23. Revoco de barro con paja o trulla en Amayuelas, Palencia (Vegas & Mileto).
58
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
tratados recomiendan que ésta sea cubierta con revoco para evitar los procesos de fotodegrada-
ción provocados por la gran luminosidad existente en la mayoría de zonas españolas (figs. 24,
25). En castellano recibe las denominaciones de adobe, gasson, adoba, arrobero, de cabeza,
menguao, chiquito, adogue, zabaleta.
Figura 24. Adobes en espiga, Segovia (L. García). Figura 25. Adobes colocados en estado plástico en San Pe-
dro de Moarves, Palencia (J. Font).
Tapialejo. Son muros moldeados sin compactación. Estos muros resultaban muy econó-
micos porque, al anular la compactación, evitaban contratar a un maestro tapiador. Una vez
armado el molde, una gran horma, parecida a un tapial, se vertía en ella la mezcla de tierra,
paja y agua, cuya consistencia debía ser bastante plástica para posibilitar el llenado correcto
de los ángulos. Era preciso esperar unos días antes de desmoldar el tramo de muro que recu-
bría el molde, pero su precio y su realización estaba al alcance de cualquier persona sin ex-
periencia por lo que se usó mucho en cerramientos, refugios y elementos de poca importan-
cia (fig. 26). El muro obtenido se conoce como tapialejo, tapia vertida o falsa tapia. Hoy re-
sulta raro de encontrar, se puede detectar su presencia sobre todo en algunos muros de cer-
cado en Castilla León.
Este método de encofrar una masa plástica es parecido al que se usa para realizar muros
moldeados de piedra o cascote trabados con yeso a dos caras o incluso a una sola cara de
encofrado, muy común en Rioja (Valles del Tirón o del Najerilla), Burgos (comarca de La Bu-
reba), Soria (área de Medinaceli), Guadalajara (en el meridiano central con Pastrana, Alocén,
Sigüenza, etc.), Cuenca (norte de la provincia), Valencia (comarca del Rincón de Ademuz),
Barcelona (el área del Penedés) y amplias zonas de la provincia de Teruel, donde recibe el
nombre de tapialete (fig. 27).
59
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 27. Muro encofrado de yeso o de tapialete en una vivienda en el Rincón de Ademuz, Valencia, con pi-
lares monolíticos de yeso ciclópeo. (L. García).
60
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 28. Tapia en el Castillo de Jorquera, Albacete Figura 29. Proceso de construcción de una tapia en el
(Vegas & Mileto). Castillo de Buitrago de Lozoya (C. Jiménez Cuenca).
Tapia. Son muros moldeados con compactación con ayuda de un pisón en el interior de
un gran encofrado. Es una técnica muy útil que genera fábricas casi indestructibles. La tapia es
la técnica, mientras que el tapial es el encofrado, aunque en ocasiones se emplee esta palabra
incorrectamente para denominar el procedimiento. No todas las tierras son adecuadas para esta
técnica, sino que se debe trabajar con una proporción adecuada de arcilla, limo, arena y grava.
Puede hacerse con tierra, yeso, carbón, conchas trituradas y otras sustancias que se apisonan
dentro del tapial. Existen diferentes tipos de tapia como la monolítica, que emplea tierra sola-
mente y recibe ese nombre por utilizar un único material que con la compactación adquiere una
dureza pétrea (fig. 28, 29). Se puede encontrar sobre todo en viviendas comunes, así como en
palacios, castillos, conventos, palomares, tenadas, colmenares, tejares…
Las tapias mixtas se realizan con varias sustancias como sucede con la tapia real que mez-
cla cal y tierra o las tapias militares, que son hormigones de tierra, cal, guijarros y mampuestos,
prácticamente invulnerables (figs. 30, 31, 32). Las tapias calicostradas reciben la capa protectora
en el mismo acto de realizar el muro, adosando cordones de cal a la cara interna del tapial con-
forme se van colocando las tongadas de tierra. Con la compactación la cal penetra en la tierra
mientras que, a la vez, forma una costra en el lado más externo del bloque apisonado, razón por
la que recibe el apelativo de calicostrada (figs. 33, 34, 35). Está repartida por gran parte de Es-
paña. Existen excepcionalmente tapias gipsicostradas en zonas con abundantes depósitos de
aljez, como Teruel y Zaragoza. Cabe distinguir cuando la costra se hace ex profeso respecto a la
costra generada por la migración del material más fino a los paramentos exteriores adosados al
molde. La tapia acerada también lleva protección pero, a diferencia de la anterior, el enlucido
de cal se aplica después de desmoldar el muro.
61
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
62
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
63
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 34. Rotura de costra en mechinal, Calahorra de Campos, Palencia (J. Font).
64
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 35. Muro de tapia calicostrada en la Cerca de Don Gonzalo, Granada (Vegas & Mileto).
Figura 36. Tapia valenciana en Palacio de Alarcón de Játiva, Valencia (L. García).
65
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 37. Tapia encadenada con machones mixtos de ladrillo y adobes e hiladas de ladrillo en Fuensalida, Toledo (Vegas
& Mileto).
Figura 39. Tapia encadenada de mayor y menor en Guadix, Granada (Vegas & Mileto).
66
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
67
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 41. Muestra de cómo se colocaban las verdugadas de ladrillo separando los hilos de tapia realizada durante la restau-
ración del Castillo de Buitrago de Lozoya (C. Jiménez Cuenca).
68
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 44. Tapia con rafas de yeso en Villarquemado, Teruel (Vegas & Mileto).
Las rafas son refuerzos verticales encofrados en el cajón de la tapia, también de yeso y garofo
(árido y gravas), que se disponen bien en las esquinas del muro, bien separando cajones (fig.
44). No deben confundirse los machones verticales construidos con yeso para resolver las es-
quinas, erigidos previamente a la tapia, con las rafas de yeso encofradas en cada hilada de tapia.
Excepcionalmente se pueden encontrar rafas acampanadas de ladrillo para evitar la dificil com-
pactación de los ángulos inferiores del tapial. Relacionadas con las anteriores existen también
las tapias de juntas de yeso, que se aplica como un enlucido en los laterales y la parte superior
de cada hilada, constituyendo una suerte de muros de grandes cajones de tierra aparejados con
yeso. Relacionada con este tipo, existe también la tapia con pastón de yeso extendido entre
hilos, sin enlucir los laterales verticales. Este tipo de tapias es común en el Bajo Aragón. Además,
es frecuente encontrar en estas zonas las tapias cuyos cajones acaban en planos inclinados, a
modo de juntas de espera del tapiado, que se disponen generalmente contrapeados, especulares
respecto a los inmediatamente superiores o inferiores.
La costumbre de intercalar juntas horizontales de cal entre hilos de tapia, se puede encontrar
en regiones diseminadas y bien diversas, desde Cataluña hasta Extremadura. Por otro lado, este
hábito de intercalar juntas horizontales para regularizar el plano de apoyo de la tapia superior y
cubrir sus mechinales, se manifiesta en las dos Castillas con verdugadas de adobe, piedra o ladrillo.
Por último, se debe destacar el papel tradicional de la madera como trabazón suplemen-
taria en las tapias defensivas históricas desde época islámica en adelante, especialmente en las
esquinas, donde se insertaban rollizos alternados con las tongadas para trabarlas. Igualmente,
son comunes en la zona de Monforte de Lemos, tapias con encadenados de tablas de madera
que se insertan tanto alternados con los hilos o las tongadas del muro, como en las esquinas
para mejorar la trabazón.
69
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Morteros y revocos
La construcción tradicional, sea culta o popular, ha empleado morteros y revocos de tierra, en
todo el mundo, hasta la aparición de nuevos materiales, bien entrado el siglo xix (fig. 45). La
tierra sola o mezclada con cal o yeso ha pervivido casi hasta nuestros días formando terrados,
asentando mamposterías, aparejando adobes, afianzando morrillos y consolidando los tejidos de
ramas flexibles o de rígidos listones, tan abundantes en numerosas partes del mundo y tan anti-
guos que para muchos investigadores, como Frankowski, son el origen de la arquitectura. Ade-
más, la tierra se usa en forma de revoco, también frecuentemente obtenido con la adición de cal,
yeso o paja, utilizado desde hace siglos, para proteger muros levantados con adobe o con tramos
de tierra apilada, tapia o glebas (fig. 46).
Figura 45. Tierra empleada como mortero trabando frag- Figura 46. Mortero de tierra entre la mampostería en Na-
mentos de piedra en una caseta de viña en Dueñas, Palen- harros, Guadalajara (J. Font).
cia (J. Font).
70
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 48. Panel de emparrillado en el Valle Figura 49. Cuerpo de emparrillado en la Parroquia de Cornellana, Astu-
de Liébana, Cantabria (J. Font). rias (J. Font).
71
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 50. Paneles dobles de listón en el Bierzo, León Figura 51. Paneles de listón con relleno de mazorcas en el
(J. Font). Valle del Narcea, Asturias (J. Font).
72
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
En América muchos pueblos en grandes áreas como la andina empleaban estos sistemas
para erigir paramentos verticales con elementos como los tallos de carahuilla, la guadua o la
caña brava. La frecuencia de movimientos sísmicos en estas zonas, constatadas por los españo-
les provocaron que la Corona española dictara normas constructivas de obligado cumplimiento
para que se utilizaran, en las partes más altas de los edificios, las mallas de caña o listón, muy
usadas también en nuestra patria. Estos paneles de quincha, llamada así en la zona andina, co-
nocida por bahareque en la caribeña, fajina en Uruguay o estaqueo en Paraguay, sirvieron para
alzar fastuosos edificios como el Palacio limeño de Torre Tagle o la impresionante catedral de
Trujillo, porque alarifes como Maroto o Escobar, españoles o ya criollos, las usaban desde tiem-
po atrás para levantar las llamadas casas tembladeras mucho antes de que el jesuita Juan Rehr,
también al servicio de España, las utilizara en sus proyectos peruanos.
73
Identificación y caracterización
de la tierra como material
de construcción26
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Màrius Vendrell y posteriormente ha sido revisa-
26
do, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión Coremans de Arquitectura
de Tierra
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Examen organoléptico
Esta es una etapa que, no por obvia, resulta de menor importancia. Se trata de un examen inicial
exhaustivo con el objetivo de conocer las posibles variantes de sistema constructivo del muro de
tierra, las fases de construcción, reparación y modificación del conjunto construido, el aspecto,
granulometría, estructura (lechos de cal o no, espesor de las tongadas, etc.) de la fábrica, el es-
tado de conservación de las distintas partes, etc. Este examen formará parte de la documentación
necesaria en la redacción del correspondiente proyecto. En esta fase de la investigación es espe-
cialmente importante mantener siempre una visión del conjunto.
Se debe resaltar que este examen no termina con el resultado de la inspección y análisis
previo, sino que debe continuar durante y después de la intervención porque durante todo el
proceso aparecerán aspectos no visibles en una primera aproximación (frecuentemente sin me-
dios auxiliares de acceso) y su análisis renovado permitirá una eventual redefinición de los pro-
tocolos de intervención.
Materiales existentes
Se debe proceder a la caracterización de la composición de los diferentes materiales, tanto los
originales como los añadidos con posterioridad. Estos últimos pueden haber sido incorporados
de manera intencionada (actuaciones programadas) o de forma natural o casual (contaminación,
microorganismos, plantas, etc.). Resulta especialmente importante la caracterización de los si-
guientes aspectos de los materiales de construcción existentes, tanto los originales como los
añadidos por cualquier causa a lo largo de la historia:
75
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
entre 100-200 micras a 2 mm); y c) gravas. En estos casos, la composición tiene menor
incidencia que la de la fase de finos porque el papel que juegan en el conjunto tiene más
relación con su tamaño que con su composición.
–– Pared de mano, pared de montón, glebas, etc.: composición mineralógica de las granulo-
metrías y posible presencia de aditivos, similares a los descritos anteriormente; en el caso
de dificultad de identificación de estas técnicas comunes en la antigüedad por el grado de
erosión en un hallazgo arqueológico, grado de humedad presentado por el muro cuando
se realizó y análisis micromorfológicos para saber si en el proceso recibió o no algún tipo
de compactación.
–– Materiales añadidos: caracterización química y/o mineralógica, según los casos y las nece-
sidades de conocimiento, con especial atención a las posibles interacciones con los mate-
riales existentes/originales o no.
–– Sales (si procede): determinación de las fases presentes mediante técnicas analíticas y es-
tablecimiento de su posible origen (interacción entre materiales existentes, efectos externos
–materia orgánica, filtraciones del sistema sanitario, etc.–).
76
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Propuestas de intervención
Del análisis de los materiales de construcción, de la identificación de los daños que presentan y
los procesos que han dado lugar a los mismos, así como su actividad (presente o pasada), se
deberían deducir propuestas razonadas de intervención en los diversos ámbitos del edificio y en
los diferentes materiales, así como definir los materiales y productos adecuados para la interven-
ción y sus protocolos de aplicación, en base a los resultados anteriores y teniendo en cuenta los
parámetros de compatibilidad, eficacia y la no alteración de las características estéticas de los
materiales.
77
Mecanismos de degradación:
fenómenos y causas27
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Camilla Mileto, Fernando Vegas, Màrius Vendrell
27
y Lidia García Soriano y posteriormente ha sido revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los
miembros de la Comisión Coremans de Arquitectura de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
El tradicional proverbio en dialecto inglés «Giv un a gude ‘at an’ a gude pair o’ byutes an ee’ll
lyuke arter isself» (Dale un buen sombrero y unas buenas botas y se cuidará solo) describe las
necesidades principales de los muros de arquitectura de tierra a fin de evitar sus mecanismos de
degradación más frecuentes. La arquitectura de tierra es muy resistente siempre que esté prote-
gida en su base y en su coronación, posibles puntos de entrada del agua y focos de degradación.
A esto cabría añadir que un paramento de tierra expuesto a la lluvia debería protegerse también
con un enlucido de mortero de tierra, cal o yeso, de no poseer una costra natural de protección
como sucede en los muros de tapia en buen estado. Por tanto, las causas principales de degra-
dación de un muro de tierra son principalmente la exposición directa y constante a los agentes
atmosféricos (humedad, agua, vientos.) en diversas partes de su construcción, así como las even-
tuales deficiencias estructurales y los agentes antrópicos, que son también causantes de su dete-
rioro progresivo, fundamentalmente por la falta de mantenimiento y el abandono progresivo que
han sufrido.
Sin embargo, en el ámbito de la degradación es importante entender que los fenómenos que
se perciben constituyen sólo el efecto visible de unos mecanismos más complejos cuyas causas
generan estos procesos de transformación de la materia. Esta transformación de la materia puede
generar dos tipos de fenómenos: las alteraciones que no conllevan un empeoramiento de las pro-
piedades físicas, químicas y mecánicas del material, y las degradaciones que por el contrario con-
llevan un empeoramiento de las propiedades físicas, químicas y mecánicas del material. Cada fe-
nómeno que se puede observar en el edificio se debe identificar como una alteración que no ne-
cesita intervención o como una degradación que necesita una intervención, sobre todo en las
Figura 1. Muro de tapia entre machones y verdugadas de ladrillo afectado por humedades en el Convento-Palacio de
Juan II en Madrigal de las Altas Torres, Ávila (L. García).
79
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
causas para evitar que el mecanismo siga aumentando sus efectos. Cada uno de los efectos que se
observan representa una fase de un mecanismo en evolución que previamente se manifestó con
un determinado fenómeno, en el presente con otro y en futuro se mostrará con otro, en una cade-
na en evolución continua. En el caso concreto de la presencia de agua en los muros de tierra, el
mecanismo se manifiesta en un primer momento con un cambio de color, temperatura y humedad
de la superficie (mancha de humedad), que a su vez va dando el paso a una progresiva descohesión
del material y erosión del mismo, hasta llegar a una creciente pérdida de material que puede ori-
ginar una desestabilización estructural del muro (Fig. 1). El mecanismo es continuo, la causa es la
presencia del agua y los fenómenos que se manifiestan pueden ir cambiando en secuencia.
80
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
81
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 4. Muro de tapia sobre basamento de mampostería con pérdida de material en la coronación en Montalvos, Albacete (L. García).
La coronación del muro es un punto muy sensible a los agentes atmosféricos y en especial a la
presencia de agua. La diferencia fundamental estriba en que se trate de muros de un edificio que
mantiene su cubierta o muros exentos pero protegidos (por un estrato más rico en cal, merlones,
cordones, barda, una albardilla o un tejaroz), o que sean muros exentos arruinado o semiarrui-
nados que han perdido su cubierta. En el primer caso, la degradación suele estar relacionadas
con el apoyo de la cubierta y adoptan forma de grietas, desplomes, etc., o eventualmente lavado
del muro en los puntos donde haya fallado la protección de cubierta o se hayan verificado fugas
en el desagüe de canalones o bajantes. En el segundo caso de absoluta desprotección o exposi-
ción a la intemperie, la degradación está relacionada en gran parte con los agentes atmosféricos.
Cuando la coronación del muro queda totalmente expuesta a los agentes atmosféricos, el
agua de lluvia y los vientos generalmente provocan mecanismos de degradación que inducen
una erosión progresiva, seguida por la pérdida de material que puede llegar a afectar el muro
en su totalidad. Como en el caso anterior, la presencia de agua en la coronación del muro pue-
de crear la aparición de organismos biológicos (Fig. 5). En algunos casos se trata de microvege-
tación, pero es frecuente también la existencia de vegetación mayor, en forma de pequeñas
plantas que empiezan a crecer en la coronación del mismo. Se trata de un mecanismo de degra-
dación muy agresivo para la estructura del muro de tierra, puesto que las raíces de estos orga-
nismos se introducen en el interior del muro y poco a poco empiezan a disgregarlo, descohe-
sionando la tierra y provocando pérdidas de material importantes.
82
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Los mecanismos de degradación que se detectan en la masa del muro también dependen fun-
damentalmente de la acción del agua y de los agentes atmosféricos (Figs. 6 y 7) y, en segundo
nivel, de la presencia de vegetación. Esta degradación en el cuerpo del muro a menudo es el
resultado de los mecanismos que se han originado en la base del muro o en la coronación y que
llegan a afectar la parte central de la fábrica.
Figura 6. Erosión de un muro de adobe en Valtierra, Navarra (Vegas Figura 7. Degradación de un muro de tapia con
& Mileto). verdugadas de adobe en el que se detecta la ero-
sión material en Castromonte, Valladolid (V. Cristini).
83
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 8. Abombamiento de un muro de tapia calicostrado Figura 10. Degradación de un muro de adobe en el que
provocado por el lavado del núcleo en el Castillo de la la tierra se ha erosionado quedando únicamente el mor-
Vilavella, Castellón (Vegas & Mileto). tero de cal por ser éste más resistente, en Fuentes de
Jiloca, Zaragoza (Vegas & Mileto).
Figura 9. Degradación de una tapia calicostrada entre machones y verdugadas de ladrillo en Arévalo, Ávila (L. García).
84
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 11. Desconexión entre las rafas de esquina y las tapias Figura 12. Grieta estructural en un muro de tapia con
en Tarazona de la Mancha, Albacete (L. García). brencas en Valtierra, Navarra (Vegas & Mileto).
Figura 13. Grietas en un muro construido con diferentes técnicas (adobe y tapia) en Navalrincón, Ciudad Real (L. García).
La tierra como materia prima ofrece una resistencia mecánica inferior a otros materiales
empleados generalmente en la construcción. Y es además, como ya se ha comentado, particu-
larmente sensible a la degradación debida fundamentalmente a problemas de humedad. La de-
gradación estructural más frecuente en estos muros son las grietas y fisuras, pérdida de material,
pérdida del plomo y abombamientos (Figs. 11 y 12). En la mayoría de los casos, la degradación
estructural está inducida por causas ajenas al propio muro de tierra, que están relacionadas más
85
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
86
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 15. Degradación superficial de un muro de adobe en Hoyales de Roa, Burgos, producida por la esco-
rrentía de agua provocada por un alero deficiente (Vegas & Mileto).
Figura 16. Degradación de un muro de encestado en Aniezo, Cantabria (Vegas & Mileto).
87
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Por otro lado, el abandono del edificio y la consecuente falta de mantenimiento son las
causas fundamentales de otras causas como la degradación de la cubierta que permite la entra-
da de agua en el edificio, la erosión y el desprendimiento progresivo de los revestimientos de
tierra (Fig. 16), yeso o mortero de cal y de las costras de las tapias, la falta de reposición o man-
tenimiento de los estratos de cubrición de la coronación. Todo ello contribuye paulatinamente
al deterioro de los muros de tierra que, por su propia naturaleza constructiva y con un buen
mantenimiento, podrían durar en el tiempo como lo demuestra la enorme cantidad de edificios
construidos de esta guisa que todavía ostenta la Península Ibérica.
88
Conservación y consolidación28
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Beatriz Martín Peinado y posteriormente ha sido
28
revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión Coremans de Arqui-
tectura de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
No existen procedimientos ni
productos milagrosos que puedan ade-
más aplicarse de forma indiscriminada
a todos los materiales y en todos los
casos. La metodología y productos que
se describen a continuación tienen una
aplicación probada en numerosas inter-
venciones en obras de tierra. No obs-
tante, cada caso requiere de un exhaus-
tivo programa de estudios previos y
propuestas específicas adaptadas.
En la constitución de la arquitec-
tura de tierra pueden colaborar diversos
materiales (madera para los entramados,
fibras vegetales o animales para el ado-
be, encestados para los tabiques enluci- Figura 1. Toma de muestra para caracterización del material de tapia.
dos de tierra, cal o yeso para los enlu-
cidos, ladrillos o mampuestos de piedra
en la tapia, etc.), por lo que no existe homogeneidad absoluta en una obra de tierra. Este hecho
influye a la hora de plantear una intervención, debiendo adecuar recursos específicos a materiales
diferentes, incluso aunque éstos supongan una mínima representación en el total de la obra. Este
es el caso por ejemplo de agujas de madera, restos de cuerdas o de revestimientos (fig. 1).
Los métodos y productos empleados han de cumplir una serie de requerimientos para su
puesta en obra. Han de ser selectivos (adaptados a cada caso), compatibles con los existentes, dis-
cernibles de los originales, ensayables, reversibles (o al menos retractables), de baja toxicidad y, por
último, deben ser puestos en obra por personal cualificado y tener en cuenta su coste económico.
90
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Procesos de limpieza
Requisitos y recomendaciones
A la hora de realizar trabajos de limpieza sobre cualquier bien se parte de la base de que la
limpieza no es únicamente un tratamiento estético sino que, al retirar las capas de suciedad, se
libera a la superficie de muchas de las causas que originan la degradación, por lo que se entien-
de que la limpieza es un proceso que posee un importante componente conservativo. Se trata
de una operación irreversible, por lo que siempre debe realizarse con las suficientes precaucio-
nes y garantías, controlando las superficies donde existan materiales heterogéneos, para evitar
erosiones en las zonas menos resistentes. Es imprescindible la identificación del tipo de material,
así como de la suciedad, realizando análisis y pruebas previas graduales que determinen los
productos y metodologías idóneos.
91
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Métodos de limpieza
Métodos mecánicos. Son los más empleados en superficies de tierra. Se pueden utilizar
herramientas manuales (brochas, cepillos de cerdas de nylon, espátulas, etc.), o eléctricas (mi-
crotornos, vibroincisores, taladro, etc.), siempre y cuando la estabilidad del material a limpiar lo
permita. La limpieza de la superficie con aire a presión controlada es bastante eficaz para elimi-
nar el material suelto y sobre todo el polvo que dificulta la penetración de los tratamientos de
consolidación o protección posteriores (figs. 3 a 8).
Figura 3. Proceso de limpieza mecánica en seco mediante cepillado para retirar el polvo y los depósitos superficiales no
incrustados. Restos arqueológicos del Teatro Imperial de Loja (Granada).
Figura 4. Proceso de limpieza mecánica en seco con cepillo de cerdas de nylon. Castillo de San Miguel de Arca de Buey.
El Rompido, Cartaya (Huelva).
92
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 5. Proceso de limpieza mecánica en seco con brocha. Iglesia parroquial de El Borge (Málaga).
Figura 6. Proceso de limpieza mecánica en seco mediante cepillado con cepillo de cerdas de latón.
93
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 7. Proceso de limpieza mecánica con brocha y aspirador. Restos arqueológicos del Teatro Imperial de Loja (Granada).
Figura 8. Proceso de limpieza mecánica mediante cepillado y aspirador. Restos arqueológicos del Teatro Imperial de Loja
(Granada).
94
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 9. Proceso de limpieza en húmedo mediante cepillado y tamponado de la superficie para evitar el exceso de humedad.
Restos arqueológicos del teatro imperial de Loja (Granada).
Métodos acuosos. Se debe ser restrictivo con las limpiezas mediante agua, ya que el aporte
excesivo de la misma puede ocasionar daños derivados de su presencia dentro de los poros del
material (fig. 9).
95
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Requisitos y recomendaciones
96
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 11. Impregnación con brocha de producto biocida. Torre de la muralla del sector sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez
Málaga.
Figura 12. Proceso de eliminación de agentes biológicos tras la aplicación de un producto biocida. Torre de la muralla del
sector sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
97
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 13. Proceso de eliminación de agentes biológicos con la ayuda de cepillo tras la aplicación de un producto biocida.
Torre de la muralla del sector sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
Requisitos y recomendaciones
La eliminación de las sales solubles es un asunto complejo y de difícil resolución por dos moti-
vos. Por un lado, es prácticamente imposible aislar por completo las arquitecturas de tierra del
agua y la humedad, y por otro, porque en la mayoría de los casos los compuestos salinos forman
parte de los materiales constitutivos que las conforman.
98
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Consolidación superficial
Mediante la consolidación se pretende mejorar las características de cohesión y adhesión entre los
diferentes granos y componentes del material, mejorando de este modo sus características mecánicas.
Requisitos y recomendaciones
Los productos consolidantes deben aplicarse de forma que consigan unir la zona alterada
del material a la zona sana, por lo que una de las exigencias más importantes que deben cumplir
es la de una buena penetración. Se les debe exigir también que modifiquen lo menos posible
las características del material: porosidad, porometría, permeabilidad al agua, color, etc., así como
reversibilidad o que sean retractables, es decir, que un determinado tratamiento no impida la
aplicación futura de otro de mejores características.
Los métodos son similares en todos los casos, aplicando el producto en la superficie por impreg-
nación y preferiblemente por aspersión. Sí existen diferencias importantes entre los tipos de
productos. A continuación se describen los más comunes.
Compuestos orgánicos. Polímeros acrílicos. Este tipo de compuestos tienen la ventaja de po-
seer buenas propiedades mecánicas y elásticas, mayor capacidad de adhesión y mejor reversibilidad.
No obstante, son más alterables, envejecen con los rayos ultravioleta, sus propiedades físicas difie-
ren significativamente de las del sustrato de tierra y poseen ciertas características muy diferentes
de estos materiales. Por ejemplo, sus coeficientes de expansión térmica son mayores, originándose
tensiones entre el consolidante y el sustrato al variar la temperatura. Asimismo, pueden dificultar
99
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 15. Consolidación y fijación de tapia con grietas mediante inyección de resina acrílica en emulsión. Restos arqueoló-
gicos del Teatro Imperial de Loja (Granada).
100
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 16. Proceso de consolidación por aspersión de compuesto organosilícico (silicato de etilo). Restos arqueológicos del
teatro imperial de Loja (Granada).
Las nanopartículas son materiales que poseen características estructurales donde al menos
una de sus dimensiones está en el intervalo de 1-100 nanómetros. Entre otras ventajas, está com-
probado no se fracturan durante su etapa de secado, siendo mayor su durabilidad. No obstante,
al igual que en el caso anterior, apenas se han realizado ensayos sobre materiales de tierra, por
lo que no se aconseja su uso sin realizar previamente los ensayos y evaluaciones necesarias para
determinar su eficacia y estabilidad.
101
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Requisitos y recomendaciones
La importancia del relleno y sellado de grietas y juntas estriba en la necesidad de evitar la entra-
da de agua. En este procedimiento deben emplearse materiales similares a los existentes, siendo
imprescindible su compatibilidad, procurando la máxima penetración y evitando la adición de
resinas que puedan interferir en la transpirabilidad del material o ejercer presiones mecánicas.
Figura 17. Consolidación y fijación de tapia descohesionado mediante colada de mortero líquido a base de cales. Torre de la
muralla del sector sureste de la alcazaba de Vélez Málaga.
102
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 18. Fijación de revestimiento sobre tapia mediante Figura 19. Fijación de revestimiento sobre tapia mediante
inclusión de resina y mortero a base de cales. Torre de la inyección de resina y mortero a base de cales. Castillo de
muralla del sector sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga. Castril (Granada).
Figura 20. Sellado borde de tapia con mortero de cal. Torre de la muralla del sector sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
103
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 21. Revestimiento sobre tapia consolidado y sellado en sus bordes con mortero de cal. Torre de la muralla del sector
sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
Figura 22. Revestimiento sobre tapia consolidado y sellado en sus bordes con mortero de cal. Torre de la muralla del sector
sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
104
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 23. Revestimiento sobre tapia consolidado y sellado en sus bordes con mortero de cal. Torre de la muralla del sector
sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
Figura 24. Revestimiento sobre tapia consolidado y sellado en sus bordes con mortero de cal. Torre de la muralla del sector
sureste de la Alcazaba de Velez Málaga.
105
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Protección e hidrofugación
Requisitos y recomendaciones
Métodos de hidrofugación
106
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Pátinas artificiales
Suelen aplicarse en situaciones en las que se hace necesario integrar cromáticamente las super-
ficies (degradadas o restituidas) para obtener una visión global del conjunto arquitectónico.
Requisitos y recomendaciones
En el caso de los morteros siempre es preferible obtener la integración de tono de forma natural,
es decir, con los propios componentes del mismo, incluso añadiendo a la masa pigmentos mi-
nerales si fuera preciso. Se desaconsejan los pigmentos mezclados con resinas acrílicas por la
probabilidad de que el medio empleado como aglutinante (resina acrílica) tapone los poros del
material. El uso de pigmentos diluidos en acetona tiene la ventaja de conseguir un elevado gra-
do de penetración. No obstante, los pigmentos no se disuelven en la acetona, siendo muy difícil
obtener un tono homogéneo, y precisan posteriormente de un tratamiento consolidante e hidro-
fugante que fije los mismos al material de tierra.
Pigmentos minerales diluidos en agua de cal. Aplicados con brocha, esponjas o por asper-
sión (estarcido) tienen la ventaja de ser totalmente compatibles con los materiales de la tierra y
aportar un aspecto natural a las superficies tratadas. Pueden funcionar al mismo tiempo como
consolidante del propio material tratado. Para asegurar la penetración del pigmento, la cantidad
de partículas del mismo diluidas en el agua de cal debe ser mínima, por lo que es necesario
aplicar varias manos para conseguir la tonalidad.
Pigmentos minerales en dispersión de silicato de potasio líquido. Son otra opción para ob-
tener pátinas artificiales sobre materiales de tierra o afines. De probada estabilidad y durabilidad,
presentan buena penetración y adherencia, por lo que es más fácil conseguir los tonos deseados
en una o dos aplicaciones. Tienen el inconveniente de que pueden dar lugar a la formación de
sales en zonas con humedad.
Los acabados continuos o fajas de revoco sobre arquitectura de tierra representan una singularidad
dentro de su tratamiento, más si cabe, porque en la mayoría de los casos se trata de motivos decora-
tivos de diferente complejidad técnica y ornamental, manteniendo incluso en algunas ocasiones poli-
cromías originales. Las características materiales de los revestimientos y los propios soportes a los que
se adhieren son principalmente los que van a marcar la intervención a ejecutar sobre ellos. Los traba-
jos a realizar en esos casos requieren de rigurosos procesos específicos ejecutados en todos los casos
por personal cualificado, basados en la limpieza, consolidación y fijación de los revestimientos a su
soporte original, siendo fundamentales los tratamientos de protección de la superficie (figs. 26, 27).
107
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Figura 26. Revestimiento con decoración polícroma almohade localizado en la U.E. 064 de la excavación arqueológica R.M.
LE-1A/07. Córdoba.
Figura 27. Detalles de revestimiento sobre tapia engasados para ser adheridos. Área de los Abencerrajes. Alhambra de
Granada.
Nota: Todas las fotografías del capítulo «Conservación y consolidación» son de Beatriz Martín Peinado.
108
La consolidación estructural
y el completamiento29
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Fernando Vegas, Camilla Mileto y José Manuel
29
López Osorio, y posteriormente ha sido revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miem-
bros de la Comisión Coremans de Arquitectura de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
La consolidación estructural es aquella intervención que se realiza sobre una fábrica para garanti-
zar su estabilidad y supervivencia, mientras que el completamiento es una operación fundamen-
talmente relacionada con la estética del edificio. La consolidación de elementos estructurales de
tierra debe siempre partir de una premisa que establezca el verdadero grado de degradación es-
tructural del edificio histórico y como éste puede o no afectar su estabilidad y futura conservación.
En ocasiones, muchas intervenciones que se justifican como meras consolidaciones estructurales
y que tienen como consecuencia la sustitución sistemática de fábricas o la restitución volumétrica
de perfiles desaparecidos, tienen en realidad intenciones que podrían estar más relacionadas con
aspectos formales o estéticos que con verdaderas necesidades de reparación o refuerzo estructural.
La consolidación estructural
Cabe evaluar previamente a la intervención la envergadura y situación de sus lesiones estructu-
rales, si las hubiere y requieren intervención en último término. Frecuentemente, en la restaura-
ción de las arquitecturas de tierra se confunden las lesiones estructurales con la abrasión super-
ficial de las superficies que, sin embargo, en una proporción reducida respecto al grosor del
muro y con una masa suficientemente firme y consolidada no deberían ofrecer riesgo estructural
alguno. En primer lugar, por tanto, se deben distinguir las necesidades estructurales de otras
necesidades o consideraciones derivadas de la erosión superficial y eventual protección de los
paramentos o de una estética preconcebida por el proyecto de restauración para el edificio. Se-
gún los principios de York, enunciados por John Warren, la consolidación estructural propiamen-
te dicha puede ser de tres tipos: reparación, refuerzo o sustitución
La reparación
La reparación debería primar sobre las otras dos siempre que sea posible porque permite retener
la autenticidad del edificio a través del tiempo, porque garantiza que el sistema estructural ori-
ginal del edificio se conserve y porque preserva su información histórica. La reparación se pue-
de traducir en acciones como el retacado aislado de oquedades y boquetes en las fábricas de
tapia, adobe, entramado, etc., presumiblemente con un material similar al empleado originaria-
mente en la fábrica con el objetivo de garantizar la compatibilidad; acciones de cosido de lesio-
nes estructurales generadas por empujes de la cubierta; recalce de la cimentación de los muros
o basamentos con problemas de erosión o cedimientos del terreno; etc.
En el caso de las fábricas construidas con piezas, como el adobe, tanto formando parte de
un muro de carga como de un relleno de entramado de madera, esta operación se simplifica, ya
que se trata de eliminar los adobes fragmentados o degradados y proceder a su sustitución con
nuevos adobes fabricados según la técnica tradicional, con formato y características similares a
las originales, procediendo a su colocación según el aparejo original y recibiendo la pieza con
un mortero similar o compatible con el existente. Esta solución deberá ser más cuidadosa cuan-
do se trate de muros de adobe existentes en un contexto arqueológico, donde la conservación
de su materialidad obliga a ser más estrictos con la coservación de las piezas originales, aunque
se encuentren degradadas. La intervención deberá someterse a criterios de conservación que
serán tratados en el apartado posterior.
Las lesiones estructurales en las fábricas de adobe se pueden resolver con ayuda de grapas
o llaves de madera ancladas al muro en cajeados dispuestos a tal fin o cañas insertadas en los
tendeles previamente vaciados de la fábrica, etc. En cualquier modo, se debe incidir en la im-
110
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
portancia de emplear siempre materiales de origen vegetal y evitar las mallas y las barras de
acero por su tendencia a la oxidación. En los entramados de madera esta reparación puede
consistir en un retacado de los intersticios de los montantes con material similar (adobes, tierra
apilada, terrones
) para cumplir su función de confinamiento o acodalamiento, o en el acuñado,
fijación o elaboración de prótesis de la madera.
Otras opciones de reparación del muro de tapia muy empleadas en el pasado por su efi-
cacia y su pragmatismo son el simple retacado con mampostería de piedra, ladrillo, adobe, BTC,
etc., o incluso con pared de mano, asumiendo la diversa conformación y/o materialidad de la
reparación respecto al muro originario, o enluciendo simplemente el retacado con un mortero
de tierra mejorado o no con conglomerantes de aspecto similar a la tapia, si se desea mitigar la
presencia de los elementos nuevos. En este y los otros casos, si es posible, es conveniente siem-
pre crear unas llaves de unión o anclado entre el muro existente y el retacado, no metálicas sino
preferiblemente vegetales, en forma de rollizos, ramas, cañas, esparto, etc.
–– el retacado se haga únicamente allí donde sea necesario desde un punto de vista estruc-
tural para que la envergadura de la intervención no avasalle al edificio histórico
–– el material de retacado debería ser lo más compatible posible con el muro preexistente;
111
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
–– el tipo de tapia de que se trata porque esta puede sugerir en cierta medida el tipo de re-
paración (tapia con relleno de mampuestos o careada de piedra a reparar posiblemente
con fábrica de mampostería, tapia careada de ladrillo a reparar posiblemente con fábrica
de ladrillo, tapia calicostrada a reparar posiblemente con mortero de cal, etc.)
–– evitar cajear o incidir innecesariamente en el muro existente siempre que sea posible, por-
que si fracasa nuestra intervención –por desgracia algo frecuente en la tapia en las décadas
pasadas– la reparación habrá sido peor que el propio daño
El refuerzo
El refuerzo es una acción que consiste en mejorar la resistencia, capacidad o prestaciones estruc-
turales de un edificio existente. No requiere previamente de la aparición de lesiones a resolver
o, en cualquier caso, es o puede ser independiente de las reparaciones que se hayan practicado
en los muros. La necesidad de un refuerzo de la estructura de tierra surge a menudo cuando se
rehabilita un edificio para la misma función –por ejemplo, vivienda– o para un destino diverso,
pero en cualquier caso, con unos requerimientos de carga propia y de uso mucho mayores que
los anteriores. A menudo, conviene previamente razonar de forma inversa –preguntarse cuáles
son las limitaciones de aforo y uso, así como su aptitud frente a un cambio de uso–, y, en el caso
de un buen estado de conservación, estimar la resistencia estructural del edificio partiendo de
sus prestaciones históricas probadas (peso propio del forjado+pavimento y sobrecarga de uso
histórico) y tratar de encajar las nuevas necesidades estructurales en dichas prestaciones proba-
das (menor peso propio por un eventual aligeramiento del relleno bajo pavimento frente a mayor
sobrecarga actual derivada de la normativa). En cualquier caso, el refuerzo a veces se ha nece-
sario e ineludible.
De este modo, por ejemplo, si se requiere un reparto más uniforme de las cargas sobre la
coronación del muro o un atado de la parte superior del mismo serán preferibles los encadena-
dos de madera a los zunchos de hormigón o incluso a las platabandas o perfiles metálicos. Si se
desea un atado de las esquinas a nivel de coronación será mejor introducir cuadrales de madera,
y si se busca un reparto de un apoyo puntual de una viga, la inserción de una tabla o madera
de reparto cruzada e insertada en el muro en la base de esta. Si el cometido es introducir refuer-
zos antisísmicos a un muro serán siempre preferibles los entablillados, encañizados o las redes
de esparto o incluso de nylon a la instalación de arpilleras o mallas de gallinero. Igualmente, se
112
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
debe evitar una solución habitual en el pasado que ha tenido resultados nefastos, como la inser-
ción de mallazos de acero o barras corrugadas a modo de anclajes, siendo más aconsejable re-
currir siempre a anclajes de madera. Por lo general, no son recomendables las inyecciones de
cemento, resinas o incluso de mortero excesivamente ricos en cal en los muros construidos con
tierra, tanto a presión como las más delicadas por gravedad, por la imposibilidad de garantizar
un buen reparto de dicha inyección y por la rigidez azarosamente distribuida añadida a la fábri-
ca en la mayor parte de los casos.
La sustitución
Se trata de la opción más radical. No se debe descartar desde un principio y se debe recurrir a
ella cuando haga falta, pero tampoco debe ser la única opción a considerar directamente en una
restauración. No se trata del retacado parcial o aislado de un muro con una pieza faltante, como
el descrito en la reparación de los muros de adobe, por ejemplo, sino de reemplazar elementos,
componentes o paños de mayor envergadura. La menor perdurabilidad de la arquitectura de
tierra frente a la intemperie, en el caso de encontrarse desprotegida y a falta de mantenimiento,
sumada al entusiasmo que despierta la reproducción de las técnicas constructivas tradicionales
con tierra, no deberían ser excusa para una sustitución sumaria o generalizada de las fábricas
existentes. Al contrario, se debería procurar en la medida de lo posible retener la mayor cantidad
posible de materia originaria, tal como sucede con la restauración de otro tipo de arquitecturas.
La sustitución bien entendida, delicada y localizada en los lugares necesarios arrambla con
toda la información histórica y material pero, al menos, conserva en último término el principio
estructural del edificio si el elemento sustituido es también de tierra semejante al original. El
problema no solo reside en la cantidad y en el grado de sustitución, sino también en la conser-
vación del sistema estructural originario del edificio. La manipulación interna de la fábrica origi-
naria de tierra, la sustracción de su función estructural genuina y su empleo falseado a modo de
embellecimiento no respetan el principio estructural del edificio.
El completamiento
En este texto se entiende por completamiento la acción de terminar, perfeccionar o concluir
desde un punto de vista fundamentalmente estético un edificio. El completamiento viene siendo
habitual, por ejemplo, en la reconstrucción de paños enteros de murallas de tapia de castillos o
en el perfilado de la coronación con nuevas almenas y merlones, en un fenómeno que se ha
calificado certeramente de almenofilia. Una vez resueltos los problemas estructurales del edificio,
si los hubiere, prevalece a menudo el concepto de compleción por encima de cualquier otra
consideración sobre la antigüedad y la historia del edificio, incluso, cuando se albergan serias
dudas o incertidumbres sobre la altura de la coronación originaria de los cuerpos a reconstruir.
113
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Menos justificable o, al menos, mucho más discutible desde un punto de vista constructivo
es el completamiento o repristinación sumaria de los paramentos erosionados, especialmente de
un muro de tapia, que no equivale en modo alguno a la refacción periódica de un enlucido de
tierra parcialmente lavado por la intemperie. Si la intervención no posee una justificación estruc-
tural, esto es, si la pérdida de material no posee un espesor suficiente para que pueda afectar a
la estabilidad del muro, la reintegración del material erosionado debería evitarse, ya que la res-
titución de espesores reducidos presenta riesgo de desprendimiento a corto, medio o largo pla-
zo es muy alta, como se ha explicado en la reparación de los muros de tapia. Asimismo, tipo de
repristinación superficial oculta gran parte del paramento original de la fábrica y afecta al valor
de antigüedad de la estructura.
–– No emplear materiales más resistentes o rígidos y menos transpirables que la propia fábri-
ca existente
–– Evitar en lo posible cajear o incidir en el muro existente con nuestra intervención por su
irreversibilidad
114
Mantenimiento y conservación
preventiva30
Este capítulo ha sido inicialmente redactado por Màrius Vendrell, Beatriz Martín, Fernando Vegas
30
y Camilla Mileto y posteriormente ha sido revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los
miembros de la Comisión Coremans de Arquitectura de Tierra.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Tanto o más importante si cabe que la propia intervención sobre la arquitectura de tierra, son
los protocolos que deben desarrollarse para su protección y conservación preventiva, así como
los planes de mantenimiento, ya que de la adecuada planificación y desarrollo de los mismos va
a depender la pervivencia de los elementos recuperados. El proceso de actuación y puesta en
valor de cualquier bien no finaliza con la actuación concreta para su recuperación. Este momen-
to no deja de ser sino el punto de inflexión y el comienzo de una etapa que debe prolongarse
indefinidamente en el tiempo, adoptando y adaptando permanentemente aquellas medidas o
acciones destinadas a evitar o minimizar un futuro deterioro.
116
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
muro de piedra difícilmente permite un ascenso capilar que supere los 2 m, de forma que
una base de altura superior impedirá que la parte baja del muro absorba agua del terreno o
de la escorrentía superficial.
Igualmente, se deben evitar las filtraciones de agua desde la parte superior, lo que implica
la necesidad de una cubierta o alternativamente –en casos de muros sin cubierta–, la disposición
de barda, ramas, paja, albardillas, hiladas de ladrillo, tejas, un tejaroz u otra solución que permi-
ta expulsar el agua fuera de la vertical del muro.
Garantizando estas condiciones, que por lo general tratan de evitar que el muro se hume-
dezca, la durabilidad de la arquitectura de tierra puede extenderse durante siglos, como lo prue-
ban los numerosos edificios y conjuntos que han llegado a nuestros días.
En lo que atañe a la arquitectura de tierra, sin entrar en otras opciones de carácter estruc-
tural, pueden tomarse algunas medidas sencillas, de bajo coste económico, que pueden frenar
la acción de posibles degradaciones. Desde el punto de vista de la superficie material, deben
117
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Son fundamentales las medidas tomadas para evitar la entrada o incidencia del agua en
sus distintas afecciones (lluvia, capilaridad, filtración, etc.). En cualquier caso, sin género de du-
das, un adecuado plan de mantenimiento y conservación preventiva que realmente se ponga en
práctica, supondría un menor coste en futuras intervenciones, sin tener en cuenta, las pérdidas
irreversibles que pueden llegar a sufrir los bienes sin estos protocolos.
La conservación de los restos arqueológicos construidos con tierra es una tarea ardua y compli-
cada para la cual se pueden proponer tres tipos de acciones: las medidas preventivas, el empleo
de consolidantes y la estabilización de las estructuras.
Medidas preventivas
Aplicación de medidas preventivas para evitar una deterioro progresivo del yacimiento, entre las
cuales se pueden nombrar:
–– Soterrar cuidadosa y adecuadamente los restos arqueológicos una vez estudiados –ya
propuesto en el capítulo 4º de la Carta de Atenas de 1931–, conveniente desde el pun-
to de vista de la conservación pero contrapuesto a los intereses de la puesta en valor
y el turismo.
–– Cubrir la coronación de los restos con un enlucido de mortero o con paja, barda, etc. a
modo de medida provisional, que protege los muros frente a la entrada superior de agua,
pero desnaturaliza su aspecto de resto arqueológico.
118
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Como se ha explicado previamente, los consolidantes son productos que se aplican a la su-
perficie de los restos arqueológicos que unen las partículas entre sí con mayor fuerza, consi-
guiendo así mantener la estabilidad mecánica y física del material. Existen varios tipos de
consolidantes:
–– Consolidantes inorgánicos, como el agua de cal, el alumbre de potasio, los silicatos alcali-
nos, etc., que deben aplicarse en baja concentración garantizando su penetración para
evitar formar una película exterior que obture los poros y resulte en eventuales exfoliacio-
nes posteriores.
–– Consolidantes orgánicos naturales. Dentro del grupo de los naturales, se encuentran la cola
orgánica, la goma natural, la acera de abeja, la clara de huevo, la caseína, savia de cactus,
etc. que, si bien viene utilizándose desde la antigüedad, su uso debe ser controlado, ya
que son bastante degradables, su nivel de penetración es casi nulo en algunos de ellos y
su eficacia como consolidante para material de tierra es escasa.
Los hidrofugantes son productos cuya aplicación debe limitarse a los restos arqueológicos
expuestos a la acción directa del agua de lluvia, ya que su misión es proteger éstos frente a la
entrada de agua desde el exterior. Los hidrofugantes empleades, compuestos organosilícicos y/o
halogenados, frente a los acrílicos desaconsejables, deben respetar las características físicas del
material sobre el que se aplique, y ser permeables al vapor de agua.
119
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
120
Glosario comparado
de términos31
Este glosario ha sido inicialmente redactado por Juana Font, Fernando Vegas y Camilla Mileto, y
31
posteriormente ha sido revisado, corregido y aprobado por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión
Coremans de Arquitectura de Tierra. Se agradece la colaboración desinteresada de las siguientes
personas: José Luis Solaun, Roger Costa, Manuel Chaín, Alejandro Fernández Palicio, Màrius Ven-
drell, Agustín Azkárate, Isabel Navarro, Hugo Costa, Melitó Camprubí y Orland Martí.
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
122
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Bibliografía32
Alva Balderrama, A. (2001): The conservation of earthen architecture. The Getty Conservation Institu-
te newsletter 16. Disponible en: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/
newsletters/16_1/feature.html
Alva, A., y Houben, H. (eds.) (1988): 5th International Meeting of Experts on the Conservation of Ear-
then Architecture = 5e Reunion Internationale d’Experts sur la Conservation de l’Architecture
de Terre. Rome: ICCROM.
Baquer, J. (2013): «La seguretat estructural de les parets de tàpia. Seguretat estructural en la rehabili-
tació d’edificis amb murs de tàpia», en L’informaTiU DEL CaaTEEB. Barcelona: Col.legi
d’aparelladors de Barcelona, pp. 90-96.
Bertagnin, M., y Ould Sidi, A. (2014): Manuel pour la conservation de TOMBOUCTOU. France:
UNESCO.
Bestraten, S., y Hormias, E. (2012): «Structural criteria for the restoration of rammed earth buildings in
Barcelona province (Spain)», en Rammed Earth Conservation. Londres: CRC-Balkema / Taylor
& Francis Group, pp. 269-275.
Cammas C., y Wattez J. (1999): «Approche micromorphologique: Méthode et applications aux stratigraphies
archéologiques», en Les Sciences de la Terre, collection «Pour l’Archéologue», éditions Errance.
Carta de Burra (1999): Guía para la conservación y gestión de los sitios de significación cultural.
Australia: ICOMOS.
Carta de Cracovia (2000): Principios para la Conservación y Restauración del Patrimonio Construido.
Carta de París (1972): Convención para la protección del patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural.
París: UNESCO.
Esta selección bibliográfica ha sido inicialmente redactado por Lidia García Soriano, Fernando Vegas y Camilla Mileto y
32
posteriormente ha sido revisada, corregida, completada y aprobada por el resto de los miembros de la Comisión Coremans
de Arquitectura de Tierra.
123
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Convención de París (2003): Convención para la Salvaguardia del Patrimonio Cultural Inmaterial.
París: UNESCO.
Correia, M.; Guerrero, L., y Crosby, A. (2015): «Technical Strategies for Conservation of Earthen Ar-
chaeological Architecture. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites». London:
Taylor and Francia Group. Disponible en: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2015.1129799
Costales, L. (1987): «Architettura in terra: cause del deperimento e provvedimenti per la loro conser-
vazione - Earthen architecture: causes of deterioration and conservation measures», en Bollet-
tino degli ingegneri, 12, pp.14-20.
Cuchí I Burgos, A. (1996): «La técnica tradicional del tapial», en Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional
de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid: Instituto Juan de Herrera.
Declaración de Xi’an (2005): Declaración sobre la conservación del entorno de las estructuras, sitios
y áreas patrimoniales. China: ICOMOS.
Dethier, J. (1981): Des architectures de terre, ou, L’avenir d’une tradition millénaire: exposition. Paris:
Centre Georges Pompidou, Centre de création industrielle.
Doglioni, F. (2008): Nel restauro: progetti per le architetture del passato. Venezia: Marsilio: Università
IUAV di Venezia.
English Heritage (ed.) (2000): Terra 2000: 8th International Conference on the Study and Conservation
of Earthen Architecture. Torquay, Devon, UK. Oxford: Alden Press.
Fiorani, D. (2003): «Dalla convenienza alla compatibilitá del restauro: note di un percorso», en Dalla
reversibilitá alla Compatibilitá. Florencia: Nardini, pp. 13-26.
Font Arellano, J. (2012): «Constructive systems in the Spanish North-western area», en Rammed Ear-
th Conservation, CRC-Balkema / Taylor & Francis Group. Londres. pp. 511-516.
124
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
— ( 2013): «La construcción de tierra en los textos. Errores, olvidos, omisiones», en Actas del
Octavo Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid, 9-12 octubre 2013: Insti-
tuto Juan de Herrera, pp. 323–334.
Font, F., y Hidalgo, P. (1991): El tapial: una tècnica constructiva mil-lenária. Castellón: Colegio Ofi-
cial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos de Castellón.
— ( 2009): Arquitecturas de tapia. Castellón: Colegio Oficial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos
Técnicos de Castellón.
Fontaine A., y Romain., L. (2009): Bâtir en terre Du grain de sable à l’architecture. Paris, Belin: Cité
des sciences et de l’industrie.
Graciani García, A., y Tabales Rodríguez, M.A. (2008): «El tapial en el área sevillana: Avance cronoti-
pológico estructural», en Arqueología de la arquitectura, 5, pp. 135-158. Disponible en: http://
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/extart?codigo=2950355.
Guerrero, L.; Correia, M., y Guillaud, H. (2012): «Conservación del patrimonio arqueológico construi-
do con tierra en Iberoamérica», en Apuntes: Revista De Estudios Sobre Patrimonio Cultural -
Journal of Cultural Heritage Studies, 25, pp. 210-225.
Harrison, R. (1999): Earth: the conservation and repair of Bowhill, Exeter: working with cob. London:
James & James.
Houben, H., y Guillaud, H. (1994): Earth construction: A comprehensive guide. Intermediate Techno-
logy Publications.
Hoz Onrubia, J. de; Maldonado Ramos, L., y Vela Cossio, F. (2003): Diccionario de construcción tra-
dicional: tierra. San Sebastián: Nerea.
Iglesias Picazo, P.; Rodriguez Nuere, B.; Gonzaloez Casado, M.D., y Bailliet, E. (2012): «Conservation
of rammed earth works in the Islamic fortified complex of Calatayud (Spain)», en Rammed
Earth Conservation. London: Taylor and Francis Group. pp. 357-362.
International Council on Monuments and Sites. U.S. Committee, y Getty Conservation Institute (1990):
6th International Conference on the Conservation of Earthen Architecture Adobe 90 Preprints:
Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S.A., October 14-19, 1990. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Conservation
Institute. Disponible en: http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/adobe90
Jaquin, P. A., y Durham., U. (2008): Analysis of historic rammed earth construction. Durham Univer-
sity. Disponible en: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2169/.
Jeannet, J., y C. de Realisations D’etudes et D’editions Regionales (1997): Le pisé: patrimoine, restau-
ration, technique d’avenir. Nonette: Editions Creer.
125
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Joffroy, T. (ed.) (2012). Inventaire de l’architecture de terre du patrimoine mondial = Inventory World
Heritage Earthen Architecture. World heritage earthen architecture programme. Disponible en:
http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00953526.
Keefe, L. (2005): Earth building: methods and materials, repair and conservation. London: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Maldonado Ramos, L.; Castilla Pascual, F. J., y Vela Cossío, F. (1997): «La técnica del tapial en la Co-
munidad Autónoma de Madrid: aplicación de nuevos materiales para la consolidación de mu-
ros de tapia», en Informes de la construcción, 49(452), pp. 27-38. Disponible en: http://dialnet.
unirioja.es/servlet/extart?codigo=2313134.
Maldonado Ramos, L.; Rivera Gámez, D., y Vela Cossio, F. (2002): Arquitectura y construcción con
tierra: tradición e innovación. Madrid: Mairea.
Matero, F., y Bass, A. (1995): «Design and evaluation of hydraulic lime grouts for the reattachment of
lime plasters on earthen walls», en Conservation and management of archeological sites 2.
London: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 97-108.
Mecca, S., y Dipasquale, L. (2009): Earthen domes and habitats: villages of Northern Syria: an archi-
tectural tradition shared by East and West, Pisa: ETS.
Mileto, C.; García Soriano, L., y Vegas, F. (2014): «Los fenómenos de degradación más comunes
en fábricas de tapia», en La restauración de la tapia en la Península Ibérica. Criterios,
técnicas, resultados y perspectivas. Valencia / Lisboa: TC Cuadernos / Argumentum,
pp. 52-59.
Mileto, C.; Vegas, F.; Alejandre, F.J.; Martín, J.J., y García Soriano, L. (2013): «Lime-crusted rammed
earth: materials study», en Advances Material Researh, Vol 831, pp. 9-13.
Miller, L., y Miller, D. (1982): Rammed earth: a selected bibliography with a world overview. Greeley
(CO): Rammed Earth Institute International.
Muñoz Cosme, A. (1989): La conservación del patrimonio arquitectónico español. Madrid: Dirección
General de Bellas Artes y Archivos, Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Cultu-
rales.
126
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Odul, P., y et al. (1993): Bibliographie sur la preservation, la restauration et la rehabilitation des ar-
chitectures de terre = Bibliography on the preservation, restoration and rehabilitation of earthen
architecture. Rome, Italy: CRATerre/EAG/Iccrom.
Oliver, A. (2008): «Conservation of Earthen Archaeological Sites», en Avrami, E.C.; Guillaud, H., y
Hardy, M. (eds.) Terra Literature Review: An Overview of Research in Earthen Architecture
Conservation, [online]. Los Angeles. pp. 80–96.
Ontiveros García, E. (2006): Tapial. Programa de normalización de estudios previos aplicado a bienes
inmuebles. Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Cultura. Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histó-
rico.
Palma Dias, G.J. (1993): «A conservaçao das estruturas antigas em terra crua [The conservation of
ancient structures in raw earth]» en TERRA 93: 7th International Conference on the Study and
Conservation of Earthen Architecture, Silves, Portugal. 24-29 October 1993. Lisbon: DGEMN,
pp. 210–214.
Principios de Victoria Falls (2003): Principios para el Análisis, Conservación y Restauración de las
Estructuras del Patrimonio Arquitectónico, Zimbabwe: ICOMOS.
Rainer, L.; Bass Rivera, A., y Gandreau, D. (eds.) (2008): Terra 2008: The 10th International Conferen-
ce on the Study and Conservation of Earthen Architectural Heritage. Bamako, Mali: Getty Con-
servation Institute, Mali Ministry of Culture.
Romero Gallardo, A., y López Osorio, J.M. (2012): «Historical rammed-earth structures in Easten An-
dalusia (Spain): the restoration philosophy of the architect Prieto-Moreno», en Rammed Earth
Conservation. London: Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 407-412.
Roux, J.C. (2008): L’emploi de la bauge dans l’architecture protohistorique de lattes (fin vie-milieu ive
s. av. n. è.). Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Salvat Torregrosa, A. (2011): La tàpia a Catalunya, Pervivència i desaparició, El testimoni dels últims
tapiadors del Pla d’Urgell. Barcelona : Generalitat de Catalunya. Departament de Cultura.
Terra, S.I.-A. De C. Com et al. (2005): Terra em seminário: IV Seminário Ibero-Americano de Cons-
trução com Terra, III Seminario Arquitectura de Terra em Portugal. Lisboa: Argumentum, Es-
cola Superior Gallaecia.
Torrealva Dávila, D. (2012): XI Conferencia Internacional sobre el estudio y construcción del patri-
monio arquitectónico de tierra. TERRA2012. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Unesco. (2013): Earthen architecture in today’s world: proceedings of the UNESCO international co-
lloquium on the conservation of world heritage earthen architecture = L’architecture de terre
dans le monde d’aujourd’hui: actes du colloque international de l’UNESCO sur la conservation
127
Proyecto COREMANS Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura de tierra
Üstünkök, O., y Madran, E. (ed). (1980): Third International Symposium of mudbrick (adobe) preser-
vation. Ankara: ICOMOS.
Vegas, F. et al. (2014): «La tapia en la Península Ibérica», en La restauración de la tapia en la Penín-
sula Ibérica. Criterios, técnicas, resultados y perspectivas. Valencia / Lisboa: TC Cuadernos /
Argumentum, pp. 32–51.
VV.AA. (1972): Premier Colloque International sur la Conservation des Monuments en Brique: Yazd,
Iran, = First International Conference on the Conservation of Mud-Brick Monuments. Irán,
Ministère de la Culture et des Arts.
— (1976): Second International Symposium on the conservation of mudbrick monuments. Yazd:
ICOMOS.
— ( 2006): Houses and cities built with earth: conservation, significance and urban quality =
Les Maisons et les villes en terre crue: conservation, signification et décor urbain = Le Case e
le città della terra cruda: conservazione, significato e decoro urbano. Lisboa: Argumentum.
— ( 2008): Terra incognita: discovering & preserving european earthen architecture. Portugal:
Argumentum.
— ( 2011): Terra Europae: earthen architecture in the European Union. Pisa: ETS.
Warren, J. (1999): Conservation of Earth Structures. Series in Conservation and Museology. Oxford:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
— ( 2001): «Forma, significado y propuesta: objetivos éticos y estéticos en la conservación de la
arquitectura de tierra», en Loggia, Arquitectura y Restauración, 12, Valencia: UPV Publica-
ciones, pp. 10-19.
Warren, J., et al. (1993): Earthen architecture: the conservation of brick and earth structures: a han-
dbook. Columbo, Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka National Committee of ICOMOS for the International
Council of Monuments and Sites.
World Heritage Committee (2002): Operational guidelines for the implementation of the World Heri-
tage Convention. Paris, France: World Heritage Centre.
Yamoussa, F., y Joffroy, T. (2010): Villes anciennes de Djenne. Bamako, CRATerre éd.
128
The COREMANS Project
‘Intervention Criteria
for Earthen Architecture’
Introduction to Coremans Project
Carlos Jiménez Cuenca (IPCE)
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Adequate conservation of our Cultural Heritage requires the establishment of criteria based on
interdisciplinary knowledge and proven experience. Conscious of this, we at IPCE (Instituto del
Patrimonio Cultural de España / the Cultural Heritage Institute of Spain) have been directing a
large portion of our efforts towards research initiatives and distribution of methodological and
technical criteria, developed in coordination with other public institutes and experts on the top-
ic. In this sense, the National Plans for Cultural Heritage deserve a special mention. Largely re-
sulting from the philosophy of the Plans and sharing the same spirit, the Coremans Project was
born.
Intervention criteria for earthen architecture constitutes the fourth document in this Coremans
series. After the publication of the studies on intervention criteria for stone materials (2013),
metallic materials (2015) and altarpieces and polychrome sculpture (2017), this new text enrich-
es the collection by providing a new perspective on a heritage collection characterised by its
great diversity and the abundance of elements conserved. This Heritage consists of a first-class
architectural complex, and consequently of an extraordinarily rich store of knowledge, techniques
and traditional practice. Coordinated by Camilla Mileto and Fernando Vegas López-Manzanares,
architects and professors from the Polytechnic University of Valencia, this study is the result of
the collaboration of a wide range of specialists, in relation to both their disciplines and their
institutions of origin, and is aimed at all technicians, professionals and lay people interested in
the topic.
Once again, this volume serves as a homage to Paul Coremans (1908 - 1965), a distin-
guished scientist and a pioneer in the conservation of Cultural Heritage. He was also the found-
er and first director of the Royal Institute for Cultural Heritage in Belgium (KIK - IRPA), and in
1961 he carried out the UNESCO mission in Spain that would lead to the foundation of what is
now the Cultural Heritage Institute of Spain.
131
Introduction to Coremans-Earth
C. Mileto and F. Vegas (project coordinators)
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
It is with great satisfaction that I present this document on the criteria for the restoration of earth-
en architecture. In line with the documents written within the framework of the COREMANS
Project, promoted by the Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España (IPCE, the Spanish Institute
of Cultural Heritage), this document aims to define the general criteria for the conservation and
restoration of earthen architecture and to offer several methodological guidelines for its study
and conservation.
It is, furthermore, very satisfying to present this document since it also highlights the mat-
ter of the conservation of earthen architecture. These constructions must be preserved as heritage
due to their tangible and intangible value, which constitutes the basis of our culture. It is import-
ant to stress the need to understand earthen architecture as heritage – just as much as heritage
that is built of brick, stone or wood – that must therefore be preserved. The fact that earth is
considered to be a material that degrades more easily than others does not mean that it should
be replaced or remade. Rather, it is a question of finding suitable ways of conserving it by re-
searching techniques and materials that allow it to be maintained and preserved. On the other
hand, earthen architecture represents a wonderful opportunity to learn future lessons thanks to
its qualities, which are being increasingly appreciated by the world of sustainable architecture
and eco-friendly construction.
This document is the result of the work carried out by a multidisciplinary group of experts
in the field. The texts were drafted by some of them in working groups that were set up at one
of the first coordination meetings. They were subsequently reviewed by other experts from the
working group or the committee. Lastly, the overall text was reviewed by all the members of
the committee and is therefore the result of a general consensus. Because earthen architecture
is such a widespread heritage, not only in Spain but in many countries around the world, we
hope that this document will be of use for interventions carried out in every corner of the globe.
Last but not least, we would like to thank the Spanish Institute of Cultural Heritage (IPCE),
particularly its former director, Alfonso Muñoz Cosme and its present director Carlos Jiménez
Cuenca, for trusting us to lead the coordination of this document.
133
Conserving earthen architecture,
a future requirement for a
recreated modernity
Hubert Guillaud
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
At the end of the 1980s it was estimated that one-third of the world’s population lived in
earthen dwellings (Houben and Guillaud 1989): in other words, 1.5 billion human beings. The
latest statistics on low-income housing, both rural and urban3, show that the figures for this es-
timate have risen. These more recent evaluations confirm the undeniable importance of an ar-
chitecture which for a long time was looked down on, considered old-fashioned and marginal
to other traditions thought to be more ‘elegant’. It is the indisputable evidence of a heritage that
encompasses a vast cultural diversity and a rare heterogeneity and richness of expression. It is
the visible ancient imprint of the genius of wise vernacular master builders in every inhabited
corner of the world; it is the trace of the history of human homes, the history of architecture and
urban planning, of cultures and civilisations. Yes, earthen architecture ‘exists’4 – a fact that some
ignore or pretend to ignore – as noted by the Peruvian architect Alejandro Alva, co-founder in
1989, together with CRAterre, of the GAIA Project for the restoration of archaeological and archi-
tectural earthen heritage. This vindication and reaffirmation of the existence of earthen architec-
ture is well grounded in reliable evidence from a great many building cultures that have been
either preserved or endlessly reinvented, recreated, re-adapted, constantly appropriated by hu-
mans to build their habitat, and whose anthropological and cultural significance is manifest in
multiple facets that change according to the era and the region. It is both a mental and physical
representation of our relationship with the natural environment, with its material resources and
the local climate, with social structures and ways of life, with spirituality, with the economy of
1
Since ancient times turf and lawn have been used for building, a process that is currently being rediscovered (in Uruguay,
for example).
2
See two reference works: Houben, H. and Guillaud, H. 1989, Traité de construction en terre, Parenthèses, Marseille; and
Anger, R. and Fontaine, L. 2009, Bâtir en terre; du grain de sable à l’architecture, Belin, Paris.
3
The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) gives an even higher figure of around 50% of traditional
dwellings, also taking into account recent housing. The World Bank puts forward similar statistics. The USA’s Department
of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (USFoE) is of the same opinion. ‘Earthen Building Techniques’: Reading
and Resource List http://www.eere.energy.gov/consumerinfo/reading_resources/ve6.html (website consulted on
19 September 2004, currently not available).
4
Alva, A. 2001, ‘La conservación de la arquitectura de tierra’, paper translated and published in English in The Getty Conser-
vation Institute Newsletter, ‘Conservation’, Vol. 16, Number 1, pp. 4-9, GCI, Los Angeles.
135
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
the land, agriculture, industry, but also with the physical threats in the form of the defensive
systems of old human settlements. Or even the memories of natural catastrophes (earthquakes,
floods, cyclones) that have contributed to create extraordinary building cultures in the face of
adversity (Ferrigni 2005)5, the intelligence and efficacy of which, when faced with risk, often
arouse admiration.
5
Ferrigni, F. 2005, ‘The Local Seismic Culture’, in F. Ferrigni et al., ed. Ancient Buildings and Earthquakes. The Local Seismic
Culture Approach: Principles, Methods, Potentialities, Edipuglia, Bari.
6
http://whc.unesco.org/fr/nouveauxbiens/
7
African sites on the UNESCO List have been progressed rapidly over recent years with the aim of making up for having
lagged behind.
8
World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme, officially launched in Bamako, Mali, to mark the 10th International Conference
on restoring earthen architecture.
9
International Scientific Committee on Earthen Architectural Heritage, http://isceah.icomos.org/
10
This UNESCO Chair, inaugurated in 1978 at the École Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture in Grenoble, France, led by
CRAterre, brought together 41 institutional members and professional bodies from 21 countries on that day. The Universitat
Politècnica de València and its Technical School of Architecture (Spain) was one of the last members to join the world
network of this Chair.
136
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
many national networks are ensuring an active revaluation of earthen architecture, its conserva-
tion and the promotion of its contemporary use for new architectural designs today. In just 20
years, these framework projects and networks have contributed to the development of the aca-
demic and professional training of site managers and technicians, scientific research on this
material and the putting into practice of conservation techniques. At the same time, these projects
and networks have promoted the creation of important international conferences to foster the
updating and exchange of knowledge and experience, and have promoted a multidisciplinary
methodology of documentary study for the in-depth analysis of the tangible and intangible values
of earthen architecture.
In 2015, of the 1,007 sites classified by UNESCO11, 173 cultural properties are mainly earth-
en built. This represents 21% of the World Heritage List. Similarly, of the 265 cities today included
in the World Heritage List, 30% of them (78 cities) are earthen built or a significant part of their
historical fabric was constructed with this material. This earthen architectural heritage of univer-
sal value brings together sites of great typological diversity. The exhaustive list of all these cul-
tural sites and mixed sites of universal value, partly or mostly built with earth, cannot be itemised
here, but let us give a few examples. They include the nucleus of historical cities such as the
Kasbah of Algiers (Algeria), the historical centers of São Luis, Diamantina and Goiás in Brazil, the
old city of Havana in Cuba, the city of Djenné in Mali, the historical centres of Oaxaca, Puebla,
Morelia and Zacatecas in Mexico, Antigua in Guatemala, the Medinas of Fez and Marrakesh, the
city of Meknes in Morocco, the town of Cuzco and the historical centre of Lima in Peru, the his-
torical centres of Evora, Porto and Guimarães in Portugal, Bukhara and Shakhrisabz in Uzbekistan,
Coro in Venezuela, the ancient cities of Shibam, Sana’a and Zabid in Yemen and the ancient city
of Ghadames in Libya. There are also archaeological sites of great historical and cultural value
such as Joya de Ceren in El Salvador, Chogha Zanbil and Persepolis in Iran, the archaeological
zone of Paquime in Casas Grandes in Mexico, the site of Volubilis in Morocco, the ruins of Mo-
henjo-Daro in Pakistan, the site of Carthage in Tunisia, the archaeological zone of Chan-Chan in
Peru. There are even fortifications such as the city walls of Baku in Azerbaijan, and several very
long stretches of the Great Wall of China. The list also includes cultural landscapes and historical
parks that contain earthen architecture or vestiges of it such as the Valley of M’Zab in Algeria,
the area of Guanacaste in Costa Rica, the Iranian city of Bam and its cultural landscape, the Roy-
al Hill of Ambohimanga in Madagascar, the Bandiagara fault in Mali, the Kathmandu Valley in
Nepal, the Merv Cultural Park in Turkmenistan, the Chaco Culture National Historical Park in
New Mexico in the United States, as well as palatial or religious monuments and buildings such
as the Royal Palaces of Abomey in Benin, the Alhambra in Granada in Spain, the Asante Temples
of Ghana, the historical monuments of Kyoto and Nara in Japan, the mosques of Timbuktu in Mali
and the Mausoleum of the First Qin Emperor in China. An unparalleled wealth of heritage!
In 2012, CRAterre was commissioned by the World Heritage Centre to draw up an inventory of sites built with earth that
11
would form part of the prestigious list in order to diagnose the situation together with the cultural institutions of the nations
that are responsible for their conservation and assessment. This inventory is updated every year: http://whc.unesco.org/
en/earthen-architecture/
137
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
been used, despite the negative experience resulting from this material. In addition, it was be-
lieved that problems related to the degradation of archaeological finds could be solved by shel-
tering them under roofing. This has often led to unforeseen side effects such as erosion due to
the perimeter discharge of water from the roofing or a change in the ambient relative humidity,
initiating the degradation of the discovered remains. The accumulation of bad intervention ex-
amples, the incompatibility of treatments and the alteration of the balance between the earthen
structures and their natural surroundings have gradually – and thankfully – been recognised by
professionals. But terrible intervention routines are still carried out, and many architectural earth-
en constructions, be they archaeological, monumental or residential, still frequently suffer inap-
propriate cosmetic treatments.
The diversity of regional and local cultural identity is thus reduced. It goes without saying
that earthen architecture suffers mainly from environmental threats, but above all from human
ones. Rain, ice, drought, thermal shocks, salinity and wind are active factors of degradation. But
this earthen material is subject to much more devastating perils such as a lack of maintenance,
damaging or empirical interventions, vandalism, challenges and the still conflicting interests
among scientific disciplines – in particular between archaeology and restorers. In fact, the tourism
industry has a considerable social, economic and cultural impact on the process of local devel-
opment. But mass tourism, in particular, is a major risk factor for countries where the economy
depends mainly on this sector, bringing with it the negative effects of plunder and destruction.
This risk factor is higher at archaeological sites and historical buildings constructed with earth
and lacking proper protection, but also because of irresponsible and predatory tourism that does
not consider the future of earthen architecture from a sustainable standpoint. It is, therefore, still
necessary to redefine a new balance between the more technical aspects of the practice of con-
servation and management procedures because, if they take different paths, any preference shown
to one over the other will, unfortunately, be detrimental.
138
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
mers. The present is also witness to the development of specific research on earthen architecture
and seismic risk following such dramatic events as the destruction of the citadel of Bam (Iran)
in December 2003. The evolution of management criteria for earthen heritage sites ensures that
transdisciplinary cooperation for thorough documentation is carried out, and that cross-sectional
analyses are more rigorous and based on conservation responses that are logical and agreed
upon. However, this must be done by taking into account and valuing the participation of local
stakeholders to promote a more integrated approach to the very necessary conservation of earthen
architecture. Key aspects of this approach involve enhancing education, promoting the study of
heritage, raising awareness via all available means to activate political and public awareness on the
value of heritage and respect for it, consolidating institutional and professional networks and in-
creasing opportunities for exchange. It is important to promote an industry and an economy based
on sustainable tourism with heritage at its heart, one that is grounded in an importance given to
the preservation and continuity of cultural diversity; the result of new, more responsible paths.
Confirming the link between cultural diversity and development, the ‘Convention on the Protection
and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions’ (2005) revealed that the challenges of dis-
course between cultures and cultural pluralism are factors for strengthening cultural diversity.
Earthen architecture, undeniable evidence of this diversity, can only benefit from it.
What values can earthen architecture offer for the future to be more
sustainable?
In previous publications12 we dealt with the question of the cultural significance of earthen ar-
chitecture and its tangible and intangible value as a contribution to the specific establishment of
a sustainable development paradigm and a range of new possibilities for the future. We would
like to conclude by briefly returning to the conviction that inextricably links the conservation of
earthen architectural heritage to the advent of a new – and modern – earthen architecture. These
constructions offer us an extraordinary gift whose fruits we have not yet benefited from: they
encompass a huge potential to help reverse the path that today is progressively leading to a
‘cultural rarefaction13’ (Yapa 2003, p. 114). In fact, earthen architecture can contribute to inverting
this rarefaction, but also to better decentralise and endow autonomy from various standpoints:
–– Inverting the rarefaction of techniques by using abundant materials that are available in
situ and whose properties are varied and adaptable to a wide range of construction mate-
rials to many building methods and techniques (half-timber, cob, adobe, rammed earth,
CEB [Compressed Earth Block], projected earth, etc.) that are close at hand and easy to
learn.
12
Guillaud, H. and Houben, H. 2010, ‘Earthen Architecture and Sociocultural Challenges’, in Terra em seminario 2010, 6th
Seminar of Earthen Architecture in Portugal, 9th Ibero-American Seminar of Earthen Architecture and Construction, Argu-
mentum, Lisbon, pp. 218-222.
Guillaud, H. 2013, ‘Cultural Values of Earthen Architectures for Sustainable Development’, in CIAV 2013 - 7° ATP VerSus in
Vila Nova de Cerveira, CRC Press, London, p. 913.
13
Yapa, L. (2003). ‘Déconstruire le développement’. Défaire le développement. Refaire le Monde. Paris: Edition l’Aventurine
/ Parangon, p. 410 and pp. 111-124.
139
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
–– Inverting socio-economic and political rarefaction by giving back to civil society – and in
particular the most deprived populations – the ability to take charge and solve their habitat
problems by themselves; contributing to the promotion of self-sufficiency, participatory
procedures, cooperation and bartering of work, ‘gift for gift’ (Mauss, 1923-2414), autonomy
of production of materials and self-construction, promoting a broad range of trades, jobs,
small- and medium-sized enterprises or micro-industries; consolidating what Michel Fou-
cault called ‘non-sovereign power’ (as opposed to class power and the exclusive interests
of capital in relation to the public interest);
–– Inverting cultural rarefaction by valuing the know-how and knowledge of local building
cultures by revisiting the tangible and intangible value of societies that is transmitted by
these cultures and that form the foundation of their social cohesion; revaluing the strong
creative potential of art made with earth as well as rendered and decorated surfaces that
also contribute to individual growth (valuing the personal pleasure of using earth in a
creative way).
In these and other aspects and actions that constitute an incentive, earthen architecture,
etched into time immemorial and in universal space – having been part of the ‘Great Story’
(Serres, 200315) of humanity in the short period of time that cultures and civilisations have exist-
ed, in comparison with the temporal infinity of geological time – is still able to be a source of
inspiration, a reference point for what has been conserved but that can, at the same time, be
projected into the future: it can thus be recreated in a contemporary way, inviting a re-establish-
ment of a more harmonious, gentle and reconciled relationship between man, culture and Nature.
If we still have the desire and the right to inhabit the Earth and a duty to preserve cultural diver-
sity, then the right to continue to build with earth prevails over everything that reduces culture
and destroys Nature.
14
M
auss, M. (1923-24). ‘L’Essai sur le don. Marcel Mauss, Sociologie et anthropologie’. Paris: Revue l’Année sociologique,
1923-1924. Republished, Puf, coll. Quadrige, 2001.
15
Picq, P., Serres, M., Vincent, J.D. 2003, Qu’est-ce que l’humain ? Editions Le Pommier, Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie,
Paris.
140
Restoring earthen architecture:
some principles regarding the
discipline
Giovanni Carbonara
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
This discipline covers both architectural restoration and also the restoration of painting,
sculpture, decorative arts – called minor restoration – regardless of chronological subdivisions
(between art and old or contemporary architecture, etc.). Restoration, therefore, responds to a
vision of unity, literally to a ‘theory’ which, thanks to critical thought and its practical applica-
tion, has been developed and refined over time, basing itself not only on technical consider-
ations but primarily on historical, aesthetic and critical ones, and, above all, those linked to
memory.
From this perspective it can be immediately stated that, to the principles of critical resto-
ration defined over fifty years ago and that are still fully valid today, new approaches have re-
cently been added exacerbating, on the one hand, the aesthetic component (in some way rein-
tegrating and restoring restoration) and, on the other hand, the historical component (that looks
more to more conservation as is only natural). An attempt was made to overcome the solid
philosophical foundations of critical restoration via an extreme interpretation of the two examples
put forward by Cesare Brandi (Teoria del restauro, Rome 1963, Turin 1977), these being the aes-
thetic and the historical – opposite poles around which the entire discipline has revolved ever
since it began.
Going back in time, a symptomatic example of the results of this perpetual reasoning would
be the two significant interventions carried out on the Coliseum in Rome. In the former, the ar-
chitect Raffaele Stern (1807) consolidated the arches on the Lateran side with a simple but huge
supporting buttress – with no particular aesthetic charm – devised to avoid the imminent collapse
of the arcades of the outer ring of the amphitheatre: in this case, the solution to the project seems
to reveal that the Coliseum was mainly considered from an archaeological perspective as a valu-
able historical and cultural document. Emphasis was placed on maintaining its material and
formal authenticity – despite being pock-marked by time and damaged – with work carried out
according to established criteria of the day (used above all for restoring paintings and sculptures)
involving minimal intervention and readability.
Approximately twenty years later, Giuseppe Valadier (1826) was hired to solve the same
technical problem at the other end of the amphitheatre, which was damaged and open for many
years. Valadier solved the matter in a very different way by simulating a kind of stepped collapse
of the construction; this was, of course, a kind of sloped buttress, but used a system of arranged
arches that decreased as they got higher. It is an example of restoration clearly inspired by
a respect for the image of the monument and its overall aesthetic rather than the historicity it
acquired over time; the architect even resorted to arch designs similar to the ancient ones, and
replicated mouldings, cornices, bases and capitals.
The two interventions attest to an evident disparity in attitudes and opinions, the essence
of which is still evident even today. By using imitative mechanisms, Valadier’s work at the Col-
osseum expressed a stylistic intention to approach what already existed, attenuating or complete-
ly ignoring the need to distinguish himself expressively, along with a desire to limit himself to
the bare minimum as was the case in Stern’s project. It is now possible to see that the cultural
climate has changed and the path to the stylistic restorations of the 19th century has opened
up. This can be seen in the work of the French architect Eugène E. Viollet-le-Duc, the main ex-
ponent and a fundamental champion in the concept of unity of style. This phase tended to favour
142
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
a formal unity of the work, giving priority to the aesthetic component over what was histori-
cal-documentary or, in other words, testimonial or archaeological.
A change in this type of thinking took place some time later with the advocacy of what
was called philological restoration; this was upheld and disseminated by Camillo Boito and re-
flected the changes in the science of his day; it also reflected the romantic ideas of John Ruskin
where what prevailed was the individuality of each monument, considered to be a single element
determined by its own unique historical vicissitudes, to therefore be conserved with all the wealth
of its various layers and the markings that time had left on it over the ages.
Boito thus took this lesson and combined it with his personal conviction of the need to
recover the integrity and image of the monument, returning it, if not quite ‘as it should have been’
according to the rules of stylistic analogy, to ‘as it was effectively’ at a specific time: its maximum
splendour, based on the results of meticulous historical and archival research. This approach was
thus rightly defined as an intermediate theory which, after Boito, was reinforced by the thinking
of Gustavo Giovannoni in Italy, as well as by Leopoldo Torres Balbás and Ricardo Velázquez
Bosco in Spain, and was a tenet that had a positive influence throughout the first half of the 20th
century. This pioneering vision made its mark on the international scene to such an extent that
it was even included in the Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments (1931).
Here, it is worth remembering the guiding principles and operative precepts that began to
be drawn from the mid-18th century and were later consolidated into a contemporary approach
to restoration to the point that today they are taken for granted:
a)
There must be a distinction between replacements and original parts so as not to distort
the reading of history and thus guarantee a clear and correct interpretation.
b)
The reversibility or possibility of reworking a restoration intervention should be fore-
seen, and allowances made for future interventions of a corrective nature or a rectifi-
cation of the work carried out without forming an anticipated opinion of it opinion in
advance. Restoration, as affirmed by Cesare Brandi and Paul Philippot, is a critical hy-
pothesis and, as such, always verifiable and correctable. For example, when it comes
to structural consolidation, this concept is very important when comparing the erection
of a buttress or the insertion of a simple tie rod with interventions like cement grouting
or reinforced concrete ring-beams; the former are, naturally, more reversible and less
invasive, while the latter are radically irreversible.
c)
Authenticity of expression means that every element added must constitute an unequiv-
ocal testimony of our time, a manifestation of contemporary historical and figurative
culture, provided that its inclusion in the work is not prominent or drastic.
d)
Minimal intervention involves intervening only when it is indispensable for conserva-
tion and altering as little as possible of the preexisting structure. For example, choos-
ing not to embed new wiring and pipes in old walls but leaving them external and
well hidden out of sight using, where possible, either existing gaps or light, prefabri-
cated systems. In short, study and analyse in order to do the bare minimum and act
as little as possible.
e)
The physico-chemical compatibility between the original materials and those used in
the intervention – which also involves looking at durability – must be checked espe-
cially in cases when using modern materials that are manufactured industrially or are
even synthetic. This is the case of cement, which is harmful if injected into walls with
143
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
frescoes or walls of poor mechanical quality and resins that, over time, have been
shown to be unstable and about which many questions still need to be answered.
Furthermore, discussion needs to be focused on the matter of the use of modern materials
in restoration (often unfairly demonised) and the use of traditional materials and techniques that
are lauded as being totally innocent and therefore appropriate. This is a false problem because;
the crux of the mattter does not lie in the materials or the techniques but that the person using
them understands them and knows how to use them properly. Cement can be used to cleverly
solve complex restoration problems or can inflict serious damage, as can lime and bricks – even
those made by hand – if used irresponsibly.
Lastly, we must carefully look – yet without expecting too much – at the introduction of
ideas drawn from the field of technical physics that have been applied to restoration, such as
‘layer’ or ‘wear surface’ (the way that gypsum surfaces were once plastered and coloured on a
large scale) without the right theoretical groundwork. In fact, hasty and erroneous research into
wear surface in construction has reinforced the conviction of the need for its physiological ren-
ovation, as if it were a biological material or a living organism and not a testimony of art and
history.
It is therefore worth requesting the theoretical and methodological unity of the restoration
of all the figurative arts to coincide with a possible unified statute of architectural restoration. For
example, the exchange of ideas for matters regarding the restoration of paintings is a more than
healthy form of critical thought to be applied to architectural restoration. This, on its own, tends
to naturally slide towards banal functionalism, confused sociologism, or (for reasons other than
those linked to the supposed absence of the names of the creators of works of architecture and
to the no less supposed ease of reproducibility, even when done in another era) to the restoration
of its original state, which Cesare Brandi defined as ‘the most serious heresy of restoration’. A
solid unit of critical thought, on the other hand, allows for a shared base of valid conceptual
references.
In the transition from principle to actual realisation, a wide range of projects is opened up
to the architect whose ability and skills are certainly open and sensitive to the contribution of
the corresponding disciplines, but is ultimately also responsible for the entire intervention. En-
abling a restoration programme in collaboration with art historians, archaeologists and restorers
to become a true project and later a real physical work is an authentic act of ‘modern’ architecture.
(This is the case of the intervention on the late Roman mosaic-filled villa at Piazza Armerina in
Sicily studied by Cesare Brandi and protected by an architectural cover by Franco Minissi. Similar
cases include the earthen Greek walls of Gela, also in Sicily, and in Spain, the walls of Jorquera,
the castles of Peza and Moclín in Granada and, more recently, the delicate intervention of the
Torre Bofilla in Bétera, Valencia).
In this regard, Article 9 of the Venice Charter points out that the goal of restoration is its
conservation function but that it should also reveal the formal and historical value of monuments,
exactly in line with what has been observed above. A restoration project with restoration in mind,
but based on a historical-critical structure with a predominantly conservative approach and ac-
cepting the concept of diachronic authenticity as a starting point, where the historical truth that
we see is the result of the often centuries-long stratification of the building, and not its alleged
original configuration. It does not make sense to search for the oldest part at the expense of
additions accumulated over time as this would be tantamount to spoiling historical heritage, like
ripping out pages of a codex that are considered of less importance than others. This means
minimal intervention and operation in the form of conservation and, when necessary, additions,
but never removal, at least to begin with.
144
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Turning to considerations about the most appropriate ways of treating architectural mate-
rials, in this case earth, we must bring in the decisive influence of scholars on this matter; not
architects, but physicists, chemists, geologists, engineers, etc., whose interest is in understanding
the scientific causes of degradation, especially as a result of environmental aggression, and the
creation of possible remedies for it. A clear matter of confrontation between the different tenden-
cies, and one that exemplifies these various positions, is that of the restoration of stone façades
and, to a greater extent, those that are plastered and painted, precisely because of the possible
divergent interpretations of the very meaning of the surface of the building: the part that is most
directly attacked by external agents and pollutants for some while, for others it is the part that
concentrates aesthetic values and where historical changes are slowly deposited and accumulated,
as well as being a record of the passage of time on the building.
On the value of the traces of time much has been written over the last two centuries, in
particular from the sensitivity of writers such as Victor Hugo, Anatole France, Marcel Proust, and
more recently Marguerite Yourcenar (That Mighty Sculptor, Time, published in Spain by Alfaguara,
Madrid 1989), that deals with that involuntary and inimitable beauty of the sublime modifications
that are added by time.
Effort must be made for every solution, an evaluative historical-critical study carried out,
and specific techniques used on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, and on a case-by-case basis,
a decision must be taken whether or not to reintegrate the markings of the old gypsum; wheth-
er to protect, or not, with grout or washes, surfaces that have been denuded by time or by hu-
mans; whether or not to extend the overhang of a roof that has changed to restore its former
protective function.
In conclusion, it can be said that the matter of restoring earthen architecture, with its mul-
tiple techniques and variants (rammed earth, adobe, half-timber, cob, etc.), represents another
category within the discipline of restoration and, therefore, must be guided by its own theoretical
and scientific system and follow its own principles and methods. Precisely for this reason the
restoration of earthen architecture must develop and cultivate its own technical, analytical and
operative characteristics (e.g., different types of earthen walls, the use of binders and inert ma-
terials of different types, or the problems of structurally connecting an addition to an old wall;
matters of adhesion, durability, resistance, tops or copings of walls, etc.), which depend, on the
one hand, on the particular properties and versatility of this material, but also on its intrinsic
weaknesses.
The Coremans Project on Earthen Architecture is thus of great interest because it encour-
ages critical thought of an intrinsic nature: if the intervention by Franco Minissi on the earthen
walls at Gela, with his metal coping to top the walls, and the glass panels tightly bolted to the
masonry did not provide the expected results, then neither will a thick earthen coating applied
subsequently nor the reproduction of old techniques, even if they are respectful of traditional
methods, offer satisfactory results.
But there is no lack of good examples, and much progress has been made in respecting
the authenticity of materials and the appearance and significance of old buildings without resort-
ing to shortcuts or simplifications but rather delving more deeply into the requirements of the
discipline of conservation from a scientific standpoint.
These requirements should not be seen as burdensome constraints but rather as stimulating
occasions to deal properly – in other words, ‘critically’ and ‘creatively’ – with a matter that is
difficult in and of itself. Just consider aspects such as the cleaning, consolidation, reconstruction
or the protection of a delicate earthen surface; the responsibility and figurative control that is
145
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
also involved in the simple act of whitewashing, a coating that can be more or less thick and
studied from a chromatic point of view to a greater or lesser extent; or matters even more risky
such as a robust but necessary intervention of structural consolidation, perhaps for a complex
and partially ruined architecture. If we add aspects such as programmed maintenance, prevention
and recognition, and safe use and full access to this delicate earthen heritage, it is easy to con-
clude how difficult a challenge it is. Yet the Coremans Project on Earthen Architecture – and the
successive dissemination of its results to create an operative culture on the subject – has con-
fronted this challenge in the best possible way.
146
Intervention criteria for earthen
architecture16
This chapter was written by Camilla Mileto and Fernando Vegas and was subsequently revised,
16
corrected and approved by the other members of the Coremans Commission on Earthen Architec-
ture
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
This document is the starting point for the COREMANS project promoted by the Instituto del
Patrimonio Cultural de España (the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, or IPCE), the aim of which
is to draw up and publish a series of recommendations and intervention criteria for the various
types of materials that make up the country’s cultural heritage.
Earthen architecture is an important part of Spain’s cultural heritage, as it is for many other
countries all over the world. The geographic and climatic diversity of the country has given rise
to a huge range of earthen construction techniques that have been used throughout history
(rammed earth, adobe, half-timber, cob, wattle-and-daub, and its variations). This heritage is a
fundamental part of our culture, both for its ancient origins as well as the various technologies
it encompasses and the way it adapts to the natural and cultural environment. However, the fate
of earthen architecture and its construction techniques has been different in each place. While
this type of architecture still constitutes a building culture that is alive in many countries of the
world, in Spain and in numerous countries in Europe this know-how has almost disappeared,
abandoned or replaced by new standardised techniques, in particular from the second half of
the 20th century onwards. The main causes of this decline have been ignorance and a disdain
for this traditional architecture, considered to be of poor quality and associated with underdevel-
opment. In this context, the restoration of existing earthen buildings has been carried out using
unrelated techniques and materials, leading not only to a cultural and constructive dwindling,
but also to material, constructive and structural incompatibility. In the last decades of the 20th
century this ignorance and disdain started to wane when, thanks to research, the intrinsic values
of the cultural and bioconstructive aspects of this architecture were rescued.
This document aims to provide general criteria for the compatible, respectful and sustain-
able restoration and rehabilitation of monumental and non-monumental earthen architecture. To
draft it, a working committee was created made up of experts on the subject from the IPCE and
other institutions of different specialities interested in the process of studying, characterising,
conserving and restoring earthen architecture. This Charter on the conservation of earthen-built
heritage can be used by any professional or individual who is involved in the study, cataloguing,
protection, conservation, restoration and rehabilitation of earthen architecture.
Regulatory framework
One of the objectives of the world of restoration and conservation throughout the 20th century
was the formalisation and drafting of accepted principles on an international level regarding the
conservation and restoration of cultural heritage. Following on from the creation of ideas rooted
in the thinking of the fathers of conservation and restoration of monuments during the 19th
century (among them, of course, Ruskin, Viollet-le-Duc and Boito), common principles to con-
stitute the shared bases for this new discipline were tackled in the 20th century. This long journey,
which officially began in 1931 with the drafting of the Athens Charter as an internationally rec-
ognised document, has been increasingly expanded thanks to a substantial collection of docu-
ments that aim to offer a better definition of the general principles and a more precise definition
of ideas and concepts in specific cases. The legal nature and application of the documents that
have been drafted to date are different and have been put forward by various international, Eu-
ropean and national organisations.
The bodies responsible for drafting the various types of documents for regulating the con-
servation and restoration of heritage on an international level are UNESCO (United Nations Ed-
ucational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation) established within the UN after World War II (1946)
to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations; ICOMOS
148
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
(International Council on Monuments and Sites), founded in Warsaw in 1965 to apply the pro-
visions set out in the Venice Charter in 1964, which is a non-governmental organisation for the
promotion of theory, methodology and technology applied to the conservation and protection
of sites and monuments; ICCROM (International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and
Restoration of Cultural Property), an organisation set up in Rome in 1959 by UNESCO to promote
conservation by training professionals, advancing knowledge, research, cooperation and raising
heritage awareness. On a European level, it is the Council of Europe (created by 10 countries in
1949 and currently including 46 European countries) that promotes the signing of the European
Heritage Conventions. On the other hand, the European Union, an institution formed by its mem-
ber states, draws up policies and legislation on heritage and allocates funding. In Spain, policies
and legislation in this area are the responsibility of both the Government of Spain and the Re-
gional Governments of the Autonomous Communities.
On an international level, UNESCO draws up the international conventions and treaties that
are mandatory in nature and must be followed by the member countries or states. An example of
such an agreement is the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Heritage (Paris Charter, 1972). UNESCO also makes recommendations such as drafting texts ad-
dressed to states inviting them to adopt principles that are not mandatory but that often have an
influence on national laws, as well as drafting declarations of universally accepted principles that
are moral in nature. On a European level, there are also agreements that are mandatory European
treaties for the member countries or states that have signed them and involve a mandatory legal
commitment. One example of such a document is the Convention for the Protection of the Archi-
tectural Heritage of Europe (Granada Convention, 1985). Also on a European level, there are
recommendations, resolutions and declarations consisting of texts addressed to member states
advising them to adopt certain guiding principles; these are not mandatory but they often have
an influence on national laws. Among these is the Declaration of Amsterdam (1975). The Europe-
an Union also issues regulations and directives in the form of framework laws into which nation-
al laws must be worked. On a Spanish level, in addition to the Constitution (1978), whose articles
referring to cultural heritage set out obligations and competencies, there are specific state laws on
matters of historical heritage, such as Law 16/1985 on Spanish Historical Heritage, and decrees
that set out laws on specific matters. The Charters consist of documents drafted with internation-
al, European, and domestic scope and constitute a kind of written constitution, a fundamental
code or public instrument. Their role is to be a guide and they are a source of inspiration for
government policies and practices to draw from. These documents have different types of effec-
tiveness and legal validity depending on the entity that has promoted them.
All these documents progressively broaden the concept of monument, firstly to objects of
cultural interest and, later, to cultural heritage, a concept that encompasses all aspects of tangible
149
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
and intangible culture as well as heritage understood as urban, rural and landscape, which, as
the European Council of Ministers in Amsterdam stated in 1975, is an essential part of the mem-
ory of today’s society and embodies irreplaceable spiritual, cultural, educational, economic and
social values. They set out the general principles for the protection, conservation and restoration
of heritage. The Venice Charter of 1964 recognised the conservation and restoration of heritage
as a discipline that encompasses various sciences, and in successive documents the need for
multidisciplinary work was established. From 1931 onwards the principles of conservation have
been progressively established (actions that have extended to structure, use, meanings, and re-
lationships), which could be summed up as: the need to protect, conserve and properly manage
historical heritage; the need to conduct a comprehensive and detailed study prior to any type of
decision covering all the material and cultural aspects that a particular heritage encompasses,
along with its meaning; respect for all its values, with care being taken not to elevate some over
others; the use of traditional materials and techniques in conservation processes and, where
necessary, the use of new materials and techniques whose results are guaranteed; the need to
maintain its use if linked to such heritage or, conversely, the need to introduce a use that is com-
patible with its conservation; respect for all eras as they are testimony to all moments in history;
and the readability of these interventions while always respecting the harmony of the whole.
Furthermore, for the reasons explained above, for earthen architecture it is important to
take into account, and in a specific way, certain documents that are more related to vernacular
heritage, traditional construction techniques and intangible heritage. Relevant international doc-
uments on this topic include the Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture
and Folklore (UNESCO, 1989), the Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage (ICOMOS, 1999), the
Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage
(ICOMOS, 2003), and the Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UN-
ESCO, 2003). The Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage (ICOMOS, 1999) exposes the partic-
ular vulnerability of this type of heritage in the face of progressive cultural homogenisation, the
large-scale introduction of industrial materials and the consequent loss of knowledge of tradi-
tional building materials and techniques. This document highlights the need to respect cultural
identity linked to community, cultural values, traditional character, and the relationship with the
landscape. These aspects also coincide with what is put forward by the Convention for the Safe-
guarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage (UNESCO, 2003).
The use of traditional materials and techniques in heritage conservation and restoration
versus the use of new materials has been at the centre of this debate for decades. The eventual
acceptance of new techniques set out in the Athens Charter of 1931 (‘the experts [...] approved
the judicious use of all the resources at the disposal of modern technique and more especially
of reinforced concrete’) is limited in the Venice Charter in 1964, and Article 10 states that ‘Where
traditional techniques prove inadequate, the consolidation of a monument can be achieved by
the use of any modern technique for conservation and construction, the efficacy of which has
been shown by scientific data and proved by experience.’ Later, at the Granada Convention in
1985, it was decisively declared that the application and development of traditional techniques
in the conservation of heritage should be fostered, a principle that has been increasingly con-
solidated. In the Charter of the Vernacular Built Heritage (ICOMOS, 1999), the conservation of
traditional materials and techniques is considered to be especially important and, as a conse-
quence, educational and dissemination actions are called for regarding trades, community and
society. The use of traditional or innovative techniques was reinforced in the Principles for the
Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage (ICOMOS, 2003),
where the principles of compatibility, reversibility, minimal intervention and respect for cultural
values were reaffirmed. Interventions must therefore respect, insofar as possible, the concept,
materials, techniques and values of the building, trying to repair historical structures rather than
replacing them.
150
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
On the other hand, earthen architecture embodies an important characteristic that lies in
its close relationship with the natural environment where it is located and, above all, with the
materials and the techniques that are used in its construction. There is a common thread, be it
monumental, vernacular, defensive, residential, etc., linking all earthen architecture: the use of
earth as a building material and the huge wealth of varied construction techniques to create
examples of it. Over time, this common factor has defined the specificity of earthen architecture,
mainly on a research level regarding the material and techniques but more recently also with
respect to intervention materials and techniques which have been defined in research projects,
and conservation and restoration work17.
From the standpoint of critical thought on the values of this type of architecture and the
principles and criteria to be used regarding its conservation and restoration, the activity carried out
by ISCEAH – the International Scientific Committee on Earthen Architectural Heritage of
ICOMOS – should be highlighted. According to the ICOMOS statutes, the International Scientific
Committees (ISC) are the vehicle through which ICOMOS meets its objectives by carrying out
specialised studies and scientific research within the scope of various specific disciplines. The
ICOMOS-ISCEAH committee deals with the landscape, architectural, archaeological and cultural
heritage constructed with earth. This committee carries out scientific research and specialised stud-
ies, as well as seeking to promote the development of best practices and methods for the protection
and conservation of earthen heritage all over the world. Since the 1970s, ICOMOS, and later ICO-
MOS-ISCEAH, in collaboration with ICCROM, CRAterre-EAG and the Getty Conservation Institute,
have organised important events on the conservation of earthen heritage that have taken shape in
a series of twelve international conferences beginning with the Premier colloque international sur
la conservation des monuments en brique crue, organised by ICOMOS in Yazd (Iran) in 1972, and
ending with Terra 2016 – 12th World Congress on Earthen Architecture (Lyon, France, 2016): Yazd,
Iran (1972), Yazd, Iran (1976), Ankara, Turkey (1980), Lima and Cuzco, Peru (1983), Rome, Italy
(1987), Las Cruces, New Mexico-U.S.A. (1990), Silves, Portugal (1993), Torquay, England (2000),
Yazd, Iran (2003), Bamako, Mali (2008), Lima, Peru (2012), and Lyon, France (2016).
These meetings represent important milestones for the discussion and shared research on
the matter of earthen heritage and its conservation. On some occasions, recommendations have
been put forward at these meetings that did not become official documents; however, they are
interesting because they highlighted aspects of certain matters that are crucial for the conservation
of earthen heritage. The first two meetings, held at Yazd in 1972 and 1976, laid the groundwork
for the definition of earthen heritage and conservation, and also indicated the way forward for
future scientific research on the behaviour of materials and treatments. The need to develop
specific scientific research also emerged from a meeting held in Santa Fe (New Mexico, USA) in
1977, organised by US-ICOMOS and ICCROM. On this occasion, a case was made that the mate-
rials to be used in the interventions should be compatible and readable; that importance be
placed on the conservation of the various construction periods of buildings and that buildings
with provisional structures be protected while the necessary pre-intervention studies are being
carried out; and lastly, that importance be placed on the used of traditional materials and tech-
niques for conservation and maintenance. The term ‘earthen architecture’ was first introduced at
the Ankara meeting in 1980. In Lima in 1983, the need to implement specific training programmes
Among research projects on the study of earthen architecture and its conservation, see: Terra (In)cognita. Architecture de
17
terre en Europe (European Community, 2006-7); Terra Incognita: Conservatoire Européen des Architectures en Terre (Eu-
ropean Community, 2009-11); ResTAPIA. Restoration of Rammed Earth Architecture on the Iberian Peninsula: Criterios,
técnicas, resultados y perspectivas (BIA 2010-18921; Ministry of the Economy and Competitiveness / Ministry of Science
and Innovation, 2011-2013); SOS-TIERRA. Restoration and rehabilitation of traditional architecture on the Iberian Peninsula.
Líneas guía y herramientas para una intervención sostenible (BIA2014-55924-R; Ministry of the Economy and Competitiveness,
2015-2017)
151
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
on all levels was emphasised, a matter that was unanimously reaffirmed at the meeting in Rome
in 1987 where a comprehensive programme of studies on the conservation of earthen architecture
was approved to be held every two years at the Craterre-EAG headquarters. More recently, on
the occasion of the 10th meeting held in Mali (2008), a series of conclusions and recommenda-
tions for the conservation of earthen architecture were presented, among which the following
should be highlighted: conservation should include both tangible and intangible heritage; local
and traditional knowledge can provide valuable insights for conservation; conservation must be
carried out hand in hand with the local community; traditional, scientific, and practically-derived
knowledge must all have a role in interventions; conservation and progress must come together
to form a platform based on sustainable development; monitoring and maintenance are essential
for conservation; the dissemination of knowledge must respect traditional mechanisms and also
use all kinds of contemporary mechanisms to disseminate information; training must involve both
theory and practice.
It is also important to highlight the activity carried out by UNESCO over recent years and
the creation of the World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme (WHEAP) which, among
activities such as pilot projects for the recovery of a number of heritage complexes (Timbuktu,
Djenné, Lalibela), has put together an Inventory of Earthen Architecture (2012). This inventory
includes the 150 UNESCO earthen sites among the total number of 962 sites declared by UNESCO
in 2012. Each site has been inventoried specifying the criteria for their selection according to the
construction techniques used, the risks and threats, their use, etc. Of these 150, only 4 are locat-
ed in Spain: the entire complex of the Alhambra, the Generalife and the Albaicin in Granada; the
complex comprising the Cathedral, Alcazar and the Archivo de Indias in Seville; the historical
centre of Cordoba; and the historical centre of Caceres.
It is also important to note that, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Convention
Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris Charter, 1972), and
within the framework of the World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme (WHEAP), the
UNESCO International Colloquium on the World Heritage Earthen Architecture Programme took
place in Paris in 2012. The appendix to its records (Earthen Architecture in Today’s World. Pro-
ceedings of the UNESCO International Colloquium on the Conservation of World Heritage Earth-
en Architecture, 2012) compiles the main ideas that arose from the debates and a declaration that
sets out a series of points of interest and specificity regarding the conservation of earthen archi-
tecture. The Declaration document (Paris, December 2012) recommends the implementation of
exemplary projects that contribute to social and economic development and the community’s
identification with the site, improved conditions and quality of life as well as the preservation of
the diversity of traditions and the constructions of local cultures; the development of method-
ological approaches that link contemporary management systems with traditional and local
knowledge in order to integrate intangible values into social practices of local development that
enhance the role of earthen architecture in processes of environmental sustainability and eco-
nomic and social development; the development of examples of good practice to serve as a
reference for professionals and improve communication, dissemination and awareness-raising at
all levels; the implementation of strategic plans and the allocation of resources by all countries;
greater protection and risk assessment of earthen heritage sites erected before, during and after
disasters or armed conflicts, as well as the use of applicable technologies to quickly assess soil-re-
lated problems and come up with the correct responses.
152
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Architecture, the National Plan for Traditional Architecture, the National Plan for Cultural Land-
scape, and the National Plan for the Safeguarding of Intangible Heritage.
In the first place, the scope of earthen-related heritage is broad and includes all kinds of
heritage, be it cultural, architectural, archaeological, monumental, vernacular, landscape, etc.,
associated with the use of earth as a building material. This set of sites today constitutes a tangi-
ble and intangible heritage that is linked to a building culture, to their relationship with the place
where they stand, to ways of life, etc. Conservation of this heritage is, today, an example of sus-
tainable development by virtue of values such as its relationship with the land, the use of local
resources, and the establishment of local communities. Conserving earthen architecture can also
be an important element in the development of local economies via the teaching of trades and
the use of local materials and resources.
It is thus essential to research and understand its qualities when a process to conserve earth-
en architecture is undertaken. In it, a series of values can be seen that are shared by architectural
heritage in general, among which historical value is evidently of paramount importance: a building
thus constitutes a document put together from various possible constructive aspects, including el-
ements that are social, cultural, artistic, political, etc. But other values are also shared. First is the
value of authenticity, tightly linked to historical value insofar as what is historically documented – in
this case constructed – is only of value if it is authentic and therefore reliable regarding the history
that can be read in it; cultural value, whereby society identifies itself with its own architectural
heritage as a symbol of its local identity or on a broader national or world level; artistic value, by
which the building has aesthetic and expressive characteristics linked to the more or less refined
artistic culture that created them; the value of antiquity, by which a historical building is recognised
as a legacy from the past due to its materials, which have been aged by the passing of time and
can be distinguished from a new architectural structure that has old-looking features, or from a
fictional reconstruction in a theme park, and thus stands firm and dignified in its old age; function-
al, social and political values linked to the role that the building has had and continues to have in
society or that can be acquired through restoration; economic value linked not only to the value
of the object itself but to the economy that can be generated because of it; and so on.
On the other hand, earthen architecture, as an architecture that is linked to the traditional
materials and techniques and to that particular land, also encompasses a series of other values
that are closer to vernacular architecture. This architecture, in particular, arose from – and is in-
timately linked to – the landscape and is the fruit of a wise combination of the materials imme-
diately available from its surroundings and the construction systems and artisanal techniques
created by the hands of its inhabitants over the course of generations that follows a rigorous
functionality. The advent of industrialisation has completely changed the conditions in the way
architecture is produced, no longer arising from – and linked to – the raw material offered by
the surroundings, but based on commercial building materials. In many parts of the world, tra-
ditional architecture – which includes earthen architecture – no longer exists as an active phe-
nomenon. In the rest of the world, traditional architecture survives when it is linked to isolation
and a lack of means, but its disappearance as an alternative is foreseen in the short to medium term.
These specific values, both those of integration and symbiosis within an environment as a his-
torical document of a sustainable building culture within its own cultural and climatic surroundings,
153
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
make traditional architecture something even more valuable at a time when sustainability is
coming to the fore as something imperative. The study of the material nature of a building
offers an understanding of the materials and the traditional techniques used as well as its re-
lationship with its environmental, cultural and social surroundings. This type of study also
highlights processes and mechanisms regarding protection against risk, as well as those related
to maintenance that can be useful in planning conservation, consolidation and maintenance
interventions.
A fundamental aspect of earthen architecture is the use of local materials that are part of
thousand-year-old building traditions linked not only to aspects that are material in nature but
also to the cultural aspects of living in a particular territory, community life, rituals, transmission
of knowledge, etc. The study of these processes allows them to be understood and respected in
intervention phases. The process of conserving and restoring heritage must be the result of sci-
entific study, understanding local culture and traditions, and the experience of similar work that
has been carried out previously. The restoration of an earthen-built heritage site must not be
done spontaneously just because it belongs to a building tradition, just as it should not be restored
by applying scientific methods that have nothing to do with its particular tradition. However,
much experience has now been compiled regarding the restoration of earthen architecture and
this has been studied and documented, especially in Spain18. Only the coming together of three
factors can help an intervention to meet the requirements of methodological and scientific pre-
cision: respect for the environment, cultural setting and social context. At the same time, this
guarantees better results over time.
It is not always possible or appropriate to use traditional techniques for conservation and
consolidation actions, but it is important that the materials and techniques that are used are com-
patible on a material and structural level with the building, and are sustainable on an environ-
mental and social level, as well as with the surroundings and the community. It is thus important
that local materials and techniques are used in restoration processes or that they take the local
context into account. With regard to restoration processes, it is also important to maintain a di-
versity of techniques and avoid yielding to the globalisation of intervention techniques - a factor
that does not necessarily mean the use of a particular technique for a restoration, but that the
restoration should be used to study and evaluate the local peculiarities of the materials and the
techniques used in the building. The techniques that are used in restorations can also be the
result of scientific research on the innovation of a technique based on the knowledge of a par-
ticular tradition.
In addition, it is important to employ local trades and skills to encourage their recovery as
well as to train new artisans. Restoration can thus foster the recovery and/or continuation of
trades and skills and, as such, help local socio-economic development. It is important to involve
communities and get them to participate in the process by offering training and creating aware-
ness in order for them to form a bond with the site or complex to be restored; to value it and
feel that they are part of it. This is key in the case of earthen architecture as it is still looked down
on because earth is considered to be a lowly material that is not very durable, and is linked to
an idea of architecture that is lacking in material resources.
18
One example, of many, of a book that compiles a wide variety of restorations of rammed earth architecture in the Iberian
Peninsula over the last thirty years, is Mileto C., Vegas F. (Pub.), La restauración de la tapia en la Península Ibérica. Cri-
terios, técnicas, resultados y perspectivas, Argumentum-TC, 2014. In addition, many cases regarding the restoration of
earthen architecture – both monumental and non-monumental – on a national and international level can be found in
Mileto C., Vegas F., Cristini V. (pub.), Earthen Architecture. Past, Present and Future, CRC - Taylor & Francis Group – Balke-
ma, 2015 Mileto C., Vegas F., García L., Cristini V. (ed.), Rammed Earth Conservation, CRC - Taylor & Francis Group –
Balkema, 2012.
154
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The first fundamental phase of a restoration process, whether involving earthen architecture or
not, consists in having all the knowledge related to the building with regard to its historical,
constructive, structural, functional, cultural, and symbolic aspects, and so on. Without this knowl-
edge it is impossible to undertake any restoration process. Every aspect of the building, or com-
plex of buildings, must be understood in order for its specific values to be clearly identified, in
particular the way to achieve its conservation.
The multidisciplinary methodology that allows the closest understanding possible of the
building is part of the discipline of conservation and restoration; it applies to both monumental
buildings as well as to the humblest buildings, and is based on the scientific method of data
collection and deductive reasoning. This methodology can be adapted to be viable and in pro-
portion to the case according to the size of the building and the complexity of the restoration.
The different phases of the study and documentation methodology can be grouped into:
155
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
– biodeterioration
– evaluation of the risk
– diagnosis
5. Environmental study
– situation and location
– relationship of the site with its natural and human surroundings
– environmental conditions (temperature, humidity, winds, etc.)
– geology and soil science
– geotechnical work
– hydrogeology
Any type of study, no matter how in-depth and multidisciplinary it is, or any methodology, how-
ever serious and rigorous it may appear to be, is no guarantee for an appropriate intervention in
an architectural restoration process, whether it be monumental or non-monumental. Very in-depth
studies of buildings are sometimes responsible for subsequent interventions that completely ruin
their essence or distort their character. This circumstance is supported by the fact that the disci-
pline of restoration is not an exact science. Studies that are carried out on a building to glean the
most knowledge possible are a result of the most advanced branches of science which, as each
day passes, allow us to have more in-depth knowledge of the subject and its history. But this is
where science ends. From this moment onwards, a restoration project falls under the scope of
another discipline that is not covered by the credibility and impartiality of science. Over the more
than two centuries of debate, and in the search to ensure that interventions are successful, the
discipline of conservation and restoration has drawn together a series of basic19 principles that
must be respected during interventions to guarantee that the values of architectural and cultural
heritage are respected.
These basic principles that have been identified over time through international debate
and the restoration Charters20 are:
19
The definition of these criteria is an integral part of restoration projects; it has always been at the core of theories on archi-
tectural restoration and it would be impossible to give a brief bibliography of references. However, there is literature that
deals with the subject specifically and serves as a general reference: Torsello, Paolo B., ‘Proyecto, conservación, inno-
vación’, in Loggia–- Arquitectura & Restauración, No. 8, Valencia, 1999; Earl, John, Building Conservation Philosophy,
Donhead, Dorset, 2003; Oxley, Richard, ‘Values and Principles’, in Id., Survey and Repair of Traditional Buildings. A Sus-
tainable Approach, Donhead, Somerset, 2003, pp. 28-46; V. A., ‘Il progetto di restauro’, in Carbonara G. (coord.), Trattato di
restauro architettonico, vol. 3, UTET, Turin, 1996; Mileto C., Vegas f., ‘Criterios de intervención en la arquitectura tradicional’,
in V. A., Método Rehabimed. Arquitectura Tradicional Mediterránea. II Rehabilitación. El edificio, CAATB, 2007, pp. 255-265.
20
Some of these principles are mentioned by Giovanni Carbonara in his introductory text in this very document.
156
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
–– Minimum intervention, which guarantees the conservation of a building without the need
to carry out any action that is not strictly necessary and, in particular, any intervention that
could undermine the conservation of the values of the building.
–– Reversibility arises from the need to guarantee the maximum conservation of a building;
this can be measured by the ability to remove the added elements without leaving any
trace, and is therefore inversely proportional to the removal of existing materials. The action
of adding could, therefore, always be considered as more opportune than the action of
removing, since in general what is added should be able to be removed and thus be re-
versible (although there are countless cases that contradict this), while what is removed
cannot be put back (except on rare exceptions).
–– The readability of the intervention should be established with the aim of avoiding inaccu-
rate original data or interventions that mask the authenticity of the building. It can be
evaluated by enabling a distinction to be made between the intervention and the existing
building regardless of whether traditional or modern techniques were used, or a contem-
porary reinterpretation of traditional techniques has been applied. All these options can
also go hand in hand with the distinctiveness that characterises its present expressiveness.
–– The neutrality21 of the intervention or the ability to integrate it into the project as a whole
is expressed by parameters such as the ratio of old and new, the type of materials used in
relation to existing materials, the integration of colours, textures, etc. This principle should
not be in conflict with the previous one, as it is perfectly possible for a neutral intervention
to have a level of readability that allows the principle of the conservation of authenticity
to be respected.
–– The durability of the intervention, which not only means that the sections that underwent
the intervention, or the new sections, can guarantee a certain durability (which concerns
the very ethics of professionalism), but that there should a certain homogeneity between
the durability of the old materials and the new added ones to guarantee that ageing is
uniform.
This principle was first formulated, above all, by John Warren in Warren J., Conservation of Earth Structures, Butterworth,
21
157
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
To these general criteria that are valid for any type of architecture, whether monumental
or not, it is important to add a number of criteria that derive from considerations linked more to
traditional architecture, and to earthen architecture in particular22:
–– Economic sustainability and development, as it can be easily demonstrated23 that the con-
servation and restoration of traditional architecture fosters and develops local trades and
industry. This is not only because it provides activity for artisans and small businesses in
the area, but also because the bulk of the benefit of such activity in the form of labour
greatly benefits the local area, as opposed to new building projects, much of whose cost
arises from the purchase of materials and machinery not produced locally, but in big cities.
–– The preservation of the diversity of materials and traditional techniques used in a building
is a factor to be taken into account because they are a reflection of cultural wealth and the
close relationship between architecture and location. This criterion is closely linked to the
principle regarding the conservation of authenticity of materials: if materials and techniques
are preserved, diversity is also preserved. All types of intervention that indiscriminately use
materials and techniques that reduce or eliminate the diversity of earthen architecture
should be avoided at all costs.
Intervention proposal
As a consequence of the results of the studies carried out on a building, of the complete diag-
nosis of its state of conservation and respect for its values and of the general principles of the
discipline, all interventions must meet the following criteria:
–– Minimum intervention provided the property’s stability and water-tightness are ensured
22
These criteria and others are explained in a specific and detailed way in Vegas F., Mileto C., Renovar Conservando.
Manual para la restauración de la arquitectura rural del Rincón de Ademuz, Mancomunidad del Rincón de Ademuz, Va-
lencia, 2007
23
Mileto C., Vegas F., ‘La restauración de la arquitectura tradicional como recuperación de los valores culturales y desar-
rollo económico. La experiencia en el Rincón de Ademuz (Valencia)’, in Muñoz G. (coord.), Actas del II Congreso interna-
cional de patrimonio cultural y cooperación al desarrollo, UPV, Valencia, 2006, pp. 256-265.
158
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
–– The solutions adopted must be as neutral as possible, guaranteeing the readability of the
intervention and the principle of authenticity
–– The solutions adopted should facilitate maintenance and preventive conservation practices
–– The actions carried out should foster environmental, economic, human and social sustai-
nability
–– The intervention should foster the recognition of the value of the site and its cultural bond
for the community via actions of dissemination, training and community participation
159
Earth as a construction
material24
This chapter was written by Màrius Vendrell and was subsequently revised, corrected and approved
24
This chapter offers a summary of the various components involved in earthen constructions,
as well as the role that each of them play in the erection of the building, its stability upon
completion and its eventual conservation.
Earth
Constructions of rammed earth, adobe, half-timber, cob, etc. are built using earth, a generic
meaning applied to a wide range of compositions that we colloquially refer to using this word.
The same reasoning could be applied to earth used as mortar in constructions, as insulation and
waterproofing for flat and sloping roofs, as flooring, etc.
The definition of earth [‘tierra’ in Spanish] given by the RAE (Royal Spanish Academy) is
quite general: ‘A friable material of which natural soil is mainly composed.’ Beyond this fairly
general definition, earth is nothing more than an accumulation (usually natural, although it can
be artificial) of mineral grains of many different sizes, ranging from gravel to silt and clays.
Petrologically, the components of a non-cohesive sediment are classified according to their size
in the following groups and according to their measurements, although the ranges offered vary
slightly according to the bibliographic source consulted:
Here it is interesting to note that the petrological concept of the term ‘clay’ refers exclu-
sively to a fine-diameter granulometric fraction, typically equal to or less than the above-men-
tioned 5 microns, while in mineralogy the same term is used to describe a group of minerals
from the group of phyllosilicates. It is clear that clay (petrologically speaking) contains a signif-
icant amount of clays (mineralogically speaking), while also containing quartz, calcite and some-
times other minerals in variable proportions. Therefore, when talking about a percentage of clays
forming part of earth, the content of clay minerals is usually markedly lower.
Earth used for construction is thus a mixture of grains of various sizes and compositions
that constitutes a material which, under certain conditions, can maintain a shape given to it arti-
ficially. It should be mentioned that the mineral composition of earthen architecture is not relevant
to how well it works as a building material, but that its granulometry or particle-size distribution
is much more significant: most of the components of earth are inert in the construction process,
with the exception of clays, as we will see below. Its role on the whole is much more conditioned
by its size than by its nature.
Given that earthen constructions use the material found in situ for obvious economical
reasons, the variability of compositions and the granulometry of buildings erected using this
technique are vast. It is traditionally accepted that the composition of a material usable for
earthen construction must have a granulometric distribution that falls within the following
ranges:
161
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
This sets very broad limits, although it indicates the need to contain at least clay, silt and
sand, as will be discussed later.
This mixture, which may be natural or especially prepared, may contain other compo-
nents that are added to improve its properties depending on each technique, on each specific
variant and the availability at each site. These additives may be of mineral origin, e.g. lime (up
to 15%), Bitumen of Judea or Syrian asphalt (used in ancient Mesopotamia), etc.; of animal
origin, such as horse hair, hair, bristles, excrement; or of plant origin, such as fibres, straw,
branches, sap, etc.
Earthen constructions today include other additives such as cement to improve their
mechanical properties, although its use is not recommendable due to problems inherent
to the leaching of alkaline elements and the consequent formation of salts, or alkali sili-
cates, which increase the cohesion between particles and thus the construction’s mechan-
ical properties, in particular its compressive strength. These additives are not examined in
this text as it analyses traditional constructions and, therefore, deals with additives used
historically.
In some cases, lime mortar is used for adobe-brick walls, or a horizontal layer of lime is
poured between blocks in rammed earth walls or spread under each layer in a variant called
lime-crusted rammed earth: it is by no means a plastic layer, even if it gets wet, and provides
consistency and stability to the walls, as will be seen further on.
Mortar renderings
In Spain’s geographical environment, which has a semi-arid climate with relatively frequent
and sometimes torrential rains, almost all earthen constructions have a double rendering, usu-
ally of lime mortar, earth or gypsum: a regularising layer, which is sometimes part of the con-
struction process itself, and a finish. Generally, the inner regularising layer is usually thicker,
up to 3 cm thick, with heterometric aggregate sizes between 3 and 4 mm to limit the plasticity
of the material during the drying phase, especially when lime is used, or straw to prevent
cracking due to shrinkage when earth is used. The second layer, which acts as a finish, is usu-
ally a much thinner mortar with aggregate of a smaller diameter than the former, and a thick-
ness that rarely exceeds 15 mm in lime mortars. These may also be of sifted gypsum paste for
renderings of that material and ground sifted earth with fine straw in the case of the earthen
renderings.
Bases
In most cases, earthen constructions are built on a base that sometimes consists of the entire
height of the ground floor, a base made up of a more or less regular stone structure usually held
together with earthen and/or lime mortars. The reason for this is to create a system that prevents,
or at least limits, the capillary rise of groundwater and surface runoff of the earth-built wall in a
strict sense: the water will rise to a certain height of the base by capillary action but not reach
or dampen the earth used for the upper part of the wall, thus ensuring its conservation and du-
rability.
162
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
As mentioned above, the mineral composition of the earth used to build earthen walls is not as
relevant as its particle-size distribution. Each of the components of different particle-size distri-
bution, as well as any possible additives, play a significant role in the stability, durability and
behaviour of earthen architecture, and will be explained below.
Clay: this is the material that contributes the most to the necessary cohesion for earthen
constructions. These are very small-size particles (less than 5 microns) that are mostly minerals
from the group of clays; they therefore have a good capacity to adsorb water, allowing them to
act as a link between the other particles. The water adsorbed by the clay particles forms a layer
several molecules thick that acts as a lubricant between the particles, increasing the plasticity of
the mixture: therefore, an excess of clay together with too much water would give rise to a ma-
terial that is too plastic and would not ensure the stability of the construction, and, in addition
would cause excessive shrinkage during the drying phase. In addition, it can be supposed that
once built, an accidental addition of water would increase the plasticity of the element which, in
the case of a wall constructed only with earth, could collapse by horizontal displacement under
its own weight. It is therefore necessary that earthen walls contain clay, but in a limited quantity.
Silt: this acts similarly to clay, but has a much lower capacity to adsorb water, and, as most
silts are not made up of clays (mineralogically speaking), their cohesive role is significantly lim-
ited. Its presence is necessary to form the mass of the earth as it fills the spaces that would remain
if only sands and gravels and the limited amount of clay needed were used.
Sand and gravel: these are the non-flexible components of earth; they contribute to most
of its structure and their important role lies in limiting the lines of plasticity created by the clays
when they get wet. Therefore, their presence reduces and controls the plasticity of the mixture,
as degreasers do for ceramics and aggregates for mortars. A low amount of these components
would lead to a mixture that is too plastic, both during the preparation phase (for example, in
the manufacture of adobes), or if accidentally wet once it is put into place.
Lime: the addition of lime to earth to make rammed earth walls is not strictly necessary,
although it is used in some cases. Adding quicklime to earth is of little use if it contains organic
matter, but for sandy earths it reduces plasticity, absorbs part of the added water and helps the
flocculation and agglomeration of the mixture. Percentages of 1 to 3% by weight are used to
reduce plasticity, shrinkage during the drying process, and the increase in the volume of clays
when adsorbing water; percentages of 3 to 10% are considered sufficient to obtain good chem-
ical stabilisation of the material.
Fibres and similar additions: these are non-flexible inclusions that act like sand and grav-
el, limiting the plasticity of the mixture and reducing shrinkage as they lose water. In addition,
they can improve the tensile capacity of the material, although structurally it is not necessary to
have tensile force in a structure designed when using simple compression. Straw is often added
to clay renderings (a material containing a lot of clay), and in the manufacture of adobes, which
would otherwise be too plastic.
Lime mortar beds: when they dry – even when not carbonated – these become inflexible
layers interspersed between the layers of rammed earth or between adobe-brick courses when
they are held together with lime mortar. Therefore, it must be supposed that if a wall gets wet
and becomes excessively flexible, this plasticity would be limited to the immediate upper and
lower levels of mortar, making it difficult for a layer of several centimetres of rammed earth – and much
less so, a smaller course of adobes – to cause significant horizontal push caused by plastic sliding.
163
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Thus, alternating layers of rammed earth and lime mortar, as well as perhaps lime used for mortar
beds for adobe structures, decisively helps in the stability of the wall in case it gets wet. A similar
reasoning can be applied for gypsum layers or joints, which are also in common use in Spain.
Water: a good rammed earth wall should typically contain between 5 and 10% of its weight
in water. Other earthen-building techniques generally require more moisture while they are be-
ing constructed. In general, this is usually the amount of water spontaneously absorbed by the
materials, mainly adsorbed by the clays that comprise it. Its presence contributes to the cohesion
between the particles that make up the earth due to the polarity of their molecules, in the same
way that happens to sand when making sculptures at the beach or the way that the huge dunes
in the Sahara desert are formed. The belief that an earthen wall must be completely dry is a
common error made in the conservation of this type of architecture.
Mortar renderings: these mortars play a dual role by protecting earthen walls against ex-
ternal agents, especially water runoff and those that directly impact the walls, while at the same
time contributing to the confinement of the materials that make up the wall, especially in the
case of lime mortar and gypsum. Therefore, they have a decisive impact on their mechanical
behaviour under compression. Mortar renderings also have other uses such as limiting and con-
taining possible lines of plasticity should the earthen wall become wet because it is too rich in
clays; they also serve as indicators of compression movement of the wall, showing up as cracks
in the rendering before the collapse of the wall, among others.
164
Techniques and examples
in Spain25
This chapter was written by Juana Font, Fernando Vegas and Camilla Mileto and was subsequent-
25
ly revised, corrected and approved by the other members of the Coremans Commission for Earth-
en Architecture
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
It can be affirmed that the Iberian Peninsula is a territory that is incredibly rich in techniques,
variants and examples of traditional earthen architecture. Few geographic regions in the world,
perhaps with the exception of the Pannonian Plain through which the Danube flows, possess so
many and such a variety of examples of earthen constructions that are reflected in vernacular
architecture. Spain is also notable for the large number of ancient monuments, churches and
fortresses built mainly with rammed earth; there are thousands of them scattered throughout the
country to the south of the Pyrenees and the Cantabrian coastline.
The following is a list featuring the wide range of the main techniques used to build earth-
en constructions. Some of them are still very common throughout the country, such as rammed
earth, adobe and variants of half-timber (Fig. 1), while others are much rarer or are techniques
that were mainly used in the past and are now found only, or almost exclusively, in the archae-
ological sphere. So, the existence of a name for a technique implies it exists or has existed and,
even if it is not currently used, means it was used in the past; it is therefore appropriate to include
these rarer variants so that they can be recognised from an architectural and archaeological angle.
Figure 1. Wall that combines a structure of stone ashlars and brick bonded with earth mortar, with rammed earth, brick and
adobe courses ascoping. At the back, on the left, is a fragment of an adobe wall, and on the right, a half-timbered wall filled
in with adobe. La Valdavia, Palencia (J. Font).
In order to catalogue them, these techniques are classified according to the way in which
the earth is used in construction, according to this layout:
Construction by removal
Construction by addition
Earth used as aggregate
Stacked earth – Cob, or stacked earth with subsequent shaping
– Piled earth with no subsequent shaping
166
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Each of these techniques are set out, explained and illustrated with built examples, show-
ing approximately where they are located within the country:
Construction by removal
This consists of digging and removing the earth to create underground or semi-underground
spaces. It is one of the oldest methods for making use of the advantages that the terrain
itself provides: a constant temperature is maintained thanks to the insulating nature of the
earth, and the level of humidity remains almost unchanged within the cavity obtained. It is
a kind of construction that is found all over the world: it is common in Europe, frequent
along the Mediterranean, used by a huge variety of cultures throughout history and much
appreciated as a dwelling precisely because of the well-being offered by its unchanging
nature. This ability to maintain an internal environment with imperceptible changes in tem-
perature and humidity has also led to it being used for auxiliary spaces, for example: wine
cellars, ice pits, and spaces for growing mushrooms, curing certain cheeses, etc. These un-
derground spaces can be found throughout Spain, in particular in Andalusia, Castile-León,
Navarre, Aragon and a broad strip of the east of the peninsula, including some notable sites
in Castile-La Mancha (Fig. 2).
167
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Construction by addition
Unlike the previous case, this is a vertical construction method above the ground created by
progressively layering earth using a wide range of variants and methods that are outlined and
grouped as follows:
Stacked earth
A deliberate accumulation of earth to form a wall which can later be either shaped by hand or
with a tool, or not be subjected to any further work.
A wall that is made by piling earth with subsequent reworking of the sides. The work begins
by building up the earth on a previously made base of boulders, masonry, ashlars or bricks.
This base not only prevents dampness caused by capillary action but also prevents damage
from splashes, a very common cause of erosion to the base of walls that usually leads to dire
consequences. The amount of earth that is put in place each day, in small portions, either
by hand or with a suitable tool to create the wall, is determined by the nature of each type
of earth that is, to a greater or lesser degree, able to hold the mud mass together once the
168
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
169
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Traditionally, this was done using pieces of earth with very varied shapes using different proce-
dures, which are described below.
170
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 9. Turf wall in Lavandeira, Ourense (Vegas & Figure 10. Blocks of turf above a lintel in Molezuela de la Carballeda,
Mileto). Zamora (J. Font).
171
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 11. Wall made of fresh clay lumps or balls at the Grand Ateliers de l’Isle d’Abeau, Isère, France (J. Font).
Hand-shaped blocks
172
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Moulded blocks
These are made with a mould that can be larger or smaller in size and a manufacturing process
that varies depending on the type of earth used, the amount of water used in the kneading, the
advantage of using stabilisers or binders, fibres or other elements.
Adobe. Adobes or sundried bricks are moulded pieces, usually straight rectangular par-
allelepipeds (Fig. 13), although they can also be cubic or trapezoidal in shape and used for
making ovens, vaults or domes, as well as flattened to make eaves, ogees or springing blocks
(Fig. 14). Firstly, it must be determined whether the clay mass needs the addition of fibres
(cereal stalks, horse hair, etc.) to avoid cracking during the drying process. Next, the earth
or the mixture is kneaded with the required amount of water, the moulds are filled, the piec-
es are levelled and then the blocks are unmolded and left to dry in the open air, preferably
in the shade (Figs. 15, 16, 17, 18). They are usually laid with mortars made using earth, lime
or gypsum or by mixing two of these elements (Figs. 19, 20). Although some extraordinarily
cohesive adobes do not require protective coatings, they are usually rendered with earth and
lime mud and straw, gypsum, or with a simple lime and gypsum mortar (Figs. 21, 22, 23).
The same applies when adobe are arranged as an infill for timber framing. In this case, they
are usually placed in a herringbone pattern as this makes it easier to adapt the bricks to the
irregularities of the wood. Treatises recommend that they be rendered with gypsum to avoid
173
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 14. Patterned adobe to create a cornice in Husillos, Figure 15. Empty moulds, Amayuelas de Abajo, Palencia
Palencia (J. Font). (J. Font).
174
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 18: Adobe with straw, Villanueva de la Condesa, Valladolid (J. Font).
Figure 19: Adobe and earthen mortar in Masegoso de Tajuña, Guadalajara (Vegas & Mileto).
175
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 20: Adobe wall bounded with lime mortar, Abarca de Campos, Palencia (J. Font).
Figure 21: Rendering imitating ashlars at the Monastery of Ñora, Murcia, on a rammed earth wall with brick buttresses and
courses (L. García).
176
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 23: Clay rendering with straw in Amayuelas, Palencia (Vegas & Mileto).
177
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
photo degradation caused by the bright sunlight that exists in many parts of Spain (Figs. 24, 25).
In Spanish the adobe is called adobe, gasson, adoba, arrobero, de cabeza, menguao, chiquito,
adogue, zabaleta.
Figure 24. Adobes in a herringbone pattern, Segovia Figure 25. Adobes arranged freely in San Pedro de
(L. García). Moarves, Palencia (J. Font).
Poured earth. Walls that are moulded but not compacted or rammed. These walls are very
cheap to make as they are not rammed, and the services of a master rammer are thus not re-
quired. Once the mould, or large frame – similar to that for formwork – has been assembled, the
earth, mixed with straw and water, and whose consistency should be plastic enough to properly
fill the corners, is poured in. It was necessary to wait a few days before removing the wooden
boards that covered the wall, but the cost and way of making it could be done by anyone, even
someone inexperienced, and it was used to make enclosures, shelters and very simple structures
(Fig. 26). This kind of poured-earth wall is called tapialejo, tapia vertida or falsa tapia in Castil-
ian. Today it is rare to find them, but they can occasionally be seen as enclosure walls in Cas-
tile-Leon.
This method of using a frame to shape the malleable mass is similar to that used to make
moulded walls of stone or rubble held together with gypsum on both sides or even with a single
side of formwork; this is very common in Rioja (Tirón or Najerilla Valleys), in Burgos (region of
La Bureba), in Soria (the area of Medinaceli), in Guadalajara (in Pastrana, Alocén, Sigüenza, etc.
in its central section), in Cuenca (the northern part of the province), in Valencia (in the Rincón
de Ademuz region), in Barcelona (in the area of Penedés) and many parts of the province of
Teruel where it is called tapialete (Fig. 27).
178
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 27. Gypsumcrete wall on a house in Rincón de Ademuz, Valencia, between gypsum-poured pillars.
(L. García).
179
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 28. Rammed earth wall at the Castle of Jorquera, Figure 29. Construction process of a rammed earth wall at
Albacete (Vegas & Mileto). the Castle of Buitrago de Lozoya (C. Jiménez Cuenca).
Rammed earth. Moulded walls where the earth, held in shape by formwork, is rammed
with a tamper. It is a very useful technique that leads to structures that are almost indestructible.
The tapia (rammed earth) is the technique, while the tapial (formwork) is the mould used to
hold the earth, although sometimes the latter is used incorrectly to describe this procedure. Not
all earths are suitable for this technique as they must have the right amounts of clay, silt, sand
and gravel. Earth, gypsum, charcoal, crushed shells and other substances can be used and
rammed inside the formwork. There are different types of rammed earth, beginning with so
– called, ‘plain’ rammed earth, where just earth is used. Once it has been rammed, the earth
becomes as hard as stone (Fig. 28, 29). It is used mainly for normal dwellings, but also for palaces,
castles, monasteries and convents, dovecotes, stables, beehives, tiled roofs, etc.
Mixed rammed earth walls are made with various substances. This is the case with so – called
‘royal’ rammed earth, made with earth mixed with lime, or ‘military’ rammed earth, a kind of
limecrete made of earth, lime, pebbles and stones that becomes almost unassailable (Figs. 30, 31,
32). Lime-crusted rammed earth is given a protective layer, as the wall is made by placing wedges
of lime on the inner face of the formwork as the layers, of earth are created. As it is being rammed,
the lime penetrates the earth while at the same time forming a crust on the outermost side of the
rammed block, hence the name lime-crusted (Figs. 33, 34, 35). It can be found all over Spain.
There are some exceptional cases of gypsum-crusted rammed earth found in areas where there
are large deposits of gypsum stone, as in Teruel and Zaragoza. A distinction should be made be-
tween when the crust is made deliberately, and when the crust has formed due to the leaching of
very fine materials to the outer part of the wall that is next to the mould. Rammed earth walls may
also have a lime rendering applied after the formwork has been removed.
180
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
181
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 32. Fortified wall of the Alcazaba de Reina, Badajoz (Vegas & Mileto).
182
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 34. Broken crust in a putlog hole, Calahorra de Campos, Palencia (J. Font).
183
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 35. Lime-crusted rammed earth wall at the Enclosure of Don Gonzalo, Granada (Vegas & Mileto).
Figure 36. Brick-faced or Valencian rammed earth wall at the Palace of Alarcón in Játiva, Valencia (L. García).
184
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 37. Rammed earth between brick and adobe buttresses and brick courses in Fuensalida, Toledo (Vegas & Mileto).
Figure 38. Rammed-earth between ashlar buttresses in Arcediano, Salamanca (Vegas & Mileto).
185
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
186
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 41. Example of how the horizontal brick courses were placed between the units of rammed earth during the restoration
of the Castle of Buitrago de Lozoya (C. Jiménez Cuenca).
187
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 44. Rammed-earth wall with small gypsum-coffered embedded buttresses in Villarquemado, Teruel (Vegas & Mileto).
coffered buttresses, also of gypsum and a mixture of aggregate and gravel, embedded either
at the corners of the wall or between the earthen units (Fig. 44). The vertical supports made
of gypsum to build the corners erected before the wall should not be confused with the gyp-
sum small buttresses, coffered while building each lift of the rammed earth wall. Exceptional-
ly, there may be found small coffered flared buttresses made of brick to avoid the lower corners
of the wall, which are difficult to ram. Similar to the above are rammed earth walls with gyp-
sum joints that are applied like rendering on the sides and upper part of each rammed earth
unit, resulting in walls that appear like large blocks of rammed earth bonded with gypsum.
Also similar to this type are rammed earth walls with a horizontal gypsum paste spread be-
tween each lift, without plastering the vertical joints. This type of wall is common in Lower
Aragon. In addition, in these areas it is common to find walls whose units end in inclined
planes, like joints of the rammed earth wall; these are generally arranged mirroring those im-
mediately above or below.
The custom of alternating horizontal lime joints between rammed earth lifts can be found
scattered throughout very diverse regions, from Catalonia to Extremadura. On the other hand,
this tradition of inserting horizontal lime joints to level the support for the upper lift of a rammed
earth wall and cover the putlog holes can be seen in both Castile-La Mancha and Castile-León,
but with courses of adobe, stone or brick.
Finally, we must highlight the traditional role that wood has had as a supplementary con-
nection in historical defensive walls from Islamic times onwards, especially in corners, where
logs were inserted and alternated with the layers of earth to improve their connection. In the area
of Monforte de Lemos, it is possible to find rammed earth walls with wooden boards inserted
either between layers or lifts or in the corners to strengthen the bonds.
188
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 45. Earth used as mortar to hold together the frag- Figure 46. Earthen mortar bonding stone masonry in
ments of stone of a little shelter in the vineyards of Dueñas, Naharros, Guadalajara (J. Font).
Palencia (J. Font).
It is an indispensable element for making thin indoor or outdoor walls, formed by panels
made with branches or with battens (Figs. 47, 48). When flexible elements, such as branches or
wicker are used for wattle and daub, in Spain it is called encestado, seto, sietu, xardu, costanilla,
zarzo, ezia, septum and costana, while in Latin America, where other versions of Spanish are
wisely preserved, it is still called piérgola, tejamaní or tumbadillo. If rigid materials such as bat-
tensor laths are used for lath-and-daub, in Spain it is called emparrillado, pared de dujo, muro
de listón, terra-palla, tabique de lata and taruco.
Many European civic buildings – sometimes decorated with garlands, folk scenes or heral-
dic motifs – and even some religious buildings were erected using these kinds of woven tech-
niques (Fig. 49). The panels can be single or double, in which case the empty space between them
is filled with the most varied substances, including building remains such as leftover gravel from
189
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 47. Wattle and daub in Aniezo, Cantabria (Vegas & Mileto).
Figure 48. Lath and daub in the Liébana Val- Figure 49. Lath and daub in the Parish of Cornellana, Asturias
ley, Cantabria (J. Font). (J. Font).
190
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 50. Double wattle and daub panels with inner infill Figure 51. Double battened panels filled with corn cobs in
in El Bierzo, León (J. Font). the Narcea Valley, Asturias (J. Font).
191
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
of seismic tremors and earthquakes in these areas, corroborated by the Spaniards, led the Span-
ish Crown to dictate building codes that were obligatory; thus, meshed reeds or battens had to
be used in the highest parts of the buildings, as they were used in Spain. These wattle and daub
or quincha panels, as they are called in the region of the Andes, known as bahareque in the
Caribbean, fajina in Uruguay, and estaqueo in Paraguay, were used to erect magnificent buildings
such as the Torre Tagle Palace in Lima and the impressive cathedral of Trujillo. This was because
master builders such as Maroto or Escobar, Spaniards or already Creoles, had used them for a
long time to build the so-called casas tembladeras long before the Jesuit Juan Rehr, also in the
service of Spain, used them for his projects in Peru.
192
Description and nature
of earth as a construction
material26
This chapter was written by Màrius Vendrell and was subsequently revised, corrected and approved
26
Oganoleptic examination
This is a step that, although not obvious, is of no lesser importance. It is an initial and exhaustive
examination that aims to find out all the possible variants of the constructive system of the earth-
en wall, the phases of construction, repairs and modifications of the building, its appearance,
particle size, structure (lime mortar beds or not, thickness of the layers, etc.) of the building, the
state of conservation of its different parts, etc. This examination is part of the documentation
needed in order to draft the corresponding project. At this stage of the research, it is especially
important to always keep in mind a vision of the whole site.
It should be emphasised that this examination does not end with the results of the prior
inspection and analysis, but must continue during and after the intervention; during the entire
process, aspects will appear that are not visible on a first approach (often without auxiliary
means of access), and its revised analysis will allow the possible redefinition of the intervention
protocols.
Existing materials
The composition of all the different materials must be identified; this includes both the original
ones and those added afterwards. The latter may have been intentionally incorporated (pro-
grammed actions) or in a natural way, or else by chance (pollution, microorganisms, plants, etc.).
Of particular importance is the identification of the following aspects of the existing building
materials, both original and those added for any reason throughout history:
–– Rammed earth: mineralogical composition of the different particle sizes: a) fine (diameter
less than 100 microns), with qualitative and quantitative determination of clays; b) sand
(sizes between 100-200 microns to 2 mm); and c) gravel. In these cases, composition is less
194
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
important than the fine aggregates because the role they play at the site is more related to
size than to composition.
–– Adobe: mineralogical composition of particle size, similar to that outlined for rammed ear-
th; possible presence and identification of additions to the mass (usually straw, horse hair,
bristles, etc.); possible presence and identification of organic additions (excrement, plant
sap, etc.).
–– Cob, piled earth, clay lumps, etc.: mineralogical composition of particle size and possible
presence of additions, similar to those described above; in cases where it is difficult to
identify these common techniques used in the past because of the degree of erosion at an
archaeological site, the level of moisture present in the wall when it was made and micro-
morphological analysis to find out whether some kind of tamping was used in the process
or not.
–– Mortar renderings: mineralogical and textural analysis (size and ratio of aggregates). It is
particularly important to establish whether gypsum, lime or mixed mortars were used and,
in all cases, to establish the presence of additions of any kind, whether organic (proteins,
polysaccharides or fats) or inorganic (alum, charcoal, active aggregates, etc.).
–– Added materials: chemical and/or mineralogical in character, depending on the cases and
knowledge needs, with special attention paid to possible interactions with existing/original
or non-original materials.
–– Salts (if applicable): identification of the phases present by analytical techniques and esta-
blishment of their possible origin (interaction between existing materials, external effects
– organic materials, leaks in the drainage system, etc.).
Furthermore, the impact that added materials (intentional or by chance) have had on
the original (negative, beneficial, harmless) should be assessed, as per the first point on the
analysis to be conducted. This fact is important when it comes to eliminating them, as inde-
pendently of other stylistic criteria, it is essential to understand the way the materials interact
with each other.
195
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Intervention proposal
From the analysis of the building materials, the identification of the damage they show and the
processes that caused it, as well as its activity (present or past), reasoned intervention proposals
should be deduced for the various areas of the building and for the different materials; in addition,
the materials and products suitable for the intervention and its application protocols should be
defined and based on the results previously obtained, taking into account the parameters of
compatibility, efficacy and non-alteration of the aesthetic characteristics of the materials.
Sometimes, treatment evaluation tests may be carried out in order to check the effectiveness
of the materials and products proposed for the intervention. However, given the time required
for these types of tests, it is necessary to programme them with plenty of time. Likewise, if con-
ditions require it, periodic environmental measurements can be taken of both the materials and
the immediate environment, which should last for at least one year. These data should be taken
prior to starting the work in order to be able to apply its conclusions to the action itself.
196
Degradation mechanisms:
phenomena and causes27
This chapter was written by Camilla Mileto, Fernando Vegas, Màrius Vendrell and Lidia García So-
27
riano and was subsequently revised, corrected and approved by the other members of the Core-
mans Commission for Earthen Architecture
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The traditional proverb in a dialect of English “Giv un a gude ‘at an’ a gude pair o’ byutes an
ee’ll lyuke arter isself” (Give him a good hat and a good pair of boots and he will take care of
himself) describes the main requirements that walls of earthen architecture need to avoid the
most common mechanisms of degradation. Earthen architecture is very resistant as long as it is
protected at its base and at its top (the coping), both potential entry points for water and spe-
cific areas of degradation. In addition, an earthen wall that is exposed to rain should also be
protected with a mortar rendering of earth, lime or gypsum if it does not have a natural protec-
tive crust as rammed earth walls in good condition have. Therefore, the main causes of degra-
dation for an earthen wall are chiefly direct and constant exposure to atmospheric agents
(moisture, water, winds) on various sections of their construction, as well as possible structural
deficiencies and anthropic agents, which are also causes of their progressive deterioration; these
are mainly due to a lack of maintenance and the progressive abandonment they have undergone.
However, within the scope of degradation, it is important to understand that the phenom-
ena that are perceived constitute only a visible sign of the more complex mechanisms whose
causes generate these transformation processes of the materials. This transformation of the ma-
terials can lead to two types of phenomena: alterations that do not result in a worsening of the
physical, chemical and mechanical properties of the materials, and degradations that, on the
contrary, lead to a worsening of the physical, chemical and mechanical properties of the materi-
als. Every phenomenon that can be observed in the building must be identified as an alteration
that does not require intervention, or as a degradation that does require an intervention, in par-
ticular with regard to their causes, so that a continued increase in the effects of the mechanism
Figure 1. Rammed earth wall with brick buttresses and courses affected by dampness: Monastery-Palace of Juan II in Madri-
gal de las Altas Torres, Ávila (L. García).
198
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
can be avoided. Each of the effects that are observed represents a phase of an evolving mecha-
nism that previously manifested itself via a certain phenomenon, today via another, and in the
future via yet another, in a chain reaction that is continuously evolving. In the specific case of
the presence of water in earthen walls, the mechanism manifests itself first via a change in surface
colour, temperature and moisture (damp spot), which in turn gives way to a progressive disinte-
gration and then erosion of the material, resulting in an increasing loss of material that may lead
to the structural destabilisation of the wall (Fig. 1). The mechanism is continuous, the cause
is the presence of water but the phenomena that manifest themselves can occur in different
sequences.
With regard to expansion, the wet section dilates with respect to the dry one and gives rise
to the formation of fissures between them, the geometry of which can cause fragments of wall
to detach – often in the form of scales parallel to the outer surface – causing the wall to lose part
of its usefulness. With regard to the increase in plasticity, an excess of this can give rise to the
sliding of a fragment due to the pressure of the weight of the wall itself: if the force exerted by
this sliding cannot be contained by the rendering or is obstructed by the lime mortar layers or
the presence of non-plastic elements (sand, gravel, straw, etc.), the partial or total collapse of the
wall, or the loss of a part of it, and the subsequent exposure of the fractured surface to the ele-
ments of the weather can occur.
199
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The partial or complete loss of the mortar rendering naturally exposes the earth of the
wall and, in particular, the techniques that offer the least cohesion to the earth are exposed to
loss due to the direct impact of rain which, in addition to its purely mechanical effect, would
lead to the processes described in the previous paragraph, not to mention possible gelifraction
depending on the climate. In fact, the cohesion between the grains that make up the earth
determines improved durability, so when an earthen wall is exposed to weather, the differential
erosion of the layers that form it (levels, lifts, rows, courses, etc., depending on the technique
used) reveals the way the pieces have been layered or piled because the lower part of each of
them tends to be more compact than the upper one, thus resisting mechanical erosion better
(Fig. 2).
One of the first effects of this upward capillary action of dampness is a change in the colour
and temperature-moisture level of the material. Another possible effect related to the rise of wa-
ter by capillary action is the presence of efflorescence due to the migration of salts that crystallise
on the surface. This phenomenon is usually linked to restoration interventions where cement has
been used to a greater or lesser extent. The presence of moisture in the wall in turn favours the
growth of lichens, microscopic plants, fungi, vegetation, etc.
Degradation due to the presence of moisture by capillary action in the wall can be in-
creased by the characteristics of the material itself or derived from the construction of the earth-
en wall itself. Factors such as the type of earth, technique, presence of binders and/or additives
(fibres, etc.), as well as the final degree of compaction (inversely proportional to porosity) have
a significant influence on the permeability of the wall in relation to the water in the ground. In
other words, if the material is less compact, it will be more porous and therefore it will also be
easier for water to penetrate the base. On the other hand, for buildings where the earthen wall
200
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 4. Rammed earth wall on masonry base with loss of material at the top of the wall..
has been built on a masonry base, this phenomenon of degradation is generally much lower or
non-existent (Fig. 4).
The coping of a wall is very sensitive to atmospheric agents and especially to the presence of
water. The fundamental difference lies in whether they are the walls of a building that still
has a roof, or walls that do not but are protected (by a layer that contains more lime, merlons,
bands, fence, coping or capping), or free-standing walls that are ruined or semi-ruined and
are no longer covered. In the first case, degradation is usually related to the fact that the wall
supports the roof and takes the form of cracks, out-of-plumbs, etc., or possibly the washing
away of the wall in the places where the roof’s protection has failed or leaks have been lo-
cated in the drainage of the gutters or drainpipes. In the second case, where the wall is com-
pletely unprotected or exposed to the weather, degradation is largely related to atmospheric
agents.
When the top of the wall is totally exposed to atmospheric agents, rain and wind usu-
ally cause degradation mechanisms that lead to progressive erosion; this is followed by a loss
of material that can affect the entire wall. As in the previous case, the presence of water at
the top of the wall can lead to the appearance of biological organisms (Fig. 5). In some cases
these can be micro-plants, but it is also frequent to find larger vegetation, in the form of small
plants that begin to grow on the top of the wall. This kind of degradation is very aggressive
for the structures of earthen walls as the roots of these organisms work their way into the wall
and gradually begin to disintegrate it, breaking the earth apart and causing a serious loss of
material.
When the material at the top of the wall begins to crumble and the plants gradually create
cracks and gaps, mainly due to their roots, it is much easier for water to penetrate the wall. Rain-
water thus no longer affects just the top but seeps into the cracks to the very core of the wall,
201
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Degradation mechanisms that are detected in the mass of the wall also depend fundamentally
on the action of water and atmospheric agents (Figs. 6 and 7) and, secondly, on the presence of
plants. This degradation in the body of the wall is often the result of mechanisms that originated
in the base of the wall or on the top and eventually affect the central part of the structure.
Figure 6. Erosion of an adobe wall in Valtierra, Navarra (Vegas & Figure 7. Degradation of a rammed earth wall with
Mileto). horizontal adobe courses where the erosion of the
material can be seen in Castromonte, Valladolid
(V. Cristini).
202
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 8. Bulging of a lime-crusted rammed earth wall Figure 9. Degradation of a lime-crusted rammed earth
caused by the washing-out of its nucleus at the Castle of wall with vertical buttresses and horizontal brick courses
La Vilavella, Castellón (Vegas & Mileto). in Arévalo, Ávila (L. García).
Figure 10. Degradation of an adobe wall where the earth has eroded, leaving only the lime mortar as this is more resistant,
in Fuentes de Jiloca, Zaragoza (Vegas & Mileto).
The way the degradation manifests is related to the characteristics of the building technique
used in each case. Each constructive variant, suffering the action of the same degradation agent,
manifests different phenomena depending on the characteristics of its construction. There are
also some variants that by their own material and constructive nature are more resistant to certain
degradation agents (Figs. 8, 9 and 10).
203
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 11. Gap between the vertical gypsum buttresses on Figure 12. Structural crack in a rammed earth wall with
the corner and the rammed earth wall in Tarazona de la Man- gypsum undulated supplements in Valtierra, Navarra
cha, Albacete (L. García). (Vegas & Mileto).
Figure 13. Cracks in a wall built using different techniques (adobe and rammed earth) in Navalrincón, Ciudad Real (L. García).
Earth as a raw material offers less mechanical resistance than other materials generally
used in construction. It is also, as it has already been mentioned, particularly sensitive to
degradation due in particular to problems related to damp. The most common types of struc-
tural degradation these walls suffer are cracks and fissures, loss of material, out-of-plumbs
and bulging (Figs. 11 and 12). In most cases, structural degradation is the result of causes that
have nothing to do with the earthen wall but rather are linked to the structural design of the
204
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Just as the structural design of the building itself can be considered to be the consequence of
a human cause (Fig. 15), other factors of a human origin can cause the deterioration of the
earthen structures. Among the most frequent are undoubtedly transformations, plunder, im-
proper use, etc. that the building has undergone. Restorations can therefore also be the cause
of successive degradation mechanisms. The misuse of incompatible materials such as cement
or other materials with poor breathability can ruin the construction in the medium to long
term. But so can the creation of niches or cupboards that are dug out of earthen walls; this
leads to the loss of a section of the wall and can result in the partial or total collapse of the
structure. Likewise, the enlargement of windows and existing openings, in the façade as well
as in interior walls, can give rise to new load conditions and can occasionally create areas of
extreme weakness if the compression strength of the earthen wall is reached. In addition, the
construction of chimneys as a result of modifications in a building can cause the heat gener-
ated by the smoke to dry the immediate area – perhaps reduced in size by the creation of said
chimney; this area then loses its internal cohesion due to the loss of water, leading to cracks
from shrinkage and a weakening of the wall. It is therefore important to preserve the design
of the original construction, avoiding apparently harmless modifications that can result in un-
necessary risk. The criterion of respect for original structural designs is particularly important
in these cases.
205
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 15. Superficial degradation of an adobe wall in Hoyales de Roa, Burgos, caused by water runoff due to
a damaged eave (Vegas & Mileto).
Figure 16. Degradation of a wattle and daub wall in Aniezo, Cantabria (Vegas & Mileto).
206
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
On the other hand, the abandonment of a building and a consequent lack of maintenance
are the root causes of other reasons, such as the degradation of the roof allowing water to enter
the building; erosion and the gradual detachment of the earth (Fig. 16), gypsum or lime mortar
rendering and the crusts of rammed earth walls; and the lack of replacement or maintenance of
the coping of the tops of walls. All this contributes gradually to the deterioration of earthen
walls that, thanks to the nature of their construction and with good maintenance, could last over
time as evidenced by the huge number of buildings erected in this way that still exist on the
Iberian Peninsula.
207
Conservation and consolidation28
This chapter was written by Beatriz Martín Peinado and was subsequently revised, corrected and
28
approved by the other members of the Coremans Commission for Earthen Architecture
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Most of the procedures described below only act on the surface of the materials. Besides
being its visible side, with the aesthetic implications that this entails, it is what protects against
aggressions from outside. It is therefore essential to highlight the importance of renderings as a
protective layer. For the proper conservation of the earthen structure, it is vital to maintain its prop-
erties and such surfaces must be restored to the greatest extent possible when they disappear.
The use of traditional techniques and materials, similar to those of the site on which the
intervention will take place, is recommended a priori. However, sometimes the building technique
of the earthen architecture prevents the reproduction of the original technique and it is necessary
to resort to new methods and materials. These must undergo prior tests and analysis in accor-
dance with current regulations, and always respect the basic principles of compatibility, differen-
tiation and reversibility (Fig. 2).
The methods and products used must meet a series of requirements before they can be
applied. They must be selective (adapted to each case), compatible with the existing materials,
discernible from the original ones, testable, reversible (or at least removable), have low toxicity
and, finally, must be applied by qualified professionals and take into account their economic
cost.
209
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The on-site execution and application of the systems and materials must be carried out by
specialised professionals; it is vital to have conservators for the specific work of cleaning, con-
solidation, protection and any action carried out on renderings.
Cleaning processes
When carrying out cleaning work on any building or site, it must be understood that it is not
only an aesthetic treatment but, that by removing the layers of dirt, many of the causes that have
led to the degradation are released to the surface and so the cleaning process should be seen as
one that has an important conservative component. It is an irreversible operation, so it must al-
ways be carried out with great care and assurance, checking the surfaces where there are het-
erogeneous materials to avoid erosion in less resistant areas. It is essential to identify the type of
material as well as the dirt by carrying out preliminary analyses and tests to determine the ap-
propriate products and methodologies needed.
210
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Cleaning methods
Mechanical methods. These are the most commonly used for the surface of earthen struc-
tures. Manual tools (brushes, nylon-bristle brushes, spatulas, etc.), or electric tools (micro-lathes,
vibro-incisors, drills, etc.) can be used, as long as the stability of the material to be cleaned can
withstand them. Cleaning the surface with controlled compressed air is quite effective in remov-
ing loose material, in particular dust, which hinders the penetration of subsequent consolidation
or protection treatments (Figs. 3 to 8).
Figure 3. Dry mechanical cleaning using brushes to remove dust and non-encrusted superficial deposits. Archaeological
remains at the Imperial Theatre in Loja (Granada).
Figure 4. Dry mechanical cleaning using a nylon-bristle brush. Castle of San Miguel de Arca de Buey. El Rompido, Cartaya
(Huelva).
211
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 5. Dry mechanical cleaning using a soft brush. Parish church in El Borge (Malaga).
212
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 7. Mechanical cleaning using a soft brush and vacuum cleaner. Archaeological remains at the Imperial Theatre in Loja
(Granada).
Figure 8. Mechanical cleaning using a brush and vacuum cleaner. Archaeological remains at the Imperial Theatre in Loja
(Granada).
213
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 9. Wet cleaning process using a brush and wiping of the surface to avoid excess moisture. Archaeological remains
at the Imperial Theatre in Loja (Granada).
Chemical methods. These must be used occasionally and in an extremely controlled way.
This method is based on applying products that react with the compounds that form the dirt,
facilitating their elimination. They are usually applied with absorbent dressings that facilitate
contact with the dirt, preventing evaporation and maintaining the action of the chemical on the
surface for the time required for it to act. After the treatment, it is important to neutralise and
eliminate it, rinsing all remaining chemicals with water.
Water-based methods. Cleaning with water must be restricted, as too much of it can cause
damage due to its presence inside the pores of the material (Fig. 9).
214
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The natural diversity of the materials that are used in earthen architecture reveals a wide range
of possible agents that can cause biodeterioration: bacteria, algae, lichens, mosses, plants, insect
nests, excrement, xylophagous insects, fungi, etc.
The elimination of the various agents that cause biodeterioration is not just a visual matter. Most
of them release chemicals via their roots or excreta that are harmful to the surfaces on which
they are deposited. The diversity of biological agents requires them to be analysed prior to the
selection of the appropriate biocidal treatment, as not all products are effective on any biological
agent. In addition, the support must be taken into account in every case, both with regard to its
composition and state of conservation. It is important to carefully follow the manufacturer’s in-
structions, preferably using products that are low in toxins for the benefit of both people and the
environment.
Mechanical methods. These involve the manual removal of organic residue. Tools (spatulas,
nylon-bristle brushes, saws, etc.) are commonly used. The person carrying out this process must
follow the proper protective measures as the dust that is released is toxic.
215
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 11. Soaking on a biocidal treatment with a brush. Tower on the south-east section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in
Velez Málaga.
Figure 12. Process of eliminating biological agents after having applied a biocidal treatment. Tower on the south-east section
of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
216
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 13. Process of eliminating biological agents with a brush after having applied a biocidal treatment. Tower on the
south-east section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
Eliminating soluble salts is a complex and difficult matter for two reasons. On the one hand,
it is practically impossible to completely isolate water and damp in earthen architecture; on
the other, in most cases, saline compounds are part of the constituent materials that are used in the
structure.
Prior to any desalination treatment, an analysis of the type of salt compound and the char-
acteristics of the material in which it is found must be conducted to determine the most suitable
process. Solutions to combat the appearance of salts include checks to avoid its formation. How-
ever, some methods may be adopted which at least serve to minimise or reduce the amount of
soluble salts that exist within the pores of the material, thereby preventing their internal crystal-
lisation and its negative consequences.
Elimination of surface salt efflorescence. The procedure in this case is simple. Superficial
brushing with a nylon-bristle brush is enough to prevent the formation of crusts on the sur-
face.
217
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Surface consolidation
Consolidation aims to improve the cohesion and adhesion characteristics between the different
particles and components of the material, thus improving its mechanical characteristics.
The results of applying a consolidating product depend on various parameters such as the type
of minerals and binders present, the distribution of pore size and the extent of damage of the
material to be treated. Application to a damp material one with high concentrations of salt may
have little effect. Environmental conditions such as relative humidity, the amount of sunshine and
temperature also influence the results.
Hardeners should be applied in such a way as to join the altered area of the material to-
gether with the healthy area; thus, one of the most important requirements that must be achieved
is good penetration. They should also be required to modify as little as possible the characteris-
tics of the material: porosity, porometry, water permeability, colour, etc., as well as reversibility
or removability, i.e. that one single treatment does not prevent the future application of another
with improved properties.
It is essential that the coefficient of thermal expansion is similar to that of the material
treated, and that it has a good compatibility with the material to which it is applied. Compounds
which may react with the components of the material or which may affect its crystalline structure
must not be allowed to form. From a physical point of view, the properties of the consolidated
material should be similar to those of the untreated material, as otherwise a detachment of the
treated layer may occur. In addition to the exact analyses to choose the correct hardener, accel-
erated ageing tests in the laboratory are necessary to select the most appropriate one as durabil-
ity must be another of its requirements.
The methods used are similar in all cases; the product is applied to the surface by impregnation
and preferably by spraying. There are significant differences between product types. The most
common ones are described below.
Inorganic compounds. Lime water (calcium hydroxide), barium water (barium hydroxide),
potassium aluminate, fluorides, fluorosilicates and alkali silicates. These have an advantage over
organic compounds as they are more similar to the components of earthen constructions and, in
general, as they are more resistant to the actions of the weather and ultraviolet radiation, they
are more durable. On the other hand, their disadvantage is that their mechanical characteristics
are inferior to those of organic compounds; it is difficult to achieve good penetration of the
treatment, their adhesive and elastic capacity is low, they can lead to the formation of by-products,
soluble salts and changes in the visual aspect, generally white patches (Fig. 14).
Organic compounds. Acrylic polymers. These types of compounds have the advantage of
having good mechanical and elastic properties, greater adhesion capacity and better reversibility.
However, they are more alterable, they age when exposed to ultraviolet rays, their physical prop-
erties differ significantly from those of the earthen substance and they possess certain very different
characteristics from these materials. For example, their coefficients of thermal expansion are high-
er, causing tension between the hardener and the earthen substance when the temperature varies.
218
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 15. Consolidation and fixing rammed earth with cracks by injecting acrylic resin emulsions. Archaeological remains
at the Imperial Theatre in Loja (Granada).
219
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 16. Consolidation process by spraying an organosilicon compound (ethyl silicate). Archaeological remains at the
Imperial Theatre in Loja (Granada).
Nanoparticles are materials that possess structural characteristics where at least one of their
dimensions is in the range of 1-100 nanometres. Among other advantages, it has been proven
not to fracture during its drying stage, affording it better durability. However, as in the previous
case, hardly any tests have been carried out on earthen materials. It is thus not advisable to use
them without first carrying out the necessary tests and evaluations to determine their effectiveness
and stability.
Other organic compounds. In other parts of the world, especially on the American conti-
nent, it has been customary since ancient times to use natural products that are found in the
surrounding area as hardeners such as, for example, the mucilage from the prickly pear cactus
(of the Opuntia ficus-indica family).
220
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The importance of filling and sealing cracks and joins is based on the need to avoid water en-
tering. In this procedure, materials similar to the existing ones must be used as their compatibil-
ity is essential to ensure maximum penetration and avoid the addition of resins that may interfere
with the breathability of the material or exert mechanical pressure.
It is advisable to fill the cracks with fillers that must be analogous to the existing ones using in-
jections or drip penetration, and the filler must have a fluid consistency to facilitate penetration.
Prior to filling the cracks, the inside of the cracks must be cleaned with air to remove dust and
loose particles. The use of lime as a binder is recommended for most earthen structures, prefer-
ably natural hydraulic lime or aerial slaked lime with a minimum of six months hydration. In the
case of renderings it is important to seal not only the cracks, but also the fissures. The joins
between the different elements must preserve their physical integrity and must be restored with
materials similar to the original ones if these have been lost (Figs. 17 to 24).
Figure 17. Consolidation and fixing rammed earth lacking cohesion using a lime-based liquid-mortar drip penetration. Tower
on the south-east section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
221
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 18. Fixing the rendering on a rammed earth wall Figure 19. Fixing the rendering on a rammed earth wall
using an injection of resin and lime-based mortar. Tower on using an injection of resin and lime-based mortar. Castle of
the south-east section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Castril (Granada).
Velez Málaga.
Figure 20. Sealing the edge of a rammed earth wall with lime mortar. Tower on the south-east section of the city wall of the
Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
222
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 21. Rendering on a rammed earth wall, consolidated and sealed at its edges with lime mortar. Tower on the south-east
section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
Figure 22. Rendering on a rammed earth wall, consolidated and sealed at its edges with lime mortar. Tower on the south-east
section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
223
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 23. Rendering on a rammed earth wall, consolidated and sealed at its edges with lime mortar. Tower on the south-east
section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
Figure 24. Rendering of a rammed earth wall, consolidated and sealed at its edges with lime mortar. Tower on the south-east
section of the city wall of the Alcazaba in Velez Málaga.
224
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The objective of water repellence is to reduce the absorption of water through the surface of the
materials, thus reducing the speed of the processes of alteration linked to it.
Water repellence is based on applying a treatment that prevents, or at least diminishes, the entry
of liquid water into the material but which allows the exchange of water vapour so that the ma-
terial can still ‘breathe’. Given that the entry of liquid water takes place on the surface, these
treatments do not need to penetrate very deeply, but they must have good adhesion so that the
water-repellent product cannot be removed by rain. Alterability with regard to atmospheric agents
is very important, as they must remain effective on the surface of the material yet not affect its
appearance. As with hardeners, they must not modify the characteristics of the material and must
be reversible and/or removable.
225
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Artificial patinas
These are usually applied in situations where surfaces (whether degraded or recreated) need to
be chromatically integrated to achieve the overall visual harmony of an architectural site.
In the case of mortars it is always preferable to obtain the integration of the colour in a natural
way, i.e., using the components themselves but even adding mineral pigments if necessary. Pig-
ments mixed with acrylic resins are discouraged due to the likelihood that the medium used as
a binder (acrylic resin) will block the pores of the material. The advantage of using pigments
diluted with acetone is that a high degree of penetration is achieved. However, pigments do not
dissolve in acetone so it is very difficult to obtain an even colour; this means that they need to
be treated subsequently with a hardener and water repellent in order to remain affixed to the
earthen wall.
Mineral pigments diluted in lime water. Applied with a brush, sponge or spray (stencil),
their advantage is that they are fully compatible with the earthen materials and afford a natural
look to the treated surfaces. They can function simultaneously as a hardener for the treated
material itself. To ensure the penetration of the pigment, the number of particles diluted in the
lime water must be minimal; it is therefore necessary to apply several coats to achieve the
desired hue.
Mineral pigments mixed with a hardener or organosilicon water repellent. While this meth-
od maintains the properties of the material to which it is applied, its drawback is that the pigments
do not dissolve in this medium, so it is very difficult to obtain an even hue.
Renderings on earthen architecture represent a singularity within their treatment, more so because
in most cases they have decorative motifs of different technical and ornamental complexity,
sometimes even maintaining their original polychrome. The material characteristics of these ren-
derings and the supporting material to which they adhere are those that will chiefly define the
type of intervention needed. The work to be done in such cases requires meticulously specific
processes to always be conducted by qualified professionals, based on the cleaning, consolidation
and affixing of the renderings to their original support, with treatments to protect the surface
being of paramount importance (Figs. 26, 27).
226
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Figure 26. Rendering with polychromed Almohad decoration found at E.U. 064 of the R.M. LE-1A/07 archaeological excava-
tion. Córdoba.
Figure 27. Details of a rendering on rammed earth wall with dressings to fix it. Area of the Abencerrajes. Alhambra of Gra-
nada.
NB: All the photos in the chapter ‘Conservation and Consolidation’ were taken by Beatriz Martín Peinado.
227
Structural consolidation
and formal completion29
29
This chapter was written by Fernando Vegas, Camilla Mileto and José Manuel López Osorio,
and was subsequently revised, corrected and approved by the other members of the Coremans
Commission on Earthen Architecture
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Structural consolidation is an intervention that is carried out on a structure to guarantee its sta-
bility and survival, while formal completion is an operation that is fundamentally related to the
aesthetics of the building. The consolidation of structural earthen elements must always start from
a premise that establishes the true level of structural decay of the historical building and how it
might or might not affect its stability and future conservation. At times, many interventions that
are justified as being merely structural consolidations, consequently requiring the systematic
replacement of structures or the volumetric restitution of sections that have disappeared, are
actually interventions that are more linked to formal or aesthetic aspects than a real need to repair
or reinforce structural elements.
Structural consolidation
Prior to conducting an intervention, the extent and location of any structural lesions need to be
evaluated, determining whether such lesions require an intervention as a last resort. When re-
storing earthen architecture, structural lesions are often confused with the superficial abrasion of
the surfaces. However, due to their minimal depth in comparison with the thickness of the wall,
with a sufficiently firm and consolidated mass, these should not really offer any structural risk.
Therefore, first of all a distinction should be made between the structural requirements and oth-
er kinds of needs or considerations resulting from superficial erosion and the possible protection
of the surface of the walls, or the preconceived aesthetics included in the restoration project of
the building. According to the principles of York, stated by John Warren, there are three types of
structural consolidation: repair, reinforcement and replacement.
Repair
Repair should take precedence over the other two whenever possible because it allows the au-
thenticity of the building to be retained over time; it also ensures that the original structural
system of the building is preserved and that its historical information is not lost. Repair can be
understood as actions such as the isolated filling of gaps and holes in the structure of rammed
earth, adobe-brick, half-timbered walls, etc., presumably with materials similar to those original-
ly used with the aim of guaranteeing compatibility; patching structural lesions caused by roof
thrust; reinforcing the foundation of the walls or bases that have problems of erosion or where
there has been ground subsidence, etc.
When structures have been built with blocks such as adobes – both as part of a load-bear-
ing wall as well as filling for half-timber – this operation is simple, as the broken or degraded
adobes are removed and replaced with new ones made following traditional techniques; their
size and properties are similar to the original, placed as they were originally laid and held in
place with mortar that is similar to, or compatible with, the existing one. This solution must be
carried out more carefully when the adobe walls are in an archaeological context since the con-
servation of the materials means that conservation of the original pieces, even if they are degrad-
ed, must be more meticulously undertaken. The intervention must be subject to conservation
criteria which will be outlined in the next section.
Structural lesions in adobe structures can be solved by means of wooden staples or pins
anchored to the wall, or reeds inserted in the previously emptied mortar joints of the wall, etc.
It is vital to emphasise the importance of always using vegetal materials and avoid using steel
meshes and bars because of their tendency to rust. In half-timber, this repair can consist of either
229
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
filling the spaces between the wooden structure with similar material (adobes, cob, turf, etc.), or
in wedging, consolidating or making wood prostheses.
An alternative that is sometimes used is compaction that is perpendicular to the wall and
in thin layers. In some cases, this technique allows for the filling in of deep abrasions while im-
parting a finish to the final surface that is more integrated in an eroded context. Nonetheless, the
addition of binders to the mixture (which by their very nature are more rigid than the preexisting
wall) makes long-term bonding to the wall more difficult. Likewise, the technique of earth pro-
jection has recently been used with apparently positive results for the base of walls with serious
subsidence; however, it is not easy to use this technique and achieve a contextual finish and, as
in the previous case, it also adds a mass of rigidity that is different from the original, giving rise
to doubts about whether the work carried out between the two will last. In both cases, it would
be interesting to study the internal compatibility between the existing vertical compaction of the
wall and the horizontal compaction of the added mass.
Other wall repair options used in the past for their efficiency and practicality are the
simple filling in with stone masonry, bricks, adobe, CEB [Compressed Earth Brick], etc., or even
with cob, taking into account the different structure and/or materiality of the repair with respect
to the original wall; or simply gypsuming the gap with an earthen mortar, with or without
binders, that is similar in appearance to the wall if the aim is to reduce the visual difference
between the new elements and the existing ones. In this and other cases, if possible, it is always
desirable to create an anchor between the existing wall and the part that has been filled in;
these should not be of metal but preferably be vegetal-based, in the form of logs, branches,
reeds, esparto grass, etc.
To summarise, in all cases of structural repair to rammed earth walls, the following must
be taken into account:
–– Filling in should only be done where it is necessary from a structural point of view so that
the size of the intervention does not dominate the historical building.
–– The material used for the filling in should be as compatible as possible with the preexisting
wall.
–– The geometry of the missing parts, gaps or holes to be filled in must be stable in itself as
this is the best guarantee for the survival of the repair over time.
230
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
–– The join between the preexisting and filled-in wall cannot be done with a binder or a
mixture that is binder-rich because the difference in rigidity would harm the survival of the
wall.
–– The type of rammed earth wall in question because this may, to a certain extent, suggest
the type of repair: rammed earth wall with masonry filling or stone-faced rammed earth
possibly to be repaired with masonry; brick-faced rammed earth possibly to be repaired
with brickwork; lime-crusted rammed earth possibly to be repaired with lime mortar, etc.
–– Avoid grooving or unnecessarily impinging on the existing wall whenever possible becau-
se, if the intervention fails – unfortunately, a common occurrence with rammed earth walls
in past decades – the repair will be worse than the previous damage itself.
–– Lastly, to ask ourselves again whether an intervention is really necessary from a structural
point of view or if it is only a matter of aesthetics.
Reinforcement
Reinforcement is an action that consists of improving the strength, capacity or structural perfor-
mance of an existing building. It does not require the previous existence of lesions to be solved
and, in any case, is, or can be, independent of the repairs that have been carried out on the walls.
The need for reinforcement of an earthen structure often arises when a building is rehabilitated
for the same use – for example, as a dwelling – or for a different function but, in any case, with
dead and live load requirements that are much higher than its previous ones. Often, it is neces-
sary to reason beforehand in an inverse way – to ask what the limits of capacity and use are, as
well as the suitability of a change of use – and, in the case of a good state of conservation, to
estimate the structural strength of the building based on its proven historical performance (its
own floor + pavement weight and live load of historical use) and to try to fit the new structural
requirements with this proven performance (lower weight due to a possible lightening of the
filling under the pavement compared to the current live load according to present codes). In any
case, reinforcement is sometimes necessary and inevitable.
In the same way as in the case of repairs described above, the reinforcement of an
earthen building must, above all, take into consideration the compatibility of the materials of
the reinforcement with those of the preexisting wall. Thus, in general terms, the following
should be avoided: the use of metal structures in contact with the wall as they risk being
corroded by the presence of the moisture in the wall itself; the use of reinforced concrete due
to its extreme rigidity, low breathability and its uptake of salts; and the use of concrete in
general because of its excessive resistance with respect to the earthen material. Conversely,
vegetal materials and traditional binders with proven breathability, such as gypsum or lime
mortar, are recommended.
So, for example, if a more uniform distribution of the load on the top of a wall or a tie
beam at the top of the wall is required, wooden sleepers and ties would be preferable to concrete
ring beams or even to metal bands or profiles. If a tie beam of the corners (at the level of the
top of the wall) is required, it would be better to use wooden angle braces but, if the beam has
a more concentrated load, then a plank or a crossed wooden sleeper along the wall should be
inserted underneath. If the purpose is to introduce anti-seismic reinforcements into a wall, splints,
reeds or woven esparto-grass, or even nylon mesh are always preferable to using burlap or
chicken wire. A common solution that was used in the past to nefarious effect was the insertion
231
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
of steel mesh or corrugated bars as anchors; these methods should be avoided, and wood an-
chors are more advisable. In general, injecting cement, resins or even excessively rigid lime
mortar into earthen walls – either using a syringe or the more gentle method using gravity – are
not recommended as structural reinforcement because of a) the impossibility of ensuring the
proper distribution of the substance and b) the randomly distributed rigidity added to the
structure in most cases.
Replacement
This is the most radical option. It should not be rejected at the outset and must be resorted
to when necessary. However, it should not be the only option to consider for a restoration
project. This is not a partial or isolated filling in of a missing part of a wall, as described for
the repair of adobe walls, but the replacement of elements, components or sections of much
greater size. The lower durability of earthen architecture due to weather – if the structure is
unprotected and there is a lack of maintenance – coupled with enthusiasm for reproducing
traditional earthen construction techniques should not be an excuse for a cursory or gener-
alised replacement of existing structures. On the contrary, the goal is to try to retain as much
of the original material as possible, just as when restoring other types of architecture.
A well done, delicate and specific replacement when necessary brings together all the
historical and material information but, at least, it conserves the structural principle of the build-
ing if the replaced element is also of earth and similar to the original material. The problem lies
not only in the quantity and degree of replacement, but also in the conservation of the building’s
original structural system. The internal manipulation of the original earthen structure, the remov-
al of its true structural function and any falsified embellishment do not respect the structural
principle of the building.
Ultimately, replacement may also entail the addition of a structural system that complements
the existing one of the earthen architecture in order to conserve it to the greatest extent possible,
in particular in cases where the alternative is demolition. This is the case with the insertion of an
independent substructure like wooden or metal pillars as intermediate supports to reduce the
load transmitted to the walls, or the introduction of pillars next to the wall to support the beam
heads both to reduce the shear stress and, at the same time, to release them from loads to a
certain extent.
Formal completion
In this text the term ‘formal completion’ is understood as the action of finishing, perfecting or
concluding a building from a fundamentally aesthetic point of view. Formal completion is com-
mon, for example, in the reconstruction of whole sections of earthen castle walls or in the profile
of the top of the wall with new crenellations, in a phenomenon that has been accurately de-
scribed as a love of battlements. Once any structural problems of a building have been solved,
the idea of completion often prevails over any other consideration regarding the antiquity and
history of the building, even when there are serious doubts or uncertainties about the original
height of the top of the wall of the sections to be rebuilt. This operation is not necessary at all
and, although it should not be rejected as an option a priori, it should not be the main catalyst
for the restoration of a building.
232
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
There are other perfectly justifiable types of completion such as a functional one that is
derived from the need for security, maintenance or the particular use planned for a building;
these can be carried out with traditional techniques using earth or alternative techniques, either
on the partially damaged building itself or in new adjoining buildings, etc., but the answers to
these needs should be thought out and particular needs properly distinguished from the rest.
Less justifiable, or at least much more debatable from the point of view of construction is
the summary completion or the restoration of eroded walls to their original state, especially for
rammed earth walls; this is by no means equivalent to the occasional renovation of an earthen
rendering that has been partially washed away by the elements. If there is no structural justifica-
tion for the intervention – in other words, if the loss of material is not thick enough to adversely
affect the stability of the wall – reintegration of the eroded material should be avoided since the
replacement of reduced thickness presents a high risk of detachment in the short, medium and
long term, as it was explained in the section on repairing rammed earth walls. In addition, a
restoration of the surface to its original state conceals much of the original wall of the structure
and affects its historical value.
–– Distinguishing and separating necessary structural needs from merely aesthetic ones.
–– Seeking to act on the essential and always avoiding overacting on the building.
–– Not using materials that are more resistant or rigid and with less breathability than those
used for the existing structure.
–– Avoiding, as far as possible, grooving or impinging on the existing wall with an intervention
that is irreversible.
–– Giving preference, where possible, to the consolidation of eroded walls rather than res-
toring worn historical surfaces to their original state.
233
Maintenance and preventive
conservation30
This chapter was written by Màrius Vendrell, Beatriz Martín, Fernando Vegas and Camilla Mileto
30
and was subsequently revised, corrected and approved by the other members of the Coremans
Commission for Earthen Architecture
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
As important, or even more so, as the intervention itself on earthen architecture are the protocols
that must be created for its protection and preventive conservation: these include maintenance
plans that must be properly programmed and developed, as the survival of the elements to be
restored depend on them. The process of intervening and recognising the value of a site does
not end with the specific action of its recovery. This is nothing but a turning point and the start
of a phase that must last indefinitely, constantly adopting and adapting to measures and actions
aimed at avoiding or minimising any future deterioration.
Earthen constructions are especially vulnerable to the continuous effect of altering agents
due to diverse and often complex parameters: material, environmental, etc. It is thus essential to
set in motion plans that guarantee their conservation. It is necessary to discern between a com-
mon building in use that still has its roof, and heritage architectural structures and remains with-
out any use or the possibility of them being recovered; specific criteria of adequate maintenance
and preventive protection must be established for each case.
The maintenance approach for the former of the two situations could be considered simpler,
as it would be enough to continue to apply the materials and constructive systems used in the
past to renew the degraded elements, or those lost during repair work as described in the pre-
vious chapter. However, in the case of earthen architecture of heritage value, a series of criteria
established by current conservation and restoration regulations must be followed. In this regard,
the recommendations issued by the various Restoration Charters, UNESCO and ICOMOS on pre-
ventive conservation and maintenance should be adhered to.
Traditional earthen buildings often have from the very beginning constructive conditions
that try to ensure their duration beyond the generation that created them. Earthen architecture
thus corresponds to a long tradition of the use of this material and therefore, based on the empir-
ical knowledge of its builders, the most suitable conservation conditions were employed in each
case. Of course, good execution and the quality of a wall, its foundations, coping, and rendering
(if applied) are also factors to consider in terms of the durability of the construction, although in
this section we will speak, above all, about the conditions for construction and maintenance.
In general, builders were aware that the main enemy of these constructions was water.
Therefore earthen walls (except some for rural uses or those in arid climates) are usually built
on a base of stone, either ashlars or masonry, whose function is to insulate the wall against the
capillary action of the water in the ground. It is unusual for a stone wall to allow capillary action
to rise over 2 metres; a base higher than that will prevent the base of the wall from absorbing
water from the ground or from surface runoff.
Water filtering in from the coping should also be avoided, implying the need for a roof or
alternatively – in the case of unprotected walls – the provision of branches, straw, copings, cours-
235
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
es of brickwork, tiles, a cap or some other solution to allow the water to be expelled without
running down the facing of the wall.
Depending on the region, rain is quite frequent in Spain, so earthen constructions cannot
be exposed laterally like those in more arid regions. That is why they are often protected by a
layer of mortar rendering. This acts as lateral waterproofing for earthen walls, and as mechanical
protection against blows, rubbing, small knocks, etc. In some cases, as in rammed earth walls,
the process of ramming itself creates a natural crust on the walls against the formwork that acts
just like rendering. And in the case of lime-crusted rammed earth walls, with a crust-rendering
created within the formwork, it is even more patent. The conservation of both rendering applied
subsequently and the natural crust of the wall derived from the ramming process are indispens-
able for the conservation of these structures as, without them, the direct impact of rain and run-
off would cause the wall to erode.
By guaranteeing these conditions – which usually prevent the wall from getting wet – the
life of earthen architecture can last for centuries, as evidenced by the numerous buildings and
sites that have survived until today.
For archaeological sites, recommendations and measures to foster their conservation should
be carried out, not only at the end of the intervention but also during the process and while the
excavation is being carried out. Extensive archaeological activity and the fragility of the excavat-
ed structures often make it necessary to implement a preventive conservation plan. This is de-
signed to last for the duration of the excavation and the subsequent consolidation and evaluation
of the work.
With regard to earthen architecture, and without entering into other structural decisions,
some simple and economical measures can be taken that can curb the action of possible degra-
dation. From the point of view of the material surface, regular inspections adapted to the sur-
roundings where the site is located must be carried out in order to detect any potential incipient
alterations.
Regardless of the necessary inspections, some of the products or systems used as surface
protection must be renewed. In the case of hardeners and water repellents, these should be ap-
plied regularly, according to the manufacturer’s recommendations and the geographical location
and environmental conditions where the site is located, always taking into account the treatments
that have been previously applied.
236
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
The measures taken to prevent water filtering in, in whatever capacity – rain, capillary
action, filtration, etc. – are fundamental. In any case, without a doubt, proper preventive main-
tenance and a conservation plan to be actually implemented would lead to lower costs for future
interventions, without mentioning the irreversible losses that sites can suffer if these protocols
are not followed.
Preventive measures
The application of preventive measures to avoid the progressive deterioration of a site, which
include:
–– Thorough and adequate burying of the archaeological remains once they have been studied,
as set out in chapter 4 of the Athens Charter of 1931: this is useful from the point of view
of conservation but goes against the interests of creating value and tourism.
–– Covering the tops of the remains with a mortar rendering or with straw, fence, etc. as a
provisional measure, thus protecting the walls from water entering from above; however,
this denaturalises the visual aspect of the archaeological remains.
As previously explained, hardeners are products that are applied to the surface of archaeological
remains and bind the particles together with greater efficacy, thus maintaining the mechanical
and physical stability of the material. Several types of hardeners exist:
–– Inorganic hardeners, such as lime water, potassium aluminate, alkali silicates, etc. These
should be applied in a low concentration ensuring their penetration to avoid the formation
of an external film that can seal the pores and result in possible exfoliation.
–– Natural organic hardeners. The group of natural hardeners contain: organic glue, natural
gum, beeswax, egg white, casein, cactus sap, etc., which, although used since ancient times,
237
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
must be controlled as they are quite degradable, their level of penetration is almost null in
some cases, and their effectiveness as a hardener for earth as a material is low.
–– Synthetic organic hardeners. The use of acrylic organic hardeners should be restricted,
especially because they can modify or cancel the permeability of earth as a material. In
contrast, organosilicon hardeners, such as ethyl silicate, have worked well over the last
thirty years if used in the right proportion and way.
Water repellents are products whose application should be limited to archaeological re-
mains exposed to the direct action of rain as their mission is to protect against water entering
from the outside. The water repellents used, organosilicon and/or halogenated compounds, as
opposed to unadvisable acrylics, must respect the physical characteristics of the material to which
they are applied, and be permeable to water vapour.
Stabilisation of structures
–– Surface renderings, which consist of completely covering the archaeological remains with
an earthen, gypsum, or lime mortar, etc. Cement mortars should be avoided in these cases
due to their lack of breathability with respect to the original earthen wall. If the rendering
is breathable and compatible with the earthen material, this type of intervention protects
the original surface of earthen walls but has the great drawback of completely denaturali-
sing the archaeological remains.
238
Glossary of comparative terms31
This chapter was written by Juana Font, Fernando Vegas and Camilla Mileto and was subsequently
31
revised, corrected and approved by the other members of the Coremans Commission for Earthen
Architecture We thank the following people for their generous collaboration: José Luis Solaun,
Roger Costa, Manuel Chaín, Alejandro Fernández Palicio, Màrius Vendrell, Agustín Azkárate, Isabel
Navarro, Hugo Costa, Melitó Camprubí and Orland Martí.
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
240
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Bibliography32
Alva Balderrama, A. (2001): The Conservation of Earthen Architecture. The Getty Conservation Institute
newsletter 16. Available at: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/news-
letters/16_1/feature.html
Alva, A., and Houben, H. (pubs.) (1988): 5th International Meeting of Experts on the Conservation of
Earthen Architecture = 5e Reunion Internationale d’Experts sur la Conservation de l’Architecture
de Terre. Rome: ICCROM.
Baquer, J. (2013):‘La seguretat estructural de les parets de tàpia. Seguretat estructural en la rehabilitació
d’edificis amb murs de tàpia’, in L’informaTiU DEL CaaTEEB. Barcelona: Col.legi d’aparelladors
de Barcelona, pp. 90-96.
Bertagnin, M., and Ould Sidi, A. (2014): Manuel pour la conservation de TOMBOUCTOU. France:
UNESCO.
Bestraten, S., and Hormias, E. (2012): ‘Structural Criteria for the Restoration of ammed Earth Buildings
in Barcelona Province (Spain)’, in Rammed Earth Conservation. London CRC-Balkema / Taylor
& Francis Group, pp. 269-275.
Burra Charter (1999): Guide for the Conservation and Management of Sites of Cultural Importance.
Australia: ICOMOS.
Cammas C., and Wattez J. (1999): ‘Approche micromorphologique: Méthode et applications aux stratig-
raphies archéologiques’, at Les Sciences de la Terre, collection ‘Pour l’Archéologue’, éditions
Errance.
Canivell, J., and Graciani García, A. (2011): Metodología de diagnóstico y caracterización de fábricas
históricas de tapia = Methodology for Diagnosis and Characterization of Historical Rammed-
earth Walls. Available at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/exttes?codigo=24661.
Correia, M.; Guerrero, L., and Crosby, A. (2015): ‘Technical Strategies for Conservation of Earthen
Archaeological Architecture. Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites’. London:
Taylor and Francia Group. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13505033.2015.1129799
This bibliography was written by Lidia García Soriano, Fernando Vegas and Camilla Mileto and was subsequently revised,
32
corrected, completed and approved by the other members of the Coremans Commission for Earthen Architecture.
241
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Costales, L. (1987): ‘Architettura in terra: cause del deperimento e provvedimenti per la loro conser-
vazione - Earthen Architecture: Causes of Deterioration and Conservation Measures’, in Bollet-
tino degli ingegneri, 12, pp.14-20.
Cuchí I Burgos, A. (1996): ‘La técnica tradicional del tapial’ in Actas del Primer Congreso Nacional de
Historia de la Construcción. Madrid: Instituto Juan de Herrera.
Dayre, M. (1983): ‘Protection du matériau terre - Protection of Earthen Material’, in E. N. des P. et
Chaussées, pub. Paris.
Dethier, J. (1981): Des architectures de terre, ou, L’avenir d’une tradition millénaire: exposition. Paris:
Centre Georges Pompidou, Centre de création industrielle.
Doglioni, F. (2008): Nel restauro: progetti per le architetture del passato. Venice: Marsilio: Università
IUAV di Venezia.
English Heritage (pub.) (2000): Terra 2000: 8th International Conference on the Study and Conser-
vation of Earthen Architecture. Torquay, Devon, UK. Oxford: Alden Press.
Fiorani, D. (2003): ‘Dalla convenienza alla compatibilitá del restauro: note di un percorso’, at Dalla
reversibilitá alla Compatibilitá. Florence: Nardini, pp. 13-26.
Font Arellano, J. (2012): ‘Constructive Systems in the Spanish North-western Area’, in Rammed Earth
Conservation, CRC-Balkema / Taylor & Francis Group. London. pp. 511-516.
— ( 2013): ‘La construcción de tierra en los textos. Errores, olvidos, omisiones’, in Actas del
Octavo Congreso Nacional de Historia de la Construcción. Madrid, 9-12 October 2013: Insti-
tuto Juan de Herrera, pp. 323–334.
Font, F., and Hidalgo, P. (1991): El tapial: una tècnica constructiva mil-lenária. Castellón: Colegio
Oficial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos Técnicos de Castellón.
— (2009): Arquitecturas de tapia. Castellón: Colegio Oficial de Aparejadores y Arquitectos
Técnicos de Castellón.
Fontaine A., and Romain., L. (2009): Bâtir en terre Du grain de sable à l’architecture. Paris, Belin: Cité
des sciences et de l’industrie.
Graciani García, A., and Tabales Rodríguez, M.A. (2008): ‘El tapial en el área sevillana: Avance crono-
tipológico estructural’, in Arqueología de la arquitectura, 5, pp. 135-158. Available at: http://
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/extart?codigo=2950355.
242
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Granada Convention (1985): Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe.
Guerrero, L.; Correia, M., and Guillaud, H. (2012): ‘Conservación del patrimonio arqueológico con-
struido con tierra en Iberoamérica’, in Apuntes: Revista De Estudios Sobre Patrimonio Cultural
- Journal of Cultural Heritage Studies, 25, pp. 210-225.
Harrison, R. (1999): Earth: the Conservation and Repair of Bowhill, Exeter: Working with Cob. London:
James & James.
Houben, H., and Guillaud, H. (1994): Earth Construction: A Comprehensive Guide. Intermediate Tech-
nology Publications.
Hoz Onrubia, J. de; Maldonado Ramos, L., and Vela Cossio, F. (2003): Diccionario de construcción
tradicional: tierra. San Sebastián: Nerea.
Iglesias Picazo, P.; Rodriguez Nuere, B.; Gonzaloez Casado, M.D., and Bailliet, E. (2012): ‘Conservation
of Rammed Earth Works in the Islamic Fortified Complex of Calatayud (Spain)’, in Rammed
Earth Conservation. London: Taylor and Francis Group. pp. 357-362.
International Council on Monuments and Sites. U.S. Committee, and Getty Conservation Institute
(1990): 6th International Conference on the Conservation of Earthen Architecture Adobe 90
Preprints: Las Cruces, New Mexico, U.S.A., October 14-19, 1990. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Con-
servation Institute. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10020/gci_pubs/adobe90
Jaquin, P.A., and Durham, U. (2008): Analysis of Historic Rammed Earth Construction. Durham Uni-
versity. Available at: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/2169/.
Jeannet, J., and C. de Realisations D’etudes et D’editions Regionales (1997): Le pisé: patrimoine, restau-
ration, technique d’avenir. Nonette: Editions Creer.
Jorge, F., and Torres, C. (2005): Arquitectura de terra em Portugal. Lisbon: Argumentum.
Keefe, L. (2005): Earth Building: Methods and Materials, Repair and Conservation. London: Taylor &
Francis Group.
Krakow Charter (2000): Principles for the Conservation and Restoration of Built Heritage.
243
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
López Martínez, F.J. (1996): ‘Tapias y tapiales’, at Loggia, Arquitectura y Restauración, 8. Valencia: UPV
Publicaciones.
Maldonado Ramos, L.; Castilla Pascual, F.J., and Vela Cossío, F. (1997): ‘La técnica del tapial en la
Comunidad Autónoma de Madrid: aplicación de nuevos materiales para la consolidación de
muros de tapia’, in Informes de la construcción, 49 (452), pp. 27-38. Available at: http://dialnet.
unirioja.es/servlet/extart?codigo=2313134.
Maldonado Ramos, L.; Rivera Gámez, D., and Vela Cossio, F. (2002): Arquitectura y construcción con
tierra: tradición e innovación. Madrid: Mairea.
Matero, F., and Bass, A. (1995): ‘Design and Evaluation of Hydraulic Lime Grouts for the Reattachment
of Lime Plasters on Earthen Walls’, in Conservation and management of archaeological sites 2.
London: Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 97-108.
Mecca, S., and Dipasquale, L. (2009): Earthen Domes and Habitats: Villages of Northern Syria: an Ar-
chitectural Tradition Shared by East and West, Pisa: ETS.
Mileto, C.; García Soriano, L., and Vegas, F. (2014): ‘Los fenómenos de degradación más comunes en
fábricas de tapia’, in La restauración de la tapia en la Península Ibérica. Criterios, técnicas,
resultados y perspectivas. Valencia / Lisbon: TC Cuadernos / Argumentum, pp. 52-59.
Mileto, C.; Vegas, F.; Alejandre, F.J.; Martín, J.J., and García Soriano, L. (2013): ‘Lime-crusted Rammed
Earth: Materials Study’, in Advances Material Researh, Vol 831, pp. 9-13.
Miller, L., and Miller, D. (1982): Rammed Earth: a Selected Bibliography with a World Overview. Gree-
ley (CO): Rammed Earth Institute International.
Muñoz Cosme, A. (1989): La conservación del patrimonio arquitectónico español. Madrid: Director-
ate-General for Fine Arts and Archives, Institute for the Conservation and Restoration of Cul-
tural Assets (ICRBC).
Odul, P., et al. (1993): Bibliographie sur la preservation, la restauration et la rehabilitation des archi-
tectures de terre = Bibliography on the Preservation, Restoration and Rehabilitation of Earthen
Architecture. Rome, Italy: CRATerre/EAG/Iccrom.
Oliver, A. (2008): ‘Conservation of Earthen Archaeological Sites’, in Avrami, E.C.; Guillaud, H., and
Hardy, M. (pubs.) Terra Literature Review: An Overview of Research in Earthen Architecture
Conservation, [online]. Los Angeles. pp. 80–96.
Ontiveros García, E. (2006): Tapial. Programa de normalización de estudios previos aplicado a bienes
inmuebles. Junta de Andalucía (Regional Government of Andalusia). Department of Culture.
Andalusian Institute for Historical Heritage (IAPH).
244
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Palma Dias, G.J. (1993): ‘A conservaçao das estruturas antigas em terra crua [The conservation of an-
cient structures in raw earth]’ in TERRA 93: 7th International Conference on the Study and
Conservation of Earthen Architecture, Silves, Portugal. 24-29 October 1993. Lisbon: DGEMN,
pp. 210–214.
Paris Charter (1972): Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage.
Paris: UNESCO.
Paris Convention (2003): Convention for the Protection of Intangible Cultural Heritage. Paris: UNESCO.
Paris Recommendation (1989): Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional and Popular Cul-
ture, UNESCO.
Rainer, L.; Bass Rivera, A., and Gandreau, D. (pubs.) (2008): Terra 2008: The 10th International Con-
ference on the Study and Conservation of Earthen Architectural Heritage. Bamako, Mali: Getty
Conservation Institute, Mali Ministry of Culture.
Romero Gallardo, A., and López Osorio, J.M. (2012): ‘Historical Rammed-Earth Structures in Eastern
Andalusia (Spain): the Restoration Philosophy of the Architect Prieto-Moreno’, in Andalusian
Institute for Historical Heritage (IAPH), in Rammed Earth Conservation. London: Taylor and
Francis Group, pp. 407-412.
Roux, J.C., (2008): L’emploi de la bauge dans l’architecture protohistorique de lattes (fin vie-milieu ive
s. av. n. è.). Paris: CNRS Éditions.
Salvat Torregrosa, A. (2011): La tàpia a Catalunya, Pervivència i desaparició, El testimoni dels últims
tapiadors del Pla d’Urgell. Barcelona: Government of Catalonia. Department of Culture.
Terra, S.I.-A. De C. Com et al. (2005): Terra em seminário: IV Seminário Ibero-Americano de Con-
strução com Terra, III Seminario Arquitectura de Terra em Portugal. Lisbon: Argumentum,
Escola Superior Gallaecia.
Torrealva Dávila, D. (2012): 10th International Conference on the Study and Construction of Earthen
Architectural Heritage. TERRA2012. Lima: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Unesco (2013): Earthen Architecture in Today’s World: Proceedings of the UNESCO International Col-
loquium on the Conservation of World Heritage Earthen Architecture = L’architecture de terre
dans le monde d’aujourd’hui: actes du colloque international de l’UNESCO sur la conservation
de l’architecture de terre du patrimoine mondial. Paris, France. Available at http://whc.unesco.
org/en/series/36/.
Üstünkök, O., and Madran, E. (ed). (1980): Third International Symposium of Mudbrick (Adobe) Pres-
ervation. Ankara: ICOMOS.
245
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
Vegas, F. et al. (2014): ‘La tapia en la Península Ibérica’, in La restauración de la tapia en la Penínsu-
la Ibérica. Criterios, técnicas, resultados y perspectivas. Valencia / Lisbon: TC Cuadernos / Ar-
gumentum, pp. 32–51.
Victoria Falls Principles (2003): Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration
of Architectural Heritage, Zimbabwe: ICOMOS.
V. A. (1972): Premier Colloque International sur la Conservation des Monuments en Brique: Yazd,
Iran, = First International Conference on the Conservation of Mud-Brick Monuments. Irán,
Ministère de la Culture et des Arts.
— ( 1976): Second International Symposium on the Conservation of Mudbrick Monuments. Yazd:
ICOMOS.
— ( 2006): Houses and Cities Built with Earth: Conservation, Significance and Urban Quality =
Les Maisons et les villes en terre crue: conservation, signification et décor urbain = Le Case e
le città della terra cruda: conservazione, significato e decoro urbano. Lisbon: Argumentum.
— ( 2008): Terra Incognita: Discovering & Preserving European Earthen Architecture. Portugal:
Argumentum.
— ( 2011): Terra Europae: Earthen Architecture in the European Union. Pisa: ETS.
Warren, J. (1999): Conservation of Earth Structures. Series in Conservation and Museology. Oxford:
Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.
Warren, J., et al. (1993): Earthen Architecture: the Conservation of Brick and Earth Structures: a
Handbook. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Sri Lanka National Committee of ICOMOS for the Internation-
al Council of Monuments and Sites.
World Heritage Committee (2002): Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage
Convention. Paris, France: World Heritage Centre.
Xi’an Declaration (2005): Conservation of the Setting of Heritage Structures, Sites and Areas. China:
ICOMOS.
Yamoussa, F., and Joffroy, T. (2010): Villes anciennes de Djenne. Bamako, CRATerre pub.
246
The COREMANS Project Intervention Criteria for Earthen Architecture
247