From Europe to the Alhambra: The Origins of the Conservation and Restoration of Historic Architecture to the Preservation of the Alhambra Palatine City

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article makes an important contribution to the fields of architectural history and preservation studies through its detailed analysis of the historical approaches to restoration/conservation applied to the Alhambra complex while exploring the philosophical underpinnings of those approaches in detail. The author states that the study “aims to highlight the importance and influence of these aspects in the methodologies applied to the interventions carried out in the Alhambra from its Christian period (1492) until the arrival of Leopoldo Torres Balbás (1923).” I would encourage the author to stake an even bolder claim to the significance of their work by noting how the specific example of a study of the Alhambra not only draws from scholarly literature on historical methodologies of restoration/conservation but also expands our understanding of that body of literature and the methodologies it explores.   

My main recommendation for streamlining the article’s argument and strengthening its impact is to consolidate and shorten section 2. The level of detail describing each national context is unnecessary for the article’s thesis about the Alhambra. Furthermore, the author only references a small number of the theorists, preservationists, architects and other writers discussed in section 2.  

Additionally, the author should ensure that all of the points in section 5, “results,” are adequately evidenced by the narrative description in previous sections. For example, in lines 793-798, the author describes Orientalist influence on restoration in the 19th-20th centuries, however the section detailing restorations in that era does not address this topic.  

In addition to these larger suggestions, I have several small points to consider: 

• - I would recommend foregrounding the essay’s focus on the Alhambra even in the very first paragraph to provide context for the author’s observations about changing practices in the preservation and documentation of historical sites.  

•  

• - Please clarify in line 74 how the interventions in Late Antiquity described in the previous paragraphs do not constitute “official protective measures” if 14th century Papal Bulls are to be considered the first.  

•  

• - In section 3.2, the author writes, “The origins of the legal concern for the conservation and protection of the historical heritage in Spain can be traced back to the Italian experience and international influence.” Please state specifically how the subsequently described events/approaches in Spain are connected to Italian precedents. 

•  

• - In lines 611-612, please clarify who was denounced – a person responsible for the taking and selling of glass?

Author Response

Comments and suggestions

Comments 1: This article makes an important contribution to the fields of architectural history and preservation studies through its detailed analysis of the historical approaches to restoration/conservation applied to the Alhambra complex while exploring the philosophical underpinnings of those approaches in detail.

Response 1: Thank you very much for recognising the contribution of this article to architectural history and preservation studies. The study's detailed analysis of the historical approaches to restoration and conservation at the Alhambra complex was indeed intended to highlight both the practical methodologies and the philosophical underpinnings that have shaped these interventions over time. By examining these elements in parallel, the study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of how restoration practices have been influenced by evolving ideologies and priorities.

Comments 2: The author states that the study “aims to highlight the importance and influence of these aspects in the methodologies applied to the interventions carried out in the Alhambra from its Christian period (1492) until the arrival of Leopoldo Torres Balbás (1923)”. I would encourage the author to stake an even bolder claim to the significance of their work by noting how the specific example of a study of the Alhambra not only draws from scholarly literature on historical methodologies of restoration/conservation but also expands our understanding of that body of literature and the methodologies it explores.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the significance of this study. In response, the text has been revised to make a stronger claim about how the study not only draws upon existing scholarly literature on historical methodologies of restoration and conservation but also contributes to expanding the understanding of that body of work. Specifically, the text has been modified to emphasise how the Alhambra's unique context allows for the critical evaluation of these methodologies, thereby providing new insights into their application and adaptation in complex cultural and historical settings. These changes have been reflected in the abstract and conclusion to ensure that the broader theoretical and methodological contributions of the study are clearly articulated.

Comments 3: My main recommendation for streamlining the article’s argument and strengthening its impact is to consolidate and shorten section 2. The level of detail describing each national context is unnecessary for the article’s thesis about the Alhambra. Furthermore, the author only references a small number of the theorists, preservationists, architects and other writers discussed in section 2.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable recommendation regarding the consolidation of Section 2. I appreciate the importance of streamlining the argument and strengthening its impact. I agree that this section could be seen as extensive in relation to the case study itself. However, the primary objective of Section 2 is to provide a complete overview of the historical context, thereby refreshing the reader’s understanding of the most significant developments in the theory and practice of conservation and restoration. By revisiting these advances, this section aims to naturally and intuitively cultivate critical thinking in the reader, enabling them to assess the descriptions in the article or even draw their own conclusions. For the general reader, including those with no background in the subject, the wider European context provides a foundational understanding of the key philosophies and methodologies that underpin the article. This ensures that when the focus shifts to the Alhambra, readers are better equipped to appreciate its significance and its connection to the broader concepts. I firmly believe that this approach greatly contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline.

In consideration of the aforementioned aspects, and in response to your feedback, I have alternatively decided to revise and improve the article's description in the abstract and introduction. This revision is intended to explicitly clarify the aim of the study and highlight its dual purpose - the first is to provide a complete overview and the second is to analyse their consequences in the Alhambra. I have also ensured to emphasise that this study systematically follows the chronological progression of the events, beginning with an overview of the development of conservation and restoration practices in Italy, France and England, and subsequently analysing the Spanish and specific Alhambra contexts.

This decision has been taken according to the following reasons:

1. Retaining essential context for the Alhambra case study

• Proposed change (consolidation of Section 2): Consolidating and reducing the detail in Section 2 would remove valuable historical and philosophical context. This may risks making the discussion of the Alhambra feel isolated, disconnected from the broader conservation discourse.
• Applied change (improving Abstract and introduction): By revising the abstract and introduction, the article explicitly highlights its dual purpose: providing a foundational overview of European conservation and analysing its influence on the Alhambra. This clarifies the role of Section 2 and ensures readers understand its relevance to the case study. It also avoids diminishing the broader contribution of the article.

2. Preserving chronological and methodological integrity

• Proposed change: Shortening Section 2 may disrupt the article’s chronological structure and undermine its systematic approach.
• Applied change: The revisions emphasise that the article follows a chronological progression, starting with the development of conservation practices in Europe before narrowing its focus to Spain and the Alhambra. This structure aligns with academic conventions and provides a logical flow, enhancing the reader’s comprehension of how European methodologies informed the Alhambra’s conservation practices.

3. Supporting critical thinking and reader engagement

• Proposed change: Reducing detail in Section 2 would likely make the article less accessible to general readers or those unfamiliar with conservation theory. It would also limit the reader's ability to critically engage with the content.
• Applied change: The entirety of Section 2 is designed to assist readers in developing a foundational understanding of the key concepts. This equips readers to assess the Alhambra case study in a more informed and critical manner.

4. Enhancing the article’s scholarly contribution without compromising depth

• Proposed change: By reducing Section 2, the article risks being perceived as a narrow case study rather than a broader contribution to the discipline of heritage conservation.

• Applied change: The revisions position the article as both a comprehensive analysis of European conservation practices and a specific study of the Alhambra. This dual focus might enhance the article’s impact by situating the Alhambra within a larger transnational discourse, increasing its relevance to scholars and researchers.

I hope this changes effectively address the concerns raised in this recommendation without compromising the article's rigour and contribution. Finally, I extend my profound gratitude for your comments and recommendations.

Comments 4: Additionally, the author should ensure that all of the points in section 5 (results) are adequately evidenced by the narrative description in previous sections. For example, in lines 793-798, the author describes Orientalist influence on restoration in the 19^th-20^th centuries, however the section detailing restorations in that era does not address this topic. 

Response 4: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. I appreciate your recommendation and fully agree that the Orientalist influence was not adequately addressed in the section detailing restorations from that era. This oversight is entirely accurate, and I regret having overlooked this important detail. To address this, I have revised the section to explicitly include an analysis of how Orientalist perspectives influenced the methodologies and priorities during this period. This revision ensures that the narrative description in the earlier sections provides a comprehensive foundation for the points made in Section 5 (Results). I have also ensured that similar points in the Results section are properly supported by evidence and analysis in the preceding sections, enhancing the overall coherence and rigour of the article. I greatly appreciate your attention to this matter, as it has allowed to improve the article's clarity and consistency.

Comments 5: In addition to these larger suggestions, I would recommend foregrounding the essay’s focus on the Alhambra even in the very first paragraph to provide context for the author’s observations about changing practices in the preservation and documentation of historical sites.

Response 5: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion to foreground the study's focus on the Alhambra. It has now come to my attention that the description requires improvement in order to clarify the article's approach. To this end, a comprehensive revision of the entire content of section 1 (Introduction) has been undertaken, with the information being refined and restructured as necessary to ensure compliance with the recommendation. The revised section is now outlined as follows:

1. First Paragraph (the discipline of Conservation): Introduces the evolution and changes of conservation practices.
2. Second Paragraph (foregrounding the Alhambra): Centres the Alhambra as the focal case study.
3. Third Paragraph (methodology and structure of the article): Explains the article's methodological framework and structure.
4. Fourth Paragraph (objective of the study): Summarises the article’s aim and scope, serving as a concluding statement to the introduction.

Comments 6: Please clarify in line 74 how the interventions in Late Antiquity described in the previous paragraphs do not constitute “official protective measures” if 14^th century Papal Bulls are to be considered the first.  

Response 6: Thank you for your observation. I entirely agree that this may lead to confusion. In response to your recommendation, I have revised both paragraphs in order to clarify these statements.

Comments 7: In section 3.2, the author writes, “The origins of the legal concern for the conservation and protection of the historical heritage in Spain can be traced back to the Italian experience and international influence.” Please state specifically how the subsequently described events/approaches in Spain are connected to Italian precedents.

Response 7: Thank you for your observation regarding the connection between the origins of legal concern for heritage conservation in Spain and Italian precedents. The text has been revised to explicitly address this relationship, highlighting how the foundational principles and practices established in Italy and international frameworks have been gradually adapted to Spain’s unique historical and cultural context. These changes aim to clarify the connection and ensure the narrative aligns with the article's broader discussion on the evolution of heritage conservation. I appreciate your suggestion, as it has allowed to enhance the coherence and precision of this section.

Comments 8: In lines 611-612, please clarify who was denounced – a person responsible for the taking and selling of glass?

Response 8: Thank you for bringing this detail to my attention. The text has been revised to identify the individuals responsible for the taking and selling of glass. Additionally, the associated reference has been updated to ensure accuracy and alignment with the revised statement. I hope this adjustment provides the necessary clarity and strengthens the credibility of the article.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my profound gratitude for all the comments and recommendations offered for this work. I appreciate all the time, dedication and attention to detail that went into refining and ensuring the consistency and credibility of this study. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article focuses on cultural heritage and the evolution of attitudes towards historic buildings over the last centuries. According to the author the change has been characterised by a gradual shift from a direct and often invasive interventionist perspective to a more holistic, preventative and respectful approach. This process has not only been rooted in a conceptual change of attitude but also in technical advances. The article looks at such changes by focusing on one case study - the preservation of the Alhambra and the ways it is part of a wider discourse on heritage and values. The main objective of the study is “to provide a complete overview of the concepts, regulations and criteria developed in Europe and their consequences in the Alhambra Palatine city”. The methods include historical analysis, conservation and restoration. The period focus is from the Christian period at Alhambra, beginning in 1492, to 1923. 

 

The Palatine city of Granada underwent, according tot he author various transformations, from the construction of the fortifications in the 9th century, the first repairs in the 13th century, the construction of the first great palaces in the 14th century and their adaptations and modifications before and after the Christian conquest at the end of the 15th century. Before beginning the in-depth presentation of the case study the author sets out to explain the general evolution of conservation and restoration in Europe, looking at Italy, France and England. I wonder if it would be more useful to first present Alhambra and then use this discussion of the wider European processes as conclusion and not the start of the article. The research for this part - the history of conservation / restoration in Europe, is very well studied, clearly explained and full of important information and analysis. However it is an extensive section of the article that does not focus on the Alhambra at all. Either change its placing within the paper or, perhaps, explain at the beginning of the paper that the article is divided into two parts - the first is an overview of the development of the field of built heritage from Late Antiquity till today and the second is the case study of the Alhambra. 

Regarding the Alhambra study itself - the article contributes very much to the study of the conservation of the site, starting with important archival sources from as early as 1491 that relate directly to questions of heritage. This is an important contribution and is well contextualised within the broader European questions of heritage. The description of the interventions themselves is also very important. As aforementioned I would consider placing this whole section (section 4. The Conservation of the Alhambra and Generalife Palatine City) before the broader contextual discussion but there could be a good argument for the current organisation as well. The images are very useful for illustrating the text but not all are clear without further markings or explanation in the caption (for example in figure 3 I don’t see the tombstones mentioned in the caption). Significant effort has gone into collecting historic images and this is another of the article’s strengths. 

 

Specific comments: 

The author mixes between use of “15th century” and “Quattrocento”, I would unify even when talking about Renaissance Italy. 

p. 5 - the word ‘it’ should be in lower case: "Although, It was not until the period ..” 

Much of the bibliography is in Spanish or by Spanish authors even when discussing the history of conservation / restoration in France and Italy. 

 

Author Response

Comments and suggestions

Comments 1: The article focuses on cultural heritage and the evolution of attitudes towards historic buildings over the last centuries. According to the author the change has been characterised by a gradual shift from a direct and often invasive interventionist perspective to a more holistic, preventative and respectful approach. This process has not only been rooted in a conceptual change of attitude but also in technical advances. The article looks at such changes by focusing on one case study - the preservation of the Alhambra and the ways it is part of a wider discourse on heritage and values. The main objective of the study is “to provide a complete overview of the concepts, regulations and criteria developed in Europe and their consequences in the Alhambra Palatine city”. The methods include historical analysis, conservation and restoration. The period focus is from the Christian period at Alhambra, beginning in 1492, to 1923.”

Response 1: Thank you for your detailed summary and thoughtful engagement with the article. I appreciate your recognition of the study’s objective to trace the evolution of attitudes towards historic buildings, as well as its emphasis on the Alhambra as a case study within the broader discourse on heritage. The analysis indeed aims to demonstrate how conceptual shifts, coupled with technical advancements, have shaped more holistic and respectful approaches to conservation. The study's objective of providing an overview of European concepts, regulations, and criteria was specifically designed to highlight their impact on the conservation of the Alhambra, showcasing its integration into wider historical and theoretical debates. Additionally, the focus on the period from 1492 to 1923 enables the research to identify key moments of transformation in both practice and philosophy, underlining the importance of the Alhambra as a microcosm of broader European conservation trends. The methodologies employed—historical analysis and conservation/restoration—were chosen precisely to bridge the conceptual with the practical, ensuring a comprehensive exploration of the Alhambra’s preservation history within its cultural and technical contexts. I am grateful for your recognition of these efforts.

Comments 2: The Palatine city of Granada underwent, according to the author various transformations, from the construction of the fortifications in the 9th century, the first repairs in the 13th century, the construction of the first great palaces in the 14th century and their adaptations and modifications before and after the Christian conquest at the end of the 15th century. Before beginning the in-depth presentation of the case study the author sets out to explain the general evolution of conservation and restoration in Europe, looking at Italy, France and England. I wonder if it would be more useful to first present Alhambra and then use this discussion of the wider European processes as conclusion and not the start of the article. The research for this part - the history of conservation / restoration in Europe, is very well studied, clearly explained and full of important information and analysis. However it is an extensive section of the article that does not focus on the Alhambra at all. Either change its placing within the paper or, perhaps, explain at the beginning of the paper that the article is divided into two parts - the first is an overview of the development of the field of built heritage from Late Antiquity till today and the second is the case study of the Alhambra. Regarding the Alhambra study itself - the article contributes very much to the study of the conservation of the site, starting with important archival sources from as early as 1491 that relate directly to questions of heritage. This is an important contribution and is well contextualised within the broader European questions of heritage. The description of the interventions themselves is also very important. As aforementioned I would consider placing this whole section (section 4. The Conservation of the Alhambra and Generalife Palatine City) before the broader contextual discussion but there could be a good argument for the current organisation as well.

Response 2: Thank you for your insightful feedback. I appreciate your suggestion to present the case study of the Alhambra first, followed by the discussion of broader European conservation practices. I understand that this could create a more direct focus on the Alhambra from the outset, which would allow readers to immediately engage with the subject matter. I also agree that this section could be seen as extensive in relation to the case study itself. During the composition of the article, I contemplated the adoption of this configuration. Indeed, I endeavoured to reflect this structure in an attempt to situate readers within the context of the Alhambra from the beginning. However, I ascertained that this structure presented a greater number of disadvantages than the current approach, for the reasons outlined below:

1. Preservation of Chronological Integrity

• Logical Flow: The article employs a chronological structure, beginning with the broader development of conservation practices in Europe before narrowing to the specific case of the Alhambra. Reordering the sections would disrupt this logical progression, making it harder for readers to see how European ideas influenced interventions at the Alhambra.
• Historical Context First: The evolution of conservation in Italy, France, and England predates and directly informs the practices applied to the Alhambra. Discussing the Alhambra first risks presenting it in isolation, disconnecting it from the European ideologies that shaped its conservation.

2. Enhancing Reader Comprehension

• General to Specific: For the general reader, including those with no background in the subject, starting with the wider European context provides a foundational understanding of the key philosophies and methodologies that underpin the article. This ensures that when the focus shifts to the Alhambra, readers are better equipped to appreciate its significance and its connection to the broader concepts. The primary objective of Section 2 is to provide a complete overview of the historical context, thereby refreshing the reader’s understanding of the most significant developments in the theory and practice of conservation and restoration. By revisiting these advances, this section aims to naturally and intuitively cultivate critical thinking in the reader, enabling them to assess the descriptions in the article or even draw their own conclusions. I firmly believe this approach greatly contributes to the advancement of scientific knowledge in any discipline. Thus, the current approach ensures that the narrative remains focused and relevant, while still equipping the reader with the necessary context to critically engage with the subsequent analysis of the Alhambra as a case study.
• Avoiding Redundancy: Discussing the Alhambra first might necessitate repeating information about European methodologies later explained, making the article less streamlined and potentially more difficult to follow.

3. Aligning with Scholarly and Pedagogical Conventions

• Case Study as Application: In academic writing, case studies typically follow theoretical or historical discussions to demonstrate the application or impact of broader ideas. Placing the Alhambra section after the European context adheres to this convention, reinforcing the article’s scholarly rigour and accessibility.
• Structured Argumentation: The current organisation ensures that the Alhambra is presented as an example of how European restoration ideologies evolved and were applied in a culturally complex site. Moving Section 4 earlier risks diluting this connection and weakening the article’s central argument.

4. Maximising the Article’s Scholarly Impact

• Framing the Alhambra’s Importance: By positioning the Alhambra discussion after the European context, the article frames the site as both a recipient of transnational conservation trends and a contributor to their evolution. This enhances the significance of the Alhambra’s case study within the global discourse on heritage preservation.
• Audience Expectations: Readers seeking insights into European conservation philosophies will likely expect a structured progression from general context to specific application. Changing the order could reduce the article’s appeal and clarity for its intended audience.

Therefore, considering the aforementioned aspects, I have decided to proceed with the second recommendation set out in your comment, specifically: "[…] or, perhaps, explain at the beginning of the paper that the article is divided into two parts – the first is an overview of the development of the field of built heritage from Late Antiquity until today and the second is the case study of the Alhambra". In order to address this concern, I have considered modifying the description regarding the methodological structure of the article (both in the abstract and introduction) in order to consolidate the idea of a chronological approach. This modification consisted of explicitly stating that the article first explores the history of conservation practices in Italy, France and England, and secondly focuses on the specific case study of the Alhambra. I hope this change could help guide the reader and provide clarity regarding the purpose and focus of each section.

I had presumed that the indication of the article's structure in the title, coupled with the reiteration of the idea in the abstract's opening sentence, would serve to effectively communicate the article's approach to the general reader. For this reason, I would like to extend my profound gratitude for your comments and recommendations. They have elucidated the necessity to emphasise the structure and focus of the article more directly.

Comments 3: “The images are very useful for illustrating the text but not all are clear without further markings or explanation in the caption (for example in figure 3 I don’t see the tombstones mentioned in the caption). Significant effort has gone into collecting historic images and this is another of the article’s strengths.” 

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback regarding the images and captions. I appreciate your acknowledgement of the effort invested in collecting the historic images and I am glad you found them a strength of the article. Regarding the clarity of the images, I understand that additional markings and more detailed explanations in the captions could enhance their interpretability. Furthermore, I have included two additional images (a schematic representation of the wall and a close-up image of another decorated tombstone) to provide even more clarification to the explanation presented in the text. Finally, I have reviewed the captions and images throughout the article to ensure they are sufficiently clear and informative for all readers. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions. These improvements have enhanced the overall clarity and accessibility of the article.

Comments 4: “The author mixes between use of “15th century” and “Quattrocento”, I would unify even when talking about Renaissance Italy.” 

Response 4: Thank you very much for this comment. I am in complete agreement with the point raised. In order to address this issue, I have thoroughly revised all related statements to ensure clarity and coherence.

Comments 5: “p. 5 - the word ‘it’ should be in lower case: "Although, It was not until the period.” 

Response 5: I am very grateful for this observation. I apologise for not detecting it in advance. Accordingly, the text has been revised, and the word has been corrected to rectify this mistake.

Comments 6: “Much of the bibliography is in Spanish or by Spanish authors even when discussing the history of conservation / restoration in France and Italy.” 

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable observation. A thorough review of all sections discussing the history of conservation and restoration in France, Italy, and England has been conducted, and the bibliographic references in these sections have been meticulously refined to ensure the correct compliance of this recommendation. The revised text references now present the following organisation:

 

REFERENCE	AUTHOR NATIONALITY		LANGUAJE OF PUBLICATION		PLACE OF PUBLICATION
Section 2.1. The Italian Case
Carbonara, Giovanni. 1997. Avvicinamento al restauro: Teoria, storia, monumenti.		Italian		Italian		Napoli
Casiello, Stella. 2005. Fondamenti storici della legislazione in Italia: dal Rinascimento all’Ottocento.		Italian		Italian		Milano
Casiello, Stella. 2008. Verso una storia del restauro. dall’età classica al primo ottocento.		Italian		Italian		Florencia
Conti, Alessandro. 2003. Storia del restauro e della conservazione delle opere d’arte.		Italian		Italian		Milano
Petrarca, Francesco, and Ugo Dotti. 1978. Epistole.		Italian		Italian		Torino
Piranesi, Giovanni. B. 1756. Le antichità romane.		Italian		Italian		Roma
Pirazzoli, Nullo. 1994. Teorie e storie del restauro.		Italian		Italian		Ravenna
Tantillo, Giuseppe. 2010. Il rilievo e la rappresentazione per il progetto di restauro architettonico.		Italian		Italian		Napoli
Klein, R. 1995. Distruzioni dei templi nella tarda antichita. Un problema politico, culturale e sociale.		British		Italian		Napoli
Hanson, R. P. C. 1978. The transformation of pagan temples into churches in the early Christian centuries.		British		English		England
McCahill, Elizabeth. 2013. Reviving the eternal city: Rome and the papal court, 1420-1447.		North American		English		London
Saradi-Mendelovici, Helen. 1990. Christian Attitudes toward Pagan Monuments in Late Antiquity and Their Legacy in Later Byzantine Centuries.		North American		English		Washington
Jokilehto, Jukka. 1986. A history of architectural conservation.		Finnish		English		United Kingdom
Vitruvius Polion, Marco L., and Joseph Ortiz & Sanz. 2019. Los diez libros de arquitectura.		Italian		Spanish		Barcelona
Winckelmann, Johann J., and Joaquín Chamorro Mielke. 2011. Historia del arte de la antigüedad.		German		Spanish		Madrid
Winckelmann, Johann J., and Salvador Mas. 2007. Reflexiones sobre la imitación de las obras griegas en la pintura y la escultura.		German		Spanish		Madrid
Alegre Ávila, Juan M. 1994. Evolución y régimen jurídico del patrimonio histórico		Spanish		Spanish		Madrid
Arce Martínez, Jesús J. 1975. Reconstrucciones de templos paganos en época del Emperador Juliano (361-363 d. C.).		Spanish		Spanish		Bologna
Section 2.2. The case of France
Arrêté ministériel du 29 septembre 1837 Instituant une Commission des Monuments Historiques. París: Ministerio del interior, vol. II, 1837.		French		French		France
Rücker, Frédéric. 1913. Les Origines de la Conservation des Monuments Historiques en France (1790-1830).		French		French		Paris
Carbonara, Giovanni. 1997. Avvicinamento al restauro: Teoria, storia, monumenti.		Italian		Italian		Napoli
Jokilehto, Jukka. 1986. A history of architectural conservation.		Finnish		English		United Kingdom
Martínez Yáñez, Celia. 2006. El patrimonio cultural: Los nuevos valores, tipos, finalidades y formas de organización.		Spanish		Spanish		Granada
Quirosa García, María V. 2008. El nacimiento de la conciencia tutelar. Origen y desarrollo durante el siglo XVIII.		Spanish		Spanish		Granada
Section 2.3. The case of England
Carbonara, Giovanni. 1997. Avvicinamento al restauro: Teoria, storia, monumenti.		Italian		Italian		Napoli
Pirazzoli, Nullo. 1994. Teorie e storie del restauro.		Italian		Italian		Ravenna
Jokilehto, Jukka. 1986. A history of architectural conservation.		Finnish		English		United Kingdom
Landow, George. P. 1971. The aesthetic and critical theories of John Ruskin.		North American		English		New Jersey
Ruskin, John. 1857. The seven lamps of architecture.		British		English		New York
White, James F. 1962. The Cambridge Movement: The Ecclesiologists and the Gothic Revival.		North American		English		England
Section 3.1. New directions
Carbonara, Giovanni. 1997. Avvicinamento al restauro: Teoria, storia, monumenti.		Italian		Italian		Napoli
Giovannoni, Gustavo. 1925. Questioni di architettura nella storia e nella vita: Edilizia, estetica architettonica restauri, ambiente dei monumenti.		Italian		Italian		Roma
Giovannoni, Gustavo. 1931. Il restauro dei monumenti, La Carta del Restauro.		Italian		Italian		Atene
Giovannoni, Gustavo, and Francesco Ventura. 1995. Vecchie cittá.		Italian		Italian		Milano
Jokilehto, Jukka. 1986. A history of architectural conservation.		Finnish		English		United Kingdom
Trachana, Angelique. 1998. Documentos internacionales.		Greek		Spanish		Madrid

Finally, I would like to reiterate my profound gratitude for all the comments and recommendations offered for this work. I appreciate all the time, dedication and attention to detail that went into refining and ensuring the consistency and credibility of this study. Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf