Almoravid Works on Defensive Architecture in Southeast Al-Andalus: Analysis of Their Remains and Proposal for Preventive Conservation

sustainability Article Almoravid Works on Defensive Architecture in Southeast Al-Andalus: Analysis of Their Remains and Proposal for Preventive Conservation María Marcos Cobaleda 1,* and Mª Lourdes Gutiérrez-Carrillo 2   Citation: Marcos Cobaleda, M.; Gutiérrez-Carrillo, M.L. Almoravid Works on Defensive Architecture in Southeast Al-Andalus: Analysis of Their Remains and Proposal for Preventive Conservation. Sustainability 2021,13, 13597. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su132413597 Academic Editor: Asterios Bakolas Received: 21 October 2021 Accepted: 1 December 2021 Published: 9 December 2021 Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). 1Art History Department, University of Málaga, 29071 Málaga, Spain 2 Department of Architectonical Constructions, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract: In the first half of the 12th century, several military works were developed throughout the territories under Almoravid rule, above all after 1126, both in the main towns and the rural areas of the Empire. Within this context, the aim of this paper is to present the results achieved in the framework of the PREFORTI R&D Project (BIA2015-69938-R) concerning the particular case of these military constructions built in the region of Southeast Al-Andalus (Granada and Almeria, Spain). To achieve this aim, we have studied their remains during field work, as well as documentation contained in archives, written sources and historiography, focusing on the risks that affect their conservation. The analysis of six cases of study has been included, where a sample of the systematic method based on preventive conservation measures has been detailed in two particular cases: the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma (Granada) and the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almeria). The proposed method has been validated by the public bodies responsible for the protection of this heritage. Its importance lies in the guarantee to slow down the deterioration of this heritage, which facilitates the implementation of effective and economic strategies for its conservation. Keywords: military constructions; Granada; Almeria; first half of the 12th century; Almoravids; risks of conservation 1. Introduction In the first half of the 12th century, during the Almoravid occupation of Al-Andalus, important military works were developed throughout the territories under its rule. These works took place above all starting from the year 1126, when the Almoravid emir Al ¯ ı Ibn Y ¯ usuf introduced the so called ta’t ¯ ıb tax, the purpose of which was to construct or remodel the walls of the main cities of the Empire [ 1 ] (pp. 169–172). This decision was dictated by two main causes: the incursion of Alfonso I the Battler in Al-Andalus between 1125 and 1126, which devastated a large part of the territories in its path and caused serious damage to the fortifications of the Andalusi cities [ 2 ] (pp. 110–115); and the growing concern about the progress of the Almohads in North Africa, who had settled in southern Marrakech after the conquest of T ¯ ınmal in 1124. Due to the threat of the conquering of the Almoravid capital [ 3 ] (pp. 27–29), it became necessary to provide it with a wall [ 4 ] (p. 316) after the first attempt at Almohad conquest in 1126 [ 1 ] (p. 173). Given this situation, in which an improvement in the defensive conditions of the Almoravid territories was imperative, it was also necessary to deliver some military works in rural areas, which, so far, have been scarcely assessed. In this context, the aim of this article is to present part of the results obtained in the framework of the R&D Project Sustainable methodology for the Conservation and Maintenance of medieval rammed-earth fortifications in the Southeast of the Iberian Peninsula. Assessment and prevention against natural and anthropic risks (PREFORTI Project, BIA2015-69938-R), in which 229 medieval rammed-earth fortifications preserved in the territories of Granada, Almeria and Murcia (Spain) have been studied. Sustainability 2021,13, 13597. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132413597 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 2 of 32 The fortified heritage of the above region is an exceptionally rich legacy given its historical condition as a frontier between kingdoms and civilisations. Such heritage is also a factor in cultural, tourist and economic development within the territory in which it is located. Many of its elements still stand as landmarks in the cultural landscape. Additionally, they bear witness to forms of territorial structuring, linked to a jurisdictional reality and its capacity to establish itself in the physical environment. It is intimately linked to the territory and to the population centres. On occasions, these assets come to constitute the first structures of, or have been constructed under the protection and defence of a population, constituting various typologies [5,6]. The fact that defensive heritage in Spain in general, as well as Almoravid heritage in particular, is subject to different alteration factors that constantly increase its state of degradation, having even more intense consequences when compared to other heritage typologies, needs to be taken into account. The state of degradation suffered by cultural heritage in general means that international organisations such as the United Nations, at the Climate Summits held in 2019 and 2021 (COP25 and COP26), have raised needs and objectives related to this concern, demanding direct action to protect heritage more effectively. Among the actions to be considered, those linked to the development of sustainability, the implementation of instruments, such as the 2030 Agenda and the application of the most innovative documents on this issue are included [ 7 ]. UNESCO is constantly monitoring and analysing the effects of climate change, which are threatening the sites on its World Heritage List [ 8 ]. ICOMOS, in the same way, seeks to engage cultural heritage in climate action by intersecting objectives with the Paris Agreement, including an increasing ambition to address climate change, mitigate greenhouse gases, enhance adaptive capacity and plan for loss and damage [9]. The commitment to cultural heritage and the effects that climate change risks can have on it have led to the development of numerous studies from this perspective. Subjects addressed in these studies include the protection of heritage against catastrophes [ 10 ], vulnerability and risk assessment of cultural heritage [ 11 ] and the review of conservation strategies from a territorial perspective [ 12 ], all of which have contributed to the improvement of adaptation plans as part of an iterative process. Moreover, it has led to the implementation of maintenance systems, or the analysis of these dynamics based on the results in the field of regional sustainable development [ 13 ]. More recent works have highlighted the gaps that still exist in the lack of holistic analyses that take into account the combined action of various hazards [14]. Despite the legal and patrimonial recognition of protection established in the last decades, and the tutelary attempts at safeguarding [ 15 , 16 ], Almoravid defensive heritage is currently in an uneven state of conservation and is at serious risk of losing its most essential values [ 17 ]. Although the conservation obligations that legally fall on their owners are mandatory, the archaeological nature of these ensembles, the complexity when assigning a contemporary function, their situation in the territory and the fact that the property rests with individuals or local administrations with scarce economic and material resources have generated great difficulty in the implementation of effective strategies that could remedy the situation [18,19]. Such a context of heritage degradation has materialised due to the impact imposed by the geological and climatological conditions of the territory [ 20 ]. In recent years, the use of technologies based on the spatial analysis capabilities of GIS (Geographic Information Systems), as a tool for evaluation, diagnosis and control in the field of conservation [ 21 ] from the perspective of territorial planning and risks, has grown considerably. This fact has made it possible to call for the integration of hazard maps into urban planning as a preventive measure [ 22 ], or to prioritise and design specific conservation actions when analysing the probability of risks and identifying areas susceptible to damage that threaten cultural heritage [ 23 ]. Environmental, climatological, geomorphological, fire and flooding factors, together with the high degree of seismicity that is widespread in the southeast of the Iberian Peninsula, contribute to the frequency of the manifestation of risks to heritage [24–26]. The Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 3 of 32 continuous seismic activity of the Tajo de San Pedro and associated faults [ 27 ] has resulted in the structures of the Alhambra (Granada) being damaged by the effects of different historical earthquakes. Geological studies of the site, as well as seismotectonic evaluation, analysis of its seismic shaking and the control of movements through different techniques, have constituted relevant studies that have revealed the seismic behaviour of the Torre de Comares [28]. Nevertheless, we must also add as key factors in the processes of heritage alteration those provided by the characteristics of the compositional material itself, as well as human action [ 29 ]. Concerning the first group, the most numerous studies have focused on the definition and knowledge of the material and its technical-constructive characteristics [ 30 ]. The work contributed by the experimental sciences has been linked to physic-chemical, mineralogical-petrographic and even biological studies, focusing on the knowledge of the physical, chemical and mechanical characteristics of the material, together with the diagnosis of the state of its conservation [ 31 , 32 ]. Thus, the main processes of the alteration of geomaterials have been determined [ 33 ], even making it possible to evaluate the environmental impact on the building material of biodeterioration [34]. Linked to anthropic risks, the most recent lines of research have focused on the study of restoration actions, which in some cases have also acted as a serious risk factor. In these studies, a critical evaluation has been made of the state of conservation, the criteria applied, the restoration techniques and their results [35,36]. Bearing in mind that the contemporary model of action on cultural heritage requires its tutelage, protection, conservation, safeguarding and use as a social asset and factor of sustainable development for its transfer to the future [ 37 ], and despite the lines of research developed, more efforts are needed in the field of preventive conservation [ 38 ]. A definition of effective and sustainable methodologies is needed to make the situation of vulnerability visible, together with the detection of the risks of deterioration affecting the structures, assessing the degree of their impact on the causes of damage in order to prevent deterioration and ensure more continuous and effective conservation and heritage management [39,40]. Among the fortifications analysed in the Project, considering the importance given to this type of structure during the Almoravid domination, six military rammed-earth constructions in the areas of Granada and Almeria, whose renovation works can be ascribed to the first half of the 12th century, have been selected as samples. The selected assets are as follows: (1) the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma (Figure 1c); (2) the walls of the Alcazaba de Guadix (Figure 1a)—both in the province of Granada—(3) the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal (Figure 1d); (4) the urban wall of Almeria (Figure 1b); (5) the Castillejo Castle in Abrucena (Figure 1e) and (6) the Castle of Bacares (Figure 1f), the last four of these being in the province of Almeria. These constructions, located both in urban centers and in rural areas, have been chosen to present a joint analysis of both territories, which has not been conducted thus far; the characteristics of the constructions, their conservation status and the risks by which they are affected have been included. Having approximated the methodology followed in the development of the Project, the list of the six constructions selected in this study, with their particular historical-artistic characteristics, as well as the historical risks that have jeopardized their conservation, is included. Following this, given their importance within Andalusi military heritage in the selected nuclei, the particular cases of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad¯ ıma (Granada) and the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almeria) included in the next section have been chosen. In this section, as a final thought, the proposal of a systematic preventive conservation method for this type of at-risk heritage, based on the obtained results of the Project, is presented. Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 4 of 32 Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW4of33   Figure1.AlcazabaofGuadix,Granada(a);remainsofthewallsoftherabaḍal‐Ḥawḍamongthe houses,Almeria(b);wallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada(c);wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSan Cristóbal,Almeria(d);remainsofElCastillejo,Abrucena(Almeria)(e);remainsoftheCastleof Bacares,Almeria(f).Source:PREFORTIProject. 2.ObjectivesandMethodologicalApproach Thepurposeofthisstudyis,ontheonehand,toadvancethestateofknowledgeof theAlmoravidperiodanditsmaterialculture,bothinurbanandruralcontexts;onthe otherhand,itspurposeistoproposepreventiveandeffectivemeasuresofconservation oftheseAlmoravidconstructions.Withinthiscontext,themainobjectivesofthiswork are: 1. Toapproachthehistorical‐artisticanalysisoftheAlmoravidworksinthesix preselectedconstructions. 2. Toanalysethetypesofrisksthathaveaffectedtheseconstructionssincemedieval times. 3. Tospecifythepathologiesthataffecttheseassets. 4. Toproposeasystematicpreventiveconservationandmaintenancemethodbased onthedevelopedanalysisforthetwofollowingcasesofstudy:thewallsofthe AlcazabaQadīma(Granada)andthewallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal (Almeria). Inordertoachievetheseaims,theselectionofthesixconstructionswasbasedonthe chronologicaladscriptionofthefoundationandrenovationworksdevelopedinthefirst halfofthe12th  century,inthecontextoftheassetsincludedinthePREFORTIProjectin theprovincesofGranadaandAlmeria.Concerningthemethodologicalapproach,the firstphasewasbasedonamultidisciplinaryanalysisofthehistoricalstructures.The enhancementofitsheritagecharacteristicshasbeenparticularlyemphasized.Thesecond phaseconsistedoftheevaluationofimpairmentrisksandthevaluationanddefinitionof priorities.Hereafter,thestayofconservationandtheuseandmanagementoftheseassets havebeenobserved.Subsequently,therelationamongeachhazardandthespecific damagesproducedoneachassetwasestablished.Finally,monitoringandcontrol Figure 1. Alcazaba of Guadix, Granada ( a ); remains of the walls of the raba d . alH . aw d . among the houses, Almeria ( b ); walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada ( c ); walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria ( d ); remains of El Castillejo, Abrucena (Almeria) ( e ); remains of the Castle of Bacares, Almeria (f). Source: PREFORTI Project. 2. Objectives and Methodological Approach The purpose of this study is, on the one hand, to advance the state of knowledge of the Almoravid period and its material culture, both in urban and rural contexts; on the other hand, its purpose is to propose preventive and effective measures of conservation of these Almoravid constructions. Within this context, the main objectives of this work are: 1. To approach the historical-artistic analysis of the Almoravid works in the six preselected constructions. 2. To analyse the types of risks that have affected these constructions since medieval times. 3. To specify the pathologies that affect these assets. 4. To propose a systematic preventive conservation and maintenance method based on the developed analysis for the two following cases of study: the walls of the Alcazaba Qad¯ ıma (Granada) and the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almeria). In order to achieve these aims, the selection of the six constructions was based on the chronological adscription of the foundation and renovation works developed in the first half of the 12th century, in the context of the assets included in the PREFORTI Project in the provinces of Granada and Almeria. Concerning the methodological approach, the first phase was based on a multidisciplinary analysis of the historical structures. The enhancement of its heritage characteristics has been particularly emphasized. The second phase consisted of the evaluation of impairment risks and the valuation and definition of priorities. Hereafter, the stay of conservation and the use and management of these assets have been observed. Subsequently, the relation among each hazard and the specific damages produced on each asset was established. Finally, monitoring and control methods were designed, along with the planning and design of preventive and maintenance interventions (Figure 2). This method was designed in the framework of the PREFORTI Project and was applied to samples of the defensive heritage. The obtained results demonstrate Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 5 of 32 that it is feasible to intervene in a specifically sustainable manner that is compatible with the heritage and material value of the assets. Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW5of33  methodsweredesigned,alongwiththeplanninganddesignofpreventiveandmainte‐ nanceinterventions(Figure2).Thismethodwasdesignedintheframeworkofthe PREFORTIProjectandwasappliedtosamplesofthedefensiveheritage.Theobtained resultsdemonstratethatitisfeasibletointerveneinaspecificallysustainablemanner thatiscompatiblewiththeheritageandmaterialvalueoftheassets.  Figure2.Flowchartshowingthephasesfollowedinthestudy.Source:PREFORTIproject. Inthefirstphase,inadditiontothedirectobservationofthepreservedremains, documentationcontainedinthewrittensourcesofthemedievalperiodhasbeencon‐ sulted,whicharecontainedinthearchivesoftheDelegacióndeCulturaoftheJuntade AndalucíainAlmeriaandoftheDirecciónGeneraldeBienesCulturalesyMuseosofthe JuntadeAndalucía(Seville),aswellasinthehistoriography.Insomecases,thedirect studyoftheculturalassetshasbeentheoneapproachthathascontributedthemostdata, since,incaseofsomeconstructions,hardlyanyreferencesexistinthehistoriography,or noinformationregardingconservationorrestorationinterventionsperformedwasen‐ countered(asitisinthecaseofElCastillejoCastleinAbrucena,Almeria). Figure 2. Flow chart showing the phases followed in the study. Source: PREFORTI project. In the first phase, in addition to the direct observation of the preserved remains, documentation contained in the written sources of the medieval period has been consulted, which are contained in the archives of the Delegación de Cultura of the Junta de Andalucía in Almeria and of the Dirección General de Bienes Culturales y Museos of the Junta de Andalucía (Seville), as well as in the historiography. In some cases, the direct study of the cultural assets has been the one approach that has contributed the most data, since, in case of some constructions, hardly any references exist in the historiography, or no information regarding conservation or restoration interventions performed was encountered (as it is in the case of El Castillejo Castle in Abrucena, Almeria). On the other hand, to develop the analysis of the risks that have affected the conservation of these constructions since medieval times, the references encountered in the archival materials and in the historiography have been fundamental in order to specify the historical risks, while the analysis of the current pathologies has been performed by means of direct observation of the conserved remains, making a classification based on the risks Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 6 of 32 systematized in the National Emergency Plan and Risk Management of Cultural Heritage [ 29 ] and the National Plan of Defensive Architecture [ 6 ]. In this context, linking the cultural assets to the territory has favored the determination of the main risks that affect them, as well as the incidence of each of them according to their geoposition, for which each of the cultural assets under study has been georeferenced [41,42]. Thanks to the different tools of analysis of the georeferenced assets of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), several risk maps have been elaborated for the two cases of study [ 43 ] (p. 4). As an example of these maps, we have selected a sample related to both the anthropic and the natural risks. Among the anthropic risks that may affect the territory around the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma (Granada) and around the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almeria), cartographical material including the analysis of population density has been selected (Figure 3). Concerning natural risks, risk maps with the evaluation of fluvial (Granada) and maritime (Almeria) flood risk are included in Figure 4. Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW6of33  Ontheotherhand,todeveloptheanalysisoftherisksthathaveaffectedthecon‐ servationoftheseconstructionssincemedievaltimes,thereferencesencounteredinthe archivalmaterialsandinthehistoriographyhavebeenfundamentalinordertospecify thehistoricalrisks,whiletheanalysisofthecurrentpathologieshasbeenperformedby meansofdirectobservationoftheconservedremains,makingaclassificationbasedon theriskssystematizedintheNationalEmergencyPlanandRiskManagementofCultural Heritage[29]andtheNationalPlanofDefensiveArchitecture[6].Inthiscontext,linkingthe culturalassetstotheterritoryhasfavoredthedeterminationofthemainrisksthataffect them,aswellastheincidenceofeachofthemaccordingtotheirgeoposition,forwhich eachoftheculturalassetsunderstudyhasbeengeoreferenced[41,42]. ThankstothedifferenttoolsofanalysisofthegeoreferencedassetsofGeographic InformationSystems(GIS),severalriskmapshavebeenelaboratedforthetwocasesof study[43](p.4).Asanexampleofthesemaps,wehaveselectedasamplerelatedtoboth theanthropicandthenaturalrisks.Amongtheanthropicrisksthatmayaffecttheterri‐ toryaroundthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma(Granada)andaroundthewallsofLa HoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal(Almeria),cartographicalmaterialincludingtheanalysisof populationdensityhasbeenselected(Figure3).Concerningnaturalrisks,riskmapswiththe evaluationoffluvial(Granada)andmaritime(Almeria)floodriskareincludedinFigure4.  Figure3.Riskmapsoftheanthropicriskcausedbypopulationdensity.(a)WallsoftheAlcazaba Qadīma,Granadaand(b)wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria.Source:PRE‐ FORTIProject.E.MoleroMelgarejo. Figure 3. Risk maps of the anthropic risk caused by population density. ( a ) Walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada and ( b ) walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria. Source: PREFORTI Project. E. Molero Melgarejo. Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW7of33   Figure4.Riskmapsoffluvialandmaritimefloodrisks.(a)WallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada and(b)wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria.Source:PREFORTIProject.E. MoleroMelgarejo. Beyondtheelaborationofriskmaps,GIShavebeenusedinthisworktoanalyse historicalandstrategicphenomenarelatedtothetwocasesofstudy.Inthisway,maps includingtheanalysisofvisualbasinsfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma(Granada, Figure5)andfromthewallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal(Almeria,Figure6) havebeenalsoelaborated.Inthesemaps,thevisualbasinsareproducedona2‐mreso‐ lutionDTMmodelgeneratedfromaLidarpointcloud(IGN1ºcoverage).Themaximum distancewithhighsharpness(500m)isalsoincluded.Inthisway,thecartographical materialusesacolorscaletoshowarangeofrisks,fromnon‐visiblepointstopointsof maximumexposure,takingtheselectedassetsasthepointofreference.  Figure5.MapsofthevisualbasinfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada.(a)General mapofthevisualbasinfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada;(b)Detailofthevisual basinfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada.Source:PREFORTIProject.E.Molero Melgarejo.Thelightblueoutlineindicatesthemaximumdistancewithhighsharpness(500m).The colorintervalsindicateasfollows:nocolor=notvisible;yellow=lowexposure(1visibledotonly); orange=mediumexposure(upto10visibledots);red=highexposure(upto30dotsvisible);dark red=extremeexposure(morethan30dotsvisible). Figure 4. Risk maps of fluvial and maritime flood risks. ( a ) Walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada and ( b ) walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria. Source: PREFORTI Project. E. Molero Melgarejo. Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 7 of 32 Beyond the elaboration of risk maps, GIS have been used in this work to analyse historical and strategic phenomena related to the two cases of study. In this way, maps including the analysis of visual basins from the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma (Granada, Figure 5) and from the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal (Almeria, Figure 6) have been also elaborated. In these maps, the visual basins are produced on a 2-m resolution DTM model generated from a Lidar point cloud (IGN 1 º coverage). The maximum distance with high sharpness (500 m) is also included. In this way, the cartographical material uses a color scale to show a range of risks, from non-visible points to points of maximum exposure, taking the selected assets as the point of reference. Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW7of33   Figure4.Riskmapsoffluvialandmaritimefloodrisks.(a)WallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada and(b)wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria.Source:PREFORTIProject.E. MoleroMelgarejo. Beyondtheelaborationofriskmaps,GIShavebeenusedinthisworktoanalyse historicalandstrategicphenomenarelatedtothetwocasesofstudy.Inthisway,maps includingtheanalysisofvisualbasinsfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma(Granada, Figure5)andfromthewallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal(Almeria,Figure6) havebeenalsoelaborated.Inthesemaps,thevisualbasinsareproducedona2‐mreso‐ lutionDTMmodelgeneratedfromaLidarpointcloud(IGN1ºcoverage).Themaximum distancewithhighsharpness(500m)isalsoincluded.Inthisway,thecartographical materialusesacolorscaletoshowarangeofrisks,fromnon‐visiblepointstopointsof maximumexposure,takingtheselectedassetsasthepointofreference.  Figure5.MapsofthevisualbasinfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada.(a)General mapofthevisualbasinfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada;(b)Detailofthevisual basinfromthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada.Source:PREFORTIProject.E.Molero Melgarejo.Thelightblueoutlineindicatesthemaximumdistancewithhighsharpness(500m).The colorintervalsindicateasfollows:nocolor=notvisible;yellow=lowexposure(1visibledotonly); orange=mediumexposure(upto10visibledots);red=highexposure(upto30dotsvisible);dark red=extremeexposure(morethan30dotsvisible). Figure 5. Maps of the visual basin from the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada. ( a ) General map of the visual basin from the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada; ( b ) Detail of the visual basin from the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada. Source: PREFORTI Project. E. Molero Melgarejo. The light blue outline indicates the maximum distance with high sharpness (500 m). The color intervals indicate as follows: no color = not visible; yellow = low exposure (1 visible dot only); orange = medium exposure (up to 10 visible dots); red = high exposure (up to 30 dots visible); dark red = extreme exposure (more than 30 dots visible). Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW8of33   Figure6.MapsofthevisualbasinfromthewallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria. (a)GeneralmapofthevisualbasinfromthewallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria; (b)DetailofthevisualbasinfromthewallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria. Source:PREFORTIProject.E.MoleroMelgarejo.Thelightblueoutlineindicatesthemaximum distancewithhighsharpness(500m).Thecolorintervalsindicateasfollows:nocolor=notvisible; yellow=lowexposure(1visibledotonly);orange=mediumexposure(upto10visibledots);red= highexposure(upto30dotsvisible);darkred=extremeexposure(morethan30dotsvisible). Inadditiontothepreviousmethodologicalprocesses,theDelphimethodhasbeen appliedinthisstudyinordertoevaluatetheimpactofeachriskontheselectedcultural assets,andtoassessthevulnerabilityofthoseassetsbasedontheeffectsthatsuchrisks produceontheirstructures[44–46].Forthispurpose,aquestionnairethathasallowed multidimensionalevaluationhasbeengenerated.Ithasbeendistributedandcompleted byamultidisciplinarygroupof15expertsfromdifferentdisciplinesrelatingtorisksand conservationstatusofculturalheritage.ThedisciplineschosenhaveincludedArchae‐ ology,HistoryofArt,Architecture,TechnicalArchitecture,Engineering,Geology, Chemistry,RestorationandCulturalManagement.Inthisquestionnaire,thevariablesof theprobabilityoftheriskoccurring,theconsequencesitwouldgenerateandthepossible measuresthatcouldbetakentominimizetheeffectsofthoseconsequenceshavebeen takenintoaccount.Fortheassessmentofhazardandvulnerabilitylevels,eachoftheas‐ sessableitemsinthequestionnairehasbeenassignedanumericalvaluebetween0and5, where0meanstheabsenceofhazardand5meansthehighestlevelofhazard.(Fora moredetailedexplanationoftheDelphimethod,see[44](p.6)and[47](pp.8–10).)  Concerningthemethodologicalaspectsoftheanalysisofmaterialsandtheirpa‐ thologies,leavingasidethedirectobservationoftheculturalassets,inthespecificcases oftheAlcazabaQadīmainGranadaandtheCastillejoCastleinAbrucena,tech‐ nical‐scientificreportshavebeenelaborated[48](pp.4–5),[49](pp.3–4),[50](pp.28–31) andadetailedstudyofthecrustsampleshasbeencarriedout.Intheanalysis,theX‐Ray Diffraction(XRD)hasdeterminedthemineralcompositionofthematerial.Ithasbeen donewithaBRUKERpowderdiffractometerD8ADVANCEequippedwithanauto‐ maticslit,usingthecrystallinesampleinterpretationsoftwareXpowderfortheinter‐ pretationofthedata.Moreover,apetrographicstudyhasbeendevelopedusingmicro‐ photographstakenunderaZeissPolarizedLightOpticalMicroscopy(OM)withparallel nicolsandwithcrossednicols.Inthecaseofthepathologies,theyhavebeenobserved usingalens‐videomicroscope. 3.ReformsintheMilitaryConstructionsinGranadaandAlmeria(FirstHalfofthe 12thCentury) 3.1.Granada:AlmoravidCapitalofAl‐Andalus WiththearrivaloftheAlmoravidsintheIberianPeninsulain1090,thefirstsettle‐ mentthatfellundertheirpowerwasthecityofGranada,whichbecamethepeninsular capitalduringthisperiod[51](p.45).Givenitsimportantstatus,numerousworkswere Figure 6. Maps of the visual basin from the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria. ( a ) General map of the visual basin from the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria; ( b ) Detail of the visual basin from the walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria. Source: PREFORTI Project. E. Molero Melgarejo. The light blue outline indicates the maximum distance with high sharpness (500 m). The color intervals indicate as follows: no color = not visible ; yellow = low exposure (1 visible dot only); orange = medium exposure (up to 10 visible dots); red = high exposure (up to 30 dots visible); dark red = extreme exposure (more than 30 dots visible). In addition to the previous methodological processes, the Delphi method has been applied in this study in order to evaluate the impact of each risk on the selected cultural Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 8 of 32 assets, and to assess the vulnerability of those assets based on the effects that such risks produce on their structures [ 44 – 46 ]. For this purpose, a questionnaire that has allowed multidimensional evaluation has been generated. It has been distributed and completed by a multidisciplinary group of 15 experts from different disciplines relating to risks and conservation status of cultural heritage. The disciplines chosen have included Archaeology, History of Art, Architecture, Technical Architecture, Engineering, Geology, Chemistry, Restoration and Cultural Management. In this questionnaire, the variables of the probability of the risk occurring, the consequences it would generate and the possible measures that could be taken to minimize the effects of those consequences have been taken into account. For the assessment of hazard and vulnerability levels, each of the assessable items in the questionnaire has been assigned a numerical value between 0 and 5, where 0 means the absence of hazard and 5 means the highest level of hazard. (For a more detailed explanation of the Delphi method, see [44] (p. 6) and [47] (pp. 8–10)). Concerning the methodological aspects of the analysis of materials and their pathologies, leaving aside the direct observation of the cultural assets, in the specific cases of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma in Granada and the Castillejo Castle in Abrucena, technical-scientific reports have been elaborated [ 48 ] (pp. 4–5), [ 49 ] (pp. 3–4), [ 50 ] (pp. 28–31) and a detailed study of the crust samples has been carried out. In the analysis, the X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) has determined the mineral composition of the material. It has been done with a BRUKER powder diffractometer D8 ADVANCE equipped with an automatic slit, using the crystalline sample interpretation software Xpowder for the interpretation of the data. Moreover, a petrographic study has been developed using microphotographs taken under a Zeiss Polarized Light Optical Microscopy (OM) with parallel nicols and with crossed nicols. In the case of the pathologies, they have been observed using a lens-videomicroscope. 3. Reforms in the Military Constructions in Granada and Almeria (First Half of the 12th Century) 3.1. Granada: Almoravid Capital of Al-Andalus With the arrival of the Almoravids in the Iberian Peninsula in 1090, the first settlement that fell under their power was the city of Granada, which became the peninsular capital during this period [ 51 ] (p. 45). Given its important status, numerous works were performed in the city and its territory in the Almoravid period, as narrated in the written sources [ 1 ] (pp. 168–172); [ 52 ] (p. 42); [ 2 ] (p. 147), although almost none of these have been preserved. Among these constructions, those of a military nature stand out. This type of architecture reached a height of development during the Almoravid period, representing an important precedent for the great reforms of the poliorcetics implemented by the Almohads [ 4 ]; indeed, its development is linked to the very essence of that movement, which since its birth was based on territorial expansion and religious orthodoxy, the latter understood as Holy War [ 53 ] (p. 58). Among the reforms implemented during the first half of the 12th century in the works performed in rammed earth in Granada, as included in the catalogue prepared in the framework of the PREFORTI Project, the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma and the city walls of Guadix stand out. 3.1.1. Walls of the Alcazaba Qad¯ ıma Historical Approach Thanks to the mentions collected in al-Bay ¯ an al-Mughrib by Ibn ‘Idh ¯ ar ¯ ı, we have references regarding the renovation works conducted on the walls of Granada. From 1126, the implementation of the mentioned ta’t ¯ ıb tax subsidized these works, which were completed by the governor Inal ¯ u [ 1 ] (pp. 169–170). Thanks to this source, it is known for certain that the section between B ¯ ab Ilb ¯ ıra and B ¯ ab al-Rambla was renovated at that time [ 1 ] (p. 171). In this context, it could be assumed that the section of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma responsible for protecting the palatine area of the city was also renovated at that time. (This area, in which the Ban ¯ u Z ¯ ır ¯ ı had established their original palaces and the Almoravids had the political center of their peninsular capital, was transformed during the first half of the Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 9 of 32 12th century, as recorded in alH . ulal al-Mawshiyya [ 2 ] (p. 147). This has been documented in the archaeological excavations at the Plaza de Santa Isabel la Real [54] (p. 199)). Architectural Form The best-preserved part of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma is the 390 m long section located to the north, on the Cuesta de la Alhacaba (Figure 1c). This section connected the Gate of Monaita (located in the northwest) and the Gate of Las Pesas (located in the northeast) (Figure 7). The section between these two gates can be divided into two clearly differentiated parts: to the west, a section with solid square towers on the inner side, smaller and standing much closer to each other than the towers of the other section; to the east, and behind the alteration in the wall line, a part with large semicircular towers next to other towers of quadrangular plan, which are larger than those located more to the west. Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW10of33   Figure7.GeneralmapofthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada.Source:IsabelBestuéCardiel [55]. BuildingStructureandMaterials Althoughitschronologyhasbeenmuchdiscussedinhistoriographicaldebates,it wasdocumentedthatduringthearchaeologicalinterventionsinthe“CarmendelaMu‐ ralla”someoftheZīrītowerswereheightenedinthe12thcentury,aswiththespecific caseofthetowerthatconnectedtheinternalenclosurewalldocumentedinthissitewith anotherexternalstretchtowhichthepreservedsectionbelongs,wherethelargecircular towersarelocated[56](p.1510).Theissueofthechronologyofthiswallisrelatedtothe successiveoccupationofthisareaofthecityatdifferentpointsintime.Theoldestre‐ mainsofthewalllocatedinthissitecorrespondtotheIberianfencefromthe6thcentury BC,assomeoftheRomanworkshadbeendocumentedinthe2ndcenturyBC.Generally, thelayoutofthiswallcoincideswiththeposteriormedievallayout(althoughitwasex‐ tendedonitssouthside),alwaysconditionedbythetopographyofthehillonwhichitis located. GiventhepresenceoftwowalllinesinthenorthernpartoftheAlcazabaQadīma andtheaforementionedincreaseofthetowerconnectingthetwolines,withitsproposed chronologyinthe12th  century,someauthorshavesuggestedthattheexternalwallline correspondstotheAlmoravidrenovationworksperformedonthecityfencestartingin 1126[57](pp.46–47),[51](p.199),maintainingthetraditionalhypothesisofZīrīauthor‐ shipoftheoriginalIslamicwall,locatedontheinternalline,ofwhichatowerbehindthe GateoflasPesasisalsopreserved.Fromthatfirstperiod,theconstructionsoftheGateof HernánRománandtheGateofElviraweredated,bothcharacterizedbytheuseof stoneworkandstretcherandheaderbonds,thepresenceofcarvingsofCordobaninflu‐ enceandaninitialdispositioninstraightsections,usingrammedearthwithpebbleag‐ gregatesjoinedtogetherwithmortarforthewallstretchesandtowers. Tothewestoftheinnertower,nexttotheGateoflasPesas,anewsectionofthe fencewasdocumentedfollowingexcavationsofthe“CarmendelaMuralla”inthe1980s, withthreetowersreinforcedwithbrickandashlarinthecorners,built,aswiththesections thatjoinedthem,oframmedearthmadewithlimestonemortar.Thesametechniquewas Figure 7. General map of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada. Source: Isabel BestuéCardiel [ 55 ]. Building Structure and Materials Although its chronology has been much discussed in historiographical debates, it was documented that during the archaeological interventions in the “Carmen de la Muralla” some of the Z ¯ ır ¯ ı towers were heightened in the 12th century, as with the specific case of the tower that connected the internal enclosure wall documented in this site with another external stretch to which the preserved section belongs, where the large circular towers are located [ 56 ] (p. 1510). The issue of the chronology of this wall is related to the successive occupation of this area of the city at different points in time. The oldest remains of the wall located in this site correspond to the Iberian fence from the 6th century BC, as some of the Roman works had been documented in the 2nd century BC. Generally, the layout of this wall coincides with the posterior medieval layout (although it was extended on its south side), always conditioned by the topography of the hill on which it is located. Given the presence of two wall lines in the northern part of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma and the aforementioned increase of the tower connecting the two lines, with its proposed chronology in the 12th century, some authors have suggested that the external wall line corresponds to the Almoravid renovation works performed on the city fence starting in 1126 [ 57 ] (pp. 46–47), [ 51 ] (p. 199), maintaining the traditional hypothesis of Z ¯ ır ¯ ı authorship Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 16 of 32 consulted in the project of restoration of this wall, with file number B043185 HP04BC in the Delegación de Cultura in Almeria [75]. Natural Risks Alongside the aforementioned earthquakes, other natural elements that have affected the wall have been wind and, above all, water, which has caused signs of dampness in several of the walls, as well as cracks, fissures and buckles caused by the steam of filtered water in the walls, which have caused a progressive detachment of the materials. Most of these are caused by thermal variables, since the increase in temperature and the absence of structural joints have led to the opening and fracturing of the walls, sometimes even causing their granular disintegration. Also due to natural causes, the rammed earth used in the place of its union with the wall of the Alcazaba and with that of the Cerro de San Cristóbal is significantly deteriorated and disintegrated as a consequence of its own construction (especially as a large part of the lime plaster which protected the interior of the walls has been lost), due to the tensions produced at these points and to the water leaks caused by the lack of protection of the high parts of the wall, as well as due to existent ventilation problems in the interior. In addition, the presence of small plants, mosses and fungi is observed in the upper part of the walls and in the parapet walks, which, alongside the detritus caused by the action of birds, has deteriorated the wall’s construction. Conservation Status The walls of La Hoya are in a good state of conservation as a result of the recent restoration that has been carried out on this structure. However, the main lesions are the stains caused by the rust of the Corten steel used in some of the towers. The north and south elevations of the Cerro de San Cristóbal section also show lesions, such as the disintegration of its components, causing buckling, exfoliation, surface erosion and cracks in the lime coating, even to the point of detachment. There is dirt adhering to the walls, causing chromatic alterations. At the base of the south elevation, there is efflorescence. There is a loss of cohesion of the material, erosion and progressive detachment at the crowns. Graffiti and distorting elements can be seen all over the wall of the Cerro de San Cristóbal, as well as rubbish and debris around it. In the northern and eastern areas, the effects of urban pressure are visible, with the presence of attached buildings. 3.2.2. Urban Wall of Almeria Historical Approach The city of Almeria was provided with a wall since its foundation by ‘Abd al-Ra h . m ¯ an III (955–956). This wall, of irregular quadrangular shape, encompassed the core of the original mad ¯ ına, with access granted by various gates. The original fence, built in ashlar stone, was expanded during the Taifa period, during the rule of Khayr ¯ an, with the flourishing of alH . aw d . surroundings (current district of La Chanca) and al-Mu s . allà, in which four new gates were founded [ 76 ] (p. 82). Regarding the last district mentioned, on its eastern side, the walls were constructed outside the Caliphal mad ¯ ına, with a fortified irregular quadrilateral plant, in the place occupied by the ancient cemetery known as Maqbarat Sha‘ria Qad ¯ ıma [ 51 ] (p. 346). With regard to alH . aw d . , referred to as the “great suburb” by al-Idr ¯ ıs ¯ ı [ 68 ] (pp. 36–37), it was located in the western part of the city. Its walls, built during the Taifa period, according to archaeological evidence, were renovated during the Almoravid period, in the framework of the works developed by Ibn al-Fahm ¯ ı thanks to the ta’t ¯ ıb tax [ 1 ] (p. 170). Those walls were connected with the enclosure of the Alcazaba through their western flank. Architectural Form Although in most parts of the city the walls were destroyed in the nineteenth century due to the urban growth of Almeria, in some places remains of this defensive system can Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 17 of 32 be still seen [ 73 ] (p. 51). Thanks to archaeological activity and textual references, new sections and some of its old gates have been documented. The main entrance to the city was B ¯ ab Bayy ¯ ana (Gate of Pechina, called Gate of Purchena after the Christian conquest of the city) [ 73 ] (p. 53). Close by in the vicinity, thanks to the archaeological works on what is now Antonio Vico Street, remains of the wall built by Khayr ¯ an in the 11th century, as well as evidence of the subsequent renovation works delivered during the Almoravid period were found. Two lines of the original fence were documented: the first line was attributed to the works of Khayr ¯ an; the second one has been assigned to the first half of the 12th century. This stretch of wall belonged to the fence in charge of protecting the so-called al-Mu s . allàsuburb [ 77 ] (p. 29). The continuation of the wall that ran through Antonio Vico Street was documented in other archaeological works carried out on what is now Rambla Obispo OrberáStreet. On the corner of Navarro Rodrigo Street, a stretch of the Taifa wall which is 2.8 m wide and approximately 0.6 m long appeared [ 78 ] (p. 13). Other remnants of the Taifa wall in al-Mu s . allàsuburb have been documented on Méndez Núñez Street and Rueda López Street [78] (pp. 13–14). From Rambla Obispo OrberáStreet, the wall went down until Nicolás Salmerón Park. This wall, located by the sea, was connected to the original Caliphal fence of the mad ¯ ına. As for the primitive Caliphal wall of ashlar and masonry [ 79 ] (p. 22), a part of its remains was located at the crossing with Reina Street [ 80 ]. Additionally, a section was located during the works in the Inés Relaño School [ 81 ]. Alongside what appeared to be one of the old city gates, a rammed-earth wall appeared, which could be attributed to the renovation works carried out on the fence after the ta’t ¯ ıb tax was introduced, though it could also correspond to a later point in time. In relation to the alH . aw d . suburb, there are some stretches of wall and towers (Figure 1b) related to the Almoravid renovation works on the original Taifa construction [ 51 ] (pp. 345–346), located among the urban network of La Chanca. The largest remains correspond to two rammed-earth towers in the northern part of the wall, located on Del Mar Avenue. They are 14.5 m high and 5 m long, despite being in a state of neglect. Building Structure and Materials The two lines of the original fence documented in Antonio Vico Street have different materials used in their manufacturing process: the first line is built in coastal sand and without foundation; the second one is made of rammed earth, between 1.80 and 1 m thick, and is cemented, possessing a more reddish tone. The stretch of the Taifa wall on the corner of Navarro Rodrigo Street is built in mortar and earth [ 78 ] (p. 13). In the wall in Nicolás Salmerón Park, several stretches built in ashlar combined with mortar were located, along with other stretches built in bricks combined with compact earth and mortar, and others built in mortar and small stones. In one of the stretches built in mortar and compact earth located in this park, a complex structure appeared next to a quadrangular tower. The tower had very compact walls, built in earth, combined with stone and mortar, all of which was covered by a compact mortar and ashlar [78] (pp. 14–15). Historical Anthropic Risks Of all the risks that have affected the conservation of the urban walls of Almeria, the major ones have been those of human-induced nature. Starting from the 17th century, the abandonment of the wall occurred, especially on its west side, as Gate of the Sortida was closed at that point in time [ 82 ] (p. 457). In the next century, the artillery of the Anglo-Dutch attacks of 1703 provoked new damage in the fence [ 83 ] (p. 162). From that moment on, the landslides of its stretches started, beginning with the stretch located next to the Gate of the Sea in 1749 and continuing with the destruction of part of the nearby mad ¯ ına in 1776, 1854 and 1862 [ 83 ] (p. 166, 174). To all this, we have to add the destruction of a large part of the urban wall starting from May 26th 1855, when Queen Isabella II authorized its demolition for reasons of urban pressure, destroying the Gate of Pechina [ 73 ] (p. 53). In 1858, the Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 18 of 32 Gate of the Sea was destroyed, and in 1891, by order of the City Council of Almeria, the rammed-earth wall that ran along Torreones Street was also destroyed. Historical Natural Risks Despite the prominence of anthropic risks, the Almeria fence has also been affected by natural risks. The earthquake of 1522, which reduced its perimeter on its east and west sides and destroyed the parapet walks, stands out [83] (p. 155). Anthropic Risks in Modern Times In the cases of the towers located among the urban network of La Chanca, some of these were reused as houses, which had a great impact on their constructions. Conservation Status As has been mentioned before, most parts of the city walls were destroyed in the nineteenth century due to the urban growth of Almeria. Despite this fact, in some places in the town remains of this defensive system have been documented thanks to archaeological interventions, and some of these have been recovered. Some of the towers of the alH . aw d . suburb can be still seen, but they are in a state of neglect. 3.2.3. El Castillejo Castle, Abrucena Historical Approach El Castillejo Castle in Abrucena is located on the highest part of an elevated hill, known as “dirty stone”, on the right bank of the Nacimiento River, in the region of La Dehesa [ 84 ] (p. 2334), [ 85 ] (p. 59). According to ceramic remains found on-site, the occupation of the hill has been documented since the Neolithic era. Subsequently, there was an Iberian village, where the Romans settled, forming the ancient Lauricena [ 73 ] (p. 273). On its remains, a fortress was constructed in the Islamic period, which formed part of the defensive system between Granada and Almeria, alongside the Alcazaba of Fiñana and El Peñón de las Juntas Castle of Abla [82] (p. 421). Traditionally, El Castillejo had been assigned to the Almohad period. However, this place is mentioned in the work Uns al-Muhaj wa Raw d . al-Furaj by al-Idr ¯ ıs ¯ ı under the names of Lawris ¯ ana and Lawrish ¯ ana [ 86 ] (p. 318), as a castle between Fiñana and Abla, on the way from Guadix to Berja and from Guadix to Abla [ 82 ] (p. 420). As this work was written in the mid-12th century, this suggests that El Castillejo could be considered an earlier work, of sufficient importance to be mentioned, built during the Almoravid period, although undergoing important transformations during the Almohad period [ 84 ] (p. 2335). Most probably, its construction is related to the reinforcement works of the Andalusi fences after the incursion of Alfonso I the Warrior in 1125–1126, who crossed the territories near Guadix, located close to this zone, on his way to Granada [2] (pp. 110–115). Architectural Form Only part of its wall built in rammed earth, four towers (some of them very damaged) and a cistern have been preserved from El Castillejo of Abrucena. After the analysis of these remains and the documented ceramic material, up to five construction phases can be differentiated, dating from the 11th to the 13th century [ 82 ] (pp. 420–421). The largest tower is quadrangular, is massive in its interior and is 7.70 × 6.90 m long. Next to the largest tower is a large corner tower, measuring 6.90 × 7.50 m, also massive. This bastion was attached to the tower located in the western part of the enclosure, and was smaller than the towers previously described (4.50 × 5.20 m). The towers are joined through a wall of about 7.50 m, which is reinforced by another exterior wall that, due to its disposition, maintains the tower in line with the wall [ 87 ]. These types of towers, quadrangular and massive inside, are the most characteristic of the Almoravid military constructions, although they were also used in several Almohad enclosures [ 51 ]. On the south side of El Castillejo, only a smaller tower is located (3 × 5.20 m). In the wall, an aperture has been located whose Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 19 of 32 function is unknown, which leads to a ramp, and is interpreted as a possible entrance to the enclosure. With respect to the interior constructions, the remains of a new tower, hollow in its interior and measuring 4.50 × 4 m, are preserved on a small rock ledge. In the center of the enclosure, a single cistern oriented to the North has been preserved, which ensured the storage of the water to supply the fortress [ 85 ] (pp. 68–70). It had a great capacity thanks to its dimensions (8.70 × 3.10 m). As for its upper closure, it was covered with a barrel vault of 0.30 m thick with a wide aperture, possibly used for the extraction of water, as is often the case in this type of construction [84] (p. 2336). Building Structure and Materials The corner tower attached to the bastion located in the western part of the enclosure is made of stone and lime rammed earth on a masonry base. The smaller tower located on the south side is built completely in masonry and has several layers of lime plaster. Regarding the preserved remains of the wall, its construction was built in stone and lime rammed earth on a masonry base, with its stones cemented with gravel or slag, joined with mortars rich in lime and earth [ 85 ] (p. 73). These materials were mostly used in the military constructions of the ‘Al¯ ı Ibn Y¯ usuf period [4] (p. 318). On the other hand, the tower in the interior enclosure is built in lime-stabilized rammed earth. Its construction is of mortar rammed earth on a base of masonry. As for the thickness of its walls, it ranges between 0.75 and 1 m [ 87 ]. The walls of the cistern are built in rammed earth at the base, up to a height of 1 m and a thickness of 0.50 m, at which point they are transformed into a superposition of a platform made of slate, a material often used in the area. Anthropic Risks The main risks that have affected El Castillejo of Abrucena have been ones of an anthropic nature. Its current state is abandonment and ruin. The enclosure has been greatly affected by the agricultural activity of the area, which has produced a great deterioration as a result of the removal of the earth and slope terracing, as well as the loss of materials of its walls [82] (p. 423). On the other hand, during the last decades its cistern was used as a livestock refuge [ 87 ]. Additionally, one of its towers has been affected by vandalism, since on its base it has a white piece of graffiti. Natural Risks Natural environmental risks have also caused damage to the site. On the preserved walls there is a clay patina with fungi and lichens, and there is certain deterioration due to the formation of salts, as has been observed in the lens-videomicroscopic analysis [50] (p. 28, Figure 32a,c). In addition to the dirt, there has been a significant surface erosion that has affected the walls, which has led to a loss of their mass (sometimes parts of rammed earth have disappeared), which has affected the stability and cohesion of the material and is still affecting the loss of the perimeter due to the disintegration of the rammed earth. The loss of material has increased the intensity of degradation damage, especially water saturation and thermal differences, as has been shown in the petrographic analysis [ 50 ] (p. 28, Figure 34). The damages caused by water have had a crucial impact in the degradation process, outlined as follows: The lack of protection of the high parts has caused the entrance of water by filtration, which has resulted in the disintegration of the rammed earth and the accumulation of salts, as well as favoring the formation of lichen, moss and fungi (Figure 1e). Additionally, the presence of birds has generated a significant amount of detritus, which has reacted with the material, resulting in its deterioration. Conservation Status Structurally, the whole complex is significantly affected. The towers have important undermining at their bases that jeopardizes their stability, and vertical structural cracks and Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 20 of 32 fissures that affect their coating at different points of the preserved remains can be observed. Moreover, they have a noticeable level of soiling. The mechinales are very deteriorated due to the disintegration of the rammed earth. In the lower parts and crown of the walls, there are lesions that have caused a loss of cohesion in the material and a progressive detachment of more superficial material. The loss of grouting between the courses of masonry is frequent. Various wall faces have suffered chromatic alteration. Efflorescence is visible, being more prominent in the interior of the cistern. This construction is semi-ruined, with debris and vegetation inside as a result of the partial destruction of the vault that covered it. The effects of neglect, vandalism and lack of maintenance are noticeable. There are numerous incisions, paintings and white graffiti at the base of the massive western bastion. Agricultural activity has led to the removal of the terrain and the terracing of the hillside, with retaining walls presumably made of material from the fortress. 3.2.4. The Castle of Bacares Historical Approach The Castle of Bacares is located on top of a hill on the slope of the Sierra de los Filabres, next to the Bacares River, east of the urban center [ 73 ] (p. 344). It seems that this fortress, of Berber origin, was part of a more complex defensive system, located next to Velefique Castle and other castles in the same region. The aim of this complex was to control the Filabres route between Baza and Almeria [ 88 ] (p. 137). The original construction is dated between the 11th and 12th centuries, as it was first mentioned in the texts of al-Idr ¯ ıs ¯ ı, under the name of Bak ¯ arish [ 86 ] (p. 325). During the 13th century, it underwent significant modifications due to the great political instability at the end of the Almohad and the beginning of the Nasrid period [ 89 ]. This modification was surely related to the incorporation of Almeria into the first Nasrid kingdom of Muh .ammad I in 1238. Architectural Form This fortress is formed by an irregular enclosure of about 25 × 25 m that adapts to the orography of the land. Its wall has six towers, five of them being quadrangular, while the last one is larger and has a rectangular plan [ 90 ] (p. 71). Several of these towers are located at the corners of the enclosure, a model widely used in this region during the 13th century [ 89 ], in direct relation to the aforementioned renovation works carried out on the original Berber construction. The best-preserved tower is the one located on the north side of the enclosure, which is 8 m high. As for the western one, it was probably hollow inside, and still retains part of its original plaster, while the rest of the bastions were massive inside (at least up to the preserved height) [ 82 ] (p. 467). This typology was typical of the military constructions of the first half of the 12th century. Inside, remains of the rooms between the towers have been preserved. The one located to the south was two floors high. Beneath, there seem to be remains of other buildings, which, however, are walled up. In the courtyard there are the remains of a small rectangular cistern, attached to the west wall of the north tower [84] (p. 2340). Building Structure and Materials With respect to the construction system of the fortress, its walls of remarkable size (between 0.91 and 1.15 m wide) [ 90 ] (p. 71) are built in lime-stabilized rammed earth on a masonry base, made of slate stones joined with cement mortar, forming courses. The towers have a barely preserved plaster [89] (Figure 1f). Historical Risks The construction was abandoned in the 16th century, and was very close to disappearing, as archaeological analyses have indicated. Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 21 of 32 Anthropic Risks The most important risks that have affected the Castle of Bacares have been those of human-induced nature, especially those related to abandonment, which in turn has increased the pathologies associated with natural risks. A restoration project was implemented in 2008–2009 [ 91 ], and the walls were consolidated using colored concrete based on rich lime. Alongside abandonment, another human-induced risk that has been detected in this fortress is the presence of graffiti on one of the walls on the way up to the castle on the southeast side. Natural Risks Before the intervention, the rammed-earth walls had holes produced mainly by rainwater. However, there are still some areas where the rammed earth is damaged, presenting cracks and fissures, as in the interior room located to the south. On the other hand, water leaks have eroded the walls, causing detachments of their coatings. Both in the room situated in the south part and in the north tower, there are also whitish stains, results of the accumulation of salts on the surfaces. The upper part of the walls is damaged due to the lack of adhesion, which is causing detachments due to the consequent entry of moisture. Additionally, throughout the whole complex there are mosses and fungi, as well as low vegetation in the walls and in their crownings. Conservation Status Since the restoration project implemented in 2008–2009, the current conservation status of the Castle of Bacares is relatively good. However, there are still some areas where the rammed earth is damaged. Small cracks and fissures can be seen in the south wall of the room inside the complex. The filtrations generated have created erosion and progressive detachment of the cladding, leaving the wall more vulnerable. Efflorescence can be seen on this same front and on the inside face of the north tower. In relation to the work carried out on the remains of the rammed earth, we can observe the lifting of the protections of the crowns of the walls, due to the lack of adherence, causing exfoliations and detachments that favor the presence of gaps and the entry of damp. 4. Synthesis of the Results This section summarises the results obtained from the analysis of the six military rammed-earth constructions in the areas of Granada and Almeria included in this study. The results have been synthesized in Table 1, where the names of each asset, its location and the chronology of the different historical works have been included. The works developed during the first half of the 12th century have been specified in a separate column. In addition to this information, the types of historical rammed earth and the anthropic and natural risks of conservation have also been compiled in the table. Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 22 of 32 Table 1. Characteristics, materials and risks of conservation in the 12th-century military constructions in Southeast Al-Andalus. Name Location Chronology Works on the First Half of the 12th Century Types of Historical Rammed Earth Risks of Conservation Anthropic Natural Walls of the Alcazaba Qad¯ ıma Granada Z¯ ır¯ ı (11th century) Almoravids (first half of the 12th century) Reparations in the walls and towers Rammed earth with pebble aggregates joined together with mortar Rammed earth with limestone mortar Lime-stabilized rammed earth with less lime inside and resistant lime mortar outside Urban pressure Abandonment Vandalism and graffiti Thermal oscillations Dampness due to filtered water Dampness due to capillarity Rainwater Vegetation on the wall Earthquakes Landslides Alcazaba of Guadix Guadix (Granada) Z¯ ır¯ ı (11th century) Almoravids/2nd Taifas (12th century) Nasrids (13th–15th century) Barbican Lime-stabilized rammed earth with less lime inside and resistant lime mortar outside Rammed earth with stone and lime mortar cement Occupation as a military quarter during the War of Independence Repairs using poor quality materials and contemporary materials (Portland cement concrete and mixed concrete made of soil and cement) Use as a cemetery of the interior esplanade Bombings during the Civil War Graffiti Sports facilities in the interior enclosure Urban pressure Environmental factors Vegetation on the walls Walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal Almeria Z¯ ır¯ ı (11th century) Almoravids (first half of the 12th century) Christians (1147) Almohads (from 1157) Reparations in the walls High hardness lime-stabilized rammed earth Urban pressure Graffiti Garbage and debris Use of corten steel in a recent restoration Earthquakes Dampness due to filtered water Rainwater Wind Thermal oscillations Small plants, mosses and fungi in the upper part of the walls Detritus Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 23 of 32 Table 1. Cont. Name Location Chronology Works on the First Half of the 12th Century Types of Historical Rammed Earth Risks of Conservation Anthropic Natural Urban walls of Almeria Almeria Caliphal (10th century) Z¯ ır¯ ı (11th century) Almoravids (first half of the 12th century) Reparations in the walls and towers Rammed earth of coastal sand Mortar and compact earth Mortar and small stones Ashlar combined with mortar Bricks combined with compact earth and mortar Urban pressure Abandonment Artillery of the Anglo-Dutch attacks of 1703 Earthquakes El Castillejo Abrucena (Almeria) Almoravids (first half of the 12th century) Almohads (12th–13th centuries) Original construction repaired in the Almohad period Rammed earth with stone and lime mortar cement on a masonry base Lime-stabilized rammed earth Urban pressure Abandonment Agricultural activity Use of the cistern as livestock refuge Vandalism and paintings Surface erosion Clay patina Presence of mosses, fungi and lichens Water saturation Thermal oscillations Dampness due to filtered water Detritus Castle of Bacares Bacares (Almeria) Almoravids (first half of the 12th century) Nasrids (13th century) Original construction transformed in the Nasrid period Lime-stabilized rammed earth on a masonry base Abandonment Graffiti Rainwater Dampness due to filtered water Presence of mosses, fungi and low vegetation Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 24 of 32 5. Discussion: Proposal of a Preventive Conservation Method for Two Case Studies The multidisciplinary analysis based on the Delphi method of the cultural assets included in this work has shown that anthropic and natural risks have jeopardized their conservation in most of the cases. On the one hand, concerning the anthropic risks, those referring to urban pressure, abandonment and vandalism can be highlighted, beside the lack of maintenance and/or the lack-of-criteria restorations. Concerning the natural risks, earthquakes and risks related to water are also present in most of the cases of study. The walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma (Granada) and the walls of La Hoya (Almeria) have been selected as case studies in this section because they are the most representative ensembles among the cultural assets included in this work. Furthermore, the preventive conservation method proposed below for both case studies can be extrapolated to the other assets of this study, as has been proved within the framework of the PREFORTI Project for other similar cases. For this reason, the compared analysis of the incidence of anthropic and natural hazards in the cases of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma (Granada) and the walls of La Hoya (Almeria) is presented as a discussion, together with the vulnerability index of both assets. In regard to the incidence of anthropic hazards (Figure 12), in both cases the most significant hazards are urban pressure and the disappearance of the original use/incompatible use (with an incidence of 5 in a scale from 0 to 5), followed by the alteration of environmental conditions/infrastructures and negligence (with an incidence of 4 in a scale from 0 to 5). In the specific case of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, vandalism is also particularly significant (with an incidence of 5 in a scale from 0 to 5), as well as the lack of maintenance (with an incidence of 4 in a scale from 0 to 5). On the other hand, in the case of the walls of La Hoya, restoration errors can be highlighted (4 in a scale from 0 to 5). Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW25of33   Figure12.Graphoftheincidenceofanthropichazard.Left:wallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Gra‐ nada;right:wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria;1:Lackofhistorical,graphical orarchaeologicaldocumentation;2:Alterationofenvironmentconditions/Infrastructure;3:Neg‐ ligence;4:Lackofmaintenance;5:Vandalicacts,sabotageandthefts;6:Conflict;7:Restoration errors;8:Disappearanceoforiginaluse,incompatibleuse;9:Urbanpressure.Source:PREFORTI Project.  Inthecaseoftheincidenceofnaturalhazards(Figure13),thesehazardshavea higherimpactinthewallsofLaHoya,aboveallinthecasesoftheactionofcapillarity andfloods(withanincidenceof5inascalefrom0to5).Inbothcases,theyarefollowed bytheincidenceofseismicactivity(withanincidenceof4inascalefrom0to5).Inthe particularcaseofthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,theimpactoftheactionoffireand temperaturearesignificanttoo(withanincidenceof4inascalefrom0to5),whileinthe caseofthewallofLaHoyatheimpactofseaquakesisalsohigh(withanincidenceof4in ascalefrom0to5).  Figure13.Graphoftheincidenceofnaturalhazards.Left:wallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada; right:wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria.1:Actionofcapillarity;2:Environ‐ mentalhumidityandrain;3:Floods;4:Snowfalls;5:Seaquakes;6:Hurricane;7Winds;8:Light‐ ning;9:Ice;10Temperature;11:Seismicactivity;12:Landslides;13:Clayexpansivity;14:Steep slopes;15:Actionoffire.Source:PREFORTIProject.  Concerningthevulnerabilityindex(Figure14),thesituationofthewallsoftheAl‐ cazabaQadīmaisworsethanthewallsofLaHoya,wheretheimpactofpathologieshas anincidenceof3inascalefrom0to5.Amongthesepathologies,materialdisaggrega‐ tion/lossofcohesion;cracksandfissures;settlement/stabilityissues;stainscausedby runoffsandhumiditybycapillarity/filtrationcanbehighlighted.Ontheotherhand,in thecaseofthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,theimpactofmoderateandexcessiveveg‐ etationisthemostsignificant(withanincidenceof5inascalefrom0to5),followedby dirt/superficialdeposits;lichensandfungi;detritusandnestingandcracksandfissures (allofthemwithanincidenceof4inascalefrom0to5).Thepathologiesofthewallsof LaHoyaareatthesamelevel,beingmaterialdisaggregation/lossofcohesion;stains causedbyrunoffsandhumiditybycapillarity/filtration;besidesthedetachment/lossof massandvolumetricloss(allofthesewithanincidenceof3inascalefrom0to5). Figure 12. Graph of the incidence of anthropic hazard. Left: walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada; right : walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria; 1: Lack of historical, graphical or archaeological documentation; 2: Alteration of environment conditions/Infrastructure; 3: Negligence; 4: Lack of maintenance; 5: Vandalic acts, sabotage and thefts; 6: Conflict; 7: Restoration errors; 8: Disappearance of original use, incompatible use; 9: Urban pressure. Source: PREFORTI Project. In the case of the incidence of natural hazards (Figure 13), these hazards have a higher impact in the walls of La Hoya, above all in the cases of the action of capillarity and floods (with an incidence of 5 in a scale from 0 to 5). In both cases, they are followed by the incidence of seismic activity (with an incidence of 4 in a scale from 0 to 5). In the particular case of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, the impact of the action of fire and temperature are significant too (with an incidence of 4 in a scale from 0 to 5), while in the case of the wall of La Hoya the impact of seaquakes is also high (with an incidence of 4 in a scale from 0 to 5). Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 25 of 32 Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW25of33   Figure12.Graphoftheincidenceofanthropichazard.Left:wallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Gra‐ nada;right:wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria;1:Lackofhistorical,graphical orarchaeologicaldocumentation;2:Alterationofenvironmentconditions/Infrastructure;3:Neg‐ ligence;4:Lackofmaintenance;5:Vandalicacts,sabotageandthefts;6:Conflict;7:Restoration errors;8:Disappearanceoforiginaluse,incompatibleuse;9:Urbanpressure.Source:PREFORTI Project.  Inthecaseoftheincidenceofnaturalhazards(Figure13),thesehazardshavea higherimpactinthewallsofLaHoya,aboveallinthecasesoftheactionofcapillarity andfloods(withanincidenceof5inascalefrom0to5).Inbothcases,theyarefollowed bytheincidenceofseismicactivity(withanincidenceof4inascalefrom0to5).Inthe particularcaseofthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,theimpactoftheactionoffireand temperaturearesignificanttoo(withanincidenceof4inascalefrom0to5),whileinthe caseofthewallofLaHoyatheimpactofseaquakesisalsohigh(withanincidenceof4in ascalefrom0to5).  Figure13.Graphoftheincidenceofnaturalhazards.Left:wallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,Granada; right:wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria.1:Actionofcapillarity;2:Environ‐ mentalhumidityandrain;3:Floods;4:Snowfalls;5:Seaquakes;6:Hurricane;7Winds;8:Light‐ ning;9:Ice;10Temperature;11:Seismicactivity;12:Landslides;13:Clayexpansivity;14:Steep slopes;15:Actionoffire.Source:PREFORTIProject.  Concerningthevulnerabilityindex(Figure14),thesituationofthewallsoftheAl‐ cazabaQadīmaisworsethanthewallsofLaHoya,wheretheimpactofpathologieshas anincidenceof3inascalefrom0to5.Amongthesepathologies,materialdisaggrega‐ tion/lossofcohesion;cracksandfissures;settlement/stabilityissues;stainscausedby runoffsandhumiditybycapillarity/filtrationcanbehighlighted.Ontheotherhand,in thecaseofthewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīma,theimpactofmoderateandexcessiveveg‐ etationisthemostsignificant(withanincidenceof5inascalefrom0to5),followedby dirt/superficialdeposits;lichensandfungi;detritusandnestingandcracksandfissures (allofthemwithanincidenceof4inascalefrom0to5).Thepathologiesofthewallsof LaHoyaareatthesamelevel,beingmaterialdisaggregation/lossofcohesion;stains causedbyrunoffsandhumiditybycapillarity/filtration;besidesthedetachment/lossof massandvolumetricloss(allofthesewithanincidenceof3inascalefrom0to5). Figure 13. Graph of the incidence of natural hazards. Left: walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada; right: walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria. 1: Action of capillarity; 2: Environmental humidity and rain; 3: Floods; 4: Snowfalls; 5: Seaquakes; 6: Hurricane; 7 Winds; 8: Lightning; 9: Ice; 10: Temperature; 11: Seismic activity; 12: Landslides; 13: Clay expansivity; 14: Steep slopes; 15: Action of fire. Source: PREFORTI Project. Concerning the vulnerability index (Figure 14), the situation of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma is worse than the walls of La Hoya, where the impact of pathologies has an incidence of 3 in a scale from 0 to 5. Among these pathologies, material disaggregation/loss of cohesion; cracks and fissures; settlement/stability issues; stains caused by runoffs and humidity by capillarity/filtration can be highlighted. On the other hand, in the case of the walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, the impact of moderate and excessive vegetation is the most significant (with an incidence of 5 in a scale from 0 to 5), followed by dirt/superficial deposits; lichens and fungi; detritus and nesting and cracks and fissures (all of them with an incidence of 4 in a scale from 0 to 5). The pathologies of the walls of La Hoya are at the same level, being material disaggregation/loss of cohesion; stains caused by runoffs and humidity by capillarity/filtration; besides the detachment/loss of mass and volumetric loss (all of these with an incidence of 3 in a scale from 0 to 5). Sustainability2021,13,xFORPEERREVIEW26of33   Figure14.Graphoftheimpactofpathologiesonthestudieditems.Left:wallsoftheAlcazaba Qadīma,Granada;right:wallsofLaHoyaandCerrodeSanCristóbal,Almeria.1:Superficialero‐ sion/lackofrenderingandpointing/Exfoliations;2:Detachments/Lossofmassandvolumetricloss; 3:Materialdisaggregation/Lossofcohesion;4:Dirt/Superficialdeposits;5:Lichensandfungi;6: Moderateandexcessivevegetation;7:Detritusandnesting;8:Blackcrust;9:Chromaticchanges; 10:Efflorescence;11:Cracksandfissures;12:Settlement/StabilityIssues;13:Displacement;14: Discard;15:Rockfracture/Disintegrationofsoils;16:Slides,hillslides;17:Stainscausedbyrunoffs; 18:Humiditybycapillarity/filtration;19:Calcareousconcretions;20:Calcination.Source:PRE‐ FORTIProject.  Accordingtothedevelopedanalysis,thesystematicmethodbasedonpreventive measuresofconservationandrestorationproposedfromthePREFORTIProjectarein‐ tendedtomitigatethedamagescausedbythesespecificrisks.Theuniversalityofthe proposedmethodhasbeenexperimentallyvalidatedinotherassetsanalysedwithinthe frameworkofthePREFORTIProject(forexample,inthecaseoftheLojuelaCastle (Granada)andthecastleofVelezdeMula(Murcia)).Alltheseassetsareaffectedby naturalandanthropicrisksofdifferenttypesandwithdiverselevelofdegradation,and theyhavebeenintervenedinforseveralyears.Inthesegroups,ithasbeenpossibleto carryoutthephaseofexperimentationandvalidationafterithasbeensubmittedand approvedbythepublicbodiesresponsiblefortheirprotection.Theapplicationofthe methodhasbeenparallelwiththedevelopmentofinterventionworksfundedbystate, regionaland/orlocaladministrations.Moreover,inthesecases,thenecessarytimeto evaluatethebenefitsoftheapplicationoftheproposedmethodologyhaspassed,andit hasbeenconfirmedthatthepreventivemeasuresareworkingandthattheappropriate controlstrategieshavebeenestablished.(Themethodhasbeenpresentedtobodiessuch astheInstituteofCulturalHeritageofSpain,whichbelongstotheMinistryofCulture, andtheGeneralDirectorateofCulturalHeritageoftheAndalusianGovernment.Both institutionsarecompetentinthemanagementofculturalheritage,andbothhaveshown theirinterestandsupport.)Asforthemodelofsupervisionandcontroloftheassetsin thefuture,theabsenceofspecificprotocolsofpreventiveconservationfortheearthen defensivearchitecturehasbeenverified.Consideringthedoctrinalandlegalobligationof itsdesignandimplementationbytheowners,andinordertocontributetothisend,the PREFORTIprojecthasconductedananalysisofthediachronicbehavioroftheseriesof interventionscarriedoutontheassetsofthesampleunderstudyintheaforementioned project,evaluatinghowtheyhaverespondedtothedamageproducedandtothere‐ peatedriskagentsovertime. Inanalyzingtheculturalassetsmentionedabove,andinordertoextrapolateand disseminatethemethod,thewallsoftheAlcazabaQadīmaandthewallofLaHoyaand CerrodeSanCristóbalhavebeenchosenbecausetheyarepartofthesampleselectedin thePREFORTIproject,andbecausetheyareinaphaseofdiagnosisofthestateofcon‐ servationandriskassessment.Inbothcases,specificmeasurestobetakenintoaccount forpreventiveconservationhavebeenincluded.Thesemeasureshavetheadvantagethat theycanbeeasilyappliedinotherculturalassetswithsimilarcharacteristics,with minimaleconomicinvestment. Figure 14. Graph of the impact of pathologies on the studied items. Left: walls of the Alcazaba Qad ¯ ıma, Granada; right: walls of La Hoya and Cerro de San Cristóbal, Almeria. 1: Superficial erosion/lack of rendering and pointing/Exfoliations; 2: Detachments/Loss of mass and volumetric loss; 3: Material disaggregation/Loss of cohesion; 4: Dirt/Superficial deposits; 5: Lichens and fungi; 6: Moderate and excessive vegetation; 7: Detritus and nesting; 8: Black crust; 9: Chromatic changes; 10: Efflorescence; 11: Cracks and fissures; 12: Settlement/Stability Issues; 13: Displacement; 14: Discard; 15: Rock fracture/Disintegration of soils; 16: Slides, hillslides; 17: Stains caused by runoffs; 18: Humidity by capillarity/filtration; 19: Calcareous concretions; 20: Calcination. Source: PREFORTI Project. According to the developed analysis, the systematic method based on preventive measures of conservation and restoration proposed from the PREFORTI Project are intended to mitigate the damages caused by these specific risks. The universality of the proposed method has been experimentally validated in other assets analysed within the framework of the PREFORTI Project (for example, in the case of the Lojuela Castle (Granada) and the castle of Velez de Mula (Murcia)). All these assets are affected by natural and anthropic risks of different types and with diverse level of degradation, and they have been intervened in for several years. In these groups, it has been possible to carry out the phase of Sustainability 2021,13, 13597 32 of 32 81. IAPH. Restos de muralla urbana en calle Inés Relaño. In Base de Datos del Patrimonio Inmueble de Andalucía; IAPH—Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain. Available online: http://www.iaph.es/patrimonio-inmueble-andalucia/ resumen.do?id=i8013 (accessed on 14 June 2017). 82. López Guzmán, R. Arquitectura de al-Andalus (Almería, Granada, Jaén, Málaga); El Legado Andalusí—Comares: Granada, Spain, 2002. 83. Gil Albarracín, A. Almería: La Plaza de Armas. Más de Mil Años de Fortificaciones; Griselda Bonet Girabet: Barcelona, Spain, 2014. 84. Villalba Sola, D. Patrimonio Almohade: Conocimiento Histórico y Arquitectura. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Granada, Granada, Spain, 2013. 85. Sánchez Barbero, I. Análisis Arqueológico y Constructivo de “El Castillejo” de Abrucena; Trabajo de Fin de Máster. Dir.: J. M. Martín Civantos; Universidad de Granada: Granada, Spain, 2010. 86. Al-Idr¯ ıs¯ ı. Los Caminos de al-Andalus en el Siglo XII; Abid Mizal, J., Translator; CSIC—Instituto de Filología: Madrid, Spain, 1989. 87. IAPHc. Castillo El Castillejo. In Base de Datos del Patrimonio Inmueble de Andalucía; IAPH—Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain. Available online: http://www.iaph.es/patrimonio-inmueble-andalucia/resumen.do?id=i19612 (accessed on 14 June 2017). 88. Castellón Sánchez del Pino, A. Castillos y Atalayas del Almanzora; Instituto de Estudios Almerienses: Almería, Spain, 2017. 89. IAPHd. Castillo. In Base de Datos del Patrimonio Inmueble de Andalucía; IAPH/Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain. Available online: http://www.iaph.es/patrimonio-inmueble-andalucia/resumen.do?id=i8084 (accessed on 14 June 2017). 90. Cressier, P. Prospección arqueológica en la Sierra de los Filabres y Alto Valle del Almanzora. (Almería. 1985). In Anuario Arqueológico de Andalucía 1985; Consejería de Cultura de la Junta de Andalucía: Sevilla, Spain, 1987; pp. 71–80. 91. García Ramírez, J.M. Proyecto Básico y de Ejecución de Restauración del Castillo de Bacares. Almería; File B051128HP04AL; Dirección General de Bienes Culturales y Museos: Sevilla, Spain, 2006. 92. Diario de Almería. La Hoya Recupera las Raíces con un Parque Blando, de Acequias y Plantas Autóctonas. 14 June 2021. Available online: https://www.diariodealmeria.es/almeria/Hoya-parque-proyecto-Almeria_0_1583243156.html (accessed on 29 June 2021).