Ldb Officina Musei_Andrea Zifferero - Conservazione e gestione di un sito archeologico
Presentazionedi Saverio RussoIntroduzionedi Giuliano Volpe e Maria José StrazzullaMarina Mazzei per la tutela, la conoscenza e la gestione delpatrimonio archeologico della Dauniadi Giuseppe AndreassiIl contributo di Marina Mazzei nelle ricerche in Dauniadi Bruno d’AgostinoUn’esperienza di vita tra passato e presentedi Enzo LippolisGli ipogei di Trinitapoli: parures d’elite ed oggetti d’artedi Anna maria Tunzi SistoAngelo Angelucci e le prime esplorazioni archeologiche nelGarganodi Vittorio RussiL’archeologia degli Italici fra prassi e teoria: trent’anni di ri-cerche in Basilicatadi Angelo BottiniLa Daunia Vetus oggi. Aspetti della cultura di MinervinoMurge e diAscoli Satriano dall’età del Ferro all’età ellenisticadi Marisa Corrente e Laura MaggioLa Daunia nel quadro del commercio adriatico arcaicodi Maria Cecilia D’ErcoleNotes sur les vêtements féminins complexes figurés sur lesstèles dauniennesdi Stéphane VergerScavi dell’Università di Innsbruck sul Colle Serpente adAscoli Satriano dal 1997 al 2002di Astrid Larcher e Florian Martin MuellerMonumenti, commemorazione e memoria in Daunia: la col-lina del Serpente di Ascoli Satriano tra età arcaica e conqui-sta romanadi Massimo OsannaLe scoperte della Daunia e il contributo di Marina Mazzeialla conoscenza della pittura ellenisticadi Angela PontrandolfoLa pittura funeraria della Daunia: elementi iconografici ca-ratteristici nel contesto della pittura apula, magnogreca emediterranea preromana (IV-III sec. a.C.)di Stephan SteingräberPhilippos Laosdi Françoise-Hélène Massa-PairaultImmagine, cultura e società in Daunia e in Peucezia nel IVsecolo a.C.di Claude PouzadouxContesti della ceramica tardo-apula: il ‘caso Arpi’ e la Lu-caniadi Maurizio GualtieriMito e danza su vasi apuli da Arpidi Luigi TodiscoArcheologia dei luoghi di culto della Daunia: spunti di ri-flessionedi Maria José StrazzullaDall’abitato alla città. La romanizzazione della Daunia at-traverso l’evoluzione dei sistemi insediatividi Maria Luisa MarchiPersistenze e innovazioni nelle modalità insediative dellavalle dell’Ofanto tra fine IV e I sec. a.C.di Roberto GoffredoTarda Antichità e Altomedievo in Daunia: alle origini delleindagini archeologichedi Cosimo D’AngelaNuove acquisizioni sull’architettura canosina al tempo delvescovo Sabinodi Raffaella CassanoNuove indagini archeologiche sul Monte Albano di Lucera(campagna di scavo 2004)di Marco FabbriItinerari di ricerca archeologica nel Medioevo di Capita-nata: problemi scientifici, esigenze di tutela, programmi dipolitica dei beni culturalidi Pasquale FaviaLe colonie latine e la romanizzazione della Pugliadi Francesco GrelleUna mensa iscritta e altre epigrafi inedite dall’Apulia e dal-l’Irpiniadi Marina SilvestriniLe città della Daunia e l’epigrafia. Progetti di ricercadi Vincenzo MorizioGli spazi pubblici delle città dell’Apulia et Calabria nelle te-stimonianze epigrafiche dai Severi a Teodosiodi Marcella ChelottiArcheologia e Tutela in Dauniadi Pier Giovanni GuzzoMarina Mazzei e la lotta contro il traffico illegale dei beniarcheologicidi Daniel GraeplerIl ruolo dell’Università nel sistema della tuteladi Francesco D’AndriaPer una ‘archeologia globale dei paesaggi’della Daunia. Traarcheologia, metodologia e politica dei beni culturalidi Giuliano VolpeStrategie di ricerca e tutela dell’insediamento neolitico lungol’Ofantodi Francesca RadinaContributo alla ricerca sulla ricostruzione dell’ambiente ar-cheologico nei Musei della Pugliadi Andrea Zifferero e Maria Rosaria AcquavivaBeni Culturali, Accademia di Belle Arti e Scuola: i progettie gli sviluppi operativi di educazione museale nelle Marchedi Luisa Cataldo e Edvige Percossi SerenelliIl Castello-Museo Nazionale di Manfredonia. Politiche e stra-tegie di funzionamento: memoria e progetti futuridi Ginerva d’OnofrioLa catalogazione per la tutela dei beni culturali della Pro-vincia di Foggiadi Assunta Cocchiaro e Laura MasielloIndice del volumeEdipuglia srl, via Dalmazia 22/b - 70127 Bari-S. Spiritotel. 080. 5333056-5333057 (fax) - http: //www.edipuglia.it - e-mail: email@example.com
STORIA E ARCHEOLOGIADELLA DAUNIAIn ricordo di Marina MazzeiAtti delle Giornate di studio(Foggia 19-21 maggio 2005)a cura diGiuliano Volpe, Maria José Strazzulla e Danilo LeoneInsulae DiomedeaeCollana di ricerche storiche e archeologiche8Bari 2008E S TRATTO
1. The purpose of this contributionTerms such presentation or even better interpretation havea long tradition in the topic of European and overseas ar-chaeological practice: their use is closely related to theresults of the archaeological investigations made public.These terms fit into the framework of British archaeology,from around the beginning of the 1970s, in the practice ofcommunicating the topics of nature and wilderness to theincreasing number of visitors to the US national parks, af-ter World War II (Binks et al. 1988; Gross and Zimmerman2002: 32-33; Gross et al. 2006).A gradual introduction of these topics into the practices ofEuropean archaeology led us to explain the wide and rapidestablishment of the visitor centres inside archaeologicalsites and parks: if the centre is the hub of the park’s inter-pretive program where trained staff help the visitors starttheir trip with the aid of exhibits, relief models, audio-vis-ual programs and publications, the success of such actionsin the field of archaeology is evident (Mills 1999; Gross1999: 483).The difficult practice of attracting visitors to an archaeo-logical site to its contents and significance has stimulateda wide range of contributions, starting from the complicatechallenge produced by the site: we can say, beyond anyreasonable doubt, that actual interpretation in archaeologyspread to European countries from Britain, both in theoryand in practice (Zifferero 2003).In contemporary society, archaeological parks are the toolsto promote any conservation-based action, allowing at thesame time the diffusion of the environmental, historicaland cultural values of an area. Their existence and opera-tion play a strategic role in landscape planning and man-agement: the relationship between scientific research andconservation such as urban and landscape planning findsgreat support in archaeology, following an awareness thatis slowly spreading in Italy. Archaeology may possiblyshare contacts with disciplines that rule urban and land-From archaeological parks to theenhancement of archaeological landscapes:new directions in Italian heritage management Andrea Ziffereroscape planning, not only in terms of developing policiesthat include archaeology at the base of public works, ur-ban planning and soils government: its main role, as I shalltry to show, is in the conservation and increasing value ofancient landscapes survival within the contemporary land-scape (Lenzi 1999).The subject of archaeological parks in Italy was discussedabout ten years ago, on occasion of the 9thSummer Schoolin Archaeology at the Certosa di Pontignano, promoted bythe University of Siena, devoted to the theme of Muse-ums and Archaeological Parks (Francovich and Zifferero1999).The scientific discussion started from the exceedingly lowprofile of the archaeological park within current Italianlegislation on archaeological heritage; at the same time,the first experience in planning and laying out archaeologi-cal parks offered the chance for the first up-to-date reviewof the subject. In those years, some high profile regionalprojects, originating from the framework of regional gov-ernments like the System of Archaeological Parks in Sicily(L.R. 20/2000, ‘Sistema Integrato di Parchi Archeologiciin Sicilia’), were proposed to the scientific community.2. Archaeological Parks in Italy: asynthesisThe actual mainstream of conservation in Italy points to-wards the planning and active management of the environ-ment, attempting to create a balance between humans andnature: the tool for conservation of the wilderness is thenational law on protected areas (L. 394/1991), which in-spired the whole section of laws promoted by Italian re-gional councils. Current policy in the conservation of na-ture has developed a different trend, that has abandonedthe exclusive ecological interest to consider a park a usefultool to protect biodiversity and local and traditional humanapproaches to obtain resources from the environment inAbstractThe purpose of this study is to highlight the current state of archaeological parks in Italy. Despite the relevant wealth of Italian archaeo-logical and environmental heritage, Italian legislation has not yet produced an acceptable juridical framework that correctly identifiesnature, function, purpose and management solutions of archaeological parks. The results prospected by environmental conservationseem to better fit the needs of archaeology. Our work analyses the potential role of archaeological research using multidisciplinaryperspectives, for creating new integrated forms of environmental/archaeological conservation and enhancement. Some projects arepresented to the reader, in order to illustrate the results of an integrated investigation of vegetation surrounding the archaeological sites,directed to define the steps of domestication of plants, through the analysis of germplasm. These experiences lead to new, integratedproposals for the protection of both cultural and environmental heritage.
Andrea Zifferero258order to survive. A shared definition of the park in Italy is‘the juridical-administrative asset of a territory with spe-cial environmental and human features, that are protectedin a compatible reciprocity rule’ (Giacomini and Romani1992: 65).A natural park is then a way to govern a territory, in whichhumans and nature may find a balance. The pathway ofthe archaeological park, on the contrary is certainly muchmore tormented: the problem is worth a brief digression.A formal definition of archaeological park was introducedin Italy in 1999 within the new comprehensive law on cul-tural and landscape heritage (T.U. 490/1999, Article 99c):the archaeological park is part of a territory with relevantarchaeological characteristics, such as historical, landscapeor environmental features, organized like an open-air mu-seum, with the support of planned pathways and teachingaids. This definition has been transcribed in the actual lawon cultural and landscape heritage (D.L. 42/2004, ‘Codicedei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio’, Article 101e).The national law has come later than in some regionalcouncils (e.g., among them the formal institution of ar-chaeological parks in the Marche Region, in Central Italy:L.R. 16/1994), that issued local laws strongly inspired bythe first national law on the conservation of landscapes,even in presence of monuments (L. 431/1985) and by thealready mentioned national law on environmental conser-vation (L. 394/1991).This definition has certainly made progress inside the na-tional law, even though it still lacks a more defined profile,being a juridical and institutional subject. This gap causesa serious weakness in the profile and management of ar-chaeological parks, still in need of real autonomy in termsof management and development.The profile of the archaeological park introduced in 1999defines a close relationship of the archaeological site withboth landscape and environment: a feature that, under thesame legislation, distinguishes the park from the site (areaarcheologica): in the same paragraph (T.U. 490/1999, Ar-ticle 99b), the archaeological site is defined as a site com-prehending the remains of a building complex, originallydefined by its function and final destination.It is intuitive, therefore, that a park has to be connected withlandscape and environment: under different conditions it ismerely an area archeologica. A further difference betweenpark and site is the association of the park with the actionof conservation and diffusion of its values to the public, avery different and distinctive element in comparison withthe site. In this section of the law the park is clearly as-similated to an open-air museum, whose features, purposesand organization have a long and persisting tradition inNorthern Europe, if compared with the archaeology of theMediterranean area (Ruggieri Tricoli 2000: 114-145).The concept of enhancement (valorizzazione), such as theclose relationship between a site and the environment (inthe sense of nature, before landscape), has clearly derivedfrom the sensibility to nature introduced by the nationallaw 112/1998, related to cultural features (D.L. 112/1998,Article 148).The definition of both the site (area archeologica) and ar-chaeological park (parco archeologico) expresses the con-cept of the value of a single public good, therefore bringingvalue from the historical, artistic or archaeological pointof view. In this vision a special importance was reservedto the single monument, without considering its environ-ment, or landscape. This concept, coming from the lawspromoted during the Fascist era, was developed by 1985as a deeper sensitivity towards the context of the object tobe protected.This new law (L. 431/1985) acknowledged the ItalianConstitution in 1948 (Article 9), concerning the protec-tion of landscape by the Italian Republic. Law 431/1985marks a sensible step forward: the landscape is identifiedas a natural context of human communities, which havetransformed and shaped it in the course of time. Therefore,it is not necessary that the landscape be protected due tothe presence of natural beauty, providing a dynamic con-text that maintains the traces of the actions of human com-munities through the centuries. In the same law, historicaland Cultural Heritage are protected in archaeological sites(zone di interesse archeologico), being zones of relevantnatural interest (Zifferero 1999a).This trend is definitively accepted in Law 394/1991, en-acted to give the basic juridical indication of a park aimedat protecting the environment: there it is clearly indicatedwhat a natural park is, how it may be created and imple-mented, who may be the promoter, how it may be managedand how it may be funded to survive.The main purpose of this law is clearly the protection of thenatural environment through conservation of animal andvegetal species, in their biological and geological context:nevertheless, though lacking an explicit indication and ju-ridical definition of archaeological/cultural parks, in thislaw special attention is devoted to establish an equilibriumbetween the management of natural resources, in order toreach a specific integration between human communitiesand the environment, through the protection of anthropo-logical, archaeological, historical and architectural values,such as agriculture, use of woods and traditional pastoralactivities (L. 394/1991, Article 1b).The recent ‘Codice dei Beni Culturali e del Paesaggio’hasevidenced the limited importance of archaeological parksin Italian legislation. It should be said that the analysisof the archaeological landscape, such as the analysis ofchanges introduced in the natural environment by humancommunities, has gained more importance: the formation,development and abandonment of landscape has becomethe main topic of many regional projects (Tozzini 2005,Tozzini 2007, Tosco 2007).At the same time, subjects like urban archaeology, both inthe analysis of the centres and peripheries of cities, havecontributed to introduce a landscape sensitivity even in theperception of urban or peripheral open spaces, usually setaside for gardens, fields, intensive cultivations like vine-yards and olive groves (Ricci 2002).From a scientific point of view, we are now close to con-sidering archaeology as an important way to interpret theevolution of human landscape, such as the effects of hu-man approach to natural environment: this new sensitivitytowards the use of landscape in an historical perception,up to the consideration of contemporary landscape as theresult of human approaches to nature, has sharpened thetools of archaeology towards a more complete approach to
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management259these topics (Cambi and Terrenato 2007).The common interest in the disciplines regulating the con-servation of landscape has established, in the last decade, abond with archaeology, even if the concept of the archaeo-logical park has remained, as we have already seen, at adistance. The protection of the aesthetic values of an areawas already covered in Law 1497/1939, through the toolof the landscape territorial plan (piano territoriale paesis-tico). The delicate matter of the conservation of landscape,such as the development of urban cities and towns wastransferred from the State to the Regions in the 1970s. Not-withstanding a more efficient control on protection and en-hancement of landscape which should have been promotedby Law 431/1985, introducing a mandatory landscape planfor Regions, the relationship between centre (the State) andperipheries (Regions and townships) was troublesome interms of landscape protection. A possible solution towardsthe establishment of general rules to protect landscape wascarried out by the T.U. 490/1999, Articles 149-150: theRegions introduced a specific rule on territories includingnatural landscape or even archaeological features, adopt-ing specific plans (landscape or urban plans), in order topromote conservation and the enhancement of those val-ues. These plans are considered by the State as priorities inthe development of local governments, and the townshipsare obliged to include them in their urban planning.A further step towards a more organic consideration of thesubject was promoted by the ‘Codice dei Beni Culturali edel Paesaggio’: in this juridical corpus the lawyer tried totransfer the imposition of bans in order to protect CulturalHeritage and landscape to the adoption of conservationand development tools, accepted and promoted on differ-ent levels of government (State, Regions, townships). Thedefinition of ‘Cultural Heritage’ goes beyond the classicaldivision inside Italian law of cultural and landscape/naturalheritage: both are considered Cultural Heritage and State,Regions and local administrations must collaborate to theirconservation and enhancement, through integrated plans(D.L. 42/2004, Article 2).Here the term landscape heritage replaces the term naturalheritage, showing the importance and priority of defenceand conservation of human landscape if compared with theconservation of natural heritage and need of local commu-nities development. Landscape is defined as homogene-ous part of a territory, whose features derive from natureand from human history in a integrated relationship (D.L.42/2004, Article 131).The new perspective of this corpus is therefore more dy-namic and moves towards an integrated and sustainablevision of cultural and natural heritage. Among landscapeheritage (beni paesaggistici), are considered areas of ar-chaeological interest (D.L. 42/2004, Article 142).The main tool for protection in the ‘Codice’ is the land-scape plan (piano paesaggistico): each Region must or-ganize its own plan, subdividing its features on differentlevels of protection. Only the heritage defined by each planwill be protected and enhanced by the authorities: the planbecomes the principal tool for local government and its ac-tion prevails on the urban tools of local townships.The very few cases of active archaeological parks in Italyare complex realities which are worthy of brief analysis.One of the most relevant case studies is the Val di Cor-nia Parks system (Livorno). Located in Tuscany, alongthe Tyrrhenian coast, the Val di Cornia Parks system isentirely promoted by local administrations (townships ofPiombino, Campiglia Marittima, Suvereto, San Vincenzoand Sassetta), in a vast district, characterized by a smallpopulation, concentrated for the most part at Piombino andstrongly connected to the iron industry. The privatizationof the national iron industry in the 1980s produced a majorunemployment crisis, that induced local administrations toaddress local development elsewhere (Casini and Zucconi2003).In the 1980s the wealth of natural, archaeological andindustrial heritage in the area suggested the fundamentalplanning of an integrated park system. The connection oflocal townships in a Land Coordination Committee (Comi-tato di Coordinamento Territoriale), whose purpose wasto integrate actions in terms of the creation of coordinatedinfrastructures for development, investing both urban andlandscape areas, has led to the implementation of parkprojects (both natural and archaeological), for submissionto EU funding, and to create at the same time a public man-agement agency (Parchi Val di Cornia Spa), with a missionof directing and controlling the development of projectsand monitoring expenses. At the same time, the agency hashad a strategic role in the promotion of other public in-vestments for the parks. Nowadays the agency directs allactivities, under the surveillance of the local townships,providing services for the management of the natural andarchaeological parks. The active parks at the moment arethe Parco Archeominerario di San Silvestro (CampigliaMarittima), the Parco Archeologico di Baratti e Populonia(Piombino), the Parco Costiero della Sterpaia (Piombi-no), the Parco Costiero di Rimigliano (San Vincenzo), theParco Naturale Interprovinciale di Montioni (CampigliaMarittima, Piombino and Suvereto, in the province of Li-vorno, Follonica and Massa Marittima in the province ofGrosseto): each park expresses a specific vocation, accor-ding to its main features.All the parks are considered autonomous cost centres, be-ing at the same time organized by the agency into two divi-sions, archaeological and environmental. The experienceand the financial results of the agency, created in 1993, hasclearly shown that:the agency’s actions, organized as a private agency,1. even though it belongs to the local townships, withits own technical and administrative personnel, havedeveloped extensive planning for the Val di Cornia,with excellent results in terms of projects funded bythe Tuscany Region and EU;the conservation and enhancement of the local envi-2. ronment and archaeological heritage has increasedand elongated the tourist season in the Val di Corniadistrict;park activity has stimulated and promoted employ-3. ment in businesses connected to environmental andarchaeological tourism in the parks (guided tours andassistance to schools with special activities like ex-perimental archaeology, opening of bookshops, res-taurants and hostels);park activity has enhanced the management of marine4.