Attività di ricerca


Il progetto di restauro su edifici allo stato di rudere, ancor più che su edifici in qualche modo “riutilizzabili”, deve tenere in debito conto la vulnerabilità (la predisposizione naturale e/o acquisita a essere danneggiata che il manufatto possiede), i comportamenti della struttura in condizioni normali e sotto stress e la disponibilità della stessa struttura a “reagire” naturalmente a sollecitazioni cicliche di lunga durata o improvvise. Previsioni corrette dovrebbero rispettare le caratteristiche dei manufatti, limitandosi a interventi minimi e strettamente necessari, ricercando la compatibilità (della logica strutturale, dei materiali e delle strutture originarie nonché delle funzioni primitive e quelle che si sono modificate nel tempo) e assicurando, finchè possibile, una buona dose di reversibilità. Il progetto di restauro deve prevedere una controllata sequenza di indagini specifiche e la predisposizione di una catena operatoria di azioni che non possono essere casuali e improvvisate.

 

La diagnosi di vulnerabilità deve emergere dal riscontro di notizie storiche verificate negli archivi del suolo attraverso osservazioni dirette dei quadri fessurativi e delle evidenze delle patologie degenerative, la conduzione di campagne di rilevamento di buona affidabilità, osservazioni mirate sui singoli componenti dell’edificio, verifiche strutturali adeguate, indagini sulle trasformazioni che il sito e/o il manufatto hanno subito dall’epoca del rinvenimento/scavo, indagini sulla presenza di soluzioni conservative impiegate in epoca passata, valutazione della reale recuperabilità di un manufatto. La tendenza a demolire e a ricostruire con eccessiva disinvoltura edifici o parti di questi non ritenuti “documento” significativo e ad allontanare i materiali “di risulta,” indipendentemente dal fatto di aver prima concluso le campagne di osservazioni diagnostiche sulle dinamiche, può causare la eliminazione degli “originali” e annullare il potenziale di informazioni future che i muri, anche se dissestati e pericolanti, sono ancora in grado di dare.

Un intervento di restauro può costituire una preziosa occasione per “collaudare” dal vero eventuali scelte fatte in precedenza e suggerire i necessari correttivi da porre in atto, ma anche l’occasione per la valorizzazione di quelle soluzioni che, adottate in altra epoca in maniera più o meno consapevole, ancora oggi possono essere utilmente impiegate.

 

Il restauro di emergenza

Un ambito di intervento sempre più frequente è costituito dal restauro di emergenza. Questo si rende necessario quando si esigono operatori capaci di intervenire in tempi ristretti e con efficacia  anche nelle condizioni più difficili; quando vengono a mancare (perché non previsti o, più raramente, non prevedibili) i mezzi tecnici, il tempo e le risorse economiche necessarie. Si tratta di un ambito operativo che è destinato a caratterizzare, in un futuro non lontano, gran parte degli interventi. Sempre più frequentemente, infatti, si creano le condizioni per interventi che esigono decisioni quasi improvvise e cambi di programmi  in tempi ristretti. In analogia con lo scavo archeologico di emergenza, talvolta, si è obbligati ad eseguire analisi diagnostiche tempestive e predisporre i più opportuni interventi per assicurare la sopravvivenza dei materiali edili e del loro ambiente sfruttando al meglio le condizioni di rinvenimento salvaguardandone anche il potenziale documentario futuro. Le scelte saranno ancora più delicate perché, nella maggior parte dei  casi, agli eventuali errori non sarà possibile porre rimedio. L’emergenza, più in generale, è uno stato perenne in Italia anche a causa di eventi naturali. Il problema principale è quello di riuscire ad assumere decisioni immediate per non far peggiorare situazioni che si presentano già precarie, non diversamente da come farebbe un medico che opera in ambulanza o al pronto soccorso, abituato ad operare sulla base di un protocollo prestabilito, capace di ridurre al minimo i rischi soprattutto negli intervalli critici di transizione durante i quali i danni potrebbero evolversi in maniera incontrollabile o irreversibile. 

 

 

The objective of the research program is to explore the character of the restoration of buildings reduced to ruins, and to define its application limits. The definition “archaeological restoration” identifies, in the most common meaning, works of conservation of moveable artifacts and finds mainly originating from excavation operations. In the absence of a more precise and unequivocal definition, this definition is also used in the meaning of conservation and improvement of historical buildings and monuments reduced to ruins. The archaeological restoration project must explore the possible areas of competence and experiment new forms of intervention, so as to develop a definition of possible categories which are defined by exact specifications and attribution of costs. Archaeological restoration tends to assume, by its own nature, complex connotations, and tends to identify itself more and more with a truly interdisciplinary context in which the expertise of single scholars/researchers may interact efficaciously in the respect of the individual specialisations. An important, at times even decisive role is played by the architect-restorer, even though the expertise and responsibilities of this figure have only lately, and with difficulty, been defined. For archaeological restoration, even more than for the restoration of monumental buildings, it is important that the interventions be preceded by correct and exhaustive diagnostic evaluation that may even reduce the need for restorations which, in the large majority of cases, are actually prompted by the backwardness in diagnostic technique. If the variables in an archaeological excavation are unforeseeable, the variables related to the pathologies of structures and of building materials are often limited to a small number of case histories referable to well-known or sufficiently controllable contexts.

The project originates from the realisation of the backwardness of archaeological restoration, in clear opposition to the advancement and maturity of both archaeology and conservation science. The antiquity of the artifact is not necessarily a discriminating factor, since archaeological buildings that are still in good condition may receive the treatment commonly applied to architectural restoration, while less ancient buildings that, due to different factors, are reduced to a state of ruin, require a very different methodological approach and restoration procedures.

Today the situation has changed both as a result of internal tensions and of the decisive contributions made by the conservation disciplines, though there are still those who continue to consider excessive, for ruins, the recourse to specializations which are valid for the restoration of moveable finds. In practice, with few exceptions, the conservation of buildings reduced to a state of ruin does not appear to excite great interest among archaeologists or even architects. The training of operators in a professional sector that undoubtedly has rather singular connotations requires an appropriate curriculum of studies and training opportunities at specific sites, since the degeneration of archaeological structures takes on pathological forms, both in isolation and simultaneously, which constitute a heavy burden and have very limited tolerance thresholds. A singular aspect of archaeological restoration is connected with the dynamic conditions in which operations are carried out, and with the variable conditions under which the artifacts will have to endure. It is clear, for instance, that the difficulty of restoring archaeological buildings and monuments does not depend so much on the fact of having been buried a long time, as on the sudden change in the conditions to which they are subject during the excavation (with a large difference in the state of recovery as a result of the excavation methods and strategies), on the mutability of the environmental conditions to which they will be exposed, and on the state of neglect they will suffer before being subjected to restoration work, which will therefore prove inadequate.
The differences in principle between different nations, sometimes even within the same nation, may be very marked, but they appear to vanish in the methods of intervention. The most evident aspects of the backwardness of archaeological restoration are made evident by intervention practices that depend in large part on historical-critical evaluations which re-propose, with few changes, operating models that are not always effective. The restoration of buildings reduced to a state of ruin appears to be limited, in most cases, to the recovery of forms, ignoring more significant aspects related to the materials and the construction techniques, the functions they had in the course of time, and the transformations and adaptations they experienced, which, with very few exceptions, we are not authorised to correct.In practice, the most common interventions are limited to the protection of the crests of walls and to the integration of missing parts. For these categories of intervention partial or total reconstruction continues to be recommended, with only an occasional upgrading of materials and application procedures, using non-specialised workers from the standard building industry. In recent years, the incidence of repairs proceeding beyond what is strictly necessary has been reduced, and what were considered as final interventions have been limited in favour of the recovery of artisan traditions and continuing maintenance. The most notable advancements are those that identify restoration with conservation operations characterised by interventions that are minimally invasive and as reversible as possible, capable of stopping (or even just slowing down) the decay of the materials and the impairment of the structures, safeguarding the informative potential that the artifact may eventually yield. The point is to organise a discerning work of prevention (even before proceeding with the excavation, which must give more consideration to immediate needs and future conservation requirements) and to start periodic ordinary maintenance operations.