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: firstname.lastname@example.org
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.
Andrea Zifferero260tourism, regulating vehicle and camper parking areasand access to seashores of particular environmentalvalue (Parco Costiero di Rimigliano and Parco Costi-ero della Sterpaia);park activity has helped to highlight local resources5. (archaeological sites, mining and archaeometallurgicalsites, woods, shorelines) as a value to be considered ina whole and integrated action of enhancement.From a strictly archaeological point of view, the openingof the Parco Archeominerario di San Silvestro and of theParco Archeologico di Baratti e Populonia has indicated aconsistent progress in the public management of archaeol-ogy in Italy. The first one, opened in 1996, protects an in-credibly vast and branching ancient mine, dating from pro-tohistory to contemporary times. The most relevant phasesare the Etruscan and medieval mining activities, devoted tothe mining and metallurgical smelting of sulphides (mainlycopper and lead/silver ores). The Park (450 ha) was found-ed on the results of archaeological research promoted bythe University of Siena inside the medieval Rocca SanSilvestro, a mining and metallurgical site whose evidencestimulated the analytical survey of the mining heritage ofthe district: it has been created by the Campiglia Marit-tima township, with the urban tools offered by the Stateto the local governments. The second one opened in 1998,to preserve the archaeological heritage of Populonia, theEtruscan city located along the northern Tyrrhenian coast,famous in the Mediterranean area for its iron-related activi-ties, exploiting ore coming from Elba Isle. The area of thepark (about 90 ha: 80 property of the Piombino township,10 leased by the State, through the Ministero per i Beni ele Attività Culturali to the Parchi Val di Cornia Spa), in-cludes part of the ancient walled city and part of the tumuliand chamber tombs situated along the eastern slopes ofthe city. The park, at the edge of the Golfo di Baratti, wasfounded on the results of a long history of archaeologicalresearch: it was created by the Piombino township, acquir-ing most of the archaeological areas from private agenciesand therefore obtaining the formal acknowledgement bythe Tuscany Region as local interest environmental pro-tected area (ANPIL), according to the regional current lawon environmental conservation (L.R. 49/1995) (Casini andZucconi 2003: 89-96).What gives the ever increasing satisfaction of this parkssystem to the public is the particular condition guaranteedby the network management of the Parchi Val di CorniaSpa. From the beginning of its activity, the high costs of thearchaeological parks sustained by the agency immediatelyemerged, mainly due to staff and the expense of mainte-nance at the sites. The published financial and visitor dataof the agency clearly show that relatively low income fromvisitors and high costs of conservation and security of themines in the archaeological parks are maintained by theincome of the coastal parks, mainly based on the servicesconnected to marine tourism (Casini and Zucconi 2003:119-156).It may be useful to have a general overview of archaeologi-cal parks in Italy: we have mainly statistical data, obtainedfrom the first national survey made in 2000-2001 (Paradisiet al. 2002).A new systematic census of information, which has beenrepeatedly carried out by Claudio Corsi in 2008, providesa comparison with the data edited in 2002. We can say thatsystematic work is virtually impossible, due to the differ-ent sources/quality of information on archaeological parks.Research was first conducted via Web, in order to obtainprimary information on active or planned parks: an ap-proach that has been successful in investigating the grow-ing phenomenon of visitor centres connected to naturalparks in Italy (Del Re 2006) (Tables 1-3; Figs 1-4).The data indicate an increase in archaeological parks inItaly since 2002, though in many cases, confirmed by moreaccurate information, simple ‘archaeological sites’ (areearcheologiche) are classified as ‘archaeological parks’ bythe State or even by Regions and local townships. A gen-eral increase in numbers is observed (78 active parks, 39projected for a total of 117 parks), with respect to 2002(57 active parks, 27 projected for a total of 84 parks), butthe most impressive data come from Southern Italy and theIsles, where the Apulia Region has created 15 new parks(just 5 in 2002) and the Basilicata Region has practicallydoubled its parks (7 parks in 2008, against 4 parks in 2002).Sicily, being an autonomous region, is completely inde-pendent in managing cultural and natural heritage: most ofits 21 projected archaeological parks were created in 2000,on the basis of a specific regional law (L.R. 20/2000).A trend for Southern Italy and the Isles perfectly confirmsthe elevated and particular concentration of archaeologi-cal heritage in those regions: it is nevertheless difficult todemonstrate the effective activity of these parks, consid-ering the very scarce consistency of data related to theirmanagement.On the conclusions of this work it is very interesting toobserve, if compared with the systematic collection of datacarried out for the Lazio Region, the impressive and suc-cessful role of the regional authority in promoting naturalparks, according to the law on conservation of environ-ment, enacted by the Lazio Region in 1997 (L.R. 29/1997),on the basis of the national law on conservation of nature(L. 394/1991) (Table 4; Fig. 5).The 166,236 ha protected by the Sistema Regionale delleAree Naturali Protette del Lazio (not including nationalparks and reserves), is the result of the full application of alaw specifically aimed at integrating humans inside a natu-ral environment, through the conservation of anthropologi-cal, archaeological, historical and architectural values ofareas, with respect of traditional activities connected to theenvironment. Data collected in Table 4 confirm the sub-stantial presence of archaeological elements inside naturalparks and reserves of the Lazio Region. It is also evidentthat some of them have been created to protect the envi-ronment of vast archaeological sites, like the Parco Sub-urbano Marturanum, created around the Etruscan site ofSan Giuliano (Viterbo), or the Parco Urbano AntichissimaCittà di Sutri, extended along the main cemetery and theRoman amphitheatre of the former Faliscan centre of Sutri(Viterbo), along the Cassia route (www.parks.it).
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management2613. Towards new directions in archaeo-logical and environmental conser-vation: from the Progetto di Paesag-gio Chianti to the VINUM and ELEIVAProjectsThe Italian trend to consider the preservation of the envi-ronment as a basis for protecting the archaeological/his-torical landscape at a regional/local level, has many conse-quences for the problem under consideration. First of all,a new perspective on landscape conservation can be men-tioned.As we have seen from the general context of currentlegislation, new directions can be seen in the developmentof tools for urban and landscape planning; these tools em-phasize the context rather than the single objects to be pre-served. The desire expressed by several scholars in severaldisciplines to consider landscape as not only somethingto be protected through bans but as a developing trend, isto make people aware of and respect the landscape and toimprove the features created by local communities in thecourse of the centuries. It is worth mentioning the Progettodi Paesaggio Chianti, a model of active landscape conser-vation, developed in Tuscany by a group of scholars underthe direction of architect Paolo Baldeschi, from the Uni-versity of Florence (Baldeschi 2000).This project came into being by the abandonment of theChianti area (Florence), after the suppression of the mez-zadria (sharecropping), a historical system of renting es-tates to private farmers, carried out until World War II inmany areas of Tuscany. This system produced an incred-ibly concentrated and functional system of cultivation inthe estates, with people assuring a very high level of land-scape protection through dry walls, terraces for vineyardsand olive groves, the local dominant cultivations, with adiffused control of surface waters. Its suppression, carriedout in the 1960s, induced the general abandonment of thecountryside with an associated reduction in productivity:local traditional cultures were abandoned and an incrediblyvast heritage of knowledge dissolved.The contemporary history of the Chianti area has beenmarked by a general growth of tourism in the area, in theprovinces of Florence and Siena, accompanied by the re-birth of intensive cultivation that introduced widespreaduse of mechanical technology in substitution of humanmanpower.The actual picture offers therefore an evolving landscape,in which the traditional and historical ways of cultivat-ing were abandoned for modelling a new landscape, moresuitable to mechanical cultivations: large fields with rowsof vines and open fields with concentrated olive groves,instead of cultivated terraces and walls separating andprotecting fields from geological disruption. The team ofscholars at work analysed the Chianti district (Florence),focusing on the following points:The historical and technical review of agricultural1. techniques has given an articulated identity and devel-opment to the traditional forms of production in theChianti area, starting to the late medieval age with thebeginning of typical vineyards and olive groves; theneed for an interaction among disciplines has clearlyemerged from the shared work of landscape architects,environmental and hydraulic engineers, geologists,agronomists and historians.Nowadays, systematic knowledge of landscape use2. is much more difficult, even though we have satel-lite technology at our disposal for investigating areas,if compared with the knowledge of countryside ex-pressed by the precise registration of estates, proper-ties and cultivated areas in the detailed maps of the 17thand 18thcenturies. The precision of such registrationsreflects a real population density in the country, whilethe effects of abandonment tend to increase difficultiesin studying the landscape (abandonment of the ancientroad network, increasing extension of wooded areas,reduction of cultivated areas and so on).These difficulties elevate landscape protection and3. conservation costs and generally induce a selectiveprotection action; these actions are usually promotedby large estates on more or less extended areas, in or-der to maintain a traditional identity with the produc-tion and locations.Relating traditional identity to respective areas is the4. purpose of the project, in order to stimulate individualacts of conservation promoted by actual owners, basedon sensitivity for protecting and restoring landscapewith traditional methods.The final goal of the project is the convergence of lo-5. cal landscape protection with economic sustainabilityinduced by the conservation of traditional methods ofcultivation and cultivars, giving a stronger and effec-tive identity, in terms of attracting tourism, to Chiantiwine and oil, nowadays menaced by the consequencesof globalization.The Progetto di Paesaggio Chianti has been adopted bythe province of Florence as a landscape management plan,according to the regional law of landscape protection andmanagement: its features provide a work model that maybe shared in other case studies. The link in the interpreta-tion of archaeological data and the agrarian use of land-scape has been further studied by some research experi-ences, the results of which may be useful to enhance ourpractices or models of landscape protection, conservationor restoration. The first research was carried out in the1980s and 1990s in the north-western part of the provinceof Rome, in the format of the Monti della Tolfa – Valle delMignone Project. Today this area maintains a remarkablyhigh level of environmental preservation, thanks to negli-gible human influence, even though it is not yet recognizedamong the natural parks and reserves of the Lazio Region.These conditions have induced the survival of some rel-ics of the Etruscan and Roman archaeological landscape,mainly around the open sites, through an extended networkof terraces and containing walls, made of local stone, giv-ing the picture of a relevant intensive agricultural activitybetween the end of the 7thcentury BC up to the Imperialage (Zifferero 1999b).The strong impact of the Etruscan cultivations, promotedby local communities under the economic and politicalcontrol of the nearby city of Caere, along the middle Tyr-rhenian coast, developed between the late Orientalizingperiod and the Archaic age (end of the 7th— end of the 6thcentury BC). This activity bears witness to an extended net-
Andrea Zifferero262work of rural open sites, probably stimulated by an intensecultivation of vines, olive groves, and cereals, producingopen landscapes on a hilly district, naturally covered withwoods and rich in surface waters. This impact (integratedby the systematic cutting of forests), probably induced thefirst hydro-geological disruption, caused by the nature oflocal, very rich in clay, sedimentary soils (originating fromflysch), and produced by surface waters. It is interesting toobserve that this field system was utilised and continuedto be used during the Roman conquest, at the beginning ofthe 3rdcentury BC, through an articulated system of villas,often superimposed or built near Etruscan open sites. Thestrong contraction of the Roman settlement system in theearly medieval age induced the abandonment of the Etrus-can and Roman field system, provoking an intense geologi-cal disruption, still operating nowadays in the fields alongthe southern slopes of the Monti della Tolfa area (Zifferero1999b).The possibility of giving a chronological order to thesephenomena in the investigated area has given a new per-spective to local environmental conservation, through amore intense perception of the reaction of nature to humanpressure and, at the same time, has conferred to landscapearchaeology a strategic role in landscape planning.On the basis of these experiences the Insegnamento e Labo-ratorio di Etruscologia e Antichità Italiche (ILEAI) of theUniversity of Siena (Department ofArchaeology and Histo-ry of Arts), has developed two research projects, intendingto investigate the origins of and reasons for the persistenceof the grapevine and olive plants in the vegetal landscape ofEtruria, using the recently developed techniques of DNAre-search on genoma. The question at the base of both projectsis that, according to the archaeological traces left by humanactivities on sites, even the environment may conserve inthe actual natural vegetation some characteristics devel-oped and implemented by the occupation and activity of anarchaeological site (Ciacci and Zifferero 2005).Regarding the grapevine plants, these characteristics haveto be searched for in the domestication of wild grapevineplants (Vitis vinifera subsp. sylvestris), or, on the contrary,in the actual form of wild plants descending from domesticplants cultivated in antiquity. The analysis of wild grape-vine germplasm, performed by the botanists and molecu-lar biologists of the University of Milan, if related to theinvestigation of the archaeological sites, may distinguish,with relative accuracy, the genetic characteristics of do-mestication activities (selection of the best plants for grapeproduction or graft among cultivars and wild plants), pro-moted by ancient communities settling on nearby sites.Interaction among scholars has focused on the cultivationtechniques and, above all, the possible morphology of an-cient vineyards (Ciacci et al. 2007).One of the most important results of the VINUM Projectis the identification of possible relics of Etruscan or Ro-man age vineyards, still surviving in districts of high pro-file environmental conservation, consisting in plants ofwild grapevine bound to maple, elm or oak trees, whichhave guaranteed their survival. The archaeological bondbetween these plants and the ancient sites is revealed bythe presence of grapevine presses, usually identifiable bythe stone supports of the wooden arms of the press, madeof local limestone, usually well preserved.The Project, carried out during 2004-2007 in SouthernTuscany and Northern Lazio investigated several areasconnected with the archaeological evidence of wine pro-duction in Etruscan and Roman ages, which had excellentfieldwork conditions in areas with elevated environmentalconservation. In many cases, the systematic research onwild grapevine populations, still surviving on archaeologi-cal sites, showed an incredibly relevant presence of thisspecies in the Monti della Tolfa area (Rome), still connect-ed to the most important Etruscan sites of the ancient ter-ritory controlled by Caere. The research methods adoptedin fieldwork were inspired by the ‘site catchment analysis’developed by the practice of economic geography adoptedby British archaeology in the 1970s (Ciacci and Zifferero2007: 249-272).It was therefore possible to demonstrate that wild grape-vine plants related to protohistoric, Etruscan and Romansites (above all open sites, closely connected to agriculturalproduction or those sites that provided grapevine seeds orpresses), have developed, since antiquity, some differencesin germplasm, if compared with those plant populationsnot connected with human communities: it is thereforepresumed that the actual genetic asset of the populationsnearby archaeological sites has been modified by the pres-sure exerted by the domestication (Imazio et al. 2007).The same basic principles of the VINUM Project have beenconsidered in the formulation of the ELEIVA Project, pro-moted by ILEAI in 2007 and directed by Andrea Ciacci:the project aims to investigate the relationships betweenactual olive cultivars and the wild populations of oleast-ers, still present in nearby archaeological sites. A similaranalytical process and the previous experiences of theVINUM Project have convinced us to select research ar-eas where the ties between Etruscan and above all Romanperiod sites, terrace walls and oleasters are still visible.The southern slopes of the Monti della Tolfa area (Rome)provide again consistent evidence for discussion: the linkbetween Etruscan open sites, Roman villas and wild olivetrees has been maintained by the actual landscape, thoughthreatened by hydro-geological disruption (Vallelonga andZifferero in press).acknowledgementsI wish to thank Claudio Corsi, Alice Del Re and CarmineSanchirico, for having helped me to revise and to updatethe files of the single parks in Italy, as well as for the help inthe layout of both tables and figures. Arch. Sabrina Tozzinihas offered several pieces of precious information aboutthe juridical interpretation and practices in town and land-scape planning, in connection with the parks. The Englishversion of this contribution has been kindly revised by El-len Beranek.ReferencesBaldeschi, P. (ed.), 2000, Il Chianti fiorentino. Un progettoper la tutela del paesaggio (Roma, Bari: Laterza)
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management263Binks, G., Dyke, J., Dagnall, P., 1988, Visitors Welcome.A manual on the Presentation and Interpretation ofArchaeological Excavations (London: English Heri-tage)Cambi, F., Terrenato, N., 2007, Introduzione all’archeolo-gia dei paesaggi (Roma: Carocci)Casini, A., Zucconi, M., 2003, Un’impresa per sei parchi.Come gestire in modo imprenditoriale e innovativo ilpatrimonio culturale e ambientale pubblico (Milano:Il Sole 24 Ore)Ciacci, A., Rendini, P., Zifferero, A. (eds), 2007, Archeolo-gia della vite e del vino in Etruria (Siena: Ci.Vin)Ciacci, A., Zifferero, A. (eds), 2005, VINUM. Un progettoper il riconoscimento della vite silvestre nel paesag-gio archeologico della Toscana e del Lazio settentrio-nale (Siena: Ci.Vin)Ciacci, A., Zifferero, A., 2007, ‘Il “Progetto VINUM”: pri-me considerazioni conclusive’ in A. Ciacci, P. Rendi-ni, A. Zifferero (eds) Archeologia della vite e del vinoin Etruria (Siena: Ci.Vin), pp. 249-272Del Re, A., 2006, ‘Centri Visita ai raggi X’, Parchi 49, pp.29-40Francovich, R., Zifferero, A. (eds), 1999, Musei e ParchiArcheologici. IX ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applica-ta in Archeologia, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 15-21 dicembre 1997 (Firenze: all’Insegna del Giglio)Giacobini, V., Romani, V., 1992, Uomini e Parchi (Milano:Franco Angeli)Gross, M., 1999, ‘Techniques, Materials and Trends inOpen Air Interpretation in US National Parks’ in R.Francovich, A. Zifferero (eds) Musei e Parchi Arche-ologici. IX ciclo di lezioni sulla ricerca applicata inArcheologia, Certosa di Pontignano (Siena), 15-21dicembre 1997 (Firenze: all’Insegna del Giglio), pp.483-495Gross, M., Zimmerman, R., 2002, Interpretive Centers.The History, Design, and Development of Nature andVisitor Centers (Stevens Point: UW-SP FoundationPress)Gross, M., Zimmerman, R., Buchholz, J., 2006, Signs,Trails, and Wayside Exhibits. Connecting People andPlaces (Stevens Point: UW-SP Foundation Press) (3rdedition)Imazio, S., De Mattia, F., Grassi, F., Labra, M., Failla, O.,Scienza, A., 2007, ‘“Progetto VINUM”: metodi dianalisi del menoma e primi risultati’ in A. Ciacci, P.Rendini, A. Zifferero (eds) Archeologia della vite edel vino in Etruria (Siena: Ci.Vin), pp. 238-248Lenzi, F. (ed.), 1999, Archeologia e Ambiente (Forlì:A.B.A.C.O.)Mills, N., 1999, ‘FromArchaeological Sites to the Creationof Thematic Museums and Parks. An Overview fromBritain’ in R. Francovich, A. Zifferero (eds) Musei eParchi Archeologici. IX ciclo di lezioni sulla ricer-ca applicata in Archeologia, Certosa di Pontignano(Siena), 15-21 dicembre 1997 (Firenze: all’Insegnadel Giglio), pp. 297-311Paradisi, S., Traverso, E., Zifferero, A., ‘Archeologia nelParco’, Archeo 210, pp. 62-85Ricci, A. (ed.), 2002, Archeologia e Urbanistica (Firenze:all’Insegna del Giglio)Ruggieri Tricoli, M.C., 2000, I fantasmi e le cose. La mes-sa in scena della storia nella comunicazione museale(Milano: Edizioni Lybra Immagine)Tosco, C., 2007, Il paesaggio come storia (Bologna: Il Mu-lino)Tozzini, S., 2005, I paesaggi dell’archeologia. Strategie esinergie nel progetto dei parchi (Ph.D. diss., Univer-sity of Florence)Tozzini, S., 2007, ‘Tra azione museologica e azione pro-grammatica: sinergie da inseguire nel progetto pae-saggistico per i parchi archeologici’ in G. Ferrara,G.G. Rizzo, M. Zoppi (eds) Paesaggio. Didattica,ricerche e progetti, 1997-2007 (Firenze: Firenze Uni-versity Press), pp. 291-301Vallelonga, F., Zifferero,A., in press, ‘Archeologia dell’olioe dell’olivo nel Lazio settentrionale’in A. Ciacci (ed.)Eleiva, Oleum, Olio. Alle origini del patrimonio olivi-colo toscano. Proceedings of the International Confe-rence at San Quirico d’Orcia 2007Zifferero, A., 1999a, ‘Archeologia e ambiente: note sullasituazione italiana, tra necessità di conservazione eprospettive di ricerca’ in F. Lenzi (ed.) Archeologia eAmbiente (Forlì: A.B.A.C.O.), pp. 319-328Zifferero, A., 1999b, ‘Il contributo dell’archeologia allapianificazione territoriale: il Parco dei monti dellaTolfa’ in B. Amendolea (ed.) Carta archeologica epianificazione territoriale. Un problema politico emetodologico (Roma: Fratelli Palombi Editori), pp.74-82Zifferero, A., 2003, ‘Archeologia sperimentale e parchi ar-cheologici’ in P. Bellintani, L. Moser (eds) Archeolo-gie sperimentali: metodologie ed esperienze fra veri-fica, riproduzione, comunicazione e simulazione. Attidel Convegno, Comano Terme – Fiavè (Trento, Italy,13-15 settembre 2001) (Trento: Provincia autonomadi Trento), pp. 49-76
Andrea Zifferero264REGION PROVINCE TOWN PARKINCEPTIONYEARSIZE STATUSEmilia-Romagna Modena Castelnuovo RangoneParco Archeologico e Museoall’aperto della Terramara diMontale (1)2.5 haEmilia-Romagna Piacenza Lugagnano Val d’Arda Parco Archeologico di Veleia (2)Emilia-Romagna Ravenna Ravenna Parco Archeologico di Classe (3) PlannedFriuli-VeneziaGiuliaUdine AquileiaParco Archeologico di Aquileia(4)PlannedFriuli-VeneziaGiuliaUdine Forgaria nel FriuliParco Archeologico Culturale diCastelraimondo (5)2006Lombardy Brescia Capo di PonteParco Archeologico Nazionaledei Massi di Capo di Ponte (6)2005 60 haLombardy Brescia Cividate CamunoParco Archeologico di CividateCamuno (7)2002Lombardy Brescia Manerba del GardaParco Archeologico della Roccadi Manerba (8)90 haLombardy Como Alzate Brianza Archeopark di Alzate Brianza (9) PlannedLombardy LeccoLecco, Galbiate,Garlate, Malgrate,Oggiono, Pescate,ValmadreraParco di Monte Barro (10) 1983 665 haLombardy Mantova Bagnolo San VitoParco Archeologico del Forcello(11)2006Lombardy Milan MilanParco Archeologico dell’Anfitea-tro Romano (12)2004 1.1 haLombardy Sondrio GrosioParco delle Incisioni Rupestri conRupe Magna di Grosio (13)1978Lombardy Varese BiandronnoParco Archeologico dell’IsolinoVirginia (14)2006Lombardy Varese CastelseprioParco Archeologico di Castelse-prio (15)13 haPiemonte Cuneo Bene VagiennaRiserva Naturale Speciale diAugusta Bagiennorum e Sorgentidel Belbo (16)1993626.13haPiemonte Turin Susa Parco Archeologico di Susa (17)Trentino-Alto Adige Bolzano SenalesArcheopark della Val Senales(18)2001 04 haTrentino-Alto Adige Trento Fiavè Parco Archeologico di Fiavè (19) 122 ha PlannedValle d’Aosta Aosta AostaParco Archeologico dell’AreaMegalitica di Saint Martin deCorlèans (20)1 haOpeningin 2009Veneto RovigoAdria, Ariano nel Po-lesine, Corbola, PortoViro, RosolinaParco Naturalistico Archeologicodel Delta del Po (21)PlannedVeneto Treviso Revine LagoParco Archeologico Didattico delLivelet (22)Veneto Venezia VeneziaParco Archeologico Naturaledella Laguna di Venezia (23)PlannedTable 1 - Archaeological Parks in Northern Italy (2008).
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management265REGION PROVINCE TOWN PARKINCEPTIONYEARSIZE STATUSAbruzzi Chieti AtessaParco Archeologico Naturalistico diMonte Pallano (24)Abruzzi Chieti Montenerodomo Parco Archeologico di Juvanum (25)Abruzzi L’Aquila Cansano Parco Archeologico di Ocriticum (26) 2004Abruzzi L’Aquila San Vittorino Parco Archeologico di Amiternum (27)Lazio Rome AnzioParco Archeologico della Villa Imperia-le di Anzio (28)2000Lazio RomeAllumiere, Anguillara Sabazia,Cerveteri, Ladispoli, Manziana,Santa Marinella, TolfaSistema delle Aree Archeologiche delTerritorio Cerite, Tolfetano, Braccianese(29)PlannedLazio Rome FiumicinoParco Archeologico del Porto di Traiano(30)PlannedLazio Rome Rome Oasi di Porto (31) 33 ha PrivateLazio Rome Rome Parco Archeologico della Via Latina (32)Lazio Viterbo Canino, Montalto di CastroParco Naturalistico Archeologico diVulci (33)1997 960 haLazio Viterbo Tarquinia Parco Archeologico di Tarquinia (34) PlannedMarche Ancona Castelleone di Suasa Parco Archeologico di Suasa (35) 2000 20 haMarche Ancona Sassoferrato Parco Archeologico di Sentinum (36) 2006 14 haMarcheAscoliPicenoCupra MarittimaParco Archeologico di Cupra Marittima(37)32 ha PlannedMarcheAscoliPicenoFalerone Parco Archeologico di Falerone (38) 30 haMarche Macerata San Severino Marche Parco Archeologico di Septempeda (39)Marche Macerata Urbisaglia Parco Archeologico di Urbisaglia (40) 40 haMarchePesaro andUrbinoFossombroneParco Archeologico di Forum Sempronii(41)Molise Campobasso Larino Parco Archeologico di Larino (42) PlannedMolise Campobasso SepinoParco Archeologico di Altilia-Sepino(43)Tuscany Arezzo Cortona Parco Archeologico di Cortona (44) 2004Tuscany GrossetoFollonica, Gavorrano, MassaMarittima, MontieriParco Nazionale Tecnologico Archeolo-gico delle Colline Metallifere Toscane(45)2002Tuscany Grosseto Massa MarittimaParco Archeologico Minerario del Lagodell’Accesa (46)2001 2 haTuscany Grosseto Sorano Parco Archeologico Città del Tufo (47) 1994 70 haTuscany Livorno Campiglia MarittimaParco Archeominerario di San Silvestro(48)1994 450 haTuscany Livorno CecinaParco Archeologico di San Vincenzino(49)Tuscany Livorno PiombinoParco Archeologico di Baratti e Popu-lonia (50)1994 90 haTuscanyMassaCarraraCarraraParco Archeologico delle Cave Antichedelle Alpi Apuane (51)PlannedTuscany Pisa VolterraParco Archeologico Urbano di Volterra(52)1994Tuscany Siena CetonaParco Archeologico Naturalistico diBelverde (53)Tuscany Siena PoggibonsiParco Archeologico di Poggio Imperiale(54)2003 12 haUmbria Terni Otricoli Parco Archeologico di Otricoli (55)Umbria Terni Sangemini Parco Archeologico di Carsulae (56) 20 haTable 2 - Archaeological Parks in Central Italy (2008).
Andrea Zifferero266REGION PROVINCE TOWN PARKINCEPTIONYEARSIZE STATUSBasilicata MateraMatera,MontescagliosoParco Storico Naturale delle Chiese Rupestri delMaterano (57)1990 6128 haBasilicata Matera Metaponto Parco Archeologico di Metaponto (58) 30 haBasilicata Matera Policoro Parco Archeologico di Policoro (59)Basilicata Potenza Grumento Nova Parco Archeologico della Val d’Agri (60) PlannedBasilicata Potenza Grumento Nova Parco Archeologico di Grumento (61) 27 haBasilicata Potenza Vaglio di Basilicata Parco Archeologico di Serra di Vaglio (62)Basilicata Potenza Venosa Parco Archeologico di Venosa (63)Calabria Catanzaro Borgia Parco Archeologico della Roccelletta di Borgia (64) 40 haCalabria Cosenza Sibari Parco Archeologico di Sibari (65) 168 haCalabria Crotone Crotone Parco Archeologico di Capo Colonna (66) 20 haCalabria Reggio Calabria Locri Parco Archeologico di Locri Epizefiri (67)Campania Naples Bacoli Parco Archeologico di Baia (68)Campania Naples Bacoli Parco Sommerso di Baia (69)Campania NaplesBacoli, Naples,Monte Procida,PozzuoliParco Regionale Campi Flegrei (70) 8000 haCampania Naples Naples Parco Archeologico Pausylipon e Grotta di Seiano (71)Campania Naples Pompei, Resina Sistema Archeologico Vesuviano (72) PlannedCampania Naples Pozzuoli Parco Archeologico di Cuma (73)Campania Salerno Ascea Marina Parco Archeologico ed Antiquarium di Velia (74) 80 haCampania SalernoPontecagnano,FaianoParco Archeologico di Pontecagnano (75) 22 haApulia Bari Barletta Parco Archeologico di Canne della Battaglia (76)Apulia Bari Gioia del Colle Parco Archeologico di Monte Sannace (77)Apulia Bari Gravina in Puglia Parco Archeologico di Botromagno (78)Apulia Bari Gravina in Puglia Parco Archeologico di Gravina in Puglia (79) 400 ha nApulia Bari Molfetta Parco Tematico Archeologico di Molfetta (80) PlannedApulia Brindisi Fasano Parco Archeologico di Egnazia (81)Apulia Foggia Ascoli Satriano Parco Archeologico dei Dauni (82)Apulia Foggia Foggia Parco Archeologico di Passo di Corvo (83)Apulia Foggia Manfredonia Parco Archeologico di Siponto (84)Apulia Lecce Alezio Parco Archeologico di Alezio (85)Apulia Lecce Cavallino Museo Diffuso di Cavallino (86) 2003Apulia Lecce Lecce Parco Archeologico Messapico di Rudiae (87) PlannedApulia Lecce Muro Leccese Parco Archeologico di Muro Leccese (88) PlannedApulia Taranto Leporano Parco Archeologico di Saturo (89)Apulia Taranto Manduria Parco Archeologico delle Mura Messapiche (90)Sardinia Cagliari CagliariParco Archeologico della Necropoli del Colle diTuvixeddu (91)PlannedSardinia Cagliari Carbonia Parco Archeologico di Monte Sirai (92)Sardinia Cagliari Fluminimaggiore Parco Archeologico Valle di Antas (93)Sardinia Cagliari Pula Parco Archeologico di Nora (94)Sardinia Cagliari Villanovaforru Parco Archeologico di Genna Maria (95)Sardinia Sassari Porto Torres Parco Archeologico di Porto Torres (96)Sicily Agrigento Agrigento Parco Archeologico della Valle dei Templi (97) 1400 haSicily Agrigento Cattolica Eraclea Parco dell’Area Archeologica di Eraclea Minoa (98) PlannedSicily Caltanissetta Caltanissetta Parco Archeologico di Sabucina (99) PlannedSicily Caltanissetta Gela Parco Archeologico di Gela (100) PlannedSicily Enna Aidone Parco Archeologico di Morgantina (101) PlannedSicily Enna Piazza ArmerinaParco dell’Area Archeologica della Villa del Casale(102)Planned
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management267Sicily EnnaVillarosa,CalascibettaParco dell’Area Archeologica della Valle del Morello(103)PlannedSicily Messina Giardini di Naxos Parco Archeologico di Naxos (104) PlannedSicily Messina Lipari Parco Archeologico delle Isole Eolie (105) PlannedSicily PalermoSan Cipirello, SanGiuseppe JatoParco Archeologico di Monte Jato (106) PlannedSicily Palermo Santa Flavia Parco Archeologico di Solunto (107) PlannedSicily Palermo Termini Imerese Parco Archeologico di Himera (108) 140 ha PlannedSicily RagusaModica, Ispica,RosoliniParco Archeologico di Cava d’Ispica (109) PlannedSicily RagusaSanta CroceCamarinaParco Archeologico di Kamarina (110) PlannedSicily Siracusa Lentini Parco Archeologico di Lentini (111) PlannedSicily Siracusa Noto Parco Archeologico di Eloro e Villa del Tellaro (112) PlannedSicily Siracusa Siracusa Parco Archeologico della Neapolis (113) 24 ha PlannedSicily Trapani Calatafimi Parco Archeologico di Segesta (114) PlannedSicily TrapaniCastelvetrano,Campobello diMazaraParco Archeologico di Selinunte e Cave di Cusa(115)270 ha PlannedSicily Trapani Marsala Parco Archeologico di Mozia-Lilibeo (116) PlannedSicily Trapani Pantelleria Parco Archeologico di Pantelleria (117) PlannedTable 3 - Archaeological Parks in Southern Italy and Isles (2008).PROVINCE TOWN PARK SIZE in ha ARCHAEOLOGYFrosinone,LatinaAusonia, Campodimele, Esperia, Fondi,Formia, Itri, Lenola, Pico, Pontecorvo,Spigno SaturniaParco Naturale Regionale Monti Aurunci (1) 19,374 haFrosinone,RomeCamerata Nuova, Cervara di Roma, Filettino,Jenne, Subiaco, Trevi nel Lazio, VallepietraParco Naturale Regionale dei MontiSimbruini (2)29,990 haFrosinoneAnagni, Fiuggi, Fumone, Torre Cajetani,TriviglianoRiserva Naturale del Lago di Canterno (3) 1824 haFrosinoneArce, Ceprano, Falvaterra, San GiovanniIncaricoRiserva Naturale Antichissime Città diFregellae, Fabrateria Nova e del Lago diSan Giovanni Incarico (4)715 ha XFrosinone Posta Fibreno Riserva Naturale del Lago di Posta Fibreno (5) 345 ha XFrosinone Isola del LiriMonumento Naturale Area VerdeViscogliosi ex Cartiera Trito (6)5.5 haLatina Formia, Gaeta, Minturno, Sperlonga Parco Regionale Riviera di Ulisse (7)434 ha landarea; 80 hamarine areaXLatina Cisterna di Latina Riserva Naturale Giardino di Ninfa (8) 106 ha XLatina FondiMonumento Naturale Mola della Corte,Settecannelle, Capodacqua (9)4 haLatina,FrosinoneFondi, Lenola, VallecorsaMonumento Naturale di Acquaviva, Cimadel Monte, Quercia del Monaco (10)240 ha XLatina Fondi, Monte San Biagio Monumento Naturale Lago di Fondi (11) 1746 haLatina Sonnino, Terracina Monumento Naturale di Campo Soriano (12) 974 haLatina TerracinaMonumento Naturale Tempio di GioveAnxur (13)23 ha XRietiAscrea, Castel di Tora, Collalto Sabino,Collegiove, Marcetelli, Nespolo, Paganico,Rocca Sinibalda, Varco SabinoRiserva Naturale di Monte Navegna-MonteCervia (14)3500 ha XRieti BorgoroseRiserva Naturale Montagne della Duchessa(15)3543 ha XRietiCantalice, Colli sul Velino, Contigliano,Poggio Bustone, Rieti, RivodutriRiserva Naturale dei Laghi Lungo eRipasottile (16)3000 ha
Andrea Zifferero268RomeAlbano Laziale, Ariccia, Castel Gandolfo,Frascati, Genzano di Roma, Grottaferrata,Lanuvio, Lariano, Marino, Monte Compatri,Monte Porzio Catone, Nemi, Rocca di Papa,Rocca Priora, VelletriParco Regionale dei Castelli Romani (17) 12.000 ha XRomeCampagnano di Roma, Castelnuovo di Porto,Formello, Magliano Romano, MazzanoRomano, Morlupo, Riano, Rome, SacrofanoParco Regionale di Veio (18) 14.984 ha XRome Guidonia Montecelio Parco Naturale Regionale dell’Inviolata (19) 535 ha XRome Rome, Ciampino, MarinoParco Naturale Regionale dell’Appia Antica(20)3500 ha XRome, RietiLicenza, Marcellina, Monteflavio,Montorio Romano, Moricone, PalombaraSabina, Percile, Roccagiovine, San Polodei Cavalieri, Vicovaro, Orvinio, PoggioMoiano, ScandrigliaParco Naturale Regionale dei MontiLucretili (21)18.204 ha XRome, ViterboAnguillara Sabazia, Bracciano, Campagnanodi Roma, Manziana, Rome, TrevignanoRomano, Bassano Romano, Monterosi,Oriolo Romano, SutriParco Naturale Regionale di Bracciano eMartignano (22)16.682 ha XRome, Viterbo Mazzano Romano, Calcata Parco Regionale Valle del Treja (23) 656 ha XRome Rome Aree Naturali Protette Romanatura (24) 15.529 ha XRome Anzio Riserva Naturale Tor Caldara (25) 44 ha XRome Canale Monterano Riserva Naturale di Monterano (26) 1084 ha XRome Mentana Riserva Naturale Nomentum (27) 850 ha XRomeMentana, Monterotondo, Sant’AngeloRomanoRiserva Naturale Macchia di Gattaceca eMacchia del Barco (28)1200 ha XRome Nettuno Riserva Naturale Villa Borghese (29) 46 haRome Santa MarinellaRiserva Naturale Regionale diMacchiatonda (30)244 haRome Sant’Oreste Riserva Naturale del Monte Soratte (31) 410 ha XRome Tivoli Riserva Naturale di Monte Catillo (32) 1319 ha XRome, RietiNazzano, Torrita Tiberina, Montopoli inSabinaRiserva Naturale Regionale Tevere-Farfa(33)700 haRome CaveMonumento Naturale Villa Clementi, FonteSanto Stefano (34)6 haRome Castel San Pietro RomanoMonumento Naturale Valle delleCannuccete (35)20 haRome Genazzano Monumento Naturale La Selva (36) 25 haRome LadispoliMonumento Naturale Palude di Torre Flavia(37)40 ha XViterbo Barbarano Romano Parco Suburbano Marturanum (38) 1220 ha XViterbo SutriParco Urbano Antichissima Città di Sutri(39)7 ha XViterbo Acquapendente Riserva Naturale Monte Rufeno (40) 2892 haViterbo BomarzoRiserva Naturale Monte Casoli di Bomarzo(41)285 ha XViterbo Caprarola Riserva Naturale del Lago di Vico (42) 3346 ha XViterbo Corchiano, Gallese Monumento Naturale Pian Sant’Angelo (43) 600 ha XViterbo Farnese Riserva Naturale della Selva del Lamone (44) 2002 ha XViterbo Tuscania Riserva Naturale Tuscania (45) 1901 ha XTable 4 - Synoptic view of regional parks system, regional reserves and natural monuments of the Lazio Region, accordingto the L.R. 29/1997 and subsequent legislative measures, compared with the presence of archaeological elements in theprotected areas (2008).
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management269Fig. 1 - Archaeological parks in Italy (2008): black dots indicate effectively instituted parks, white dots indicate plannedparks. Numbers refer to Tables 1-3.
Andrea Zifferero270Fig. 2 - Archaeological parks inNorthern Italy (2008), with Regionsindicated: black dots indicate theeffectively instituted parks, white dotsindicate planned parks. Numbers referto Table 1.Fig. 3 - Archaeological parks in CentralItaly (2008), with Regions indicated:black dots indicate the effectivelyinstituted parks, white dots indicateplanned parks. Numbers refer to Table2.Fig. 4 - Archaeological parks in SouthernItaly and Isles (2008), with Regionsindicated: black dots indicate theeffectively instituted parks, white dotsindicate planned parks. Numbers refer toTable 3.
From archaeological parks to the enhancement of archaeological landscapes: new directions in Italian heritage management271Fig. 5 - The Sistema Regionale delle Aree Naturali Protette del Lazio (2008), with Provinces indicated: blackdots indicate parks and reserves protecting archaeological sites, white dots indicate parks and reservesdevoted exclusively to environmental conservation. Numbers refer to Table 4.