Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain) 9781407315805, 9781407344997
Valencian castles have been studied from very different approaches, and to greater or lesser degrees. This has allowed s
163 100 73MB
English Pages [205] Year 2017
Polecaj historie
Table of contents :
Front Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Preface
Foreword
1. Introduction
2. Methodology
3. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
4. Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
5. Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
6. Research Synthesis and Conclusions
References
Citation preview
________ Juan Antonio Mira Rico holds a PhD in History and is a specialist in cultural heritage management and museography. He is currently head of the Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage. He is a member of ICOMOS, ICAHM, ICIP and ICOFORT, and scientific co-director of the Castalla Castle Heritage Site Social Regeneration Project.
BAR S2868 2017 MIRA RICO MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL CASTLES IN THE PROVINCE OF ALICANTE
Valencian castles have been studied from very different approaches, and to greater or lesser degrees. This has allowed scholars to better understand their history and morphology, the materials used in their construction and their pathologies, as well as other aspects related to the people who occupied them at different times in history. Furthermore, multiple interventions have been carried out in order to improve their condition and recover them for cultural, social and tourist uses. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of analysis of how fortifications are managed. This research focuses on cultural heritage management, and especially how castles are managed, in the province of Alicante (Spain). To do this, a qualitative research methodology and semi-structured interviews with specialists have been employed. This project shows the results of research applied to 42 fortifications, owned by several municipalities of the province of Alicante.
B A R
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain) Juan Antonio Mira Rico
BAR International Series 2868 2017
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain) Juan Antonio Mira Rico
BAR International Series 2868 2017
Published in by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain) © Juan Antonio Mira Rico Castalla Castle. Photo by Juan Antonio Mira Rico. The Author’s moral rights under the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reser ved. No par t of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any for m of digital for mat or transmitted in any for m digitally, without the written per mission of the Publisher.
ISBN 9781407315805 paperback ISBN 9781407344997 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781407315805 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
BAR titles are available from: BAR Publishing Banbury Rd, Oxford, [email protected] + ( ) + ( ) www.barpublishing.com
,
Contents List of Figures .....................................................................................................................................................................vii List of Tables........................................................................................................................................................................ix Preface ................................................................................................................................................................................xiii Foreword .............................................................................................................................................................................xv Chapter 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2. Methodology ......................................................................................................................................................7 2.1. General Objective, Specific Objectives and Working Hypothesis .............................................................................7 General .........................................................................................................................................................................7 Specific .........................................................................................................................................................................7 2.2. Analysis Technique: Semi-structured Interviews with Experts..................................................................................7 2.3. Study Sources .............................................................................................................................................................9 2.4. Time Framework ......................................................................................................................................................16 Chapter 3. Conceptual and Theoretical Framework ......................................................................................................17 3.1. Cultural Heritage: A Multifaceted Term...................................................................................................................17 3.1.1. Cultural Heritage According to Legislation .....................................................................................................19 International Legislation ........................................................................................................................................20 National Legislation ..............................................................................................................................................21 3.1.2. Cultural Heritage According to the Academic and Scientific World ................................................................21 3.1.3. Cultural Heritage for Society ...........................................................................................................................22 3.2. Cultural Heritage Management ................................................................................................................................23 3.2.1. According to the Academic, Scientific and Professional World .......................................................................23 3.2.2. In the Local Context .........................................................................................................................................25 3.3. Castles Management: Experiences and Case Studies ..............................................................................................27 3.3.1. Experiences ......................................................................................................................................................27 3.3.2. Case Studies .....................................................................................................................................................30 Chapter 4. Characteristics of the Sample Analysed........................................................................................................37 4.1. Group 1.....................................................................................................................................................................38 4.1.1. Alcalà or Benissili Castle .................................................................................................................................39 4.1.2. Almizra Castle ..................................................................................................................................................40 4.1.3. Alfofra Castle ...................................................................................................................................................41 4.1.4. Benifallim Castle ..............................................................................................................................................42 4.1.5. Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle................................................................................................................43 4.1.6. Costurera or Seta Castle ...................................................................................................................................44 4.1.7. Garx Castle .......................................................................................................................................................45 4.1.8. Guadalest Castle ...............................................................................................................................................46 4.1.9. Laguar Castle....................................................................................................................................................47 4.1.10. Vall d’Ebo Castle ............................................................................................................................................47 4.1.11. Margarida Castle.............................................................................................................................................48 4.1.12. Penàguila Castle .............................................................................................................................................49 4.1.13. Planes Castle ..................................................................................................................................................50 4.1.14. Santa Bàrbara Castle ......................................................................................................................................51 4.1.15. Tàrbena Castle ................................................................................................................................................52 4.1.16. Travadell Castle ..............................................................................................................................................53 4.2. Group 2.....................................................................................................................................................................54 4.2.1. Agost Castle......................................................................................................................................................55 4.2.2. Aixa Castle .......................................................................................................................................................56 4.2.3. Biar Castle ........................................................................................................................................................57 4.2.4. Busot Castle......................................................................................................................................................58 4.2.5. Murta Castle .....................................................................................................................................................59 4.2.6. Polop de la Marina Castle ................................................................................................................................60 iii
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
4.2.7. Relleu Castle.....................................................................................................................................................61 4.2.8. Castell de Tibi...................................................................................................................................................62 4.3. Group 3.....................................................................................................................................................................63 4.3.1. Banyeres de Mariola Castle..............................................................................................................................64 4.3.2. Ocaive Castle....................................................................................................................................................65 4.3.3. Torre Grossa Castle ..........................................................................................................................................66 4.4. Group 4.....................................................................................................................................................................67 4.4.1. Ambra Castle ....................................................................................................................................................68 4.4.2. Callosa de Segura Castle ..................................................................................................................................69 4.4.3. Castalla Castle ..................................................................................................................................................70 4.4.4. Cocentaina Castle .............................................................................................................................................71 4.4.5. Guardamar del Segura Castle ...........................................................................................................................72 4.4.6. Monòver Castle ................................................................................................................................................73 4.4.7. Penella Castle ...................................................................................................................................................74 4.4.8. Sax Castle .........................................................................................................................................................75 4.5. Group 5.....................................................................................................................................................................76 4.5.1. Aljau Castle ......................................................................................................................................................77 4.5.2. Mola Castle ......................................................................................................................................................78 4.5.3. Río Castle .........................................................................................................................................................79 4.5.4. Vermell Castle ..................................................................................................................................................80 4.6. Group 6.....................................................................................................................................................................81 4.6.1. Atalaya Castle ...................................................................................................................................................82 4.6.2. Dénia Castle .....................................................................................................................................................83 4.6.3. Petrer Castle .....................................................................................................................................................84 4.6.4. Salvatierra Castle..............................................................................................................................................85 4.7. Group 7.....................................................................................................................................................................86 4.7.1. Elda Castle........................................................................................................................................................87 4.7.2. Orihuela Castle .................................................................................................................................................88 4.8. Group 8.....................................................................................................................................................................89 4.8.1. Santa Bárbara Castle ........................................................................................................................................90 Chapter 5. Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals .....................................................................91 5.1. Group 1.....................................................................................................................................................................91 5.1.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed ...............................................................................................................91 5.1.2. Block 2. General Management Data ................................................................................................................94 5.1.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research .............................................................................................................99 5.1.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ......................................................................................................100 5.1.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration .......................................................................................................102 5.1.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination .......................................................................102 5.2. Group 2...................................................................................................................................................................104 5.2.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed .............................................................................................................104 5.2.2. Block 2. General Management Data ..............................................................................................................105 5.2.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research ...........................................................................................................109 5.2.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ...................................................................................................... 110 5.2.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration ....................................................................................................... 111 5.2.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination ....................................................................... 111 5.3. Group 3................................................................................................................................................................... 113 5.3.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed ............................................................................................................. 113 5.3.2. Block 2. General Management Data .............................................................................................................. 113 5.3.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research ........................................................................................................... 116 5.3.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ...................................................................................................... 116 5.3.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration ....................................................................................................... 116 5.3.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination ....................................................................... 117 5.4. Group 4................................................................................................................................................................... 118 5.4.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed ............................................................................................................. 118 5.4.2. Block 2. General Management Data ..............................................................................................................120 5.4.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research ...........................................................................................................127 5.4.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ......................................................................................................128 5.4.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration .......................................................................................................129 5.4.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination .......................................................................129 iv
Contents
5.5. Group 5...................................................................................................................................................................133 5.5.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed .............................................................................................................133 5.5.2. Block 2. General Management Data ..............................................................................................................134 5.5.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research ...........................................................................................................136 5.5.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ......................................................................................................136 5.5.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration .......................................................................................................137 5.5.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination .......................................................................137 5.6. Group 6...................................................................................................................................................................138 5.6.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed .............................................................................................................138 5.6.2. Block 2. General Management Data ..............................................................................................................138 5.6.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research ...........................................................................................................142 5.6.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ......................................................................................................142 5.6.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration .......................................................................................................142 5.6.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination .......................................................................142 5.7. Group 7...................................................................................................................................................................144 5.7.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed .............................................................................................................144 5.7.2. Block 2. General Management Data ..............................................................................................................148 5.7.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research ...........................................................................................................149 5.7.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation ......................................................................................................151 5.7.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration .......................................................................................................151 5.7.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination .......................................................................151 5.8. Group 8...................................................................................................................................................................152 5.9. Management Proposals ..........................................................................................................................................152 Chapter 6. Research Synthesis and Conclusions...........................................................................................................155 Group 1..........................................................................................................................................................................157 Group 2..........................................................................................................................................................................158 Group 3..........................................................................................................................................................................158 Group 4..........................................................................................................................................................................159 Group 5..........................................................................................................................................................................159 Group 6..........................................................................................................................................................................160 Group 7..........................................................................................................................................................................160 Group 1..........................................................................................................................................................................161 Similarities ...............................................................................................................................................................161 Differences................................................................................................................................................................161 Group 2..........................................................................................................................................................................161 Similarities ...............................................................................................................................................................161 Differences................................................................................................................................................................161 Group 3..........................................................................................................................................................................162 Similarities ...............................................................................................................................................................162 Differences................................................................................................................................................................162 Group 4..........................................................................................................................................................................162 Similarities ...............................................................................................................................................................162 Differences................................................................................................................................................................162 Group 5..........................................................................................................................................................................162 Similarities ...............................................................................................................................................................162 Differences................................................................................................................................................................162 Group 6..........................................................................................................................................................................162 Similarities ...............................................................................................................................................................162 Differences................................................................................................................................................................163 Group 7..........................................................................................................................................................................163 References .........................................................................................................................................................................173 Anthropology, Archaeology, Architecture, Castles, Geography and History................................................................173 Cultural Heritage Management and Museography .......................................................................................................178 Scientific Methodology .................................................................................................................................................181 Information and Communications Technology .............................................................................................................181 Electronic Documents ...................................................................................................................................................182 Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management ....................................................................................................182 Charters, Conventions, Legislation and Doctrinal Texts ..........................................................................................183 v
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Final Papers of Master’s Degree and Doctoral Theses ............................................................................................184 Blogs .............................................................................................................................................................................185 Archaeology, Castles, Cultural Heritage Management and Museums .....................................................................185 Others .......................................................................................................................................................................185 Websites ........................................................................................................................................................................185 Public Administrations, Institutions and Official Organisations ..............................................................................185 Databases and Digital Publishing Platforms ............................................................................................................186 Cartography, Castles, Cultural Heritage Management, Museums, Natural Heritage and Archaeological Sites ......186 Publishers .................................................................................................................................................................187 Press .........................................................................................................................................................................188 Universities, Cultural Heritage Institutes and Foundations......................................................................................188 Various ......................................................................................................................................................................188 Social Networks ............................................................................................................................................................188 Facebook ..................................................................................................................................................................188
vi
List of Figures Figure 1. Spain: Valencian Community and its provinces –Castellón, Valencia and Alicante– within the frame. Source: d-mpas.com ............................................................................................................................................................................1 Figure 2. Results from documents containing the word “castle” in Dialnet .........................................................................2 Figure 3. Results from documents containing the words “medieval castle” in Dialnet ........................................................2 Figure 4. Results from documents containing the word “castle” in Dialnet linked to castles ...............................................3 Figure 5. Results from documents containing the words “medieval castle” in Dialnet linked to castles .............................3 Figure 6. Results from documents containing the words “medieval castle” in Dialnet linked to classical studies or new approaches ......................................................................................................................................................................4 Figure 7. Subtypes of semi-structured interview. Author’s own preparation from U. Flick, 2004: 89-109 ..........................8 Figure 8. Group 1. 1-Alcalà or Benissili Castle, 2-Almizra Castle, 3-Alfofra Castle, 4-Benifallim Castle, 5-Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, 6-Costurera or Seta Castle, 7-Garx Castle, 8-Guadalest Castle, 9-Laguar Castle, 10-Vall d’Ebo Castle, 11-Margarida Castle, 12-Penàguila Castle, 13-Planes Castle, 14-Santa Bàrbara Castle, 15-Tàrbena Castle, 16-Travadell Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture from Juan José Mataix Albiñana ...............................................................................................................................................................................38 Figure 9. Alcalà or Benissili Castle. Photo: José Ramón Ortega Pérez ...............................................................................39 Figure 10. Almizra Castle. Photo: Juan Antonio Mira Rico ................................................................................................40 Figure 11. Alfofra Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ................................................................................................................41 Figure 12. Benifallim Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ...........................................................................................................42 Figure 13. Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.............................................................................43 Figure 14. Costurera or Seta Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ................................................................................................44 Figure 15. Garx Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ....................................................................................................................45 Figure 16. Guadalest Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ............................................................................................................46 Figure 17. Margarida Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ...........................................................................................................48 Figure 18. Penàguila Castle. Photo: J.A Mira Rico .............................................................................................................49 Figure 19. Planes Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .................................................................................................................50 Figure 20. Santa Bàrbara Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .....................................................................................................51 Figure 21. Tàrbena Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ...............................................................................................................52 Figure 22. Travadell Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .............................................................................................................53 Figure 23. Group 2. 1-Agost Castle, 2-Aixa Castle, 3-Biar Castle, 4-Busot Castle, 5-Murta Castle, 6-Polop de la Marina Castle, 7-Relleu Castle, 8-Tibi Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana ................54 Figure 24. Agost Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico...................................................................................................................55 Figure 25. Biar Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .....................................................................................................................57 Figure 26. Busot Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico...................................................................................................................58 Figure 27. Murta Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ..................................................................................................................59 Figure 28. Polop de la Marina Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .............................................................................................60 Figure 29. Relleu Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .................................................................................................................61 Figure 30. Tibi Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .....................................................................................................................62 Figure 31. Group 3. 1-Banyeres de Mariola Castle, 2-Ocaive Castle, 3-Torre Grossa Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana .............................................................................................................63
vii
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 32. Banyeres de Mariola Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez ......................................................................................64 Figure 33. Ocaive Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.................................................................................................................65 Figure 34. Torre Grossa Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .......................................................................................................66 Figure 35. Group 4. 1-Ambra Castle, 2-Callosa de Segura Castle, 3-Castalla Castle, 4-Cocentaina Castle, 5-Guardamar del Segura Castle, 6-Monòver Castle, 7-Penella Castle, 8-Sax Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana .............................................................................................................67 Figure 36. Ambra Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico .................................................................................................................68 Figure 37. Callosa de Segura Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ...............................................................................................69 Figure 38. Castalla Castle. Photo: Andrés Ruiz Sánchez.....................................................................................................70 Figure 39. Cocentaina Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ..........................................................................................................71 Figure 40. Guardamar del Segura Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ........................................................................................72 Figure 41. Monòver Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez .........................................................................................................73 Figure 42. Penella Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ................................................................................................................74 Figure 43. Sax Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ......................................................................................................................75 Figure 44. Group 5. 1-Aljau Castle, 2-Mola Castle, 3-Río Castle, 4-Vermell Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana .............................................................................................................76 Figure 45. Aljau Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez ...............................................................................................................77 Figure 46. Mola Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez ...............................................................................................................78 Figure 47. Río Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez ..................................................................................................................79 Figure 48. Vermell Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ...............................................................................................................80 Figure 49. Group 6. 1-Atalaya Castle, 2-Dénia Castle, 3-Petrer Castle, 4-Salvatierra Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana .............................................................................................................81 Figure 50. Atalaya Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico................................................................................................................82 Figure 51. Dénia Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ..................................................................................................................83 Figure 52. Petrer Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ..................................................................................................................84 Figure 53. Salvatierra Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico...........................................................................................................85 Figure 54. Group 7. 1-Elda Castle, 2-Orihuela Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.............................................................................................................................................................86 Figure 55. Elda Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez ................................................................................................................87 Figure 56. Orihuela Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico ..............................................................................................................88 Figure 57. Group 8. 1-Santa Bárbara Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana ......89 Figure 58. Santa Bárbara Castle. Photo: Màrius Bevià i Garcia ..........................................................................................90 Figure 59. Castles management between 2003 and 2013 ..................................................................................................157 Figure 60. Professional profiles of interviewed people .....................................................................................................160 Figure 61. Management areas in charge of castles ............................................................................................................161 Figure 62. Actions undertaken in castles ...........................................................................................................................163 Figure 63. Overall actions of research, preservation, restoration, didactics and/or dissemination....................................164 Figure 64. Actions carried out before the crisis (2003-2007) ............................................................................................165 Figure 65. Actions carried out during the crisis (2008-2013) ............................................................................................166 Figure 66. Castalla Castle Heritage Site (2017).................................................................................................................170 Figure 67. Sax Castle Heritage Site (2017). Source: J.A. Mira Rico, 2016, p. 42, fig.5 ...................................................171
viii
List of Tables Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of interactive museum display style. Author’s own preparation from Joan Santacana i Mestre and Carolina Martín Piñol, 2010 ............................................................................................................8 Table 2. Municipalities with castles in the province of Alicante ...........................................................................................9 Table 3. Fortifications studied (all owned by the city council) ............................................................................................ 11 Table 4. Size of municipalities (Spanish Statistical Office) .................................................................................................12 Table 5. Groups and municipalities with their inhabitants –1 January 2013 .......................................................................13 Table 6. Groups and fortifications studied ...........................................................................................................................14 Table 7. People Interviewed with fortifications according to their groups ..........................................................................15 Table 8. Definitions of the concept “cultural heritage” by Spanish researchers and academics..........................................22 Table 9. Definitions of the concept “cultural heritage management” by Spanish researchers and academics ....................24 Table 10. Objectives under autonomous law on cultural heritage .......................................................................................26 Table 11. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 1)..........................................................................................91 Table 12a. General management data (group 1) ..................................................................................................................94 Table 12b. General management data (group 1) ..................................................................................................................95 Table 12c. General management data (group 1) ..................................................................................................................96 Table 12d. General management data (group 1) ..................................................................................................................97 Table 12e. General management data (group 1) ..................................................................................................................98 Table 13. Strengths and weaknesses (group 1) ....................................................................................................................99 Table 14. Research data (group 1) .....................................................................................................................................100 Table 15. Preservation data (group 1) ................................................................................................................................101 Table 16. Restoration data (group 1)..................................................................................................................................102 Table 17. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 1)...................................................................................................103 Table 18. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 2)........................................................................................104 Table 19a. General management data (group 2) ................................................................................................................106 Table 19b. General management data (group 2) ................................................................................................................106 Table 19c. General management data (group 2) ................................................................................................................107 Table 19d. General management data (group 2) ................................................................................................................108 Table 19e. General management data (group 2) ................................................................................................................108 Tables 20. Strengths and weaknesses (group 2).................................................................................................................109 Table 21. Research data (group 2) ..................................................................................................................................... 110 Table 22. Preservation data (group 2) ................................................................................................................................ 110 Table 23. Restoration data (group 2).................................................................................................................................. 111 Table 24. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 2)................................................................................................... 112 Table 25. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 3)........................................................................................ 113 Table 26a. General management data (group 3) ................................................................................................................ 114 Table 26b. General management data (group 3) ................................................................................................................ 114 Table 26c. General management data (group 3) ................................................................................................................ 114 ix
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 26d. General management data (group 3) ................................................................................................................ 115 Table 26e. General management data (group 3) ................................................................................................................ 115 Table 27. Strengths and weaknesses (group 3) .................................................................................................................. 115 Table 28. Research data (group 3) ..................................................................................................................................... 116 Table 29. Preservation data (group 3) ................................................................................................................................ 116 Table 30. Restoration data (group 3).................................................................................................................................. 116 Table 31. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 3)................................................................................................... 117 Table 32. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 4)........................................................................................ 118 Table 33a. General management data (group 4) ................................................................................................................120 Table 33b. General management data (group 4) ................................................................................................................121 Table 33c. General management data (group 4) ................................................................................................................122 Table 33d. General management data (group 4) ................................................................................................................124 Table 33e. General management data (group 4) ................................................................................................................125 Table 34. Strengths and weaknesses (group 4) ..................................................................................................................126 Table 35. Research data (group 4) .....................................................................................................................................127 Table 36. Preservation data (group 4) ................................................................................................................................128 Table 37. Restoration data (group 4)..................................................................................................................................130 Table 38. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 4)...................................................................................................131 Table 39. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 5)........................................................................................133 Table 40a. General management data (group 5) ................................................................................................................134 Table 40b. General management data (group 5) ................................................................................................................134 Table 40c. General management data (group 5) ................................................................................................................135 Table 41. Strengths and weaknesses (group 5) ..................................................................................................................135 Table 42. Research data (group 5) .....................................................................................................................................136 Table 43. Preservation data (group 5) ................................................................................................................................136 Table 44. Restoration data (group 5)..................................................................................................................................137 Table 45. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 5)...................................................................................................137 Table 46. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 6)........................................................................................139 Table 47a. General management data (group 6) ................................................................................................................139 Table 47b. General management data (group 6) ................................................................................................................140 Table 47c. General management data (group 6) ................................................................................................................140 Table 47d. General management data (group 6) ................................................................................................................141 Table 47e. General management data (group 6) ................................................................................................................141 Table 48. Strengths and weaknesses (group 6) ..................................................................................................................142 Table 49. Research data (group 6) .....................................................................................................................................143 Table 50. Preservation data (group 6) ................................................................................................................................143 Table 51. Restoration data (group 6)..................................................................................................................................144 Tables 52. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 6) .................................................................................................145 Table 53. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 7)........................................................................................148 Tables 54a. General management data (group 7)...............................................................................................................148
x
List of Tables
Tables 54b. General management data (group 7) ..............................................................................................................148 Tables 54c. General management data (group 7)...............................................................................................................149 Tables 54d. General management data (group 7) ..............................................................................................................149 Tables 54e. General management data (group 7)...............................................................................................................149 Table 55. Strengths and weaknesses (group 7) ..................................................................................................................149 Table 56. Research data (group 7) .....................................................................................................................................150 Table 57. Preservation data (group 7) ................................................................................................................................150 Table 58. Restoration data (group 7)..................................................................................................................................151 Table 59. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 7)...................................................................................................151 Table 60. Names and proposals for the Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route..........................................................................153 Table 61. Managed and unmanaged castles .......................................................................................................................156 Table 62. Group 1: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................157 Table 63. Group 2: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................158 Table 64. Group 3: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................158 Table 65. Group 4: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................159 Table 66. Group 5: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................159 Table 67. Group 6: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................160 Table 68. Group 7: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) .................................................................160 Table 69. Castles, type of management, professional profiles and management department(s)........................................167
xi
Preface This research work corresponds to the doctoral thesis carried out at the University of Alicante between 2013 and 2015, under the direction of Dr Mauro Severo Hernández Pérez. It was defended in January 2016 at the aforementioned university before a tribunal composed of Dr Gabino Ponce Herrero, Dr Joan Santacana i Mestre and Dr Rubí Sanz Gamo. Although this is a reduced and reworked version of the original study, it contains suggestions from members of the tribunal, as well as from other researchers and specialists in the management of castles.
interview has been undertaken with people whose job is closely related to local management. Most of the work based on the analysis of interviewees’ responses (chapter five) has been used to put forward some management proposals. These have been formulated following the different questions raised in the interviews (chapter two). Nevertheless, it has been necessary to go through the conceptual and theoretical framework (chapter three), where the idea of cultural heritage and its management has been studied, taking into account experiences and cases related to castles.
Several years of effort and study preceded the completion of this work. In this case, it has been made possible due to a combination of professional and academic factors. In particular, my employment is closely linked to cultural heritage management and to fortifications locally, as technical manager of the Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage and as co-director of the Castalla Castle Heritage Site Social Regeneration Project1–a subject of great interest [to me] considering that municipalities have day to day responsibility for such cultural assets.
The main characteristics of those castles selected for the research work have also been described (chapter four). Finally, the analysis ends with some conclusions detailing the most relevant aspects and perspectives (chapter six), and complementary chapters including: bibliography, electronic documents, blogs, websites, social networks, figures and tables with their authorship and origin. This work could not have been carried out without the aid of many people and institutions.
On the other hand, my academic specialisation in cultural heritage management enabled me to carry out the final project for a Masters Degree in Cultural Management, research option, from the Open University of Catalonia: Management Analysis of Castles in the Province of Alicante. Ambra Castle (Pego), Castalla Castle (Castalla), Cocentaina Castle, (Cocentaina), Monòver Castle (Monòver), Penella Castle (Penella) and Sax Castle (Sax) (Mira, 2013), under the direction of Dr Laura Solanilla Demestre. The study, forming the basis of this doctoral thesis, was the first attempt to find out how municipalities manage their castles. This is an issue that has not received any attention considering the number of such fortifications and the important role of municipalities in cultural heritage management.
Firstly, I would like to thank Dr M.S. Hernández Pérez, director of this research project, for his advice, and also Dr L. Solanilla Demestre, because her friendship, support, help and motivation have been crucial in order to complete the project. Secondly, I cannot forget the people who took part in this research, including those professionals from other countries who very kindly helped me with everything I asked for: Ms Diana Turley, Administrator Manager (South East) at English Heritage, who provided me with useful information on English castle management; Dr Alan Rutherford, Deputy Head of Designations (Scheduling)/ Heritage Management at Historic Environment Scotland, who showed me the mechanics of Scottish cultural heritage management through the Scottish Castle Initiative; and Mr Chris Wiebe, Manager Heritage Policy & Government Relations at Heritage Canada The National Trust, who introduced me to Canadian cultural heritage management. Aid received from other countries has also been incorporated at national level. In this sense the collaboration of Dr Santiago Varela Botella and Ms Carmen Pérez-Olagüe Iváñez de Lara, architects at the Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Valencian Community, Spain), and Ms Belén Rodríguez Nuere, coordinator of the National Plan for Defensive Architecture at the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, has been fundamental. They gave me key information about castles in municipal ownership. Likewise, the collaboration of Mr Juan José Mataix Albiñana, who provided me with part of the cartography
Moreover, a third factor contributing to the project derives from the prologue by Rafael Ruiz Azuar: Veinte años de excavaciones. Veinte años de investigación? (Azuar, 2001a). He brought to light the fact that most of the interventions carried out in castles have not always been followed by the publication of their results. This served as a leitmotiv to think about how fortifications were managed, despite the number and variety of actions taken. Qualitative analysis methodology has been used in order to achieve the proposed objectives and to validate or refute the hypothesis. To that end, an exhaustive semi-structured 1 For more information refer to http://www.gestioncultural.org/buenas_ practicas.php?id_proyectos=299223.
xiii
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
relating to the province of Alicante; in addition, the help given by Mr Màrius Bevià i Garcia, Mr José Ramón Ortega Pérez and Mr Andrés Ruiz Sánchez who lent me some images, has been important. These words of thanks are not complete without mentioning my family and friends for every gesture, year of friendship and shared experience. And especially I would like to thank Pami, who came unexpectedly [into my life] and has been walking together with me along the path of life ever since. Lastly, the completion of the doctoral thesis giving rise to this publication was made possible thanks to the financial support of the Juan Gil-Albert Institute (Provincial Council of Alicante), following my request for Research Support of Doctoral Theses on Social Sciences and Humanities in 2015.
xiv
Foreword I have great pleasure in presenting this work by Dr Juan Antonio Mira Rico, a colleague who has distinguished himself for his outstanding work in the field of management of fortified cultural heritage and management [of castles]. In particular, this work has attracted my attention for the exhaustive research in the data collection which has been carried out to support its proposal of analysis based on qualitative research on the management of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante, all with the objective of discovering how the municipalities of Alicante are managing the castles in their ownership. In addition the objective is to find out to what extent [the municipalities] contribute either to the conservation or deterioration of the history which surrounds many of them as symbols of their identity. The work interests us with its conceptual and theoretical framework in which the author provides us with a remarkable number of ideas in a clear, even paced and illustrative style that stimulates us to reflect on the theme of management of fortified cultural heritage while allowing us to understand its problems. The work skilfully discusses what the cultural heritage is and how it is defined, who the cultural manager is, and what are the profiles of the cultural manager. It discusses the cultural management diversity, and national and international practices for cultural management of castles amongst others. I believe that the greatest merit of this publication is to make a significant leap in the identification of those fortifications in the province of Alicante in which [the municipality] has done effective work in managing the fortified cultural heritage and, on the other hand, it gives us a clear vision of those fortified cultural assets which have not yet been given due attention to their value. Its great contribution is to highlight the good practices being carried out currently and at the same time to outline a possible future work plan to be carried out. I trust that this book will be of great use in the field of cultural management in general and will make a great contribution to the conservation, and management of fortified cultural heritage. It only remains to congratulate the author for his excellent work and to thank him for his contribution to the discipline of cultural management. Milagros Flores Román President – International Scientific Committee on Fortifications and Military Heritage-ICOFORT
xv
1 Introduction after the arrival of democracy. The study area (province of Alicante) has 46 fortifications in municipal ownership nowadays. Furthermore, besides walled cities, those belonging to other administrations and private owners, such as look-out towers – torres de huerta in Alicante – and fortresses should also be included.
Castles, from a scientific and non-scientific point of view, are possibly one of the most fascinating cultural assets in society whether because of [childhood] toys, literature, television or mystery. Who did not want to visit one of them as a child? Have you never been amazed when you have seen one for the first time? This is due to mythologizing by a society that, at the same time, does not allocate enough resources for their preservation and restoration –in spite of their being a symbol of identity in places where they are located.
Many of these castles have their origin during the Muslim occupation, from the eighth to the middle of the thirteenth century, or as a defensive system between the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile in the thirteenth to fifteenth centuries – (Ferrer, 1990; Guinot, 1995). They were of vital importance because of the conflicts between both kingdoms from 1296 to 1430, including the conquest of the Kingdom of Murcia (1296-1304), the War of the Two Peters (1356-1365) and the War of Castile (1429-1430) (Guinot, 1995; Hinojosa, 1995).
Due to some historical vicissitudes in the formation of Spain and Portugal, the Iberian Peninsula has an important set of castles distributed in both countries. There are some fortifications in public ownership belonging to the city councils of those municipalities in which they are located. Focusing on Spain, the Valencian Community is one of the most privileged administrative divisions (ref. Figure 1) which is one of the 17 autonomous communities created after the Spanish Constitution of 1978 came into force and
In fact, it can be said that fortifications are the cultural assets which have generated more bibliography, both scientific and non-scientific, throughout history. This is due
Figure 1. Spain: Valencian Community and its provinces –Castellón, Valencia and Alicante– within the frame. Source: d-mpas. com.
1
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 2. Results from documents containing the word “castle” in Dialnet.
Figure 3. Results from documents containing the words “medieval castle” in Dialnet.
However, it should be noted that not all documents refer to fortifications, since they can be literary or biographical, as well as by authors who have the surname “Castle”. If the search is refined using the words “medieval castle”, with the aim of focusing the results on fortifications, 1,140 documents are found (Figure 3).
to the interest they have always aroused in society, as the analysis of some bibliographic portals shows. Taking as a reference the Spanish bibliographic portal Dialnet which is free and specialises in social sciences, legal sciences and humanities, if the word “castle” is introduced, 38,937 documents1 appear divided into the following categories (Figure 2).
224 documents out of 1,140 correspond to castles, besides journal articles, book articles, books and doctoral theses (Figures 4-5).
Date: 30 November 2014. Date: 27 October 2016, the number of documents has increased to 46,353.
1
2
Introduction
Figure 4. Results from documents containing the word “castle” in Dialnet linked to castles.
Figure 5. Results from documents containing the words “medieval castle” in Dialnet linked to castles.
A further step can be taken in order to ascertain which documents would be part of classical studies, historical, archaeological, architectural and documentary, or of new approaches developed in recent years to management, building materials and digitisation, among other issues (Figure 6).
al., 2002; García, 2011; Vinyoles et al., 2003), actions and technological applications in emergency situations (Eiroa et al., 2012; Prieto, 2000), natural agents on fortification degradation (Guardia et al., 2013), and building materials (Bohigas et al., 1989). The primacy of classical studies over new approaches is also visible in Valencian castles. The pioneering work of Juan Mateo Box (1953) and Francisco G. Seijo Alonso (1964) is a good example, as well as the studies of AA.VV. (1983 and 1994), R. Azuar Ruiz (1981, 1985a, 1985b and 1991), R. Azuar Ruiz and Francisco José Navarro Suárez
From the analysis of the previous figures, the predominance of publications on classical studies can be seen, 216 vs 8. However, new approaches are addressing interesting topics such as knowledge of the Middle Ages using information and communication technologies (Cantarell et 3
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 6. Results from documents containing the words “medieval castle” in Dialnet linked to classical studies or new approaches.
fortifications may suffer a negative impact if they are not managed properly. This is especially so when there is no management or if it is amateur and willful, and far from current scientific and technical criteria.
(1995), R. Azuar Ruiz et al. (1985), José Luis Menéndez Fueyo et al. (2010), Concepción Navarro Poveda (1990, 1992 and 1993), José Ramón Ortega Pérez et al. (2013), José María Segura Martí and Josep Torró Abad (1985), and Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García (2001). These are general studies focused on fortifications in the province of Alicante. But there are also specific studies, such as those of C. Navarro Poveda (1992) about Mola Castle, or J.R. Ortega Pérez et al. (2013) about Aljau Castle. As a result, it has been possible to get to know better their history, morphology, building materials used, pathologies and occupation at different times in history. Likewise, several actions of preservation and restoration have been carried out to improve their condition and to restore them. Two examples are Castalla Castle (Menéndez et al, 2010), restored between 2003 and 2006; and Biar Castle (Azuar, 1981; Hinojosa, 1995), with interventions for consolidation and restoration between the second half of the twentieth century and the first decade of the twentyfirst century (Azuar, 1981; Gallud and del Rey, 2010: 429; Segura and Simón: 55 and 56; Varela: 2000).
Despite the fact that classical studies are more numerous and fundamental, works based on new approaches are becoming frequent and are useful to improve this management. For example the International Congress on Fortified Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, held in Pamplona (Spain) from 15 to 17 October 2014 (http://congress.fortiuspamplonabayonne. eu/en/el-congreso/15-17-octubre-2014-congresointernacional/); the International Congress on Modern Age Fortifications at the West Coast of the Mediterranean, held in Valencia (Spain) from 15 to 17 October 2015 (https://fortmed.blogs.upv.es); the International Congress on Defence Heritage, held in Alicante (Spain) from 4 to 6 May 2016 (http://www.wessex.ac.uk/conferences/2016/ defence-heritage-2016); and the International Congress on Fortified Heritage – ICOFORT, held in Montevideo (Uruguay) from 3 to 7 October 2016 (http://fortalezas. org/impressao1.php?ct=evento&id_evento=79). The first congress, besides referring to management, had eight subjects: one; History, Preservation and Restoration would be linked to classical studies while the rest; Management Plans; Governance, Security and Accessibility; Reuse and Sustainability; Landscaping, Maintenance and Urban Planning; Funding, Foundations and Volunteerism; Communication, Marketing and Branding; Fortified Heritage, Culture, Tourism and Education, would be covered under new approaches. The second congress had seven subjects: three; Historical and Documentary Research; Theoretical Concepts; Research on Built Heritage, would belong to classical studies while the rest; Geomaterials Characterisation; Digital Heritage; Management and
The Valencian context, particularly the province of Alicante, has not been analysed to date with respect to management. Thus, this research is justified by the need to understand how municipalities have managed their castles between 2003 and 2013, in order to: • Fill a gap that currently exists in the research. • Discover their similarities, differences, strengths and weaknesses. • Propose measures for improving or enhancing management policies. As stated above, there is no evidence concerning previous works in the Valencian Community. This is strange because 4
Introduction
Culture; and Miscellany, would be undetermined. The third congress had 13 subjects: five; Fortified Cities; Case Studies; Preservation and Restoration; Military Heritage History; Castles and Fortresses, would be part of classical studies while the rest; Community Involvement; Economic Analysis; Risk Assessment; Simulation and Modelling; Funding and Legal Requirements; Military Engineering in the Modern Age; Transition from Military to Civilian Uses; Fortified Heritage, Culture, Tourism and Education, would be related to new approaches. The fourth congress had five subjects: two; Historical Research and Interpretation; Preservation, Materials and Rehabilitation, would belong to classical studies while the rest; Reuse, Management and Sustainable Development; Cultural Tourism; and Heritage Education, would be linked to new approaches. Therefore, in view of the foregoing, it may be concluded that new approaches along with traditional ones lead to many opportunities for work in order to improve their management.
5
2 Methodology A qualitative research methodology, i.e. a semi-structured interview analysis technique, has been used to fulfil the objectives of this research, as well as to validate or refute the formulated hypothesis. Its characteristics have been described by Amanda Coffey and Paul Atkinson (2005), by Uwe Flick (2004), Steve J. Taylor and Robert Bogdan (2002), and by Irene Vasilachis de Gialdino (2009).
professional nature”. There are several types of interview that may be used to obtain data: a structured interview (Fontana and Frey, 1994), a semi-structured interview (Flick, 2004), an in-depth interview (Taylor and Bogdan, 2002) or a group interview (Berg, 2007). As already noted, this research is based on the semistructured interview type which has different subtypes (see Figure 7).
2.1. General Objective, Specific Objectives and Working Hypothesis
This model has been chosen because it focuses the interview not on the person, but on his/her level of specialism in order to collect information. In this way, “(...) the expert is included in the study as a representative of a group (of experts), (...)” analysing and comparing “(...) experts’ knowledge (...)” (Flick, 2004: 104 and 105). This knowledge becomes interesting because the interviewed people were responsible for managing castles. However, there was an exception with Sax Castle; an expert who did not work in the city council and did not manage the fortification was interviewed, but he did draft the master plan. As for Castalla Castle, it should be noted that the interviewee was the same person who has carried out this project [the author], since there was only a technician in charge of it. That is to say, he was both a PhD candidate and an expert. From a methodological point of view, being the object and subject of a study at the same time is unusual. However this was because there was no one else at the Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage to answer the questions. Castalla Castle could also have been left out of this research, but it was decided to include it due to its historical importance and the work that has been done on it. Having said that, it can be said that questions were answered honestly and the answers given can be compared with other works, as well as information available from other documents, websites and in the media.
The analysis is based on the following objectives: General • How municipalities in the province of Alicante had managed their castles between 2003 and 2013. Specific • Who was in charge of managing the castles between? Cultural heritage and tourism technicians, museum directors, etc. and which areas or municipal institutions, cultural heritage services, cultural services, museums, tourist offices, etc. were in charge. • Identifying similarities and differences at management level among the fortifications. • What actions linked to research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination had been carried out. From these objectives, the following research questions were raised. More information can be found in U. Flick (2004: 61-67): • Question 1. How have municipalities managed their castles? • Question 2. Who has done it? • Question 3. Which bodies and/or municipal institutions have been in charge of it? • Question 4. Is there a single model of management?
2.2. Analysis Technique: Semi-structured Interviews with Experts
On the other hand, the semi-structured interview allows for discussion with the interviewee, avoiding the limitations imposed by a structured interview, for example with closed questions, and adjusting them to the object of study, which may be very useful for biographical studies narrated in first person, for learning facts or getting to know different situations. Nevertheless, like structured interviews and indepth interviews, it presents advantages and disadvantages as suggested by Eloísa Pérez Santos (2000: 96, table 3.5). M. Meuser and U. Nagel have pointed out some failure factors with this kind of interview, which the author has tried to avoid (Flick, 2004: 104 and 105):
An interview is defined by Henry Pratt Fairchild (1992) as “(…) information obtained through a conversation of a
• “The expert may block the interview (...), because he/ she is an expert in this topic as previously supposed.
Therefore, this working hypothesis has been formulated from the questions above: the size of municipalities, managers’ training, as well as administrative fields or whether institutions have influenced the management of castles in municipal ownershipy located in the province of Alicante between 2003 and 2013.
7
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 7. Subtypes of semi-structured interview. Author’s own preparation from U. Flick, 2004: 89-109.
other subject. It should be noted that this information was on known actions. However, if unknown actions have been performed, these cannot be ruled out. • Block 4. Management data: preservation. This had four questions about preservation activities. • Block 5. Management data: restoration. This contained four questions about restoration activities. • Block 6. Management data: didactics and/or dissemination. This block consisted of nine questions about didactics and/or dissemination activities. It drew attention to the way in which the fortifications were presented as museums [musealisation], and whether they were traditional or interactive [in style]. Traditional museum presentation is based on the primacy of an exhibited object, the passive role of visitors and its appeal to specialists. On the other hand, interactive museum presentation promotes active participation by the visitors: it is accessible to all and more didactic, but no less rigorous, and uses more resources than just exhibited objects to make the contents known. Both models have advantages and disadvantages (see Table 1), but the best option is a presentation style appealing to all visitors, not just to specialists, thereby improving
• The expert may try to involve the interviewer in conflicts (...), and talk about internal issues and intrigues in his/ her own field of work instead of referring to the subject of the interview. • The expert may often change between the roles of expert and private person, so that more information could be derived from him/her as a person rather than his/her expert knowledge. • (...) the expert may offer to talk about his/her knowledge instead of participating in the question/answer format of the interview (...)”. Regarding its characteristics, the interview had 58 questions grouped into six blocks: • Block 1. Data about the people interviewed. This consisted of eight questions to get to know them better: name, training, position, experience, etc. • Block 2. General management data. This had 29 questions concerning which council departments were responsible, their management tools, etc. • Block 3. Management data: research. This contained four questions about research activities; historical or any
Table 1. Advantages and disadvantages of interactive museum display style. Author’s own preparation from Joan Santacana i Mestre and Carolina Martín Piñol (2010) Advantages
Disadvantages
It is a feasible and valid alternative to the traditional museum display style, for the role that museums can play in teaching and learning.
It is rather a foreign concept and its detractors criticise it as a banal museum display trend, lacking rigour and infantile.
Visitors change from a passive role, contemplation, to an active role. They can get to know, discover, explore, investigate, and learn about the subject, etc. The visit to the museum becomes a rewarding experience.
Depending on the modules, their cost and maintenance can be high. This handicap may be especially detrimental in small and medium-sized museums with limited resources.
It allows a great diversity of resources to be used such as ICT, role plays, etc. making for more attractive and dynamic experiences for all the public.
Its use must be balanced. Otherwise, there is a danger of it becoming banal and turning the museum into a circus.
8
Methodology
the enjoyment and learning of people outside the classroom. Therefore in this sense, interactive museum displays outperform the traditional style.
architecture. For example, Segaria Castle, Benimeli, or Aigües Castle, Aigües, which were probably little more than towers. Look-out towers, Campello and torres de huerta, Alicante, have not been studied either, neither have palaces, Cocentaina or Onil, fortresses, Bernia or Santa Pola and walled urban sites, such asVila Joiosa. Guadalest Castle is an exception, since although it looks like a walled urban ensemble, its walls surround the municipality. • Study of fortifications not masked by later works. Castles masked by constructions, buildings or developments after their chronology have not been analysed; such as Benidorm Castle, Benidorm, located under the current Plaza del Castillo; nor Nompot Castle, Monforte del Cid, situated under the parochial church of Nuestra Señora de las Nieves. • Establishment of a specific framework: province of Alicante. Its historical vicissitudes, firstly as part of al-Andalus, and later of the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile, have turned this Spanish administrative division into a privileged place for the study of castles. The province of Alicante has 94 municipalities, with 56 castles in municipal or private ownership (see Table 2):
Interviews were limited to one hour to avoid interviewee fatigue. Moreover, they were done, wherever possible, in their own environment in order to make them feel more comfortable. Sometimes, in order to avoid interfering with interviewees’ work, they were carried out via telephone or e-mail. In both cases, the time for the interview was agreed beforehand to ensure their attendance without interruptions. 2.3. Study Sources Bearing in mind that the province of Alicante has a large number [of relevant castles on which] to undertake a study of this nature, the most appropriate criteria [for selecting them] were the following: • Analysis of castles considered as such according to the General Inventory of Valencian Cultural Heritage. Although there are some constructions that have the name of castles, they correspond to other kinds of Table 2. Municipalities with castles in the province of Alicante Registration Number
Municipality
Castle
1
Adsubia
Forna Castle
2 3
Agost Castle
Agost
Murta Castle
4
Agres
5
Alcalalí
Aixa Castle
6
Algorfa
Montemar Castle
7
Alicante
Santa Bárbara Castle
8 9 10 11 12
Agres Castle
Aljau Castle
Aspe
Río Castle
Balones
Costurera or Seta Castle Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Banyeres de Mariola
Serrella Castle
13
Benifallim
Benifallim Castle
14
Benimantell
Benimantell Castle
15
Biar
Biar Castle
16
Bolulla
Garx Castle
17
Busot
Busot Castle
18
Callosa de Segura
Callosa de Segura Castle
19
Castalla
Castalla Castle
20
Castell de Castells
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
21 22
Cocentaina Castle
Cocentaina
Penella Castle
23
Confrides
Alfofra Castle
24
Cox
Santa Bárbara Castle
25
Dénia
Dénia Castle
26
El Camp de Mirra
Almizra Castle
27
El Castell de Guadalest
Guadalest Castle
9
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Registration Number
Municipality
Castle
28
Elda
Elda Castle
29
Guardamar del Segura
Guardamar del Segura Castle
30 31 32 33 34
Vermell Castle
Ibi
Vell Castle
La Vall d’Ebo
Vall d’Ebo Castle Alcalà or Benissili Castle
La Vall de Gallinera
Gallinera or Benirrama Castle
35
La Vall de Laguar
Laguar Castle
36
L’Orxa
Barcella Castle
37
Millena
Travadell Castle
38
Monòver
Monòver Castle
39
Novelda
Mola Castle
40
Orihuela
Orihuela Castle
41
Orxeta
Orxeta Castle
42
Pedreguer
Ocaive Castle
43
Pego
Ambra Castle
44
Penàguila
Penàguila Castle
45
Petrer
Petrer Castle
46 47
Planes Castle
Planes
Margarida Castle
48
Polop de la Marina
Polop de la Marina Castle
49
Relleu
Relleu Castle
50
Sax
Sax Castle
51
Sella
Santa Bàrbara Castle
52
Tàrbena
Tàrbena Castle
53
Tibi
54 55 56
Tibi Castle Atalaya Castle
Villena
Salvatierra Castle
Xixona
Torre Grossa Castle
similar environments: it did not make sense to compare the management in Castalla, a medium-sized municipality, with that of Alicante, the capital of the province, because their resources cannot logically be the same. The criterion used to establish their environment grouping was population size, since municipalities of equal size should have similar resources, although the reality may be different. Other criteria such as the geographic location (coast/inland) or available economic resources could also have been used, but despite its limitations, eg. differences between census population and real population size, this option was chosen because it allowed a better comparison. Most of these castles do not have their own economic resources with which to manage them. When considering the geographic location, no fortification in the interior would suffer damage in the same way as Santa Bárbara Castle (Alicante).
From these data, it can be noted that 49 municipalities have castles (52.13 per cent), while 45 have none (47.87 per cent). Moreover, 41 municipalities have a fortification (83.67 per cent) and eight (16.33 per cent) have two fortifications. • Analysis of municipal castles. Since the general objective was to find out about the management of municipal castles in the province of Alicante, privately owned fortifications have not been studied, eg. Vell Castle and Orxeta Castle, as well as those castles whose ownership has not been determined, eg. Barcella Castle. For the preparation of this doctoral thesis and a previous article (Mira, 2017a), Santa Bárbara Castle (Cox) was considered to be in municipal ownership as stated by the Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana). During the preparation of this publication, it was confirmed that this fortification was owned by the Generalitat Valenciana, but it had been transferred to the city council. Therefore, it was left out of this study.
Taking advantage of the distribution published by the Spanish Statistical Office which classifies the size of municipalities based on the number of inhabitants (Table 4), the castles were put into eight groups (see Table 5) according to the population size at 1 January 2013.
The fortifications in Table 3 were chosen for the study. Furthermore, these fortifications were grouped into 10
Methodology
Table 3. Fortifications studied (all owned by the city council) Registration Number 1 2
Municipality
Castle Agost Castle
Agost
Murta Castle
3
Alcalalí
Aixa Castle
4
Alicante
Santa Bárbara Castle
5 6
Aljau Castle
Aspe
Río Castle
7
Balones
Costurera or Seta Castle
8
Banyeres de Mariola
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
9
Benifallim
Benifallim Castle
10
Biar
Biar Castle
11
Bolulla
Garx Castle
12
Busot
Busot Castle
13
Callosa de Segura
Callosa de Segura Castle
14
Castalla
Castalla Castle
15
Castell de Castells
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
16 17 18
Cocentaina Castle
Cocentaina
Penella Castle
Confrides
Alfofra Castle
19
Dénia
Dénia Castle
20
Camp de Mirra
Almizra Castle
21
Castell de Guadalest
Guadalest Castle
22
Elda
Elda Castle
23
Guardamar del Segura
Guardamar del Segura Castle
24
Ibi
Vermell Castle
25
Vall d’Ebo
Vall d’Ebo Castle
26
Vall de Gallinera
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
27
Vall de Laguar
Laguar Castle
28
Millena
Travadell Castle
29
Monòver
Monòver Castle
30
Novelda
Mola Castle
31
Orihuela
Orihuela Castle
32
Pedreguer
Ocaive Castle
33
Pego
Ambra Castle
34
Penàguila
Penàguila Castle
35
Petrer
Petrer Castle
36 37
Planes Castle
Planes
Margarida Castle
38
Polop de la Marina
Polop de la Marina Castle
39
Relleu
Relleu Castle
40
Sax
Sax Castle
41
Sella
Santa Bàrbara Castle
42
Tàrbena
Tàrbena Castle
43
Tibi
Tibi Castle
44 45 46
Atalaya Castle
Villena
Salvatierra Castle
Xixona
Torre Grossa Castle
11
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 4. Size of municipalities (Spanish Statistical Office) Size of Municipalities (Spanish Statistical Office) Less than 101 101 – 500 501 – 1,000 1,001 – 2,000 2,001 – 3,000 3,001 – 5,000 5,001 – 10,000 10,001 – 20,000 20,001 – 30,000 30,001 – 50,000 50,001 – 100,000 100,001 – 500,000 More than 500,000
In view of the above, the classification can be seen in Table 6.
the exceptions noted. Other profiles such as politicians were omitted because they were not considered optimal for this project. Regarding the academic profile characterised by the university professor, it should be pointed out that, in spite of not having a technical function, his knowledge allowed him to participate in management. Finally, under the heading of technical profiles, many kinds of technicians were identified:
Once fortifications had been chosen and distributed into their corresponding groups, the next step was to determine who had to be interviewed. The requirements were for them to have a technical profile and to work in the city council, regardless of whether they were public officials or not. In this sense, the most suitable figure to be interviewed was the cultural heritage technician. However, as it was a new work profile, most municipalities did not have them and other kinds of experts had to be interviewed. In the case of Sax, a person with an academic profile but who was closely related to the castle was selected. In small municipalities such as Balones or Bolulla, which did not have adequate technical staff, technicians from the Provincial Council of Alicante were interviewed since they provide services in these municipalities (Table 7).
• Archivist and librarian. His function was not to manage a fortification, but he did it because of his knowledge. • Archaeologist. His function was to manage archaeological assets. He played a crucial role in the management of castles due to the importance of archaeological studies to get to know them better. • Architect/technical architect/engineer. These professionals have traditionally worked on urban topics. However, they were necessary for preservation and restoration. • Culture assistant. He did not manage a fortification, but he was in charge of it because of his knowledge. • Museum director. Although he/she did not manage castles, unless a museum was installed inside them, his/her real function included managing their cultural heritage. • Environment technician. In many cases fortifications were located in high environmental value areas that were protected with combined management of natural and cultural heritage. María Ángeles Querol Fernández (1995: 301-306) published an interesting work about managing both [cultural and natural] heritage through the unification of inventories, coordination of policies and programmes of actions, under the label “integral heritage”. This situation was obvious in Castalla Castle or Sax Castle, which were located in areas of outstanding environmental value. The most important was the Sax Castle Hillside Municipal Natural Landscape Special Plan. In Castalla, the natural heritage was beginning to be managed within the Castalla Castle Heritage Site Social Regeneration Project (http://www.gestioncultural.org/ buenas_practicas.php?id_proyectos=299223).
As can be seen, in some cases, Castell de Guadalest (group 1), Biar (group 2), Pego and Sax (group 4), and Novelda (group 5), several people were interviewed because they had useful data for this research. In Castell de Guadalest and Biar, the architect was in charge of preservation and restoration, while the tourism technician carried out dissemination activities. In Pego, the architect was responsible for preservation, and the archivist carried out dissemination activities. In Sax, the archivist-librarian was responsible for research, didactics and dissemination, along with the culture assistant while the architect carried out preservation activities; the environment technician was responsible for research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination of everything related to it; and the professor would undertake planning tasks. In Novelda, the museum director was in charge of research, preservation, didactics and dissemination, sharing this with the tourism technician. On the other hand, priority was given to experts’ technical profiles and their relationship with the city council, with 12
Methodology
Table 5. Groups and municipalities with their inhabitants –1 January 2013 Group
1
2
3
4
5
6
Number of Inhabitants
Municipalities
Inhabitants
Balones
147
Benifallim
123
Bolulla
448
Castell de Castells
483
Confrides
243
Camp de Mirra
435
Castell de Guadalest
236
Vall d’Ebo
281
Vall de Gallinera
609
Vall de Laguar
942
Millena
215
Penàguila
321
Planes
817
Sella
615
Tàrbena
797
Agost
4,787
Alcalalí
1,401
Biar
3,689
Busot
3,429
Polop de la Marina
4,688
Relleu
1,330
Tibi
1,757
Banyeres de Mariola
7,157
Pedreguer
7,757
Xixona
7,366
Callosa de Segura
17,992
Castalla
10,579
Cocentaina
11,558
Guardamar del Segura
16,957
Monòver
12,720
Pego
10,957
Sax
10,091
Aspe
20,341
Ibi
23,634
Novelda
26,517
Dénia
44,726
Petrer
34,726
Villena
34,966
Elda
54,056
Orihuela
91,260
Alicante
335,052
Less than 101 – 1,000
1,001 – 5,000
5,001 – 10,000
10,001 – 20,000
20,001 – 30,000
30,001 – 50,000
7
50,001 – 100,000
8
100.001 – 500.000
13
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 6. Groups and fortifications studied Group
1
Number of Inhabitants
Less than 101 – 1,000
Municipalities
Castles
Balones
Costurera or Seta Castle
Benifallim
Benifallim Castle
Bolulla
Garx Castle
Castell de Castells
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
Confrides
Alfofra Castle
Camp de Mirra
Almizra Castle
Castell de Guadalest
Guadalest Castle
Vall d’Ebo
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Vall de Gallinera
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
Vall de Laguar
Laguar Castle
Millena
Travadell Castle
Penàguila
Penàguila Castle
Planes
3
Sella
Santa Bàrbara Castle Tàrbena Castle
Aixa Castle Biar Castle
Busot
Busot Castle
Polop de la Marina
Polop de la Marina Castle
Relleu
Relleu Castle
Tibi
Tibi Castle
Banyeres de Mariola
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Pedreguer
Ocaive Castle
Xixona
Torre Grossa Castle
Callosa de Segura
Callosa de Segura Castle
Castalla
Castalla Castle
5,001 – 10,000
6
Monòver
Monòver Castle
Pego
Ambra Castle
Sax
Sax Castle
100,001 – 500,000
14
Río Castle
Ibi
Vermell Castle Mola Castle
Dénia
Dénia Castle
Villena
8
Aljau Castle
Novelda Petrer
30,001 – 50,000
50,001 – 100,000
Penella Castle Guardamar del Segura Castle
20,001 – 30,000
7
Cocentaina Castle
Guardamar del Segura
Aspe 5
Murta Castle
Biar
1,001 – 5,000
10,001 – 20,000
Agost Castle
Alcalalí
Cocentaina 4
Margarida Castle
Tàrbena Agost
2
Planes Castle
Petrer Castle Atalaya Castle Salvatierra Castle
Elda
Elda Castle
Orihuela
Orihuela Castle
Alicante
Santa Bárbara Castle
Methodology
Table 7. People Interviewed with fortifications according to their groups Group
1
Municipalities
Castles
Balones
Costurera or Seta Castle
Benifallim
Benifallim Castle
Bolulla
Garx Castle
Castell de Castells
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
Confrides
Alfofra Castle
Camp de Mirra
Almizra Castle
Castell de Guadalest
Guadalest Castle
Vall d’Ebo Vall de Gallinera Vall de Laguar
Vall d’Ebo Castle Alcalà or Benissili Castle Laguar Castle
Millena
Travadell Castle
Penàguila
Penàguila Castle
Alcalalí
Planes Castle Margarida Castle Santa Bàrbara Castle Tàrbena Castle Agost Castle Murta Castle Aixa Castle
Biar
Biar Castle
Busot Polop de la Marina Relleu Tibi Banyeres de Mariola Pedreguer Xixona Callosa de Segura
Busot Castle Polop de la Marina Castle Relleu Castle Tibi Castle Banyeres de Mariola Castle Ocaive Castle Torre Grossa Castle Callosa de Segura Castle
Castalla
Castalla Castle
Planes Sella Tàrbena Agost
2
3
Guardamar del Segura
Cocentaina Castle Penella Castle Guardamar del Segura Castle
Monòver
Monòver Castle
Pego
Ambra Castle
Sax
Sax Castle
Aspe
Aljau Castle
Petrer
Río Castle
Ibi
Vermell Castle Salvatierra Castle
Cocentaina
4
5
15
People Interviewed Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Municipal architect Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Municipal technical architect Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Tourism technician Municipal engineer Municipal architect Municipal architect Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Management Agency architect from the Provincial Council of Alicante (Cocentaina) Municipal architect Municipal technical architect Municipal architect Agost Pottery Museum director Municipal architect Technical manager of the Urbanism and Architecture Area Tourism technician Municipal technical architect Municipal architect Relleu Historical-Ethnographic Museum director Municipal architect Museums director Municipal architect Cultural heritage technician Museums director Technical manager of the Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage Cultural heritage technician Cultural heritage curator Technical manager of Works, Urbanism and Environment Service Municipal archivist Municipal architect Culture assistant Human geography professor Archivist and librarian Municipal architect Environment technician Aspe Historical Museum director Dámaso Navarro Archaeological and Ethnological Museum director Navarro de Petrer Municipal architect
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Group
6
7 8
Municipalities
Castles
People Interviewed
Dénia
Dénia Castle
Petrer
Petrer Castle
Villena
Atalaya Castle
Elda
Elda Castle
Orihuela
Orihuela Castle
Alicante
Santa Bárbara Castle
Head of Museums and Archaeology Area Dámaso Navarro Archaeological and Ethnological Museum director José María Soler Archaeological Museum director Municipal archaeologist Municipal archaeologist and District of Orihuela Archaeological Museum director Technical manager of the Cultural-Historical Heritage Preservation Unit
• Cultural heritage technician. He was in charge of managing cultural heritage, and therefore he played an important role. • Tourism technician. In recent years, this has become an important profile in order to promote cultural heritage, through so-called “cultural tourism”. He was a crucial figure to promote the more social aspects of castles. 2.4. Time Framework To undertake research with an extensive sample of castles, sometimes under management for long periods, it was necessary to have well established chronological limits, i.e. from the beginning of the twenty-first century, specifically between 2003 and 2013. On the one hand, this period began five years after the Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage came into force, which allowed a proper time to get accustomed to managing castles under the new regulations to elapse. On the other hand, it extends until 2013, making possible a comparison between management before the economic crisis (2003-2007) and during it (2008-2013).
16
3 Conceptual and Theoretical Framework 3.1. Cultural Heritage: A Multifaceted Term
the definition and implementation of new national plans regarding abbeys, monasteries and convents, intangible heritage, photographic heritage preservation, preventive preservation, heritage preservation research, twentieth century heritage, education and heritage, and traditional architecture.
Cultural heritage, in particular the Spanish case, is in fashion currently, that is to say, it arouses more interest now than at other times in the past. This statement may sound odd in the current context of financial crisis, bearing in mind the scarce resources compared to other fields. However, this was because of the following reasons.
At autonomous level, there were some networks for recovering archaeological sites from different eras. Castilla-La Mancha had the Network of Archaeological Parks and Sites to Visit (Cebrián, 2003; FernándezGaliano and Puche, 2005; Lorente et al., 2007; http://www. patrimoniohistoricoclm.es/parques-arqueologicos/; http:// www.patrimoniohistoricoclm.es/yacimientos/).
Firstly, it was due to some actions that have been taken. Since 2000, innumerable interventions have been undertaken on Spanish tangible and intangible cultural assets at state, regional and local level. Nevertheless, many of them have resulted from uncontrolled development, damaging cultural heritage, especially archaeological assets without assessing whether they have produced the expected results, whether they were framed within wellplanned projects or whether as a need for expediency. For this reason, in a similar way to that in which we speak about a “housing bubble”, we may also refer to a “cultural bubble”.
It was composed of 11 archaeological sites: archeological parks; Segóbriga, Carranque, Alarcos, Recópolis and Tolmo de Minateda; and sites to visit; Libisosa, Valeria, Ercávica, Cerro de las Cabezas, Motilla del Azuer and the Hispano-Muslim settlement of Casares. “protection enhances and transmits to future generations those flagship elements of regional archaeological heritage; the intensification of dissemination in this historical heritage; the promotion of sustainable development for archaeological parks; and the encouragement of co-responsibility and public entity collaboration in these areas, avoiding possible dysfunctions” (http://www.patrimoniohistoricoclm.es/ parques-arqueologicos/).
At state level, actions undertaken within the so-called Cultural 1.5 per cent and the different national plans proposed by the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, stand out. The Cultural 1.5 per cent is an initiative undertaken by a commission composed of the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport (Spanish government). According to section 68.1 of Act 16/1985 of 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage, economic resources are allocated from financed public works, in whole or in part, for research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination. This was very important since it contributed to the recovery of Biar Castle (group 2), Castalla Castle (group 4) and Atalaya Castle (group 6).
Other examples were the Galician Network of Archaeological Heritage (Rodríguez et al., 2006; Rey et al., 2007; Tallón et al., 2003; Tallón et al., 2005), the Plan of Sites to Visit in the Community of Madrid (Benet et al., 2010; Martínez et al., 2007), and the Network of Cultural Spaces in Andalusia (Verdugo, 2010). The Galician network consisted of four archaeological parks but only two have been developed: Rock Art Archaeological Park of Campo Lameiro (Pontevedra) and Castro Culture Archaeological Park (Ourense). On the other hand, the Community of Madrid had 21 open sites, such as the Roman city of Complvtvm (Alcalá de Henares) and the medieval castle of Arroyomolinos, with another 18 at the study phase (http://www.madrid.org/cs/ Satellite?c=CM_InfPractica_FA&cid=1142651767196& language=es&pagename=ComunidadMadrid%2FEstruc tura). Finally, the Andalusian network was made up of 11 archaeological sites and two monumental sites; Puerta de Almería Archaeological Site (Almería), Los Millares Archaeological Site (Santa Fe de Mondújar, Almería), Vélez Blanco Castle Monumental Site (Vélez Blanco, Almería), Carteia Archaeological Site (San Roque,
Actions carried out within the framework of national plans were also noteworthy. “They are cultural heritage management tools to streamline and optimise the resources intended for preservation and diffusion from the study of assets, ensuring at all times the coordination of actions among state, autonomous and local administration” (http:// ipce.mcu.es/conservacion/planesnacionales.html). These tools have been developed and implemented by the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute along with autonomous communities. At present, national plans for cathedrals, defensive architecture, cultural landscape and industrial heritage are being redefined. Furthermore, the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute is working on
17
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Cádiz), Gades Archaeological Site: Columbarios (Cádiz), Gades Archaeological Site: Salting Factory (Cádiz), Gades Archaeological Site: Roman Theatre (Cádiz), Doña Blanca Castle Archaeological Site (Puerto de Santa María, Cádiz), Ategua Archaeological Site (Santa Cruz, Córdoba), Baza Arabic Baths Monumental Site (Baza, Granada), San Miguel Arabic Baths Archaeological Site (Ronda, Málaga), Roman Theatre Archaeological Site (Málaga), Munigua Archaeological Site (Villanueva del Río y Minas, Sevilla); (Fuertes and Hidalgo, 2005; Muñoz and García, 2010; de Guzmán Sánchez et al., 2010; Rodríguez, 2010; Suárez and Alcalá, 2005; Vallejo and Soler, 2005; Villafranca and Chamorro, 2005; http:// www.juntadeandalucia.es/cultura/web/AAIICC/sites/ consejeria/AAIICC/reca).
“(…) should bring benefits to host communities and provide important means and motivation for them to care for and maintain their heritage and cultural practices (…)”. (Thus) “(…) a sustainable tourism industry will be achieved enhancing the protection of heritage resources for future generations (…)” (ICOMOS, 1999: 146). Thirdly, because the diversity and richness of cultural assets, both tangible and intangible, including archaeological, architectural, artistic, bibliographic, scientific, documentary, ethnological, gastronomic, historical, paleontological and technical, etc.– should be managed by professionals trained in different sciences and disciplines such as history, architecture, fine arts, economics, tourism, sociology, anthropology or geography. This could be of great benefit because such interdisciplinary work should lead to better management of the assets.
At local level, activity has increased in relation to that previously. Focusing on this work, the innovative experience of Vilamuseu must be pointed out. This was a museum in Vila Joiosa (Alicante), presenting itself as “(…) much more than a museum (…)”. It aimed to manage cultural heritage in a more participatory, accessible and understandable way, for its visitors (http://www.vilamuseu. es/blog/sobre-vilamuseu/). Also noteworthy was the provincial network of monuments and archaeological sites to visit created by the Province of Alicante Archaeological Museum. It consisted of the towers at Almudaina and Maçanes (monuments), as well as the archaeological sites at Illeta dels Banyets, Tossal de Manises and Pla de Petracos (Hernández et. al., 2004; Olcina, 2009; Olcina et al., 2009; Soler, 2006; Soler and Pérez, 2005; http://www. marqalicante.com/Paginas/es/YACIMIENTOS-P22-M10. html.). This was a set of cultural assets which showed the history of the province from Prehistory to the Middle Ages.
Fourthly, because cultural management has undergone an important academic, scientific and professional development. The nature of cultural heritage and its enormous possibilities have become one of the most attractive and dynamic fields from an academic, scientific and professional point of view. Good evidence for this is shown by the number of current studies, research groups, publications and projects. For example, and without the need to be exhaustive, the Department of Prehistory, Archaeology, Ancient History, Greek Philology and Latin Philology (University of Alicante) (https://dprha. ua.es/) has three research groups; Archaeology and Historical Heritage; Ancient Cultures and Material Culture; Prehistory and Protohistory, with work topics focused on cultural heritage management. The Ancient Cultures and Material Culture group has a research topic entitled Archaeological Project Management; while the Prehistory and Protohistory group has another named Historical Heritage Management, and yet another entitled Museography and Museology. Furthermore, the Alcudia University Foundation for Archaeological Research has been created to manage an archaeological site with the same name. Within this field of study, there are many degree qualifications, postgraduate degrees, master’s degrees and doctoral degrees with content related to cultural heritage management (Bernal, 2009). The Degree in History at the University of Alicante (https://cvnet.cpd. ua.es/webcvnet/planestudio/planEstudioND.aspx?plan= C002&lengua=E&caca=2016-17#) has a module called Cultural Heritage and History Dissemination (fourth year). This centre has recently created the University Institute of Research in Archaeology and Heritage, with the aim of “(…) developing a competitive scientific project in archaeology and historical heritage” (https://inaph.ua.es/). It is made up of several research topics focused on cultural heritage: Material Culture; Archaeology; Historical Heritage; Cultural Heritage and Built Heritage; Integral Management of Archaeological Projects; Heritage, Museography and Museology Management; Economic and Social Evaluation of the Historical-Archaeological Heritage. The University of Huelva has implemented
Secondly, because cultural heritage, as a part of cultural tourism, has become one of its main resources since it is an important tourist product. On the one hand, there is an important percentage of international and national tourists who visit being motivated by this type of heritage: 60.7 per cent of Spanish residents’ trips in 2015 involved some type of cultural activity, while for foreign tourists it is 56 per cent (http://www.mecd.gob.es/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/ dms/mecd/servicios-al-ciudadano-mecd/estadisticas/ cultura/mc/naec/2015/Anuario_de_Estadisticas_ Culturales_2015.pdf). Furthermore, in many cases, tourism has been the engine for recovery and improvement of cultural asset management, despite its negative impact. There is no harm in using cultural heritage as a development tool for the community to which it belongs, but it should not be done by ignoring the heritage itself. Success lies in a balance, as Ciro Caraballo Perichi (2011: 187-195) and Cristina Martínez Yáñez (2006: 1328-1337) state. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) has published several charters regarding the use of heritage in tourism, for example the International Cultural Tourism Charter (1999) and the Charter on Cultural Routes (2008). The first points out that “(…) excessive or poorly managed tourism” may endanger cultural and natural heritage. It also indicates that tourism: 18
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
a Degree in Cultural Management (http://www.uhu.es/ fhum/estudios.php?sub=grados&cat=ges_cul) which includes the specific module Culture and Heritage. In order to train specialists, the University of Barcelona has a Master’s Degree in Cultural Heritage Management and Museology (http://www.ub.edu/web/ub/en/estudis/oferta_ formativa/master_universitari/fitxa/C/M0305/index. html?), the Open University of Catalonia has a Master’s Degree in Cultural Management (http://estudios.uoc.edu/ es/masters-universitarios/gestion-cultura/presentacion), and the University of Valencia has a Master’s Degree in Cultural Heritage (Identification, Analysis and Management) (http://www.uv.es/uvweb/master-culturalheritage-identification-analysis-management/en/masters-degree-cultural-heritage-identification-analysismanagement-1285932165134.html). These universities also have doctoral degrees on cultural heritage management, with doctoral theses on cultural assets being the most common. A search with the words “cultural heritage” on the portal Tesis en Red(http://www.tesisenred.net), with 17 Spanish universities and one from Andorra participating, yields 3,314 results (5 November 2016). If the same search is made on the doctoral theses database TESEO (https:// www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/irGestionarConsulta.do;j sessionid=CBDBFC8A2E4C37BAB3B76855E565D9 0D) from the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, gives 78 results on the same date. Therefore, there is an important corpus of innovative doctoral theses on cultural heritage management in a broad sense: Parques Arqueológicos en áreas urbanas: la gestión para la conservación (Ballesteros, 2003); Realidad aumentada móvil para la conservación del patrimonio (Izkara, 2010); La divulgación del patrimonio arqueológico en Castilla y León: un análisis de los discursos (Mansilla, 2004); Anàlisis dels espais de presentació arqueològics de l’edat dels metalls (Masriera, 2007); La gestión de la arqueología como recurso cultural y turístico: propuesta para la Comunidad de Madrid (Méndez, 2007); El patrimonio cultural y su tratamiento periodístico. Un análisis de la edición regional de El mundo de Castilla y León y El norte de Castilla (Monjas, 2012); La gestión del patrimonio cultural urbano en España (Sánchez, 2005); La gestión de los sitios arqueológicos en áreas urbanas del estado de Yucatán, México (De Calasanz, 2013); and El patrimonio cultural: los nuevos valores, tipos, finalidades y formas de organización (Martínez, 2006). In addition to the university centres, the Spanish National Research Council has created the Institute of Heritage Sciences (http://www.incipit.csic. es/es/) with the topic of Interdisciplinary Research on Cultural Heritage and the following relevant sub-topics: Material Culture and Formalisation Processes of Cultural Heritage; Theoretical and Historiographic Research on Cultural Heritage Studies; Heritage Processes: Memory, Identities and Conflict; Semantic Technologies for Cultural Heritage; Cultural Heritage Socio-economics. In addition, the establishment of professional associations, such as the Spanish Association for Heritage Management (http://aegpc.org/), and scientific meetings where cultural management is addressed, should be included.
Fifthly, because publications in this field are becoming more frequent. Spanish publishers such as Ariel (http:// www.planetadelibros.com/coleccion-ariel-arte-ypatrimonio/0000937500), Síntesis (http://www.sintesis. com/patrimonio-cultural-23/) and Trea (http://www.trea. es/busqueda?categoria=16) have created many collections concerning cultural heritage. Along with publishers, the Department of History of Art (University of Granada) publishes the magazine Revista de Patrimonio Histórico (http://www.revistadepatrimonio.es) about cultural heritage management. Neither should the scientific institutions such as the Andalusian Historical Heritage Institute be forgotten, which publishes the magazine Ph Investigación, as well as the collection of PH notebooks, printed and digital monographic books, memoirs, manuals and guide books (http://www.iaph.es/web/canales/publicaciones/). At international level there are important magazines, such as the Journal of Cultural Heritage published in France, or the International Journal of Architectural Heritage and Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, both published in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (http://www.scimagojr.com/journalrank. php?category=1206&area=1200&openaccess=false). Finally, its visibility on the internet has increased due to the proliferation of public, private, national and international websites, about scientific, professional and/ or general interest, such as the Portal Iberoamericano de Gestión Cultural (www.gestioncultural.org) and websites from English Heritage (http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/), National Park Service (https://www. nps.gov/index.htm), National Trust for Canada (http:// www.nationaltrustcanada.ca), Parks Canada (www. pc.gc.ca), Parks Australia (http://www.parksaustralia. gov.au), Historic Environment Scotland (https://www. historicenvironment.scot/), Heritage Ireland (http://www. heritageireland.ie/en/), Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute (http://ipce.mcu.es/), Australia Heritage (https://www. environment.gov.au/heritage), or Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana) (http:// www.ceice.gva.es/web/patrimonio-cultural-y-museos). On this basis, different approaches to the term “cultural heritage” will be discussed from the point of view of rules, science and reality. 3.1.1. Cultural Heritage According to Legislation “The cultural heritage of a people includes the works of its artists, architects, musicians, writers and scientists and also the work of anonymous artists, expressions of people’s spirituality, and the body of values which give meaning to life. It encompasses both tangible and intangible works through which the creativity of those people finds expression: eg. languages, rites, beliefs, historic places and monuments, literature, works of art, archives and libraries” (http://portal.unesco.org/ culture/es/ev.php-URL_ID=12762&URL_DO=DO_ TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).
19
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
of cultural heritage to include anthropological, ethnological and natural value, unrecognised to date, was highlighted. Although this fact may seem new regarding world heritage, there have been previous contributions at state level. This was the case with the Franceschini Commission (Italy, 1964-1967) which considered as cultural assets: archaeological, artistic and historical assets; environmental assets such as: landscape, natural areas, ecological areas and artificial landscapes; and urban: historic centres; as well as archival and library assets. In spite of not including anthropological and ethnological assets, intangible or tangible, it incorporated certain natural assets into cultural heritage (González-Varas, 1999: 45 and 46; Martínez, 2006: 153-162). As C. Martínez Yáñez (2006: 138) pointed out, the move to an anthropological approach to cultural heritage began in the second half of the twentieth century. Indeed, one of the main characteristics of the World Conference on Cultural Policies was their avoidance of materialism, when considering some assets belonging to humbler classes such as cultural heritage, eg. language (Calvo, 2000-2002), rites and beliefs; something new at the time but now fully accepted. According to Juan Agudo Torrico (1999: 40), it was a change from the old model, which was composed of the historical-artistic heritage and was characterised by being restricted, elitist and focusing on material culture, to the new model, which is open, nonelitist and which encompasses material and immaterial culture, cultural landscapes, and natural anthropological assets, which, besides being a terminological question, “(…) is also a field of mentality that has not concluded yet”.
This definition coined by UNESCO at the World Conference on Cultural Policies (Mexico, 1982) is one of the most complete formulated so far and is fully in force. At that time, some intangible aspects; rites, beliefs or languages; were already considered to be cultural heritage, not having been taken into account in Spanish law until recent dates (2004 and 2007). On the other hand, it clearly overcomes the romantic thinking of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, which only considered cultural heritage, some monuments, whether isolated or including their environment, and works of art (González-Varas, 1999: 34; Hernández, 2002: 79 and subsequent pages; Martínez, 2006: 68-72, 77-79 and 9196). In Spain, this situation extended until the last quarter of the twentieth century, within the democratic state: Act on Spanish Historical Heritage and other autonomous laws concerning cultural heritage (Querol, 2010: 20). International Legislation To support this point, some legislation has been chosen, for example the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972); the Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972); the Recommendation concerning Heritage Education (1998); and the Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (Faro Convention, 2005). They expressly use the term “cultural heritage”. Nevertheless, there are many other conventions, declarations, recommendations and charters which do not use this term, but are fundamental, for example, the International Charters for Conservation and Restoration (Petzet and Ziesmer, 2004). They begin with the Athens Charter (1931) and end with Principles for the Analysis, Conservation and Structural Restoration of Architectural Heritage (2003), including the Venice Charter (1964).
The lines of investigation in this work include other documents such as the Recommendation concerning Heritage Education (1998) and Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society (2005). The latter stands out as a resource for its consideration of cultural heritage, with the environment affected by human action over time. This word ‘resource’ already introduces an interesting nuance because it endorses the economic and tourism consideration of cultural heritage (Herrero, 2002; Sanz, 2004), however the dangers of its economic exploitation for cultural tourism are always present, since it is a non-renewable and fragile resource.
These conventions, declarations and recommendations were formulated between the second half of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century. They are characterised by having overcome the assumption that cultural heritage equates to monuments, isolated or including their immediate environment, and works of art. It is a process that began in the second half of the twentieth century thanks to the interest in valuing some assets not considered cultural heritage or considered minor at that time, for instance those belonging to humbler classes or to new countries emerging from decolonisation. To this must be added the historiographical renewal promoted by new approaches focused on the human being, with interest in his work and tools used everyday (González-Varas, 1999: 43-46). In this sense, the Convention concerning the Protection of World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972) and Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), which was accepted by Spain, considered monuments, sites and places as cultural heritage. These groups or categories include, in turn, a wide range of subgroups. The extension
ICOMOS has also formulated two definitions of the term “cultural heritage” in the Principles for the Recording of Monuments, Groups of Buildings and Sites (1996a) (http:// www.kultura.ejgv.euskadi.eus/r46-4874/es/contenidos/ informacion/manifiestos_patrimonio/es_8658/es_icomos. html) and the International Cultural Tourism Charter. Managing Tourism at Places of Heritage Significance (1999) (http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts). Although countries do not have to follow the ICOMOS charters, their innumerable and important scientific and methodological contributions make it a valuable reference. The first charter includes a definition of cultural heritage which may seem “poor” and “shrinking” compared to those earlier, richer and more diverse definitions, since it does not include, for example, intangible cultural assets. 20
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
Nevertheless, it is necessary to take into account its nature, since it focuses exclusively on monuments, and architectural, historical and artistic sites. The opposite happens in the second charter, with a broad and plural definition of cultural heritage, in accordance with the aforementioned statement, including intangible assets.
However, Amalia Pérez-Juez Gil (2006: 26 and 27) states that, despite the benefits derived from decentralisation, unusual situations can occur when some elements are considered as cultural heritage in one autonomous community, but not in others. This is a clear political manipulation of cultural heritage, or an implementation of a local and decontextualised vision regarding cultural heritage.
National Legislation At state level, Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage was the first modern law relating to this subject and was enacted following the tradition of French and Italian laws in the 1970s (Querol, 2010: 42). In spite of not using the adjective “cultural”, it is an act which clearly exceeds the strictly historical scope of heritage. Besides tangible cultural assets, it includes intangible cultural assets such as dance, music and traditions, natural anthropological assets with artistic value, paleontological assets, this being a novelty because these are not included in international legislation, and scientific and technical assets (GonzálezVaras, 1999: 519; Querol, 2010: 42).
With respect to Valencian cultural heritage law, a clear evolution of the concept “cultural heritage” can be seen from its first drafting in 1998 until its last amendment in 2007. Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage concentrates on movable and immovable assets of historical, artistic, architectural, archaeological, paleontological, ethnological, documentary, bibliographic, scientific and technical value or of any other cultural nature. To this must be added intangible assets formed by creative entertainment, knowledge and practices of traditional Valencian culture. Considering its enactment year (1998) and the existing international rules so far, Act 4/1998 falls short in the intangible section. Act 7/2004, 19 October, amending Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage tried to improve this aspect. By introducing a new type of cultural heritage, namely assets of a technological nature considering as such any relevant manifestations or Valencian technological milestones, it extended the scope of intangible assets. Together with creative entertainment, knowledge and practices, it included expressions of Valencian traditions, musical, artistic, gastronomic or leisure expressions, especially those of oral transmission and those maintaining and enhancing the use of the Valencian language. Finally, Act 5/2007, 9 February, amending Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage extended these protected intangible cultural assets by adding the most representative, valuable techniques and uses of Valencian traditional lifestyle. The two amendments to Act 4/1998 referenced above have served to “anthropologise” Valencian cultural heritage or, if preferred, to make it richer and more diverse with respect to international regulations.
On the other hand, considering natural anthropological heritage as cultural heritage is a contradiction. As C. Martínez Yáñez (2006: 213 and 214, note 211) indicates, neither natural sites nor parks are regulated or mentioned in this act. In fact, Mª.Á. Querol Fernández (2010: 24 and 25) states that they follow different paths in Spain: they have different acts, they are managed by different administrations and their diffusion, didactics and social incidence are unequal. It is a meaningless situation that must be resolved with joint management of both heritages, under the title “integral heritage” (Querol, 1995). The configuration of Spain into 17 autonomous communities has involved the transfer of cultural skills. By exercising their capabilities, they have progressively passed different acts defining this concept. In some cases, these acts have preserved the nomenclature, as in the Act on Spanish Historical Heritage in Andalusia, Canary Islands, Balearic Islands and Madrid. For the most part they have changed the nomenclature by using the adjective “cultural” in Aragon, Asturias, Cantabria, Catalonia, Castile and Leon, Castilla – La Mancha, Valencian Community, Euskadi, Galicia, Navarre and Murcia. In only one case are both combined, in Extremadura, and in another case the adjectives “cultural”, “historical” and “artistic” are used, in La Rioja. The change from “historical” to “cultural” may be related to the intention to overcome the association of cultural heritage only with historical heritage. Besides natural anthropological sites, gardens and paleontological assets, these laws also consider cultural heritage to include audiovisual assets, in La Rioja, cinematographic assets, in Aragon, linguistic characteristics, in Catalonia and the Canary Islands, amongst others, or gastronomy, in the Valencian Community. Moreover, C. Martínez Yáñez (2006: 256) notes that these new assets considered as cultural heritage include some characteristics, whether cultural, historical, linguistic, geographic, etc. belonging to each autonomous community which define their identity.
3.1.2. Cultural Heritage According to the Academic and Scientific World This type of heritage does not depend exclusively on local administrations and international organisations. It has also been the object of analysis in the academic world and their results are reflected in many research projects and publications. Moreover, several Spanish researchers have defined cultural heritage from the viewpoint of their respective sciences or disciplines (Table 8). These definitions are framed in two major fields of knowledge: humanities and legal sciences. The scope of humanities covers definitions formulated from anthropology and history. All of them, regardless of their words, “social construction”, “cultural construction” or “document that illustrates the history of humanity”, agree 21
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 8. Definitions of the concept “cultural heritage” by Spanish researchers and academics Author(s)
Science/ Discipline
Definition
Josep Ballart Hernández and Jordi Juan i Tresserras (2001: 11 and following)
History
“(…) cultural construction (…) subject to changes according to historical and social circumstances”
Felipe Criado Boado (https://csic.academia.edu/ FelipeCriadoBoado)
History
“It is a document that illustrates the history of humanity and collects its social memory, and it is also a resource for economic, community and sustainable development”
Esther Fernández de Paz (2001: 39-52)
Anthropology
“(…) social construction and, as such, is historically modifiable according to the criteria or interests that determine new aims in new circumstances”
C. Martínez Yáñez (2006: 37)
History of Art
“Historical heritage (…) is formed by a diversity of assets that have in common their historic value and their constant evolution and expansion throughout the protection history given the gradual recognition of more global values until arriving at cultural and (…) identity and/or memory”
A. Pérez-Juez Gil (2006: 32)
History
“(…) the term ʽhistorical heritageʼ is now extensive enough to accommodate the most varied manifestations of human activity and, above all, to extend the list of protections, overcoming the aesthetic and antiquity concepts”
Llorenç Prats Canals (1997: 19 and 20)
Anthropology
“Heritage is a social construction (…) it does not exist in nature (…) it is not something established, not even a global social phenomenon, since it does not occur in all human societies or in all historical periods; likewise (…) it is an artifice, devised by someone (or during a collective process), sometime and somewhere, for certain purposes, and implies, finally, that it is or may be historically changing, according to new criteria or interests that determine new aims in new circumstances”
Mª.Á. Querol Fernández (2010: 11)
History
“(…) set of movable, immovable and intangible assets inherited from the past and it has been decided that it is worth preserving it as part of our symbols of social and historical identity”
Law
“Values that being in principle man-made, are substantivised, becoming independent, acquiring suprapersonal and timeless categories, in such a way that the work of art becomes independent of its author to embed itself in the community heritage”
Eduardo Roca Roca (1976: 252 and 253)
The work carried out by Gabriel Morote Martín (2007: 219) on cultural heritage knowledge and perception in Spanish society has shown that people still associate cultural heritage with architectural assets, whether monumental or nonmonumental. This research illustrates the differences that often arise between the academic, political and technical world and the rest of society; but also within both worlds when considering what is cultural heritage. Differences that, broadly, are reflected in the following points:
to consider cultural heritage as a changing concept, in terms of new interests or criteria, that goes beyond monuments and encompasses tangible and intangible assets. Even in the definition of F. Criado Boado, heritage is openly spoken of as a “resource” (Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society, 2005), that should contribute to the development of its communities. As for the scope of legal sciences, the definition quoted values cultural heritage as a “work” that reflects the essence of people or a community. As in previous cases, it is a definition that goes beyond the notion of a monument and understands cultural heritage in a broad and plural way, in line with international and national regulations.
• Society does not consider, or does not know, which assets are cultural heritage by law. Osborne bulls stand out in the Spanish context. These are advertising panels shaped like bulls that have marked Spanish landscape since the second half of the twentieth century. Their protection as an asset of local relevance in the Valencian Community has not prevented the bull located in Santa Pola (Alicante) from being destroyed and sold for scrap (http://ccaa.elpais.com/ccaa/2013/11/26/ valencia/1385464548_192706.html). • Society knows there are cultural heritage assets, but may reject them because it is thought they harm their particular interests. They may even destroy them for cultural, economic, or political reasons. Extremism and religious intolerance have been a danger to cultural
3.1.3. Cultural Heritage for Society Until now, the consideration of cultural heritage has been made from the point of view of international organisations and institutions, state and autonomous administrations, as well as the academic and scientific world. But what does society understand by cultural heritage? This is an interesting question that few authors have considered. This is striking, bearing in mind that, without the participation of society, it is impossible to preserve cultural heritage. 22
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
heritage throughout history. Some contemporary examples are found in countries in conflict such as Iraq, Mali and Syria. In 2012, cultural heritage assets in Timbuktu, including mausoleums, manuscripts, mosques, libraries, sculptures, etc. were destroyed because they were considered contrary to Islam by those terrorists who occupied the city during the Tuareg rebellion. • Society considers some assets not valued by the administration as cultural heritage. Sometimes, these assets suffer indifference, especially when associated with large economic projects. The Vega Baja archaeological site, located in Toledo, is a good example. Despite its cultural importance well detailed by Jesús Carrobles Santos (2006), this archaeological site was saved from being dug up thanks to the mobilisation of different social sectors such as foundations, royal academies of history and arts, and even UNESCO (Taboada, 2010). • Part of society believes that assets should be protected as cultural heritage while the rest thinks the opposite. Society is often divided when considering an asset. An example is the famous lighted sign with the humanised bottle and the slogan Tío Pepe. Sol de Andalucía embotellado. González Byass, that since 1958 has been in Puerta del Sol (Madrid) (http://www. gonzalezbyass.com/el-luminoso-de-tio-pepe-vuelve-ailuminar-la-nochevieja/). The platform to support Tío Pepe (https://www.facebook.com/SalvemosTioPepe) required a declaration as an asset of cultural interest. On the other hand, the association entitled Madrid, Citizenship and Heritage is opposed to this declaration because it lacks historical and artistic value (http:// madridciudadaniaypatrimonio.org/node/260). • Part of the academic, political and technical world considers some cultural assets as cultural heritage but not others. Valencia City Council, with the support of Generalitat Valenciana, drafted the Special Protection and Interior Reform Plan (PEPRI) based on the prolongation of Blasco Ibáñez Avenue and the protected quarter El Cabanyal – El Canyamelar as the central element of an urban restoration plan. This quarter was an asset of cultural interest with the category of historical site. The plan, involving the demolition of 1,651 homes, was rejected by some neighbours, but was supported by others and has also confounded the academic, political and technical world (http:// www.cabanyal.com/nou/?lang=es; experts against and in favour at http://www.uv.es/uvweb/universitat/ es/llista-noticies/universitat-proposa-pla-integralcabanyal-canyamelar-una-visio-multidisciplinarparticipacio-ciutadana-1285846070123/Noticia. html?id=1285850110196 and http://elpais.com/ diario/2010/01/11/cvalenciana/1263241077_850215. html). At the moment, the plan is paralysed judicially because the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports considered the demolitions as plunder (http://elpais. com/diario/2010/01/05/cultura/1262646002_850215. html and http://cse.google.com/cse?cx=006043202 724820927248:lkl0norxzhk&q=El+Cabanyal – gsc. tab=0&gsc.q=El Cabanyal&gsc.page=1). As at 18
October 2016, the situation of the quarter can be found at the website of the platform Salvem el Cabanyal (http:// www.cabanyal.com/nou/assemblea-general-al-teatreel-musical-valoracio-de-lactuacio-de-lactual-equipde-govern-de-lajuntament-de-valencia-al-cabanyalcanyamelar-i-reflexions-sobre/?lang=es). These situations could be avoided or, at least reduced, with more participation by citizens in cultural heritage management (Paño, 2012: 110 and 111). Involvement of the local population is an unusual practice in Spain, where vertical management still predominates, stretching from the political, academic and technical top to the base of society. There is a different situation with some cultural assets in Latin America, a territory where management plans are common. As C. Caraballo Perichi (2011: 60) notes, Xochilmico (Mexico) is possibly one of the most complex cultural assets where an artificial cultivated landscape combines tangible heritage, including a historic centre and traditional villages with intangible heritage. This asset is also subject to many threats: scarcity and pollution of water resources, price increases, uncontrolled urban development and negative impact on native fauna, etc. Based on these problems, an action strategy was designed including a technical vision of the site and with “(…) more than 60 structured interviews and various workshops with institutional authorities and local leaders (…) (this work was reflected in) the generation of a political space that allowed the coordination of the actions of three spheres of government: federal, local and municipal” (Caraballo, 2011: 63). The strategy was also designed to improve formal education at schools, high-schools, universities and vocational training centres; to improve non-formal education at archives, libraries, museums, heritage institutes, associations and centres of sociocultural animation; and to improve informal education executed by individuals or groups to impart knowledge or influence attitudes, besides improving social awareness of cultural heritage. There is much to be done in order to ensure that society feels it owns cultural heritage instead of regarding it as a source of problems preventing development, or as a tool for profit, or to delete the memory of other culturess. But with work, effort and perseverance it is feasible to achieve the change. 3.2. Cultural Heritage Management 3.2.1. According to the Academic, Scientific and Professional World After addressing cultural heritage from normative, academic, scientific and social points of view, it is now time to address what cultural heritage management is.
23
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 9. Definitions of the concept “cultural heritage management” by Spanish researchers and academics Author(s)
Science/ Discipline
Definition
J. Ballart Hernández and J. Juan i Tresserras (2001: 15-25)
History
“(…) set of programmed actions with the aim of achieving an optimal preservation of heritage assets and usage adapted to social demands (…)”
Alejandro Bermúdez, Joan Vianney, M. Arbeloa and A. Giralt (2004: 67)
Architecture/ Geography
“(…) integral and integrative action oriented to optimise resources and obtain a return from them”
Rosa Campillo Garrigós (1998: 171)
History
“(…) set of programmed actions with the aim of achieving an optimal preservation of heritage assets and usage adapted to social demands (…)”
History
“Heritage management must be integral, which involves using the Heritage Value Chain as a theoretical model to organise research and heritage assets management. This model (…) understands that heritage assets are shaped by acts of identification, documentation, significance, valuation, preservation, diffusion and reception, and establishes that good practices in research and management of these assets must include all those dimensions”
A. Pérez-Juez Gil (2010: 13 and 14)
History
“Managing archaeological heritage is to translate the pages of a book written in an unconventional way: in stones, stratigraphies, sedimentary packages, materials, documents (…) and the translation is so powerful that it is capable of influencing thought”
Mª.Á. Querol Fernández (2010: 57, table 4.2)
History
“The set of activities, mostly carried out by different public administrations, aimed at the protection and dissemination of cultural assets”
F. Tugores Truyol and Rosa Planas Ferrer (2006: 79)
History of Art/Cultural Management
“(…) set of programmed actions with the aim of obtaining an optimal preservation of heritage assets and usage adapted to the contemporary social exigencies. The current concept of ʽheritage managementʼ is integral and integrative, based on interdisciplinary collaboration and conceived as a chained sequence of actions in a set of actions, which has been called the ʽlogical chainʼ”
Francisco Zamora Baño (2002)
Undetermined
“(…) the efficient management of resources (heritage, human, economic and of all types) ordered to the attainment of social purposes affecting cultural heritage”
F. Criado Boado (https://csic. academia.edu/ FelipeCriadoBoado)
In this work, intervention is understood to be part of management. This goes beyond the protection and dissemination of cultural assets. Therefore, it also covers research, restoration and didactics, and can be directly or indirectly related to cultural heritage, following the position of J. Ballart Hernández and J. Juan i Tresserras (2001: 23).
From the academic and scientific perspective, several Spanish authors have defined cultural heritage management (Table 9). These are definitions for the Spanish context in which cultural heritage management is based on five basic pillars: research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination. According to A. Bermúdez et al., (2004: 19, 68 and 69), these pillars form a “logical chain” when intervening in cultural heritage. These authors also distinguish between “integral management”, focused on these five pillars, and “level management”, in which only one of them is followed.
Finally, although it is not explicitly defined, C. Martínez Yáñez (2006: 556) considers cultural heritage management to be part of cultural management, with a central objective being the interrelation between location, heritage, economy, communication, artistic production and support for artistic creativity (Martínez, idem). According to this author, it is necessary to have a comprehensive valuation of heritage and,
On the other hand, Mª.Á. Querol Fernández makes a clear distinction between management and intervention. Management means,
“(…) new more complex intervention tools related to all public policies, in order to interrelate and extract the maximum potential from resources, to harmonise heritage protection with its economic exploitation and to involve the population in the processes of acceptance, recognition and settlement” (Martínez, 2006: 558).
“(…) designing the contents of an inventory sheet or giving a lecture on the threats of using metal detectors” (Querol, 2010: 57 and 59). Intervention is defined as “(…) an activity that modifies or alters a movable, immovable or intangible cultural asset (…)”, such as the restoration of a castle or the cleaning of an archaeological piece (idem). Nevertheless, as she states, the separation between management and intervention is sometimes blurred (Querol, 2010: 59).
The same researcher points out the existence of new heritage management models (Martínez, 2006: 600 onwards) arising from numerous museums, visitor centres, cultural parks or archaeological parks which have appeared 24
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
in recent years throughout the Spanish countryside. Their success, at least theoretically, is due to the,
important pillar of cultural heritage management, and where appropriate, of archaeological heritage.
“(…) degree of interrelation and connection which (contributes) to cultural and natural resources in the complete landscape, location; and other concepts wider than those delimited by the notions of protection regarding to sites and monument environment” (Martínez, 2006: 603).
On the other hand, cultural heritage management is also undertaken on assets of historical, artistic or cultural value. Far from utilising any voluntary workers, the people who carry it out must have special skills and training with broad and interdisciplinary knowledge on cultural heritage, complemented with others specialised in business management, human resources, cultural marketing and information and communications technology, without forgetting creativity and imagination. Nevertheless, many people who are in charge of cultural heritage lack training in any of these fields considering that cultural heritage management is part of cultural management. In line with this point, the Catalan Association of Cultural Management Professionals defines the cultural manager as a
Rather than adopt new models of cultural heritage management, management must adapt to new heritage reality which is characterised by: • The complexity and diversity of the term “cultural heritage” which has clearly overcome the barrier of just being about monuments, now encompassing more cultural assets including historical sites, historical gardens, archaeological sites, cultural parks, ethnological spaces, historical sites and paleontological areas, and its diverse presentation, involving cultural itineraries and routes, interpretation centres, visitor centres, musealised archaeological sites, museums, ecomuseums, monuments, archaeological parks, natural parks, cultural parks, etc. (Espinosa, 2004: 10). • A close relationship with natural heritage, especially with cultural assets located in rural areas which are often part of natural parks, protected landscapes, etc. • Integration in cultural, economic and social dynamics where it forms a part. Cultural heritage cannot be managed as an isolated element, without taking its community into account. Cultural heritage is a part of society which should be involved in its management.
“(…) mediator between creativity, participation and cultural consumption. A professional (properly qualified or with experience in the sector) who is able to develop artistic and cultural work and to insert it into a social, territorial or market strategy” (Catalan Association of Cultural Management Professionals, 2011: 4). Lastly, this association highlights five competencies that the cultural manager must have. These can be extended to cultural heritage professionals: effectiveness to achieve the objectives; efficiency between the results and resources; criterion to discern the qualities of the project to add value to programming and proposals; knowledge to value creative work and interpret it appropriately; and flexibility to respond quickly to dynamic context demands, to contribute and develop his/her entrepreneurial skills, initiative, interdisciplinary abilities, adaptive and work capacity in collaboration within the team, or in a network (Catalan Association of Cultural Management Professionals, 2011: 4 and 5).
From the professional point of view, the Spanish Association for Heritage Management (http://aegpc.org/ sobre-la-aegpc) defines it as, “(…) the efficient management of resources (heritage, human, economic and all types) ordered to the attainment of social objectives affecting cultural heritage. (…) Cultural heritage management is only adequate if these conditions are met: putting the cultural asset integrity above everything, being efficient, being socially useful and having a great ethical component” (idem).
3.2.2. In the Local Context In Spain, both in its execution and its financing, public management is on the same basis as other Mediterranean countries such as Italy (Landriani and Pozzioli, 2014). In spite of having consortiums, cultural foundations, associations and patrons, (Querol, 2010: 379, 388 and 390), the private initiative plays a reduced role when compared to that in Anglo-Saxon countries.
As can be seen, this description is identical to that made by F. Zamora Baño in table 27. It is not surprising because he was the president of this association. The definition highlights two basic pillars: “efficient management” and “attainment of social objectives”. Unlike other definitions based on cultural heritage actions, involving research, preservation, restoration and dissemination, by J. Ballart Hernández and J. Juan i Tresserras (2001), and by F. Criado Boado (2011), this description stands out because it emphasises the good management of resources (i.e. economic or human) relating to cultural heritage in order to avoid wasting them, and to avoid any negative impact causing their degradation (heritage resources). Not surprisingly, and as Mª.Á. Querol Fernández and Belén Martínez Díaz (1996: 224) note, dissemination is the most
Spain is a decentralised administration after the Spanish Constitution of 1978 came into force with the implementation of autonomous communities. They have their own status, giving them a greater or lesser degree of self-government. In terms of cultural heritage this fact is reflected in the existence of three levels of action, state, autonomous and local, with autonomous predominating. Due to its importance, it is necessary to extend the cultural content which is referred for local action. In her research on municipal management concerning urban 25
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
cultural heritage, María Sánchez Luque (2005: 115) notes that, because of its proximity to citizens, the local administration is the most effective and capable when carrying out public policies. This is particularly true since a strong emphasis is placed on those municipalities which exist alongside cultural heritage. Another important issue is being allowed to play a leading role, wanting to play it and having the necessary resources for it. There is often some interest, but a lack of economic, human or technical resources prevents it. Furthermore, M. Sánchez Luque (2005: 119) states,
Table 10. Objectives under autonomous law on cultural heritage Act
ACT 4/1998
“(…) without the formal and real incorporation of local entities into the realm of heritage managers, institutions ignore their best partner in protection and dissemination (…)”
Sections
Objectives
Section 4.2
Collaboration among public administrations
Section 31
Designing and implementing preservation programmes
Section 32
Establishing a visiting regime
Section 61
Making archaeological and paleontological interventions
Section 65.3
Managing incidental findings
Section 71
Creating museums
Section 87
Promoting cultural heritage
ACT 7/2004 Section 34.3
For that purpose, the author proposes that a decentralisation of heritage functions be carried out. Their approaches, characteristics, pros and cons are explained in her work (Sánchez, 2005: 120-137). Despite agreeing with this position, it clearly clashes with the recentralisation process of local administrations, which is currently being carried out by the Spanish government (http://politica.elpais. com/politica/2014/03/11/actualidad/1394569821_929362. html and http://www.diariodeleon.es/noticias/ afondo/estamos-recentralizacion-politica-dudosaconstitucionalidad_826117.html).
Section 33 Section 34.1 Section 34.2 Section 34.4
ACT 5/2007
For a better vision of their role in cultural heritage management, three types of law both at state and autonomous levels must be borne in mind: i.e. local administration, cultural heritage and urbanism. Act 27/2013, 27 December, on Rationalisation and Sustainability of Local Government empowers municipalities to protect and manage their historical heritage (section 25). Moreover Act 8/2010, 23 June, on the Local Regime of Valencia, empowers municipalities to manage their historical or artistic heritage (section 33.3). In both cases, the role of municipalities is very generic. Only protection and management are mentioned, without specifying how they might be carried out. In this sense, M. Sánchez Luque (2015: 260) notes that these competencies must be undertaken with specific rules.
Applying urban planning to immovable assets of cultural interest Cancelling and reviewing licenses on immovable assets of cultural interest Applying urban planning on immovable assets of cultural interest
Section 36
Giving municipal licenses for immovable cultural assets
Section 37
Paralysing illegal works on immovable assets of cultural interest
Section 47
Publishing catalogues of protected assets and landscapes
Section 58.3
Delimiting archaeological and paleontological areas
Section 60.5
Authorising archaeological and paleontological interventions
Authorising archaeological and Section 62.2 paleontological interventions prior to works
ACT 10/2012
Section 35.3
Authorising interventions on immovable assets of cultural interest with a special protection plan
Section 50.4
Protecting immovable assets of local relevance
On the other hand, Valencian autonomous law empowers city councils in a number of ways (Table 10):
Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage empowers municipalities to preserve and guard their heritage (section 7), denounce illegal works (section 23.2) and expropriate assets of cultural interest (section 37.3). With regard to previous regulations, this act specifies their role, but it is too weak considering that they are closest to cultural heritage. The scope of action is extended with Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage; Act 7/2004, 19 October, amending Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage; Act 5/2007, 9 February, amending Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage; and Act 10/2012, 21 December, on Fiscal Measures, Administrative and Financial Management, and Organisation of the Valencian Government.
As seen in the previous figures, municipalities can play a very important role whether in research (section 61), preservation, including protection, (sections 31, 33, 34.1, 34.2, 34.3, 34.4, 35.3, 36, 37 and 50.4) and dissemination (sections 32 and 87). But also, they can collaborate with other public administrations (section 4.2), authorise interventions (section 35.3), create heritage infrastructures such as museums (section 71), and manage incidental findings (section 65.3). Besides, they can develop interventions for restoration, finance them, and develop didactics, encouraging, for example, the musealisation of an archaeological site. 26
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
decentralised cultural heritage management. It is public, but the private initiative also plays a very important role. In this way, it is possible to participate directly or through private foundations, such as the National Trust for Scotland (http://www.nts.org.uk/Charity/Our-Work/About-theTrust) which manages part of the Scottish cultural heritage. In addition, the administrative and territorial configuration of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland allows its nations to govern themselves in certain areas. Scotland and England, like the Spanish autonomous communities, have their own laws, organisations and institutions in order to manage their cultural heritage independently of other territories.
These actions are far from all that municipalities could do, but they are much more than the simple collaboration noted by Mª.Á. Querol Fernández (2010: 314). In many cases, everything depends on the desire, interest and people who are in government. Not surprisingly, their responsibility is to take their own cultural heritage forward, although resources are not often adequate. Jesús Mejías López (2008: 9 and 10) indicates the most common problems faced by Spanish local administrations when managing cultural heritage: • Lack of financial resources. The absence of management and planning causes one-off and nonsystematic investments. • Lack of human resources. The absence of specific departments, with staff specialised in cultural heritage, makes good management difficult. • Lack of technical resources. Their absence prevents different stages of heritage management from being carried out.
Like other countries, nations or territories, Scotland has a lot of fortifications needing restoration or maintenance. Given the complexity when intervening in castles because not all of them are in the same state, the current organisation, Historic Environment (earlier Historic Scotland), decided to implement a simpler and more transparent system for carrying out restoration projects: the Scottish Castle Initiative. It is designed,
Despite these difficulties, it is possible to manage cultural heritage at local level with enthusiasm and effort. This is very important because, without the active participation of municipalities, there might not be any effective management at all.
“(…) to encourage investment in this aspect of Scotland’s built heritage by providing advice on processes and best practices, and by offering examples of successful past projects (…)” (http://www.historicscotland.gov. uk/index/heritage/scottishcastleinitiative/aboutscottish castleinitiative.htm).
Act 16/2005, 30 December, on Valencian Development empowers municipalities to preserve and promote historical, cultural, landscape and architectural heritage (section 4.d), to preserve and value cultural heritage (section 45.4), to regenerate rural heritage (section 45.5), to provide public aid for preserving and rehabilitating architectural heritage (sections 209.1, 209.2, 209.3 and 209.4), to legally declare a ruin (section 210.3), to order and carry out works of preservation (section 212.1) and to declare imminent ruins (section 213.1). Although the role of municipalities is not as varied as in the previous paragraph, they can carry out many useful interventions focused on preservation (sections 4.d, 45.4, 209.1, 209.2, 209.3, 209.4, 210.3, 212.1 and 213.1), dissemination (section 45.4) and recovery (section 45.5). A lack of resources, desire, interest and commitment might also reduce this role to intervention only when there is a danger of declaring built heritage as a ruin.
Its main objectives are: • To create and maintain the online Castle Conservation Register (https://www.historicenvironment.scot/ advice-and-support/planning-and-guidance/legislationand-guidance/the-castle-conservation-register/). It includes castles and tower-houses, restored and reused successfully, as well as recommendations regarding actions in fortifications. It is not a definitive register, but it is a dynamic list since there are castles and towers that could be restored without being included in it, and not all fortifications included in it are eligible for being restored. In this sense, restoration is not the only way to preserve a castle. Ruined fortifications can be preserved as consolidated ruins. The register is not definitive and there are other castles and towers that could be candidates for restoration. Likewise, not all fortifications may be included in restoration programmes. It should also be borne in mind that the Castle Conservation Register represents only the point of view of Historic Environment as to whether a castle or tower is a suitable candidate for restoration. Restoration would require approval, from local authorities. Moreover, it will not be authorised automatically, but will depend on the merits and sensitivity of the submitted proposals. • Developing a restoration guide for fortifications (http:// www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/mcgn-castles-draft. pdf). This is a document consisting of six sections, Introduction; Starting Out: Assessing a Castle’s Suitability for Reuse; Valuing and Understanding a
3.3. Castles Management: Experiences and Case Studies 3.3.1. Experiences The first topic1 of this section is the Scottish Castle Initiative (http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/index/heritage/ scottishcastleinitiative/aboutscottishcastleinitiative.htm). Scotland, a nation which is part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, exhibits a mixed and 1 Other interesting initiatives have been carried out in Sweden: Swedish Fortifications Agency and National Property Board (Bodin, 2014).
27
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
org/), and the International Scientific Committee for the Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage (ISCARSAH) (http://iscarsah.icomos.org), could have assumed the functions of ICOFORT.
Castle’s Importance; Planning the Project; Building Process; Maintenance, which clearly describes the steps for restoring a castle and achieving the expected results, whilst avoiding unwanted actions that could damage the monument. The first section, Introduction, is about the need for restoration. The main reason consists of “(…) bringing many benefits, private and public, to the advantage of our and of future generations (…)” (idem). For example, economic benefits through their creation from cultural tourist products. The third section, Valuing and Understanding a Castle’s Importance is also interesting, and the interest in valuing and understanding a castle through its history stands out. Research about a castle should be configured as a fundamental part of the project. The fourth section, Planning the Project, addresses issues related to the project. For example, which technicians should be part of it: archaeologists, architects, quantity surveyors, engineers specialised in cultural heritage, designers, etc.; as well as the need to have an economic plan. Some other aspects should also be borne in mind, such as; environmental issues, since many fortifications contain flora and wildlife of interest; energetic issues, such as the energy used in restored castles; the need to publish its results; or the suitability of building a new structure, its impact, materials, dimensions, etc. The fifth section, Building Process, is one of the most interesting because it focuses on restoration. It addresses issues such as the foundations, drainage, stone and mortar; the differentiation between original parts and new ones, following the indications of ICOMOS; it addresses the external finishing with reference to the use of masonry, ashlar, stone joint filling, etc.; the treatment of historic timber; water pipes and their disposition; doors and windows, whether they are preserved or not; the preservation of historical ironwork; interior finishes and recommendations for wiring, water and electrical installation. Finally, the sixth section, Maintenance, emphasises that periodic maintenance works should depend on their merit and proposals. • Publishing a book with information about those castles which have been preserved in a state of consolidated ruin and those which have been restored (Fawcett and Rutherford, 2011). • Identifying exemplary projects.
At a Spanish level, the National Plan of Defensive Architecture (Rodríguez, 2012 and 2014) should be noted. This document forms part of the national plans on Spanish historical heritage as far as information, preservation and restoration are concerned (http://ipce.mcu.es/conservacion/ planesnacionales.html). They have been drafted by the Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute with the aim of, “(…) establishing a methodology for the preservation and restoration of heritage sites, scheduling investments according to preservation needs, and coordinating the participation of different institutions which intervene in management” (Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, 2010: 3). This plan consists of five sections: Introduction; Basic Aspects; Methodological Aspects; Programmes and Lines of Action; Execution and Supervision, and four appendices. From the above, it can be seen that the plan has been created as a tool for preservation and restoration; for identification of risks and interdisciplinary needs for architectural use (typology, buildings and pathology), geographic use, historical (documentary) and legislative heritage management (good practice). These are two tasks which not only involve administrations, but also the rest of society. This aspect is very important, since the role of society is fundamental to guarantee the preservation of cultural heritage. However, the absence of any reference to other basic pillars, such as research and didactics, is highlighted because these are also very important aspects when intervening in defensive architecture. In contrast, the importance of dissemination, considered essential to reinforce the promotion of defensive architecture and guarantee success when intervening, is mentioned. The definition of the term “defensive architecture” and its categories, with constructions ranging from prehistoric to present times, is also interesting. In this sense, it breaks the traditional chronological barrier which associates these constructions with the Middle Ages and the Modern Age. The definition also includes contemporary cultural assets like trenches or casements, which were strongly represented in the different front lines of the Spanish Civil War. Likewise, it emphasises its scope of action, geographic, chronological and cultural. The plan is not restricted exclusively to Spain, but also promotes research and study in territories or countries that were under Spanish rule in the past.
Secondly, the International Scientific Committee on Fortifications and Military Heritage (ICOFORT) (http:// www.icofort.org) was established by ICOMOS in 2005 to study the architecture and military landscape, to advise ICOMOS in this regard, to undertake specialised studies and to foster the cooperation and collaboration with other ICOMOS committees and organisations. Its creation has been an acknowledgement that defensive architecture is part of cultural heritage. This is especially significant since existing committees such as the International Centre for the Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM) (http://www.iccrom.org), the International Scientific Committee on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM) (http://icahm.icomos.
As for its methodology, it is based on the preparation of an inventory [of defensive architecture], protecting its locality, analysing it, scheduling actions and evaluating the fulfilment of objectives (Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, 2010: 13-15). Inclusion in the inventory involves 28
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
considering different values such as historical, functional, typological, systemic, landscape, structural, constructional and aesthetic. Henceforth, actions will need to be carried out bearing in mind classic principles: knowledge of cultural assets due for intervention and their cultural landscape. But especially, the needs of the local population should be taken into account as well as the cultural management proposals which make those resources invested in restoration feasible. It is not just a question of a simple restoration, but of carrying it out with a clear objective in accordance with local population and making it sustainable over time. This is to prevent incompletely restored cultural assets due to a lack of a clear roadmap detailing their use, function and maintenance cost. Or it is to prevent the situation that once restored, after investing large amounts of money, they might not be leveraged in a cultural and social way due to poor planning, and could end up deteriorating over time. For example, Puerta de Almería Interpretation Centre is a case in point (http://www.turismodealmeria.org/es/ motivo-tematico/centro-de-interpretacion-puerta-dealmeria-muralla-califal_4) since, after investing 600,000 € and opening in 2006, it remained closed from 2010 until February 2015 (http://www.elmundo.es/andalucia/2015/02 /26/54ee08c9ca474109278b456b.html).
recovery towards the expected efficiency. For example, in order to take advantage of a castle as a museum, the master plan should be orientated in this direction. And later, the idea of musealisation may be developed in a broader and more concrete way within cultural management projects. Likewise, any new use should not alter the characteristics of a cultural asset. The interventions programme contains general criteria that should be applied to a cultural asset, besides the results from previous studies. Below, some fundamental ideas have been noted which demonstrate a way of acting according to current practice: • When feasible, opting for preservation rather than restoration. This is a clear way to avoid the worst deterioration of a cultural asset because, if it is maintained, restoration will not be necessary. • Undertaking interdisciplinary studies in advance with scientific data, avoiding disastrous actions. They should be aware of different contingencies which may arise, without adding to or transforming their values to make cultural assets more accessible, or without removing any modifications that alter their characteristics. • Dissemination both scientifically and non-scientifically, whether by publishing the results of work carried out, or through visits, conferences, talks, etc. • Practical usefulness of the intervention, that is to say, whether the cultural asset could have a new use without endangering it. • Maintaining movable assets, possibly to be the basis for musealisation projects, of defensive architecture in buildings. There is no castle without any content. Therefore, the objects should not be removed except where there might be a danger, and their preservation should be attempted within their original scope as musealised spaces.
Furthermore, this plan has five programmes or work lines which include many aspects to be borne in mind when intervening in defensive architecture. It is, therefore, a very complete and complex document, a fact which is very positive because it shows its totality. The study and diagnosis programme encompasses: inventory, charter activations, diagnosis, management and arrangement. These fundamental aspects have been missing in many projects. Sometimes, the rush to take advantage of a certain grant could initiate an intervention without going through studies in advance or without reflecting on the real necessities, rather than those of ruling politicians. Moreover, there are multiple examples of out of date or incomplete inventories, such as the General Inventory of Valencian Cultural Heritage, listing restored castles where no previous studies have been undertaken or where they have been superficial and generic; and also listing fortifications lacking a defined protection environment under Spanish law on cultural heritage, for example, Castalla Castle until 2014.
As its name implies, the preservation and maintenance programme relates to cultural assets for the period after undertaking interventions. It would be no use investing a large quantity of resources if cultural heritage is then abandoned to its fate. And the best maintenance happens by means of usage, without any doubt. Finally, the training and dissemination programme has a natural position in cultural management projects, although it can also be included in master plans. Besides traditional actions, such as conferences, talks, exhibitions, etc., the plan also makes provision for new innovations such as sound and light shows, image projection, experimental art and performance, popular festivals, sports activities, traditional games, workshops, audiovisual works or historical re-creation activities, which are all very popular in Anglo-Saxon countries, with a lot of followers. This fact represents an important advance for socio-cultural uses, equipping them with an important content which, to date, many cultural assets lack.
The study and research programme begins with previous studies. It also includes important issues about master plans and cultural management projects, which appear as separate tools. The master plan focuses on physical recovery, while the cultural management project focuses on cultural, economic and social efficiency, fundamentally in its primary context, by encouraging local community participation, but avoiding some interventions which could endanger or damage the asset. Although the master plan may encompass both aspects, physical recovery and efficiency, its division into two parts is interesting. This would avoid complex documents whose application never seems to end. However, it is important to focus on physical 29
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
The national plan has a section dedicated to its implementation and follow-up, stating that its resources should come from the Spanish government, as well as from different autonomous communities, provincial councils, city councils, foundations, associations and individuals (Spanish Cultural Heritage Institute, 2010: 33). It is not a static and definitive document: it is valid for ten years (2022) and it will be reviewed five years after its approval (2017).
develop it, the fortification has a preservation management plan drafted by Julian Mumby and Christopher Catling (2014). This document aims to guarantee its protection, preservation, use and public benefit, meeting present and future needs. This plan is not cast in stone, but will be revised periodically to take into account changing circumstances, knowledge and priorities. This is a very positive characteristic, because these tools should adapt to changing situations. Thus, current and future preservation and protection planning will be based on the following guiding principles (Mumby and Catling, 2014: 49):
This useful and complete document provides a framework, some guidelines and a scientific methodology concerning defensive architecture. But it is also a very complex tool. This aspect may hinder its application, especially for cultural assets located in small municipalities. In order to make it more effective, it could be reviewed to make its parts more agile and dynamic. As in other master plans or strategic plans, the main question is to know the degree to which it should be applied. For this field of study, some interventions were carried out in Biar Castle between 2009 and 2010 (http://ipce.mcu.es/conservacion/ planesnacionales/defensiva/bienes-def-valencia.html). Theoretically, these tools are very positive and useful; but if they are not implemented correctly or are applied incompletely, they will become obsolete. Likewise, it cannot aspire to be a national plan without the participation of all autonomous communities and cities in the country. This is an important aspect not to be ignored if the objective is to achieve widespread knowledge of Spanish defensive architecture. Lack of participation may be due to the fact that some autonomous communities have promoted their own plans for defensive architecture within the framework of their own competencies. In this sense, it is necessary to study how both can work together and it seems logical to ask the following questions: if autonomous communities have their own plans, what is the point of a state plan in a decentralised state? What is the point of such a plan if not all autonomous communities participate? If there is a national plan, what is the point of autonomous plans?
• “The historic environment is a shared resource. • Everyone should be able to participate in sustaining the historic environment. • Understanding the significance of places is vital. • Significant places should be managed to sustain their value. • Decisions about change must be reasonable, transparent and consistent. • Documenting and learning from decisions is essential”. The first volume, Conservation Management Plan, is structured in four parts; Introduction; Understanding Dover Castle; Significance of Dover Castle; Conservation Policies, Issues & Management Actions. Leaving out parts one –Introduction, preliminary, and two, Understanding Dover Castle, about the historical and topographical context, its evolutional sequence is highlighted through 12 phases from Prehistory to the present, describing its component parts. Part three, Significance of Dover Castle, includes many points which enable the meaning of this fortification to be understood (Mumby and Catling, 2014: 37 and 38): • Evidential value. Determines its potential in order to explain human activity and presence over time. • Historical value. Addresses the way in which to connect aspects of the fortification with present events. This includes whether it is a rare survivor, i.e. whether it is a unique example of its type of architecture, its ability to characterise a specific historical period and its association with other monuments. • Aesthetic value. Derives from the way it stimulates visitors from a sensory and intellectual point of view. This fact includes not only formal visual and aesthetic qualities, but also fortuitous visual relations with assets arising through the passage of time and aesthetic values associated with actions of nature. • Communal value. Focuses on intangible heritage value, such as commemorative, symbolic, social, religious and/or spiritual value which it may have for contemporary society.
3.3.2. Case Studies Dover Castle, known as the “key to England”, has played a prominent role in the defence of the nation for nine centuries. Its strategic position, on a hill that dominates the town of Dover which has the largest port in the English Channel, has worked in favour of its being occupied since the Roman era. If attention is focused on the fortification, its emergence and development took place in the Middle Ages, in particular between the end of the twelfth century and during the thirteenth century. It is a protected castle under the Planning Act 1990, reference number 1070326, the only official database which includes all protected cultural assets in England. Its management is the responsibility of English Heritage (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/dovercastle) and Historic England (https://historicengland.org. uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1070326), a new organisation which has emerged from an earlier one. In order to
Each of the above points can be assessed under the following degrees (Mumby and Catling, 2014: 38): • Outstanding. -is applied to well-preserved cultural assets at national and international level, where there
30
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
•
•
• • •
are some examples of a part of the monument, or outstanding examples of its cultural or social aspects. Considerable. -is used for local cultural assets or those having particular relevance through their association with other assets. It can also be used to rate important parts of a great monument. Moderate. -is applied to cultural assets that contribute to the character and understanding of the monument, or to a historical or cultural context of greater importance than their individual characteristics. Low. -is used for cultural assets of low value, or which have little or no importance in promoting the understanding or appreciation of a monument. Uncertain. -is used for cultural assets with potential to be significant, but at present there is no information available, for example, archaeological remains. Intrusive. -is used for elements that detract from the visual potential of a cultural asset or make it difficult to understand.
uk/visit/places/dover-castle/school-visits; and http://www. english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/dover-castle/families). It also provides information about periodic events and advance tickets (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/ places/dover-castle/events – ?page=1&size=12&sort=da tetime&pageId=185849). For example, the Great Tower offers self-guided and dramatised visits with interactive characters; and the Princess of Wales Royal Regiment Museum explains the regiment history. Protection aims to improve the description of formal elements (policy 6), as well as their protection for good management and understanding. It should include the fortification environment in coordination with local authorities and existing law (policy 7). This point also deals with the improvement of access, parking and, if necessary, elements or new buildings to avoid any negative impact which is also a result of daily visits and which should be mitigated with corrective measures (policies 8 and 9). Likewise, if there were any elements which could adversely alter the castle, their elimination should be proposed (policy 10).
Their application has established some priorities for action according to the degree of importance, or the impact that certain elements might have, as intrusive elements.
Preservation considers applying preventive protection and financial funds (policy 11) as a priority. It is undertaken regularly and is supported with relevant reports (policy 12). It also includes the elimination of weeds and reforestation of areas that need it (policy 13), besides constructive elements. This aims to keep the castle in good condition, accessible and understandable for society.
Finally, point four, Conservation Policies, Issues & Management Actions, deals with those factors affecting the castle in the past as well as in the future. Some general conditions are proposed for promoting, protecting and improving the significance of the fortification. Besides a summary of management measures to protect risk areas, it must take advantage of new development opportunities, improving understanding, managing change in a sustainable way and achieving a greater public benefit.
Sustainability is one of the primary factors regarding its preservation (policy 14). This is reflected in different aspects such as economic (resources for long-term management), environmental (adequate protection to avoid or mitigate environmental changes) and efficient (sustainable methods and materials for its preservation), something that is lacking from castles in the province of Alicante. It is necessary to work in a coordinated way with social and political agents of Dover (policy 15) in order to achieve it. This point, the rational use of resources, is something fundamental, and coordinated work with monument surroundings, stands out. It should also be emphasised that management cannot be done without back-up. This must be borne in mind by those stakeholders (Valencian Community) well defined by José Antonio López Mira (2014).
Henceforth, it is reflected in a series of rules or principles, which also include their corresponding management guidelines grouped into different areas (Mumby and Catling, 2014: 49-59). Understanding aims to protect the significance of Dover Castle (policy 1), through a management plan which is reviewed every five years (policy 2), encouraging new studies, archaeological, environmental, historical, architectural, etc. within a planned research strategy for better knowledge and preservation (policy 3), a coherent approach that should be the norm but is often not followed. In this sense, when restoring a cultural asset, there is the idea of its lasting forever, without it being necessary to carry out any kind of maintenance. The plan also addresses the comprehensive management of cultural and natural heritage (policy 5), having a greater presence on the internet with the publication of a database recording actions, as well as enhancing and increasing the current contents of the website (policy 4). English Heritage allows its management policy to be known regarding dissemination of information and didactics, and specifically there is content with which to plan a visit, eg. prices, schedules, access, services, etc., whether in school or family groups (http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/dovercastle/plan-your-visit; http://www.english-heritage.org.
Integration, resolution and public interest refer to conflicts that can arise when combining preservation and public enjoyment (policy 16). They must be resolved through dialogue, a fundamental aspect because a poorly managed tourist flow is sometimes dangerous for monuments. It is a topic which is not paid much attention to from a political point of view because more interest is paid to obtaining spectacular visitor numbers, regardless of the negative impact they may produce. On the other hand, to achieve the best public enjoyment, a clear interpretation plan should be developed to facilitate their understanding of the fortification. The plan should 31
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
include detailed explanations of areas to which access is not open to visitors (policies 17 and 18). This could be achieved, for example, through their musealisation which, as will be seen later, is lacking in most of the fortifications in the province of Alicante.
• Resources directly related to the reasons for designating the site as historic and national are not affected or threatened. • These reasons give meaning to the national historic site which is due to its role in the defence of Placentia and the strategic interests of France and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (1692-1811). • Its heritage value including that not related to its national importance is respected by people whose decisions or actions affect it.
Ultimately, this management plan could be a very interesting tool for cultural and natural heritage management, as well as for the research which would benefit their knowledge and preservation, as well as favouring the creation of links with the community to establish a fluid relationship. Therefore, it could serve as a reference when managing a fortification.
Commemorative Integrity was adopted in 2003 through the Commemorative Integrity Intent, a statement that identifies what should be commemorated in fortifications at national level and why; the designated place; cultural resources, level I, directly related; heritage value and objectives for its protection; national importance statements and objectives for effective communication; other cultural heritage values; cultural resources, level II, and statements associated with the site (Parks Canada, 2007: 5-10). Above all, it explains why Castle Hill is protected and considered as a national historic site of Canada, its cultural assets, and those statements and contents to be transmitted to the public, an important aspect because, without them, it is difficult to understand what is being seen. But especially, it points out the need to have a management plan, that is, protecting it through professional cultural heritage management, communicating statements, adapting cultural resources to enable them to be visited and offering quality experiences to visitors.
Another interesting case is the Castle Hill National Historic Site of Canada (Castle Hill), located in Placentia, in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. In fact, this example is a group of forts built by the French (1692) and the English (1713), when they took possession of Placentia. The fortification is managed by Parks Canada/Parcs Canada (http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/agen/index.aspx), a federal agency under the Canadian Ministry of Environment. Moreover, Castle Hill has a management plan (Parks Canada, 2007) developed by the parties involved, to safeguard its heritage value and to promote its tourist role in Cape Shore. Visitors receive live interactive and meaningful experiences, which are reinforced with educational programmes to highlight its national and historical importance (Parks Canada, 2007: VII), thus avoiding any negative impact on its cultural and natural value.
Vision outlines the general objectives to be achieved with the plan, their characteristics are developed in Strategic Objectives and Management Direction. They are (Parks Canada, 2007: VII and VIII, 13-26):
The plan, adopted in 2007, is revised every five years. Now it is undergoing its second review, although it is not known if the first one was done. In this way, the plan can be adapted to meet any changes arising over time. The public can be consulted about major changes, an extremely positive aspect which is not normal in Spain regarding cultural heritage and similar issues.
• Heritage protection, addresses the protection of cultural resources and other heritage elements such as plants, which prevent or obscure their observation and may put them at risk. It also contemplates an archaeological monitoring programme, the research of unexcavated remains and archaeological collection cataloguing. In addition it includes the preservation and removal of canons to complement the heritage presentation programme in fortifications. The aim is to ensure that their commemorative integrity is not threatened or damaged. • Public education, addresses those aspects relating to the communication of key messages and heritage values to visitors and other audiences. In order to achieve this, the contents of Parks Canada website will be increased to meet the needs of different audiences, to explore opportunities to make known the history of Newfoundland and Labrador natives, and to continue with research to augment the programme. It is a key aspect, because if people do not know about and enjoy their cultural heritage, they will hardly be able to understand its protection. In this sense, Castle Hill has a simple but manageable and complete website (http:// www.pc.gc.ca/lhn-nhs/nl/castlehill/index.aspx) with
The plan is structured in a single volume consisting of eight sections, Introduction; Commemorative Integrity; Vision; Strategic Objectives and Management Direction; Impact Evaluation and Environmental Assessment; Implementation Plan; Appendices; and Maps. Besides a brief historical synthesis, the Introduction explains the national system of historical sites, their dependence on public administrations, companies and individuals, as in other Anglo-Saxon cases; and the political and legislative context for its management: Parks Canada Agency Act (1998); Parks Canada’s Guiding Principles and Operational Policies (1994); and Parks Canada Guide to Management Planning (Parks Canada, 2008). This is particularly useful for people unfamiliar with heritage management developed in the Anglo-Saxon context. Commemorative Integrity, as its name suggests, describes the integrity of a national historic site that occurs when (Parks Canada, 2007: 5-10):
32
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
•
•
•
•
six main sections and two links. The main sections are: Visitor Information, offering useful information such as opening and closing times, how to get there, ticket prices, facilities and services, weather, tourist website links, heritage websites, etc. to make the visit more rewarding; Activities, outlining some activities that families can do; Natural Wonders & Cultural Treasures, with information about its history and a photo gallery; Learning Experiences, with information regarding the Castle Hill Visitor Centre; Site Management, with a management plan that can be downloaded for free; and How to Reach Us, with directions on how to contact the site. The first link, Related Locations, connects with other historical sites such as the Ryan Premises International Historic Site or the Cape Spear Lighthouse National Historic Site of Canada; while the second link, Related Links, leads to other heritage sites such as the Musée Laurier, and historical-heritage associations like the Placentia Area Historical Society and Historic Alive. External relations, advertises castles to the public by means of regional tourist planning, promotion and commercialisation. It also proposes improvement of the Castle Hill website, including the possibility of planning trips and providing links to other websites; this includes working with local authorities and tourist agents in order to promote fortifications and what they can offer; publicising and fostering activities at castles; and enhancing the signage according to the Parks Canada plan. Visitor experience, includes further research which should be undertaken on visitor’s interests, expectations and needs, in order to offer a more satisfactory visit by improving tourism, accessibility and visibility; enhancing visits to make them more interactive and attractive including re-creating history or re-enactment activities; exploring opportunities to improve visiting programmes for local, regional, French-speaking and native groups. As in the previous section, the website should also be enhanced to offer interesting information and to facilitate planning trips. Working with others, existing relationships should be strengthened and new ones built to protect and offer experiences at castles with the support of local associations, as well as working with the community and stakeholders to establish a Castle Hill association; and collaborating with the native communities of Newfoundland and Labrador on interesting and beneficial projects for both parties. Environmental stewardship, ensures the preservation of natural values by identifying and protecting those species at risk, as well as respecting their natural value; by assessing the environmental impact of the activities on site; by seeking environmental efficiency to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and by replacing the fleet with environmentally friendly vehicles, and by reducing energy and water consumption through education of staff and visitors; and by developing an environmental management plan.
Likewise, all the objectives have their own specific or particular goals which are developed more broadly. They are the essential basis of a management plan. Protection is important, although other aspects also stand out, for instance the environmental management in Dover Castle. Not only should the natural heritage be managed, but also other measures should be implemented to combat climate change. The following should also be highlighted: • Adapting the content to different audiences, children, students, adults, specialists, on-site and online, and including the history of natives who occupied Newfoundland and Labrador before the arrival of Europeans. It is fundamental to reach the maximum number of public, a fact which is sometimes forgotten because the content may only focus on adults or specialists, leaving aside other groups such as children or people with special needs. A website with powerful content in several languages allows borders to be bridged to reach a greater number of visitors. This could also be done if history prior to the arrival of Europeans is included in the dissemination. Even today, it is not strange that certain periods of history can often be ignored or marginalised by political issues. An example of this is the United States of America, which usually ignores or only covers very briefly its earlier history regarding the arrival of the Pilgrim Fathers from England. In this respect, their story is the foundational history of America: “The Pilgrim Story —the hazardous voyage, the 1620 landing, the fearful first winter, the First Thanksgiving at Plymouth— is the founding story of America” (http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org). This is also true of the Hispanic past of the country: the founding of Saint Augustine in Florida (1565), the first city of the present United States (http://www. hispaniccouncil.org/san-agustin-de-florida-la-ciudadmas-antigua-de-estados-unidos-fue-fundada-porespanoles-hace-450-anos/), as well as of the history of the native Americans. • Connecting tour operators with cultural assets and making the preparation of visits easier for the public through the website, as Dover Castle does; developing a promotional campaign in coordination with local agents and tour operators; and improving the signage for new visitors. Once again this is fundamental, especially if they are able to programme their own visit. It offers freedom to the user, who can take advantage of the internet to plan a visit to Castle Hill without having to depend on third parties. • Carrying out research to understand the interests, expectations and needs of visitors better and to make their visit as satisfactory as possible. Dramatised visits with characters who make the visit more attractive and interactive must be highlighted. In this sense, activities involving living history and re-enactment are common in Anglo-Saxon contexts: they recreate the past in a different way, placing the visitor at a moment in history and establishing, in turn, connections with the present. If done well, they are more attractive than traditional
33
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
guided visits. However, it is still a minority practice in Spain (Pérez-Juez, 2006: 264). • Working with other groups, such as local associations, to continue strengthening existing relationships and create new ones. In this instance, the native associations play an important role, which is fundamental for them to feel part of a common project and to provide their point of view.
Finally, Appendices (Parks Canada: 2007: 35-39) include specific information including a glossary in Appendix A, with terms such as “historical value” or “natural landscape” being described. Appendix B has a summary of the commemorative integrity evaluation on three aspects: Resource Condition; Effectiveness of Communications; and Selected Management Practices. In 12 cases, it gets the best marks, coloured green, which indicates that the mark can be lower; in six cases, it gets a middle mark, coloured yellow, which indicates that it can go up to the green colour; and in only one case has it received the lowest mark, coloured red. Appendix C, Detailed Effects of Vegetation Growth on Specific Heritage Resources (Parks Canada: 2007: 39) deals with detailed effects concerning the growth of vegetation. Fort Royal Glacis presents a good condition, whereas Free Fire Zone presents a bad situation. However, the vegetation in Fort Royal is also bad because it prevents the view inland and towards Gaillardin Redoubt. It is outside the zone managed by Parks Canada, being completely covered by vegetation and, therefore, its condition is also poor. For its part, Detached Redoubt Viewscapes presents a good situation due to the steep slope that hinders the growth of vegetation, likewise La Fontaine Battery Viewscapes. Lastly, the Old French Trail is in good condition, although its entrance is difficult to find because it is located in a wooded area.
This plan also addresses cultural and natural heritage management, according to the current management trends for cultural assets and their natural environment. Therefore, when managing a more plural heritage, the value of the site becomes more attractive, diverse and rich, and the tourist cultural product is much more interesting, whether for history or cultural heritage lovers, as well as for visitors interested in natural heritage. Impact Evaluation and Environmental Assessment (Parks Canada: 2007: 27) explains federal initiatives presented to the Canadian government, with a strategic environmental assessment in order to determine their environmental impact and identify mitigation measures. The evaluation of management plans will provide an opportunity to assess the impact of these programmes and their cumulative effect on multiple projects or activities. The strategic environmental assessment of Castle Hill in 2006 was positive, since it was consistent with federal policy and legislation governing national historical sites managed by Parks Canada. Consequently, the actions intended to be carried out are positive, although there are some that deserve a more detailed study, such as the removal of vegetation, relocation of cannons or identification of endangered species.
The last section of this management plan is Maps, which will not be discussed because they are not included in the digital copy used in this work. It can be said that Castle Hill has a complete and complex management plan, which deals with various aspects as a way of achieving the best cultural and natural heritage management. However, eight years after coming into force, it seems logical to ask the following questions: Which actions have been carried out? Have the expected results been achieved? There is no current memory on the Castle Hill website that lists the application of the plan, except one from 2008 (Parks Canada, 2008) published one year after this management plan came into force. The actions carried out were (Parks Canada, 2008: 2):
The evaluation of the document can confirm its strengths and weaknesses, or whether any actions could be harmful. In this way, before it comes into force and before taking any actions those which might have a negative impact may be corrected or improved. Plan Implementation is the next section (Parks Canada: 2007: 29-31). At Newfoundland East Field Unit the Superintendent is in charge of applying a management plan according to the available financial resources. To this end, many priority actions (22) were established for the first five years of the plan and others to be carried out afterwards (17). These actions, 39 in total, are included in the Strategic Objectives and Management Direction already mentioned. As for the activities of the first five years, the prioritisation is very interesting because it establishes some guidelines, in spite of working to meet its immediate needs. Their commitment to undertake most of the actions (22 of 39) over the first five years after the approval of the plan is noteworthy. This is a way of avoiding excessive prolongation of the management measures, which would not be beneficial. It is fundamental to communicate the progress on the management plan to society by means of an annual report published on the Parks Canada website.
• Heritage protection • Vegetation management. Between 2007 and 2008 the vegetation was cleared, preventing its roots from harming and hindering its appearance, thus helping visitors to understand it better. • Public education • 3D topographic model. For its 40th anniversary, a 3D model of the castle and its surroundings was developed. Once completed, it has served to demonstrate the historic and geographic relationship between the ruins of the fortification and the community of Placentia. • Public lecture. A conference was held about its history. • Painting workshop. Some workshops were held to teach preservation through art. • Meaningful visitor experiences 34
Conceptual and Theoretical Framework
• 40th anniversary musical concert. A free music concert took place in the ruins of Fort Royal. • Trail maintenance. Regular maintenance was done on the hiking route from Jerseyside to the remains of Fort Royal, as part of the preparation for the Fun Run event. • Working with others • Castle Hill Placentia Fun Run. Castle Hill worked in association with the city of Placentia to hold a noncompetitive race for all ages by the promenade, next to the archaeological excavations in Jerseyside, and along the castle hill trails to the reception centre. The race is expected to become an annual event. • Summer Solstice Arts and Entertainment Evening. Castle Hill became a stage for local musicians, writers and artists. In general, the effects have been the following: • Heritage protection. Results are poor, since of seven scheduled actions none has been completed. Two have been initiated, four have not yet begun and there is no available information about one. • Public education. The work done so far is good with positive results. Of four scheduled actions, only two have started. • External relations. As in the previous section, the balance of the tasks carried out is good. Of four scheduled actions, two have been initiated and the rest have not yet begun. • Meaningful visitor experiences. The results of this work are also positive. Of 12 scheduled actions, eight have started. • Working with others. The balance for this section is also very positive since all three scheduled actions have started. • Environmental stewardship. The work done is good. Of three scheduled actions, two have been initiated. As a final assessment, this management plan is an important contribution, being realistic and feasible to carry out. However, they should publish their results on the website. In this sense, there is a large gap between the publication of the first results (in 2008) and the present (2016). On the other hand, it is important to highlight its ecological commitment to the local community by facilitating the visits. Without a doubt, it is a document to be borne in mind.
35
4 Characteristics of the Sample Analysed As noted above, these castles are located in the province of Alicante1, an administrative division in the south-east of the Iberian Peninsula which is part of the Valencian Community (Figure 1). This autonomous community, composed of three provinces with common historical, cultural and economic characteristics, Castellón, Valencia and Alicante, is one of 17 created after the Spanish Constitution of 1978 came into force and after the arrival of democracy.
• State of preservation: this offers three categories, good, average and bad, in which to classify them. • Heritage protection: describes the level of protection under state and autonomous laws on cultural heritage. • Accessibility: intellectual accessibility focuses on those elements that promote understanding about them, such as publications, websites, etc.; and physical accessibility, which includes access to castles. Both were categorised as good, average or bad. • Visits: describes whether castles can be visited. If so, schedules and entry prices were detailed, as well as whether they have support infrastructure such as reception or interpretation centres, visitor centres, tourist offices or other similar installations. • Information sources: this is based on publications and websites with information about the castles. • Observations: this contains additional information in some cases.
For better organisation of the information, sheets were generated with the following sections: • General data: contains data about the name of the fortifications, as well as their municipality, geographic coordinates2 and location, with two basic categories, whether castles are placed in urban or rural areas. • Chronological and cultural context: defines them in a historical context, indicating their chronology and, if possible, the different periods of occupation.
Data on historical and formal aspects were not included because they were not relevant to this project. However, they are detailed in the bibliography.
For more information, refer to the summary undertaken by Antonio Mestre Sanchis (1985). Despite its date, it is still useful as it gives a global view. No project with similar characteristics has been published to date. 2 Obtained from GoogleEarth. 1
37
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
4.1. Group 1 (Figure 8)
Figure 8. Group 1. 1-Alcalà or Benissili Castle, 2-Almizra Castle, 3-Alfofra Castle, 4-Benifallim Castle, 5-Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, 6-Costurera or Seta Castle, 7-Garx Castle, 8-Guadalest Castle, 9-Laguar Castle, 10-Vall d’Ebo Castle, 11-Margarida Castle, 12-Penàguila Castle, 13-Planes Castle, 14-Santa Bàrbara Castle, 15-Tàrbena Castle, 16-Travadell Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture from Juan José Mataix Albiñana.
38
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 9. Alcalà or Benissili Castle. Photo: José Ramón Ortega Pérez.
• Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=771. • Bibliography: Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Azuar and Ruibal, 1998; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b; Martínez, 1993; Segura and Torró, 1985.
4.1.1. Alcalà or Benissili Castle (Figure 9) • General data • Name: Alcalà or Benissili Castle. • Municipality: Vall de Gallinera (Benissili). • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural rocky ridge. • Height above sea level: 728 m. • Coordinates: 38º48’34.64” N and 0º16’48.04” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh / twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.136-010. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011143). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free.
39
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 10. Almizra Castle. Photo: Juan Antonio Mira Rico.
• Physical: good. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=799. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1989; Guichard, 1982; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Martínez, 1993; Sebastián, 1985, 1987, 1989, 1990; Segura and Torró, 2001; Torró and Segura, 2000. • Observations: the hill of the castle (Puig d’Almizra) is protected as an asset of cultural interest, with the category of historical site (https://www.boe.es/boe/ dias/2015/12/22/pdfs/BOE-A-2015-14017.pdf).
4.1.2. Almizra Castle (Figure 10) • General data • Name: Almizra Castle. • Municipality: Camp de Mirra. • District: Alt Vinalopó. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 668 m. • Coordinates: 38º40’51.91” N and 0º47’03.07” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, twelfth? to sixteenth centuries. Bronze Age, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.28.051-005. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011069). • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. 40
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 11. Alfofra Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=696. • Bibliography: Azuar and Ruibal, 1998.
4.1.3. Alfofra Castle (Figure 11) • General data • Name: Alfofra Castle. • Municipality: Confrides. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: rural ridge. • Height above sea level: 1,028 m. • Coordinates: 38º40’16.87” N and 0º15’09.78” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian?, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.057-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011105). • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. 41
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 12. Benifallim Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=458. • Bibliography: Azuar and Ruibal, 1998; Kiss, 2011.
4.1.4. Benifallim Castle (Figure 12) • General data • Name: Benifallim Castle. • Municipality: Benifallim. • District: Alcoià. • Location: rural rocky ridge. • Height above sea level: 829 m. • Coordinates: 38º39’43.10” N and 0º23’42.75” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.27.032-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 42
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 13. Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=494. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 2001a; Segura and Torró, 1985. • Observations: J.R. Hinojosa Montalvo (2001a: 468, 475 and 476) distinguishes two fortifications, Castell de Castells Castle and Serrella Castle, although they are the same.
4.1.5. Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle (Figure 13) • General data • Name: Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle. • Municipality: Castell de Castells. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural rocky ridge. • Height above sea level: 985 m. • Coordinates: 38º42’23.11” N and 0º12’07.60” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to sixteenth centuries? Medieval Andalusian?, Medieval Christian?, Modern? • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.054-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. 43
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 14. Costurera or Seta Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=790. • Bibliography: Ferrer and Català, 1996; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Segura and Torró, 1985.
4.1.6. Costurera or Seta Castle (Figure 14) • General data • Name: Costurera or Seta Castle. • Municipality: Balones. • District: Comtat. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 803 m. • Coordinates: 38º44’53.87” N and 0º19’10.68” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.26.020-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010572). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. 44
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 15. Garx Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=3337. • Bibliography: Guichard, 1982; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b; Segura and Torró, 1985; Soldevila, 1995.
4.1.7. Garx Castle (Figure 15) • General data • Name: Garx Castle. • Municipality: Bolulla. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 340 m. • Coordinates: 38º40’49.95” N and 0º06’30.38” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to thirteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.045-004. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010664). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. 45
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 16. Guadalest Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Castell de Guadalest Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=518. • Bibliography: Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Guichard, 1982; Hinojosa, 1986, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993.
4.1.8. Guadalest Castle (Figure 16) • General data • Name: Guadalest Castle. • Municipality: Castell de Guadalest. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: rural rock. • Height above sea level: 560 m. • Coordinates: 38º40’37.87” N and 0º11’49.87” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh / thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.075-001. • Category: historical site. • Typology: military buildings. Walled cities. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 30 May 1974. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-53-0000169). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: good. • Visits: yes. 46
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
4.1.9. Laguar Castle
4.1.10. Vall d’Ebo Castle
• General data • Name: Laguar Castle. • Municipality: Vall de Laguar. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 297 m. • Coordinates: 38º46’53.48” N and 0º05’32.60” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to fourteenth centuries? Medieval Andalusian?, Medieval Christian? • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.137-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration, Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010533). • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=763. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 2001c.
• General data • Name:Vall d’Ebo Castle. • Municipality: Vall d’Ebo. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 439 m. • Coordinates: 38º48’06.63” N and 0º09’20.46” W. • Chronological and cultural context: Medieval Andalusian?, Medieval Christian? • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code:03.30.135-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=575. • Bibliography • Not available.
47
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 17. Margarida Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=5273. • Bibliography: Ferrer and Català, 1996; Hinojosa, 2001c; Martínez, 1993.
4.1.11. Margarida Castle (Figure 17) • General data • Name: Margarida Castle. • Municipality: Planes. • District: Comtat. • Location: rural rocky hill. • Height above sea level: 633 m. • Coordinates: 38º46’43.57” N and 0º18’02.58” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, second to third centuries, eleventh to fourteenth centuries. Bronze Age, Roman era, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.26.106-014. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. 48
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 18. Penàguila Castle. Photo: J.A Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=693. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 1986, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993; Segura and Torró, 1985.
4.1.12. Penàguila Castle (Figure 18) • General data • Name: Penàguila Castle. • Municipality: Penàguila. • District: Alcoià. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 890 m. • Coordinates: 38º40’24.12” N and 0º21’39.84” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.27.103-005. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010533). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. 49
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 19. Planes Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=559. • Bibliography: Ferrer and Català, 1996; Martínez, 1993; Menéndez, 1995.
4.1.13. Planes Castle (Figure 19) • General data • Name: Planes Castle. • Municipality: Planes. • District: Comtat. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 451 m. • Coordinates: 38º47’08.90” N and 0º20’39.39” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Bronze Age, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.26.106-004. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. 50
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 20. Santa Bàrbara Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=691. • Bibliography: Azuar and Ruibal, 1998; Hinojosa, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993.
4.1.14. Santa Bàrbara Castle (Figure 20) • General data • Name: Santa Bàrbara Castle. • Municipality: Sella. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 451 m. • Coordinates: 38º36’36.05” N and 0º16’19.33” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to thirteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.124-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010576). • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 51
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 21. Tàrbena Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=3311. • Bibliography: Azuar and Ruibal, 1998; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c; Martínez, 1993.
4.1.15. Tàrbena Castle (Figure 21) • General data • Name: Tàrbena Castle. • Municipality: Tàrbena. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 647 m. • Coordinates: 38º41’53.31” N and 0º05’43.49” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh to thirteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.127-004. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010666). • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. 52
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 22. Travadell Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=484. • Bibliography: Ferrer and Català, 1996; Hinojosa, 2001b, 2001c.
4.1.16. Travadell Castle (Figure 22) • General data • Name: Travadell Castle. • Municipality: Millena. • District: Comtat. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 629 m. • Coordinates: 38º44’09.98” N and 0º22’21.53” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, second to third centuries, thirteenth to fifteenth centuries. Bronze Age, Roman era, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.26.086-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010579). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. 53
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
4.2. Group 2 (Figure 23)
Figure 23. Group 2. 1-Agost Castle, 2-Aixa Castle, 3-Biar Castle, 4-Busot Castle, 5-Murta Castle, 6-Polop de la Marina Castle, 7-Relleu Castle, 8-Tibi Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
54
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 24. Agost Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Bibliography: López, 1996a, 1996b. • Observations: there seems to be some confusion concerning this castle, since the one studied by Eduardo López Seguí (1996a: 23-30 and 1996b: 105-115) does not match with the fortification included in the General Inventory of Valencian Cultural Heritage. Under the name of Agost Castle, it encloses the archaeological site of Cerro de la Ermita – El Castillo (López, 1996b: 9294).
4.2.1. Agost Castle (Figure 24) • General data • Name: Agost Castle. • Municipality: Agost. • District: Alacantí. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 385 m. • Coordinates: 38º26’24.62” N and 0º37’52.75” W. • Chronological and cultural context: end eleventh century to first half thirteenth century. Medieval Andalusian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.32.002-001. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. 55
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
4.2.2. Aixa Castle • General data • Name: Aixa Castle. • Municipality: Alcalalí. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 569 m. • Coordinates: 38º45’52.23” N and 0º00’03.90” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to fourteenth centuries? Medieval Andalusian?, Medieval Christian? • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.006-008. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Pego i les Valls Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=5277. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b.
56
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 25. Biar Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: http://turismobiar.com/castillo-de-biar/. • Entry price: 1 €. • Support infrastructure: yes. Biar Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=471. • Biar City Council: www.biar.es. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Esquembre, 1997; Hinojosa, 1995; Martínez, 1993; Richart, 2001; Segura and Simón, 2001; Tendero, 2009.
4.2.3. Biar Castle (Figure 25) • General data • Name: Biar Castle. • Municipality: Biar. • District: Alt Vinalopó. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 717 m. • Coordinates: 38º37’52.65” N and 0º45’52.72” W. • Chronological and cultural context: third millennium BC? to sixteenth century. Bronze Age, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.28.043-003. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 3 June 1931. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0000369). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 57
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 26. Busot Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=810. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Azuar and Navarro, 1995.
4.2.4. Busot Castle (Figure 26) • General data • Name: Busot Castle. • Municipality: Busot. • District: Alacantí. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 331 m. • Coordinates: 38º29’07.84” N and 0º25’01.99” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.32.046-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free.
58
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 27. Murta Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=303. • Bibliography: López, 1996b.
4.2.5. Murta Castle (Figure 27) • General data • Name: Murta Castle. • Municipality: Agost. • District: Alacantí. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 389 m. • Coordinates: 38º27’04.39” N and 0º36’36.09” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, fourth to fifth centuries, end tenth century to twelfth century. Bronze Age, Roman era, late Roman era, Medieval Andalusian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.32.002-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. 59
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 28. Polop de la Marina Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Polop de la Marina Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=689. • Bibliography: Martínez, 1993; Menéndez, 1993.
4.2.6. Polop de la Marina Castle (Figure 28) • General data • Name: Polop de la Marina Castle. • Municipality: Polop de la Marina. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 236 m. • Coordinates: 38º37’22.17” N and 0º07’32.79” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.107-005. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0009950). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. 60
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 29. Relleu Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Relleu Historical and Ethnological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=692. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993.
4.2.7. Relleu Castle (Figure 29) • General data • Name: Relleu Castle. • Municipality: Relleu. • District: Marina Baixa. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 458 m. • Coordinates: 38º35’19.01” N and 0º18’51.46” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth? to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.31.112-003. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010575). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. 61
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 30. Tibi Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=571. • Bibliography: Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Hinojosa, 2001c; Martínez, 1993.
4.2.8. Castell de Tibi (Figure 30) • General data • Name: Tibi Castle. • Municipality: Tibi. • District: Alcoià. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 542 m. • Coordinates: 38º31’33.05” N and 0º34’24.53” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second half thirteenth century to fourteenth century. Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.27.129-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010559). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. 62
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
4.3. Group 3 (Figure 31)
Figure 31. Group 3. 1-Banyeres de Mariola Castle, 2-Ocaive Castle, 3-Torre Grossa Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
63
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 32. Banyeres de Mariola Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: 2.50 € and 1.25 € (reduced ticket). • Support infrastructure: yes. Banyeres de Mariola Tourist Office and Torre Font Bona Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=454. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Hinojosa, 2001a; Martínez, 1993; Vicens, 1993.
4.3.1. Banyeres de Mariola Castle (Figure 32) • General data • Name: Banyeres de Mariola Castle. • Municipality: Banyeres de Mariola. • District: Alt Vinalopó. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 820 m. • Coordinates: 38º42’55.98” N and 0º39’28.25” W. • Chronological and cultural context: first half thirteenth century to fifteenth century. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.27.021-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010567). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. 64
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 33. Ocaive Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=1428. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 2001c.
4.3.2. Ocaive Castle (Figure 33) • General data • Name: Ocaive Castle. • Municipality: Pedreguer. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 274 m. • Coordinates: 38º46’42.01” N and 0º00’52.21” W. • Chronological and cultural context: end twelfth century? to fifteenth century? Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.101-010. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. 65
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 34. Torre Grossa Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Xixona Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=660. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981, 2011; Azuar and Menéndez, 2011; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993.
4.3.3. Torre Grossa Castle (Figure 34) • General data • Name: Torre Grossa Castle. • Municipality: Xixona. • District: Alacantí. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 490 m. • Coordinates: 38º32’19.53” N and 0º30’32.69” W. • Chronological and cultural context: end twelfth century to fifteenth century. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.32.083-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011349). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. 66
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
4.4. Group 4 (Figure 35)
Figure 35. Group 4. 1-Ambra Castle, 2-Callosa de Segura Castle, 3-Castalla Castle, 4-Cocentaina Castle, 5-Guardamar del Segura Castle, 6-Monòver Castle, 7-Penella Castle, 8-Sax Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
67
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 36. Ambra Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Pego i les Valls Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=3565. • Pego City Council: http://www.pego.org. • Bibliography: Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Azuar, Martí and Pascual, 1999; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993.
4.4.1. Ambra Castle (Figure 36) • General data • Name: Ambra Castle. • Municipality: Pego. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 260 m. • Coordinates: 38º49’42.30” N and 0º06’39.98” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth century. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.102-027. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011110). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 68
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 37. Callosa de Segura Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Callosa de Segura Tourist Office and Antonio Ballester Ruiz Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=804. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Hinojosa; 2001a; Mira, 2013.
4.4.2. Callosa de Segura Castle (Figure 37) • General data • Name: Callosa de Segura Castle. • Municipality: Callosa de Segura. • District: Vega Baja del Segura. • Location: rocky ridge. • Height above sea level: 113 m. • Coordinates: 38º07’11.78” N and 0º53’00.49” W. • Chronological and cultural context: tenth to fifteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.34.049-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 69
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 38. Castalla Castle. Photo: Andrés Ruiz Sánchez.
• Entry price: • Adults: 3 €. • Pensioners: 2 €. • Children younger than eight: free. • Visitors with youth card or student card: 2 €. • Groups –minimum 30 people–: 2 €. • Support infrastructure: yes. Castalla Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=796. • Castalla Tourist Office: www.turismocastalla.com. • Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage blog: www.arepaccastalla.worpdress.com. • Bibliography: Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Bevià, Camarero and Jiménez, 1985; Cerdà, 1983, 1994; Grau and Moratalla, 1999; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Menéndez, Bevià, Mira and Ortega, 2010; Mira, 2012, 2013; Mira and Ortega, 2015; Martínez, 1993; Torró and Segura, 1991. • Observations: this is part of the Castalla Castle Heritage Site, a name that includes the whole cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, as well as the natural heritage on the hill. The actions carried out on it, under the Castalla Castle Heritage Site Social Regeneration Project (http:// www.gestioncultural.org/buenas_practicas.php?id_ proyectos=299223), have improved the protection of its assets. Moreover, the walls of the town and its tangible assets are included in the General Inventory of Valencian (http://www.ceice.gva.es/web/ Cultural Heritage patrimonio-cultural-y-museos/bics).
4.4.3. Castalla Castle (Figure 38) • General data • Name: Castalla Castle. • Municipality: Castalla. • District: Alcoià. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 738 m. • Coordinates: 38º35’50.81” N and 0º40’23.35” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC to sixteenth century. Bronze Age, Iberian era, Roman era, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.27.053-013. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. It encloses a delimited protective environment. (http://boe.es/boe/dias/2014/03/25/ pdfs/BOE-A-2014-3218.pdf). • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011103). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: http://www.turismocastalla.com/castalla New/web_php/index.php?contenido=subapartados_ bb1&id_boto=3136. 70
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 39. Cocentaina Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. Visitors must ask for the key at the police station. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Cocentaina Tourist Office and Comtat Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=960. • Cocentaina City Council: http://www.cocentiana. es. • Cocentaina blog: http://elsocarraet.blogspot.com. es/2011/02/el-castell-que-no-coneixes.html. • Bibliography: Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Doménech, 2003; Ferrer and Català, 1996; Grau, 2002; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993; Mira, 2013; Rubio, 1987; Torregrosa, 1994; Torró, 1992; Torró and Segura, 1991.
4.4.4. Cocentaina Castle (Figure 39) • General data • Name: Cocentaina Castle. • Municipality: Cocentaina. • District: Comtat. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 715 m. • Coordinates: 38º44’45.24” N and 0º26’51.86” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC to eighteenth century. Bronze Age, Iberian era, Roman era, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good (tower), average and bad (rest). • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.26.056-008. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011156). • Accessibility
71
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 40. Guardamar del Segura Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Guardamar del Segura Tourist Office and Guardamar del Segura Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=665. • Guardamar del Segura Archaeological Museum: http://www.magmuseo.com. • Bibliography: AA.VV., 2010; Azuar, 1981; Hinojosa, 1996, 2001.
4.4.5. Guardamar del Segura Castle (Figure 40) • General data • Name: Guardamar del Segura Castle. • Municipality: Guardamar del Segura. • District: Vega Baja del Segura. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 45 m. • Coordinates: 38º05’29.76” N and 0º39’27.72” W. • Chronological and cultural context: third century BC to nineteenth century. Iberian era, Roman era, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern, Contemporary. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.34.076-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011104). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. 72
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 41. Monòver Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez.
• Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=528. • Monòver City Council: http://www.monovar.es. • Bibliography: AA.VV., 2005; Jover and Segura, 1995; Mira, 2013; Navarro, 1994; Navarro and Ortega, 1997; Ortega and Esquembre, 2001.
4.4.6. Monòver Castle (Figure 41) • General data • Name: Monòver Castle. • Municipality: Monòver. • District: Vinalopó Mitjà. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 413 m. • Coordinates: 38º26’19.66” N and 0º50’13.50” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC to seventeenth century. Bronze Age, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.29.089-011. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule.
73
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 42. Penella Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free (open occasionally). • Support infrastructure: yes. Cocentaina Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=1425. • Cocentaina City Council: http://www.cocentiana. es. • Cocentaina blog: http://elsocarraet.blogspot.com. es/2008/12/intervenci-al-castell-de-penella.html. • Bibliography: Doménech, 2013; Ferrer and Català, 1996; Hinojosa, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993; Mira, 2013.
4.4.7. Penella Castle (Figure 42) • General data • Name: Penella Castle. • Municipality: Cocentaina. • District: Comtat. • Location: rural ridge. • Height above sea level: 665 m. • Coordinates: 38º42’05.48” N and 0º25’04.77” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to sixteenth centuries. Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.26.056-009. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0009342). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 74
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 43. Sax Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: http://www.sax.es/visitas-guiadas-castillo. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: no. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=568. • Sax City Council: http://www.sax.es. • Bibliography: AA.VV., 2005; Azuar, 1981, 1983; Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Hernández and Pérez, 1991; Hinojosa, 2001d; Martínez, 1993; Mira, 2013; Navarro, 1991, 1994; Paz, 1978; Sáez, 1982; Sánchez, 2012; Simón, 2001.
4.4.8. Sax Castle (Figure 43) • General data • Name: Sax Castle. • Municipality: Sax. • District: Alt Vinalopó. • Location: urban ridge. • Height above sea level: 507 m. • Coordinates: 38º32’25.40” N and 0º49’01.45” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, end tenth century to sixteenth century. Bronze Age, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.28.123-005. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010665). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. 75
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
4.5. Group 5 (Figure 44)
Figure 44. Group 5. 1-Aljau Castle, 2-Mola Castle, 3-Río Castle, 4-Vermell Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
76
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 45. Aljau Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Aspe Historical Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=5864. • Aspe City Council: http://www.aspe.es. • Bibliography: Ortega, Reina, Martínez and Esquembre, 2013.
4.5.1. Aljau Castle (Figure 45) • General data • Name: Aljau Castle. • Municipality: Aspe. • District: Vinalopó Mitjà. • Location: urban area, beside River Tarafa. • Height above sea level: 233 m. • Coordinates: 38º20’53.00” N and 0º46’11.80” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second half fourteenth century to sixteenth century. Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.29.019-008. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: not included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets. • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. 77
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 46. Mola Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez.
• Schedule:https://noveldamuseoarqueologico. wordpress.com/visitas-al-castillo/ and http://www. novelda.es/horarios/. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Novelda Tourist Office and Novelda Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=534. • Novelda City Council: http://www.ayto-novelda. es. • Novelda Tourist Office: http://www.novelda.es. • Novelda Archaeological Museum: https:// noveldamuseoarqueologico.wordpress.com. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981, 2005; Azuar, Navarro and Benito, 1985; Benito, 1991; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Navarro, 1990, 1992, 1993, 2001a, 2009a.
4.5.2. Mola Castle (Figure 46) • General data • Name: Mola Castle. • Municipality: Novelda. • District: Vinalopó Mitjà. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 330 m. • Coordinates: 38º24’30.77” N and 0º47’34.88” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to sixteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.29.093-011. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 4 June 1931. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0000370). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: average. • Visits: yes. 78
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 47. Río Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Aspe Historical Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=791. • Aspe City Council: http://www.aspe.es. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981, 1994, 2001b; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d.
4.5.3. Río Castle (Figure 47) • General data • Name: Río Castle. • Municipality: Aspe. • District: Vinalopó Mitjà. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 199 m. • Coordinates: 38º20’29.80” N and 0º43’28.14” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second quarter twelfth century to 1270. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.29.093-011. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010625). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: bad. 79
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 48. Vermell Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Ibi Tourist Office. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=521. • Bibliography: Segura and Torró, 1985.
4.5.4. Vermell Castle (Figure 48) • General data • Name: Vermell Castle. • Municipality: Ibi. • District: Alcoià. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 796 m. • Coordinates: 38º37’44.83” N and 0º34’24.16” W. • Chronological and cultural context: thirteenth to fourteenth? centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.27.079-003. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011102). • Accessibility • Intellectual: bad. • Physical: bad. 80
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
4.6. Group 6 (Figure 49)
Figure 49. Group 6. 1-Atalaya Castle, 2-Dénia Castle, 3-Petrer Castle, 4-Salvatierra Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
81
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 50. Atalaya Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: http://www.museovillena.com/noticia. asp?idnoticia=60603. • Entry price: 3 € and 1.5 € (reduced ticket). • Support infrastructure: yes. José María Soler Archaeological Museum, and Villena Interpretation and Reception Centre. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=582. • José María Soler Archaeological Museum: http:// www.museovillena.com. • Villena Interpretation and Reception Centre: http://www.turismovillena.com. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Hernández, 2001; Navarro and Hernández, 1999; Soler, 2006.
4.6.1. Atalaya Castle (Figure 50) • General data • Name: Atalaya Castle. • Municipality: Villena. • District: Alt Vinalopó. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 534 m. • Coordinates: 38º37’54.70” N and 0º51’38.99” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh to nineteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern, Contemporary. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.28.140-004. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 4 June 1931. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0000366). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: average. • Visits: yes. 82
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 51. Dénia Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: http://va.denia.net/castillo-de-denia. • Entry price: • Adults: 3 €. • Pensioners: 2 €. • Children from eight to 16: 1 €. • Students: 2 €. • Groups –minimum 10 people: 2 €. • Dénia Card children: free. • Dénia Card adults: 2 €. • Support infrastructure: yes. Dénia Tourist Office and Dénia Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=593. • Dénia Tourist Office: http://www.denia.net. • Dénia Archaeological Museum: http://www. denia.es/es/informacio/cultura/arqueologia/ index.aspx – p. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1989; Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Gisbert, 2009, 2014; Hinojosa, 2001a; Martínez, 1993.
4.6.2. Dénia Castle (Figure 51) • General data • Name: Dénia Castle. • Municipality: Dénia. • District: Marina Alta. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 43 m. • Coordinates: 38º50’34.28” N and 0º06’26.65” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh to eighteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.30.063-006. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010635). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: average. 83
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 52. Petrer Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: http://petrer.es/cas/monumentos_de_ interes.html. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Dámaso Navarro Archaeological and Ethnological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=556. • Petrer City Council: www.petrer.es. • Bibliography: Hinojosa, 2001b, 2001c; Navarro, 1993, 2001b, 2009b.
4.6.3. Petrer Castle (Figure 52) • General data • Name: Petrer Castle. • Municipality: Petrer. • District: Vinalopó Mitjà. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 498 m. • Coordinates: 38º29’03.09” N and 0º46’04.05” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second millennium BC, middle twelfth century to first half thirteenth century. Bronze Age, Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.29.104-008. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 18 April 1983. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0004811). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: average. 84
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 53. Salvatierra Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. José María Soler Archaeological Museum, and Villena Interpretation and Reception Centre. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=582. • José María Soler Archaeological Museum: http:// www.museovillena.com. • Bibliography: Soler, 2006; Tendero, 2001.
4.6.4. Salvatierra Castle (Figure 53) • General data • Name: Salvatierra Castle. • Municipality: Villena. • District: Alt Vinalopó. • Location: rural hill. • Height above sea level: 686 m. • Coordinates: 38º37’06.61” N and 0º51’15.38” W. • Chronological and cultural context: end tenth century / beginning eleventh century to first third eighteenth century. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.28.140-051. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0011125). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: average. 85
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
4.7. Group 7 (Figure 54)
Figure 54. Group 7. 1-Elda Castle, 2-Orihuela Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
86
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
Figure 55. Elda Castle. Photo: J.R. Ortega Pérez.
• Bibliography: Azuar, 1981, 2008; Segura, 2001
4.7.1. Elda Castle (Figure 55) • General data • Name: Elda Castle. • Municipality: Elda. • District: Vinalopó Mitjà. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 610 m. • Coordinates: 38º28’51.75” N and 0º47’49.84” W. • Chronological and cultural context: twelfth to nineteenth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern, Contemporary. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.29.066-002. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: generic declaration. Second additional provision of Act 16/1985, 25 June, on Spanish Historical Heritage. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0010573). • Accessibility • Intellectual: good. • Physical: average. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. Elda Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=517. • Elda Archaeological Museum: http://www.cult. gva.es/museus/m00068/. 87
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 56. Orihuela Castle. Photo: J.A. Mira Rico.
• Schedule: without schedule. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. District of Orihuela Archaeological Museum. • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=541. • Council Department of Culture (Orihuela City Council): http://www.orihuela.es/?page_id=264. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d.
4.7.2. Orihuela Castle (Figure 56) • General data • Name: Orihuela Castle. • Municipality: Orihuela. • District: Vega Baja del Segura. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 610 m. • Coordinates: 38º28’51.75” N and 0º47’49.84” W. • Chronological and cultural context: second half ninth century to fourteenth century. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian. • State of preservation: bad. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.34.099-007. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 4 June 1931. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0000373). • Accessibility • Intellectual: average. • Physical: bad. • Visits: yes. 88
Characteristics of the Sample Analysed
4.8. Group 8 (Figure 57)
Figure 57. Group 8. 1-Santa Bárbara Castle. Source: Author’s own preparation from a picture of J.J. Mataix Albiñana.
89
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 58. Santa Bárbara Castle. Photo: Màrius Bevià i Garcia.
• Intellectual: good. • Physical: average. • Visits: yes. • Schedule: http://www.alicante.es/es/patrimoniocultural/castillo-santa-barbara. • Entry price: free. • Support infrastructure: yes. City of Alicante Museum (MUSA) and Province of Alicante Archaeological Museum (MARQ). • Information sources • Blogs and websites • Directorate-General of Culture and Heritage (Generalitat Valenciana): http://www.cult.gva.es/ dgpa/bics/Detalles_bics.asp?IdInmueble=320. • Alicante City Council: http://www.alicante.es/es/ patrimonio-cultural/castillo-santa-barbara. • Bibliography: Azuar, 1981; Azuar and Navarro, 1995; Bevià, 1984, 1995; Bevià and Camarero, 1991; Bevià, Yus and Giner, 2010; Hinojosa, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2001d; Martínez, 1993.
4.8.1. Santa Bárbara Castle (Figure 58) • General data • Name: Santa Bárbara Castle. • Municipality: Alicante. • District: Alacantí. • Location: urban hill. • Height above sea level: 610 m. • Coordinates: 38º20’55.67” N and 0º28’40.54” W. • Chronological and cultural context: eleventh to twentieth centuries. Medieval Andalusian, Medieval Christian, Modern, Contemporary. • State of preservation: good. • Heritage protection • Asset of cultural interest. • Code: 03.32.014-003. • Category: monument. • Typology: military buildings. Castles. • State: singular declaration. Official Gazette of the Spanish State 7 November 1961. • Annotation: included in the General Register of Spanish Cultural Heritage Assets (R-I-51-0001293). • Accessibility
90
5 Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals and their answers. In the case of several interviews [of people from the same castle], the interviewee’s current position has been indicated along with their answers, to avoid confusion and to make clear who has answered. In addition, most of the answers corresponding to blocks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 have quotes.
At this point, the interviews were analysed with the aim of obtaining an overview of each issue raised, in order to follow the stated objectives, and to support or dismiss the hypothesis formulated. Most of them took place between April and December of 2014. However, other interviews involving Ambra Castle, Castalla Castle, Monòver Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle were carried out in the previous year, under the final project of the master’s degree entitled: Management Analysis in the Province of Alicante. Ambra Castle (Pego), Castalla Castle (Castalla), Cocentaina Castle (Cocentaina), Monòver Castle (Monòver), Penella Castle (Penella) and Sax Castle (Sax) (Mira, 2013). Data and professional profiles were updated for the present study and the number of interviewees was changed.
5.1. Group 1 5.1.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 11) From these data, it can be seen that in only one case, Vall d’Ebo Castle, was it not possible to characterise the person responsible for its management because he did not wish to participate. Interviews corresponded to people who carried out direct management tasks. 13 worked as architects, Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle,
The study was carried out in each of the six sections mentioned above. To this effect, a series of tables were drawn up reflecting the characteristics of people interviewed Table 11. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 1) Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Architect -2007 -Yes
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Alfofra Castle
Architect -1994 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Architecture -Master’s Degree in Real Estate and Building Companies -Others: Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Yes
Almizra Castle
Technical architect -1985 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Building Engineering
No
Yes
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
91
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Benifallim Castle
Architect -1994 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Architecture -Master’s Degree in Real Estate and Building Companies -Others: Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Yes
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
Architect -2005 -Yes
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Costurera or Seta Castle
Architect -1994 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Architecture -Master’s Degree in Real Estate and Building Companies -Others: Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Yes
Garx Castle
Architect -2002 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Architect -2002 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Tourism technician -1998 -No
Degree in Business Sciences -Degree in Tourism
No
Yes
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
Architect -2007 -Yes
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Guadalest Castle
92
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Architect -2010 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Penàguila Castle
Architect -1994 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Architecture -Master’s Degree in Real Estate and Building Companies -Others: Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Yes
Planes Castle
Architect -2010 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Santa Bàrbara Castle
Technical architect -2000 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture
No
Yes
Tàrbena Castle
Architect -2009 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Building Engineering -Master’s Degree in Urbanism and Regional Planning
No
Yes
Architect -1994 -Yes
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Architecture -Master’s Degree in Real Estate and Building Companies -Ohers: Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Specialist Technician in Building Intervention and Pathologies
Yes
Margarida Castle
Travadell Castle
93
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Garx Castle, Guadalest Castle, Laguar Castle, Margarida Castle, Penàguila Castle, Planes Castle, Tàrbena Castle and Travadell Castle; two as technical architects, Almizra Castle and Santa Bàrbara Castle; and one as a tourism technician at Guadalest Castle.
Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Garx Castle, Guadalest Castle, Laguar Castle, Margarida Castle, Penàguila Castle, Planes Castle, Tàrbena Castle and Travadell Castle; two in technical architecture, Almizra Castle and Santa Bàrbara Castle; and one in tourism, Guadalest Castle. Furthermore, six people also had a Master’s Degree, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Penàguila Castle, Tàrbena Castle and Travadell Castle; and five were specialists in building intervention and pathologies, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle, with specific training in cultural heritage management.
This fact should not have been surprising since technical profiles are reduced in small municipalities; architects or technical architects being in the most demand. They were novices when they started in their current positions, except at Garx Castle, Guadalest Castle, Margarida Castle and Planes Castle. Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle were managed by the same technician, in spite of being treated individually; similarly for Garx Castle and Guadalest Castle; Alcalà or Benissili Castle and Laguar Castle; and Margarida Castle and Planes Castle.
5.1.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Tables 12a-d) Of 15 fortifications, no information was provided by Vall d’Ebo Castle. Three depend on culture, Almizra Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle and Tàrbena Castle; and one on urbanism, Garx Castle. Guadalest Castle, Margarida Castle, Planes Castle and Santa Bàrbara Castle are subordinated to several council departments: culture,
In terms of training, 13 people had a degree in architecture, Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Table 12a. General management data (group 1) Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Due to a lack of knowledge in the government team” -“No,due to a lack of economic resources”
Alfofra Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Because needs have been different and heritage intervention has been given a lesser priority” -“No, because there were other needs”
Almizra Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economical budget” -“No, due to a lack of economical budget”
Benifallim Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Because needs have been different and heritage intervention has been given a lesser priority” -“No, because there were other needs”
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Costurera or Seta Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Because needs have been different and heritage intervention has been given a lesser priority” -“No, because there are other needs”
Garx Castle
“Urbanism”
“No”
“Because the castle must not be too important” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Guadalest Castle
“Culture” -“Tourism” (tourism technician)
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” (architect) -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”(architect)
Information not provided
Information not provided
Vall d’Ebo Castle Information not provided
94
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Laguar Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Due to a lack of knowledge in the government team” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Margarida Castle
“Culture” -“Urbanism”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Penàguila Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Because needs have been different and heritage intervention has been given a lesser priority” -“No, because there are other needs”
Planes Castle
“Culture” -“Urbanism”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Santa Bàrbara Castle
“Culture” -“Tourism”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Tàrbena Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Travadell Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“Because needs have been different and heritage intervention has been given a lesser priority” -“No, because there are other needs”
Table 12b. General management data (group 1) Characteristics Castles
If yes, indicate If yes, indicate the title start and end and its fundamental dates aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they are a guide to carry out intervention”
Alfofra Castle
-
-
“Yes, in order to preserve it and prevent its deterioration”
Almizra Castle
-
-
“Yes, they are mandatory for intervention”
Benifallim Castle
-
-
“Yes, in order to preserve it and prevent its deterioration”
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would be a benchmark to highlight an abandoned building and improve its chance of recovery”
Costurera or Seta Castle
-
-
“Yes, in order to preserve it and prevent its deterioration”
Garx Castle
-
-
“Yes, because it is the only way to preserve cultural heritage”
-
“Yes, because it is the only way to preserve cultural heritage” (architect)
Guadalest Castle Vall d’Ebo Castle
-
Information not Information not provided provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they are a guide to carry out intervention”
Margarida Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would set down guidelines when intervening at the monument”
Penàguila Castle
-
-
“Yes, in order to preserve it and prevent its deterioration”
Planes Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would set down guidelines when intervening at the monument”
Santa Bàrbara Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they allow programming of interventions”
Tàrbena Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would contribute to the municipality revitalisation”
Travadell Castle
-
-
“Yes, in order to preserve it and prevent its deterioration”
95
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 12c. General management data (group 1) Castles
Characteristics Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources for 2013 Interdisciplinary team drafted (€) team the management tool?
Strengths
Weaknesses
“Historical value” -“Heritage value”
“Accessibility”
“It is a witness of the past”
“Deterioration due to lack of intervention”
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Alfofra Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Strategic location”
“Abandonment” -“State of preservation”
Almizra Castle
“No”
-
Grants from public organisations: 42,383 €
Benifallim Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“It is a witness of the past”
“Deterioration due to lack of intervention”
“Strategic location” -“Architectural remains”
“State of preservation” -“Accessibility” “Deterioration due to lack of intervention”
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Costurera or Seta Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“It is a witness of the past”
Garx Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Did not know/Did not Did not know/Did not answer answer
“Geographic location” (architect)
Did not know/Did not answer
Guadalest Castle
“No” (architect)
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources (architect)
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Historical value” -“Heritage value”
“Accessibility”
Margarida Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Due to its state of preservation, I would not dismiss anyone”
“State of preservation”
Penàguila Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“It is a witness of the past”
“Deterioration due to lack of intervention”
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Extent” -“Strategic location” -“Architectural elements”
“State of preservation” -“Additional elements undermining its physiognomy”
Planes Castle
“No”
-
96
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Characteristics
Interdisciplinary team
Santa Bàrbara Castle
Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources for 2013 team drafted (€) the management tool?
“No”
Strengths
Weaknesses
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Did not know/Did not Did not know/Did not answer answer “Geographic location” -“Historical sequence”
“State of preservation”
“It is a witness of the past”
“Deterioration due to lack of intervention”
Tàrbena Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Travadell Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Table 12d. General management data (group 1) Castles
Characteristics Evaluative studies
Characteristics of evaluative study
Number of visitors (2013)
Months with most visitors (2013)
Months with fewest visitors (2013)
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Alfofra Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Almizra Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Benifallim Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Costurera or Seta Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Garx Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Guadalest Castle
“No” (tourism technician)
-
-
-
-
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Margarida Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Penàguila Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Planes Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Santa Bàrbara Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Tàrbena Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Travadell Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
97
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 12e. General management data (group 1) Castles
Characteristics Visitors’ place of origin
Continuous visiting schedule
Types of visit
Training of people carrying out visits
Interactive modules of self-guided visits
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Alfofra Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Almizra Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Benifallim Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Costurera or Seta Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Garx Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
“Yes” (tourism technician)
“Self-guided” -“Guided” (tourism technician)
“Tourism” -“Business Sciences” (tourism technician)
“Explanatory panels” (tourism technician)
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Guadalest Castle
Vall d’Ebo Castle
-
Information not Information not provided provided
Laguar Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Margarida Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Penàguila Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Planes Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Santa Bàrbara Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Tàrbena Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
Travadell Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
tourism and urbanism. This situation is unusual due to the complexity of managing a castle which depends on several different council departments with interests that sometimes may not be the same. In Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Laguar Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle the people interviewed did not know which council departments were in charge of them.
were not planned due to a lack of economic resources in Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Almizra Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Garx Castle, Guadalest Castle, Laguar Castle, Margarida Castle, Planes Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle and Tàrbena Castle; or because there were other priorities in Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle.
In addition, these fortifications also lack management tools, although the people interviewed consider them useful. The reasons given in Almizra Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Guadalest Castle, Margarida Castle, Planes Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle and Tàrbena Castle were “ (…) due to a lack of economic resources”; in Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle they were because cultural heritage is not a priority issue; in Alcalà or Benissili Castle and Laguar Castle they were for a lack of initiative or political will; and in Garx Castle “Because the castle must not be too important”. Management tools
These fortifications did not have an interdisciplinary team which participated in their management, neither did they have any sources of funding. Only Almizra Castle had specific grants from public organisations. In respect of strengths and weaknesses, they presented common and diverse characteristics grouped in a series of categories (Table 13). Common strengths and weaknesses were found in some instances as the historical sequence, geographic location, state of preservation and accessibility. It should be noted 98
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 13. Strengths and weaknesses (group 1) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
Dimensions -Geographic location -Architecture
Accessibility
Alfofra Castle
Historical sequence
State of preservation
Almizra Castle
Geographic location
Abandonment -State of preservation
Benifallim Castle
Historical sequence
State of preservation
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
Geographic location -Architecture
Accessibility -State of preservation
Costurera or Seta Castle
Historical sequence
State of preservation
Garx Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
Did not know/Did not answer
Guadalest Castle
Geographic location
Did not know/Did not answer
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
Historical sequence -Heritage value
Accessibility
Margarida Castle
None
State of preservation
Penàguila Castle
Historical sequence
State of preservation
Planes Castle
Extent -Geographic location -Architecture
State of preservation -Additions
Santa Bàrbara Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
Did not know/Did not answer
Tàrbena Castle
Geographic location -Historical sequence
State of preservation
Travadell Castle
Historical sequence
State of preservation
that interviewees were not able to point out strengths or weaknesses in Garx Castle, Guadalest Castle, Margarida Castle and Santa Bàrbara Castle. A fact that was surprising undoubtedly.
5.1.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 14) Research activities had only been undertaken in Almizra Castle between 2003 and 2013. The historical research produced the expected results because it allowed progress to be made in knowledge about it. In Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Garx Castle, Guadalest Castle, Laguar Castle, Margarida Castle, Penàguila Castle, Planes Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle, Tàrbena Castle and Travadell Castle research had not
Finally, no castle had data about visitor numbers or evaluative studies, which was to be expected considering that they were not prepared for visits. Only Guadalest Castle had a continuous visiting schedule (http://www. guadalest.es/). People carrying out guided visits had training in tourism and business sciences. For self-guided visits, Guadalest Castle had explanatory panels. 99
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 14. Research data (group 1) Castles
Management Data: Research Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Alfofra Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Almizra Castle
“Archaeological works (2013)”
Historical research
Benifallim Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Costurera or Seta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Garx Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Guadalest Castle
“No” (architect)
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources” (architect)
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Margarida Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Penàguila Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Planes Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Santa Bàrbara Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Tàrbena Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Travadell Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
been undertaken, neither was it planned due to a lack of economic resources.
“Yes, because it has “No, due to a lack of economic allowed us to get to know resources” the monument better”
had improved the state of preservation at Almizra Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Margarida Castle, Penàguila Castle, Planes Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle and Tàrbena Castle; the actions had curbed deterioration at Alcalà or Benissili Castle; they had protected them better at Garx Castle; and have attracted visitors at Guadalest Castle. However, only in Guadalest Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle and Tàrbena Castle was it planned to continue with these works if there were grants, but not in the remainder due to a lack of economic resources.
5.1.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 15) Except in Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Laguar Castle and Travadell Castle, preservation activities had been undertaken in the rest. The expected results were achieved because these actions
100
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 15. Preservation data (group 1) Castles
Management Data: Preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
“Consolidation of architectural remains (2005)”
Preservation
“Yes, because it has prevented its deterioration”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Alfofra Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Almizra Castle
“Maintenance” -“Consolidation of a section of wall and tower (2013)”
Preservation
“Yes, because its state of preservation has improved”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Benifallim Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“Inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Castell de Castells Land-Use Planning (processed since 2006)”
Preservation
“Yes, because it favours its preservation and prevents its state of abandonment”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Costurera or Seta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Garx Castle
“Inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Bolulla Land-Use Planning (processed since 2009)”
Preservation
“Yes, because it gives more protection to the castle”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Guadalest Castle
“Maintenance” -“Cleaning” (architect)
Preservation
“Yes, because they contribute with visits (to the castle)” (architect)
“Yes, it is planned to draft a new special plan for the historical site” (architect)
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Margarida Castle
“Inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Planes de la Baronia Land-Use Planning (processed since 2004)”
Preservation
“Yes, because it favours its preservation”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Penàguila Castle
“Inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Penàguila LandUse Planning (processed since 2004)”
Preservation
“Yes, because it contributes with its preservation”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Planes Castle
“Inclusion in the Catalogue on Protected Assets and Areas of Planes de la Baronia Land-Use Planning (processed since 2004)”
Preservation
“Yes, because it favours its preservation”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Santa Bàrbara Castle
“Maintenance” -“Cleaning”
Preservation
“Yes, because they prevent the deterioration of the castle”
“Yes, maintenance and cleaning”
Tàrbena Castle
“Maintenance (only with grants)”
Preservation
“Yes, because its state of preservation has improved”
“Yes, improving the access to the castle and weed grubbing (if there are grants)”
Travadell Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
101
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 16. Restoration data (group 1) Castles
Management Data: Restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
“Consolidation of architectural remains (2005)”
Restoration
“Yes, because it prevents the deterioration of the castle”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Alfofra Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Almizra Castle
“Consolidation of a section of wall and tower (2013)”
Restoration
“Yes, because its state of preservation has improved”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Benifallim Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Costurera or Seta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Garx Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because there are other priorities”
Guadalest Castle
“No” (architect)
-
-
“No, because it has not been raised at political level” (architect)
Vall d’Ebo Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Laguar Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Margarida Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Penàguila Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Planes Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Santa Bàrbara Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Tàrbena Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Travadell Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
Castle and Travadell Castle “(...) due to a lack of economic resources”.
5.1.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 16) Restoration activities were undertaken in Alcalà or Benissili Castle and Almizra Castle between 2003 and 2013. The expected results were achieved, since their state of preservation had improved.
5.1.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 17)
Nevertheless, it was not planned to continue with these works in Garx Castle “(...) because there are other priorities”; in Guadalest Castle “(...) because it has not been raised at political level”; and in Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Alfofra Castle, Almizra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Laguar Castle, Margarida Castle, Penàguila Castle, Planes Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle, Tàrbena
Didactics and/or dissemination activities had been undertaken in Alcalà or Benissili Castle and in Guadalest Castle. However these interventions were smaller than those for research, preservation and restoration. The expected results were achieved although the interviewee in Alcalà or Benissili Castle pointed out that it may be dangerous for cultural heritage due to vandalism. It was not planned to continue with these works due to a lack of economic resources. Finally, these castles were not made museumlike because they did not meet the required conditions. 102
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 17. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 1) Castles
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Actions between 2003 and 2013
Execution of new Musealisation actions
Types
Expected results
Type
Best model
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“No”
-
-
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
“Heritage signage (2010)”
Didactics and/or dissemination
“Yes, because it allows culture dissemination, but it may be dangerous for heritage due to vandalism”
Alfofra Castle
“No”
-
-
Almizra Castle
“Heritage signage (2013)”
Benifallim Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“No”
-
-
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“No”
-
-
Costurera or Seta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
-
-
Garx Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
-
-
“No” (tourism technician)
-
-
Guadalest Castle
Vall d’Ebo Castle
“Yes, because it Didactics has presented the and/or castle to the local dissemination community”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources” “No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“Self-guided and guided visits” -“Yes, after being “Website” improved, they -Didactics give information and/or in many languages “Explanatory dissemination to get to know the panels” castle” (tourism -technician) “Leaflets” (tourism technician) Information not Information Information not provided not provided provided
Laguar Castle
Did not know/ Did not answer
-
-
Margarida Castle
“No”
-
-
Penàguila Castle
“No”
-
-
Planes Castle
“No”
-
-
Santa Bàrbara Castle
“No”
-
-
Tàrbena Castle
“No”
-
-
Travadell Castle
“No”
-
-
103
“No, due to a lack of economic resources” (tourism technician)
Information not Information not Information Information provided provided not provided not provided “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources” “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources” “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources” “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources” “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources” “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources” “No, due to a lack of economic “No” resources”
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
5.2. Group 2
Interviews related to people who carry out direct management tasks, except in the cases of Agost Castle and Murta Castle. Three people worked as cultural heritage technicians or similar, at Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Relleu Castle; two as architects, at Biar Castle and Tibi Castle; two as technical architects, at Busot Castle and Polop de la Marina Castle; and one as a tourist informant, at Biar Castle. They were novices when they started in their current positions, except in the case of Tibi Castle.
5.2.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 18) From these data, it can be seen that in only one case, Aixa Castle, was it not possible to characterise the person responsible for its management because he did not want to participate.
Table 18. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 2) Castles
Agost Castle
Aixa Castle
Biar Castle
Busot Castle
Murta Castle
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Museum director -2000 -No
Degree in History -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle -Others: Specialist in Contemporary Art Museology
Specialist in Contemporary Art Museology
No
Information not provided Information not provided Information not provided Information not provided Architect -2002 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Tourist informant -2001 -No
Degree in Business and Tourism Activities
No
Yes
Technical architect -2006 -No
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Fine Arts
No
Yes
Museum director -2000 -No
Degree in History -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle -Others: Specialist in Contemporary Art Museology
Specialist in Contemporary Art Museology
No
104
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Polop de la Marina Castle
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Technical architect -2006 -No
Degree in Technical Architecture -Degree in Building Engineering
No
Yes
Relleu Castle
Museum director -2004 -No
Degree in History -Degree in Humanities -Master’s Degree in Professional Archaeology Master’s Degree in and Heritage Professional Archaeology Management and Heritage -Management Master’s Degree in History and Identities of the Western Mediterranean -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle
Yes
Tibi Castle
Architect -2009 -Yes
Degree in Architecture -Doctoral Degree: courses Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle of third cycle -Others: Urban Technician
Yes
departments: culture, urbanism, tourism and heritage. This situation was unusual due to the complexity of managing a castle which depended on different council departments with interests that sometimes may not be the same.
In terms of training, three people had a degree in history, at Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Relleu Castle; two in architecture, at Biar Castle and Tibi Castle; two in technical architecture, at Busot Castle and Polop de la Marina Castle; and one in business and tourism activities, at Biar Castle. Furthermore, two were specialists in contemporary art museology, Agost Castle and Murta Castle; and one in urbanism, Tibi Castle. One had two Master’s Degrees in archaeology, cultural heritage and Western Mediterranean history, Relleu Castle; and three had a doctoral degree (courses of the third cycle), Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Relleu Castle. Those in Agost Castle, Murta Castle, Relleu Castle and Tibi Castle have specific training in cultural heritage management.
On the other hand, these fortifications lacked management tools, although the people interviewed considered them interesting. In Biar Castle and Relleu Castle this was due to a lack of initiative or political will; in Busot Castle and Biar Castle it was because of technical reasons; and in Polop de la Marina Castle it was due to a lack of economic resources. In Polop de la Marina Castle and Relleu Castle there were no plans to draft master plans due to a lack of funding rescorces; Tibi Castle and Biar Castle wanted to draft them “in case economic resources became available”; in Busot Castle “it may be done in the short-term because politicians are interested in recovering the castle”.
5.2.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Table 19a-e) Of seven fortifications, four depended on culture, Agost Castle, Murta Castle, Polop de la Marina Castle and Relleu Castle; and one on heritage, Busot Castle. Biar Castle and Tibi Castle were subordinated to several council
These fortifications did not have an interdisciplinary team to participate in their management. Only Biar Castle and Busot Castle had specific grants from public organisations. 105
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 19a. General management data (group 2) Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Agost Castle
“Culture”
No
Did not know/Did not answer
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
“Culture” -“Tourism” -“Urbanism” (architect and tourist informant)
No
“Because no government team has raised an intervention in the castle” (architect) -“Yes, in case economic resources are available” (architect)
Busot Castle
Heritage
No
“Because until recently the recovery of the castle has not begun due to the economy” -“It may be done in the short-term because politicians are interested in recovering the castle”
Murta Castle
“Culture”
No
Did not know/Did not answer
Polop de la Marina Castle
“Culture”
No
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“No,due to a lack of economic resources”
No
“Because politicians have never raised it” -“Because there are no economic resources to carry it out”
No
“Due to a lack of time (for drafting it)” -“Yes”
Relleu Castle
“Culture”
Tibi Castle
“Culture and heritage” -“Urbanism”
Table 19b. General management data (group 2) Castles
Characteristics If yes, indicate start and end dates
If yes, indicate the title and its fundamental aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
Agost Castle
-
-
“No, because the castle is not suitable, it cannot be visited, and it is necessary to do many things before drafting a master plan”
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would set down guidelines to follow” (architect)
Busot Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would set down guidelines to follow”
Murta Castle
-
-
“No, because the castle is not suitable, it cannot be visited, and it is necessary to do many things before drafting a master plan”
Polop de la Marina Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would set down guidelines when intervening in the monument”
Relleu Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would set down guidelines to follow”
Tibi Castle
-
-
“They become useful and necessary since they are management tools to carry out actions in the castle”
106
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 19c. General management data (group 2) Castles
Characteristics Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources Interdisciplinary team drafted for 2013 (€) team the management tool?
Agost Castle
“No”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
Busot Castle
Murta Castle
Polop de la Marina Castle
Relleu Castle
Tibi Castle
“No” (architect)
“No”
“No”
“No”
“No”
“No”
-
Grants from public organisations:? € (architect)
Strengths
Weaknesses
“Geographic location”
“It is not given importance because very few remains are preserved and it implies an absence of valuing policies”
Information not provided
Information not provided
“Landscape and urban landmark” (architect and tourist informant) -“A lack of a master plan” “Tourist attraction” (architect) (tourist informant) --“More dynamic action to value it” “State of preserva(architect and tourist informant) tion” (architect) -“Historical sequence” (tourist informant)
-
Grants from public organisations: 3,000 €
“Dimensions” -“Geographic location” -“Historical sequence”
“State of preservation” -“Accessibility” -“A lack of information”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Geographic location”
“It is not given importance because very few remains are preserved and it implies an absence of valuing policies”
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Architecture” -“Historical sequence” -“Heritage importance”
“Constructions that take advantage of castle materials and mask part of its configuration”
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Strategic importance” -“Architecture” -“Historical sequence”
“State of preservation”
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Geographic location” -“Environment” -“Historical sequence”
“State of preservation” -“A lack of use”
-
-
-
107
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 19d. General management data (group 2) Castles
Characteristics Evaluative studies
Characteristics of evaluative studies
Number of visitors (2013)
Months with most Months with fewest visitors (2013) visitors (2013)
Agost Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
“Yes, since 2009” (tourist informant)
“Surveys to visitors” -“The result has not been studied” (tourist informant)
7,918 (tourist informant)
May – 1,007; October – 852; November – 1,035 (tourist informant)
January – 214; February – 374; September – 373 (tourist informant)
Busot Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Murta Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Polop de la Marina Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Relleu Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Tibi Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Table 19e. General management data (group 2) Castles
a
Characteristics Training of people Interactive modules carrying out visits of self-guided visits
Visitors’ place of origin
Continuous visiting schedule
Types of visit
Agost Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
“Provincial (including local and regional visitors)” (tourist informant)
“Yes”a (tourist informant)
“Self-guided” (tourist informant)
-
“Audio tracks” (tourist informant)
Busot Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Murta Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Polop de la Marina Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Relleu Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Tibi Castle
-
-
-
-
-
More information at http://www.biar.es.
In Biar Castle they came from other administrations, this information was not specified, nor was the economic amount, while in Busot Castle they came from the Provincial Council of Alicante.
Common strengths and weaknesses were noted in some cases for example the historical sequence, geographic location and state of preservation. It should be noted that detachment from the local community was quoted in Agost Castle and Murta Castle. This fact was surprising because, without the community’s support, it would be difficult to undertake actions in them.
In respect of strengths and weaknesses, they presented some common and some diverse characteristics grouped in a series of values (Table 20). 108
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Tables 20. Strengths and weaknesses (group 2) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Agost Castle
Geographic location
Detachment from the local community
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
Historical sequence -Landscape and urban landmark -State of preservation -Tourist attraction
Lack of a master plan -Lack of valuing it
Busot Castle
Dimensions -Geographic location -Historical sequence
State of preservation -Accessibility -Lack of information
Murta Castle
Geographic location
Detachment from the local community
Polop de la Marina Castle
Architecture -Historical sequence -Heritage importance
Reuse for later construction
Relleu Castle
Strategic importance -Architecture -Historical sequence
State of preservation
Tibi Castle
Geographic location -Environment -Historical sequence
State of preservation -Lack of use
Finally, only Biar Castle had carried out evaluative studies since 2009, something logical considering that the others are not prepared for visitors. During 2013, Biar Castle had 7,918 visitors. The months of most visits were May, October and November, while the lowest number of visits was recorded in January, February and September. Visitors came from the province [of Alicante], including from local areas and further afield (regional). It had a continuous visiting schedule (http://www.biar.es) and its visits were self-guided with audio tracks.
5.2.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 21) Research activities were undertaken in Biar Castle, Busot Castle and Relleu Castle between 2003 and 2013. The historical research had produced the expected results because it had yielded some progress in their knowledge. However, these results would not be accompanied by more actions of this type “(…) due to a lack of human resources”, Relleu Castle, and “(…) a lack of economic resources”, Biar Castle. In Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Tibi Castle research had not been undertaken, neither was it planned.
109
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 21. Research data (group 2) Castles
Management Data: Research Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Agost Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
“Archaeological study of walls and footings (2009 and 2010)” (architect)
Historical research
“Yes, because the architectural intervention has not been based on historical forgeries” (architect)
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”(architect)
Busot Castle
“Archaeological excavation in the northern tower (2010)”
Historical research
“Yes, because they have achieved a better knowledge of the castle”
“No”
Murta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Polop de la Marina Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Relleu Castle
“Previous study on the restoration of Relleu Castle (2006)”
Historical research
“Yes, because it has yielded an improvement in the knowledge of Relleu Castle”
“No, due to a lack of human resources”
Tibi Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
been achieved because these actions helped to slow down their deterioration, Busot Castle; to improve their state of preservation, Relleu Castle; and to improve its appearance, Biar Castle. However, only in Biar Castle and Busot Castle was it planned to continue with these works.
5.2.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 22) Preservation activities had been undertaken in Biar Castle, Busot Castle and Relleu Castle. The expected results had
Table 22. Preservation data (group 2) Castles
Management data: preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
“No”
-
-
“No”
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
“Maintenance” -“Consolidation of the semicircular tower (2005 and 2006)” (architect)
Preservation
Busot Castle
“Maintenance” -“Inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Busot Land-Use Planning (processed since 2006)”
Preservation
“Yes, because its rate of deterioration has been slowed down”
“Yes, maintenance will continue”
Murta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Polop de la Marina Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Relleu Castle
“Maintenance (2008 and 2009)”
Preservation
“Yes, because its state of preservation has improved”
“No”
Tibi Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Agost Castle
110
“Yes, continuing with “Yes, because its maintenance works and appearance is improved improving the condition of the for the visitor” (architect) tower roof” (architect)
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 23. Restoration data (group 2) Castles
Management Data: Restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Agost Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Aixa Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Biar Castle
“Consolidation of the semi-circular tower (2005 and 2006)” -“Restoration of Biar Castle (2009-2011)” (architect)
Restoration
“Yes, because they have allowed the monument to be more highly valued”(architect)
“Yes, continuing with its restoration” (architect)
Busot Castle
“Restoration of the northern tower (2011-2012)” -“Drafting the basic project for restoration and revaluation of Busot Castle (2012)”
Restoration
“Yes, because they have allowed the recovery of the tower space and have given motivation to continue working”
“Yes, restoring parts of the castle”
Murta Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Polop de la Marina Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Relleu Castle
“Previous study for the restoration of Relleu Castle (2006)”
Restoration
“No, because it has not been carried out”
“No”
Tibi Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Costa_Blanca/Ruta%20de%20los%20Castillos/Pages/ default.aspx) and promoted by the Institute of Tourism Research (University of Alicante) with the support of the Costa Blanca Provincial Tourist Board, is intended to
5.2.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 23) Restoration activities were undertaken in Biar Castle, Busot Castle and Relleu Castle between 2003 and 2013. The expected results were achieved in Biar Castle because they have allowed “(...) the monument to be more highly valued”; and in Busot Castle since they have “(...) recovered the tower”. In Relleu Castle, the person interviewed stated that the expected results had not been achieved because the previous study “(...) had not been carried out”. It was planned to continue with these works, especially restoration, at Biar Castle and Busot Castle.
“(…) lay the foundations for the definitive boost of a key factor on the Costa Blanca territorial tourism structure, starting with the creation of a possible Tourist Cultural Product Club and being able to invigorate an emblematic route for Alicante: the Vinalopó Castles Route”. The expected results had been achieved and people interviewed agree that this type of activity helps them to get to know about the castles and disseminate information about them better. Moreover, Biar Castle and Relleu Castle had decided to undertake new actions relating to merchandising and conferences. The other fortifications had not planned to continue with these works.
5.2.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 24) Didactics and/or dissemination activities had been undertaken in Biar Castle, Busot Castle and Relleu Castle. More activity had taken place at Biar Castle, besides being a member of the Vinalopó Castles Route (http://www.rutacastillosvinalopo.net/). This project, now incorporated into the Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route (http://www.costablanca.org/Eng/Descubre_la_
111
Didactics and/or dissemination
-
Didactics and/or dissemination
“Heritage signage (2006)” -“Explanatory audio tracks (2010)” -“Creation of QR codes (2013)” -“Leaflets, posters and merchandising” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” (tourist informant)
“Poster with explanatory information about the castle”
“No”
“No”
“Conferences” -“Scientific and informative publications”
“No”
Biar Castle
Busot Castle
Murta Castle
112
Polop de la Marina Castle
Relleu Castle
Tibi Castle
-
-
Didactics and/or dissemination
Information not provided
Information not provided
Aixa Castle
-
Types
“No”
Actions between 2003 and 2013
Agost Castle
Castles
Table 24. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 2)
Information not provided
Information not provided
-
“Yes, because they have made its history known”
-
-
“Yes, because it has allowed the public to get to know it better”
“No”
-
-
“No, because it cannot be visited”
-
-
-
-
Information not provided
-
Type
“No”
“No”
“No, because its state (of preservation) does not allow it” “Yes, conferences about the castle”
“No”
“No”
“No” (tourist informant)
Information not provided
“No”
Musealisation
“No”
“No”
“Yes, because they have served to get to “Yes, more merchanknow it better, but more dising products” work needs to be done” (tourist informant) (tourist informant)
“No”
Execution of new actions
-
Expected results
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination
-
-
-
-
-
-
Information not provided
-
Best model
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 25. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 3) Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Museum director -1999 -No
Degree in Geography and History -Others: Training Certificate in Archaeology -Others: Certificate in Artistic Manifestations
No
Yes
Ocaive Castle
Municipal architect -2005 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Torre Grossa Castle
Municipal technician -1991 -No
Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History
No
Yes
5.3. Group 3
5.3.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Tables 26a-e)
5.3.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 25)
Of three fortifications, one depended on urbanism, Ocaive Castle; and one on cultural heritage, Torre Grossa Castle. Banyeres de Mariola Castle was subordinated to several council departments: culture, festivals, heritage and tourism. This situation is unusual due to the complexity of managing a castle which was dependent on different council departments with interests that sometimes may not be the same.
From these data, it can be seen that interviews were with people who carry out direct management tasks. Two work as cultural heritage technicians or similar, at Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Torre Grossa Castle; and one as an architect, at Ocaive Castle. They were novices when they started in their current positions. In terms of training, one person had a degree in geography and history, Banyeres de Mariola Castle; one in philosophy and literature (module in geography and history), Torre Grossa Castle; and one in architecture, Ocaive Castle. The people interviewed did not have specific training in cultural heritage management.
On the other hand, all these fortifications lacked management tools, although the people interviewed consider them to be interesting. In Ocaive Castle this was due to a lack of initiative or political will; and in Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Torre Grossa Castle due to a lack of economic resources. In Banyeres de Mariola Castle it was stated that “(…) there is some interest and it is being drafted” and the technician in Torre Grossa Castle stated that they “(…) would like to draft one in the medium term”. These fortifications did not have an interdisciplinary team which participated in their management. Only Banyeres de Mariola Castle had specific grants from public organisations: Banyeres de Mariola City Council, the Provincial Council of Alicante and the Generalitat Valenciana, amounts were not provided.
113
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 26a. General management data (group 3) Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
“Culture” -“Festivals” -“Heritage” -“Tourism”
“No”
“Due to a lack of economic resources” -“Yes, there is some interest and it is being drafted”
Ocaive Castle
“Public works and urbanism”
“No”
“Because there are other priorities for the government team” -“No”
Torre Grossa Castle
“Cultural heritage”
“No”
“No, due to economic issues” -“No, I would like to draft one in the medium term”
Table 26b. General management data (group 3) Castles
Characteristics If yes, indicate start and end dates
If yes, indicate the title and its fundamental aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they allow us to establish a clear and continuous work line”
Ocaive Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they would allow it to be kept and specify actions”
Torre Grossa Castle
-
-
“Yes, because it is the best way to preserve, protect, manage and use a heritage asset”
Table 26c. General management data (group 3) Castles
Characteristics Has the interdisciplinary Interdisciplinteam drafted ary team the management tool?
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Ocaive Castle
Torre Grossa Castle
“No”
“No”
“No”
Funding sources for 2013 (€)
Strengths
Weaknesses
-
Grants from public organisations:? €
“Extended visiting schedule (especially at the weekend and in summer) -“Geographic location”
“Accessibility” -“A lack of toilets” -“Lack of a management tool”
-
It does not have funding sources, “Historical and landscape neither its own value” economic resources
“State of preservation”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
114
“Architectural elements” -“Historical sequence” “State of preservation and a lack of appreciation by the -local community” “Symbol of Xixona” -“Strategic location”
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 26d. General management data (group 3) Castles
Characteristics Evaluative studies
Characteris-tics of evaluative studies
Number of visitors (2013)
Months with most visitors (2013)
Months with fewest visitors (2013)
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
“Yes, since 2009”
“Surveys with visitors” -They allow us to find out about visitors’ complaints: “Expansion of schedules and a lack of services”
4,981
March – 672; May – 640; October – 603
January – 197; February – 222; September – 244
Ocaive Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Torre Grossa Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Table 26e. General management data (group 3) Castles
Characteristics Visitors’ place of origin
b
Continuous visiting schedule
Types of visit
Training of people carrying out visits
“Degree in Tourism” -“Guided and self“Degree in guided” Geography and History”
Interactive modules of self-guided visits
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
“Provincial (including local and regional visitors)”
“Yes”a
Ocaive Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Torre Grossa Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
“Explanatory panels”
More information at http://www.banyeresdemariolaturisme.com.
Table 27. Strengths and weaknesses (group 3) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Visiting schedule -Geographic location
Services (toilets) -Accessibility -Management
Ocaive Castle
Historical sequence -Geographic location
State of preservation
Torre Grossa Castle
Historical sequence -Architecture -Symbolism
State of preservation -Detachment from the local community
In respect of strengths and weaknesses, they presented some common and some diverse characteristics grouped in a series of values (Table 27).
Finally, only Banyeres de Mariola Castle had carried out evaluative studies since 2009, which is logical considering that the others were not prepared for visits. During 2013, Banyeres de Mariola Castle had 4,981 visitors. The months with most visitors were March, May and October, while the lowest number of visits was recorded in January,
Common strengths and weaknesses are found in some values as the historical sequence and state of preservation. 115
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
February and September. Visitors come from the province (of Alicante), including those from the local area and from further afield. It had a continuous visiting schedule (http:// www.banyeresdemariolaturisme.com) and its visits were either guided or self-guided. People carrying out guided visits had training in tourism, geography and history, which are classic profiles when carrying out the work of a cultural guide. Self-guided visits were complemented with leaflets and explanatory panels.
dissemination (Costa, 2003), but none of these had been carried out. 5.3.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 29) Preservation activities were undertaken only in Banyeres de Mariola Castle. The expected results were achieved because these actions had contributed to keeping the fortification in good condition and preventing its deterioration. It was planned to continue with these works in the water tank. However in Ocaive Castle and Torre Grossa Castle none were planned due to a lack of management and political involvement.
5.3.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 28) Research activities had not been undertaken in any fortification between 2003 and 2013, neither was it planned in the short or medium term. This was a striking fact because research is the necessary basis for developing restoration, didactics and/or dissemination. The archaeologist Pasqual Costa Cholbi presented a project for the recovery of Ocaive Castle in 2003, which highlighted some management aspects, research, preservation, restoration, didactics and
5.3.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 30) Restoration activities were undertaken only in Banyeres de Mariola Castle between 2003 and 2013. The expected results were achieved, since a section of the wall had been
Table 28. Research data (group 3) Castles
Management Data: Research Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of time and funding”
Ocaive Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because there are other priorities in the government team”
Torre Grossa Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of political interest and economic resources”
Table 29. Preservation data (group 3) Castles
Management data: preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions “Yes, maintenance tasks and its inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Banyeres de Mariola Land-Use Planning”
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
“Maintenance” -“Moisture removal”
Preservation
“Yes, because they have prevented the castle from degrading more”
Ocaive Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because there are other priorities in the government team”
Torre Grossa Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because it is a political issue”
Table 30. Restoration data (group 3) Castles
Management data: restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
“Repair and consolidation of the northern wall of Banyeres de Mariola Castle (2008)”
Restoration
“Yes, because the northern wall has been recovered”
“Yes, the restoration of the water tank”
Ocaive Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because there are other priorities in the government team”
Torre Grossa Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, becauseit is a political issue”
116
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
recovered. It was planned to continue with these works, particularly in the water tank. However none were planned in Ocaive Castle and Torre Grossa Castle.
On the basis of the above, some differences could be noted. The most outstanding were that Banyeres de Mariola Castle had more activity than Torre Grossa Castle, and it was also part of the Vinalopó Castles Route.
5.3.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 31)
The expected results were achieved and the interviewees agreed that this type of activity helps to get to know castles better and disseminate information about them. Moreover, Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Torre Grossa Castle decided to undertake new actions, including guided visits, specialised and informative publications; guided and self-guided visits, open days, promotional items,
Didactics and/or dissemination activities were undertaken in Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Torre Grossa Castle. Of all the actions studied, didactics and dissemination were the most frequent in them.
Table 31. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 3) Castle
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Actions between 2003 and 2013
“Regular guided and selfguided visits” -“Open days” -“Elaboration of a didactic guide” -“Editing hand-outs” -Banyeres “Promotional items” de Mariola -Castle “Touch screen installation” -“Heritage signage” -“Creation of QR codes” -“Didactic workshops” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” Ocaive Castle
“No”
Torre Grossa Castle
“Guided visits” -“Didactic and specialised publications” -“Heritage signage” -“Didactic workshops” -“Elaboration of a didactic guide” -“Exhibition” -“Leaflets”
Types
Expected results
“Yes, because Didactics they have enand/or dis- couraged more semination people go to the castle”
-
Execution of Musealisanew actions tion
“Yes, continuing with these actions”
-
“Yes, because it “Yes, more has allowed the guided visits, local community Didactics as well as to get to know and/or disspecialised it better, as well semination and as to make new informative discoveries publications” about it”
117
“Yes, complete”
Type
Traditional Interactive “due to social and didactic issues that “because it prevented allows the the inclusion visitor to get of new to know the museographic museum” elements”
-
“No”
Best model
-
-
-
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
5.4. Group 4
didactic workshops and participation in the Vinalopó Castles Route.
5.4.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 32) Of all the fortifications studied, only Banyeres de Mariola Castle was presented as a museum. It was completely traditional due to “(...) social issues that prevented the inclusion of new museographic elements” not specified, although the interviewee would have opted for an interactive musealisation.
From these data, it could be seen that interviews took place with people who carry out direct management tasks, although there is one person who does not perform them at Ambra Castle. Five worked as cultural heritage technicians or similar, at Callosa de Segura Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle
Table 32. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 4) Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Archivist -2001 -No
Degree in History -Doctoral Degree: Master of Advanced Studies in History
No
No
Architect -2010 -Yes
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Museum director -2004 -No
Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History -University Expert in Protocol and Events
No
Yes
Castalla Castle
Cultural heritage technician -2009 -No
Degree in History -Bachelor’s Degree in History Master’s Degree in -Heritage Preservation, Master’s Degree in Heritage Management and Preservation, Management and Dissemination Dissemination --Master’s Degree in Master’s Degree in Interactive and Interactive and Didactic Didactic Museography Museography --Master’s Degree in Cultural Master’s Degree in Management Cultural Management -Doctoral Degree: Master of Advanced Studies in History
Yes
Cocentaina Castle
Cultural heritage technician -2000 -No
Degree in Geography and History -Master’s Degree in Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation -Doctoral Degree: Doctoral Thesis in Prehistory and Archaeology
Yes
Ambra Castle
Callosa de Segura Castle
118
Master’s Degree in Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Guardamar del Segura Castle
Training
Cultural heritage curator Degree in Philosophy and Literature. -Module in Geography and History 1995 --Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle No
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
No
Yes
Monòver Castle
Technical manager of Works, Urbanism and Environment Service -2000 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Penella Castle
Cultural heritage technician -2000 -No
Degree in Geography and History -Master’s Degree in Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation -Doctoral Degree: Doctoral Thesis in Prehistory and Archaeology
Master’s Degree in Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Yes
Cultural assistant -2007 -No
Degree in History -Master’s Degree in Heritage Management
Master’s Degree in Heritage Management
Yes
Archivist and librarian -1984 -No
Certificate in Genealogy and Heraldry -Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History
No
Yes
University professor -1981 -No
Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History -Master’s Degree in Territorial Planning -Master’s Degree in Heritage Management -Doctoral Degree: Doctoral Thesis in Geography
Master’s Degree in Heritage Management
Yes
Architect -1993 -No
Degree in Architecture
No
Yes
Environment technician -No -2011
Degree in Biology
No
Yes
Sax Castle
119
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
and Penella Castle; three worked as architects, at Ambra Castle, Monòver Castle and Sax Castle; one as a cultural assistant, at Sax Castle; one as an archivist and librarian, at Sax Castle; one as an environmental technician, at Sax Castle; and one as a university professor, at Sax Castle. Only in Ambra Castle did one of the interviewees have a previous similar position. The remainder were novices when they started in their current positions.
and five have a doctoral degree, at Ambra Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle. Only five people have specific training in cultural heritage management, at Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle. 5.4.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Tables 33a-e) Of eight fortifications, five depended on culture, Ambra Castle, Callosa de Segura Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle; one depended on cultural heritage, Castalla Castle; and one on archaeological heritage, Guardamar del Segura Castle. In Monòver Castle the interviewee did not know which council department was in charge of it.
In terms of training, one person had a certificate in genealogy and heraldry, at Sax Castle; three had a degree in philosophy and literature (module in geography and history), at Callosa de Segura Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle and Sax Castle; three in history, at Ambra Castle, Castalla Castle and Sax Castle; two in geography and history, at Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle; three in architecture, at Ambra Castle, Monòver Castle and Sax Castle; and one in biology, at Sax Castle. Furthermore, one is a university expert in protocol and events, at Callosa de Segura Castle. Five have a master’s degree in cultural heritage management, at Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle;
Only Castalla Castle and Sax Castle have management tools. In Castalla Castle, it was a management plan that began in 2009 and was still in force, although the objective was to replace it with a master plan still to be drafted. According to the interviewee’s words,
Table 33a. General management data (group 4) Castles Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Ambra Castle
“Culture” (archivist and architect)
“No” (architect)
Did not know/Did not answer (archivist) -“It would be drafted if there a was political will” (architect)
Callosa de Segura Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Because the issue has not been raised” -“Yes, a special protection plan”
Castalla Castle
“Cultural heritage”
“Management plan” -“Protective environment of Castalla Castle and its wallsa”
-
Cocentaina Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Because politicians deny they are necessary” -“Yes, developing a generic management tool is in process”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
“Archaeological heritage”
“No”
“Due to a lack of political will” -“There is some interest in drafting it. Another thing is the current circumstances and (economic) resources for it”
Monòver Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
“No”
“With so few remains left, no one has cared at municipal or autonomous level” -“No,but I would be in favour of drafting it”
Penella Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Because politicians ignore they are necessary” -“Yes, developing a generic management tool is in progress”
“Culture” (archivist and librarian)
“Master plan” (university professor) -“Sax Castle Hillside Municipal Natural Landscape Special Plan” (environment technician)
-
Sax Castle
a
Characteristics
The document was issued in March 2014: http://boe.es/boe/dias/2014/03/25/pdfs/BOE-A-2014-3218.pdf.
120
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 33b. General management data (group 4) Castles
Characteristics If yes, indicate start and end dates
If yes, indicate the title and its fundamental aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
Ambra Castle
-
-
Did not know/Did not answer (archivist) -“Yes, because they are necessary to guarantee its preservation” (architect)
Callosa de Segura Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they are necessary to start working”
“Castalla Castle Management Plan. It includes actions carried out from 2009 up to the present on research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination, in order to achieve the set objectives and ensure the proper management of the fortification” “Yes, because they are a fundamental -tool to manage the castle. This does Declaration as an asset of cultural not rule out drafting a more complex interest (Castalla Castle and its walls) in document, such as a master plan” the municipality of Castalla (Alicante), by delimiting its environment for its protection and to establish protective regulations. “It includes the usage allowed in the monument and the general regime of interventions in its environment (landscape silhouette preservation and architectural image)”
Castalla Castle
“2009-in progress”
Cocentaina Castle
-
-
“They are necessary tools”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
-
-
“They are not only useful, but fundamental”
Monòver Castle
-
-
“It is not known what utility they may have in Monòver Castle”
Master plan. “In 2011, the University of Alicante delivered it to the city council, but it has not been processed. The cause is the change of local government, which paralysed all projects from the previous team. In addition, the financial crisis has also influenced it” (university professor) -SaxCastle Hillside Municipal Natural Landscape Special Plan “2008-to present” (environment technician)
“Sax Castle Cultural Park Master Plan”. It includes “a common usage plan for environmental aspects (...), historical aspects and social uses that take place on the rock (where the castle is located). (...) environmental aspects and cultural heritage were identified and catalogued, tracing a greater perimeter (...). At the same time (...) six zones with specific uses either allowed, prohibited or allowed with conditions were established. Environmental, cultural, scientific, social and tourism programmes were developed and managed through an integral public usage plan” (university professor) -“Sax Castle Hillside Municipal Natural Landscape Special Plan. It includes an informative report with descriptive and justificatory aspects, as well as complementary studies for management, according to the purposes that justify its elaboration; a regulation with general rules for usage and activities that is divided into protection of public domain resources and rules on activities of public use; plans; management rules; funding mechanisms; and a penalty system” (environment technician)
Sax Castle
121
“Yes, because they set some priorities in the short and medium term. They would have very positive effects for the castle and avoid working ʽfrom hand to mouthʼ dependent on politicians” (archivist and librarian) -“They are useful if they can be brought to reality” (culture assistant) -“I consider them fundamental and they should be coordinated with the other castles in the province or the wider area” (architect) -“Yes, because they state very clearly what can be done in the natural landscape. (Moreover) they gave a specific protection that favours its preservation” (environment technician)
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 33c. General management data (group 4) Castles
Characteristics Interdisciplinary team
Ambra Castle
Callosa de Segura Castle
“No” (archivist and librarian, architect)
“No”
Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources team drafted the for 2013 (€) management tool?
-
“Its occupation by two cultures: Andalusian and Grants Christian” (archivist) from public -organisations: 1 € “The remains of the (architect) castle and its location” (archivist)
-
It did not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Guardamar del Segura Castle
Monòver Castle
Penella Castle
“No”
“No”
“No”
“No”
Weaknesses “Its state of preservation, because it had a short life –50 years– that has not favoured its preservation” (archivist) -“Difficult accessibility” (architect)
“Its historical sequence”
“Accessibility and vandalism”
Grants from public organisations: 20,000 €
“Its good state of preservation –it was restored completely between 2003 and 2006” -“Continuous information enriching the tourist cultural product”
“It is not presented as a museum, therefore the visitor faces a huge edifice without explanation of the content” -“Bad accessibility due to the location of the castle, on a hill at 780 m above sea level, and its internal configuration: narrow stairs, elevated steps, etc.”
-
It did not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Building type: singular keep” -“History: space occupied since the Muslim era” -“Symbol of Cocentaina: the population identifies with it”
“A lack of a continuous visiting schedule”
-
Grants “Historical sequence, from public geographic location and organisations: 1 € defensive system”
-
It did not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
Did not know/Did not answer
“Everything: state of preservation, etc.”
It did not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Building type: singular keep” -“History: it was built by the first Christian inhabitants of Cocentaina”
“Lack of a continuous visiting schedule”
“Yes, although not all the members have participated. Only the directive part: Juan Antonio Mira Rico – Yes, composed cultural heritage of 18 researchers, technician–, Màrius Castalla Castle technicians and Bevià i Garcia – professionals in architect specialist cultural heritage in cultural heritage–,and José Ramón Ortega Pérez –ARPA Patrimonio S.L.– drafted it”
Cocentaina Castle
Strengths
-
122
“Geological base where the castle is located” -“Lack of a master plan”
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Characteristics Interdisciplinary team
Sax Castle
“No” (archivist and librarian)
Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources team drafted the for 2013 (€) management tool?
Strengths
Weaknesses
“Strategic location on a hill, next to the A-31 motorway” (culture assistant) -“No, Gabino Ponce “A lack of basic Herrero, professor “The keep has singular infrastructure: toilets, drinks of geography at heraldic, architecturaland machines, etc.” (culture the University artistic elements” assistant) of Alicante, was (architect) -the main person -“A lack of cleaning and in charge of the Grants “Its historical value, maintenance” (archivist and master plan” from public because it preserves librarian) (university organisations: important elements” professor) -1,000 € (archivist (architect) -“State of preservation and and librarian) -maintenance” (architect) “The technical “The rock is a heritage services -landmark and a (Generalitat “Vulnerable to urban privileged observatory of Valenciana) drafted area pressure (rubbish, the region” (environment the special plan” vandalism, etc.)” technician) (environment (environment technician) technician) -“Ecological value of the rock where the castle is located” (environment technician)
due to political reasons, with its resultant economic cost, but which could have been advantageous for the castle, As for its application, it was clear that the era of “monumental actions” has ended, but the master plan could be implemented progressively avoiding any negative economic impact. This document covered diverse aspects on research, preservation, didactics and dissemination. It included,
“It includes actions developed since 2009 up to the present concerning research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination, in order to achieve the set objectives and ensure the proper management of the fortification”. He also stated that “It does not rule out drafting a more complex document, such as a master plan”. In spite of focusing on the castle, it also comprises diverse fields. Another tool to be taken into account was its declaration as an asset of cultural interest (Castalla Castle and its walls) by delimiting its environment for protection and establishing protective regulations, in force since 11 March 2014. It included “(…) the usage allowed at the monument and the general regime of intervention in its environment (landscape silhouette preservation and architectural image)”.
“(…) a common usage plan for environmental aspects (...), historical aspects and social uses that take place on the rock (where the castle is located). (...) environmental aspects and cultural heritage were identified and catalogued, tracing out a wider perimeter (...). At the same time (...) six zones were established with specific uses which were allowed, prohibited or allowed under certain conditions. Environmental, cultural, scientific, social and tourism programmes were developed and managed through an integral public usage plan”.
On the other hand, Sax Castle had a master plan. As the interviewee explained,
Besides the master plan, Sax also had a special plan which included the whole castle rock. This document was characterised by incorporating
“In 2011, the University of Alicante delivered it to the city council, but it has not been processed. The cause is the change of the local government, which paralysed all projects from the previous team. In addition, the financial crisis has also influenced it”.
“(…) a regulation with general rules for uses and activities that is divided into protection of public domain resources and rules on activities for public use; plans; management rules; funding mechanisms; and a penalty system”.
Without doubt, this was a strange situation because it made no sense to put aside such a management tool,
123
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 33d. General management data (group 4) Castles
Characteristics Evaluative studies
Characteris-tics of evaluative studies
Number of visitors Months with most Months with fewest (2013) visitors visitors
Ambra Castle
“No” (archivist and librarian, architect)
-
-
-
-
Callosa de Segura Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Castalla Castle
“Regular surveys with visitors” -“They are useful due to “Yes, since 2013” the information provided, which can indicate which actions are well done and which aspects must be improved”
2,058
May – 251; July – 348; August – 351
February – 76; March – 73; April – 46
Cocentaina Castle
“Occasional surveys with visitors” -“Yes, since 2012” “They are useful because visitors’ suggestions improve the service”
500
-
-
Guardamar del Segura Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Monòver Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Penella Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
2,239 (culture assistant)
February – 322; March – 337; November – 411 (culture assistant)
April – 98; July – 72; December – 46 (culture assistant)
Sax Castle
“Occasional surveys with visitors” -“They are useful “Yes, since 2012” because (visitors) make (culture assistant) suggestions how to improve the service as well as management, broadly speaking” (culture assistant)
had not been approved yet. While the management plan at Castalla Castle (2009) included actions on research, preservation, restoration, didactics and dissemination, the master plan at Sax Castle was more ambitious and complex and aspired to manage the whole rock where the castle is located. Its approval would entail its integration into the Sax Castle Hillside Municipal Natural Landscape Special Plan, a document which was based on environmental and natural values rather than on cultural ones.
Ambra Castle, Callosa de Segura Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle, Monòver Castle and Penella Castle did not have management tools due to a lack of initiative or political will. In Callosa de Segura Castle it had not been developed “Because the issue has not been raised”; in Ambra Castle “It would be drafted if there was political will”; in Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle “(…) developing a generic management tool is in process” but only focused on visits; in Guardamar del Segura Castle “There is some interest in drafting it. Another thing is the current circumstances and (economic) resources for it”; and in Monòver Castle no management tool was going to be developed, but the interviewee “(…) would be in favour of drafting it”.
Except at Ambra Castle and Monòver Castle, the people interviewed considered them to be useful, although one of the interviewees at Sax Castle pointed out “They are useful if they can be brought to fruition”. The case of Monòver Castle stood out because “It is not known what utility they may have (…)” due to there being only a few preserved remains. Nevertheless, he had previously answered that he would be in favour of them, an obvious contradiction.
Both Castalla Castle and Sax Castle already had their management tools in force. However, Sax Castle only had the special plan (2008), since the master plan (2011) 124
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 33e. General management data (group 4) Castles
Characteristics Visitors’ place of origin
Types of visit
Training of people carrying out visits
Interactive modules for self-guided visits
-
-
Ambra Castle
-
-
“Visits are not carried out because it is not open to the public as an asset to visit (except occasional visits, undated, for courses, open days, etc.)” (archivist)
Callosa de Segura Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Castalla Castle
“Provincial (including local and regional visitors)”
“Yes”a
“Guided and selfguided”
“Degree in Tourism” -“Degree in History”
-
Cocentaina Castle
“Local”
“No, due to a lack of staff”
“Self-guided”
-
“Audio guides and explanatory panels”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Monòver Castle
-
-
-
-
-
Penella Castle
-
“No, due to a lack of staff and time”
-
-
-
“Self-guided and guided visits” (culture assistant)
“Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Division in Geography and History” (archivist and librarian) -“Degree in History” (culture assistant)
“Explanatory panels” (culture assistant) -“QR codes for mobile electronic devices” (culture assistant)
Sax Castle
a
Continuous visiting schedule
“No, it is open on Sunday at 10:30, but the visit must “Provincial (including local be arranged. From Monday to Saturday, and regional and Sunday afternoon, visitors)” people can ask for (culture the key to do a selfassistant) guided visit” (culture assistant)
More information at www.turismocastalla.com.
Funding sources were similar in all cases. Only Castalla Castle and Sax Castle had specific grants from public organisations, the city councils, with important differences. Castalla Castle had a budget of 20,000 € for 2013, while Sax Castle had a budget of 1,000 €. This situation clearly limited the possibility for undertaking actions. However, in Cocentaina Castle interventions were carried out, which means that it had funding at certain times, in spite of the actions being executed only occasionally.
Castalla Castle had an interdisciplinary team composed of 18 researchers, technicians and professionals in cultural heritage from both public and private sectors. Ambra Castle, Callosa de Segura Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle and Monòver Castle lacked such a team because actions are hardly ever executed; but the lack was quite surprising in Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle. The case of Sax Castle was particularly significant since the municipality had many technicians, in culture, architecture and environment, on its staff, who could form an interdisciplinary team.
In respect of strengths and weaknesses, they presented some common and some diverse characteristics grouped in a series of values (Table 34).
In Castalla Castle the management plan had been drafted by members of its team under the coordination of the Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage. In Sax Castle the master plan had been drafted by an interdisciplinary team from the University of Alicante, while the special plan had been drafted by the technical services of Generalitat Valenciana.
Common strengths and weaknesses such as the historical sequence and accessibility were found in some cases. It should be noted that the interviewee was not able to point out any strengths at Monòver Castle, although the answer to weaknesses was “Everything”. Another important issue 125
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 34. Strengths and weaknesses (group 4) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Ambra Castle
Historical sequence -Geographic location -Architecture
State of preservation -Accessibility
Callosa de Segura Castle
Historical sequence
Accessibility -Vandalism
Castalla Castle
State of preservation -Interesting tourist cultural product
Without musealisation -Accessibility
Cocentaina Castle
Historical sequence -Architecture -Symbolism
Visiting schedule
Guardamar del Segura Castle
Historical sequence -Geographic location -Architecture
A lack of management tools -Location
Monòver Castle
Did not know/Did not answer
Everything
Penella Castle
Historical sequence -Architecture
Visiting schedule
Geographic location -Architecture
A lack of infrastructure -Cleaning and maintenance -State of preservation -Human activity
Sax Castle
• Cocentaina Castle: 500 visitors, these were people who asked for the key at the police station. There were more visitors, but they were not counted. • Sax: 2,239 visitors.
was the change in the response referring to weaknesses at Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle. Whereas in a previous work the answer had been a lack of coordination with other administrative fields (Mira, 2013: 74), now it was the reduced visiting schedule. Finally, only Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle and Sax Castle had evaluative studies. At Castalla Castle they had been regular since May 2013; in Cocentaina Castle and Sax Castle they were occasional. Ambra Castle, Callosa de Segura Castle and Monòver Castle lacked them because they were not prepared for visits. Nevertheless, their absence was surprising in Guardamar del Segura Castle and Penella Castle.
Although Castalla Castle and Sax Castle showed similar figures, differences were noted in the months of most and least affluence: Castalla Castle received the highest number of visitors in May, July and August; for Sax it was in February, March and November. February, March and April were the months of least affluence at Castalla Castle; whereas April, was the same for both fortifications, July and December were the months of least affluence in Sax Castle.
The number of visitors presents similar figures (2013): • Castalla Castle: 2,058 visitors.
Visitors came from around the province, including those from locally and those from further afield. Castalla Castle 126
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
had a continuous visiting schedule (www.turismocastalla. com), but not at Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle “(…) due to a lack of staff” and “(…) a lack of staff and time”. In Cocentaina Castle and Sax Castle people could ask for the key to visit without any type of control. Visits were guided in Castalla Castle and Sax Castle, whereas in Cocentaina Castle and Sax Castle they were self-guided. People carrying out guided visits had training in tourism, geography and history, which were classic profiles for carrying out the work of a cultural guide. Self-guided visits had interactive modules: audio guides and explanatory panels at Cocentaina Castle, and explanatory panels with QR codes for mobile electronic devices at Sax Castle.
5.4.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 35) Research activities had been undertaken in Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle between 2003 and 2013. The historical research produced the expected results because it resulted in progress in their knowledge. There was a predominance of archaeological, architectural and documentary studies. Only in Castalla Castle was it planned to continue with research, specifically studying archaeological materials still unpublished. In Sax Castle, the lack of time and economic resources prevented further research.
Table 35. Research data (group 4) Castles
Management Data: Research Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Ambra Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because it is not managed” (archivist) -“No, because it is not my (job) speciality (architect)
Callosa de Segura Castle
“No”
-
-
-
Castalla Castle
“Study of fauna, charcoal and timber remains (2010)” -“Study of prehistoric materials (2011)” -“Study of metallic materials (2013)” -“Inventory and cataloguing the fauna and flora on the hill (2013)”
Historical
Cocentaina Castle
“University research works”
Others
“Yes, according to researchers’ comments”
“No”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because the objective is to strengthen the Rábita/ Fonteta archaeological site”
Monòver Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of (political) interest”
Penella Castle
“Archaeological excavation” -“Architectural research” -“Documentary research”
Historical
“Yes, knowledge has been substantially improved”
“No”
Historical -Others
“Yes, because (actions) have yielded better “No, due to a lack of time knowledge about its (from managers) and economic configuration, as well resources” (archivist and as helping with its librarian) dissemination” (archivist and librarian)
Sax Castle
“Archaeological excavation”
127
“Yes, because knowledge “Yes, continuing with the study has improved as a result of unpublished materials” of each aspect studied”
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle, Monòver Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle. The expected results had been achieved because these actions have contributed to keeping the fortifications in good
5.4.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 36) Preservation activities had been undertaken in Castalla Table 36. Preservation data (group 4) Castles
Management Data: Preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Ambra Castle
“No”
Types
-
Expected results
Execution of new actions
-
“No, because it is not managed” (archivist) -“No,because no politician has given instructions about it” (architect)
-
“Yes, including it in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Callosa de Segura Land-Use Planning, and drafting a special protection plan”
Callosa de Segura Castle
“No”
Castalla Castle
“Preservation of material remains” -“Cleaning” -“Painting of doors and handrails” -“Replacement of luminaires” -“Elimination of weeds and gardening maintenance” -“Repair of locks” -“Tensioning of the steel wire from handrails”
Preservation
“Yes, because the castle has been preserved in good condition”
“Yes, continuing with the preservation of material remains to prevent its degradation, keeping the site clean and replacing damaged components”
Cocentaina Castle
“Cleaning” -“Replacement of luminaires”
Preservation
“Yes, because the castle is preserved in good condition”
“No, because serious problems have already been solved”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
“Inclusion in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Guardamar del Segura Land-Use Planning” -“Removal of waste and general cleaning” -“Cleaning of vegetation and planting native plants” -“Adaptation of paths” -“Installation of benches and litter bins” -“Creation of slopes”
Preservation
“Yes,because actions not recommended have been avoided”
“Yes,covering the archaeological remains with soil to prevent their deterioration and reinforcing the Renaissance walls’ foundation”
-
128
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Castles
Management Data: Preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions “No, because of lack of interest (political)”
“No, because serious problems have been solved”
Monòver Castle
“Consolidation of rocks to avoid detachment”
Preservation
“Yes, because it has prevented more disengagement. But it is not the definitive solution”
Penella Castle
“Cleaning” -“Replacement of luminaires”
Preservation
“Yes, because the castle is preserved in good condition”
Sax Castle
“Repair of locks” -“Elimination of weeds” -“Replacement of flags” (archivist and librarian) -“Adopting the Sax Castle Hillside Municipal Natural Landscape Special Plan” -“Tree trimming and cleaning of waste” -“Fencing the rock” (environment technician)
Preservation
“The expected results have been achieved “No, because everything is in because these actions are good condition” (archivist and positive” (archivist and librarian) librarian) --“No, because it presents a “No, because the good state of preservation. samethings are done with Actions would be undertaken if the plan or without it” required” (architect) (architect) --“Yes, continuing with the “Yes, because it conveys tree trimming and cleaning the message to the citizen of waste” (environment that it is a managed technician) space, not abandoned” (environment technician)
condition, as well as avoiding their deterioration. However, an interviewee in Sax Castle pointed out that they had not been achieved and it was not necessary to have a special plan to preserve it “(…) because the same is done with the plan or without it”.
5.4.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 38) Didactics and/or dissemination activities had been undertaken at all the fortifications, except at Monòver Castle. Of all the actions studied, didactics and dissemination were the ones most frequently undertaken.
At Callosa de Segura Castle, Castalla Castle and Guardamar del Segura Castle it was planned to continue with these works, but not at the others due to a lack of management and political involvement, Ambra Castle and Monòver Castle; because problems have already been solved, Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle; and because everything is in perfect condition, Sax Castle.
On the basis of the above, some differences could be noted. There were some fortifications with much activity, such as at Castalla Castle and Sax Castle. This activity included regular guided visits, scientific and informative publications, conferences, collaboration with local educational centres, didactic workshops, open days, presentation of works in seminars and scientific congresses, exhibitions, etc. Callosa de Segura Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle and Penella Castle had less activity. It was focused on promotional works, open days, museums, explanatory panels and games. In Ambra Castle activity concentrated on guided visits. In addition, Castalla Castle and Sax Castle were the only fortifications included in the Vinalopó Castles Route.
5.4.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 37) Restoration activities had been undertaken at Castalla Castle and Penella Castle between 2003 and 2013. The expected results were achieved; at Castalla Castle, its deterioration had been slowed, its state of preservation had been improved and its conversion into a tourist cultural product had been facilitated; at Penella Castle its disappearance had been prevented. It was not planned to continue with these works because both have been restored recently, neither were any works planned at Cocentaina Castle because the main part of the castle has been restored. At Sax Castle it could have been suggested, although one of the interviewees would not do any “(…) due to a lack of economic resources” and another notes that “(…) it is quite restored” –which implied that more restorations were not needed.
The expected results had been achieved and people interviewed agreed that this type of activity helped visitors to get to know the castles better and to disseminate information about them. However, in the case of Guardamar del Segura Castle, the interviewee pointed out that the playground had been transformed by young people into a space to drink alcohol. In Sax Castle one of the interviewees noted that, in the case of the botanical trail, results had not been those expected “(…) due to a lack of conditioning it”. 129
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 37. Restoration data (group 4) Castles
Management Data: Restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Ambra Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because it is not managed” (archivist) -“No,because no politician has given instructions about it” (architect)
Callosa de Segura Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economic resources”
“No, because the castle has been restored recently”
Castalla Castle
“Complete restoration of the fortification”
Restoration
“The expected results have been achieved because the deterioration of the castle has been slowed down, its state of preservation has been improved and its conversion into a tourist cultural product has been facilitated”
Cocentaina Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because the most important part has been recovered”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of economical budget”
Monòver Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, due to a lack of (political) interest”
Penella Castle
“Structural restoration” -“Access improvement”
Restoration
“The expected results have been achieved because its disappearance has been prevented”
“No, because the castle has been restored recently”
-
“Yes, proposing to restore the contemporary roof from the Almohad tower to the council chamber” (culture assistant) -“No, because it is quite restored” (architect) -“No, due to a lack of economic resources” (environment technician)
Sax Castle
“No”
-
Finally, only Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle were musealised (Mira 2017b). In Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle it was complete, while in Guardamar del Segura Castle and Sax Castle it was only partial. Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle had traditional musealisation, but in Guardamar del Segura Castle it was interactive. In the first two cases, since they could be visited without the presence of any janitor or staff from the city council “because the system of uncontrolled visits did not permit any other type (of musealisation)”. In Guardamar del Segura Castle “because it favours people’s learning”, and in Sax Castle “because it took advantage of other exhibition materials which were traditional”. In musealised castles, technicians would opt for the following types of musealisation: mixed, interactive and traditional, in Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle; but interactive and didactic in Guardamar del Segura Castle and Sax Castle.
Except Callosa de Segura Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle and Monòver Castle, the remainder of fortifications had decided to undertake new actions: occasional visits in Ambra Castle; regular guided visits, scientific and informative publications, conferences, collaboration with local educational centres, presence in social networks and archaeological didactic workshops in Castalla Castle; regular guided visits and informative publications in Cocentaina Castle; informative publications in Penella Castle; and regular guided visits, dramatised visits, dissemination in websites, conditioning of the botanical trail, creation of information pages and adaptation of a recreational area in Sax Castle. However, one of the interviewees stated that actions would not be taken due to a lack of economic resources to undertake large-scale actions, neither interventions such as guided visits.
130
131
Cocentaina Castle
Castalla Castle
Callosa de Segura Castle
Ambra Castle
Castles
Dissemination
“Open days” -“Musealisation” -“Specialised publications”
“Yes, because there have been a lot of people and Didactics and/or visitors have asked to dissemination do more activities of this type”
“Yes, because they have allowed society to get to know the castle better and the history that surrounds it through guided visits. In the case, of didactic workshops, the active participation of visitors was promoted”
“Yes, because they have contributed to make the castle better known”
“Yes, regular guided visits, as well as scientific and informative publications”
“Regular guided visits” -“Publications” -“Conferences” -“Collaboration with local educational centres” -“Presence in social networks” -“Didactic workshops” -“Open days”
“No, because before giving more exposure to the castle, the priority is to make clear what is to be done with it”
“Yes, complete”
“No”
“No”
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Expected results Execution of new actions Musealisation “Yes, because they have Didactics and/or helped people to get to “Yes, occasional guided “No” dissemination know it and understand it visits” (archivist) (archivist) better” (archivist) Types
-“Specialised and informative publications” -“Conferences” -“Collaboration with local educational centres” -Didactics and/or “Presence in social networks” dissemination -“Didactic, archaeological and astronomic workshops” -“Open days” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” -“Contributions to seminars, scientific congresses and workshops”
“Appearance in leaflets and documentaries” -“Inclusion in promotional campaigns for places of interest” “Regular guided visits” -“Heritage signage”
“Occasional guided visits” (archivist)
Actions between 2003 and 2013
Table 38. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 4)
-
-
-
Best model
Interactive and traditional “because Traditional there are some people who gain “because the sufficient information with an system of visits, interactive exhibition and others who without control, ask for more information (technical, does not permit etc.), which the interactive displays do any other type” not cover”
-
-
-
Type
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Penella Castle
Sax Castle
“Musealisation”
Monòver Castle
Didactics and/or “Yes, because they help to dissemination know the castle better” “Yes, scientific and informative publications”
“Yes, complete”
Traditional “because the system of visits, without control, does not permit any other type”
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Expected results Execution of new actions Musealisation Type “Yes, because it provides information to visitors in Interactive three languages” Didactics and/or “because it “No, due to a lack of -“Yes, partial” dissemination favourspeople’s economical budget” “No, because the space is learning” used by young people to drink (alcohol)” “No, due to a lack of “No” (political) interest” Types
132
“Creation of a botanical trail with signage” -“Exhibitions” -“Recovery of the historical access to Sax Castle”
“Yes, partial. Advantage was taken of other exhibition “Yes, continuing with regular “Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” Traditional guided visits and dramatised materials to -“because be left in the visits” (culture assistant) advantage was “Yes, because they have castle. The “Contributions to seminars, scientific congresses and -helped to disseminate musealisation taken of other workshops” “Yes, dissemination in Didactics and/or information and to get to exhibition is not -dissemination know the cultural heritage websites, conditionning of materials exclusively “Dissemination in websites” the botanical trail, creation which were of Sax, specifically the about the of information pages, and castle. It is not traditionnal” castle” (culture assistant) -adaptation of a recreationnal complete due (archivist and “Publication of scientific articles” area in Sax” (environment librarian) to the current -technician) economic situation “Adhesion to the natural sites network of the (archivist and Valencian Community” librarian) --
“Regular guided visits” -“Elaboration of didactic cards for pupils” -“Open days” -“Musealisation” --
“No”
Guardamar del Segura Castle
Actions between 2003 and 2013
“Installation of explanatory panels” -“Installation of a playground” -“Musealisation”
Castles
Interactive “because learning is best with active participation” (archivist and librarian)
Interactive and traditional “because there are some people who gain sufficient information with an interactive exhibition and others who ask for more information (technical, etc.), which the interactive displays do not cover”
-
Interactive “because it allows people to interpret the meaning of things (better)”
Best model
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
5.5. Group 5
management tasks. Three worked as cultural heritage technicians or similar, at Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle; one worked as a tourism technician, at Mola Castle; and one as an architect, at Vermell Castle. They were novices when they started in their current positions.
5.5.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 39) From these data, it could be seen that interviews corresponded to people who carried out direct Table 39. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 5) Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Aljau Castle
Museum director -2001 -No
Training
Degree in History of Art Postgraduate Degree -in Education and Museums Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle --Postgraduate Degree Others: Postgraduate Degree in in Marketing, Education and Museums Communication, -Cultural Others: Postgraduate Degree in Manifestations, Marketing, Communication, Cultural Museums and Manifestations, Museums and Exhibitions Exhibitions
Municipal archaeologist and museum director Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History --1992 Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle -No Mola Castle Tourism technician -2004 -No
Río Castle
Museum director -2001 -No
Vermell Castle
Architect -2002 -No
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Degree in Business Management -Master’s Degree in Tourist Planning and Management -Others: Postgraduate Degree in Tourism Top Technician -Others: Postgraduate Degree in Hotel Management
133
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Degree in History of Art Postgraduate Degree -in Education and Museums Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle --Postgraduate Degree Others: Postgraduate Degree in in Marketing, Education and Museums Communication, -Cultural Others: Postgraduate Degree in Manifestations, Marketing, Communication, Cultural Museums and Manifestations, Museums and Exhibitions Exhibitions
Degree in Architecture
Execution of management tasks
No
Yes
Yes
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
In terms of training, one person had a degree in business management, at Mola Castle; two in history of art, at Aljau Castle and Río Castle; one in philosophy and literature (module in geography and history), at Mola Castle; and one in architecture, at Vermell Castle. Furthermore, one person had a master’s degree, at Mola Castle; and three had a doctoral degree (courses of third cycle) and other training courses, at Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle. Only in Aljau Castle and Río Castle did people have specific training in cultural heritage management.
On the other hand, these fortifications lacked management tools, although people interviewed considered them to be interesting. In Mola Castle and Vermell Castle this was due to a lack of initiative or political will; in Río Castle due to economic resources; and in Aljau Castle it was because they were not necessary. Only in Río Castle “(…) was it planned to draft a master plan (…)”, while in Vermell Castle the interviewee made it clear that without economic resources “(…) they are useless”. Except at Vermell Castle, all the other fortifications had an interdisciplinary team which participated in their management. Only Río Castle had grants that came from the city council and the Ministry of Public Works and Transport.
5.5.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Tables 40a-f) Of four fortifications, two depended on culture, Aljau Castle and Río Castle; and one on urbanism, Vermell Castle. Mola Castle was subordinated to several council departments: culture and historical heritage.
In respect to strengths and weaknesses, they presented some common and some diverse characteristics grouped in a series of values (Table 41).
Table 40a. General management data (group 5) Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Aljau Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“No,because it does not need a master plan” -“No”
Mola Castle
“Culture” -“Historical heritage” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
“No”
“No, due to a lack of interest and political concern” -“No” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Río Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“No, due to a lack of economic resources” -“Yes,it is planned to draft a master plan for carrying out emergency actions”
Vermell Castle
“Urbanism”
“No”
“(Political) ignorance on the need of drafting it” -“No”
Table 40b. General management data (group 5) Castles
Aljau Castle
Characteristics If yes, indicate start and end dates
If yes, indicate the title and its fundamental aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
-
-
“Yes, because they are a road map to work to”
Mola Castle
-
-
“Yes, I consider them very interesting because they allow us to implement what is needed to do. (In addition) they can serve to attract public funds but also private “ (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Río Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they are a road map to work to”
Vermell Castle
-
-
“I think they are useful provided they are accompanied by economic resources to carry them out. If not, they are useless”
134
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 40c. General management data (group 5) Castles
Characteristics Has the interdiscipli-nary Interdisciplinary team team drafted the management tool?
Aljau Castle
Mola Castle
Yes, composed of three researchers, technicians and professionals in cultural heritage
Yes, composed of three researchers, technicians and professionals in cultural heritage (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Yes, composed of three researchers, technicians and professionals in cultural heritage
Río Castle
Vermell Castle
“No”
Funding sources for 2013 (€)
Strengths
Weaknesses
-
“Geographic location” It does not have -funding sources, “A site that can be taken neither its own on. It can be worked economic resources on and see the results quickly”
“State of preservation” -“Vandalism”
-
“Geographic location” -It does not have funding sources, “Architectural neither its own elements” economic resources -(municipal “Historical archaeologist and sequence”(municipal museum director) archaeologist and museum director)
“Its lack of value” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
“Geographic location” “Its historical and architectural -importance” “It needs a -great economic “Symbolism for Aspe” investment to create value”
-
Grants from public organisations: 120,000 €
-
It does not have funding sources, “Geographic location” neither its own economic resources
“Poor state of preservation”
Table 41. Strengths and weaknesses (group 5) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Aljau Castle
Size -Geographic location
State of preservation -Vandalism
Mola Castle
Historical sequence -Geographic location -Architecture
Valuing
Río Castle
Symbolism -Architecture -Historical sequence
Geographic location -Size
Vermell Castle
Geographic location
State of preservation
Common strengths and weaknesses were noted in some cases such as the historical sequence and state of preservation. It should be noted that the interviewees pointed out strengths or weaknesses similarly in Aljau Castle and Río Castle.
Finally, the castles did not have evaluative studies, which is logical considering that they were not prepared for visits. In 2013 Mola Castle had 25,369 visitors, including the visits to the sanctuary of María Magdalena but not including those counted by the archaeological museum 135
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
(155). The months of most affluence were March, May and June; whereas the lowest number of visits was recorded in January, August and December. Visitors came from the province, including those from locally and from further afield. It had a continuous visiting schedule (http://www.novelda.es). People carrying out guided visits had training in tourism and history, classic profiles for carrying out the work of a cultural guide. Mola Castle lacked interactive modules for self-guided visits, although it offered leaflets.
progress to be made in their knowledge. In this case, it consisted of an archaeological excavation and they planned to carry out new interventions. At Río Castle and Vermell Castle research had not been undertaken, although the interviewee at Río Castle stated that he wanted to study the archaeological materials. 5.5.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 43) Preservation activities had been undertaken at Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle. The expected results were achieved because these actions have maintained the fortifications in good condition, avoiding further deterioration. They planned to continue with these works.
5.5.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 42) Research activities had been undertaken at Aljau Castle and Mola Castle between 2003 and 2013. The historical research produced the expected results because it allowed Table 42. Research data (group 5) Castles
Management Data: Research Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
“Yes, the study of archaeological materials”
Aljau Castle
“Archaeological excavation (2010)”
Historical
“Yes, because it has brought to light an extraordinary (archaeological) site which has achieved a better knowledge of the Middle Ages in Aspe”
Mola Castle
“Archaeological excavation (2005)”
Historical
“Yes, the study of “Yes, because it has achieved a archaeological materials from better knowledge of the monument” Mola Castle”
Río Castle
“No”
-
-
“Yes, the study of archaeological materials”
Vermell Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Table 43. Preservation data (group 5) Castles
Management Data: Preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Aljau Castle
“Grubbing and cleaning”
Preservation
“Yes, because the cleaning of the site has allowed its structures to become visible”
“Yes, consolidation of the archaeological site”
Mola Castle
“Vegetation removal” -“Fence off excavation areas” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Preservation
“Yes, because they have prevented its deterioration” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
“Yes, vegetation removal” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Río Castle
“Underpinning of the northern tower” -“Grubbing and cleaning”
Preservation
“Yes, because they have stabilised the most threatened structure of the castle”
“Yes, restoration of a crack in the wall of the northern tower”
Vermell Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
136
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
On the basis of the above, it could be seen that Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle show similar activity. The most outstanding aspect was Mola Castle which was part of the Vinalopó Castles Route.
5.5.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 44) Restoration activities had only been undertaken in Mola Castle between 2003 and 2013. The expected results were achieved with the recovery of some elements.Nevertheless, in Aljau Castle they planned to continue with these works.
The expected results had been achieved and people interviewed agreed that this type of activity helps visitors to get to know the castles better and helps to disseminate information about them. Moreover, Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle have decided to undertake new actions: undertaking a musealisation and didactic guide at Aljau Castle; guided and self-guided visits at Mola Castle; and editing a didactic guide at Río Castle. It is also planned to musealise Aljau Castle.
5.5.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 45) Didactics or dissemination activities had been undertaken at all the fortifications except at Vermell Castle. Of all the actions studied, didactics or dissemination were the most frequent. Table 44. Restoration data (group 5) Castles
Management Data: Restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Aljau Castle
“No”
-
-
“Yes, heightening of some walls”
Mola Castle
“Second phase of Mola Castle restoration: door and wall (2005)” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Restoration
“Yes,because the access door has been recovered with part of the wall” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
“No, due to a lack of economic resources” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Río Castle
“No”
-
-
“No,because until (scheduled) emergency actions are carried out, restoration actions can not be undertaken”
Vermell Castle
“No”
-
-
“No”
Table 45. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 5) Castles
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Actions between 2003 and 2013
Aljau Castle
“Research workshops” -“Specialised and informative publications” -“Installation of museographic elements in the museum”
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Musealisation
“Yes, “Yes,because developing a “No, because it is Didactics and/or they have made musealisation not prepared for dissemination the castle known and didactic visits” to people” guide to the castle”
137
Type
Best model
-
-
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Castles
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Actions between 2003 and 2013
Mola Castle
“Guided visits” -“Editing a didactic guide” -“Editing leaflets” -“Open days” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” -“Inclusion in tourist routes of Novelda” -“Presence in websites” (municipal archaeologist and museum director)
Río Castle
“Research workshops” -“Editing leaflets” -“Installation of museographic elements in the museum”
Vermell Castle
“No”
Types
Expected results
Didactics and/or dissemination
“Yes,because they have improved the knowledge of the castle” (municipal archaeologist and museum director) -“Yes, because they have attracted visitors (to the castle)” (tourism technician)
Execution of new actions
Type
Best model
“Yes, guided visits for pupils and the general “No, because it public” does not have the (municipal requirements for archaeologist it” (municipal and museum archaeologist and director) museum director) --“Yes, “No, because it continuing is not prepared” with tourist (tourism routes and technician) scheduled visits” (tourism technician)
-
-
“Yes,because “Yes, “No, because it is Didactics and/or they have made developinga not prepared for dissemination the castle known didactic visits” to people” guide”
-
-
-
-
-
-
5.6. Group 6
“No”
Musealisation
“No, because it is not prepared for it”
On the other hand, only Dénia Castle had management tools since 2003. It was a special protection plan characterised by establishing “(…) intervention priorities in seven areas of the castle”, although it had not been drafted by the current interdisciplinary team. Atalaya Castle and Salvatierra Castle did not have any management tools because administrations had not considered drafting it. Petrer Castle lacked them since the fortification is included in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Petrer LandUse Planning and was declared an asset of cultural interest. In this case, the catalogue of protected assets and areas became a management tool, but it could not be compared to a master plan which would include more actions. However, people interviewed considered them useful.
5.6.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 46) From these data, it could be seen that interviews corresponded to people who carried out direct management tasks. They worked as cultural heritage technicians or similar and were novices when they started in their current position. In terms of training, three people had a degree in geography and history, at Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Salvatierra Castle; and one in philosophy and literature (module in geography and history), at Petrer Castle. Furthermore, all of them had a doctoral degree but did not have specific training in cultural heritage management.
Atalaya Castle and Dénia Castle had an interdisciplinary team which participated in their management. In both cases, they were teams composed exclusively of municipal technicians.
5.6.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Tables 47a-e) Of four fortifications, three depended on culture, Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Salvatierra Castle. Petrer Castle was subordinated to several council departments: culture and cultural heritage.
Atalaya Castle had funding sources which come both from the gate [entry fees], (the amount was not specified), and from public organisations. In the case of Dénia Castle, 138
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 46. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 6) Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Atalaya Castle
Museum director -1997 -No
Degree in Geography and History -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle
No
Yes
Dénia Castle
Head of Museums and Archaeological Area -1982 -No
Degree in Geography and History -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle
No
Yes
Petrer Castle
Museum director -2007 -No
Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle
No
Yes
Salvatierra Castle
Museum director -1997 -No
Degree in Geography and History -Doctoral Degree: courses of third cycle
No
Yes
Table 47a. General management data (group 6) Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Atalaya Castle
“Culture”
“No”
“Because none of the administrations that have been responsible for the castle has raised the need to draft a master plan” -“Not at the moment”
Dénia Castle
“Culture”
“Special protection plan”
-
“No”
“Because in the Catalogue of Protected Assets and Areas of Petrer Land-Use Planning it is classified as an asset of cultural interest, with the maximum protection and at this time, expanding with a master plan has not been thought of” -“Yes, in the future”
No
“Because the city council has not raised the need to draft a master plan” -“Not at the moment”
Petrer Castle
Salvatierra Castle
“Culture and heritage”
“Culture”
139
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 47b. General management data (group 6) Castles
Characteristics If yes, indicate start and end dates
If yes, indicate the title and its fundamental aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
-
-
“Essential, because interventions in the castle must be justified and documented”
“2003-to present”
“Dénia Castle Special Protection Plan” -“It establishes intervention priorities in seven areas of the castle”
“Yes, provided that they are carried out and administrations are involved in their implementation”
Atalaya Castle
Dénia Castle
Petrer Castle
-
-
“Yes, because they result in good maintenance regarding infrastructures and preservation, dissemination and research”
Salvatierra Castle
-
-
“Essential, because interventions in the castle must be justified and documented”
Table 47c. General management data (group 6) Castles
Characteristics Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources for Interdiscipli-nary team team drafted 2013 (€) the management tool?
Atalaya Castle
Dénia Castle
Petrer Castle
Salvatierra Castle
Yes, composed of two researchers, technicians and professionals in cultural heritage and tourism
Yes, composed of three researchers, technicians and professionals in cultural heritage, environment, parks and gardens
“No”
“No”
-
Grants from public organisations: ? € -Gate:? €
Yes
Grants from public organisations: 25,000 – 30,000 € -Gate: 160,000 € -Merchandising: 150 – 200 € -Events: 1,000 €
Strengths
Weaknesses
“Its good state “The maintenance, because of preservait needs economic and tion” human resources”
“Landscape” -“The archaeological museum is inside”
“Security” -“Signage”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“The access, because it has become pedestrian only “Geographic with the restoration between location. It has 2008 and 2009” many visitors -because it is next to the A-31 “The maintenance. As there motorway” is no budget line, this is precarious”
-
It does not have funding sources, neither its own economic resources
“Geographic location because its height allows it to control the territory”
140
“State of preservation and abandonment because attention has been focused on Atalaya Castle”
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 47d. General management data (group 6) Castles
Atalaya Castle
Dénia Castle
a
Characteristics Evaluative studies
Characteristics of evaluative studies
Number of visitors (2013)
Months with most visitors (2013)
Months with fewest visitors (2013)
“Yes, since 2009”
“Regular surveys with visitors”
15,785a
March – 2,668; April – 2,761; October – 1,567
January – 676; June – 505; July – 826
87,534
July – 14,353; August – 21,595; September – 7,564
January – 2,005; February – 2,550; December – 2,481
June – 243; July – 276; August – 270
-
“No”
-
Petrer Castle
“Yes, between 2011 and 2012”
“Occasional surveys with visitors” -They have enabled us to know “what they love during the visit, what is surprising and that they lack a drinks machine”
5,901
April – 816; September – 1,433; October – 607
Salvatierra Castle
“No”
-
-
-
Figures for 2011 were used because the castle was closed for works between July 2012 and December 2013 – both inclusive.
Table 47e. General management data (group 6) Castles
Atalaya Castle
1 2 3
Characteristics Visitors’ place of origin
Continuous visiting schedule
Types of visit
Training of people carrying out visits
Interactive modules of self-guided visits
“Autonomous”
“Yes”1
“Guided”
“Degree in Tourism” -“Degree in History”
-
“Explanatory panels”
Dénia Castle
“State”
“Yes”2
“Self-guided and guided”
“Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History” -“Degree in Geography and History”
Petrer Castle
“Provincial (including local and regional visitors)”
“Yes”3
“Guided”
“Degree in History”
-
Salvatierra Castle
-
“No”
-
-
-
More information at http://www.turismovillena.com. More information at http://www.denia.net. More information at http://museodamasonavarro.blogspot.com.es.
funding from merchandising and events should also be added. Therefore, an income diversification could be noted, with that from the gate predominating.
Finally, only Atalaya Castle and Petrer Castle had carried out evaluative studies. Atalaya Castle had done regular surveys with visitors since 2009, while Petrer Castle only carried out occasional surveys with visitors between 2011 and 2012. Dénia Castle did not do this type of study because the interviewee did not consider them useful. In Salvatierra Castle, since its state of preservation did not allow visits, they were not done.
With respect to strengths and weaknesses, they show some common and some diverse characteristics grouped in a series of values (Table 48). Common strengths and weaknesses were found in some values such as the geographic location, the state of preservation, accessibility and maintenance.
Atalaya Castle had 15,785 visitors (2011), Dénia Castle had 87,534 visitors, and Petrer Castle had 5,901 visitors. These 141
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 48. Strengths and weaknesses (group 6) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Atalaya Castle
State of preservation
Maintenance
Dénia Castle
Landscape -Musealisation
Accessibility -Security
Petrer Castle
Geographic location
Accessibility -Maintenance
Salvatierra Castle
Geographic location
State of preservation
fortifications had some similarities in terms of months with most and least affluence:
5.6.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 50)
• April and October were the months of most affluence at Atalaya Castle and Petrer Castle. • June and July were the months of least affluence at Atalaya Castle and Petrer Castle. However, July was the month of most affluence at Dénia Castle. • September was the month of most affluence at Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle. • January was the month of least affluence at Atalaya Castle and Dénia Castle. • August was the month of most affluence at Dénia Castle, while it is of least affluence at Petrer Castle.
Preservation activities had been undertaken in Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle. The expected results had been achieved because these actions contributed to keeping Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle in good condition, as well as preventing their deterioration. In Atalaya Castle they had also been achieved, but with reservations because the maintenance was not continuous since “(…) the most appropriate materials have not been used and there have not been detailed studies of affected areas”. It was planned to continue with these works, except in Salvatierra Castle. 5.6.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 51)
Most of the visitors to Atalaya Castle were from the autonomous region; at Dénia Castle they were from the state; and at Petrer Castle they came from the province, including some from locally and some from further afield. Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Mola Castle had a continuous visiting schedule (http://www.turismovillena.com, http:// www.denia.net and http://museodamasonavarro.blogspot. com.es). Visits were guided at Atalaya Castle, self-guided and guided at Dénia Castle, and guided at Petrer Castle. People carrying out guided visits had training in tourism, geography and history, which were classic profiles for carrying out the work of a cultural guide. Finally, Dénia Castle was the only one with interactive modules for guided visits, namely, explanatory panels.
Restoration activities had been undertaken at Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle. The expected results were achieved at Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle because these actions contributed to keeping them in good condition, as well as preventing their deterioration. However at Atalaya Castle, this is not the case because, as the interviewee pointed out “(…) the most appropriate materials have not always been used and detailed studies of affected areas have not been done”. It was planned to continue with these works at Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle, but not at Atalaya Castle because everything was practically restored. 5.6.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 52)
5.6.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 49) Research activities had been undertaken in all fortifications between 2003 and 2013. The historical research produced the expected results because progress was made in their knowledge. It consisted of archaeological excavations and topographical mapping at Atalaya Castle; of archaeological interventions, literature search and study of graffiti at Dénia Castle; of archaeological soundings and tracing of stonemason’s marks at Petrer Castle; and of archaeological excavation, literature search in files and study of materials from previous campaigns at Salvatierra Castle. New interventions were planned, except in Salvatierra Castle because it was not a priority for the city council.
Didactics and/or dissemination activities had been undertaken at all the castles. Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle had great activity, with multiple actions, while Salvatierra Castle had carried out only one intervention. Both Atalaya Castle and Petrer Castle were part of interesting dissemination projects such as the Vinalopó Castles Route. The expected results had been achieved and people interviewed agreed that these interventions had achieved a better knowledge of the castles and better dissemination of information. Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle decided to undertake new actions, but not at Salvatierra
142
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 49. Research data (group 6) Castles
Management Data: Research Actions between 2003 and 2013
“Topographical mapping with 3D scanner of Almohad vaults from the two first floors of the keep (2012)” -Atalaya Castle “Archaeological excavation (2012)” -“Archaeological excavation (2013)” “Archaeological intervention in the esplanade of the governor’s palace (2009)” -“Archaeological intervention in the ancient village (2009)” -Dénia Castle “Archaeological intervention and literature search on the ancient church (2013)” -“Study of graffiti (2003-2013)” -“Study of some parts of the citadel (2010-present)” “Archaeological sounding of the lower ward (2005)” -Petrer Castle “Archaeological sounding of noble’s rooms and tracing of stonemason’s marks (2008)” “Archaeological excavation (2006)” -Salvatierra “Literature search in files (2006)” Castle -“Study of materials from previous campaigns (2006)”
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Historical
“Yes, because they have achieved a better knowledge of the castle”
“Yes, studying the results from the archaeological excavations in 2012 and 2013”
Historical
“Yes, because they “Yes, excavation and have achieved a better documentation of the knowledge of the citadel, and excavation castle” of the ancient church”
Historical
“Yes, because the evolution of the castle is now better known”
“Yes, it is planned to update the study of graffiti from the dungeon”
Historical
“Yes, because they have achieved a better knowledge of the castle”
“No, because it is not a priority for the city council”
Table 50. Preservation data (group 6) Castles
Atalaya Castle
Management Data: Preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013 “Maintenance” -“Consolidation of the second line from the wall and keep (2012 and 2013)” -“Action in vaults inside the tower (2012 and 2013)” -“Action in the eastern part of the lower ward (2012 and 2013)”
Types
Preservation
Dénia Castle
“Maintenance” -“Consolidation of walls (20042007)”
Preservation
Petrer Castle
“Maintenance”
Preservation
Salvatierra Castle
“No”
-
143
Expected results
Execution of new actions
“Yes, but with reservations because maintenance is not always permanent, since “Yes, maintenance works (more the most appropriate regular)” materials have not been used and there have not been detailed studies of affected areas”
“Yes, it is planned to undertake maintenance works and “Yes, because the process recovery projects on the of ruin has been stopped” staircase from the Duke of Lerma’s Palace and the Verger Alto” “Yes, because it helps the “Yes, continuing with castle to be kept in better maintenance works” condition” “No, because it is not a priority for the city council”
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 51. Restoration data (group 6) Castles
Management Data: Restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Atalaya Castle
“Restoration of objects from Atalaya Castle (2004)” -“Restoration of objects from Atalaya Castle (2005)” -“Consolidation of the second line from the wall and keep (2012 and 2013)” -“Action in vaults inside the tower (2012 and 2103)” -“Action in the eastern part of the lower ward (2012 and 2013)”
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Restoration
“Yes, but with reservations because the most appropriate materials were not always used and no detailed studies of affected areas have been done”
“No, because everything is practically restored”
“Yes, it is planned to undertake maintenance works and recovery “Yes, because the process projects on the staircase from the of ruin has been stopped” Duke of Lerma’s Palace and the Verger Alto”
Dénia Castle
“Consolidation of walls (20042007)”
Restoration
Petrer Castle
“Recovery of the cover (2005)” -“Restoration of the citadel and recovery of the environment (2008 and 2009)” -“Recovery of the environment by paving the esplanade of the castle, and arrangement of surroundings and access ways (2008 and 2009)”
Restoration
“Yes, because in both cases its state of preservation has improved”
“Yes, restoration of the wall”
Salvatierra Castle
“No”
-
-
“No, because it is not a priority for the city council”
Atalaya Castle the interviewee would opt for a mixed model, traditional and interactive, and in Petrer Castle for interactive “because it favours learning more, it is more fun and allows one to discover things for oneself”.
Castle because, as in previous comments, “(...) it is not a priority for the city council”. Finally, Atalaya Castle and Petrer Castle were musealised. In the case of Atalaya Castle, it was traditional “due to a lack of economic resources and (technical) condition of rooms”. In Petrer Castle it was partial and also traditional because there were some spaces with different uses, for example, to celebrate weddings. The case of Dénia Castle was unique. The interviewee considered that it was not musealised, but it housed the archaeological museum with contents relating to the fortification. Thus, it could be said that the castle was musealised, although such musealisation was not focused exclusively on the fortification and also covered other periods of history. According to Víctor Manuel López-Menchero Bendito (2013: 39), Dénia Castle was musealised following a traditional and partial model because a historical space, the Governor’s Palace, had been arranged to receive visitors. This allowed visitors to get to know the history of Dénia and its fortification, from the Iberian era until the eighteenth century. Salvatierra Castle was not musealised because it was not suitable for it. In
5.7. Group 7 5.7.1. Block 1. Data on People Interviewed (Table 53) From these data, it could be seen that in only one case, Orihuela Castle was it not possible to characterise the person responsible for its management because he did not want to participate. The interviewee in Elda Castle worked as a cultural heritage technician or similar. He was not a novice when he started in his current position. In terms of training, he had a degree in philosophy and literature (module in geography and history). Furthermore, he had a doctoral degree but not specific training in cultural heritage management.
144
Atalaya Castle
Castles
“Exhibitions” -“Dramatisedvisits” -“Guided visits” -“Gastronomic workshops” -“Embassy of Moors and Christians Festival” -“Weddings” -“Medieval fair” -“Scientific and informative publications” -“Talks” -“Didactic workshops” -“Open days” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” -“Merchandising” -“Heritage signage” -“Musealisation” -“Inclusion of information in websites”
Actions between 2003 and 2013
Tables 52. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 6) Expected results
Execution of new actions
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination
“Yes, replacing the musealisation; as well as exhibitions, dramatised visits, guided visits, gastronomic workshops, embassy of Moors “Yes, because more Didactics and/or and Christians Festival, medieval people go to the dissemination fair, scientific and informative castle” publications, talks, didactic workshops, open days; continuing in the Vinalopó Castles Route; merchandising and inclusion of information in websites”
Types
Complete
Musealisation
Best model
Traditional “due to a lack of economic Mixed “because I consider it resources and more effective condition of than a single rooms (without model” an interactive musealisation)”
Type
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
145
Dénia Castle
Castles
Didactics and/or dissemination
“Guided visits” -“Dramatisedvisits” -“Dissemination sheets” -“Talks” -“Book presentations” -“Open days” -“Inclusion of information in websites” -“Collaboration with educational centres” -“Workshops” -“Seminars” -“Temporaryexhibitions” -“Scientific and informative publications” “Yes,because the society of Dénia is very receptive to what is done”
Expected results
Musealisation
“Yes, guided visits, dramatised visits, dissemination sheets, “No,because talks, book presentations, open Dénia Castle has days, inclusion of information museum resources in websites, collaboration with but it is not educationnal centres, workshops, musealised” seminars and temporary exhibitions”
Execution of new actions
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Types
Actions between 2003 and 2013
Type
Best model
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
146
“Signage within a hiking route (20082009)”
Petrer Castle
Salvatierra Castle
Actions between 2003 and 2013
“Wedding celebrations” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” -“Open days” -“Didactic workshops” -“Scientific and informative publications” -“Inclusion in blogs and websites” -“Concerts” -“Theatre shows” -“Recitals” -“Conferences” -“Celebration of festivals”
Castles Expected results
147 Didactics and/or dissemination
“Yes, because they have improved the knowledge of the monument”
“Yes, because the monument is better Didactics and/or known, people dissemination appreciate it more and have it close by”
Types
“No, because it is not a priority for the city council”
“Yes, continuing with these activities”
Execution of new actions
Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination Type
“No, because its state of preservation does not allow it”
Traditional “due to the Partial “because space, economic there are rooms destined for other resources and the information to be uses” provided”
Musealisation
Interactive and didactic “because it favours more learning, it is more fun and allows visitors to discover things for themselves”
Best model
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 53. Main characteristics of people interviewed (group 7) Castles
Characteristics Current position -Year -Previous similar position
Training
Specific training in cultural heritage management
Execution of management tasks
Elda Castle
Municipal archaeologist -2010 -Yes
Degree in Philosophy and Literature. Module in Geography and History -Doctoral Degree: Doctoral Thesis in History
No
Yes
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
The interviewee considered management tools to be interesting. However, it was made clear that “There is an application problem (...) (because) the city council has not consistently followed the instructions and guidelines of the master plan (…)”. Its funding sources came from the city council and Generalitat Valenciana.
5.7.2. Block 2. General Management Data (Tables 54a-e) Taking into account that in this group there was only one fortification which had been analysed, it was noted that Elda Castle depended on cultural heritage. This castle has had management tools since 1996. Its fundamental aspects were focused on “(…) describing and analysing (from an archaeological, architectural and heritage point of view) the situation at the monument”. Thus, “the perspectives of enhancement were detailed and the main lines of future interventions were established”. The management tool had not been drafted by the current interdisciplinary team.
In respect to strengths and weaknesses, it presented some common and some diverse characteristics grouped in a series of values (Table 55). Elda Castle did not have evaluative studies because other aspects had been prioritised, such as the “preservation and
Tables 54a. General management data (group 7) Castles
Characteristics Council department
Management tool
If not, why? Have you considered drafting it?
Elda Castle
“Cultural heritage”
“Yes”
-
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Tables 54b. General management data (group 7) Castles
Characteristics If yes, indicate start and end dates
If yes, indicate the title and its fundamental aspects
Do you find these management tools useful?
Elda Castle
“1996 to present”
“Elda Castle Preservation and Recovery Master Plan” -“The plan consisted of describing and analysing (from an archaeological, architectural and heritage point of view) the situation at the monument”. Thus, “the perspectives of enhancement were detailed and the main lines of future interventions were established”
“The master plan as a technical management tool has been quite useful. There is an application problem (...) (because) the city council has not consistently followed the instructions and guidelines of the master plan, but technically they have been useful and, in fact, still are”
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
148
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Tables 54c. General management data (group 7) Castles
Characteristics Has the interdisciplinary Funding sources Interdisciplinary team drafted for 2013 (€) team the management tool?
Strengths
Weaknesses
No
Grants from public organisations: 58,000 €
“Architectu-re: a castle that becomes a palace” -“General accessibility (from the A-31 motorway) and local accessibility (from the city centre)” -“Size, diversity and width of spaces”
“State of preservation” -“Ignorance of the population”
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Yes, composed of six researchers, Elda Castle technicians and professionals in cultural heritage
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Tables 54d. General management data (group 7) Castles
Characteristics Evaluative studies
Characteristics of evaluative studies
Number of visitors (2013)
Months with most visitors (2013)
Months with fewest visitors (2013)
Elda Castle
“No”
-
-
-
-
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Tables 54e. General management data (group 7) Castles
Characteristics Visitors’ place of origin
Continuous visiting schedule
Types of visit
Training of people carrying out visits
Interactive modules of self-guided visits
Elda Castle
-
“No,because there is a preservation risk that prevents access”
-
-
-
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Table 55. Strengths and weaknesses (group 7) Castles
Characteristics Strengths
Weaknesses
Elda Castle
Dimensions -Accessibility -Architecture
State of preservation -Lack of knowledge
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
produced the expected results because it had resulted in progress being made in knowledge about it. It consisted of archaeological excavations, architectural interventions, compilation of data from previous researches, as well as a photographic and literature search on files. Other actions had been carried out, for instance the geological research to find the base of the monument and updating the master plan.
technical work of analytic/descriptive character”, but also because it was not suitable to receive visits. 5.7.3. Block 3. Management Data: Research (Table 56) Research activities had been undertaken only in Elda Castle between 2003 and 2013. The historical research had
149
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 56. Research data (group 7) Castles
Management data: research Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Elda Castle
“Compilation of previous researches (2003)” -“Research on historical accesses to the monument (2003 and 2004)” -“Archaeological excavation, as well as photographic and literature search in files (2003 and 2004)” -“Archaeological excavation in the passage (2005)” -“Archaeological excavation in Noblemen’s rooms (2007)” -“Archaeological and architectural intervention to discover the Renaissance wall (2013)” -“Geotechnical soundings to discover the base of the monument (2013)” -“Master plan updating (2013)”
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Historical -Others
Expected results
Execution of new actions
“Yes, because they have achieved a better knowledge of the monument”
“Yes, the restoration of the Renaissance shield is expected for 2014, which will entail the corresponding archaeological intervention”
Information not Information not provided provided
Information not provided
Table 57. Preservation data (group 7) Castles
Management Data: Preservation Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Elda Castle
“Consolidation of the shield door (2004)” -“Consolidation of the passage (2005)” -“Joining up excavations in 1980-2001 (2007)” -“Consolidation of noblemen’s rooms, store rooms, and a section of the Islamic wall. Removal of inappropriate elements (2007 and 2009)” -“Repair and improvement of the fence, improvement and protection of cisterns and wells, and underpinning of one of its doors (2009)” -“Master plan updating (2013)”
Preservation
“Yes, because they have allowed the preservation of some threatened parts, as well as improving its security”
“Yes, the restoration of the Renaissance shield that will lead to the corresponding intervention”
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
150
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Moreover, it is planned to undertake new interventions in the Renaissance shield area.
its state of preservation and security. It was planned to continue with these works in the Renaissance shield.
5.7.4. Block 4. Management Data: Preservation (Table 57)
5.7.6. Block 6. Management Data: Didactics and/or Dissemination (Table 59)
Preservation activities had been undertaken only in Elda Castle. The expected results were achieved because these actions improved its state of preservation and security. It was planned to continue with these works in the Renaissance shield. 5.7.5. Block 5. Management Data: Restoration (Table 58)
Didactics or dissemination activities had been undertaken in Elda Castle. The expected results were not achieved since it was still a great unknown castle among the population. It was also part of some interesting dissemination projects such as the Vinalopó Castles Route, and it was planned to continue with these actions, for example, guided visits to see the preservation and restoration works.
Restoration activities had been undertaken at Elda Castle. The expected results were achieved, since they improved
As for its musealisation, Elda Castle lacked it because it was not suitable.
Table 58. Restoration data (group 7) Castles
Management Data: Restoration Actions between 2003 and 2013
Types
Expected results
Execution of new actions
Elda Castle
“Restoration of the shield door (2004)” -“Restoration of the passage (2005)” -“Restoration of noblemen’s rooms, store rooms and a section of the Islamic wall” -“Removal of inappropriate elements (2007 and 2009)”
Restoration
“Yes,because they have allowed some very damaged parts of the monument to be restored”
“Yes, the restoration of the Renaissance shield will lead to the corresponding intervention”
Orihuela Castle
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
Table 59. Didactics and/or dissemination data (group 7) Castles
Management data: didactics and/or dissemination Actions between 2003 and 2013
Elda Castle
Orihuela Castle
Types
Expected results
Execution of Musealisation new actions
“Open days until 2009 (closure year)” -“Specialised “No, because Elda and informative Castle remains as one publications” of the great unknown “No,because “Yes, to castles for the local -it does not populace, and since carry out the Didactics “Dissemination meet the campaign 2009 it cannot be and/or workshops on the visited. (In addition) it to open for conditions and dissemination monument” requirements works from is devalued, from the -for it” technical and citizen’s autumn 2014” point of view, due to “Guided visits until some actions that were 2009 (closure year)” done at the time” -“Inclusion in the Vinalopó Castles Route” Information not provided
Information not provided
Information not provided
151
Information not provided
Information not provided
Type
Best model
-
-
Information Information not provided not provided
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
5.8. Group 8
and Castile with a large number of castles. It included the following municipalities: Banyeres de Mariola, Biar, Castalla, Villena, Sax, Elda, Petrer, Novelda, Elche, Santa Pola and Onil. In spite of its declaration of intent, C. Martínez Ibáñez (2006: 705 and 706) defined it as,
No information was provided for Santa Bárbara Castle for any of the blocks. 5.9. Management Proposals
“Routes of an eminently tourist and economic nature, which are inserted (...) within the framework of heritage dissemination, protection and new management, since they are based on it and must respond to its legal regulation, but their purposes are mainly on territorial and rural development, etc.” (Martínez, 2006: 706).
Part of this work has highlighted the situation of various castles in the province of Alicante. Therefore, it was considered worthwhile to include a section about basic ideas which may help to initiate, improve and strengthen their management. However, these ideas are not the definitive remedy to very complex situations, which should be analysed individually and in detail. These situations also depended on multiple factors which exceeded the scope of this work.
However, the route has not been developed beyond being presented on the internet and at different tourism fairs, such as FITUR, and with the edition of a tourist brochure with historical and useful information in Spanish and English – schedules, prices, etc. To date, coordinated actions have not been undertaken to make it a real tourist product, since there were some castles which were not suitable to be visited. They did not have any interpretation centre showing the characteristics of the route or offer common or interrelated content, together with a management policy designed to maintain quality standards over time. Neither were there any regular meetings among member municipalities. In addition, the text was only written in Spanish, a fact that reduced its reach to potential visitors who do not speak or understand the language. Therefore, in order to make this route work, there should be more active participation between municipalities, the Provincial Council of Alicante and the Generalitat Valenciana. It might also be extended to other provinces or autonomous communities based on the historic border between the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. It might even be considered as one of the “(...) cultural routes with an instrumental and management character that pursue heritage protection and dissemination (...)”(Martínez, 2006: 705 and 706). They are characterised by:
At a broader level, the Generalitat Valenciana should play a more active role. On their own initiative or in cooperation with city councils, provincial councils and the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports, under the National Plan of Defensive Architecture, it is essential that they update those fortifications included in the General Inventory of Valencian Cultural Heritage. At least it should include basic data such as geographic coordinates, photographs, location, description of material remains and the state of preservation and historical data. This task should be fundamental because many sheets only have the name [of the fortification]. Without good information, it would be difficult to manage them. One task of this exercise should also be to review and specify the concept of “castle” for Andalusian and Christian societies. This question would be necessary because, after some researches undertaken at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first century, “traditional” fortifications do not seem to have been specified. For example, Almizra Castle corresponded to a type of fortified granary (Torró and Segura, 2000). These updating tasks are initiatives that the Generalitat Valenciana had successfully carried out with other cultural manifestations, such as rock art (Hernández, García, Barciela, Martorell and Molina, 2005: 170-175), or underwater cultural assets (http://www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/arqueologia/subacuatica/ subacuatica.html). This work should be the starting point for planning direct and indirect future interventions that depend on multiple factors: state of preservation, cultural and economic viability, degree of recovery, degree of knowledge, etc.
“(…) establishing a proven model of heritage management that responds to the objectives of knowledge, dissemination or awareness; objectives which, on the other hand, differentiate this model from most of the tourist cultural routes” (Martínez, 2006: 709). This situation contrasts with the Andalusian Legacy: the Caliphate Route and the Almoravids and Almohads Route, both in Andalusia (Spain). They have been considered: “(…) a magnificent example of well-established quality tourist routes reflecting emerging trends that currently promote the protection and management of historical heritage, the fusion of heritage masses, creation of diverse cultural products gathered around the same brand image, support of networks with different public and private participants, heritage tools for tourism development, etc. without disregarding (...) interventions in cultural and natural assets which they are based on” (Martínez, 2006: 741 and 742).
Another action where the Generalitat Valenciana could play a very active role would be to participate in the Vinalopó Castles Route. It was an initiative developed by the Institute of Tourism Research (University of Alicante) with the support of the Costa Blanca Provincial Tourist Board, dependent on the Provincial Council of Alicante. This route was based on a geographic landmark, namely, the River Vinalopó and its neighbouring land, which was part of the border between the kingdoms of Aragon 152
Analysis of Experts’ Interviews and Management Proposals
Table 60. Names and proposals for the Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route Subroute Names
Proposed Names
Vinalopó Castles
Vinalopó Castles
Mountain Castles
Mountain Castles
Tudmir Castles
Segura Castles
Key of the Kingdom
Coastal Castles
Border of Fear Castles
The active participation of the Provincial Council of Alicante, through its Costa Blanca Provincial Tourist Board, has converted the Vinalopó Castles Route into the Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route which included the following routes: Vinalopó Castles, which does not coincide with the original because Onil Palace has been omitted (now integrated into the Mountain Castles route), but other castle routes are included; Key of the Kingdom Castles; Tudmir Castles; Mountain Castles; and Border of Fear Castles.
definition of the subroutes using identifiable and nonconfusing geographic criteria in contrast to current names (Table 60). Beyond the reduction from five to four routes, this change would also involve a reorganisation by taking into account their geographic positions. In this respect, Castalla Castle and Banyeres de Mariola Castle would become part of Mountain Castles; while those grouped in Key of the Kingdom Castles would belong to Coastal Castles, except for New Tabarca Island, which would be part of the Vinalopó Castles group.
Moreover, this new route followed the same pattern as its predecessor in terms of its presence on the internet, etc. (http://www.costablanca.org/Esp/Descubre_la_Costa_ Blanca/Castillos%20de%20la%20Costa%20Blanca/ Paginas/default.aspx). Likewise, any action to improve the condition of castles, fortresses, palaces and towers (many cannot be visited because they do not meet the conditions for it) [would be beneficial]. However lists of their contents can be found in many languages: Spanish, Valencian, English, French, German and Russian.
It would also be important to indicate the condition of each asset in order for them to be classified according to their category as a cultural tourist product. In this way, visits could be prioritised thus avoiding visitors wasting their time if there were no explanatory panels or if their state of preservation were to constitute a danger. Likewise, it would be necessary to equip the route with infrastructure at interpretation centres, making known its characteristics and those of its assets, as well as undertaking actions. With reference to fortifications, the Provincial Council of Alicante, in collaboration with city councils and the Generalitat Valenciana, should opt for direct intervention to initiate, improve and enhance them as a cultural tourist product. Each fortification had different needs, but at Biar Castle, Castalla Castle and Sax Castle the role as a product should be developed, culminating in their musealisation and/or improving the existing explanatory equipment. Others, such as Mola Castle, would need to begin their role with musealisation and installation of explanatory equipment. Guardamar del Segura Castle would need to improve its state of preservation. With these actions, they could be configured as reference landmarks in accordance with the proposal. Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guadalest Castle and Penella Castle would be the most outstanding fortifications of Mountain Castles. Guardamar del Segura Castle would be the most important of Segura Castles, while Dénia Castle and Santa Bárbara Castle would be crucial in Coastal Castles. As can be seen, there could be many interesting working possibilities, such as establishing synergies between nearby castles, eg. Castalla Castle and Sax Castle, which were part of larger entities (Mira, 2016; Mira, Bevià and Ortega, 2015); or between Atalaya Castle and Biar Castle, whose proximity and historical location would make the development of joint contents easier (http://www.costablanca.org/Eng).
This could be a suitable proposal because the Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route includes fortresses (Santa Pola), walls (Vila Joiosa and Calp), palaces (Elche and Onil), and interior and coastal towers (Campello and Torre de les Maçanes). Thus, the name Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route would not seem to be the most appropriate since it contains other constructions that are not castles. In order to avoid misunderstandings and exclusions, a new, more inclusive name would be needed, for example: Costa Blanca Castles, Fortresses, Palaces and Towers. As far as the subroutes are concerned, these could be named with precise geographic terms, Vinalopó Castles, because this is the name of a river which crosses part of the province of Alicante, with imprecise terms, Mountain Castles, as well as with defined historical terms, Tudmir Castles, and less defined terms, Key of the Kingdom Castles, and newly coined terms, Border of Fear Castles. There are a few anomalies: Tudmir Castles (http://www. regmurcia.com/servlet/s.Sl?sit=c,373,m,1915&r=ReP24811-DETALLE_REPORTAJESPADREs encompasses some assets such as Horadada Tower (Pilar de la Horadada), which are outside the chronological framework of that territory; Key of the Kingdom Castles does not specify the kingdom; and Border of Fear Castles corresponds to landmarks located on the coast which were the object of some corsair attacks. New names would also be necessary to avoid possible misunderstandings, for example a 153
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Other important interventions, such as the inclusion of fortifications in urban planning, should be addressed. This question, which depends on municipalities, could be fundamental in a territory managed by urbanism in recent years.
• • •
Furthermore, unmanaged castles should start being managed, those managed occasionally should be managed continuously, and those managed continuously should continue in that way. At an individual level, as well as for each group, some interventions were proposed. These could be in addition to actions carried out at castles.
• •
For unmanaged castles, it is essential to start managing them occasionally or continuously. From scientific data which was available, didactics or dissemination interventions should be considered: they do not have a high economic cost and make fortifications more visible. Publicising their history and cultural heritage should be the first step to carrying out further activities, for example archaeological excavation, preservation and restoration of material remains. Basic preservation tasks could also be undertaken, such as the elimination of weeds and vegetation, where it is damaging to remains, always however under the supervision of qualified professionals. Municipalities lacking the economic capacity to hire experts in cultural heritage might request technical assistance from higher administrations, according to section 4.3 of Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage. The participation of different administrative fields could be very important to optimise resources and obtain the best results, as well as the establishment of management synergies between nearby castles.
•
due to bad planning or a lack of preservation, could be avoided. Getting to know unpublished aspects or those that have not yet been studied. Preserving and, if necessary, restoring material elements. Improving activities such as guided visits and dramatised visits, at Atalaya Castle, Banyeres de Mariola Castle, Biar Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Dénia Castle and Petrer Castle, and highlighting their role in Moorish and Christian Festivals at Atalaya Castle. Creating museum displays at fortifications, whether by completing or renewing them. Establishing management synergies between nearby municipalities, such as at Castalla Castle and Sax Castle. Obtaining favourable conditions so that castles may be included in the Vinalopó Castles and Costa Blanca 100 Castles Routes.
• Opting for physical and intellectual accessibility, as far as possible.
As for castles managed occasionally, the objective should be for them to be managed continuously. This would initially require drafting a study by an interdisciplinary team, and if necessary, a master plan. Both tools could serve to carry out a successful recovery, particularly since fortifications included in this group would have the potential for it. A basic aspect that should be included, in my view, would be to establish an inter-municipal collaboration for their recovery, as well as for improvement of their condition, state of preservation and intellectual accessibility, so that they could be visited. Lastly, and given their high degree of recovery already, initial studies would be of little value in castles already managed continuously. Thus, a master plan should be drafted for fortifications that lack one. This tool should be used to achieve their complete recovery, for example at Aljau Castle, Banyeres de Mariola Castle, Biar Castle, Elda Castle and Sax Castle. For complex heritage sites such as Castalla Castle and Sax Castle it would facilitate their management. To this end, several actions could be carried out: • Undertaking economic studies and sustainability analysis to know how far to intervene, and the costs, including maintenance. In this way, unfinished interventions, 154
6 Research Synthesis and Conclusions These pages contain the research synthesis and some conclusions following on from those detailed in a previous work (Mira, 2013).
a methodological point of view, being object and subject of a study at the same time was unusual. But this was because there was no other technician in the Castalla Municipal Service for Cultural Heritage. • With one exception, interviews took place normally, although the degree of involvement varied considerably. There were some very participative interviewees whereas others limited themselves to “complying with the record” or showed little interest. In this sense, there were answers that could have yielded much more than they did because they sometimes digressed towards the political establishment. This lack of involvement was not a unique characteristic in this research, as it was also experienced in other works such as that of Ana María Mansilla Castaño (2004: 62-65).
1. This research is unprecedented and complex due to the multiple factors involved when managing fortifications in the province of Alicante. It is a study that complements the historical research of castles, archaeological, architectural and documentary. But, in spite of being a great advance, its implementation has not been free from methodological difficulties: • As ground-breaking research, like any pioneer study, it has advantages and disadvantages. The opening up of new approaches that go beyond the classic fields of analysis regarding castles is an advantage. Whereas, among the disadvantages, the impossibility of comparing or contrasting it with other similar works, at least for the moment must be emphasised. • The sample had to be limited to make the study feasible. For this reason, other interesting architectural items such as palaces, look-out towers (torres de huerta in Alicante) and fortresses should also be analysed [in the future]. In many cases these are cultural assets which are also managed by city councils. Likewise, fortifications in private ownership were not included because they did not form part of the objectives. • It was impossible to study the whole sample because some managers declined to participate in this research, such as those for Aixa Castle, Vall d’Ebo Castle, Orihuela Castle and Santa Bárbara Castle. However it is true that Aixa Castle and Vall d’Ebo Castle belong to groups of many fortifications which have been studied, this is not the case for Orihuela Castle and Santa Bárbara Castle. The analysis of Orihuela Castle was fundamental to get to know how it is managed and to compare it with that of Elda Castle, which is in the same group. Santa Bárbara Castle was the only example in its group, and since it was not studied, its analysis was left blank. Hopefully these gaps may be completed in the future, especially those referred to in groups 7 and 8, in order to achieve a more overall and complete picture. • The people interviewed were specialists linked to the local administration, but experts such as politicians were left out. Nevertheless, there were two issues that should be highlighted. The first was that an expert who did not work in the city council and did not manage the fortification was interviewed at Sax Castle because he drafted its master plan. The second was that, in Castalla Castle, the interviewee was the same person who has undertaken this project, since there was only a technician in charge of its management. That is to say, he had the double function of doctoral candidate and expert. From
2. This study has enabled its general objective to be achieved namely [to discover]: How municipalities have managed their fortifications in the province of Alicante between 2003 and 2013. In fact, unmanaged castles were also documented within a local context. Therefore, some fortifications either had been managed or were planned to be managed in the future, along with others that have been managed occasionally or continuously. Taking into account that local administration is not very efficient, the role of municipalities is crucial for an effective management: within the limits of their capabilities, they should manage cultural heritage by implementing some of the proposals contained in the previous chapter and not put aside their responsibilities. Specifically, of 42 castles studied, 12 (28.57 per cent) were not managed, 18(42.86 per cent) were managed occasionally, at least one action has been taken, and 12 (28.57 per cent) were managed continuously, actions have been taken from time to time, between 2003 and 2013 (Table 61): In group 1, six fortifications (40 per cent) have not been managed and nine (60 per cent) have been managed occasionally. In group 2, four fortifications (57.14 per cent) have not been managed, two (28.57 per cent) have been managed occasionally and one (14.29 per cent) has been managed continuously. In group 3, one fortification (33.33 per cent) has not been managed, one (33.33 per cent) has been managed occasionally and one (33.33 per cent) has been managed continuously. In group 4, four fortifications (50 per cent) have been managed occasionally and four (50 per cent) have been managed continuously. In group 5, one fortification (25 per cent) has not been managed, one (25 per cent) has been managed occasionally and two (50 per cent) have been managed continuously. In group 6, one fortification (25 per cent) has been managed occasionally and three (75 per cent) have been managed continuously. The only fortification in group 7 (100 per cent) has been 155
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 61. Managed and unmanaged castles Group
Castles
Unmanaged
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
X / Occasionally
Alfofra Castle
X
Almizra Castle
X / Occasionally
Benifallim Castle
X
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
X / Occasionally
Costurera or Seta Castle
X
Garx Castle 1
X / Occasionally
Guadalest Castle
X / Occasionally
Laguar Castle
X
Margarida Castle
X / Occasionally
Penàguila Castle
X / Occasionally
Planes Castle
X / Occasionally
Santa Bàrbara Castle
X / Occasionally
Tàrbena Castle
2
X
Travadell Castle
X
Agost Castle
X
Biar Castle
X / Continuously
Busot Castle
X / Occasionally
Murta Castle
X
Polop de la Marina Castle
X
Relleu Castle
X / Occasionally
Tibi Castle
X
Banyeres de Mariola Castle 3
4
5
X / Continuously
Ocaive Castle
X
Torre Grossa Castle
X / Occasionally
Ambra Castle
X / Occasionally
Callosa de Segura Castle
X / Occasionally
Castalla Castle
X / Continuously
Cocentaina Castle
X / Continuously
Guardamar del Segura Castle
X / Occasionally
Monòver Castle
X / Occasionally
Penella Castle
X / Continuously
Sax Castle
X / Continuously
Aljau Castle
X / Continuously
Mola Castle
X / Continuously
Río Castle
X / Occasionally
Vermell Castle
6
7
Managed
X
Atalaya Castle
X / Continuously
Dénia Castle
X / Continuously
Petrer Castle
X / Continuously
Salvatierra Castle
X / Occasionally
Elda Castle
X / Continuously
managed continuously. Bearing in mind these groups and their results, it certainly presents a bleak picture which needs to be changed in order to avoid both deterioration and loss of an important part of the Valencian cultural heritage (see Figure 59):
3.With regard to the specific project objective; To get to know who (cultural heritage and tourism technicians, museum directors, etc) and which bodies and/or municipal institutions (cultural heritage services, cultural services, museums, tourist offices, etc.) are 156
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
Figure 59. Castles management between 2003 and 2013. Table 62. Group 1: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Balones
Costurera or Seta Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Benifallim
Benifallim Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Bolulla
Garx Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Urbanism
Castell de Castells
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Culture
Confrides
Alfofra Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Camp de Mirra
Almizra Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Culture
Architecture-urbanism Castell de Guadalest
Guadalest Castle
Culture -Tourism
Vall de Gallinera
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Vall de Laguar
Laguar Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Millena
Travadell Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Penàguila
Penàguila Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Architecture-urbanism
Culture -Urbanism
Planes
Tourism
Planes Castle Margarida Castle
Sella
Santa Bàrbara Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Culture
Tàrbena
Tàrbena Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Culture
urbanism and tourism. In Alcalà or Benissili Castle, Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Laguar Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle (46.67 per cent) the people interviewed have not been able to specify the area. Almizra Castle, Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle, Santa Bàrbara Castle and Tàrbena Castle (26.67 per cent) depend on culture; Margarida Castle and Planes Castle (13.32 per cent) on culture and urbanism; Garx Castle (6.67 per cent) on urbanism; and Guadalest Castle (6.67 per cent) on culture and tourism.
responsible for this management with reference to the castles analysed (whether they have been carried out or not), this has been achieved by determining who and which bodies have been in charge of them between 2003 and 2013 (Tables 62-68): Group 1 (Table 62) Of 15 fortifications, 14 (93.33 per cent) are related to architecture-urbanism. Only Guadalest Castle (6.67 per cent) is subordinated to several profiles: architecture157
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 63. Group 2: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Culture
Culture
Architecture-urbanism
Culture -Tourism -Urbanism
Agost Castle Agost Murta Castle
Biar
Biar Castle Tourism
Busot
Busot Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Heritage
Polop de la Marina
Polop de la Marina Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Culture
Relleu
Relleu Castle
Culture
Culture
Architecture-urbanism
Culture -Heritage -Urbanism
Tibi
Tibi Castle
Group 2 (Table 63)
Group 3 (Table 64)
Of seven fortifications, three (42.86 per cent), Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Relleu Castle, are related to culture; two (28.57 per cent), Busot Castle and Polop de la Marina Castle, to architecture-urbanism; and two (28.57 per cent), Biar Castle and Tibi Castle, to several profiles: culture, heritage, tourism and architecture-urbanism. Agost Castle, Murta Castle, Polop de la Marina Castle and Relleu Castle (57.13 per cent) depend on culture; Busot Castle (14.29 per cent) on heritage; Biar Castle (14.29 per cent) on culture, tourism and urbanism; and Tibi Castle (14.29 per cent) on culture, heritage and urbanism.
Of three fortifications, two (66.67 per cent), Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Torre Grossa Castle, are related to culture; and one (33.33 per cent), Ocaive Castle, to architecture-urbanism. Banyeres de Mariola Castle (33.33per cent) depends on culture; Ocaive Castle (33.33 per cent) on public works and urbanism; and Torre Grossa Castle (33.33 per cent) on cultural heritage.
Table 64. Group 3: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Banyeres de Mariola
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Culture
Culture -Festivals -Heritage -Tourism
Pedreguer
Ocaive Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Public works and urbanism
Xixona
Torre Grossa Castle
Culture
Cultural heritage
158
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
Table 65. Group 4: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Callosa de Segura
Callosa de Segura Castle
Culture
Culture
Castalla
Castalla Castle
Culture
Cultural heritage
Culture
Culture
Cocentaina Castle Cocentaina Penella Castle Guardamar del Segura
Guardamar del Segura Castle
Culture
Archaeological heritage
Monòver
Monòver Castle
Architecture-urbanism
?
Pego
Ambra Castle
Architecture-urbanism
Culture
Culture Academy Sax
Sax Castle
Culture
Culture
Architecture-urbanism Environment
Group 4 (Table 65)
Group 5 (Table 66)
Of eight fortifications, five (62.50 per cent), Callosa de Segura Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle and Penella Castle, are related to culture; two (25 per cent), Ambra Castle and Monòver Castle, to architecture-urbanism; and one (12.50 per cent), Sax Castle, to several profiles: culture, academy, architecture-urbanism and environment. Ambra Castle, Callosa de Segura Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle (62.50 per cent) depend on culture; Castalla Castle (12.50 per cent) depends on cultural heritage; Guardamar del Segura Castle (12.50 per cent) on archaeological heritage; and in Monòver Castle (12.50 per cent) the interviewee was not able to specify the area.
Of four castles, two (50 per cent), Aljau Castle and Río Castle, are related to culture; one (25 per cent), Vermell Castle, to architecture-urbanism; and one (25 per cent), Mola Castle, to several profiles: culture and tourism. Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle (75 per cent) depend on culture; and Vermell Castle (25 per cent) depends on urbanism.
Table 66. Group 5: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Culture
Culture
Architecture-urbanism
Urbanism
Aljau Castle Aspe Río Castle Ibi
Vermell Castle
Novelda
Mola Castle
Culture Culture Turismo
159
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Table 67. Group 6: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Dénia
Dénia Castle
Culture
Culture
Petrer
Petrer Castle
Culture
Culture -Heritage
Culture
Culture
Villena
Atalaya Castle Salvatierra Castle
Table 68. Group 7: professional profiles and management areas (2003-2013) Municipalities
Castles
Professional Profiles of People Interviewed
Management Area(s)
Elda
Elda Castle
Culture
Culture and heritage
Group 6 (Table 67)
This fact should not be a major obstacle, but it is because unmanaged castles, as well as those managed occasionally, depend largely on technicians with a profile related to architecture-urbanism rather than to cultural heritage. This situation should be reversed by facilitating their professional retraining, but also by incorporating professionals in cultural heritage management. In this sense, municipalities could share external services or request technical assistance from higher level administrations, such as the Provincial Council of Alicante and the Generalitat Valenciana. In fact, section 4.3 of Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage, permits technical assistance to be requested.
These castles are all related to culture. Atalaya Castle, Dénia Castle and Salvatierra Castle (75 per cent) depend on culture; and Petrer Castle (25 per cent) depends on culture and heritage. Group 7 (Table 68) This fortification is related to culture. In this case, it depends on culture and heritage. From an overall perspective, results can be seen in Figures 60 and 61.
4.The secondary objective namely: Identifying similarities and differences, at management level, among the fortifications studied was also achieved. In this sense, similarities and differences were at management level, as shown in Tables 11-61. Some of them are highlighted below:
As shown in Figures 60 and 61, there was a contradiction since most of the fortifications depend on a profile related to architecture-urbanism and administrative fields linked to culture. Therefore, there is no consistency between technical profiles and administrative fields.
Figure 60. Professional profiles of interviewed people.
160
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
Figure 61. Management areas in charge of castles.
Group 1
Group 2
Similarities
Similarities
The predominance of architecture-urbanism (93.75 per cent) stands out. Only in Guadalest Castle (6.25 per cent) has a different professional profile been documented: i.e. tourism. The specific training in cultural heritage management is reduced (33.33 per cent), Alfofra Castle, Benifallim Castle, Costurera or Seta Castle, Penàguila Castle and Travadell Castle, (Table 11). These fortifications lack management tools and it is not planned to draft any (Table 12a), even though people interviewed considered them to be useful (Table 12b). Likewise, they do not have a management team (Table 12c).
It was possible to determine their administrative field (Tables 19a-b). These fortifications lack management tools and it is not planned to draft any. Nevertheless, people interviewed, except those responsible for Agost Castle and Murta Castle, considered them to be useful. Likewise, they did not have a management team (Table 19d). On the other hand, most of the fortifications have not had funding sources or their own economic resources, except Biar Castle and Busot Castle (Table 19c). Finally, except in Biar Castle, evaluative studies have not been undertaken (Table 19d).
On the other hand, most of the fortifications have not had funding sources or their own economic resources (Table 12c). Finally, evaluative studies have not been carried out (Table 12d).
Differences There are unmanaged fortifications as well as others which are managed occasionally or continuously (Tables 21-24). Moreover, several different professional profiles were documented: architecture-urbanism (50 per cent), Biar Castle, Busot Castle, Polop de la Marina Castle and Tibi Castle; culture (37.50 per cent), Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Relleu Castle; and tourism (12.50 per cent), Biar Castle. Specific training in cultural heritage management was reduced (37.50 per cent), Agost Castle, Murta Castle and Relleu Castle (Table 18).
Differences There are some unmanaged fortifications along with others which are managed occasionally (Tables 14-17). In this case, at least one action has been taken and it could have been direct or indirect, for example by including them in urban planning tools. As for unmanaged fortifications, it was impossible to determine their administrative field (Table 12a). By contrast, castles managed occasionally depend on several such fields, although this does not mean they are more or better managed. Finally, there are differences in their strengths and weaknesses, in spite of being comparable in a few cases (Table 13).
Both unmanaged fortifications and those managed occasionally or continuously depend on several administrative fields (Table 19a), although this does not mean they are more or better managed. Finally, there are some differences in their strengths and weaknesses, in spite of coinciding in a few cases (Table 20). 161
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Group 3
On the other hand, most of the fortifications have not had funding sources or their own economic resources (Table 26b). Finally, evaluative studies have not been undertaken, except in the case of Banyeres de Mariola Castle (Table 32).
Several professional profiles were documented: architecture-urbanism (25 per cent), Ambra Castle, Monòver Castle and Sax Castle; culture (66.67 per cent), Callosa de Segura Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle, Penella Castle and Sax Castle; and environment (8.33 per cent), Sax Castle. This was the first time that the profile of cultural heritage technician was registered, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle, as well as that of professor and environment technician, Sax Castle. Moreover, in Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle experts have specific training in cultural heritage management (Table 32). Finally, there were some differences in their strengths and weaknesses, in spite of being comparable in a few cases (Table 34).
Differences
Group 5
There are unmanaged fortifications as well as others which are managed occasionally or continuously (Tables 28-31). Moreover, several different professional profiles were documented: architecture-urbanism (33.33 per cent), Ocaive Castle; and culture (66.67 per cent), Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Torre Grossa Castle. Likewise, there was no specific training in cultural heritage management (Table 25).
Similarities
Similarities It was possible to determine their administrative field (Table 26a). These fortifications lack management tools, except for Banyeres de Mariola Castle. Nevertheless, people interviewed considered them to be useful (Table 26b). Likewise, they did not have a management team (Table 26c).
It was possible to determine all their administrative fields (Table 40a). Moreover, people interviewed considered management tools to be useful (Table 45). Likewise, all fortifications, except Vermell Castle had a management team (Table 40c). On the other hand, most of the fortifications have not had funding sources or their own economic resources, with the exception of Río Castle (Table 40c). Finally, evaluative studies have not been undertaken (Table 40d).
Both unmanaged fortifications and those managed occasionally or continuously depend on several administrative fields, although this does not mean they are more or better managed (Table 26a). Finally, there are some differences in their strengths and weaknesses, in spite of being comparable in a few cases (Table 27).
Differences There are unmanaged fortifications as well as others which are managed occasionally or continuously (Tables 41-45). Likewise, they lack management tools (Table 45).
Group 4 Similarities
Several professional profiles were documented: architecture-urbanism (20 per cent), Vermell Castle; culture (60 per cent), Aljau Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle; and tourism (20 per cent), Mola Castle. Those responsible for Aljau Castle and Río Castle have specific training in cultural heritage management (Table 39). The unmanaged fortification depends on urbanism, whereas castles managed occasionally or continuously depend on culture and historical heritage (Table 40a). Finally, there are some differences in their strengths and weaknesses, in spite of being comparable in a few cases (Table 40c).
It was possible to determine their administrative field (Table 33a). However, in Monòver Castle the interviewee was not able to specify the council department. All the interviewees considered management tools to be useful, except at Ambra Castle (Table 33b). Likewise, all fortifications lacked a management team, except at Castalla Castle (Table 33c). On the other hand, Ambra Castle, Castalla Castle and Guardamar del Segura Castle have had funding sources. In the case of Ambra Castle and Guardamar del Segura Castle it was only 1€, an insufficient amount to carry out any action (Table 33c). Finally, except in Castalla Castle and Cocentaina Castle, evaluative studies have not been undertaken (Table 33d).
Group 6 Similarities
Differences
It was possible to determine their administrative field (Table 47a). Moreover, people interviewed considered management tools to be useful (Table 47b).
There are fortifications managed occasionally as well as others which are managed continuously (Tables 35-38). Castalla Castle and Sax Castle have management tools, while the rest of the fortifications lacked them (Tables 33ab).
On the other hand, the only professional profile was related to culture (Table 46). Finally, all the castles are managed continuously or occasionally (Tables 49-52). 162
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
2), Tables 28-31 (group 3), Tables 35-38 (group 4), Tables 42-45 (group 5), Tables 49-52 (group 6) and Tables 56-59 (group 7), but the following issues are worth stressing:
Differences Evaluative studies have been carried out only at Atalaya Castle and Dénia Castle (Table 47d). In addition, all fortifications lack management tools except for Dénia Castle (Table 47a). Likewise, Atalaya Castle and Dénia Castle have a management team, whereas Petrer Castle and Salvatierra Castle lack it (Table 47c).
• Actions have been undertaken in many castles, 30 vs 12 (Figure 62). • Actions are more numerous and regular in groups 4, 5, 6 and 7 than in groups 1, 2 and 3. Castalla Castle and Sax Castle (group 4), Atalaya Castle and Dénia Castle (group 6), and Elda Castle (group 7) are the fortifications with the most actions. • The distribution by groups is as follows: • Group 1 (Tables 14-17) with 15 fortifications. Actions have been carried out in ten (66.67 per cent). • Group 2 (Tables 21-24) with seven fortifications. Actions have been carried out in three (42.86 per cent). • Group 3 (Tables 28-31) with three fortifications. Actions have been carried out in two (66.67 per cent). • Group 4 (Tables 35-38) with eight fortifications. Actions have been carried out in all of them (100 per cent). • Group 5 (Tables 42-45) with four fortifications. Actions have been carried out in three (75 per cent). • Group 6 (Tables 49-52) with four fortifications. Actions have been carried out in all of them (100 per cent). • Group 7 (Tables 56-59) with a single fortification. Actions have been carried out in it (100 per cent). • The following interventions have been undertaken: • Group 1 (Tables 14-17): research, one (6.25 per cent); preservation, 13 (65 per cent); restoration, zero (0 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, six (30 per cent). A total of 20 actions have been carried out, with preservation predominating. • Group 2 (Tables 21-24): research, three (14.19 per cent); preservation, five (4.81 per cent); restoration, five (23.81 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, eight (38.19 per cent). A total of 21 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating.
Except for Atalaya Castle and Dénia Castle, the rest have not had funding sources or their own economic resources (Table 47c). Finally, there are some differences in their strengths and weaknesses, in spite of being comparable in a few cases (Table 48). Group 7 Since only a single castle has been studied (Tables 53-59), similarities and differences cannot be established with other fortifications. As can be seen, despite many common points each fortification goes its own way. In castles from larger municipalities, groups 6, 7 and 8, since they have greater resources it is understood that they are able to undertake very active management policies. But in fortifications from small and medium-sized municipalities, groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, it is essential that they establish joint management synergies along with individual policies, especially if the historical relationship among castles is taken into account. 5. The last of the secondary objectives namely: Knowing what actions of research, preservation, restoration, didactics and/or dissemination have been carried out in the castles studied was also achieved. All the actions were documented, but not all of them were carried out on all the fortifications, nor did they all have the same impact, as some were applied directly to the castles and others indirectly. In addition, there are some castles where no action has been taken. Detailed information by groups can be found in Tables 14-17 (group 1), Tables 21-24 (group
Figure 62. Actions undertaken in castles.
163
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
• Group 3 (Tables 28-31): research, zero (0 per cent); preservation, two (10 per cent); restoration, one (5per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 17 (85 per cent). A total of 20 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 4 (Tables 35-38): research, nine (15 per cent); preservation, 16 (26.67 per cent); restoration, three (5 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 32 (53.33 per cent). A total of 60 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 5 (Tables 42-45): research, two (9.53 per cent); preservation, five (23.81 per cent); restoration, one (4.76 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 13 (61.90 per cent). A total of 21 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 6 (Tables 49-52): research, 13 (18.85 per cent); preservation, seven (10.14 per cent); restoration, nine (13.04 per cent); didactics and/ or dissemination, 40 (57.97 per cent). A total of 69 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 7 (Tables 56-59): research, eight (34.78 per cent); preservation, six (26.09 per cent); restoration, four (17.39 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, five (21.74 per cent). A total of 23 actions have been carried out, with research predominating.
•
•
•
•
•
At an overall level, it can be clearly seen that didactics and/ or dissemination predominate, followed by preservation, restoration and research, however this does not imply that fortifications are in good condition (Figure 63):
•
• Before the financial crisis (2003-2007), the following actions had been carried out in the fortifications studied, (note: numbering does not match with that in previous tables because in many inatances the actions had been carried out before and during the crisis), (Figure 64): • Group 1 (Tables 14-17): research, zero (0 per cent); preservation, nine (64.29 per cent); restoration, one (5.26 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, four
(21.05 per cent). A total of 14 actions have been carried out, with preservation predominating. Group 2 (Tables 21-24): research, one (8.33 per cent); preservation, five (41.67 per cent); restoration, two (16.67 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, four (33.33 per cent). A total of 12 actions have been carried out, with preservation predominating. Group 3 (Tables 28-31): research, zero (0 per cent); preservation, two (16.67 per cent); restoration, zero (0 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 10 (83.33 per cent). A total of 12 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. Group 4 (Tables 40-43): research, zero (0 per cent); preservation, 17 (38.64 per cent); restoration, one (2.27 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 26 (59.09 per cent). A total of 53 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. Group 5 (Tables 42-45): research, one (6.67 per cent); preservation, four (26.67 per cent); restoration, one (6.67 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, nine (60 per cent). A total of 15 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. Group 6 (Tables 49-52): research, five (9.62 per cent); preservation, four (7.68 per cent); restoration, five (9.62 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 38 (73.08 per cent). A total of 52 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. Group 7 (Tables 56-59): research, five (29.41 per cent); preservation, four (23.53 per cent); restoration, four (23.53 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, four (23.53 per cent). A total of 17 actions have been carried out, with research predominating.
As is shown in Figure 64 above, didactics and/or dissemination predominate. This is reasonable considering that they have a lower cost than restoration, for example.
Figure 63. Overall actions of research, preservation, restoration, didactics and/or dissemination.
164
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
Figure 64. Actions carried out before the crisis (2003-2007).
• During the financial crisis (2008-2013), the following actions have been carried out in the fortifications studied (Figure 65): • Group 1 (Tables 14-17): research, one (7.14 per cent); preservation, six (42.86 per cent); restoration, one (7.14 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, six (42.86 per cent). A total of 14 actions have been carried out, with preservation, didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 2 (Tables 21-24): research, two (13.33 per cent); preservation, three (20 per cent); restoration, three (20 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, seven (46.67 per cent). A total of 15 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 3 (Tables 28-31): research, zero (0 per cent); preservation, two (15.38 per cent); restoration, one (7.69 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 10 (85 per cent). A total of 13 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 4 (Tables 35-38): research, eight (12.90 per cent); preservation, 20 (32.26 per cent); restoration, two (3.23 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 32 (51.61 per cent). A total of 62 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 5 (Tables 42-45): research, one (5.26 per cent); preservation, five (26.32 per cent); restoration, zero (0 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 13 (68.42 per cent). A total of 19 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 6 (Tables 49-52): research, nine (15.25 per cent); preservation, six (10.17 per cent); restoration, five (8.48 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, 39 (66.10 per cent). A total of 59 actions have been carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. • Group 7 (Tables 56-59): research, three (25 per cent); preservation, three (25 per cent); restoration, one (8.33 per cent); didactics and/or dissemination, five (41.67 per cent). A total of 12 actions have been
carried out, with didactics and/or dissemination predominating. As in the timeframe 2003-2007, didactics and/or dissemination predominate. This is reasonable considering that they have a lower cost than restoration, for example. In total, more actions have been carried out during the crisis (2008-2013) than in the boom years beforehand (2003-2007): 201vs166. This fact is curious and surprising: both periods show similar amounts of preservation and restoration, 45 (2003-2007) / 45 (2008-2013) vs 14 / 13, but this situation changes with regard to research, 12 / 24, didactics and/or dissemination, 95 / 119. Generally, it would have been preferable to see a better balance in the number of actions undertaken without the predominance of didactics and/or dissemination. It is common to promote cultural assets that are unmanaged or managed occasionally, and those whose transformation from a heritage source into a tourist cultural product has not yet been done or is in progress. Some examples are Ambra Castle and Callosa de Segura Castle (http://www. pego.org/cultura/castell-ambra.html and http://www. callosadesegura.es/turismo/ruta-patrimonial/castillo-decallosa). However, the existence of a timeframe (20032013) should not hide the fact that their management might have been more active in the past than now, eg. Mola Castle. On the contrary, there are some fortifications with a very active management nowadays, such as Castalla Castle, but they might be managed only occasionally in the future or even become unmanaged. Although this project has not been able to provide answers to that situation, a new research topic could reflect on these facts and how to avoid them. 6. The hypothesis: Size of municipalities, managers’ training and administrative fields and/or institutions where this management is carried out have conditioned castles between 2003 and 2013:
165
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 65. Actions carried out during the crisis (2008-2013).
• The size of municipalities has been an important factor with regard to the management of these fortifications continuously or occasionally. In groups 1, 2 and 3, with less than 101 to 1,000; 1,001 to 5,000; 5,001 to 10,000 inhabitants, it is common to find unmanaged castles and castles which are managed only occasionally. In groups 4, 5, 6 and 7, with 10,001 to 20,000; 20,001 to 30,000; 30,001 to 50,000; 50,001 to 100,000 inhabitants, fortifications managed continuously predominate, with the exception of Vermell Castle, in group 5. • Another factor to consider is managers’ training. As can be seen in Table 11 (group 1), Table 18 (group 2), Table 25 (group 3), Table 32 (group 4), Table 39 (group 5), Table 46 (group 6) and Table 53 (group 7), manager’s profiles are related to culture from group 3 to group 7. There are many fortifications managed continuously or occasionally for which a large number of actions have been carried out and only a few have not been managed, for example Ocaive Castle in group 3 and Vermell Castle in group 5. It is true that castles in groups 1 and 2, have had few actions carried out but most have been managed occasionally. Nevertheless, this management has resulted in few actions with little variety in group 1 (Tables 14-17) and 2 (Tables 21-24). As has been noted above, it seems logical to raise the incorporation of professionals regarding cultural heritage management throughout these proposals. • Finally, municipal management departments have been another factor to consider. Many castles in groups 4, 5, 6 and 7 depend on culture or cultural heritage, and actions have been carried out occasionally or continuously; except for Monòver Castle, in group 4, where the interviewee could not specify the department although some actions had been carried out; also Vermell Castle, in group 5, depends on urbanism but actions have been carried out. On the other hand, the situation for fortifications in groups 1, 2 and 3 is varied. For example, most of the castles in group 1, whose areas have not been determined, are unmanaged, except for Tàrbena Castle, which depends on culture. The rest, such as Guadalest Castle and Margarida Castle, are managed partially, with two management departments:
culture and tourism, and culture and urbanism. This is a positive fact because more resources could be available to intervene. However this can also lead tension, friction and contradictions as in the case of Mola Castle, where the archaeological museum and the tourist office have organised guided visits without coordinating with each other. There are no castles which do not belong to any department in group 2. All of them, except for Busot Castle, depend on culture, and many departments participate in Biar Castle and Tibi Castle. However having more departments does not imply better management. Tibi Castle is a good example because it depends on three municipal departments, culture, heritage and urbanism, but it has not been managed at all. Fortifications in group 3 also depend on urbanism, Ocaive Castle, on cultural heritage, Torre Grossa Castle and on multiple areas such as culture, heritage, tourism or festivals, eg. Banyeres de Mariola Castle. 7. The realisation of the conceptual and theoretical framework has allowed verification that the administration of the municipal castles in the province of Alicante lacks a theoretical body. But cultural heritage management in Spain in general is poor when compared to what is done in other countries, such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where cultural heritage management has been implemented for decades, as well as other disciplines such as anthropology and history. In any case, drafting this framework has not been difficult and the different contributions can serve to create a theoretical framework, as is the case in other sciences. The boom experienced in Spain during the second half of 1990s (twentieth century) will also help with its formation: this boom arose from the execution of some interventions, in many cases within the scope of public works which experienced their now familiar problems, such as overruns and unsustainable projects, also from the emergence of some publications specialising in cultural heritage management which have filled an existing gap in scientific literature, and from the emergence of training and a specialised profession, etc. 166
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
Table 69. Castles, type of management, professional profiles and management department(s) Groups
Castles
Unmanaged
Costurera or Seta Castle Benifallim Castle
Managed occasionally
Managed continuously
Professional profiles
Management department(s)
X
Architectureurbanism
Unknown
X
Architectureurbanism
Unknown
Garx Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Urbanism
Castell de Castells or Serrella Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Culture
Architectureurbanism
Unknown
Architectureurbanism
Culture
Alfofra Castle
X
Almizra Castle
X
Guadalest Castle
X
Architectureurbanism Tourism
1
Alcalà or Benissili Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Unknown
Laguar Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Unknown
Travadell Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Unknown Unknown
Penàguila Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Planes Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Margarida Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Santa Bàrbara Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Culture Culture
Tàrbena Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Agost Castle
X
Culture
Murta Castle
X
Culture Architectureurbanism
Biar Castle
X Tourism
2
Culture -Tourism
Busot Castle Polop de la Marina Castle
X X
Relleu Castle
Tibi Castle
X
X
167
Culture -Urbanism
Culture Culture -Tourism -Urbanism
Architectureurbanism
Heritage
Architectureurbanism
Culture
Culture
Culture
Architectureurbanism
Culture -Heritage -Urbanism
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Groups
Castles
Unmanaged
Managed occasionally
Banyeres de Mariola Castle
Managed continuously
X
Professional profiles
Management department(s)
Culture
Culture -Festivals -Heritage -Tourism
Architectureurbanism
Public works and urbanism
3
Ocaive Castle
4
X
Torre Grossa Castle
X
Culture
Cultural heritage
Callosa de Segura Castle
X
Culture
Culture
Castalla Castle
X
Culture
Cultural heritage
Cocentaina Castle
X
Culture
Culture
Penella Castle
X
Culture
Cultural heritage
Guardamar del Segura Castle
X
Culture
Archaeological heritage
Monòver Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Unknown
Ambra Castle
X
Architectureurbanism
Culture
Culture Academy Sax Castle
X
Environment
Culture
Architectureurbanism Aljau Castle
X
Río Castle 5
Vermell Castle
X X
Mola Castle
X
Culture
Culture
Architectureurbanism
Urbanism
Culture
Culture
Tourism Dénia Castle
6
7
X
Petrer Castle
X
Atalaya Castle
X
Salvatierra Castle
X
Elda Castle
X
8. This boom has served to confirm that cultural heritage is a multifaceted concept which can be approached from different perspectives, (not always convergent and susceptible to conflict), either from the point of view of regulation, reality, or from the academic and scientific world, to understand its role in society. Its definition is complex, and sometimes confusing in the Spanish case,
Culture
Culture
Culture
Culture -Heritage
Culture
Culture
Culture
Cultural heritage
due to the existence of twenty five decrees, one issued by the state and twenty four by the community, which are not always in agreement and do not use the same terminology. This diversity is also seen in some projects mentioned above which have defined “cultural heritage”, as a concept which usually embraces cultural assets, both tangible and intangible, and has ceased to occupy a space 168
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
reserved just for historians and lawyers but is now open to other professionals in the field of humanities, such as anthropologists or art historians, or of social sciences, such as economists. Finally, it must be said that it has a contradictory relationship with society which, depending on the situation, can be either in favour or against it. In order to avoid conflict, it would be a very positive move to encourage the participation of ordinary citizens in cultural heritage management. Unlike in other countries, vertical management policy is still rooted in Spain, from the political, academic and technical apex to the base of society. In my opinion, this is one of the main challenges for Spanish cultural heritage management.
as well as the rest of the cultural heritage, both tangible and intangible, and natural heritage found in castles or in the space where they are located. The Castalla Castle Heritage Site is an exception. This name covers the group of cultural assets, both tangible and intangible, and natural assets, which have common historical, environmental and heritage value located on the promontory of Castalla Castle (Mira, 2016; Mira, Bevià and Ortega, 2015) (Figure 66). After an initial proposal for characterisation in 2006 and subsequent updating in 2009 and 2012, this heritage site consists at the moment of the following cultural and natural assets: Castalla Castle (1) (Menéndez et al., 2010); a possible albacara, walled enclosure used as an animal shelter, (2) (Mira and Ortega, 2010); possible Fossar Vell necropolis (3) (Ortega and Esquembre, 2010: 90); vila de Castalla, ancient medieval village, (4) (Bevià, Camarero and Jiménez, 1985; Mira and Ortega, 2010; Ortega and Esquembre, 2010; Torró 1988-1989; Vidal and Navarro, 1985); traditional cultivated landscape (5); Dipòsit Vell archaeological site (6) (Cerdà, 1994); stations of the cross (7) and Castalla battlefield (8) (González, 2010); water tank in 1928 (9) (Cerdà and Espinosa, 2010); water tank in 1960 (10) (Cerdà and Espinosa, 2010); farming shelters (11, 12 and 13); Holy Week (Ariño, Hernández and Melis, 1999); Moors and Christians Festival (Ariño, 1988; Ariño and Alcaraz, 2001; González, 2004); María bell ringing (Llop, 2011); 224 species of plants belonging to 59 botanical families and 37 species of vertebrate animals (Mira and Liñana, 2014).
9. Its management is a multifaceted concept, but the cultural heritage technician is the key, a highly qualified profile that is still little recognised academically and professionally in Spain. It was only found in three fortifications, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle and Penella Castle, although there are other profiles closely related to it such as: municipal archaeologist, culture assistant and museum director. Thus, in order to achieve better management, it would be necessary to have more cultural heritage managers, either through professional retraining of managers who have little connection with it, eg. architects, or by incorporating new experts. 10. Unlike other countries where cultural heritage management is mixed, (public and private), and decentralised, in Spain it is public and decentralised. This means that community administration controls heritage management, not central government administration in spite of there being interesting initiatives for castles, such as the National Plan of Defensive Architecture. Nevertheless, city councils (municipalities) play an important role even though they do not have enough resources, as can be seen in state and community legislation in terms of local administration, cultural heritage management and urbanism. Living every day with castles and other cultural assets, without councils’ participation, their recovery is more complicated. On the other hand, cultural heritage management is still dependent on public resources, so that during the financial crisis it was affected by some cuts that prevented the continuation of these actions, as well as preventing the start of new ones and the recruitment of new staff. The exception is the Prado Museum, which has its own legal framework for optimising its initiatives and its funding, refer to: (https://www. museodelprado.es/la-institucion/marco-legal/ley-estatutoreal-decreto). This situation contrasts with England (English Heritage) or Scotland (Historic Scotland), which have legal frameworks to cover the development of dynamic, flexible and innovative management, incorporating professionals, for their economic sustainability, offering multiple possibilities for cooperation. Thus, they do not have to depend exclusively on public resources, especially during the financial crisis.
This cultural and natural heritage is located in an extensive area of 11 hectares on the hill of Castalla Castle. Its cultural assets embrace Prehistory from the second millennium BC up to the present day, covering a period when the role of this heritage site acted as a border enclave between the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. Its importance is also notable as a scene for celebrations in Castalla, such as Moorish or Christian Festivals and for Holy Week; it was also a place of strategic importance during the War of Independence against French invaders (12 July 1812 and 13 April 1813). This site is also closely linked to the Protected Landscape of Serra del Maigmó and Serra del Sit (http://www. agroambient.gva.es/web/espacios-protegidos/serra-delmaigmo-y-serra-del-sit). The rock mass is part of the Serra del Maigmó from a geological point of view (Marco, 1987: 17), although for unknown reasons it was outside the boundary of the protected landscape area. Besides sharing geological characteristics, they have common plants and animals: thirty-one animal species found in this site are also present in the protected landscape, in addition, eight plant species are documented. In respect to animals, the house martin is noteworthy (Delichon urbicum), while in respect to plants the man orchid should be highlighted (Aceras anthropophorum), a protected orchid in the Valencian Catalogue of Threatened Plant Species (Mira, 2016; Mira, Bevià and Ortega, 2015; http://bdb.cma.gva. es/ficha.asp?id=13115). From these propositions, it can
11. This research has demonstrated how management focuses on castles in their field of study, in the province of Alicante. This trend contrasts with Scotland, England or Canada, where management embraces fortifications, 169
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Figure 66. Castalla Castle Heritage Site (2017).
be seen that its management is inclusive embracing both cultural, tangible and intangible, and natural heritage present on the hill, in accordance with the study by Mª.Á. Querol Fernández (1995) concerning the management of both heritages by unifying actions, making reference to some examples in the English-speaking world: Castle Hill (Canada), Castle Campbell (Scotland) and Dover Castle (England). These examples have many similarities with the Castalla Castle Heritage Site because they are located in spaces with both cultural and natural heritage (http://
www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/nl/castlehill/index.aspx; http:// data.historic-scotland.gov.uk/pls/htmldb/f?p=2400:15:0:: ::GARDEN:GDL00089; Mumby and Catling, 2014). On the other hand, Castalla Castle is not the only example in the province of Alicante. This doctoral thesis has identified another example nearby which forms part of its group, that is to say Sax Castle (Figure 67). This heritage site (Mira, 2016: 42), of 9.47 hectares, consists of the following cultural and natural assets: Sax Castle (1) (Simón and Segura 2005: 295-334); a well for storing snow (2) (http://www. 170
Research Synthesis and Conclusions
Figure 67. Sax Castle Heritage Site (2017). Source: J.A. Mira Rico, 2016, p. 42, fig.5.
cult.gva.es/dgpa/brl/detalles_brl.asp?IdInmueble=7173); Peña de Sax archaeological site (3) (http://www.sax.es/ ruta-del-castillo/en-el-frio-horno-metalurgico); a cross (4); triangulation station (5); Municipal Natural Landscape (6); 226 species of plants belonging to 56 botanical families and 21 species of vertebrate animals (Maestre and Pascual 2001: 173-294).
parajes-naturales-municipales/pnm-ladera-del-castillode-sax-sax; http://www.sax.es/areas-municipales/ medio-ambiente/paraje-natural-municipal). • Their cultural and natural management: while management is overall in Castalla Castle, for Sax Castle it is only partial. Although this does not mean that it is better in Castalla than in Sax, or vice versa, it is true that there is less potential to achieve a more attractive tourist product for the public, by combining cultural and natural aspects differently from other fortifications.
This site demonstrates some characteristics in common with those at Castalla. Its cultural heritage dates from the second millennium BC, Peña de Sax archaeological site, to the present day, with fortificationas which formed a border enclave between the kingdoms of Aragon and Castile. In terms of natural characteristics, it has 25 endemic species of plants (Maestre and Pascual 2001: 182 and 183). Most of them are common in the Iberian Peninsula, eg. Carduus bourgeanus, but there are also species particular to the Valencian Community, such as Rhamnus lycioides subspecie borgiae. In terms of animals, the house martin, Delichon urbicum can be highlighted. Moreover, both heritage sites have comparable animal species: for example, house sparrow, Passer domesticus, Iberian wall lizard, Podarcis hispanica and the west European hedgehog, Erinaceus europaeus; as well as their plant species, Hypericum ericoides subspecie ericoides, Rhamnus lycioides subspecie borgiae, Silene mellifera and Teucrium thymifolium.
The characteristics of these two sites make them perfect laboratories in order to put into practice the idea of integrated management and to take advantage of it, by developing the concept of heritage sites as superior entities which embrace a diverse number of cultural and natural assets. To that end, as shown in a previous work (Mira, 2016), they should become cultural assets with the category of cultural parks, understood as being “The space containing significant elements of cultural heritage integrated in a relevant physical environment because of its landscape and ecological value” (section 26.1.Ah of Act 5/2007, 9 February, amending Act 4/1998, 11 June, on Valencian Cultural Heritage). Thus, the heritage assets, both cultural and natural, would be recognised and could be properly managed. On the other hand, the geographic proximity between Castalla and Sax, about twenty minutes away by car, their membership in the same group of castles studied and their common characteristics make them very attractive to establish synergies of management and to become heritage sites of interest at provincial and autonomous level.
The main differences between both heritage sites are the following (Mira, 2016; Mira, Bevià and Ortega, 2015): • Sax Castle has received greater recognition of its natural value through its protection as a municipal natural landscape (http://www.agroambient.gva.es/web/ 171
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
12. The qualitative methodology employed in this study has allowed many aspects about heritage management to be discovered which, to date, have not been given due attention. For example, the identification of unmanaged fortifications, as well as those managed continuously or occasionally; the professional profiles of those responsible (Tables 62-68); or the type and number of actions undertaken in castles managed continuously (Tables 1417, group 1; Tables 21-24, group 2; Tables 28-31, group 3; Tables 35-38, group 4; Tables 42-45, group 5; Tables 4952, group 6; and Tables 56-59, group 7). Furthermore, the following quantitative data have been documented:
Community, for example Castellón and Valencia, or nearby communities, such as Castilla-La Mancha and Murcia, to discover their similarities and differences. The study could even be broadened to other countries by taking advantage of specific international associations such as ICOFORT. New approaches to analysis, for example those involving the display of fortifications in a museum-like environment, could be carried out using unpublished material for the geographic area, as well as the characterisation of heritage sites and the analysis of cultural heritage management in other countries. In any case, the Generalitat Valenciana along with city councils should play a more active role in making their management more effective. For example they could update those castles included in the General Inventory of Valencian Cultural Heritage, or they could be involved more directly in tourist cultural products related to fortifications, such as the Costa Blanca 100 Castles Route. This route could be boosted by taking initiatives for its improvement, for example by streaming the data about the infrastructure of castles, as well as transforming it into a cultural route relating to heritage management, following the suggestions by C. Martínez Yáñez (2006: 705 and 706) which correspond “(…) to knowledge, dissemination and awareness objectives (…)” (Martínez, 2006: 709) apart from tourist and economic issues.
• Not many management teams were involved. Only seven fortifications of 42 (16.67 per cent) had them, Aljau Castle, Atalaya Castle, Castalla Castle, Dénia Castle, Elda Castle, Mola Castle and Río Castle. These results are poor, but this is the best way to manage cultural heritage. In comparison to the previous point, only three castles (7.14 per cent) had management tools and a management team, Castalla Castle, Dénia Castle and Elda Castle. • Evaluative studies had been carried out in seven castles out of 42 (16.67 per cent), Atalaya Castle, Banyeres de Mariola Castle, Biar Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Petrer Castle and Sax Castle. As with the previous point, overall, the results were poor. Only one fortification (2.38 per cent) had management tools, a management team and had carried out evaluative studies, that is to say, Castalla Castle. • There were many fortifications without funding sources in 2013. 11 castles out of 42 (26.19 per cent) were registered: Ambra Castle, Atalaya Castle, Banyeres de Mariola Castle, Biar Castle, Busot Castle, Castalla Castle, Dénia Castle, Elda Castle, Guardamar del Segura Castle, Río Castle and Sax Castle. Anyway, it must be recognised that the entry fee of 1€ for visitors at Ambra Castle and Guardamar del Segura Castle was an unsustainable amount with to manage them. People interviewed in Banyeres de Mariola Castle and Biar Castle were not able to specify the amount charged. • Only nine fortifications of 42 (21.43 per cent) had information about their visitor numbers in 2013. These were; Atalaya Castle, Banyeres de Mariola Castle, Biar Castle, Castalla Castle, Cocentaina Castle, Dénia Castle, Mola Castle, Petrer Castle and Sax Castle. This result reflects another very poor situation. Dénia Castle headed the list with 87,534 visitors and Cocentaina Castle concluded it with only 500 visitors. 13. This research should not be a journey with a beginning and an end. Thinking about the management of castles in the province of Alicante should be regarded as a starting point as to how it can be improved with a new approach. Some fortifications may establish synergies and develop a coordinated management to providing interesting results in the short, medium or long term. This fact is due to their geographic proximity, to their complementary historical value and to their common heritage value. This study could be extended to other provinces in the Valencian 172
References Anthropology, Archaeology, Architecture, Castles, Geography and History
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (2001a). Prólogo. Veinte años de excavaciones. ¿Veinte años de investigación? In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis. Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 9–16.
AA.VV. (1983). Catálogo de Monumentos y Conjuntos de la Comunidad Valenciana. Valencia: Conselleria de Cultura, Educació i Ciència de la Generalitat Valenciana.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (2001b). El Castillo del Río (Aspe, Medio Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 159–164.
AA.VV. (1994). Fortificaciones y castillos de Alicante. Valles del Vinalopó. Petrer: Caixapetrer. AA.VV. (2005). Historia de Sax. Sax: Comparsa de Moros. AA.VV. (2010). Guardamar del Segura. Arqueología y Museo. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (2005). Novelda y los orígenes de la arqueología medieval valenciana. Novelda. Arqueología y Museos. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 56–69.
Ariño Villarroya, Antonio. (1988). Festes, Rituals i Creences. In Joan Francesc Mira, coord., Temes d’Etnografia Valenciana. València: Edicions Alfons el Magnànim.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (2008). Elda: un asentamiento campesino fortificado de época islámica. Elda. Arqueología y Museo. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 96–103.
Ariño Villarroya, Antonio and Alcaraz i Santonja, Albert. (2001). Moros y Cristianos. In Antonio Ariño Villarroya and Vicent Lluis Salavert Sabiani, dir., Calendario de Fiestas de Verano de la Comunidad Valenciana. Valencia: Bancaja, pp. 14–37.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (2011). Arqueología de un poblado fortificado islámico de los siglos XII-XIII. In Rafael Azuar Ruiz and José Luis Menéndez Fueyo, coord., Xixona. Clau del Regne. Arqueología de la conquista: de poblado fortificado islámica a castillo cristiano (siglos XII-XIV). Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 41–49.
Ariño Villarroya, Antonio, Hernández i Martí, Gil Manuel and Melis Mayar, Ana. (1999). El Ciclo Pascual. In Antonio Ariño Villarroya and Vicent Lluis Salavert Sabiani, dir., Calendario de Fiestas de Verano de la Comunidad Valenciana. Valencia: Bancaja, pp. 59–87.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael and Menéndez Fueyo, José Luis (coord.) (2011). Xixona. Clau del Regne. Arqueología de la conquista: de poblado fortificado islámica a castillo cristiano (siglos XII-XIV). Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (1981). Castellología medieval alicantina: área meridional. Alicante: Instituto de Estudios Alicantinos. Diputación Provincial de Alicante. Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (1983). Panorama de la arqueología medieval de los valles alto y medio del Vinalopó (Alicante). Lvcentvm II, pp. 349–383.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael and Navarro Suárez, Francisco José (1995). Castillos de Alicante. León: Editorial Lancia. Azuar Ruiz, Rafael and Ruibal Rodríguez Amador (1998). Castillos de Alicante y Albacete. León: Everest.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (1985a). Els castells del Vinalopó. València: Generalitat Valenciana.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael, Navarro Poveda, Concepción and Benito Iborra, Miguel. (1985). Excavaciones medievales en el castillo de La Mola (Novelda, Alicante) I. Las cerámicas finas (ss. XII-XV). Novelda: Ayuntamiento de Novelda.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (1985b). Castillo de la Torre Grossa (Jijona). Alicante: Diputación provincial de Alicante. Azuar Ruiz, Rafael. (1989). Denia islámica: arqueología y poblamiento. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael, Martí Oltra, Javier and Pascual Pacheco, Josefa. (1999). El Castell d’Ambra (Pego). De las producciones andalusíes a las cerámicas de conquista feudal (siglo XIII). Arqueología y territorio medieval, 6, pp. 280–301.
Azuar Ruiz, Rafael (coord.) (1991). Fortificaciones y castillos de Alicante. Alicante: Caja de Ahorros Provincial de Alicante. Azuar Ruiz, Rafael (coord.) (1994). El castillo del Río (Aspe, Alicante). Arqueología de un asentamiento andalusí y la transición al feudalismo (siglos XII-XIII). Alicante: Diputación de Alicante.
Benito Iborra, Miguel. (1991). Fauna medieval. El valle sur del Vinalopó Medio. Alicante: Caja de Ahorros Provincial de Alicante.
173
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Bevià i Garcia, Màrius. (1984). L’albacar musulmà del castell d’Alacant. Sharq al-Andalus. Revista de Estudios Árabes,1, pp. 131–140.
en el segle XIV. Barcelona, Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas. Ferrer i Marset, Pere and Català Ferrer, Enrique (1996). El Comtat: una terra de castells. Cocentaina: Centre d’Estudis Contestans.
Bevià i Garcia, Màrius. (1995). La torre de Sant Jordi y el sistema de accesos del castillo medieval de Alacant. Castells, 5, pp. 48–56.
Gallud Martínez, Antonio and Del Rey Aynat, Miguel. (2010). Intervención y consolidación del segundo recinto amurallado del Castillo de Biar. Arché, 4–5, pp. 427–438.
Bevià i Garcia, Màrius and Camarero Casas, Eduardo. (1991). Propuesta para la reconstrucción morfológica de la alcazaba de Alicante: estructura anterior a las transformaciones renacentistas. In Rafael Azuar Ruiz, comp., Fortificaciones y castillos de Alicante. Alicante: Caja de Ahorros Provincial de Alicante, pp. 213–234.
Gisbert Santonja, Josep Antoni. (2009). Murallas de la villa. In Mauro Severo Hernández Pérez and Pere Ferrer Marset, coord., Graffiti. Arte espontáneo en Alicante. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 166–181.
Bevià Garcia, Màrius, Camarero Casas, Eduardo and Jiménez Tirado, Pilar. (1985). Informe previo del Castell de Castalla. San Joan d’Alacant.
Gisbert Santonja, Josep Antoni. (2014). Castell de Dénia. Dénia: Ajuntament de Dénia.
Bevià i Garcia, Màrius, Yus Cecilia, Silvia and Giner Martínez, Jaime. (2010). Intervención restauratoria e investigación histórica. El sistema de accesos al Castillo medieval de Alicante. MARQ. Arqueología y museos, 4, pp. 89–119.
González Hernández, Miguel Ángel. (2004). Castalla y Onil en el origen de la fiesta de moros y cristianos (1473–1804). Castalla: Agrupació de Comparses de Moros i Cristians de Castalla and Diputación de Alicante.
Bohigas, Ramón, García Manuel, Sarabia, P. María, Jáuregui, Modesto and Gutiérrez-Solana, Federico. (1989). Estudio comparativo por técnicas analíticas de morteros en dos fortalezas medievales de Cantabria: el Castillo de Comargo y el “Torrejón” de las Henestrosas. Acta historia et archaeologica mediaevalia, 10, pp. 267–181.
González Hernández, Miguel Ángel. (2010). De castillos y guerrilleros. Las milicias de voluntarios honrados de la Foia de Castalla en la Guerra de Independencia (1812– 1813). In José Luis Menéndez Fueyo, Màrius Bevià i Garcia, Juan Antonio Mira Rico and José Ramón Ortega Pérez, ed., El Castell de Castalla. Arqueología, arquitectura e historia de una fortificación medieval de frontera. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 255–265.
Cerdà i Bordera, Frederic Josep. (1983). Contribución al estudio arqueológico de la Foia de Castalla (Alicante). Lvcentvm, II, pp. 69–90. Cerdà i Bordera, Frederic Josep. (1994). El II mil·lenni a la Foia de Castalla (Alacant): excavacions arqueològiques a la Foia de la Perera (Castalla). Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi, 3, pp. 95–110.
Grau Mira, Ignasi. (2002). La organización del territorio en el área central de la Contestania Ibérica. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante. Grau Mira, Ignasi and Moratalla Jávega, Jesús. (1999). Espacios de control y zonas de transición en el área central de la Contestania ibérica. Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi, 8, pp. 179–202.
Cerdà i Bordera, Frederic Josep and Espinosa Mira José María. (2008). Castalla i el context històric: 1858– 2008. In Comparsa dels Moros Grocs de Castalla, ed., Comparsa dels Moros Grocs. 150 aniversari. 1858– 2008. Castalla: Comparsa dels Moros Grocs, pp. 9–247.
Guardia, José Jesús, Varas, Mª.J. and Suárez, F.J. (2013). Castillo-palacio de La Calahorra, Granada: influencia de los factores climáticos y arquitectónicos en el deterioro diferencial de sus fábricas pétreas. Materiales de construcción, 312, pp. 597–612.
Costa Cholbi, Pascual. (2003). Projecte de recuperació del Castell de l’Ocaive. Pedreguer. Pedreguer. Doménech Faus, Elisa (coord.) (2003). El patrimoni històric i artístic de Cocentaina. La seua recuperació. Les intervencions Arquitectòniques i Arqueològiques. Cocentaina: Ajuntament de Cocentaina.
Guichard, Pierre. (1982). Los castillos musulmanes en el Norte de la provincia de Alicante. Anales de Historia Medieval de la Universidad de Alicante, I, pp. 29–46.
Esquembre Bebia, Marco Aurelio. (1997). Asentamiento y territorio. Villena: Fundación Municipal José María Soler.
Guinot i Rodríguez, E. (1995). Els límits del Regne. El procés de formació territorial del País Valencià medieval (1238–1500). València: Institució Valenciana d’Estudis i Investigació-Institució Alfons el Magnànim.
Fawcett, Richard and Rutherford, Allan. (2011). Renewed life for Scottish Castles. York: Council for British Archaeology.
Hernández Alcaraz, Laura. (2001). El Castillo de la Atalaya (Villena, Alto Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 77–82.
Ferrer i Mallol, Maria Teresa. (1990). Organització i defensa d’un territori fronterer: la governació d’Oriola
174
References
Hernández Alcaraz, Laura. (2009). Castillo de la Atalaya. In Mauro Severo Hernández Pérez and Pere Ferrer i Marset, coord., Graffiti. Arte espontáneo en Alicante. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 296–315.
Martínez y Ortiz, José. (1993). Alicante y su territorio en la época de Jaime I de Aragón. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil Albert. Mateo Box, Juan. (1953). Historia de los castillos de la provincia de Alicante. Alicante: Ayuntamiento de Alicante.
Hernández Pérez, Mauro Severo and Pérez Burgos, José María. (1991). Excavaciones en la Peña de Sax. Revista de Fiestas. Without page numbers.
Menéndez Fueyo, José Luis. (1993). Excavaciones arqueológicas en el Castillo de Polop (Marina Baja, Alicante). Castells, 3, pp. 16–20.
Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (1986). Documentación medieval alicantina en el Archivo del Reino de Valencia I. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultural Juan Gil Albert.
Menéndez Fueyo, José Luis. (1995). El hisn de Planes (El Comtat, Alicante): un recinto fortificado almohade en el tránsito al feudalismo. Castells, 5, pp. 13–28.
Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (1995). Biar: un castillo de la frontera valenciana en la Edad Media. Alicante: Diputación de Alicante.
Menéndez Fueyo, José Luis. (2010). Arquitecturas del poder feudal en la provincia de Alicante: la domus maior del Castell de Castalla. In José Luis Menéndez Fueyo, Màrius Bevià i Garcia, Juan Antonio Mira Rico and José Ramón Ortega Pérez, ed., El Castell de Castalla. Arqueología, arquitectura e historia de una fortificación medieval de frontera. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 31–59.
Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (1996). Guardamar: un castillo en ruinas a finales de la Edad Media. Castells, 6 (1996), pp. 19–22. Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (2001a). Diccionario de historia medieval del Reino de Valencia, I. Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana.
Menéndez Fueyo, José Luis, Bevià i Garcia, Màrius, Mira Rico, Juan Antonio and Ortega Pérez, José Ramón. (ed.) (2010). El Castell de Castalla. Arqueología, arquitectura e historia de una fortificación medieval de frontera. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante.
Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (2001b). Diccionario de historia medieval del Reino de Valencia, II. Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana. Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (2001c). Diccionario de historia medieval del Reino de Valencia, III. Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana.
Mestre Sanchis. Antonio. (dir.) (1985). Historia de la provincia de Alicante. 7 vols. Murcia: Ediciones Mediterráneo.
Hinojosa Montalvo, José Ramón. (2001d). Diccionario de historia medieval del Reino de Valencia, IV. Valencia: Generalitat Valenciana.
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2012). Guía de visita del Castell de Castalla. Castalla: Ayuntamiento de Castalla.
Jover Maestre, Francisco Jover and Segura Herrero, Gabriel. (1995). El poblamiento antiguo en Petrer. De la prehistoria a la romanidad tardía. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (1990). Excavaciones arqueológicas en el castillo de La Mola (Novelda, Alicante) II. Las cerámicas comunes (ss. XIV-XV). Alicante: Ayuntamiento de Novelda.
Kiss, Deborah Marcela. (2011): El Castillo de Benifallim, Alicante: una aproximación desde la Arqueología. Lvcentvm, XXX, pp. 221–244.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (1991). Castillos del Vinalopó. In Rafael Azuar Ruiz, comp., Fortificaciones y castillos de Alicante. Alicante: Caja de Ahorros Provincial de Alicante, pp. 61–85.
Llop i Bayo, Francesc (2011): Informe sobre la campana de l’ermita de la Sang de Castalla, València.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (1992). Excavaciones y restauración del castillo de la Mola-Novelda. 1983– 1990. Alicante: Ayuntamiento de Novelda.
López Seguí, Eduardo. (1996a). El Castell d’Agost (Alicante). Castells, 6, pp. 23–30. López Seguí, Eduardo. (1996b). Arqueología en Agost (Alicante). Alicante, Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil Albert.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (1993). Graffitis y signos lapidarios del Castillo de la Mola (Novelda) y del Castillo de Petrer. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert.
Maestre Gil, Fernando Tomás and Pascual Abellán, Vicente José. (2001). Estudio sectorial para un proyecto de paraje natural municipal en el Castillo de Sax (Alicante). Investigaciones geográficas, nº 25, pp. 173–194.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (1994). Los castillos y el poblamiento en época bajo medieval en los valles del Vinalopó (Alicante). Fortificaciones y castillos en Alicante. Valles del Vinalopó. Petrer: Caixa Petrer, pp. 103–165.
Marco Molina, Juan Antonio. (1987). El macizo del Maigmó. Estudio de geografía física. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil Albert.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (2001a). Castillo de Petrer (Medio Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José
175
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 125–132.
Paz, Julián. (1978). Castillos y fortalezas del reino. Noticia de su estado y de sus alcaides durante los siglos XV y XVI. Madrid: Atlas.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (2001b). El Castillo de la Mola (Novelda, Medio Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 145–152.
Prieto Vinagre, José Julián. (2000). Gaztelu. Aportación informática al estudio de los castillos medievales de Navarra. Cuadernos de arqueología de la Universidad de Navarra, 8, pp. 237–266. Richart Gomá, Jaime. (2001). Noves notícies del castell de Biar al s. XVI. Festes de Moros i Cristians, pp. 108–110.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (2009a). Castillo de la Mola. In Mauro Severo Hernández Pérez and Pere Ferrer i Marset, coord., Graffiti. Arte espontáneo en Alicante. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 196–207.
Rubio Gomis, Federico. (1987). Catálogo de materiales y yacimientos de la cultura del Bronce Valenciano. Alcoi: Ajuntament d’Alcoi. Sáez Sánchez, Carlos. (1982). Los sitios de Sax y Chinchilla en la conquista del marquesado de Villena (1476). Anuario de Estudios Medievales, 12, pp. 585–596.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción. (2009b). Castillo de Petrer. In Mauro Severo Hernández Pérez and Pere Ferrer i Marset, coord., Graffiti. Arte espontáneo en Alicante. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 222–235.
Sánchez i Signes, Miquel. (2012). El castillo de Sax (Alicante): análisis arqueológico, arquitectónico y funcional de una fortaleza del valle del Vinalopó (ca. S. XII/XIII-XVI). Arqueología y territorio medieval, 19, pp. 1–34.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción and Hernández Alcaraz, Laura. (1997). Los grafitos medievales del valle Alto y Medio del río Vinalopó (Alicante). XXIV Congreso Nacional de Arqueología. Cartagena: Gobierno de la Región de Murcia, pp. 233–242.
Sebastián Fabuel, Vicente. (1985). El castell d’Almizra. In: I Congreso de Arqueología Medieval Española. Huesca: Asociación Española de Arqueología Medieval, pp. 201–219.
Navarro Poveda, Concepción and Ortega Pérez, José Ramón. (1997). El castillo de Monòver. Un punto estratégico en el corredor del Vinalopó. Revista Monòver, 97, pp. 47–50.
Sebastián Fabuel, Vicente. (1987). El Castell d’Almizra. Campaña 1985. In: II Congreso de Arqueología Medieval Española. Madrid: Asociación Española de Arqueología Medieval, pp. 167–177.
Olcina Doménech, Manuel Hipólito. (2009). Lucentum (Tossal de Manises, Alicante): arqueología e historia. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante.
Sebastián Fabuel, Vicente. (1989). Trabajos de recuperación histórica en el Castell d’Almizra. Castells, 2, sin número de páginas.
Olcina Doménech, Manuel Hipólito, Martínez Carmona, Adoración and Sala Sellés, Feliciana. (2009). La Illeta dels Banyets (El Campello, Alicante). Épocas Ibérica y Romana I. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante.
Sebastián Fabuel, Vicente. (1989). El Castell de d’Almizra. Noves aportacions. In: I Congrés d’estudis de l’AlcoiàComtat. Alcoi: Ajuntament d’Alcoi, Associació Cultural Alcoià-Comtat and Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, pp. 51–59.
Ortega Pérez, José Ramón and Esquembre Bebia, Marco Aurelio. (2001). Castillo de Monóvar (Medio Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 133–137.
Segura Herrero, Gabriel. (2001). El Castillo-Palacio de Elda (Medio Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 115–124.
Ortega Pérez, José Ramón and Esquembre Bebia, Marco Aurelio. (2010). Intervención arqueológica en el interior del recinto fortificado del Castell de Castalla. In José Luis Menéndez Fueyo, Màrius Bevià i Garcia, Juan Antonio Mira Rico and José Ramón Ortega Pérez, ed., El Castell de Castalla. Arqueología, arquitectura e historia de una fortificación medieval de frontera. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 61–106.
Segura Herrero, Gabriel and Simón García, José Luis. (2001). Castillo de Biar (Alto Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 55–59. Segura Martí, José María and Torró Abad, Josep. (1985). Torres i Castells de l’Alcoià-Comtat. Alcoi: Caja de Ahorros provincial de Alicante.
Ortega Pérez, José Ramón, Reina Gómez, Inmaculada, Martínez Español, Gonzalo and Esquembre Bebia, Marco Aurelio (coord.) (2013). Castellum y Raval del Aljau (Aspe, Alicante). Su recuperación tras siglos de silencio. Aspe: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan GilAlbert.
Segura Martí, José María and Torró i Abad, Josep. (2001). El Castillo de Almizra (Campo de Mirra, Alto Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García,
176
References
Varela Botella, Santiago. (2000). Actuaciones arquitectónicas recientes en el castillo de Biar. Revista de Festes de Moros i Cristians de Biar, pp. 128–129.
coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 45–50. Seijo Alonso, Francisco G. (1964): Castillos de Alicante. Rutas artístico-monumentales. Alicante: sin editorial.
Vicens Petit, Juan Manuel. (1993). Nuevas aportaciones al estudio histórico-arqueológico del Castell de Banyeres. Castells, 3, pp. 7–8.
Simón García, José Luis and Segura Herrero, Gabriel. (2001). El Castillo de Sax (Alto Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coord., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 88–99.
Vidal Bernabé, Inmaculada and Navarro Mallebrera, Rafael. (1985). Arte Medieval. In José Ramón Hinojosa Montalvo, coord., Historia de la Provincia de Alicante. Murcia: Ediciones Mediterráneo, pp. 441–477.
Simón García, José Luis and Segura Herrero, Gabriel. (2005). El Castillo de Sax. Historia de Sax. Sax: Comparsa de Moros, pp. 299–334. Soldevila i Zubiburu, Ferran. (1995). Pere el Gran: El regnat fins l’any 1282. Barcelona: Institut d’Estudis Catalans. Soler Díaz, Jorge Agatángelo (coord.) (2006). La ocupación prehistórica de la Illeta dels Banyets. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante. Soler García, José María. (2006). Historia de Villena: desde la Prehistoria hasta el siglo XVIII. Villena: Fundación Municipal José María Soler. Tendero Fernández, Fernando Enrique. (2001). El Castillo de Salvatierra (Villena, Alto Vinalopó). In Gabriel Segura Herrero and José Luis Simón García, coords., Castillos y torres en el Vinalopó. Petrer: Centre d’Estudis Locals del Vinalopó, pp. 71–75. Tendero Fernández, Fernando Enrique. (2001). Castillo de Biar. In Mauro Severo Hernández Pérez and Pere Ferrer i Marset, coord., Graffiti. Arte espontáneo en Alicante. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 86–99. Torregrosa Giménez, Palmira. (1994). Intervención arqueológica en el Castell de Cocentaina (El Comtat, Alicante). Alberri, 7, pp. 83–110. Torró i Abad, Josep. (1988–1989). El problema del hábitat fortificado en el sur del Reino de Valencia después de la segunda revuelta mudéjar (1276–1304). Anales de la Universidad de Alicante. Historia Medieval, 7, pp. 53–82. Torró i Abad, Josep. (1992). Tres dirhams de la seca de Daniya (483 H. / 1090–91) trobats al Castell de Cocentaina (Hisn qusantaniya). Notícia d’un ocultament. Alberri, 5, pp. 29–48. Torró Abad, Josep and Segura Martí, José María. (1991). Asentamientos cristianos fortificados (siglos XIIIXIV): una aproximación tipológica para el sur del País Valenciano. In Rafael Azuar Ruiz, coord., Fortificaciones y castillos de Alicante. Alicante: Caja de Ahorros provincial de Alicante, pp. 147–181. Torró i Abad, Josep and Segura Martí, José María. (2000). El Castell d’Almizra y la cuestión de los graneros fortificados. Recerques del Museu d’Alcoi, 9, pp. 145– 164.
177
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Cultural Heritage Management and Museography
sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. De la excavación al público. Procesos de decisión y creación de nuevos recursos. Zaragoza: Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza and Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 169–174.
Agudo Torrico, José. (1999). Cultura, patrimonio etnológico e identidad. PH: Boletín del Instituto Andaluz de Patrimonio Histórico, 29, pp. 36–45. Ballart Hernández, Josep and Juan i Tresserras, Jordi. (2001). Gestión del patrimonio cultural. Barcelona: Ariel.
Fernández de Paz, Esther. (2001). El concepto de Patrimonio Cultural desde la perspectiva de la Antropología. In: Cursos sobre el Patrimonio Histórico, 6. Actas de los XII Cursos Monográficos sobre Patrimonio Histórico. Santander: Universidad de Cantabria and Ayuntamiento de Reinosa, pp. 39–52.
Benet Jordana, Nicolás, Jiménez Gadea, Javier, Muñoz Herrera, María Dolores, Nogueras Monteagudo, Emilia and Rus Pérez, Inmaculada. (2010). El Plan de Yacimientos Visitables de la Comunidad de Madrid. Primeras realizaciones. In: V Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Arqueología, discurso histórico y trayectorias locales. Cartagena: Ayuntamiento de Cartagena, Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 91–103.
Fuertes Santos, María del Camino and Hidalgo Prieto, Rafael. (2005). El yacimiento de Cercadilla en Córdoba. Un proyecto de conservación complejo. In: III Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. De la excavación al público. Procesos de decisión y creación de nuevos recursos. Zaragoza: Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza and Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 31–38.
Bermúdez, Alejandro, Vianney, Joan M. and Giralt, Adelina. (2004). Intervención en el patrimonio cultural. Madrid: Editorial Síntesis.
González-Varas Ibáñez, Ignacio. (1999). Conservación de bienes culturales. Teoría, historia, principios y normas. Madrid: Cátedra.
Bodin, Anders. (2014). Participation in and access to the Defence Heritage: some Swedish examples. In: Defence Sites II. Heritage and Future. Southampton: Wessex Institute of Technology, pp. 321–330.
Hernández Hernández, Francisca. (2002). El patrimonio cultural: la memoria recuperada. Gijón: Ediciones Trea.
Campillo Garrigós, Rosa. (1998). La gestión y el gestor del patrimonio cultural. Murcia: KR.
Hernández Pérez, Mauro Severo, Ferrer i Marset, Pere, Català Ferrer, Enrique, Soler Díaz, Jorge Agatángelo and Pérez Jiménez, Rafael. (2004). Pla de Petracos. Patrimonio de la Humanidad. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante.
Calvo Pérez, Julio. (2000–2002). Las lenguas como patrimonio. El principio de prioridad. Turismo y Patrimonio, 2, pp. 87–98. Caraballo Perichi, Ciro. (2011). Patrimonio Cultural. Un enfoque diverso y comprometido. México D.F.: UNESCO.
Hernández Pérez, Mauro Severo, García Atiénzar, Gabriel, Barciela González, Virginia, Martorell Briz, Ximo and Molina Hernández, Francisco Javier. (2012). Actualización y realización del inventario de los yacimientos arqueológicos con Arte Rupestre de la Comunidad Valenciana. Provincia de Alicante. In: Arqueología en Alicante en la primera década del siglo XXI. II jornadas de Arqueología y patrimonio alicantino. Alicante: Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante, pp. 170–175.
Carrobles Santos, Jesús. (2006). La Vega Baja de Toledo y la privatización de la arqueología española. El Nuevo Miliario. Boletín sobre vías romanas, historia de los caminos y otros temas de geografía histórica, 3, p. 125. Cebrián Fernández, Rosario. (2003). Musealización y apertura del Parque Arqueológico de Segóbriga. In: II Congreso Internacional Sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Nuevos conceptos y estrategias de gestión y comunicación, Barcelona: Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 32–34.
Herrero Prieto, Luis César. (2002). Economía política de la cultura y del patrimonio histórico: bases analíticas y perspectivas de investigación. In: En torno al Patrimonio e Interdisciplinariedad. Lima: Universidad de San Martín de Porres and Escuela Profesional de Turismo y Hostelería, pp. 139–175.
Eiroa Rodríguez, Jorge Alejandro, Gallardo Carrillo, Juan, González Ballesteros, José Ángel, Crespo Valero José Manuel and Ramos Martínez, Francisco. (2012). Actuaciones y aplicaciones tecnológicas ante situaciones de emergencia: el caso del castillo de Lorca tras el terremoto del 11 de mayo de 2011. Alberca: Revista de la Asociación de Amigos del Museo Arqueológico de Lorca, 10, pp. 53–69.
Landriani, Loris and Pozzoli, Matteo. (2014). Management and Valuation of Heritage Assets: A Comparative Analysis Between Italy and USA. New York: Springer. López-Menchero Bendicho, Víctor Manuel. (2013). La musealización del patrimonio arqueológico in situ. El caso español en el contexto europeo. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Fernández-Galiano Ruiz, Dimas and Puche Pajares, Isabel. (2005). Musealización del yacimiento arqueológico de Carranque, Toledo. In: III Congreso Internacional
López Mira, José Antonio. (2014). La gestión del patrimonio cultural Valenciano. In: Escenarios, imaginarios y 178
References
valor de nuevos espacios en el conjunto arqueológico de Baelo Claudia. In: V Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Arqueología, discurso histórico y trayectorias locales. Cartagena: Ayuntamiento de Cartagena, Ayuntamiento de Barcelona, Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 243–251.
gestión del patrimonio. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante, pp. 225–234. Lorente Enrique, Caballero, Alfonso, Cánovas, Pablo, Cebrián, Rosario, Gómez, Laura, de Juan, Antonio, Patón, Belén and Perlines, María. (2007). La Red de Parques Arqueológicos de Castilla-La Mancha, un modelo de gestión. In: IV Congreso Internacional sobre musealización de yacimientos arqueológicos. Conservación y presentación de yacimientos arqueológicos en el medio rural. Impacto social en el territorio. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia, pp. 133–152.
Paño Yáñez, Pablo. (2012). Gestión del patrimonio cultural y participación ciudadana. Presupuestos participativos como ejemplo de decisión y gestión compartida del patrimonio cultural entre instituciones públicas y ciudadanía. Treballs d’Arqueologia, 18, pp. 99–123.
Martínez Díaz, Belén, Jiménez Gadea, Javier, and Consuegra Rodríguez, Susana. (2007). El Plan de yacimientos visitables de la Comunidad de Madrid: una apuesta por la difusión. IV Congreso Internacional sobre musealización de yacimientos arqueológicos. Conservación y presentación de yacimientos arqueológicos en el medio rural. Impacto social en el territorio. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia, pp. 247–254.
Prats Canals, Llorenç. (1997). Antropología y patrimonio. Barcelona: Ariel.
Mejías López, Jesús. (2008). Estructuras y principios de gestión del patrimonio cultural municipal. Gijón: Ediciones Trea.
Querol Fernández, María Ángeles. (2010). Manual de gestión del patrimonio cultural. Madrid: Editorial Akal.
Pérez-Juez Gil, Amalia. (2006). Gestión del patrimonio arqueológico: el yacimiento como recurso turístico. Barcelona: Ariel. Querol Fernández, María Ángeles. (1995). Patrimonio cultural y patrimonio natural. ¿Una pareja imposible? Extremadura arqueológica, V, pp. 301–306.
Querol Fernández, María Ángeles and Martínez Díaz, Belén. (1996). La gestión del Patrimonio Arqueológico en España. Madrid: Alianza Editorial.
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2005). La gestión sostenible del patrimonio: propuestas para la revalorización arqueológica del municipio de Castalla (Alicante). Degree diss. Universidad de Alicante.
Rey García, José Manuel, Redondo Porto, Alberto and Suárez, Auxiliadora. (2007). El Parque Arqueológico del Arte Rupestre (Campo Lameiro, Pontevedra): desarrollo conceptual, y museológico. In: IV Congreso Internacional sobre musealización de yacimientos arqueológicos. Conservación y presentación de yacimientos arqueológicos en el medio rural. Impacto social en el territorio. Santiago de Compostela: Xunta de Galicia, pp. 61–74.
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2015). La gestión municipal de los castillos valencianos. Análisis de los casos de Callosa de Segura, Castalla, Cocentaina, Guardamar del Segura, Monòver, Pego y Sax (provincia de Alicante). In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Modern Age Fortifications of the Western Mediterranean Coast Defensive Architecture of the Mediterranean XV to XVIII Centuries. València: Universitat Politècnica de València, pp. 389–396.
Roca Roca, Eduardo. (1976). El patrimonio artístico y cultural. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios de Administración Local.
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio and Liñana Torres, Daniel. (2014). El Conjunt Patrimonial del Castell de Castalla. Una porta oberta cap al patrimoni cultural. Guia de visita de fauna i flora. Castalla: Ayuntamiento de Castalla.
Rodríguez Temiño, Ignacio. (2010). Repensar el concepto de conjunto arqueológico en Andalucía. A propósito del Plan Director del Conjunto Arqueológico de Carmona. In: V Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Arqueología, discurso histórico y trayectorias locales. Cartagena: Ayuntamiento de Cartagena, Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 303–316.
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio, Bevià i Garcia, Màrius and Ortega Pérez, José Ramón. (2015). Del Castell de Castalla al Conjunt Patrimonial del Castell de Castalla: un nuevo enfoque en la gestión del patrimonio cultural valenciano. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Modern Age Fortifications of the Western Mediterranean Coast Defensive Architecture of the Mediterranean XV to XVIII Centuries. València: Universitat Politècnica de València, pp. 381–388.
Rodríguez de Guzmán Sánchez, Sandra, Izquierdo de Montes, Rocío, Martínez Mora, Juan Bosco and Jiménez Sancho, Álvaro. (2010). Itálica famosa. Nuevas estrategias de puesta en valor para un monumento centenario (Santiponce, Sevilla). In: V Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Arqueología, discurso histórico y trayectorias locales. Cartagena: Ayuntamiento de Cartagena, Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 167–175.
Mumby, Julian and Catling, Cristopher. (2014). Dover Castle. Conservation Management Plan. Oxford: Oxford Archaeology. Muñoz Vicente, Ángel and García Jiménez, Iván. (2010). La nueva sede institucional. Revalorización y puesta en
179
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Ruiz Taboada, Arturo. (2010). Historia Arqueológica de la Vega Baja, Toledo. Manual de gestión del patrimonio cultural. Madrid: Editorial Akal, pp. 228–229.
Verdugo Santos, Javier. (2010). La Red de Espacios Culturales de Andalucía: un sistema territorial para la difusión y puesta en valor del patrimonio. In: V Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Arqueología, discurso histórico y trayectorias locales. Cartagena: Ayuntamiento de Cartagena, Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 73–78.
Santacana i Mestre, Joan and Martín Piñol, Carolina. (2010). Introducción al análisis de modelos de museografía interactiva y didáctica. In Joan Santacana i Mestre and Carolina Martín Piñol, coord., Manual de museografía interactiva. Gijón: Ediciones Trea, pp. 25–86.
Villafranca Jiménez, María del Mar and Chamorro Martínez, Victoria Eugenia. (2005). La Alhambra de Granada: visita de calidad en un enclave de turismo de masas. In: III Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. De la excavación al público. Procesos de decisión y creación de nuevos recursos. Zaragoza: Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza and Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 187–196.
Sanz Lara, José Antonio. (2004). Valoración económica del patrimonio cultural. Gijón: Ediciones Trea. Soler Díaz, Jorge Agatángelo and Pérez Díaz, Rafael. (2005). La sala de arte rupestre y de la colección museográfica de Castell de Castells: un montaje de vanguardia para un municipio de la montaña alicantina. MARQ. Arqueología y museos, 0, pp. 85–97. Suárez Márquez, Ángela and Alcalá Lillo, Francisca. (2005). La musealización del conjunto monumental de la alcazaba de Almería. Una nueva perspectiva para el siglo XXI. In: III Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. De la excavación al público. Procesos de decisión y creación de nuevos recursos. Zaragoza: Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza and Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 365–368. Tallón Nieto, María Jesús, Infante Roura, Faustino, Rey García, José Manuel and Rodríguez Puentes, Eugenio. (2003). La Red Gallega del Patrimonio Arqueológico: un marco de actuación para la puesta en valor del patrimonio arqueológico. In: II Congreso Internacional Sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Nuevos conceptos y estrategias de gestión y comunicación. Barcelona: Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 237–241. Tallón Nieto, María Jesús, Infante Roura, Faustino, Rey García, José Manuel and Rodríguez Puentes, Eugenio. (2005). Galicia, la Arqueología de una región a través de la Red Gallega del Patrimonio Arqueológico. In: III Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. De la excavación al público. Procesos de decisión y creación de nuevos recursos. Zaragoza: Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza and Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 145–154. Tugores Truyol, Francesca and Planas Ferrer, Rosa. (2006). Introducción al patrimonio cultural. Gijón: Ediciones Trea. Vallejo Triano, Antonio and Soler Serratosa, Pau. (2005). Restauración y valorización de dos conjuntos singulares de Madinat al-Zahra: la llamada «Casa de Ya’far» y el «Patio de los Pilares». In: III Congreso Internacional sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. De la excavación al público. Procesos de decisión y creación de nuevos recursos. Zaragoza: Ayuntamiento de Zaragoza and Instituto Fernando el Católico, pp. 81–88.
180
References
Scientific Methodology
Information and Communications Technology
Berg, L. Bruce. (2007). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Science. Boston: Allin & Bacon.
Cantarell Barella, Elena, Biosca i Frontera, Eloi, Vinyoles i Vidal, Teresa María and Sancho i Planas, Marta. (2001). Didàctica de la història i noves tecnologies: passeig virtual per un castell medieval. In: Terceras Jornadas Multimedia Educativo. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, pp. 96–100.
Coffey, Amanda and Atkinson, Paul. (2005). Encontrar el sentido a los datos cualitativos. Estrategias complementarias de investigación. Alicante: Universidad de Alicante.
García Ochoa, E. (2011). El castillo de la bruja Truja, una webquest para educación infantil y algo más. Experiencias educativas en las aulas del siglo XXI: innovación con TIC. Barcelona: Ariel, pp. 25–28.
Fairchild, Henry Pratt. (1992). Diccionario de sociología. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Flick Uwe. (2004). Introducción a la investigación cualitativa. Madrid, Ediciones Morata.
Vinyoles i Vidal, Teresa María, Cantarell Barella, Elena, Comas Via, Mireia and Sancho Marta. (2003). Las TIC como herramientas de investigación, divulgación y docencia: el ejemplo del CD sobre el castillo de Mur. In: II Congreso Internacional Sobre Musealización de Yacimientos Arqueológicos. Nuevos conceptos y estrategias de gestión y comunicación. Barcelona: Ayuntamiento de Barcelona and Ayuntamiento de Alcalá de Henares, pp. 296–300.
Fontana, Andrea and Frey, James H. (2008). Interviewing. The art of science. In Normann K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln, ed. Handbook of the qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, pp. 361–376. Pérez Santos, Eloísa. (2000). Estudio de visitantes en museos: metodología y aplicaciones. Gijón: Ediciones Trea. Taylor S.J. and Bogdan, Robert. (2002). Introducción a los métodos cualitativos de investigación. Barcelona: Paidós. Vasilachis de Gialdino, Irene (coord.) (2006). Estrategias de investigación cualitativa. Barcelona: GEDISA.
181
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Electronic Documents
of fortifications in the south of the Valencian Community (Spain). Examples of Castalla and Sax (Alicante). In: Cracow Landscape Conference [online] vol. 3. Cracow: Institute of Archaeology-Jagiellonian University in Kraków and Institute of Landscape Architecture, Cracow University of Technology, pp. 37–50.
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage Management Associació de Professionals de la Gestió Cultural de Catalunya. Guía de buenas prácticas de la gestión cultural. [pdf] Associació de Professionals de la Gestió Cultural de Catalunya.
Available at: http://www.clc.edu.pl/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/ VOL_3_CLC2016.pdf. [Accessed 15 March 2017].
Available at: http://www.gestorcultural.org/ [Accessed 16 April 2016].
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2017a). Management analysis of castles in municipal ownership: fortifications in the province of Alicante (Valencian Community). International Journal of Architecture, [online] Volume 1(2), pp. 195–202.
Criado Boado, Felipe. La fuerza social del Patrimonio Cultural. [pdf] Available at: http://csic.academia.edu/FelipeCriadoBoado [Accessed 3 May 2016].
Available at: https://www.witpress.com/elibrary/havolumes/1/2/1127. [Accessed 15 March 2017].
Criado Boado, Felipe. Contribución para Machu Picchu. El patrimonio era otra cosa. [pdf]
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2017b). Fortificaciones, interactividad y didáctica: el Castell de Castalla como ejemplo teórico en el contexto de la provincia de Alicante. OTARQ, [online] 2, pp. 207–226.
Available at: http://csic.academia.edu/FelipeCriadoBoado [Accessed 3 May 2016].
Espinosa Ruiz, Antonio. (2004). Los nuevos tipos de museo a comienzos del siglo XXI y la interpretación del patrimonio cultural (II). Boletín de Interpretación, [online] 10, pp. 7–10.
Available at: http://revistas.jasarqueologia.es/index.php/otarq/ article/view/115/117. [Accessed 15 March 2017].
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio and Ortega Pérez, José Ramón. (2009). Proyecto de alzamiento topográfico de las estructuras exteriores al recinto superior del Castell de Castalla (Castalla, Alicante). Actuaciones arqueológicas en la provincia de Alicante 2009, [cd-rom] [Accessed 15 February 2016].
Available at: http://www.interpretaciondelpatrimonio.com/ boletin/index.php/boletin/index [Accessed 1 July 2016].
ICOFORT. Statutes. [pdf] ICOFORT-International Scientific Committee on Fortifications and Military Heritage.
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio and Ortega Pérez, José Ramón. (2015). Castalla Castle. Architecture and restoration in the 21st century in Alicante. In: REHAB 2015 2nd International Conference on Preservation, Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Historical Buildings and Structures [cd-rom] Volume 1. Barcelos: Green Lines Instituto para Desenvolvimento Sustentável, pp. 185– 194. [Accessed 15 August 2016].
Available at: http://web.icofort.org/#!section=10088146 [Accessed 3 May 2016].
Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España. (2010). Plan Nacional de Arquitectura Defensiva. [pdf] Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España. Available at: http://ipce.mcu.es/conservacion/planesnacionales/ defensiva.html Accessed 14 June 2016].
Morate Martín, Gabriel. (2007). Conocimiento y percepción del patrimonio histórico en la sociedad española. Revista electrónica de patrimonio histórico [online] 1. [Accessed 2 April 2015].
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2006). La gestión del patrimonio cultural: propuestas de recuperación social de los bienes arqueológicos del municipio de Castalla (Alicante). [cdrom] Premios Ayuda a la Investigación 2003 (Edición 2005). Artículos Resumen. Alicante: Instituto Alicantino de Cultura Juan Gil-Albert, pp. 19–80 [Accessed 15 February 2016].
Parks Canada. (2007). Castle Hill National Historic Site of Canada. Management Plan. [pdf] Castle Hill National Historic Site of Canada. Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/nl/castlehill/plan. aspx. [Accessed 1 May 2015].
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2015). Ficha del Proyecto de recuperación social del Conjunt Patrimonial del Conjunt Patrimonial del Castell de Castalla. [pdf] Portal Iberoamericano de Gestión Cultural.
Parks Canada. (2008). Annual Management Plan Implementation Report. Castle Hill National Historic Site of Canada. [pdf] Castle Hill National Historic Site of Canada.
Available at: http://www.gestioncultural.org/buenas_practicas. php?id_proyectos=299223 [Accessed 15 February 2016].
Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/lhn-nhs/nl/castlehill/plan. aspx [Accessed 1 May 2015].
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2016). Castles or cultural and natural landscapes? A new approach to the management
182
References
Rodríguez Nuere, Belén. (2011). Presentación del Plan Nacional de Arquitectura Defensiva. Fortificaciones. In: Fortificaciones. Intervenciones en el patrimonio defensivo. Actas del XXXIV Curset. Jornadas Internacionales sobre la intervención en el Patrimonio Arquitectónico[online]. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte and Col·legi d’Arquitectes de Catalunya, pp. 31–39.
Generalitat Valenciana. (2010). Ley 8/2010, de 23 de junio, de la Generalitat, de Régimen Local de la Comunitat Valenciana. Noticias jurídicas [online]. Available at: http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/CCAA/val8-2010.html#i. [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: http://ipce.mcu.es/portada/destacado44.html. [Accessed 10 July 2015].
Generalitat Valenciana. (2012). Ley 10/2012, de 21 de diciembre, de Medidas Fiscales, de Gestión Administrativa y Financiera, y de Organización de la Generalitat. Conselleria de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte [online].
Rodríguez Nuere, Belén. (2014). Necesidad y significación del Plan Nacional de Arquitectura Defensiva. Patrimonio Cultural de España [online] 9, pp. 19–27.
Available at: http://www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/juridico_c.html. [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: http://es.calameo.com/ books/000075335f44f4a8a51af. [Accessed 10 July 2015].
Generalitat Valenciana. [2014]. Decreto 36/2014, de 7 de marzo, del Consell, por el cual se complementa la declaración de Bien de Interés Cultural del Castillo y Murallas de Castalla, sitas en el término municipal de Castalla, por medio de la delimitación de su entorno de protección y el establecimiento de la normativa de protección correspondiente. Agencia Estatal del Boletín Oficial del Estado [pdf].
Zamora Baño, Francisco. (2002). La gestión del patrimonio cultural en España: presente y futuro. Boletín GC [online] 4. Available at: http://www.gestioncultural.org/articulos.php?id_ documento=301949. [Accessed 4 May 2015].
Available at: http://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt. php?id=BOE-A-2014–3218. [Accessed 25 March 2016].
Charters, Conventions, Legislation and Doctrinal Texts Generalitat Valenciana. (1998). Ley 4/1998, de 11 de junio, de la Generalitat Valenciana, del Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano. Conselleria de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte [online].
Generalitat Valenciana. (2015). Decreto 207/2015, de 13 de noviembre, del Consell, por el que se declara bien de interés cultural, con la categoría de sitio histórico, el Puig de Almizra, sito en el término municipal de Campo de Mirra. Agencia Estatal del Boletín Oficial del Estado [pdf].
Available at: http://www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/juridico_c.html. [Accessed 15 January 2015].
Available at: https://www.boe.es/diario_boe/txt. php?id=BOE-A-2015–14017. [Accessed 25 March 2016].
Generalitat Valenciana. (2004). Ley 7/2004, de 19 de octubre, de la Generalitat, de modificación de la Ley 4/1998, de 11 de junio, del Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano. Conselleria de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte [online].
Gobierno de España. (1985). Ley 16/1985, de 25 de junio, del Patrimonio Histórico Español. Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte [pdf].
Available at: http://www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/juridico_c.html. [Accessed 15 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.boe.es/buscar/doc. php?id=BOE-A-1985–12534. [Accessed 15 January 2016].
Generalitat Valenciana. (2005). Ley 16/2005, de 30 de diciembre, de la Generalitat, Urbanística Valenciana. Conselleria de Vivienda, Obras Públicas y Vertebración del Territorio [online].
Gobierno de España. (2013). Ley 27/2013, de 27 de diciembre, de racionalización y sostenibilidad de la Administración Local. Noticias jurídicas [online].
Available at: http://www.citma.gva.es. [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: http://noticias.juridicas.com/base_datos/ Admin/519625-l-27–2013-de-27-dic-racionalizacion-ysostenibilidad-de-la-administracion.html. [Accessed 15 January 2016].
Generalitat Valenciana. (2007). Ley 5/2007, de 10 de febrero, de la Generalitat, de modificación de la Ley 4/1998, de 11 de junio, del Patrimonio Cultural Valenciano. Conselleria de Educación, Investigación, Cultura y Deporte [online].
ICOMOS. (1999). Carta Internacional sobre Turismo Cultural. La Gestión del Turismo en los sitios con Patrimonio Significativo. ICOMOS-International Council on Monuments and Sites [pdf].
Available at: http://www.cult.gva.es/dgpa/juridico_c.html. [Accessed 15 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en/charters-and-texts. [Accessed 3 April 2015].
183
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Ligorred Perramon, José de Calasanz. (2014). La gestión de los sitios arqueológicos en áreas urbanas del Estado de Yucatán, México. PhD. Universitat de Barcelona [pdf].
ICOMOS. (2008). Carta de Itinerarios Culturales. ICOMOS-International Council on Monuments and Sites [pdf]. Available at: https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/ Charters/culturalroutes_sp.pdf. [Accessed 3 April 2015].
Available at: http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/135004. [Accessed 1 March 2015].
Petzet, Michael and Ziesemer, John. (2001). International Charters for Conservation and Restoration = Charters Internationales sur la Conservation et la Restauration = Cartas Internacionales sobre la Conservación y la Restauración.ICOMOS, International Council on Monuments and Sites [pdf].
Mansilla Castilla, Ana María. (2004). La divulgación del patrimonio arqueológico en Castilla y León: un análisis de los discursos. PhD. Universidad Complutense de Madrid [pdf]. Available at: Dialnet.http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/ tesis?codigo=16640. [Accessed 15 August 2015].
Available at: http://openarchive.icomos.org/431/. [Accessed 3 April 2015].
Martínez Yáñez, Cristina. (2006). El patrimonio cultural: los nuevos valores, tipos, finalidades y formas de organización. Phd. Universidad de Granada [pdf].
UNESCO. (1972). Convención para la protección del Patrimonio Mundial, Cultural y Natural. UNESCO [pdf].
Available at: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/15957. [Accessed 1 December 2015].
Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ ID=13055&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html. [Accessed 2 January 2015].
Masriera Esquerra, Clara. (2008). Anàlisis dels espais de presentació arqueològics de l’edat dels metalls. PhD. Universitat de Barcelona [pdf].
UNESCO. (1972). Recomendación sobre la Protección, en el Ámbito Nacional, del Patrimonio Cultural y Natural. UNESCO [pdf].
Available at: http://www.tdx.cat/handle/10803/1335. [Accessed 1 March 2015].
Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ ID=13087&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html. [Accessed 2 January 2015].
Méndez Madariaga, Antonio (2007). La gestión de la arqueología como recurso cultural y turístico: propuesta para la Comunidad de Madrid. PhD. Universidad Rey Juan Carlos [pdf].
UNESCO. (1982). Declaración de México sobre las Políticas Culturales. UNESCO [pdf].
Available at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=2247. [Accessed 23 March 2015].
Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/culture/es/ev.php-URL_ ID=12762&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201. html. [Accessed 2 January 2015].
Mira Rico, Juan Antonio. (2013). Análisis del modelo de gestión de los castillos de la provincia de Alicante. Castell d’Ambra (Pego), Castell de Castalla (Castalla), Castell de Cocentaina (Cocentaina), Castell de Monòver (Monòver), Castell de Penella (Cocentaina) y Castillo de Sax (Sax). Master’s Degree. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya [pdf].
UNESCO. (1998). Recomendación sobre Educación Patrimonial. Consejería de Cultura de Euskadi [pdf]. Available at: http://www.kultura.ejgv.euskadi.eus/r46-4874/es/ contenidos/informacion/manifiestos_patrimonio/es_8658/ es_europa_recomendaciones.html. [Accessed 2 January 2015].
Available at: http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/ handle/10609/25481. [Accessed 15 February 2015].
Final Papers of Master’s Degree and Doctoral Theses Ballesteros Martín, Inmaculada. (2003). Parques Arqueológicos en áreas urbanas: la gestión para la conservación. Foros imperiales, Appia Antica, Valle de los Templos. PhD. Universidad de Murcia.
Monjas Eleta, María. (2012). El patrimonio cultural y su tratamiento periodístico. Un análisis de la edición regional de El mundo de Castilla y León y El norte de Castilla. PhD. Universidad de Valladolid [pdf]
Bernal Ruiz, Luis. (2009). El perfil formativo del gestor cultural en España. Master’s Degree. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya [pdf].
Available at: http://uvadoc.uva.es/handle/10324/2640. [Accessed 15 February 2015].
Sánchez Luque, María. (2005). La gestión del patrimonio cultural urbano en España. PhD. Universidad de Málaga [pdf].
Available at: http://openaccess.uoc.edu/webapps/o2/ handle/10609/9562?mode=full. [Accessed 6 May 2015].
Available at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/tesis?codigo=18335. [Accessed 15 February 2015].
Izkara Martínez, José Luis. (2010). Realidad aumentada móvil para la conservación del patrimonio. PhD. Universidad del País Vasco. 184
References
Blogs
Websites
Archaeology, Castles, Cultural Heritage Management and Museums
Public Administrations, Institutions and Official Organisations
Museo Arqueológico de Novelda Blog.[online]
Ayuntamiento de Alicante. [online]
Available at: http://noveldamuseoarqueologico.wordpress.com [Accessed 26 May 2015].
Available at: http://www.alicante.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Aspe. [online]
Museo Arqueológico y Etnológico Municipal Dámaso Navarro de PetrerBlog.[online]
Available at: http://www.aspe.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Available at: http://museodamasonavarro.blogspot.com.es [Accessed 26 May 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Biar. [online] Available at: http://www.biar.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
VilaMuseu Blog.[online] Ayuntamiento de Callosa de Segura. [online]
Available at: http://www.vilamuseu.es/blog/ca [Accessed 26 May 2015].
Available at: www.callosadesegura.es [Accessed 7 October 2015].
Servei Municipal de Patrimoni Cultural de Castalla Blog. [online]
Ayuntamiento de Cocentaina. [online]
Available at: www.arepaccastalla.wordpress.com [Accessed 26 May 2015].
Available at: http://www.cocentaina.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Torres i castells medievals del País Valencià Blog.[online]
Ayuntamiento de Dénia. [online]
Available at: http://torresicastellspv.blogspot.com [Accessed 26 May 2015].
Available at: http://www.denia.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Guadalest. [online] Others
Available at: http://www.guadalest.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Cocentaina el Socarraet Blog. [online]
Ayuntamiento de Monòver. [online]
Available at: http://elsocarraet.blogspot.com.es [Accessed 26 May 2015].
Available at: http://www.monover.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Novelda. [online] Available at: http://www.ayto-novelda.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Orihuela. [online] Available at: http://www.orihuela.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Pego. [online] Available at: http://www.pego.org [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Petrer. [online] Available at: http://www.petrer.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Ayuntamiento de Sax. [online] Available at: http://www.sax.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Comunidad de Madrid. [online] Available at: www.madrid.org [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Concejalía de Cultura del Ayuntamiento de Orihuela. [online] 185
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Turismo de Almería. [online]
Available at: http://www.orihuela.es/?page_id=264 [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.turismodealmeria.org/es/motivotematico/centro-de-interpretacion-puerta-de-almeriamuralla-califal_4 [Accessed 10 June 2015].
Concejalía de Turismo del Ayuntamiento de Banyeres de Mariola. Available at: http://www.banyeresdemariolaturisme.com/ca/ [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Databases and Digital Publishing Platforms Fundación Dialnet, Universidad de la Rioja. [online]
Concejalía de Turismo del Ayuntamiento de Castalla. [online]
Available at: http://dialnet.unirioja.es [Accessed 15 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.turismocastalla.com [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Scimago Journal and Country Rank.[online]
Concejalía de Turismo de Dénia. [online]
Available at: http://www.scimagojr.com [Accessed 15 February 2015].
Available at: http://www.denia.net [Accessed 7 January 2015].
TESEO-Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. [online]
Concejalía de Turismo de Novelda. [online]
Available at: https://www.educacion.gob.es/teseo/ irGestionarConsulta.do [Accessed 15 August 2015].
Available at: http://www.novelda.es [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Concejalía de Turismo de Villena. [online]
Tesis Doctorales en Red. [online]
Available at: http://www.turismovillena.com [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.tdx.cat [Accessed 14 February 2015].
Dirección General de Cultura y Patrimonio de la Generalitat Valenciana-Conselleria de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. [online]
Cartography, Castles, Cultural Heritage Management, Museums, Natural Heritage and Archaeological Sites Associació de professionals de la gestió cultural de Catalunya. [online]
Available at: http://www.cult.gva.es/dgpa [Accessed 14 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.gestorcultural.org [Accessed 23 April 2015].
Departament of Environment-Australia Government. [online]
Asociación Española de Gestores del Patrimonio Cultural. [online]
Available at: http://www.environment.gov.au [Accessed 14 February 2015].
Available at: http://www.aegpc.org [Accessed 23 April 2015].
Instituto Nacional de Estadística. [online]
Banco de datos de Biodiversidad de la Comunidad Valenciana-Conselleria de Vivienda, Obras Públicas y Vertebración del Territorio. [online]
Available at: www.ine.es [Accessed 2 January 2015].
Junta de Andalucía. [online]
Available at: http://bdb.cma.gva.es/ficha.asp?id=13115 [Accessed 20 August 2015].
Available at: http://www.juntadeandalucia.es/index.html [Accessed 3 May 2015].
Cartografía d-maps.com. [online] Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte del Gobierno de España. [online]
Available at: http://www.d-maps.com/index.php?lang=es [Accessed 20 March 2017].
Available at: http://www.mecd.gob.es [Accessed 15 January 2015].
English Heritage.[online] Available at: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk [Accessed 15 May 2015].
Patronato de Turismo de la Costa Blanca. [online] Available at: http://www.costablanca.org/Eng [Accessed 15 December 2017].
Heritage Ireland. [online]
Región de Murcia. [online]
Available at: http://www.heritageireland.ie/en [Accessed 15 February 2015].
Available at: http://www.carm.es/web/ pagina?IDCONTENIDO=1&IDTIPO=180 [Accessed 15 December 2017].
Historic England. [online]
186
References
Museo del Prado. Accessed 9 October 2015. [online]
Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk [Accessed 2 February 2015].
Available at: https://www.museodelprado.es [Accessed 12 May 2015].
Historic Environment Scotland. [online] National Park Service. National Park Service. [online]
Available at: http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/ [Accessed 2 February 2015].
ICAHM, International Scientific Committee Archaeological Heritage Management. [online]
Available at: http://www.nps.gov/index.htm [Accessed 12 May 2015].
on National Trust for Canada. [online]
Available at: http://ip51.icomos.org/icahm [Accessed 2 March 2015].
Available at: http://www.nationaltrustcanada.ca [Accessed 12 May 2015].
ICCROM, International Centre for Study of Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. [online]
National Trust for Scotland. [online]
Available at: http://www.iccrom.org/ [Accessed 3 March 2015].
Available at: http://www.nts.org.uk/Home/ [Accessed 12 May 2015].
ICOFORT, International Scientific Committee Fortifications and Military Heritage. [online]
Parks Australia. [online]
on
Available at: http://www.parksaustralia.gov.au [Accessed 12 February 2015].
Available at: http://www.icofort.org [Accessed 3 March 2015].
ICOMOS, International Council on Monuments and Sites. [online]
Parks Canada. [online] Available at: http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/index.aspx [Accessed 12 February 2015].
Available at: http://www.icomos.org/en [Accessed 3 March 2015].
Patrimonio Histórico de Castilla, La Mancha. [online] ISCARSAH, International Scientific Committee on the Analysis and Restoration of Structures of Architectural Heritage. [online]
Available at: http://www.patrimoniohistoricoclm.es [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: http://iscarsah.icomos.org [Accessed 3 March 2015].
Pilgrim Hall Museum. [online]
Madrid, ciudadanía y patrimonio. [online]
Available at: http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org [Accessed 15 June 2015].
Available at: http://madridciudadaniaypatrimonio.org [Accessed 19 May 2015].
Portal Iberoamericano de Gestión Cultural. [online]
Monumental Net. [online]
Available at: http://www.gestioncultural.org/ [Accessed 15 January 2015].
Available at: http://www.monumentalnet.org/index.php [Accessed 3 March 2015].
Ruta de los Castillos del Vinalopó. [online]
Museo Arqueológico Municipal de Elda. [online]
Available at: http://www.rutacastillosvinalopo.net [Accessed 15 November 2015].
Available at: http://www.cult.gva.es/museus/m00068 [Accessed 5 January 2015].
UNESCO-United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. [online]
Museo Arqueológico de Guardamar del Segura. [online]
Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/es [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: http://www.magmuseo.com [Accessed 5 January 2015].
Wessex Institute. [online] Museo Arqueológico José María Soler de Villena. [online]
Available at: http://www.wessex.ac.uk/ [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: http://www.museovillena.com [Accessed 7 January 2015].
Publishers
Museo Arqueológico Provincial de Alicante. [online]
Editorial Ariel. [online]
Available at: http://www.marqalicante.com [Accessed 12 May 2015].
Available at: http://www.planetadelibros.com/editorial-editorialariel-2.html [Accessed 15 March 2015].
187
Management Analysis of Municipal Castles in the Province of Alicante (Spain)
Editorial Síntesis. [online]
Universitat Oberta de Catalunya. [online]
Available at: http://www.sintesis.com [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: www.uoc.es [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Ediciones Trea. [online]
Universitat de València. [online]
Available at: http://www.trea.es [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Available at: www.uv.es [Accessed 15 March 2015].
Press
Various
Diario El Mundo. [online]
Gonzalez Byass. [online]
Available at: http://www.elmundo.es [Accessed 15 April 2015].
Available at: http://www.gonzalezbyass.com [Accessed 30 April 2015].
Diario El País. [online]
The Hispanic Council. [online]
Available at: www.elpais.com [Accessed 15 April 2015].
Available at: http://www.hispaniccouncil.org [Accessed 12 June 2015].
Diario de León [online] Available at: www.diariodeleon.es [Accessed 15 April 2015].
Plataforma Salvem El Cabanyal (València). [online] Available at: http://www.cabanyal.com [Accessed 17 May 2015].
Universities, Cultural Heritage Institutes and Foundations Departamento de Prehistoria, Arqueología, Historia Antigua, Filología Griega y Filología Latina de la Universidad de Alicante. [online]
Social Networks
Available at: http://dprha.ua.es [Accessed 18 July 2015].
Facebook
Fundación de El Legado Andalusí. [online]
Salvemos a Tio Pepe. [online]
Available at: http://www.legadoandalusi.es [Accessed 18 July 2015].
Available at: https://es-la.facebook.com/SalvemosTioPepe [Accessed 7 October 2015].
Fundación Universitaria de Investigación Arqueológica La Alcudia. [online] Available at: http://www.laalcudia.ua.es [Accessed 18 July 2015].
Instituto Andaluz del Patrimonio Histórico. [online] Available at: http://www.iaph.es/web/ [Accessed 5 June 2015].
Instituto de Ciencias del Patrimonio. [online] Available at: http://www.incipit.csic.es/es/Default.aspx [Accessed 18 January 2015].
Instituto del Patrimonio Cultural de España. [online] Available at:http://ipce.mcu.es [Accessed 18 January 2015].
Universidad de Alicante. [online] Available at: www.ua.es [Accessed 25 January 2015].
Universitat de Barcelona. [online] Available at: www.ub.es [Accessed 18 February 2015].
Universidad de Huelva. [online] Available at: http://www.uhu.es [Accessed 15 March 2015].
188