Most of the on-going debate is about “how” to protect archaeological ruins, whilst at the same time allowing the
general public to enjoy them. Today it is clear how important it is, from the actual planning stages of excavations,
to interact with experts from other disciplines, who are working on their own findings and offering them up for
collective enjoyment. Whatever might be feasible for an indoor museum is not always feasible with an
architectonic ruin, as regards both presenting objects with explicative apparatus that determines their
significance, and exploring them in a new way when interpretations change or new ideologies are introduced.
First of all, conserving excavations is the not the same as conserving a transportable object. In the past many
countries in Europe preferred to “present” Roman remains simply as “gardens of ruins”, often endeavouring to
stand them in sharp contrast with a more recurrent evocation of the original contexts of local life. Recently, with
regard to the Roman tradition, there has been a noticeable inversion of trend in musealization operations,
according to which the mere “contemplation of ruins” should be replaced by emotional contact with history. The
main consequence of these new tendencies is the replacement of an informatics-based and didactic approach to
musealization, in favour of a more authentically interpretative approach. Back-up resulting from experimentation
in the fields of restoration and conservation becomes indispensible in implementing these new strategies for the
musealization of archaeology. Continuous research and the progressive advance of conservation techniques have
meant that the need to transfer archaeological remains has been avoided and an improved in situ “presentation”
of these remains, both movable and immovable, can now be guaranteed
