Phase IX: Presentation and Conservation, 1997-1999

(Elizabeth Fentress)

The excellent state of preservation of the House of Diana, and the high quality of its decoration, made it a fine candidate for restoration and presentation. The house is well-preserved, and successive conservation campaigns directed by Thomas Roby, Fernanda Cavari of the University of Siena, and Cecilia Bernardini were supervised by the successive ispettrici for the site, Gabriella Poggesi and Pamela Gamboggi. These campaigns ensured the conservation of the plaster on the standing walls, the capping of the walls themselves, and the consolidation of the mosaics.

From the beginning the question of how to protect the ensemble once exposed and restored provoked much debate. There were various points of view: Thomas Roby suggested backfilling as the surest means of conservation. However, considerations of access and public enjoyment of the building seemed to rule this out. Fernanda Cavari preferred a structure to cover the whole of the building, but here the main constraint was environmental. Cosa is an exceptionally beautiful site, with ancient olive trees scattered over a gently rolling hilltop. Any structure large enough to cover the whole of the house would have inevitably clashed with the unspoiled beauty of the forum. Due to its position on top of the hill, the building would have been visible from the whole of the site. In contrast, the structure that covers the SUNY house next to the museum is relatively discrete, tucked under the hillside and forming an annex to the museum itself. But even there the disadvantages of many covering structures are visible, for the covering of the SUNY house falsifies the shape of the Roman house, and particularly its internal volumes. We thus decided to intervene in a way that would both protect the pavements and avoid unnecessary impact on the landscape itself.

The signinum pavements are, of course, the most susceptible to damage, both from the direct impact of rain and from frost-shearing. The signinum pavements in the Basilica on the forum, which were in good shape when they were exposed in 1953, are now almost entirely destroyed. It was thus decided to cover signinum pavements in the House of Diana in a semi-permanent fashion, using a layer of earth mixed with pozzolana and Stabilizer©, a product of natural origin which waterproofs the surface, impeding the growth of plants. The reddish pozzolana both improved its texture and added a color that surfaces. A 10 cm. thick covering in the mixture was applied to all the signinum floors of the building. It was then dampened and rolled to give a compact surface. In the rooms where the original floor was of beaten earth the quantity of pozzolana was much reduced, giving a more earthy aspect to the surface. This mixture was also applied in the garden, in order to reduce plant growth and the need for constant maintenance. The consolidated mosaics were covered with artificial grass, with a loose weave to ensure proper drainage and evaporation. The ÎcarpetsÌ of grass can be easily removed in the summer so as to permit visitors to see the mosaics in their context. Replaced in the autumn, they protect the mosaics from rain impact and frost shearing. The house and its garden were then fenced off from the surrounding area with a low chain, supplemented by a grid fence to impede access to a fragile staircase leading down into the garden. An aluminum panel giving the plan of the house and a brief quadrilingual explanation of its history has been placed in a position overlooking the house and garden. Tourists thus have a vision of the archaeological remains which is almost exactly as they were found, with the surfaces covered where necessary for their protection.

The fragile wall plaster covering the podium of the shrine, and the delicate state of its steps, suggested that we should construct a structure that would protect the whole of the little building and enhance the visitorÌs perception of the garden-sanctuary. A covering was thus designed by Mark Wilson Jones (pl. 64). Our premise for the design is that new protective structures do not have to represent a qualitatively negative experience. We wanted to produce a construction that would defer to the archaeological context and yet be an object of pride in itself. In other words, it had to be discreet yet handsome. So it had to be in broad sympathy with Roman traditions of building and yet be clearly of its own time. More specifically, we chose to echo the likely envelope of the shrine by means of a simple, symmetrical pitched roof on columnar supports (pl. 7). However, the language of forms adopted has its own contemporary logic rather than one with stylistic echoes from the past. The round columns are as thin as possible, so as to avoid looking like ancient ones, and their simple capitals reflect the need for an adequate surface for fixing bolts through into the transverse beams. The rest of the structure was left open in order to minimize the visual impact and to avoid condensation.