A Short History of the Butrint Foundation’s Conservation Programme at Butrint, Albania: 1994–2012

Abstract

This short history describes the work of the Butrint Foundation’s operations in the area of conservation over the course of nearly twenty years. It pays particular attention to describing the relations with the Albanian authorities, especially the Institute of Monuments, and reviews how conservation of this UNESCO World Heritage Site proceeded during the unstable decade following the end of communism in 1991/2. The history also sets out the detailed work undertaken each year by the Foundation until it handed over operations to Albanian conservators and their support staff that the Foundation had helped to train.

Keywords:

• Conservation
• Butrint
• Albania
• World Heritage Site

Acknowledgements

The Butrint Foundation project is a British charity supported by Lord Rothschild and Lord Sainsbury which operated in partnership with the Packard Humanities Institute between 1999–2012. We are also grateful to support from the Getty Conservation Institute, the Howard and Nancy Marks Foundation, the Oak Foundation, and the World Monuments Fund. Particular thanks in preparing this essay to Richard Andrews, Brian Ayers, Will Bowden, Andy Crowson, Oliver Gilkes, Aldi Kola, Sally Martin, Nevila Molla, and Diana Ndrenika.

Appendix 1

The Butrint Foundation supported the preparation of a Management Plan in 2000 (Martin, 2001) that included a condition survey of all the monuments made by the conservation architect, Richard Andrews. This was updated by the Foundation in 2009: <http://www.butrintconditionsurvey.com/Survey/intro%20page.htm>.

This is the executive summary of the first, 2000, survey (from Martin, 2001).

Summary of proposed repairs: 2000–01 inspection

Repairs are divided into three categories of priority as follows:

1	desirable to be carried out within 1 year of inspection
2	desirable to be carried out within 2–3 years of inspection
3	desirable to be carried out within 4–5 years of inspection

These broad categories of priority reflect the seriousness of the defect when viewed in 2001. It is likely that the order of priority will change as environmental conditions make the need for some repairs more serious, and others less so. It is desirable that an inspection is carried out on an annual basis to ensure that work programmed for the following year meets the need of the site: some repairs may need to be brought forward, and the condition may deteriorate to the extent that masonry viewed as sound in 2001 may become at risk.

When creating a work programme it may be desirable for logistical reasons for repairs of lesser priority to be carried out at the same time as higher priority work adjacent. The priority for repair may also be varied to suit the needs of site interpretation, public access, etc. The converse is not true: that a monument has no public access and there are no plans for its display does not mean that the repairs can be regarded as of lower priority.

Category 1

Category 2

Category 3

Recommendations