Conservation policies in Socialist and
Post-Socialist Albania: a brief overview through
the case study of Gjirokast¨er Historic Centre
Federica Pompejano
EasyChair preprints are intended for rapid dissemination of research results and are integrated with the rest of EasyChair.
CONSERVATION POLICIES IN SOCIALIST AND POST-SOCIALIST
ALBANIA: A BRIEF OVERVIEW THROUGH THE CASE STUDY OF
GJIROKASTËR HISTORIC CENTRE
Federica Pompejano1,2*
1: Università di Genova, Dipartimento di Architettura e Design, Genova (Italy) [email protected]
2: Institute of Cultural Anthropology and Art Studies (Academy of Albanian Studies), Department of Ethnology, Tirana (Albania)
Keywords: Gjirokastër Historic Centre, Socialist Albania, Conservation Policies, Historic Urban Landscape
Abstract Cultural monuments conservation issues arose in Socialist Albania nearly in the middle of the 20th century. Regarding the protection of historic centres, the country made great efforts to preserve wide
historic urban and rural areas. Anticipating what would be defined as “historic and architectural areas” in the UNESCO 1976 Recommendation concerning the safeguarding and contemporary role of historic areas, the notion of “Qytet-Muze” had the meaning of an ensemble of architectural edifices having outstanding historic and artistic values. Such notion implied an evolved perception and conception of the monument term significance, intended in a broader sense as a built landscape. The historic centre of Gjirokastër was among the firsts Albanian citadels to be declared Museum-City in 1961. Nowadays, being part of WHL since 2005, it should be considered a Historic Urban Landscape more than a simple historic area. This paper deals with the analysis of the Albanian protection regulations issued for the safeguarding of Gjirokastër historic centre through the socialist and post-socialist years shedding light on its conservation policies and the need of a landscape-based conservation approach.
1. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE STUDY
The awareness on the importance of cultural and architectural heritage preservation arose in the
Albanian context under the severe Communist Regime circumstances, nearly in the middle of 20th
century. Liable to the closure policy of the Communist Regime (1944-1992), the Albanian legislative body made impressive efforts to define the basis on which have arisen the present legislative framework on safeguarding of architectural heritage in the country. During the Communist regime a huge work of research and fieldwork was carried out by the Institute of Cultural Monuments (IMK) on traditional architecture and worship heritage. A first result was, in 1961, the appointment of the Museum-City status to the historic citadels of Berat and Gjirokastër and the subdivision of monuments into two protected categories. The notion of Museum-City had the meaning of an ensemble of architectural edifices, spanning from civil and worship buildings to dwelling houses, having outstanding historic and artistic values. Moreover, to the subdivision
into 1st and 2nd Category Monuments corresponded different conservation approaches to the
building itself also affecting, at the urban scale, the landscape perception of the architectural ensembles composing the Museum-City.
The historic citadel of Gjirokastër, located in southern Albania, was after Berat the second declared Museum-City. After the end of the Communist Regime, Gjirokastër has been affected by the dissolution of the administrative and technical institutional frame that supported its safeguarding and administration. In 2005, Gjirokastër was declared World Heritage Site and listed in the UNESCO WHL, whilst in 2008 the inscription was enlarged also to Berat. Since then the historic centre faced a continuous history of uncontrolled interventions on its architectural heritage. The inefficiency of the post-socialist Regulations’ conservation measures and their implementation difficulties caused the UNESCO (2015) and ICOMOS (2016) reactions, which urged the need for an integrated urban conservation and management plan for the WH property, considering short, medium and long-term conservation process planning. Finally, beyond the UNESCO inscription criteria recognising the importance of its Ottoman architecture period, Gjirokastër historic centre, as urban area, is the product of the on-going societal, economic and historical processes. Thus, it must be considered a living entity, a Historic Urban Landscape, also enriched by its 20th century architecture layers. Moreover, as historic urban areas, it remains a
testimony of earlier socialist planning and conservation policies and as such also a fundamental part of Albanian cultural heritage legislations history.
2. “QYTET-MUZE”: AN EXTENDED MONUMENT CONCEPT
In 1961, the Council of Ministers issued the Decision n. 172/1961 About the Museum-Cities nomination. Art. 1 granted the status of Qytet-Muze (Museum-City) to Gjirokastër and Berat, the ancient area and subsoil of Durrës and the ancient market-place of Krujë, due to their architectural features and monumental value [1]. The Decision appointed the State University to the study and planning of a project for the museum-city of Berat and its relative regulation which would also be served as guidance for every further study, restoration or maintenance intervention in other protected museum-cities or areas. Thus, on the same day, the Council of Ministers issued the Decision n. 170 About the administration of the museum-city of Berat [2] which can be considered a milestone in the Albanian architectural heritage preservation context. In fact, this Decision was a first attempt to accomplish what Gani Strazimiri (1915-1993), architect and founder of the IMK (1965), would have defined to be the main problem within the field of architectural heritage protection belonging to extensive historic-artistic centres: the reconciliation, between the
preservation of ancient historic-centres and the inevitable economic and societal development of cities, to be pursued through urban planning activities.
According to Decision n. 170/1961 the museum-city of Berat was divided into three zones: the museum zone, the protected zone, and the free zone. The museum zone, rich of historic-artistic
and environmental values, was formed by the ensemble of 1st and 2nd Category Monuments; the
protected zone enclosing only 1st Category Monuments and, finally the free zone, beyond the
borders of the museum and protected zones, occasionally comprising some isolated 1st Category Monuments. The notion of museum-city had the meaning of an ensemble of architectural edifices, spanning from civil and worship buildings to dwelling houses, having outstanding historic and artistic values. At the same time, in Socialist Albania, a museum city, consisting of one or more ensembles of cultural monuments, was considered as the first reliable source for the Albanian people history having, therefore, educational value. Such museum-city notion, implied a very evolved perception and conception of monument term significance, intended as a broader sense, referring to a built landscape, and not only associated to a single monument.
3. THE CULTURAL MONUMENTS CATEGORY
According to Art. 6 of the Decision no. 170/1961 cultural monuments were divided into 1st and
2nd Category Monuments forming the museum zone: “a) Les monuments de la premiére catégorie: qui
sont les représentants des caracteristiqués principals de l’architecture (ouvrages à caractére social, ouvrages de culte, d’ingénieurie etc.) ainsi que ceux qui possédent une grande valeur dans le domaine de l’art; b) Les monument de la II-éme catégorie: qui sont tous ces monuments (constructions sociales, de culte etc.) qui avec les monuments de I-ére catégorie constituent de maniére ininterrompue les ensambles de la zone-musée” [2].
The above cited subdivision aimed to distinguish the monuments considering the differentiation in term of historic-artistic and environmental values, following different practical and administrative levels for restoration, custody, protection, adaptation and use of the monuments.
1st Category Monuments, due to their historic-artistic and environmental values, had to be
entirely preserved and could be exploited only if their use had not affected the values that had
made them 1st Category Monuments. In this sense, traditional dwelling houses as cultural
monuments worthy of protection, being built for residential purposes, had to be entirely preserved maintaining their original intended function. The expropriation and use conversion were foreseen only if the residential function compromised the monuments values.
Thus, the ‘conservative restoration intervention’ on 1st Category Monuments, foresaw and aimed
to keep intact and unaltered building exteriors and interiors [3, 4]. Moreover, in case they had undergone transformations, additions, deformations and so on, that affected their original architectural composition and environments, they had to be restored even through considerable interventions, and their feasible new function had not to damage monument architectural and environmental constraints and values.
2nd Category Monuments had environmental and landscape values and therefore they were
considered an integral and essential part of the museum zone. Thus, the preservation interventions focused only on the exteriors while allowing interiors modification and adaptation according to new and different uses.
The Council of the Museum-City had the supervision of conservation, repair and restoration interventions, together with the museum-city general administration matters. Further, it had to approve the annual work plan, elaborated by the Office of the Public Education and Culture Section given the Tirana State University opinion, and to implement a future development plan
for the museum-city, containing rules about the building of new constructions in conformity with the Regulation directives. Furthermore, it planned to carry on a census of all protected monuments within the museum zone, considering the isolated ones outside the museum city borders as well. Every monument had to be provided with a detailed state of conservation description, according to its belonging category as determined by Tirana State University directives. Finally, the attachments to the Regulation consisted of a general urban plan of the
Museum-City, the placement of each 1st and 2nd Category Monuments and buildings to be
demolished within the ensemble forming the museum zone, together with the enclosed 1st
Category Monuments List.
4. THE MUSEUM-CITY OF GJIROKASTЁR: A BRIEF SUMMARY OF ITS URBAN LAYERING
The wide-spread historic centre (Fig. 1), located on the eastern slope of the Mali i Gjerë mountains, is dominated by the mediaeval fortress which was partially rebuilt and enlarged between 1812 and 1821, under the ruling of Ali Pasha of Tepelenë [5]. The first mention of the city dates to 1336, in the writings of the noble greek John VI Cantacuzenus, under the name of “Argyrokastron” [5, 6, 7]. Before the Ottoman domain, Gjirokastër was the seat of the feudal lords of the house of Zenevisi, who settled in the city and governed different territories of Epirus. In 1417 the city became part of the Ottoman empire and one of the most important administrative urban centres of the Sanjak of Albania. According to Riza [7], the overall current urban settlement of Gjirokastër was substantially traced during the third quarter of the 17th century, even if presenting a reduced density of buildings compared to the nowadays’ one. Sources regarding the urban development of the historic centre during the 18th century are missing [7] and news relating to the 19th century were often provided by the numerous European travellers
who crossed the Balkans in that period. Thus, at the beginning of the 20th century, Gjirokastër
turned to be a flourishing centre in South Albania. Between the 1920s and the establishment of the Communist Regime, Gjirokastër witnesses a flourishing period thanks to the continuous and even more intensive trade with Italy and Greece. This was reflected in the construction of new residential buildings, as well as hotels, banks, commercial complexes, school and administrative edifices, some of which are currently still in use. In the same years, the Military Geographical Institute of Florence produced the first aerial photogrammetric shots (Fig. 2) of the historic centre which was used as base also for the future urban studies [8]. The modern period continued adding layers to the Historic Centre. Thus, during the Communist Regime, starting from the 1950s, new institutional, public and socio-cultural edifices were built. Those buildings reflected in their architectural features the historical-political phases’ ideological influence of the country national polices [9]. The difficult years after the collapse of the regime in the early 1990s, saw the inaction of local and central institution and their failure in enforcing the law that clearly affected the state of conservation of the Historic Centre. Nowadays, despite constantly dealing with a history of difficulties and neglection related to its preservation and the new city expansion [10], the historic neighbourhoods abound in their most characteristic 18th and 19th century urban
dwelling houses and 20th century modern architecture surrounding the fortress, constituting one
of the most picturesque historic centres in Albania. From the legal point of view, at national level the historic centre has been managed and preserved according to three Regulations issued in 1973, 2003 and 2015.
Figura1. View of Gjirokastër Historic Centre (Photo by the author, 2015).
Figure 2. Orthophoto of Gjirokastër, Albania. The historic centre in 1937 [Left - IMGI Archives, Volo 28.08.37 nr. 39. Photo processing by the author] and in 2007 [Right - ASIG webpage, 2007. Photo processing
by the author]. The red area indicates the expansion of the new urban centre towards the Drinos Valley.
4.1. Socialist polices: The 1973 Regulation for the protection, restoration and administration of the Museum-City of Gjirokastër
In 1973, based on the Decision n. 170, were drafted two important regulations for the administration, restoration and protection of the museum-city of Gjirokastër and of Korça’s ensembles and single buildings having historic, architectural and urban values, showing a significant growth in the responding to factual protection and safeguard questions.
The Regulation for the protection, restoration and administration of the museum-city of Gjirokastër [11] envisaged the subdivision of the urban territory in three zones: the Museum
zone, the Protected buffer zone and the Free zone. The Museum zone was the core of the historic centre preserving the most valuable examples and thus had to be entirely preserved as a monumental, urban architectural and environmental ensemble.
New constructions were not allowed and in case of socio-cultural and administrative edifices’ building necessity, those functions had to be possibly located within cultural monuments without affecting their values. The Protected buffer zone, with its complementary urban, architectural and environmental values, was conceived as a harmonious part of the historic centre in which, only in special case, new constructions having socio-cultural or administrative function were allowed. In this case, they had to be built in harmony with the existing ensemble, respecting volumes dimension, materials, etc. Finally, the Free zone was the part of the city outside the historic centre (Museum zone and Protected buffer zone) were new construction, reconstruction and adaptations were allowed respecting the character and general features of the museum city (volumes, colours, materials) while preserving the typical pavement of the streets. It is important to note how the term qendër historike (historic centre) was used for the first time within the text of this Regulation to indicate the whole ensemble of the historic neighbourhoods of Gjirokastër (Art. 2).
In the provided re-defined notions of 1st and 2nd Category Monuments, Art. 7 stated that “1st
Category monuments are all the examples having the value of genres, types and of their evolution over the centuries within the museum city. (…). On monuments belonging to this category are forbidden every intervention affecting the volumetric composition, architectural traits of the exteriors and interiors, plan-functional schemes and substitution of original materials is forbidden. (…). In some special cases, adaptations are authorized, but through (the use of) soft materials that will not affect the authentic values and should be removable (reversible in the future)” [11].
Further, Art. 8 reported that “2nd Category monuments are all the other buildings located within the borders of
the historic centre (museum zone and protected buffer zone). Due to their values, they play an important role within the urban, architectural and landscaping ensembles of the historic centre. On monuments belonging to this category are allowed every internal transformation or adaptations to reach the most rational and comfortable use also through the introduction of new structures and materials, on the condition to do not affect the exteriors; in rare and extraordinary cases, could be granted small transformations on the secondary external prospects. (…)” [11]. Compared to the notions given into the 1960s Berat Regulation, in the 1970s Gjirokastër one, they were more precise, explaining that the importance of dividing cultural monuments into two main protected categories, according to their values, had to be intended to differentiate measures and methods of intervention for their conservation, restoration, adaptation and use. In addition, it is interesting to underline that, for the first time, the Gjirokastër Regulation introduced the possibility of reconstructing outstanding ruined buildings, or ruined parts of them, based either on in-situ found traces or on written, graphics and photographic sources. The aim of every reconstruction intervention had to be the achievement of the architectural, urban and landscape framework completion of the historic centre [6, 12]. Another important contribution was given by the introduction of some directives concerning the future urban and architectural development of the city according to regulatory plans that had to consider the harmonization of new urban areas within the architectural, urban and landscape ensembles of the museum-city (Art. 14). Finally, Art. 15 identified some areas belonging to the Free zone were new edifices had to demonstrate the new level of construction technology reached by the country by means of the use of new materials, building techniques, prefabricated and industrial systems, clearly creating a contrast between the ancient and the new socialist construction.
4.2. Post-socialist polices: The 2000s Regulations
After the fall of the Enver Hoxha’s regime in the early 1990s, the country was torn by a dramatic post-communist period that led to a lack of decentralized territory monitoring and ruling by local institutions, affecting a cultural heritage safeguarding system that, during the regime was substantially efficient, but that without a necessary updating started to collapse.
The first updating of the 1973 Gjirokastër’s Regulation was issued in 2003, based on the national Law no. 9048, April 7th, 2003. The Decision no. 832, December 12th, 2003 was substantially
retracing the previous Regulation. Concerning the 1st Category Monuments, Art. 8 stated that also
single parts of a building could be considered worthy of protection, as well as courtyards, auxiliary constructions and perimeter walls [13]. Articles 10 and 11 appointed to the IMK, the Regional Directorate of Cultural Monuments and every licensed person the study and designing of restoration projects on monuments belonging to the historic centre and outside, that would be implemented by the same IMK or licensed person. The future development of the city was foreseen to betaken into account by the General Urban Plan, that had to respect the limit of the Museum-City as defined by the Regulation and in accordance to Art. 38 of the national Law no. 9048 stating that every decision issued by the Council for the Territory Administration of the Municipality, concerning the approval of new interventions and modifications within the monumental area or in the protected zone, did not enter into force. Finally, in order to advice and facilitate the administration, safeguarding and conservation of the Historic Centre, the 2003 Regulation (Art. 13) established the Museum-City Supervisory Committee, composed by representatives from both local and central institutions and by professionals working at the Regional Directorate of Cultural Monuments. However, members were chosen directly from the same Committee upon Municipality approval, that also had the right to choose the Committee Chair, effectively compromising the good faith of its establishment.
In 2007, the Decision no. 345, June 6th, amended the Art. 13 and Art. 14 of the 2003 Regulation concerning the Museum-City Supervisory Committee [14]. The modified Art. 13 introduced the new Museum-City Administration and Coordination Office (ZAKGJ). This was a legal person subjected to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports (MTKRS) that also determined its composition in term of members and structure. Moreover, more transparently, the chair of the ZAKGJ was named and/or dismissed upon MTKRS ordain in accordance with the relevant legislation on public institutions directors. The work and the cooperation of the ZAKGJ was ruled by the amended Art. 14, according to which it had to carried out its work in compliance with the Law no. 9048/2003 (amended), the current Regulation, as well as accordingly to UNESCO Recommendations. Moreover, it had to dialogue with other local and central state institutions and with UNESCO or other international organization.
The latest and still in force Regulation was issued in 2015, accordingly to the Law 9048/2003 (amended), Law no. 9386, May 4th, 2005 “On Museums”, the Council of Ministers Decision no. 426, July 13th, 2007 “Albanian Restoration Charter” and other legal instruments ratified by the Albanian State. Art. 3 divides the protected urban space of the city into the Historic Centre and the Protected Zone, defining their boundaries (Fig. 3) [15].
Figure 3. Map of the Gjirokastër Historic Centre and its Protected Zone attached to the 2015 Regulation.
In this Regulation the 1961’s definition of “Museum-City” is left behind in favour of the term “Historic Centre” which is defined as the part of the protected urban space, embedding the outstanding architectural and urban values. Thus, the “Historic Centre” is conceived as the urban space of the city composed of different buildings having outstanding architectural and urban values and directly linked with the surrounding architectural and urban historic landscape (Art. 4). The Protected Zone surrounds the Historic Centre and, due to its historic-cultural values, it is envisaged as a complementary part of the entire protected urban space. It is divided into two sub-areas called the “Built Zone” and the “Green Zone”. Art. 5 and Art. 7 define the intervention allowed respectively within the Historic Centre and the Protected Zone. Thus, within the Historic Centre, new constructions are not allowed except for the needed infrastructures. Restoration, conservation and maintenance interventions are authorized if based on the integrated conservation principles. The conservation of ruined building is allowed in order to stop further degradation of the remains. However, if the ruins exceed 3 m in height affecting the views of the ensemble, reconstruction is permitted on the existing parts preserving the remaining original features. In this case, the reconstruction project must be appeal to documental photographic and graphic materials, whilst be based on the traditional typology, architectural feature and building technique. In case of natural or human disasters affecting the cultural heritage, its reconstruction is allowed in order to bring back to the remaining structure to the state before the collapse, accordingly to the previous architectural morphology and composition based on documental photographic and graphic materials. Although the same conservation directives are adopted for the sub-zone I of the Protected Zone here, new constructions are allowed even if subject to certain conditions such as, for instance, the compliance with height limits and number of floors (less than or equal to 3) of the surrounding existing edifices, the ratio between the built surface
and the free surface of the lot, the minimum distances of 10 meters between two buildings, etc. The directives constraint to design the plan and its location within the lot according to the surrounding existing examples and based on a careful study of traditional building typologies. Moreover, building features and architectural elements must be in conformity with the traditional architecture ones, not being in contrast with the urban and architectural context.
At the buildings’ conservation level, the subdivision of cultural Monuments into two categories is
maintained. Therefore, 1st Category Monuments must be entirely preserved in their authentic
architectural composition, materials and building techniques without changing their volume, traditional façades and interior surfaces traits, plan composition and function except for the location of the necessary sanitation and toilets without affecting the values of the monument.
The definition of 2nd Category Monuments is also maintained, although here, it is better specified
that even courtyards, surrounding walls, main entrance gates and auxiliary buildings are part of the monuments and so liable to the same conservation directives.
The designing and the implementation of restoration projects for monuments within the Historic Centre, the Protected Zone or ones placed in other areas of the city, are appointed to the state specialized institutions as well as to licensed professionals. All projects are reviewed by the IMK’ Scientific Council and approved by the National Restoration Council (KKR). The designing project and its implementation is appointed to the National Culture Regional Directorate (DRKK) under the supervision of an IMK’s specialists.
The novelty of this Regulation lies in the introduction of some new articles addressing issues rose especially after the first UNESCO monitoring missions (1993; 2012) assessing the state of conservation of the property and the factors affecting it.
Thus, Art. 13 is dedicated to buildings that have not been classified according to the two categories. Those buildings, depending on their impact on the surrounding urban context, may undergo minor and major adaptation interventions, making them uniform to the architectural features of the urban historic context in which they are located.
The attempt to reduce the fire risk is shown in Art. 19 that obliges each Cultural Monuments to be provided with at least one fire extinguisher and, an electrical plant and fire prevention measures certificate. Moreover, the assessment of the Historic Centre fire risk and its administration is assigned to Gjirokastër Municipality in cooperation with the IMK and Gjirokastër’s DRKK.
Finally, Art. 20 establishes the Committee for the Management Plans Coordination of the Historic Centres of Berat and Gjirokastra that coordinates the implementation of the Regulation whilst ensuring the completion of the UNESCO Recommendations.
5. FROM “HISTORIC CENTRE” TO “HISTORIC URBAN LANDSCAPE”: A PROPOSAL
The brief excursus over Gjirokastër Historic Centre’s socialist and post-socialist conservation policies has underlined how through the years not relevant progress has been made towards a sustainable conservation approach of its architectural and urban heritage.
Since its nomination as “Museum-City”, Gjirokastër has continuously dealt with diverse conservation problems caused from the compelling transformations in term of needs and modern living conditions of its inhabitants, as well as from the city territorial urban growing [10, 16, 17, 18, 19].
to a “crystallisation” of the site that does not cope with the ongoing and inevitable changes of the built environment and its living community.
De facto, the 1961 notion of “Museum-City” roughly anticipated what would have been defined firstly as “group of buildings” in the 1972 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Protection, at National Level, of the Cultural and Natural Heritage, and later as “Historic and architectural (including vernacular) areas” in the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation concerning the Safeguarding and Contemporary Role of Historic Areas. However, the socialist policies, even if effective for long time also after the falling of the Regime and still influential on the current legislative palimpsest in the field of architectural conservation issues, were mainly based on an object-based conservation approach.
Despite the few efforts shown in the latest post-socialist Regulations, still the conservation approach resulted to be focussed on the preservation of tangible dimension of the historic centre assets, i.e. architectural and structural elements, dealing with the safeguarding of the surviving
remains of a specific period, i.e. the Ottoman one, while neglecting the 20th century architectural
production.
As Veldpaus et al. observe [20], this kind of object-based approach makes difficult the attribution of value to the larger scale, framing the evolutionary process of a historic centre. In fact, since the 1976 UNESCO Recommendation, the international situation has evolved towards a landscape-based approach [20, 21] which is landscape-based on a more comprehensive and holistic attitude to the (historic) urban context.
Considering the given context, the UNESCO nomination of Gjirokastër Historic Centre, stating that its Outstanding Universal Value relies in its architectural character typical of the Ottoman
period, should be revised in view of its 20th century architectural layers, and more specifically in
the light of the 2011 UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscapes [22]. In fact, from the cultural point of view the so recognized universal value of Gjirokastër Historic Centre should be acknowledged in the culturally varied expressions reflected in its different architectural periods.
Moreover, whereas urban areas are the product of on-going processes, paradoxically, one cannot exclude also the new urban expansion of the city, since even this urban space, bordering the Historic Centre and its Protected Zone, is a witness of Gjirokastër post-socialist cultural and societal production process. Thus, the key to future urban conservation policies should conceive the city of Gjirokastër in its totality as Historic Urban Landscape, a living entity: hence, a built historically perceived urban context characterized by on-going transformation processes. Thus, its safeguarding and management should be based on the understanding of the causes of development dynamics, whilst maintaining the specificity and historical qualities of its areas which should be recognized also for their social and cultural, as well as materials and technical features.
REFERENCES
[1] L. Decision nr. 172, du 02.06.1961. “Sur la proclamation des villes-musées”, June 2nd,
1961, UNESCO National Law Database:
www.unesco.org/culture/natlaws/media/pdf/albania (Accessed October 13, 2017). [2] Decision nr. 170, du 02.06.1961. “Sur l’approbation du Reglement sur l’administration
de la Ville-musée de Berat”, Conseil des Ministres de la RPSSH, Ministère de l’Instruction Publique et de la Culture, June 2nd, 1961, UNESCO National Law
Database: www.unesco.org/ culture/natlaws/media/pdf/albania/ (Accessed October 13, 2017).
[3] G. Strazimiri, “Le città museo nella R. P. d’Albania. La città di Berati”, in Proceedings of the ICOMOS II International Congress of Restoration ‘The Monument for the Man’, Venice, Italy, May 25-31, 1964.
[4] G. Strazimiri, “Qytetet Muze në R. P. të Shqipërisë. Qyteti Muze i Beratit”. Studime Historike 3, pp. 97-125, 1964.
[5] M. Kiel, “Ottoman architecture in Albania”, 1385-1912. Islamic art series, Vol.5, Istanbul: IRCICA, 1990.
[6] G. Strazimiri, “Gjirokastra dhe vlerat e saj kulturale”, Monumentet 2, pp. 86-102, 1971.
[7] E. Riza, “Qyteti-Muze i Gjirokastrës. Monografi”, Tirana: «8 Nëntori», 1981.
[8] T. Bilushi, R. Kola, “Arkitektura Italiane e ‘900 në ndertimet e Qendren Historike të Gjirokastrës”, in EU CARDS Project: TRANSISMIC – Interreg III-A “Riduzione del rischio sismico nella pianificazione ecosostenibile dei centri storici transfrontalieri, Italia-Albania”, 2006-2008, www.studiotorresi.it/ sito/it/progetti (Accessed February 18, 2018).
[9] V. Qirjaqi, “Ndryshimet Arkitekturore ne Qendren Historike të Gjirokastrës prej Viteve ’60 deri ne ditet tona”, in EU CARDS Project: TRANSISMIC – Interreg III-A “Riduzione del rischio sismico nella pianificazione ecosostenibile dei centri storici transfrontalieri, Italia-Albania”, 2006-2008, www.studiotorresi.it/ sito/it/progetti (Accessed February 18, 2018).
[10] K. Merxhani, V. Bozgo, “Effects of Rapid Infrastructure Developments in the World Heritage Site of Gjirokastra” in Cultural Landscape in Practice – Conservtaion vs. Emergencies, Eds. G. Amoruso, R. Salerno, Springer Nature: Switzerland, pp. 259-270, 2019.
[11] “Rregullore mbi Mbrojtjen, Restaurimin dhe Administrimin e Qyteti-Muze të Gjirokastrës” [Regulation for the Protection, Restoration and Administration of the Museum-City of Gjirokastër]. Monumentet 5-6, no. 1, p. 212, 1973.
[12] E. Riza, Mbrojtja dhe Restaurimi i Monumenteve në Shqipëri [Protection and Restoration of Monuments in Albania], Dituria: Tirana, 1997.
[13] Council of Ministers Decision no. 832 “Për miratimin e Rregullores së administrimit të Qytetit-Muze të Gjirokastrës” [On the approval of the administrative Regulation of the Museum-City of Gjirokastra], December 11th, 2003. www.qbz.gov.al (accessed October 17, 2018).
[14] Council of Ministers Decision no. 345 “Disa Ndryshime dhe Shtesa në Vendimin nr. 832, datë 11.12.2003 të Këshillit të Ministrave ‘Për miratimin e Rregullores së administrimit të Qytetit-Muze të Gjirokastrës’” [Some amendments and additions in the Council of Ministers Decision no. 832, date 11.12.2003, ‘On the approval of the administrative Regulation of the Museum-City of Gjirokastra’], June 6th, 2007,
www.qbz.gov.al (accessed October 17, 2018).
[15] Council of Ministers Decision no. 619 “Për shpalljen ‘Qendër Historike’ të një zone në qytetin e Gjirokastrës dhe miratimin e Rregullores ‘Për mbrojtjen, konservimin e integruar dhe administrimin e Qendrës Historike dhe Zonës së Mbrojtur ne qytetin e Gjisokastrës” [On the “Historic Centre” nomination of a zone in Gjirokastra and on the approval of the Regulation for the Safeguarding, Integrated Conservation and Administration of Gjirokastra Historic Centre and Protected Zone], July 7th, 2015, www.qbz.gov.al (accessed October 17, 2018).
[16] G. Strazimiri, “Problèmes de protection et de réanimation du village historique en Albanie”, in Compté-Rendu du IIème Colloque de l’ICOMOS, 3-10 Octobre 1973, Thessalonique – Kastoria, Grèce, Chambre Technique de Grèce: Athens, pp. 295-308, 1973.
[17] E. Riza, “Qytet-muze dhe vendi i tyre në jetën e sotme” [Museum-cities and their role in today’s life], Monumentet 36, no. 2, pp. 41-45, 1988.
[18] L. Lazimi, A. Doraci, “Probleme të mbrojtjes së vlerave urbane të Qytetit Muze të Gjirokastrës” [Safeguarding problems of Gjirokastra Museum City’s urban value], in Monumentet 39, no. 1, pp. 101-113, 1990.
[19] E. Riza, “Rehabilitation of historic centre of Gjirokastra”, in Restoration and Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings and Towns of 18th-20th century in the Balkans,
Exhibition Catalogue. Technical Chamber of Greece: Thessaloniki, pp. 4-5, 1999. [20] L. Veldpaus. A. R. Pereira Roders, B. J. F. Colenbrander, “Urban Heritage: Putting
the Past into the Future”. The Historic Environment, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 3-18, 2013. [21] J. Jokilehto, “International charters on urban conservation: some thoughts on the
principles expressed in the current international doctrine”. City & Time 3 (3): 2, pp. 23-42, 2007.
[22] UNESCO Recommendation on the Historic Urban Landscapes, in Records of the General Conference, 36th Session, Paris, 25 October-10 November 2011, v. 1: Resolutions, pp. 0-54, 2011. unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215084.page=52 (Accessed June 3, 2019).
