Conservation of historic buildings along the eroding coastline of Northern Jutland

Abstract

The erosion of the western coast of Northern Jutland, in Denmark, has generated an extremely challenging environment for the preservation of architectural heritage. This phenomenon causes the loss of approximately 2–4 m of shore per year, and tends to become more and more severe, leading to the loss of as much as 11 m of shore in a single year. This constitutes a major threat to important historic buildings close to the coast. Jes Wienberg’s article describes how the early thirteenth-century church of Mårup, in Lønstrup Klint, recently had to be ‘dismantled under supervision’, in anticipation of the erosion of the ground below the church and the historic cemetery surrounding it. This astonishing decision was preceded by a fierce debate, an account of which has been provided by Casper Bruun Jensen and Randi Markussen (2001, pp. 795–819). Although this decision was controversial, it was not unique in the history of the region. As Wienberg reminds us, in the early twentieth century, similar natural phenomena led to the dismantling and rebuilding of other monuments in the same area, such as the late medieval church of Rubjerg and the church of Lyngby. But, as the above article points out, erosion is not the only threat to the coastal heritage of north-western Jutland. Sand drift has led to the accumulation of sand around historic buildings hindering access to them, and, sometimes, covering part of their fabric. The intensity of this phenomenon is reflected in the gradual redundancy of the 1900s lighthouse of Rubjerg Knude, which started only half a century after its construction. Counteracting coastal erosion and sand drift has proven to be more complex than it may seem at first sight. This is not only because of the elevated cost of coast protection, but, mainly, because coastal decomposition and sand dune formation also enjoy legislative protection as the generators of a uniquely significant coastal landscape. The decision that these natural phenomena should continue unhindered sealed the destiny of Mårup church. This implies that the protection of nature was given hierarchical priority over the protection of the church. Wienberg has analysed the decisions affecting the dismantling of the churches. His article has investigated the influence of the debate concerning Mårup church on the evaluation of its significance, and interpreted the divergence of perceptions of the building by local societies (such as ‘the Friends of Mårup Church’), archaeologists and the central government. This interesting study raises questions about the future of architectural heritage along this coastal region. The cases of Mårup, Rubjerg and Lyngby show that the dominant approach to the problem of preservation in this region involves the dismantling of buildings that had stood in their site for centuries while the sandy landscape they are built upon is claimed by the sea. One might ask whether this approach constitutes the best compromise between the preservation of architectural heritage and nature. To answer this question, it is necessary to consider the implications of this approach for the durability of the built environment as well as for the interaction between architecture and nature in this region. Considering these implications is essential to answer the questions regarding what should be preserved and how.