Archaeological heritage and anthropized contexts: limits and opportunities

Main Article Content

Caterina Frettoloso


The highly stratified nature of Mediterranean cities, if on the one hand contrib­utes to the construction of an image with remarkable historical and artistic val­ues, on the other it makes their reading and understanding more complex. The relationship between archaeology and the context, especially urban, has many variables and problems related both to the mode of use of the user/citizen as well as the need for transformation and growth of the city itself.
Archaeological heritage is not a sort of “reserve” that is separated from the context. On the contrary, it is necessary to work to reduce the gap that often exists between everyday reality and the reality of the asset, the result of years of isolation policies.
This contribution, from the research-project experiences matured by the author, proposes an hypothesis of “enriched” path in which cultural heritage, in particu­lar archaeological, are put to system with the context of belonging. The sustainable use of cultural resources and the concept of “selecting” the most significant goods in relation to the path to be realized, are the main ideas of the proposed considerations as well as Accessibility, comfort and safety concepts of the visit are the strategic points of a fruition project to be devel­oped starting from the user’s needs and in com­pliance with the environmental and technological compatibility of the asset to be protected.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
FrettolosoC. (2019). Archaeological heritage and anthropized contexts: limits and opportunities. UPLanD - Journal of Urban Planning, Landscape & Environmental Design, 4(2), 63-74.


Aymonino, A. (2010). Recinti versus Esperienza. Iuav - Archeologia e contemporaneo, 81/2010.

Cici, C., & Schmidt Di Friedberg, P. (1998). Nuove forme di turismo: definizioni e glossario. In M. Bianchi (Ed.), L’arte del viaggio – ragioni e poesia di un turismo sostenibile. Milano, IT: MC Editrice.

Eco, U., Zeri, F., Piano, R., & Graziani, A. (1998). Le isole del tesoro. Venezia, IT: Electa.

Frettoloso, C. (2010). Dal consumo alla fruizione: tecnologie innovative per il patrimonio archeologico. Firenze, IT: Alinea editrice.

Genovesi, E. (1999). Simulazioni per un progetto: il museo diffuso e il sistema museale. In Musei e Parchi archeologici, Quaderni del Dipartimento di Archeologia e Storia delle Arti sezione archeologica (pp.105-143). Firenze, IT: University of Siena.

Ireland, T. (2016). Up Close and Personal: Feeling the Past at Urban Archaeological Sites. Public History Review, 23, 43-55. doi: 10.5130/phrj.v23i0.5332

Manzione, L. (2000). Archeologia e città: la trasgressione dei limiti. Intervista a Yannis Tsiomis. Retrieved from

Ricci, A.M. (2006). Attorno alla pietra nuda. Archeologia e città tra identità e progetto. Roma, IT: Donzelli.

Ruggieri Tricoli, M. C., & Sposito, C. (2004). I siti archeologici. Dalla definizione del valore alla protezione della materia. Palermo, IT: Flaccovio editore.

Ranellucci, S. (1996). Strutture protettive e conservazione dei siti archeologici. In Opus saggi 5. Pescara, IT: Carsa edizioni.

Stiles, R. (2011). Manuale per spazio urbano, Progetto “UrbSpace”. Retrieved from, 5-6.