Most of the on-going debate is about “how” to protect archaeological ruins, whilst at the same time allowing thegeneral public to enjoy them. Today it is clear how important it is, from the actual planning stages of excavations,to interact with experts from other disciplines, who are working on their own findings and offering them up forcollective enjoyment. Whatever might be feasible for an indoor museum is not always feasible with anarchitectonic ruin, as regards both presenting objects with explicative apparatus that determines theirsignificance, and exploring them in a new way when interpretations change or new ideologies are introduced.First of all, conserving excavations is the not the same as conserving a transportable object. In the past manycountries in Europe preferred to “present” Roman remains simply as “gardens of ruins”, often endeavouring tostand them in sharp contrast with a more recurrent evocation of the original contexts of local life. Recently, withregard to the Roman tradition, there has been a noticeable inversion of trend in musealization operations,according to which the mere “contemplation of ruins” should be replaced by emotional contact with history. Themain consequence of these new tendencies is the replacement of an informatics-based and didactic approach tomusealization, in favour of a more authentically interpretative approach. Back-up resulting from experimentationin the fields of restoration and conservation becomes indispensible in implementing these new strategies for themusealization of archaeology. Continuous research and the progressive advance of conservation techniques havemeant that the need to transfer archaeological remains has been avoided and an improved in situ “presentation”of these remains, both movable and immovable, can now be guaranteed.
|Numero di pagine||9|
|Rivista||ASIAN CULTURE AND HISTORY|
|Stato di pubblicazione||Published - 2012|