Conference paper

Vanacore, Stefano:

Problemi di conservazione dell’Area Archeologica di Pompei. Interventi e analisi delle priorità

Il problema della conservazione delle aree Archeologiche, congiunto a ciò che riguarda gli aspetti complessi della loro valorizzazione e fruizione, è oggi fonte di un’attenta ricerca e di nuovi sviluppi. C’è l’esigenza e la consapevolezza di eseguire l’intervento in rapporto al crescente interesse del recupero delle aree nella loro interezza. Questa impostazione determina, in generale, di focalizzare l’attenzione non più sulle sole emergenze ma su un insieme di problematiche che la città antica pone. Si guarda, alle procedure di studio e di indagini che si avvalgono di criteri metodologici focalizzati non più solo sulle emergenze ma sull’intero insieme del contesto archeologico. Questo criterio, che si avvale quasi sempre di metodi ripetitivi si concretizza nell’esigenza di dover considerare un approccio multidisciplinare, in modo da risolvere in modo esaustivo il compito della conservazione delle aree archeologiche. Il criterio generalistico e multidisciplinare, pone molte aree, spesso, ad una ingiustificata assenza di cura che lascia libero accesso all’azione distruttiva del tempo, facilitandone così la scomparsa. L’area Archeologica di Pompei, scavata nei soli due terzi degli interi 66 ettari, pone il restauratore di fronte a problematiche diverse a secondo della classe dei materiali sui quali si interviene. L’intervento deve interrompere l’azione distruttiva della materia, iniziata con lo scavo, proseguita con la fruizione molte volte impropria, quasi selvaggia, e aumentata con l’azione del tempo e dell’uomo. La diversificazione delle metodiche conservative del passato, poi, anche in riferimento a Pompei ed ai siti dell’Area Vesuviana, spesso ha compromesso la lettura corretta del manufatto causando la perdita di informazioni fondamentali per la sua conoscenza. Gli interventi di difficile datazione anche in relazione a restauri precedenti il 79°d. C. Interventi impropri di restauro condotti con poche conoscenze di metodi e materiali non compatibili hanno prodotto danno per la stabilità del bene e molte volte accelerato lo stato di degrado. Fondamentalmente è di manutenzione ordinaria che un’area archeologica ha bisogno. Come vedremo, in Pompei i problemi conservativi sono di diversa natura, tecnici, di conoscenze, di trasformazione estetica sottoposti all’esigenze di fruizione. La situazione conservativa di questa città racchiude tutte le problematiche elencate. Fino alla fine degli anni ottanta si è sempre intervenuti dando priorità alle aree di interesse turistico con procedimenti di tipo complesso badando ai problemi conservativi strutturali e di apparati decorativi. Con il progetto F.I.O. si è tentato l’intervento di restauro anche in aree non interessate dal flusso turistico, cercando, ma non ottenendo, un riequilibrio delle strutture trattate. L’analisi delle priorità conservative è fondamentale in presenza di carenza economiche e professionale. Pochi soldi e pochi uomini validi portano al rallentamento, se non all’abbandono e ad una progressiva erosione degli apparati decorativi che così molto difficilmente possono continuare a svolgere il loro compito di diffusori di conoscenze.

Maintenance problems of the Pompeii archaeological area: interventions and priorities analysis

First of all let me introduce myself. I am the manager of the laboratories for the restoration of mural paintings, lapidei materials, mosaics and mounds within the Pompeii archaeological area. The Archaeological area in Pompeii is 66 hectares wide of which only 44 are dug, and for conservative reasons the remaining 22 are still buried. The main factors responsible for the degrade present within the whole area are the meteorological conditions, the time spent from the production of the finds including the digging phase, and the human action. The sun, the rain, the wind, the strong thermal excursions warm-cold and the dry-humid air create damages inside the structure of finds due to the production of salts and vegetation being harmful for the plaster and the pictorial film. Moreover, the use of poor quality and unsuitable both ancient and modern materials (the latter from recent restorations) leads the artistic manufactured articles to have been being corroded sooner by the action of the passing time and to degrade themselves in a irreversible way. Then the man contributes to the generation of degrade because of a bad fruition of the archaeological goods and with bad interventions of restoration. Another relevant cause of damage, and maybe the most serious among those cited, is the presence of pigeons due to their high production of guano, which is highly acid and therefore extremely corrosive for the painted surfaces.

In the last months of 2010, Pompeii came out in the news items because of the collapse of the Schola Armaturarum, bombed during the second world war and restored-reconstructed in the Maiuri period during the 1950s. The progressive degradation of the materials used in that time (essentially reinforced concrete) and the strong rainfall, persistent for a long period, have caused the collapse of the reinforced concrete covering, involving only three low quality small paintings. The use of products being incompatible with the archaeological materials has always happened over the time, unfortunately also in very recent years. For instance, iron, which is easily oxidizable with humidity, is used here in the Red Walls House for holding up the columns within the lararium. In the Nola Street the degradation, which is very remarkable, is essentially due to the lack of coverings, and a detachment of the preparatory layers by the building support is evidenced. Obviously in these cases the intervention is very urgent and must be instantaneous in order to avoid any loss of archaeological goods. Here we are at the Queen House in Boscoreale. The columns of the peristilium exposed to the atmospheric agents absorb a lot of humidity. The painted surfaces and this ancient graffito are in a strong degradation. A similar situation is present in the Giulio Polibio’s House, which has been recently restored. Unfortunately the salty efflorescence emerges out where the pictorial film is very weak causing the total fall of it. An improper example of protection is the use of plexiglass. This is improper because if it is exposed to the sunshine there is a progressive increase of the temperature causing a rapid evaporation of the humidity contained in the wall and then this provokes the pulverization of the painted film. The damages are irreversible because the material we are treating with is very delicate, and therefore our action of restorers has to be driven by the technical-scientific knowledge and by the respect of the archaeological finds. You could believe to act in a right way, but finally you will create a damage. Here we are at Abudance Street, where it is possible to see the covering on a Thermopolium made of iron and plexiglass, and the damages on the surface caused by the iron and by the heating effects. This is an unsuitable covering on a mosaic as performed under the period when Amedeo Maiuri was in charge as director. It has been created in such a way a very dangerous greenhouse effect with the following generation of many kinds of vegetation. The painting of Venus in the seashell in the homonym House, falling and pulverization of pictorial film, degrade irreversible due to humidity. This painting has been recently restored, but there is still a continuous loss of original material even after the conservative intervention. Power panels. Here we are in presence of something that has produced to me a strong shock the first time I saw it. These apparatuses, made of iron, are the electric panels used in the 1930s and 1940s with the aim to illuminate some zones in Pompeii Archaeological area. It is unbelievable the use of an ancient structure, by now close to the total decomposition. Shoe heels over the mosaics, because of the women in this case, are very destructive for the mosaics themselves. Tall and thin heels create serious conservative problems to the mosaic tessellation and to the cocciopestis of the so many floors in Pompeii. There has been in these last years a very efficient collaboration with many university institutes. This work has been performed with the University of Ferrara, with the Università La Sapienza in Rome, and several Restoration Schools. We carried out a scientific work with a team joining chemists, physicists, architects and restorers. The diagnostic investigations have been the main support of our work. We were obliged to detach a very large inscription, 600 cm of length and 130 cm of height, because of the strong humidity blown out by an embankment just behind the painted plaster. The operation has been performed rightly according to all codes ruling the detachment, then the inscription has been transported on an aeralam support, and finally it has been placed in situ. We have recently monitored its conservation state and we have found that the degradation level is essentially stopped. We think that the detachment has to be the extreme possibility, but our first aim is to increase the lifetime of the archaeological finds. As I said it is fundamental for us to have continue interactions and collaborations with university institutes and institutes aiming the formation of the operators. A very insulting damage is the theft. Here it is described the theft of the vera da pozzo from the ceii’s House and of three paintings from the Chaste Lovers House. Finally, here it is shown the aesthetical representation of the restoration in the Giulio Polibio’s House. The structures and the decorative apparatuses have been restored, but the restoration is made spectacular by the rebuilding of the ancient furniture and by the preparation of a triclinium… inside the triclinium. It is very important for such a wide and open-air area a continuous monitoring and a continuous maintenance of structures and decorative apparatuses. A first basic program of ordinary maintenance is started with the safety interventions in the Menandro House, in the geometric Mosaics House, in the Ancient Hunting Housed, in the Faun House, in the Meleagro House, in the Sallustio House, in portions of ancient sidewalks on Abundance Street, in the Labyrinth House, and in the Ceii’s House.

Conclusions. It is our duty to faithfully preserve the archaeological area, but this requires men-power, money and courage. With work and passion we will succeed there. To save the paintings, corroded by the humidity, from their fast and complete decomposition, is it hazardous to propose the detachment, the transport on modern supports and then the replacement in situ?

Stefano Vanacore, Konservator, Direktor für Koordination und Verantwortlicher für die Restaurierungswerkstätten von Pompeji – Denkmalamt mit Sonderstatus für die archäologischen Stätten von Neapel und Pompeji