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

Symposium Conclusions
At the outset of this Symposium the challenge issued
was to talk about problems and solutions, to
seek promising ideas and new directions, and not
talk only about what we know. Solutions can only
be found through discussion and debate. The presentations
and papers were therefore intended as fuel for this dialogue,
which was then conducted in roundtable discussions and in
a general session at the end of the symposium.
Evolution of Pompeii
The Superintendent of Pompeii, Professor Guzzo, in his
introductory remarks talked about the history and evolution
of Pompeii as an archaeological site, and how its conservation
has always mirrored the culture of the different times.
While in the 1700s Pompeii was little more than a treasure
trove, the 1800s saw early archaeologists introduce scientific
methods and try to understand its urban structure. In the
1900s, especially after the Second World War, the advent of
mass tourism created a whole new set of issues. In addition
to the bombing in 1943 and the earthquake in 1980, the 1900s
have seen the use of a series of modern materials that have
led to a number of houses being “restored” as many as three
or four times in less than 100 years. Now we find ourselves
on in a new century, contemplating a series of principles and
ideas that will hopefully inform more effective conservation
measures at Pompeii in the third millennium.
The average architectural fabric
One of the concerns raised repeatedly during the Symposium
is the slow but seemingly unchecked degradation of
the average architectural fabric. Insula after insula seems to
languish in a limbo of neglect. This ignoring of the ‘average’
fabric of Pompeii is a mistake; it is after all the bulk of what
we see. One archaeologist warned of a tendency of isolating
the houses from the insulae. The participants discussed the
pros and cons of developing a manual of best practices as
well as the need for more interpretive materials to address
the issue of the lesser fabric without which Pompeii’s urban
structure would be a moot point. The lack of a manual, the
need for agreed-upon intervention criteria and procedures
could be an occasion to create a special project to bring
archaeologists, architects and conservators together to develop
a dictionary and a manual or ‘catalogue raisonné’ of
best practices in conservation and construction for Pompeii.
The present symposium was cited as a valuable and much
appreciated beginning in this direction.
Reconstruction and conservation
Pompeii perhaps as no other archaeological site is an exhibit
and indeed a living laboratory of the history of conservation.
Although not all agreed, the general discussion at the
end of the Symposium came back to this point of the evolution
of conservation practice, especiallu in considering Paolo
Marconi’s proposed reconstruction of the House of the Silver
Wedding Anniversary. Several participants felt, given the
italiano
repeated interventions and partial reconstructions over the
decades of much of Pompeii’s architectural fabric—and especially
at this house, the idea of reconstructing a domus
was not as radical a solution as it might seem.
Conservation through ‘reconstruction’ seemed easier to
justify in Pompeii for these reasons. We were told that we
should consider this departure from the 20 th century’s love
of ruins, also because the safe, correct, neutral solution can
lead to neutral and uninspiring results. The architect, however,
was forewarned to be sure his ‘copy’ respected the
principles of philological conservation.
Preserving the archaeological context
Others were less convinced of this approach, whether
because they did not believe in putting in elements that we
cannot be sure of (the controsoffitto was specifically mentioned)
or because of a basic disagreement with more or
less permanently concealing the archaeological context.
This point was made by an archaeologist who said that both
aesthetically and theoretically there would always be a major
difference in approach between his discipline and that of
the architect. In any case, he said that in working on any site
it was important to leave the door open to future archaeologists.
His stance was reiterated as another participant
stressed the importance of clear documentation and reversibility,
saying the softest touch is always the best touch.
Developing a planning tool
The authors of Un Piano per Pompei were complimented
on their sensitivity and great common sense in developing
a planning tool to manage both conservation and change in
ancient Pompeii. There was some question regarding the
constraints of such a complex system, which requires both
constant maintenance and a high level of technology to use
and in order to keep the information current. The authors
explained that the GIS and the Plan, which took four years to
complete, are tools and that together they represent a point
of departure for the new planning office the Soprintendenza
has established to manage the system.
Maintenance
The goal is to get beyond managing crises, to be able to
anticipate problems and deal with them in a timely and more
cost-effective manner. The manutenzione ordinaria, or regular
maintenance of the important houses, not to mention the
miles and miles of knee-high walls throughout the site, may
be Pompeii’s greatest problem.
One of the participants with direct experience reminded
everyone that once a house is restored it has to last 100
years, as there really is no regular maintenance. The problem,
it was explained, may be attributed in part to the legislation
regarding public works. The tendering process is very
slow, and all works must go to the lowest bidder. The result is
that the materials used are often of low quality. The director
of Italy’s national institute of conservation agreed that the