Adrian Andrei RUSU
(Institute of Archaeology and Art History of the Romanian Academy, Cluj-Napoca, Romania)
This exposal tries to synthesize the stage of investigation of the medieval patrimony from Romania.
The transition to the European treatment of archaeology of monuments was dominated by the lack or slowness input of protection legislation, the necessities of the “savage” capitalism, to accumulate capitals (using terrains, materials goods, any others opportunities), a large degree of ignorance and a to excessive segregation of monuments, dues to the deficiencies of teaching history process of the state (with many and important nationalistic accents). After suspending the Direction of Historical Monuments from Romania (1977), the research and treatment received chaotically trajectories. In other words, everithing was released on the local mans (in good or bad manner).
Either after 1990, the realities don’t seem to look beater. The new Direction of Monuments the reorganized several times, without the guarantee of performance. Today, the mains deficiencies of his structure seems to be the deliberate suspending of the historians and archaeologists specialists in historical periods, in advantage of the architects recently oriented in this field; the impossibility of control and efficient punishment of the delinquency; the crisis of archaeologies specialized in historical monuments. The territory is unequal covered by specialists or others (special trained managers or volunteers) ho try to protect the historical monuments (County Patrimonial Directions, Police of Patrimony, local museums, local administrations, cultural or civil societies).
Even with the advantage of legal backgrounds, we miss the mechanisms of details to stop the aggression of patrimony (including the archaeological one) and the justice system treat the delinquency like something without social danger. The lack or the minimum number of archaeologists is due to the total neglecting of formeting specialists for the supra-terrain patrimonies in the majorities of traditional universities or the news one. By consequence, in reality the demands are too big for the existing specialists, is substituted by other ho didn’t have the proper qualification. Sometime is used as a justification on ignoring archaeological recovery. The system is promoted by the official negation of the competence in restricted historical domains.
The mains urban centers with secular history are dominated by specialists in prehistory or classical archaeology. In the same time, in others historical cities, the archaeologists are totally missing or are not efficient (first category: Lipova, Sebes, Medias; second: Brasov, Alba Iulia, Baia Mare). We didn’t have specialists in Christian historical monuments or medieval fortifications.
The absence of the assistance of architectural restorations is another problem. It didn’t exist coordination between the programs of research in archaeology and architecture. The archaeologists « produced » new monuments, by research, withaut folowing their destiny in conservations. The architects « attack » main historical monuments, neglecting as much is possible the collaborations of the archaeologists. Each of sentences will be illustrated.