ABSTRACT

The essay outlines the most significant passages of the archaeological restoration culture, from the first decades of last century until today. The failure of the "Scientific Restoration" about ancient monuments was shown in the quick deterioration of the interventions made in concrete, which seemed to have completely work out the problem of reintegration. Due to these happenings, the scientific community has developed a methodological afterthought clearly expressed in the Charter of Venice. Claiming the principle of "distinctness", the document promoted the use of efficient materials, guaranteed by the experience. It also condemned any "didactic" reconstruction, stating that anastylosis should have minimal additions. This principle was already declared in the Charter of Athens but disregarded in practice. By the Charter of Venice ensued a series of conservation works with a strong museological connotation and the renunciation of reconstructive forms in favor of "evocative" structures. However, the limits of reliability in the long period of the new materials decreed a rethink of the relationship ancient/modern materials in terms of “compatibility", rather than "distinctness". The modern concept of "enhancement" involves the archaeological structures in project issues, that exceed the intervention of integration of the ruins. For these issues, however, it lacks a widely accepted theoretical and methodological basis, in favor of an exaggerated individualism and a growing fragmentation of individual operations in specialized knowledge. In a climate of great industriousness, a new theoretical reflection is necessary in order to place the discipline of Restoration (intended as design intervention on the entire archaeological area) in the context in which it was formulated, namely the archaeological one. Parole chiave/Key-words: archaeological restoration, anastylosis, reconstruction, archaeological park, archaeological charter