Review of a book redacted by J. van Kesteren-Lok.

This article discusses the use of tuff stone in the period around 1000-1250 in what is now the Netherlands. During the Middle Ages tuff was used from the Rhineland to Denmark. The historiography of this subject comprises a great many books and articles on tuff and the earliest tuff stone buildings in the Netherlands, but a lack of written sources makes it difficult to get a detailed picture of the trade in tuff and its use in construction. The dating of buildings from this period is also very challenging. This article draws on contextual information in an attempt to provide more insight into the extraction, transport and trade in tuff before the year 1250, while also discussing the principal actors and material characteristics. To understand the context of tuff in the Netherlands one must first look at its distribution in Roman times. Tuff is known to have been used in over a hundred places in the Roman context and that material was sometimes reused in the Middle Ages. Although this reuse has never been systematically investigated, it can have consequences for the dating of medieval buildings, since that dating was sometimes based in part on certain characteristics of the material (block sizes). The article then looks at medieval tuff stone quarrying near Andernach. Quarrying of the stone had resumed in the tenth century, although it is impossible to give a precise date. Buyers played a crucial role, in particular the Cologne archbishops. The article names a number of these bishops as possible initiators of the interregional tuff-stone trade from the eleventh century onwards. In the Netherlands it can be assumed that the church building campaign of the Utrecht bishop Bernold had a major impact on the import of tuff from the Eifel region, judging by the massive size and regularity of the tuff-stone blocks used in the churches he commissioned. Unfortunately, building-historical aspects like masonry composition and stone sizes offer few reliable indicators for accurate dating per whole, half or quarter century. Contrary to what some writers have suggested, large- and small-sized blocks were used interchangeably. The same applies to architecture. Features like spaarbogen (arches formed in the ground to save on building material), arch friezes and other architectural-historical characteristics were used over a longer time span, some as late as the thirteenth century by which time brick had become the main building material. So the architecture of the buildings discussed here does not furnish any hard evidence for dating either. The article provides an inventory of over 500 locations where tuff was used in the Middle Ages, augmented with some 250 examples of tuff stone use in the Rhineland, thereby shedding light on the associated tuff stone landscape between Cologne and the North Sea. It concludes with an appeal for further research into each object, including systematic investigation of evidence of primary or reused (Roman) material. It is also recommended that traces of finishing be documented and mortar research be conducted, with the aim of gaining more knowledge about the Netherlands’ earliest tuff stone buildings.

This article discusses the use of tuff stone in the period around 1000-1250 in what is now the Netherlands. During the Middle Ages tuff was used from the Rhineland to Denmark. The historiography of this subject comprises a great many books and articles on tuff and the earliest tuff stone buildings in the Netherlands, but a lack of written sources makes it difficult to get a detailed picture of the trade in tuff and its use in construction. The dating of buildings from this period is also very challenging. This article draws on contextual information in an attempt to provide more insight into the extraction, transport and trade in tuff before the year 1250, while also discussing the principal actors and material characteristics. To understand the context of tuff in the Netherlands one must first look at its distribution in Roman times. Tuff is known to have been used in over a hundred places in the Roman context and that material was sometimes reused in the Middle Ages. Although this reuse has never been systematically investigated, it can have consequences for the dating of medieval buildings, since that dating was sometimes based in part on certain characteristics of the material (block sizes). The article then looks at medieval tuff stone quarrying near Andernach. Quarrying of the stone had resumed in the tenth century, although it is impossible to give a precise date. Buyers played a crucial role, in particular the Cologne archbishops. The article names a number of these bishops as possible initiators of the interregional tuff-stone trade from the eleventh century onwards. In the Netherlands it can be assumed that the church building campaign of the Utrecht bishop Bernold had a major impact on the import of tuff from the Eifel region, judging by the massive size and regularity of the tuff-stone blocks used in the churches he commissioned. Unfortunately, building-historical aspects like masonry composition and stone sizes offer few reliable indicators for accurate dating per whole, half or quarter century. Contrary to what some writers have suggested, large-and small-sized blocks were used interchangeably. The same applies to architecture. Features like spaarbogen (arches formed in the ground to save on building material), arch friezes and other architectural-historical characteristics were used over a longer time span, some as late as the thirteenth century by which time brick had become the main building material. So the architecture of the buildings discussed here does not furnish any hard evidence for dating either. The article provides an inventory of over 500 locations where tuff was used in the Middle Ages, augmented with some 250 examples of tuff stone use in the Rhineland, thereby shedding light on the associated tuff stone landscape between Cologne and the North Sea. It concludes with an appeal for further research into each object, including systematic investigation of evidence of primary or reused (Roman) material. It is also recommended that traces of finishing be documented and mortar research be conducted, with the aim of gaining more knowledge about the Netherlands' earliest tuff stone buildings.

This contribution focuses on the VOC boardroom in the Bushuis (armoury), the presumed meeting room of the governors of the VOC. Main topics concern the building's location, the layout of the building and its construction history. The interior of the VOC boardroom is currently a reconstruction from the second half of the twentieth century. The building's history can serve to understand this reconstructed VOC boardroom. Did those involved in the reconstruction investigate all the options? And which sources offer the most support to base the reconstruction on? To answer these questions, this essay discusses the location and appearance of the VOC boardroom, the material traces in the walls of the complex and the reconstruction of the boardroom in 1998.

Between 2006 and 2022 dendrochronological research on buildings was conducted in the historical inner city of Amsterdam with the aim to obtain knowledge about the dating of structures and increase knowledge about the use of wood, its origin, and the timber market in the past. This study highlights three topics: (1) house building in Amsterdam and the transition from oak to pine for construction timber around 1600, which led to new solutions in the construction of houses; (2) the availability of timber with various provenances in the local market and the varied applications of different timber products in construction; (3) the methodological implications of dendrochronology for building historical research. The question to be addressed is the extent to which dendrochronological research provides new knowledge about the building history of an entire city. The significance and quality of this material source was compared with written sources, showing that dendrochronological research can lead to new interpretations of archival material.

This article considers several major repairs to Amsterdam buildings during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It concerns two types of reparation: strengthening of foundations and repair of supporting and roof structures. Foundation problems could be caused by a fluctuating groundwater level, an insufficiently deep foundation, or defects in the construction, sometimes compounded by irregularities in the natural marshy substratum. Apart from houses, whose foundations had already been reinforced much earlier, repairs to towers were undertaken from the early seventeenth century. This usually entailed sinking supplementary footings to which the existing structure was anchored. Well-known examples are the Stadhuis tower, the Montelbaan tower and the tower of the Oude Kerk. Repairs to supporting and roof structures were often due to other issues such as overdue maintenance, overly heavy or incorrect loading, construction defects, and the effect of external forces like wind. Repairs to the roof of the Burgerzaal in 1700 were due to faulty construction and water ingress. An example of external forces was the Lisbon earthquake of 1 November 1755, which was also felt in Amsterdam, and two further tremors in December of that year and on 18 February 1756. It was probably these earthquakes that prompted the city authorities to demolish dilapidated houses shortly hereafter and to carry out major repairs to the Montelbaan tower and the Oosterkerk. As the examples presented in this article show, very costly repairs were sometimes required to ensure a building's continued existence. But what is also clear is that while some of this restoration work was undertaken in response to a single incident like an earthquake, the phenomenon of restoration is inherent to the long lifespan of buildings.

Dit artikel gaat in op een aantal zeer ingrijpende reparaties van Amsterdamse gebouwen in de zeventiende en achttiende eeuw. Het gaat daarbij om twee soorten reparaties: herstel van fundamenten en reparatie van steun- en kapconstructies. Problemen met fundamenten konden worden veroorzaakt door een fluctuerende grondwaterstand, een te hoog gelegd fundament of ondeugdelijkheden in de constructie, al dan niet in combinatie met onregelmatigheden in de natuurlijke drassige ondergrond. Behalve huizen, waarvan de fundamenten al veel eerder werden verstevigd, kwamen vanaf de vroege zeventiende eeuw reparaties van torens voor. Daarbij werd doorgaans een extra fundering geslagen waaraan de bestaande structuur werd verankerd. Bekende voorbeelden zijn de Stadhuistoren, de Montelbaanstoren en de toren van de Oude Kerk. Reparatie van steun- en kapconstructies had vaak een andere reden: achterstallig onderhoud, te zware of onjuiste belasting, bouwfouten en krachtenwerking van buitenaf, zoals wind of andere krachten. De reparatie van de kap van de Burgerzaal in 1700 werd uitgevoerd vanwege een ondeugdelijke constructie en inwatering. Een voorbeeld van krachten van buitenaf vormt de ook in Amsterdam gevoelde aardbeving van Lissabon van 1 november 1755 en twee latere bevingen, in december van dat jaar en op 18 februari 1756. Deze aardschokken waren vermoedelijk de aanleiding dat het stadsbestuur kort hierna bouwvallige huizen in de stad liet slopen, en ook om de Montelbaanstoren en de Oosterkerk ingrijpend te herstellen. De in dit artikel gepresenteerde voorbeelden laten zien dat er soms uiterst kostbare herstellingen moesten worden uitgevoerd om het voortbestaan van een gebouw te garanderen. Hiermee wordt tevens duidelijk dat dit soort herstel weliswaar kan worden ingegeven door een incident zoals een aardbeving, maar dat herstel een fenomeen is dat onlosmakelijk is verbonden met de lange levenscyclus van gebouwen

Review of a book written by Steffen M. Holzer

Reconstructies van verdwenen gebouwen zijn nieuwe scheppingen, zonder eenheid van tijd, plaats en functie. Daarom zijn argumenten die voortkomen uit de theoretische grondbeginselen van de monumentenzorg – die het behoud van ouderdoms- en getuigeniswaarden en historische bouwsubstantie voorstaan – veelal niet op hun plaats. Toch schuilt er een gevaar in reconstructies, omdat ze de waarde van historische materialiteit relativeren. De ‘dissolution of the real monument’ (Glendinning 2013) is daarvan het gevolg. Het brede begrip en de waardering van materiële overblijfselen uit het verleden zijn sinds de Nara Conference on Authenticity in 1994 gedestabiliseerd. Het authenticiteitsbegrip dient volgens Nara te worden beoordeeld vanuit de culturele context waarop het betrekking heeft. Binnen die context kan een monument niet alleen authentiek zijn op basis van geloofwaardige historische bronnen en materiaal, maar ook op basis van bronnen die getuigen van authentieke aspecten als functie, ontwerp, traditie en geestelijke of maatschappelijke waarde. Deze conceptualisering van authenticiteit voert tot de verdringing van de materiële authenticiteit. Het prevaleren van conceptuele benaderingswijzen heeft een negatieve invloed op de manier waarop met het materiële erfgoed wordt omgegaan. Het devalueren van het wetenschappelijke, materiële bronnenmateriaal plaatst dat materiële erfgoed in een narratieve context, waarmee het kwetsbaar wordt voor ideologische beeldvorming.

Boekbespreking van een boek van Tymen Peverelli

This paper's theme is the construction of the Amsterdam Crystal Palace (Paleis voor Volksvlijt), an exhibition building inspired by London's Crystal Palace. The Amsterdam palace was built between 1858 and 1864 only to burn to the ground in 1929. Although during and after construction the initiators took pains to make it look like a product of Dutch industry, it could not have been built without English input. Architect Cornelis Outshoorn and the initiators did not reveal that they had called on London-based engineers Rowland Mason Ordish and William Henry Le Feuvre for the structural calculations. The iron for the main structure also came from England: from foundries in York and Birmingham. Dutch foundries only joined in immediately prior to completion of the main structure, making it look as if the Amsterdam building was a product of Dutch industry. Due to Cornelis Outshoorn's ill-considered design, construction in Amsterdam took no less than six years. The preserved ironwork specifications, which total some 55 pages, provide insight into the complicated construction concept, which consisted of many unique components. As a result, serial production was impossible.