Summary of the Proceedings and Papers Presented at - World ...

The project
The main areas to be tackled by the project are as follows:
n Removal of the existing roof over room 6;
n Construction of new roofs, for which we have developed
a hypothetical maximum and minimum proposal;
n Excavation and redesign of the gardens;
n Replacement of the skylights on the terrace of the baths;
n Restoration of the shore-level substructures of the
House of the Telephus Relief;
n Construction of a vertical link between the two levels of
the House of the Telephus Relief;
n Identification of advantages and disadvantages of
reconstructing the facade of the House of Granianus;
n Work required to complete the excavation and study of
the insula.
The project must be guided above all by a duty to memory:
a duty to memory for the enormous archaeological
importance and physical presence ñ Roman, Bourbon, or
ìMaiurianî—of what has reached us. Too much has already
been lost, and what survives must be protected to the best
of our ability by developing targeted conservation strategies
and making architectural choices which take account of this
central duty.
Current conditions, the result of excavation and restoration
work from the discovery of Herculaneum until today,
now represent a point of no return: any intervention on the
site must take into consideration not only the remains of the
Roman city, but also the town which has developed from
1738 until today. As already observed in the preliminary report,
the reconstructions and additions made in the past are
now themselves part of history, and form an integral part of a
single architectural entity, where restorations have become
part and parcel of the original.
The question posed in our Osservazioni (Observations)
remains pertinent: “what should we do now? Should we continue
with rebuilding work, or change direction entirely and
avoid any further rebuilding? Should we continue to rebuild
without excessive concern, trying where possible to give
some idea of the ancient structures, recreating their original
spaces, and the layout of individual rooms and the relationship
between interiors and exteriors? Or should we cleanse
the original structures of useless additions, and limit rebuilding
to the absolute minimum, preferring to remove decorative
elements rather than rebuild a lost room to create the
conditions for their survival?”
These questions can find a well-considered answer only
in the attentive observation of the insula itself, avoiding
theoretical proclamations and the adoption of academic
positions. We should continue to rebuild where necessary
to cover rooms which can only be conserved if closed, or
where this would significantly improve the understanding of
spaces. We should avoid rebuilding work dictated merely by
the desire to give concrete shape to a hypothetical reconstruction,
with little impact on the conservation of the structures
and involving an excessive addition of new materials.
As such, the conservation project should not be considered
simply a material expression of excavation data:
rebuilding what certainly existed, stopping where we have
doubts. We may decide not to rebuild an element that definitely
existed, thus fixing archaeological evidence in threedimensions,
or we may choose to reconstruct hypothetical
structures, needed to stop decay or to recreate a more coherent
and balanced architectural image.
The considerations outlined above obviously imply a
certain degree of arbitrariness (of the type inherent in any
musical interpretation, however faithful to the score). Any
pretence to neutrality, avoiding interference with the architectural
history of the site or interpretation of it, would be
mere hypocrisy. The intellectual honesty which must lie behind
any task of this importance requires us to recognize
the need for interventions which will inevitably confer a new
appearance on the monumental complex, and thus for considered
and responsible design choices.
As we mentioned earlier, the Insula Orientalis I suffers
from highly visible decay, due to the exposure of materials
designed for interiors to atmospheric agents. On the one
hand, it is obviously impossible to reconstruct the ancient
roofs in their entirety, creating a roof covering the entire
excavation area, without denaturing the site. On the other
hand, we cannot continue to ignore the fact that large quantities
of original material are lost each year in uncovered areas.
It would be truly irresponsible not to learn from what we
have failed to conserve in the absence of roofs.
It is thus clear that must proceed with greater determination
to reconstruct roofs in those areas where the importance
of the materials beneath makes this necessary. The
idea of creating roofs raised above the tops of the walls does
not seem appropriate, both for reasons of effective conservation
(horizontal rain, pigeons), and on aesthetic grounds
(the current roof over room no. 6 should suffice to discourage
attempts of this sort). The addition of obviously modern
roofs is not in keeping with the image which Herculaneum
has acquired, and would end up conferring a ìmuseum-likeî
appearance on a site in which urban space predominates.
From a museological point of view it is difficult to change
direction from past rebuilding work, which created a realistic
architectural appearance. However, from the point of view
of conservation we are forced to do more: we must go beyond
Maiuri and venture into the realm of hypothesis, even
in the absence of archaeological evidence.
The best solution is thus to continue to rebuild ad identicum,
using flat and curved roof tiles resting on rafters of different
sizes, avoiding technological solutions that have little
to do with the genius loci which has gradually taken possession
of the site. Only where there is enormous archaeological
uncertainty will it be worth designing roofs that conform
to a hypothetical reconstruction, but using different materials
which should nevertheless be compatible with the ancient
formal universe (copper, lead etc.).
On the other hand, we should avoid creating a hodgepodge
appearance which is neither declaredly modern (e.g.
a laminated wood roof) nor in accurate “ancient style” (e.g.
a roof in chestnut wood using ancient building techniques),
resulting from the use of second-rate materials such as pinewood
beams tinted in imitation of more expensive woods, or