Bernarda Županek, Katarina Bobek, Peter Šenk, Polona Filipič, Tamara Bregar Od načrtov do obiskovalcev: prenova in revitalizacija arheoloških parkov v Ljubljani Strokovni članek COBISS 1.04 UDK 903/904(497.451.1) 719(497.451.1) 903/904:7.025 338.48-6:7/8(497.451.1) Ključne besede: arheološki park, Emona, Ljubljana, dediščina, konservatorski načrt, konservatorstvo, restavratorstvo, kulturni turizem, parkovna infrastruktura, pedagoški in andragoški programi, promocija dediščine. Izvleček V prispevku avtorji predstavljajo multidisciplinarno prenovo in revitalizacijo arheoloških parkov Ljubljane, izvedeno v letih 2011 in 2012. Obsežen projekt je med drugim vključeval konservatorsko-restavratorsko sanacijo arheoloških parkov Emonska hiša in Zgodnjekrščansko središče ter rimskega zidu na Mirju, prenovo zaščitne in turistične infrastrukture v obeh parkih, razvoj in implementacijo muzeoloških pomagal in programov za obiskovalce parkov ter izdelavo načrta upravljanja za našteta območja. V prispevku so predstavljeni potek del, nekatera izhodišča in dileme ter uporabljene rešitve. Uvod Dediščina rimske Emone, prezentirana znotraj sodobne Ljubljane, obsega dva arheološka parka, del južnega obzidja na Mirju ter nekaj posameznih spomenikov oziroma manjših spomeniških območij. Ta dediščina, razstavljena in situ, je plod več kot stoletnih prizadevanj arheologov, konservatorjev, arhitektov in drugih posameznikov in skupin, ki so z njo na različne načine povezani. Čeprav je prezentirana emonska dediščina rezultat dolgoletnih naporov in številnih intenzivnih akcij (prim. Stelè 1928; Plesničar Gec, Slabe 1979), smo v preteklih letih večkrat opozorili, da je ta dediščina sčasoma postala tako meščanom kot turistom težko opazna, zato je bila pogosto spregledana, vedno bolj odmaknjena in težko dostopna (Županek 2005, 158s; 2008, 271–273). Spomenikom je v večini manjkalo interpretativnih vsebin, prav tako ni bilo razvitih strategij upravljanja emonske dediščine kot celote. Razloge za to smo našli v speciičnem konceptu oblikovanja prezentirane emonske dediščine ter v nejasni opredelitvi, komu je ta namenjena (Županek 2005; 2008). Septembra 2011 je Mestna občina Ljubljana dobila evropska sredstva za projekt revitalizacije arheoloških parkov Emone. Izvedbo je prevzel Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljane. Pridobitev projekta je pomenila uspešen zaključek dolgoletnih prizadevanj rešiti nezavidljivo situacijo arheoloških parkov, v katerih so bile, poleg zgoraj opredeljene nefunkcionalnosti, ostaline v slabem stanju tudi v konservatorsko-restavratorskem smislu, saj zaradi pomanjkanja sredstev obsežnejših popravil ni bilo že več desetletij. Hkrati pa je bil to tudi začetek intenzivnega enoletnega dela v ambiciozno zastavljenem projektu, saj je bil rok za zaključek projekta že september 2012. Projekt je zajemal več obsežnih sklopov: restavratorsko-konservatorsko sanacijo arheoloških parkov Emonska hiša, Zgodnjekrščansko središče in območje rimskega zidu na Mirju, prenovo zaščitne in turistične infrastrukture v obeh parkih, ureditev informacijske točke z maketo Emone v prehodu garažne hiše Kongresni trg, zasnovo in implementacijo muzeoloških pomagal v parkih in ob spomeniških območjih, razvoj Dr. Bernarda Županek, Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana Katarina Bobek, Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine Slovenije Dr. Peter Šenk, Fakulteta za gradbeništvo, Univerza v Mariboru, biro Studio Stratum / Arco, d. o. o. Nova Gorica Mag. Polona Filipič, Fakulteta za arhitekturo, Univerza v Ljubljani, biro Studio Stratum / Arco, d. o. o. Nova Gorica Tamara Bregar, Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana 196 in implementacijo novih javnih programov za obiskovalce parkov ter izdelavo načrta upravljanja za našteta območja. Pri projektu so sodelovali številni institucije, podjetja in posamezniki. Konservatorski nadzor je izvajal Zavod za varstvo kulturne dediščine, Območna enota Ljubljana, izdelavo konservatorskega načrta in konservatorsko-restavratorsko obnovo pa Restavratorski center Slovenije. Nove infrastrukturne rešitve je oblikoval biro Studio Stratum. Glavni cilj projekta je bila celostna revitalizacija arheoloških parkov; v prispevku predstavljamo, kako smo to nalogo izpeljali. Pogled nazaj: oblikovanje treh ljubljanskih arheoloških parkov Kaj je arheološki park? Ena zadnjih deinicij v slovenski literaturi pravi: »[…] arheološki park je območje, ki je arheološko zaščiteno, dopolnjeno z elementi krajinske arhitekture in urejeno za sprehode (ima parkovno ureditev), kjer so na prostem prezentirane arheološke ostaline in situ […]« (Breznik 2006.) Tej deiniciji ustrezata obe območji, ki sta že od nastanka poimenovani kot arheološka parka, torej Emonska hiša (prej Jakopičev vrt) in Zgodnjekrščansko središče (prej Starokrščanski center). Tudi tretje območje, rimski zid na Mirju, sicer razglašeno za spomenik državnega pomena kot del opusa arhitekta Jožefa Plečnika (EŠD 22658), lahko označimo kot arheološki park. Prav slednji park, rimski zid na Mirju, je po nastanku najzgodnejši. Nastal je v tridesetih letih 20. stoletja, po prizadevanjih konservatorja prof. Franceta Stelèta (Stelè 1928), da se ostanki emonskega obzidja ne porušijo za novogradnje. Jožefu Plečniku, takrat že mednarodno uveljavljenemu arhitektu, je bila zaupana prenova zanemarjenega in zapuščenega obzidja (slika 1). Plečnik je ostanke rimskega obzidja reinterpretiral in povezal v celostno parkovno ureditev: nad prehod v Murnikovo je dal postaviti piramido, ki jo je prekril s travnato rušo (slika 6a), dal je zasaditi topole ob zunanji fronti zidu, na notranji strani zidu je postavil dve zemljeni piramidi (danes ju ni več), za obzidjem pa je uredil park z razstavljenimi antičnimi arhitekturnimi členi in v enih od stranskih rimskih vrat v obzidje je zgradil lapidarij. Druga dva emonska arheološka parka sta nastala kasneje, v drugi polovici 20. stoletja: leta 1966 je bil odprt Jakopičev vrt (prim. Plesničar 1968; slika 2) in leta 1976 Starokrščanski center (prim. Plesničar-Gec et al. 1983; slika 3). Danes sta parka razglašena kot spomenik znotraj razglasitve Arheološkega območja Ljubljana (EŠD 329). Vsi trije ljubljanski arheološki parki so produkt speciičnega pogleda na arheološko – še posebej antično – dediščino. V času do obdobja po prvi svetovni vojni se je oblikovala idejna osnova za prezentacijske emonske projekte, ki je potem vse dvajseto stoletje ostala skorajda nespremenjena. Združevala je tri postavke, ki zavestno niso bile nikdar eksplicitno izražene, so pa stale v ozadju oblikovanja tega koncepta. Prva postavka je bila, da sta antika in njena dediščina inherentni nosilki vrednot, kot sta »civilizacija« in »kultura«, iz katerih izhaja visoka vrednost te dediščine. Naslednja, v osnovi eliti- stična premisa je bila, da so prezentirane arhitekturne ostaline, urejene v arheološki park, prostor, namenjen kulturnemu uživanju predvsem izobražencev, ki te ostaline razumejo in cenijo. In ne nazadnje, v skladu z drugačnim vrednotenjem historičnega spomenika v 19. stoletju in njegovo postopno institucionalizacijo na območju celotne Evrope (prim. Choay 2001, 82ss) se je v obdobju po drugi svetovni vojni pri nas polno uveljavil rigorozno varovalni odnos do dediščine, tudi emonske. Dediščina se je ohranjala in razstavljala v povsem dokumentarni obliki, z minimalno uporabo muzeoloških pomagal. Pri oblikovanju koncepta ljubljanskih arheoloških parkov je bil pomemben dejavnik tudi odnos stroke. Arheologija je nastopala kot privilegirana razlagalka preteklosti, tako zaradi avtoritete, ki jo zahodna družba pripisuje intelektualni aktivnosti, kot zaradi superiornosti znanosti v tem kontekstu (prim. Županek 2005, 159ss). V času oblikovanja prezentirane emonske dediščine je arheologija pri nas šele ustvarjala svojo znanstveno kredibilnost, in tudi zato so bile v tem obdobju oblikovane prezentacije znanstvene in avtoritarne. Podobno velja za muzealstvo: muzeji, ki so se razvili kot elitistične institucije, so taki ostali tudi po odprtju za javnost v obdobju razsvetljenstva, saj so bili dostopni samo višjim slojem. Pri nas se je do osemdesetih let 20. stoletja muzej vzpostavljal predvsem kot znanstvenoraziskovalna institucija, šele sekundarno namenjena obisku – odraslega in izobraženega – občinstva. Zaradi naštetih razlogov je ostala konceptualizacija arheoloških parkov Emone vse dvajseto stoletje statična (Županek 2008, 272s). Parki so med strokovnjaki veljali za same po sebi izpovedne, cenjene in privlačne za ustrezno občinstvo. Zagate, ki jih je tak koncept povzročil, pa so bile kmalu zaznane in sprožena so bila prizadevanja za spremembe: »[…] prezentacija ni končni postopek v okviru predstavitve spomenika, marveč šele začetna faza njegove oživitve.« (Slabe 1986, 126.) Zato so se v tem času oblikovale številne ideje za vključitev emonske dediščine v tkivo Ljubljane. Izhodišča za vključevanje v mestno tkivo je stroka dovolj domislila in izdelala, vendar so ostala enako nerelektirana kot desetletja prej. Emonsko dediščino je stroka inherentno razumela kot v času zamrznjen ostanek antične kulture, namenjen uživanju ozkih družbenih skupin, ki jo poznajo in cenijo. Zato so ljubljanski arheološki parki sčasoma zdrsnili ob rob zanimanja Ljubljančanov in turistov. Projekt revitalizacije: zasnova in izhodišča Našteta tri arheološka parkovna območja v Ljubljani so v lasti Mestne občine Ljubljana. Parka Emonska hiša in Zgodnjekrščansko središče že od nastanka upravlja Mestni muzej Ljubljana, zdaj Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana (MGML). S predstavljenim projektom prehaja v upravljanje MGML tudi rimski zid na Mirju. Stanje, opisano v prejšnjem poglavju, smo v MGML želeli spremeniti s celostnim programom revitalizacije. Poleg zahtevne konservatorsko-restavratorske sanacije rimskih ostalin sta bili načrtovani novi arhitekturna podoba in infrastruktura VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 197 v obeh arheoloških parkih (pohodne poti, menjava strehe v parku Emonska hiša, enotni pomožni objekti itd.). Izboljšave so namenjene tako boljšemu varovanju dediščine kot lažjemu dostopu obiskovalcev. Za slednje sta ključni vzpostavitev raznolikih muzeoloških pomagal (table, tiskovine, multimedijski vodniki) in ureditev s tablami označene krožne poti po Emoni, ki postavlja ločena območja in spomenike v skupen kontekst nekdanjega rimskega mesta. Primarni cilj projekta je bil, da parki postanejo živ del mesta Ljubljana, kvalitetne javne površine z javno funkcijo, skratka, da vključimo dediščino Emone v življenje sodobnega mesta. Mesta s tisočletno zgodovino, kot je Ljubljana, so pomemben historični in arheološki vir, kjer nam zgradbe, strukture in deli tlorisne zasnove pomagajo razumeti preteklost, hkrati pa meščane povezujejo z njihovo zgodovino. Vendar mesta ne morejo ostati statična, ampak morajo uspevati in se razvijati. Zato dediščina v mestih, ki je rigidno zaprta tudi za najmanjše spremembe in ki ni prostor za igro otrok, posedanje, dogodke in prireditve, ostane zunaj, odmaknjena, neživa. Dediščina je predvsem komunikacijska praksa (Smith 2006), ki se najbolje udejanja v javnih programih, projektih vključevanja javnosti in podobnem. Samo tako bo dediščina nekaj živega; zaživela bo z izkustvi, aktivnostmi, ukvarjanjem, udejanjanjem, in to smo želeli doseči s tem projektom. Konservatorski načrt: arheološka parka Emonska hiša in Zgodnjekrščansko središče ter rimski zid na Mirju Oktobra 2011 se je Restavratorski center po naročilu MGML lotil izdelave konservatorskega načrta za tri spomenike na območju Arheološkega najdišča Ljubljana (EŠD 328): arheološka parka Zgodnjekrščansko središče in Emonska hiša ter rimski zid na Mirju (EŠD 22658). Pred pričetkom izdelave konservatorskega načrta smo preverili in ocenili stanje arheoloških ostalin na samem terenu ter območje temeljito fotografsko dokumentirali. Pripravljen je bil analitični del konservatorskega načrta (Mapa 01), v katerem sta se za vsak spomenik posebej ugotavljala stanje in lega v prostoru, s pomočjo literature, virov in raziskav pa se je odkrival tudi razvoj posameznega spomenika skozi čas, vse do današnje podobe in oblike. Na podlagi teh ugotovitev (glej Bobek 2012, 11–33) je bila določena stopnja družbenega pomena spomenikov, ki se pri arheoloških parkih razteza od srednje do izjemne, pri rimskem zidu pa je visoka ali izjemna (Bobek 2012, 35–37). Skladno s tem in ugotovljenimi poškodbami na posameznih delih spomenikov so bile pripravljene smernice za ohranitev varovanih vrednot spomenikov ter za razvoj, morebitne spremembe in predelave spomenikov. Hkrati so restavratorji kot strokovnjaki za posamezna področja ugotavljali stanje ohranjenosti in poškodbe sestavnih elementov posameznih spomenikov. Na podlagi teh ugotovitev so pripravili popis konservatorsko-restavratorskih del za posege na kamnitih delih, freskah in mozaikih ter podali skupno oceno investicije za obnovo spomenikov. Ti podatki 198 so bili zbrani v Mapi 03 konservatorskega načrta, ki je služila kot osnova za izvajanje konservatorsko-restavratorskih posegov na spomenikih. Stanje spomenikov pred posegi Muzej in galerije mesta Ljubljana je konec januarja 2012 oddal ponudbo za izvajanje konservatorsko-restavratorskih posegov na vseh treh lokacijah. Ker so bila inančna sredstva omejena, smo določili najbolj ogrožene elemente, ki bi jih lahko sanirali v tej fazi. Ponudba za izvedbo del je tako vključevala popravilo ometov in zidov ter čiščenje in popravilo mozaikov in fresk v obeh arheoloških parkih ter izvedbo konservatorsko-restavratorskih posegov na Plečnikovi piramidi s stebriščno ograjo (slika 6b) in na Plečnikovem lapidariju ob rimskem zidu. Po strokovni oceni restavratorjev so bili najbolj ogroženi ravno ti deli obzidja na Mirju, saj je bila stebriščna ograja pred piramido delno porušena in skoraj v celoti preraščena z bršljanom, ob vznožju stebričev so se močno razrasla samonikla drevesa, katerih korenine so izpodrivale zidano ograjo in stebriče. Na piramidi je puščala streha nad prehodom. Zunanja površina piramide je bila na več mestih prebarvana z graiti, fuge med kamni so bile med zadnjo obnovo izvedene nestrokovno in estetsko izjemno moteče, saj so bile nanesene krepko čez robove kamnov. V slabem stanju je bil tudi lapidarij, katerega streha je prav tako puščala, zaradi česar je po vsakem dežju na tleh lapidarija dalj časa zastajala voda. Posledica tega je bilo razraščanje alg po tlaku, opečnati deli tlaka so utrpeli veliko škode. Tudi stenska obloga iz opeke je bila na več mestih poškodovana in propadajoča. Zunanjščino lapidarija je v celoti obraščal bršljan, vogalni opečnati slemenjaki pa so zaradi dotrajanosti v celoti propadli. Stanje v arheoloških parkih je bilo dobro predvsem na predelih, ki so bili zaščiteni pod streho, na preostalih delih zidov pa so vremenski dejavniki in kapilarna vlaga skozi leta povzročili kar precej škode. Prišlo je do razpok in odlomov, ponekod je zaradi kapilarne vlage razpadal celotni spodnji del zidov. Veliko škode so povzročili tudi nehomogeni posegi in restavriranje v preteklosti, saj so zidove skozi čas popravljali z različnimi tehnologijami in na različne načine, obenem pa v arhivih nismo uspeli dobiti ustrezne dokumentacije o tovrstnih posegih. Konservatorsko-restavratorski posegi V začetku marca 2012 so izvajalci v skladu s popisom del konservatorskega načrta za omete in zidove (Mapa 03) najprej pričeli izbijati stare, propadajoče in neustrezne fuge na zidovih parka Emonska hiša. Pokazalo se je, da je v najslabšem stanju zid v skrajnem severozahodnem vogalu. V skladu s popisi za posege na ometih in zidovih so se nove fuge in plombe izvajale z apneno malto po klasičnem receptu (1 : 3), ki ji je bilo za boljšo trdnost dodano malo cementa, saj zidovi stojijo na prostem in so zaradi tega neprestano izpostavljeni vremenskim vplivom. V t. i. »zimski sobi« Emonske hiše so prezentirani ostanki hipokavstnega sistema ogrevanja. Suspenzur, ki so nosile tla in so bile po izkopavanjih v šestdesetih letih 20. stoletja prezentirane, ni bilo več, je pa bilo stanje dokumentirano na fotograijah. Z njihovo pomočjo smo iz starih opek rekonstruirali hipokavstne stebričke – suspenzure, katerih temelji so bili še vidni pod peskom. Dopolniti je bilo treba tudi odlomljene dele opečnatih obokov hipokavstnega sistema in obok peči, skozi katero je nekoč v sistem prihajal topel zrak. V začetku aprila 2012 so bila dela na ometih in zidovih Emonske hiše končana in izvajalec je pričel popravljati omete in zidove v arheološkem parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče. Na Emonski hiši so nato lahko restavratorke pričele čistiti in utrjevati mozaične površine (slika 5), teraco in opečnati tlak ter odstranjevati neustrezne premaze freske, ki je ohranjena v t. i. »zimski sobi«. Ob izkopavanjih so bili namreč v kotih sten zimske sobe odkriti ostanki stenskih poslikav, ki so bili prezentirani v rdečem odtenku. Nekaj desetletij kasneje je bila freska neustrezno sanirana in prebarvana v rumeno barvo; to so restavratorke odstranile. Največ dela so restavratorke imele s teraco tlakom v prostoru ob zimski sobi, kjer je nekoč ob barvanju kovinske strešne konstrukcije barva kapljala na tlak. Madeži barve so bili izredno trdovratni in za njihovo odstranitev s površine je bilo treba uporabiti posebno čistilno sredstvo. Medtem so na Zgodnjekrščanskem središču potekali posegi na ometih in zidovih, in sicer po enakem principu kot na Emonski hiši. Nekatere fuge na zidovih v skrajnem zahodnem predelu parka in v odtočnih kanalih so bile barvane v rahlo opečnatem odtenku, zato smo se odločili novo malto nekoliko obarvati z opečnim prahom, da smo dosegli barvno podobnost z obstoječimi. V skrajnem vzhodnem delu parka je bilo treba sanirati betonsko škarpo v bližini antične krstilnice, ob prostoru, kjer sicer MGML izvaja pedagoške delavnice. Pred škarpo je bilo naloženih več kamnitih ostankov, hipokavstnih stebričkov ipd., ki smo jih po dogovoru z MGML odpeljali v njihov depo. Po končanih delih v parku Emonska hiša so se restavratorke Restavratorskega centra pridružile delavcem v parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče, kjer je bilo prav tako treba očistiti mozaike okoli krstilnega bazena in sanirati prezračevalni sistem pod njimi. Popraviti in utrditi je bilo treba opečnate bazenčke nekdanjih term, v slabem stanju je bil predvsem osrednji bazenček, ki je zaradi daljšega izpostavljanja dežju spomladi 2011, ko se je po neurju strgala strešna ponjava, pričel hitreje propadati, opeka pa prhneti. Naravoslovni oddelek Restavratorskega centra je opravil raziskavo o sestavi in vrsti opečnate malte, s katero so bili pozidani bazenčki, na podlagi njihovih ugotovitev pa so restavratorke lahko pripravile ustrezno malto za utrjevanje opečnatih površin. V začetku aprila 2012 so se dela pričela tudi na rimskem zidu na Mirju. Sprva je bilo treba z vodno paro očistiti površine lapidarija in piramide, ki so zaradi izpostavljenosti vremenskim vplivom in smogu počrnele. Obenem je bilo treba temeljito očistiti lapidarij in stebriščno ograjo bršljana in drugega rastja, ki sta ju na nekaterih mestih popolnoma prekrivala. Bršljan ima tako močne oprijemalne koreninice, da jih z neinvazivnimi posegi ni bilo mogoče popolnoma od- straniti. Po čiščenju stebriščne ograje so restavratorji ugotovili, da je dovolj dobro ohranjena le polovica stebričev, ki jih je bilo treba zgolj očistiti in utrditi. Ti stebriči so pravzaprav velike betonske cevi, ki jih je arhitekt Plečnik dal napolniti z betonom iz grobega peska lomljenca in prodca, zaključil pa s proiliranimi kapiteli iz umetnega kamna. Večina stebričev je popokala od znotraj ali pa so bili prevrnjeni in polomljeni. Prvotno stanje stebriščne ograje in piramide je bilo dokumentirano na dveh starejših fotograijah, ki sta se ohranili. Z njuno pomočjo smo lahko naredili primerjavo z dejanskim stanjem. Na vrhu piramide, ki je bila po prvotni Plečnikovi zasnovi skoraj v celoti prekrita s travnato rušo, je bila nameščena krogla kot zaključek, enako pa so bili zaključeni tudi stebriči v kamniti ograji pred piramido (slika 6.a). Skupaj z restavratorji, odgovorno konservatorko z ZVKDS, OE Ljubljana, kustosinjo za antiko iz MGML in arhitekti iz arhitekturnega oddelka RC smo se dogovorili, da se pri stebriščni ograji poskuša vzpostaviti stanje, podobno tistemu, ki je dokumentirano na arhivski fotograiji, in da se uporabi čim več ohranjenega gradiva. Rekonstrukcija pokrova travnate ruše na površini piramide zaradi pomanjkanja inančnih sredstev ni bila mogoča. Na stebriščni ograji se je od dvaindvajsetih stebričev ohranilo enajst, preostale, ki so bili tako poškodovani, da restavriranje ni bilo smiselno, pa smo zamenjali z replikami, izdelanimi po vzoru obstoječih (slika 6c). Več kot stebričev pa se je ohranilo originalnih kapitelov; te smo očistili in jih namestili na replike. Replike stebričev, kalupe za nove kapitele in kroglaste zaključke so pripravljali restavratorji za kamen v Restavratorskem centru; z različnimi načini peskanja in obdelovanja so poskušali pridobiti originalu čim bolj podobno površino. Ob tem je treba razumeti, da je materiale, ki jih je nekoč uporabljal arhitekt Plečnik, danes izjemno težko, če ne skoraj nemogoče pridobiti. Materiali in njihova izdelava so se spremenili, modernizirali, izdelovanje je industrijsko. Poleg tega so originalni Plečnikovi elementi že desetletja izpostavljeni vremenu in času, zaradi česar imajo posebno patino. Zato smo se trudili nove elemente izdelati tako, da bi njihov videz čim bolj približali videzu originala, vseeno pa smo pazili, da se novi elementi ob podrobnem pregledu razlikujejo od originalnih, saj nismo hoteli potvarjati Plečnikovega dela. Patina bo, kot vedno, prišla s časom. Po čiščenju lapidarija so se pričeli izvajati posegi v notranjščini in popravljanje strehe. Ponovno je bil izpostavljen problem barvnega odtenka in teksture prenovljene strehe, ki smo jo poskušali kar najbolj približati originalu, čeprav bo streha pravo patino dobila šele sčasoma. Kot rečeno, so vogalni opečnati slemenjaki na strehi v celoti propadli. Arhitekt Plečnik je za izvedbo uporabil antične rimske slemenjake, ki so bili precej večji kot današnji in debeli do dva ali tri centimetre. Danes takih slemenjakov ne izdelujejo več, in čeprav Mestni muzej hrani v depoju enake, s katerimi bi lahko nadomestili manjkajoče, se nam originalne rimske dediščine v tem primeru ni zdelo prav uporabiti, saj bi na prostem slej ko prej pričela propadati. Danes slemenjake izdelujejo strojno, zato ti delujejo nekoliko sterilno in se nam niso zdeli najustreznejši za nadomestitev originalov. Čim hitreje je bilo treba najti drugo, boljšo rešitev. Po temeljitem iskanju smo primer- VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 199 ne slemenjake našli na Primorskem, kjer so ob prenovi strehe stare slemenjake iz tridesetih let 20. stoletja po simbolični ceni prodajali za ponovno porabo. Očiščene in obrezane po robovih smo nato uporabili za zaključke vogalov lapidarija. Rezultat je dober; novi stari slemenjaki imajo dovolj patine, da ne zmotijo celostnega videza lapidarija, hkrati pa niso tako dragoceni in nenadomestljivi kot rimski originali. Dela so potekala tudi v notranjosti lapidarija, ki je bila najprej temeljito očiščena z vodno paro. Domodelirati je bilo treba manjkajoče dele na kamnitem frizu ob stenah ter na opečnatih površinah sten z opečnato maso popraviti razpoke in odlome tam, kjer je opeka najbolj propadala. V opečnato kamnitem tlaku lapidarija so bili poškodovani deli opeke nadomeščeni z novimi kosi, izrezanimi natančno po merah. Sčistiti in speskati je bilo treba tudi zarjavele kovinske ograje lapidarija, ki smo jih nato premazali s temno sivo antik barvo. Konservatorsko-restavratorski posegi so bili zaključeni v skladu s terminskim planom in začela se je naslednja faza projekta, prenova zaščitne in turistične infrastrukture v parkih. Razmislek o infrastrukturi v arheoloških parkih Pospešeno spreminjanje mest ter gradnja nove gospodarske in prometne infrastrukture vplivata na proces postopne erozije dediščine, tudi arheoloških ostalin. Sprožijo se vprašanja o možnostih vzpostavljanja dialoga med novim in starim, med omogočanjem razvoja mesta glede na potrebe njegovih uporabnikov in hkratnim ohranjanjem zgodovinskih elementov. Kako lahko oblikujemo rešitve, ki vzdržijo nasprotujoče si težnje po ohranjanju mesta kot muzeja, in tiste, ki oznanjajo, da so ostaline predmet preteklosti, in poudarjajo, da je mesto prostor sodobnosti, podrejen razvoju in izražanju kreativnosti? Kompleksna tema ohranjanja in prezentacije arheoloških ostalin je zanimiva prav v okvirih urbanega. Arheološke ostaline znotraj mesta lahko danes obravnavamo kot tip »tematskega parka« z velikim turističnim, znanstvenim in izobraževalnim potencialom. Arheološki parki pa imajo tudi estetsko, simbolno in kulturno vrednost. Ohranjanje grajene arheološke dediščine lahko pomeni urejanje prostora, ki nosi tudi potencial raznotere uporabnosti. Čeprav arheološki parki niso več v prvotni uporabi, lahko iskanje ustrezne prezentacije, infrastrukturne opremljenosti in sodobne funkcionalne nadgradnje omogoči, da postanejo ti parki z ustreznimi ukrepi za preprečevanje njihove degradacije in za izboljšanje dostopnosti javnosti tisti prostori, ki pomenijo dodano vrednost bivanja v njihovi bližini in v mestu kot živem organizmu raznoterosti. Urbano okolje je speciično tudi zaradi hitrosti, s katero se spreminja, dojemanje tega okolja je nepredvidljivo. To, kar se zdi danes neuporabno, brez dodane vrednosti, lahko postane jutri predmet turističnega zanimanja pa tudi zanimanja širše javnosti. Arheološki parki so znotraj urbanega okolja prostori brezčasnega, so del zgodovine, ki mora ostati za naše zanamce. Odpiranje arheoloških parkov javnosti se nedvomno raz200 likuje od ostalih oblik popularizacije prostora. Primarni cilj arheoloških parkov je prikazovanje preteklosti, vzpostavitev pristnega stika obiskovalca z oprijemljivimi zgodovinskimi dokazi ter prikaz povezave med arheološko formo in družbo, ki jo je ustvarila. Vzpostavljanje njihove potencialne vrednosti v urbanem kontekstu je seveda zelo zahtevno. Iskanje ravnovesja med spreminjajočimi se trendi mesta in brezčasno arheološko strukturo je osnova, ki je lahko vodilo za urejanje arheoloških parkov danes. Načini prikazovanja ostalin, da so dostopne, dovolj vidne, privlačne, zanimive in razumljive javnosti, morajo upoštevati zahteve po njihovem ohranjanju in zaščiti. Vzpostavljanje turistične infrastrukture, ki naj omogoči čim kvalitetnejšo prezentacijo arheoloških ostalin ob njihovem hkratnem ohranjanju, lahko delimo na tri poglavitne pristope, uporabljane v praksi: – neinvazivni pristop v glavnem ohranja obstoječe stanje arheoloških izkopanin v okolici in uveljavlja zgolj tehnološko najnujnejše posege, ki omogočajo ohranjanje dediščine. Znotraj arheološkega parka se uredijo pot obiska, območje parka in podajanje osnovnih informacij, ki so potrebne za razumevanje dediščine (npr. arheološko najdišče Petit-Chasseur, Sion, Švica; ostaline zgodnjesrednjeveške škoijske palače Eger, Madžarska); – infrastrukturni pristop v obstoječe okolje arheološkega parka vnaša impulz novega, ki se eksplicitno razlikuje od obstoječega in je usmerjeno k novim strategijam prezentacije in obiska parka. Infrastrukturni pristop obsega umeščanje novih struktur, ki so potrebne za kvalitetnejši ogled in dojemanje dediščine. Nove strukture (elementi urbane opreme in označevanja, pohodne, razgledne ali zaščitne površine) so oblikovane tako, da se materialno, barvno ali oblikovno razlikujejo od pojavnosti arheološke dediščine, njihova razmestitev pa sledi strategiji prezentacije arheoloških ostalin (na primer ostaline južnega dela rimskega Siska, Hrvaška; ostaline rimskega gledališča v Zaragozi, Španija); – invazivni pristop pa obstoječe okolje dediščine bistveno spreminja, nadgrajuje in dodaja prezentacijske vsebine. Umeščene strukture so poudarki, ki po obliki, materialu ali barvi izstopajo in največkrat prevladajo nad pojavnostjo same arheološke dediščine (npr. Vesunna, Galo, rimski muzej, Périgueux, Francija; grad S. Jorge Praça Nova, Lizbona, Portugalska). Prenova infrastrukture v arheoloških parkih Emonska hiša in Zgodnjekrščansko središče Arheološka parka Emonska hiša in Zgodnjekrščansko središče, ki sta bila predmet projekta ureditve parkovne infrastrukture v okviru celostnega projekta »Arheološki parki Emone in Emonska promenada«, sta za obiskovalce odprta vse leto, s tem da se v zimskem obdobju, ko nočne temperature padejo pod 0 ˚C, ostaline prekrijejo zaradi zaščite pred atmosferskimi vplivi. Obiskovalci so v preteklosti v obeh parkih lahko hodili neposredno po mozaikih, pri čemer je obstajala tudi velika možnost poškodb teh ostalin. Hkrati pa dostop do najzanimivejših delov v arheoloških parkih ni bil omogočen funkcionalno oviranim osebam. V parku Emonska hiša je bila zaščita mozaikov – montažna nadstrešnica – prezentacijsko in tehnično neustrezna in jo je bilo treba nadomestiti z ustreznejšo. Stara streha (ob postavitvi mišljena kot začasna rešitev) je bila dvokapnica, kar je pri obiskovalcih ustvarjalo napačno predstavo o obliki in dimenziji antične strehe. Poleg tega je bila premajhna, da bi pokrila vse vremensko najbolj občutljive ostaline. Sodobna pot za obiskovalce je tekla po nasipu sredi rimske hiše, zato je bilo težko dobiti celostni občutek o obsegu in povezavah med antičnimi ostalinami v parku. Prav tako v parku ni bilo informacijskih tabel, zato so bile ostaline za obiskovalca težko razumljive. V parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče je zaščita mozaikov zagotovljena z obstoječo platneno streho na kovinski konstrukciji, ki jo je bilo smiselno ohraniti. Poleg nenadzorovanega dostopa do mozaikov je v tem parku potrebna infrastruktura za muzejske pedagoške delavnice, ki je bila prej provizorična, brez celostne ureditve. Odločili smo se, da je za urejanje obeh ljubljanskih arheoloških parkov najprimernejši infrastrukturni pristop, zaradi več vidikov, ki se združujejo v deiniciji trajnostnega razvoja. Ekonomski, družbeni in okoljski vidiki so z izbranim pristopom najbolj uravnoteženi, kar se je z idejnim projektom in njegovo izvedbo v čim večji meri prenašalo vse do detajlov. Infrastrukturni pristop določa posege, katerih cilj je predvsem ohranjanje, vključevanje, izkoriščanje ter izpostavljanje urbanih arheoloških parkov trajnostno, tako da postanejo del mesta, atraktorji v prostoru tokov in predvsem dostopni vsem. Značilnost infrastrukturnega pristopa je tudi njegova lastna nereprezentativnost. V arhitekturi moramo razlikovati med tehnikami predstavitve, ki se nanašajo na kartiranje, projekcije, notacije, skratka graične prikaze arhitekture in prostora, ter idejo o arhitekturi kot reprezentacijskem sistemu (Allen 2003). V tem primeru gre seveda za vprašanje slednjega in njegovega razmerja do stroge inženirske funkcionalnosti v danem primeru, v maniri protofunkcionalista Carla Lodolija, ki je arhitekturni izraz povezoval z značilnostjo uporabljenih materialov (Košir 2006, 209; Kruft 1994, 199; Rykwert 1967), in postfunkcionalistov, ki so se zavedali, da arhitekturni izraz ne more biti utemeljen s konstrukcijskim determinizmom, ampak kot artefakt, ki z izrazom uporabljenih materialov, takšnih kot so, vzpostavlja dialog z obstoječim ter dobi pomen šele v interakciji z uporabniki (prim. Pérez-Gómez 1983). Razmerje med statičnim obstoječim in novim, kot eksplicitno drugim, sloni na parametrih vznika, toka, leksibilnosti, modularnosti, priklopa in časa. Parameter vznika pogojuje kontekstualnost zasnove in kar najmanjše izično poseganje v območje ostalin, medtem ko se parameter toka prilagaja želenemu usmerjanju obiska arheološkega parka in samo komunikacijo tudi usmerja. Ostali parametri določajo konstrukcijski sistem elementov, ki je prilagodljiv, demontažen in omogoča spremembe oziroma razvoj tudi v nepredvidljivi prihodnosti. Ureditev infrastrukture obeh arheoloških parkov je bila zasnovana na način, ki ustreza potrebam tako individualnih obiskovalcev kot vodenih skupin. Ureditev parkovne in turistične infrastrukture je funkcionalno in oblikovno strukturirana glede na funkcionalne sklope in prostorske pogoje (sliki 7 in 9). Na samem vhodu v območje arheološkega parka je urejen vstopni plato z utrjenim peščenim nasutjem. Na vstopnem platoju je locirana dvoprekatna kompozicija kovinskega zabojnika. V prvem prekatu so umeščene kemične sanitarije, drugi prekat pa je namenjen shranjevanju zaščitne in vzdrževalne opreme za arheološki park. Ovoj zabojnika služi tudi kot informacijski pano ob vhodu v parka. Po obeh parkih pot obiskovalca vodi od vstopnega platoja po glavni montažni dostopni poti s pohodno površino iz vnaprej izdelanih montažnih pohodnih panelov na kovinski podkonstrukciji, ki ne vzbuja povezave z nekdanjimi rimskimi potmi, njihovo materialnostjo in videzom, do območja z bolj povednimi ostalinami (sliki 7 in 9). Na mestih, kjer je pohodna površina zaradi omogočanja dostopa gibalno oviranim osebam s primernimi nakloni in nad nivojem izkopanin, je glede na potrebe izvedeno temeljenje s čim manjšim poseganjem v območje arheoloških izkopanin. Na dostopni in ogledni poti so pred pomembnejšimi arheološkimi točkami sistemsko umeščeni označevalni elementi, t. i. totemi, ter klopi. Hkrati pa je zagotovljena tudi možnost dostopa z montažnimi stopnicami do nivoja izkopanin. V parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče (sliki 9 in 10) je v območju pedagoškega kotička prostor urejen z nivojskim dostopom z dostopne poti iz vnaprej izdelanih panelov. Prostor je opremljen z dvema peskovnikoma, štirimi mizami in klopmi. Na saniranem opornem zidu je predviden spremenljiv sistem nastavkov za pedagoške pripomočke. Na zid se sidrajo ploščice z zatiči, v katere se v času pedagoških delavnic nameščajo police, magnetne table in drugi pripomočki. Tako se omogočijo kreativne in poučne delavnice za obiskovalce znotraj območja arheološkega parka, v neposredni bližini arheoloških ostalin. V arheološkem parku Emonska hiša (slika 7) je bilo za zaščito mozaikov in hipokavsta pred meteorno vodo in ultravijoličnim sevanjem treba nadomestiti obstoječo prezentacijsko in strukturno neustrezno dvokapno nadstrešnico z novo. Žal nove stalne strehe zaradi časovnih omejitev projekta nismo mogli zagotoviti. Zato je nadkritje mozaikov izvedeno kot začasen zaščitni objekt – montažni šotor primerne višine glede na koniguracijo terena in možnost odvodnjavanja, da voda ne bi povzročala škode na mozaikih, nadkritje pa pomeni boljšo celostno prezentacijo arheoloških izkopanin. Nadstrešnica je, tako kot v parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče, v skladu s konservatorskimi pogoji ZVKD, OE Ljubljana, izvedena iz napetega platna in je takšne oblike, ki ne vzbuja povezave z obliko strehe nekdanje rimske hiše (slika 8). Sredinske in obodne podpore so v čim manjši meri znotraj območja izkopanin in so izvedene brez temeljenja. V zimskem času so mozaiki zaščiteni s posebej izvedenimi pokrovi. Uporaba infrastrukturnega pristopa k urejanju arheoloških parkov je omogočila ohranjanje obeh parkov kot izrazito zelene površine, kjer zaradi infrastrukturnih posegov lahko: – obvladujemo in usmerjamo večje število obiskovalcev, VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 201 – nudimo izboljšan dostop in uporabnost za različne ciljne skupine obiskovalcev, – infrastrukturni sistem doda plast, ki omogoči bolj celostno dojemanje arheološke dediščine, s svojo umestitvijo in materialnostjo pa doda k atraktivnosti celovite prezentacije, – prostor, urejen na ta način, postane del sodobne urbanosti ožjega in širšega območja mesta. Parki in obiskovalci: nove poti in programi Projekt prenove arheoloških parkov je upošteval najsodobnejše prakse na področju konservacije in infrastrukturne podobe kot tudi muzejske prezentacije, dostopnosti in popularizacije parkov. Tako je prezentacija sledila kriterijem muzejske predstavitve, muzeološka pomagala, različni izobraževalni in doživljajski programi pa omogočajo uporabniku bolj kakovostno doživljanje dediščine in dostopnejše učenje o njej. V okviru projekta je bilo veliko energije usmerjeno v našteta področja. Tako smo razvili nove izobraževalne programe za različne ciljne skupine, nove doživljajske/popularizacijske programe za posameznike, skupine in družine ter tudi nove turistične produkte. Vsi so zasnovani tako, da bodo aktivno vključevali obiskovalce, krepili identiteto Ljubljančanov ter ustvarjali povezavo med življenjem v tem prostoru v preteklosti in sedanjosti. Hkrati pa tovrstna promocija dediščine pomeni tudi obliko njenega varovanja, po mnenju sodobne dediščinske vede celo eno najučinkovitejših oblik varovanja, namreč preprečevanje vandalizma s ponujanjem različnih možnosti sodelovanja. Arheološki parki so lahko odlično okolje za izobraževalne dejavnosti, saj s primernimi muzeološkimi pomagali in/ ali vodniki animatorji nudijo številne možnosti za različne vpoglede v predstavljene teme, za izkušanje in podoživljanje ter oblikovanje novih znanj in pomenov v neformalnem učnem okolju. V okviru projekta smo dopolnili obstoječe programe in razvili nove, ki zdaj v celoti upoštevajo tako nove standarde muzeološke in pedagoške stroke kot standarde na področju didaktike in pedagogike. Obstoječe programe za najmlajše, torej vrtčevske otroke in učence prvih triad, smo posodobili z delavnico Arheopeskovnik s Honorato. Prenovljen pedagoški prostor v arheološkem parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče z interaktivi nam je omogočil vpeljavo novih aktivnosti. Prenovili smo tudi programe vodstev Po sledeh antične Emone z delovnimi listi za starejše učence (druga in tretja triada osnovne šole). Ker so predznanje in načini posredovanja informacij za različne starostne skupine različni, so bili oblikovani tudi trije podprogrami Po sledeh antične Emone. V projektu je nastal tudi povsem nov program, posebej namenjen najstnikom, torej že tradicionalno občinstvu, ki ga je v muzeje težko privabiti. Program, ki smo ga poimenovali Arheologija je kul, z izkopavanjem dveh eksperimentalnih enot, dveh »rimskih grobov«, najstnikom približa delo arheologa z aktivno izkušnjo in timskim delom. Učenci izkopavajo, spoznajo orodje in načine popisovanja najdenih artefaktov, delijo vznemirjenje in navdušenje ob odkritjih. Projekt prenove arheoloških parkov nam je omogočil postavitev infrastrukture za to delavnico v parku Emonska hiša, kjer doslej delavnic 202 nismo imeli; tako smo tudi ta park aktivno vpletli v svoje programe. To bo prispevalo k boljšemu poznavanju lokacije med obiskovalci ter k večji obiskanosti in prepoznavnosti tega parka, ki je zaradi lokacije med zasebnimi hišami v umirjenem delu Ljubljane doslej med širšo javnostjo najslabše poznan. Poseben poudarek smo dali približevanju ostankov antične Emone družinam, v okviru aktivnega preživljanja prostega časa. Novi vodnik Emona od E do A s privlačnimi ilustracijami in zabavnimi nalogami popelje družino na raziskovanje in proučevanje emonskih spomenikov na prostem. Tako obiskovalci z aktivno udeležbo spoznavajo rimsko arheološko dediščino Ljubljane. Program je zasnovan tako, da spodbuja medgeneracijsko sodelovanje in skupno učenje. Revitalizirano arheološko dediščino nameravamo približati najširši javnosti s popularizacijskimi programi in dogodki. Izvajamo jih z namenom seznanjanja z arheološko dediščino in ponudbo, ki jo kot upravljavec arheoloških parkov nudimo. V okviru izvedbe projekta sta bila pripravljena dva različna popularizacijska projekta: Ko duhovi oživijo (kostumirano vodstvo po emonskih spomenikih; slika 11) in Rimski dan (enodnevni program različnih delavnic). Naši popularizacijski programi in dogodki so namenjeni različnim ciljnim skupinam, tudi takim, ki primarno za antično dediščino niso zainteresirane, zato v okviru teh programov iščemo tudi različna sodelovanja s prireditelji vsebinsko drugačnih dogodkov, npr. reciklažnih delavnic, branj in recitalov, manjših koncertov itd. Hkrati s prenovljenimi arheološkimi parki je bila vzpostavljena tudi turistična pot Emona/Po rimski Ljubljani, kar skupaj predstavlja novo platformo za razvoj kulturnega turizma v Ljubljani. Emona/Po rimski Ljubljani je platforma, ki združuje in povezuje prezentirane emonske ostanke (tako npr. arheološke parke, del zahodnega obzidja pri Cankarjevem domu, spomeniško območje pri Emoncu v parku Zvezda, prezentirano kloako ob Aškerčevi cesti itd.), ki so bili doslej brez konteksta in zato slabo razumljivi ali sploh nerazumljivi, v enovito zgodbo. Krožno pot Po rimski Ljubljani označujejo interpretativne table z besedili in risanimi rekonstrukcijami posameznih ostalin (slika 12). Dodatne vsebine (besedila, graike, avdio posnetki) o razvoju mesta Emone, vsakdanjem življenju v njem ter o rimski kulturi so dosegljive preko QR-kod na tablah. Zraven sodi zloženka z zemljevidom, ki posameznika ali skupino popelje na pot odkrivanja rimskega mesta Emone, zdaj tudi laiku prepoznavnega kot smiselna celota znotraj mestnega jedra današnje Ljubljane. Poleg možnosti individualnega obiska poti skupaj s Turizmom Ljubljana, ki ima dolgoletne izkušnje na področju turizma v Ljubljani, tudi kulturnega in historičnega, razvijamo tudi specializirane turistične produkte, namenjene skupinskim in vodenim ogledom. Skupaj z njimi smo pripravili tudi vodnik Doživite Emono!, enega od večjezičnih vodnikov po različnih historičnih obrazih prestolnice, ki jih Turizem Ljubljana redno izdaja. Načrtovana promocija je usmerjena k pritegnitvi potencialnih uporabnikov, večanju njihovega zanimanja za rimsko arheološko dediščino Ljubljane in seveda spodbujanju k ogledu novo nastale turistične poti, programov in prenovljenih parkov. V tem okviru je bil na podlagi analize trga in ciljnih skupin ter predhodno ovrednotenih potreb in želja uporabnikov pripravljen trženjski splet, ki vključuje tako plan odnosov z javnostjo kot oglaševanje, pospeševanje prodaje in neposredno trženje. S promocijskim materialom, kot so letaki in vodniki, bomo potencialne uporabnike seznanili z emonsko dediščino ter ponujenimi programi in možnostmi za ogled oziroma udeležbo. Promocijski material nudi tudi vse potrebne informacije za uporabnika (lokacijo, odpiralni čas, vstopnino itd.). Ves promocijski material je izdelan v šestih jezikovnih različicah, kar pomeni zelo širok dostop do informacij za različne jezikovne skupine. Posebej ponosni smo, da smo v prenovo vključili tudi povečevanje dostopnosti do emonske dediščine za osebe s posebnimi potrebami. Nove pohodne poti v arheoloških parkih omogočajo dostop gibalno oviranim (pa tudi otroškim vozičkom), taktilni zemljevidi parkov omogočajo spoznavanje kompleksnega tlorisa arheoloških ostalin slepim in slabovidnim, video vodnik za gluhe in naglušne, izdelan v okviru projekta Muzej v znakih (prim. http://www.auris-kranj.si/ index.php/muzej-v-znakih; 17. september 2012), pa naredi Pot po rimski Ljubljani dostopno in zanimivo tudi za to ciljno skupino. V okviru projekta smo iskali tudi potencialne partnerje za sodelovanje pri promociji novih produktov. Tako smo navezali partnerska sodelovanja s turističnim, kulturnim in izobraževalnim sektorjem. Sklep: smernice za prihodnost Projekt revitalizacije parkov je zajemal tudi izdelavo načrta upravljanja, s katerim smo opredelili upravljavsko strategijo za srednjeročno obdobje. Poleg vsebine, ki jo določa 60. člen Zakona o varstvu kulturne dediščine (pregled kulturnih vrednot, upravljavska struktura, načrt dejavnosti s inančnim okvirjem, način spremljanja izvajanja), smo posebno pozornost posvetili upravljanju emonske dediščine za ljudi, za obiskovalce. Med strateške cilje smo uvrstili ugotavljanje potreb potencialnih obiskovalcev, zagotovitev dostopnosti parkov slovenskim in tujim obiskovalcem vseh proilov in starostnih skupin, zagotovitev maksimalne dostopnosti obiskovalcem s posebnimi potrebami ter razvoj in širitev turistične ponudbe parkov. Z implementiranim projektom revitalizacije so vzpostavljeni pogoji za ohranjanje in uspešnejše varovanje prezentirane emonske dediščine v Ljubljani, hkrati pa so jasno izpostavljeni številni vzgojno-izobraževalni potenciali te dediščine in vzpostavljena je tudi nujna platforma za obogatitev turistične ponudbe Ljubljane in tudi Slovenije (slika 12). Skratka, ker emonsko dediščino razumemo kot družbeni in kulturni proces, ne zgolj kot izično prisotnost spomenikov, jo nameravamo upravljati kot tako. Na visoko mesto v viziji varstva in razvoja spomenika postavljamo poleg njegovega varovanja tudi varovanje emonske dediščine za ljudi. Poudarjamo kvalitetno komunikacijo z obiskovalci, vključevanje, dialog, odpiranje ograj. Dediščino kot družbeno in komunikacijsko prakso nameravamo udejanjati v javnih programih, projektih vključevanja javnosti in podobnem (sliki 11 in 12). Seveda pa upravljanja ljubljanskih arheoloških parkov, kot upravljanja dediščine nasploh, ne moremo zreducirati na nekatere strokovne in tehnične prakse. Naše izhodišče pri upravljanju emonske dediščine je, da je to kompleksen in kontinuiran družbeni in kulturni proces (prim. Harvey 2001, 320s,; Smith 2006). Dediščina kontinuirano nastaja v dinamičnem procesu, v katerem je preteklost uporabljena kot izhodišče za debato, konlikte in pogajanja o tem, kaj naj bo vrednoteno in varovano ter zakaj. Zavedanje, da je dediščina neprestano nastajajoča tvorba, je ključno za iskanje občutljivega ravnotežja pri njenem upravljanju: na primer načina, kako predstavljati preteklost na način, ki bo historično ustrezen in hkrati razumljiv najširšemu občinstvu, načina, kako uravnotežiti stroga merila varovanja arheološkega najdišča s turističnim in urbanim razvojem. Ker so v ta proces vpletene številne k različnim ciljem usmerjene skupine (Ljubljančani, MOL, arheologi, konservatorji, muzealci, investitorji novih gradenj, zavod Turizem Ljubljana idr.), je proces upravljanja emocionalen in pogosto konlikten. Zato je nujno stalno in poglobljeno preizpraševanje, kaj pomenijo v tem kontekstu pojmi dediščina, lastništvo, moč, znanje in »dediščina za javnost«.1 Povzetek Dediščina rimske Emone, prezentirana znotraj sodobne Ljubljane, obsega dva arheološka parka, del južnega obzidja na Mirju ter nekaj manjših spomeniških območij. Kljub številnim prizadevanjem je skozi desetletja postala tako meščanom kot turistom težko opazna, zato pogosto spregledana, vedno bolj odmaknjena in težko razumljiva, ostaline pa so bile v slabem stanju tudi v konservatorsko-restavratorskem smislu. Projekt prenove in revitalizacije arheoloških parkov Ljubljane, izveden v letih 2011 in 2012, je zajemal izdelavo konservatorskega načrta in konservatorsko-restavratorsko sanacijo arheoloških parkov Emonska hiša, Zgodnjekrščansko središče in rimski zid na Mirju, prenovo zaščitne in turistične infrastrukture v obeh parkih, ureditev informacijske točke z maketo Emone v prehodu garažne hiše Kongresni trg, razvoj in implementacijo muzeoloških pomagal in javnih programov za obiskovalce ter izdelavo načrta upravljanja. V procesu izdelave konservatorskega načrta je bila določena stopnja družbenega pomena spomenikov. Skladno s tem in ugotovljenimi poškodbami na posameznih delih spomenikov so bile pripravljene tudi usmeritve za ohranitev varovanih vrednot spomenikov in usmeritve za sanacijo, razvoj, morebitne spremembe in predelave na spomenikih. Konservatorski načrt je služil kot osnova za izvedbo konservatorsko-restavratorskih posegov. Poleg zahtevne konservatorsko-restavratorske sanacije rimskih ostalin sta bili načrtovani novi arhitekturna podoba in infrastruktura v obeh arheoloških parkih (pohodne poti, menjava strehe v parku Emonska hiša, enotni pomožni objekti itd.). Izboljšave so namenjene tako boljšemu varovanju dediščine kot lažjemu dostopu obiskovalcev. Kot 1 Ang. public heritage. VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 203 najprimernejši pristop urejanja obeh arheoloških parkov je bil izbran infrastrukturni pristop, zaradi več vidikov, ki se združujejo v deiniciji trajnostnega razvoja. Infrastrukturni pristop določa posege, katerih cilj je predvsem ohranjanje, vključevanje, izkoriščanje ter izpostavljanje urbanih arheoloških parkov trajnostno, v smislu, da postanejo vsem dostopni del mesta. Ureditev infrastrukture obeh arheoloških parkov je bila zasnovana na način, ki ustreza potrebam individualnih obiskovalcev in vodenih skupin. Poleg tega je infrastruktura funkcionalno in oblikovno strukturirana glede na funkcionalne sklope in prostorske pogoje. Za razumevanje dediščine v parkih in posledično tudi za njeno varovanje je ključna vzpostavitev raznolikih muzeoloških pomagal (table, tiskovine, multimedijski vodniki) in ureditev s tablami označene krožne poti po Emoni, ki postavlja ločena območja in spomenike v skupen kontekst nekdanje rimske Emone. Primarni cilj projekta je bil vključiti dediščino Emone v življenje sodobne Ljubljane. To nameravamo udejanjati z različnimi pedagoško-andragoškimi programi, prireditvami in drugimi oblikami vključevanja javnosti. Viri in literatura Allen, S. (2003): Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation. London, Routledge. Bobek, K. (2012): Konservatorski načrt: Ljubljana – (1) Arheološki park Zgodnjekrščansko središče (EŠD: 329), (2) Arheološki park Emonska hiša (EŠD: 329), (3) Rimski zid na Mirju (EŠD: 22658). Ljubljana, ZVKDS, Restavratorski center. Breznik, A. (2006): Arheološki park – dejavnost rekonstruiranja preteklosti. Varstvo spomenikov 41, str. 79–99. Harries, K. (2000): he Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge (Mass.), London, MIT Press. Harvey, D. C. (2001): Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7/4, str. 319–338. Košir, F. (2006): K arhitekturi: razvoj arhitekturne teorije (1. del). Ljubljana, Fakulteta za arhitekturo. Kruft, H.-W. (1994): History of Architectural heory From Vitruvius to the Present. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Pérez-Gómez, A. (1983): Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge (Mass.), London, MIT Press. Plesničar, L. (1968): Jakopičev vrt. Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, zbirka vodnikov 14. Ljubljana, Zavod za spomeniško varstvo Republike Slovenije. Plesničar Gec, L., Slabe, M. (1979): Varovanje arheoloških ostalin. V: Mesesnel, J., (ur.), Rešena arheološka dediščina Ljubljane, katalog razstave. Ljubljana, Mestni muzej, str. 7–13. Plesničar-Gec, L., et al. (1983): Starokrščanski center v Emoni. Katalogi in monograije, Ljubljana, Narodni muzej. Rykwert, J. (1967), Lodoli: On Function and Representation. Architectural Review 953 (7), str. 21–26. Slabe, M. (1986): O vrednotenju nepremične arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 28, str. 121–127. Smith, L. (2006): he uses of heritage. Abingdon, New York, Routledge. 204 Stelè, F. (1928): V obrambo rimskega zidu na Mirju v Ljubljani. Ljubljana, Spomeniški urad. Županek, B. (2005): Dediščina rimske Emone: med nostalgijo in avtoriteto. V: Hudales, J., Visočnik, N., (ur.), Dediščina v rokah stroke. Županičeva knjižnica 14. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, str. 155–163. Županek, B. (2008): Dediščina na razpotju: emonski spomeniki med včeraj in jutri. Varstvo spomenikov 44, str. 271–290. 1. rimski zid na Mirju pred Plečnikovo prenovo; fotograija je nastala med letoma 1928 in 1941 (foto: Vekoslav kramarič, arhiv slovenskega etnografskega muzeja) 1. he Roman wall in Mirje before Plečnik’s renovation; the photograph was taken between 1928 and 1941 (photo: Vekoslav Kramarič, Slovene Ethnographic Museum archives) 2. arheološki park Jakopičev vrt (zdaj emonska hiša) tik pred odprtjem (foto: arhiv MGMl) 2. Jakopič Garden archaeological park (now the Emonan House) immediately before its opening (photo: MGML archives) VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 205 3. arheološki park Zgodnjekrščansko središče ob odprtju (foto: arhiv MGMl) 3. Opening of the Early Christian Centre archaeological park (photo: MGML archives) 4. arheološki park emonska hiša pred prenovo (foto: arhiv MGMl) 4. Emonan House archaeological park before renovation (photo: MGML archives) 206 5. konservatorsko-restavratorska dela v arheološkem parku emonska hiša spomladi 2012 (foto: katarina Bobek) 5. Conservation-restoration work in the Emonan House archaeological park in spring 2012 (photo: Katarina Bobek) 6. Dostop k piramidi a) po Plečnikovi ureditvi, b) pred prenovo 2012 ter c) po prenovi 2012 (foto: a) Plečnikova zbirka, b) irena Potočnik, c) katarina Bobek) 6. Access to the pyramid a) following Plečnik’s intervention, b) before renovation in 2012 and c) after renovation in 2012 (photos: a) Plečnik's Collection, b) Irena Potočnik, c) Katarina Bobek) VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 207 6b 6c 208 7. načrt ureditve infrastrukture v arheološkem parku emonska hiša (avtor: biro studio stratum) 7. Infrastructure regulation plan for the Emonan House archaeological park (Studio Stratum) 8. arheološki park emonska hiša po končani prenovi (foto: Matevž Paternoster, arhiv MGMl). 8. Emonan House archaeological park after completion of renovation (photo: Matevž Paternoster, MGML archives). VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 209 9. načrt ureditve infrastrukture v arheološkem parku Zgodnjekrščansko središče (avtor: biro studio stratum) 9. Infrastructure regulation plan for the Early Christian Centre archaeological park (Studio Stratum) 10. arheološki park Zgodnjekrščansko središče po končani prenovi (foto: Matevž Paternoster, arhiv MGMl) 10. Early Christian Centre archaeological park after completion of renovation (photo: Matevž Paternoster, MGML archives) 210 11. kostumirano vodstvo po emonskih spomenikih Ko duhovi oživijo (foto: Matevž Paternoster, arhiv MGMl) 11. When Ghosts Come to Life (guided visits to the monuments of Emona with costumed guides; photo: Matevž Paternoster, MGML archives) 12. s tablami označena pot po emonskih spomenikih (foto: Matevž Paternoster, arhiv MGMl) 12. Emonan monuments itinerary marked by information panels (photo: Matevž Paternoster, MGML archives) VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 211 Bernarda Županek, Katarina Bobek, Peter Šenk, Polona Filipič, Tamara Bregar From plans to visitors: renovation and revitalisation of archaeological parks in Ljubljana professional article COBISS 1.04 UDC 903/904(497.451.1) 719(497.451.1) 903/904:7.025 338.48-6:7/8(497.451.1) Keywords: archaeological park, Emona, Ljubljana, heritage, conservation plan, conservation, restoration, cultural tourism, park infrastructure, education programmes, heritage promotion. Abstract In this paper the authors present the multidisciplinary renovation and revitalisation of Ljubljana’s archaeological parks carried out in 2011 in 2012. his large-scale project included among other things conservation-restoration interventions at the Emonan House and Early Christian Centre archaeological parks and the Roman wall in the Mirje district, the renovation of protective and tourism infrastructure in the two parks, the development and implementation of aids to interpretation and programmes for visitors to the parks, and the elaboration of a management plan for the above areas. he paper presents the progress of the works, various starting points and dilemmas, and the solutions adopted. Introduction he heritage of Roman Emona (or Æmona), presented within modern Ljubljana, consists of two archaeological parks, part of the south wall in the Mirje district and a few individual monuments or smaller monument areas. his heritage, exhibited in situ, is the fruit of more than a century of endeavour by archaeologists, conservators, architects and other individuals and groups connected with it in various ways. Although the presented Emonan heritage is the result of many years of eforts and several intensive campaigns (cf. Stelè 1928; Plesničar Gec, Slabe 1979), we have warned several times in past years that over time this heritage has become hard to see, both for citizens and for tourists, and has therefore frequently been overlooked and grown increasingly marginalised and less accessible (Županek 2005, 158s; 2008, 271–273). In most cases the monuments have sufered from a lack of interpretative contents, while at the same time strategies for the management of Emonan heritage as a whole have not been developed. We have found the reasons for this in the speciic concept underlying the design of the presented Emonan heritage and the lack of a clear deinition of who this heritage is aimed at (Županek 2005; 2008). In September 2011 the City of Ljubljana obtained EU funding for the revitalisation of the Emonan archaeological parks. Leadership of the project was assumed by Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana. his project represented a successful conclusion to years of eforts to resolve the invidious situation of the archaeological parks, in which, in addition to the lack of functionality described above, the archaeological remains were also in a poor state from the conservation-restoration point of view, since a lack of funds meant that extensive repairs had not been carried out for decades. At the same time this was the beginning of an intensive year of work on an ambitious project, which was scheduled to be completed by September 2012. he project included several broad components: restorationconservation work in the Emonan House and Early Christian Dr. Bernarda Županek, Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana Katarina Bobek, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia Dr. Peter Šenk, Faculty of Civil Engineering, University of Maribor, Studio Stratum / Arco d.o.o., Nova Gorica, Polona Filipič, Faculty of Architecture, University of Ljubljana, Studio Stratum / Arco d.o.o., Nova Gorica Tamara Bregar, Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana 212 Centre archaeological parks and the area of the Roman wall in Mirje, renovation of protective and tourism infrastructure in the two parks, the setting up of an information point with a model of Emona in the underpass leading to the Kongresni Trg underground car park, the design and implementation of aids to interpretation in the parks and monument areas, the development and implementation of new public programmes for visitors to the parks, and the elaboration of a management plan for the above areas. Numerous institutions, businesses and individuals participated in the project. Conservation supervision was provided by the Ljubljana Regional Unit of the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage (ZVKDS). Elaboration of the conservation plan and conservation-restoration work was carried out by the national Restoration Centre. New infrastructure solutions were designed by Studio Stratum. he main aim of the project was the comprehensive revitalisation of the archaeological parks; this paper explains how we achieved this aim. A look back: the formation of Ljubljana’s three archaeological parks What is an archaeological park? One recent deinition found in Slovene literature on the subject reads as follows: “[…] an archaeological park is an area that is archaeologically protected, complemented by elements of landscape architecture and laid out for walking (a park-type arrangement), where archaeological remains are presented in situ in the open air […]” (Breznik 2006). Both the areas that have been referred to as archaeological parks since their creation, namely the Emonan House (formerly the Jakopič Garden) and the Early Christian Centre, correspond to this deinition. Even the third area, the Roman wall in the Mirje district, proclaimed a monument of national importance as part of the oeuvre of the architect Jože Plečnik (Heritage No 22658), can be characterised as an archaeological park. he Roman wall in Mirje is actually the earliest “park” in terms of its date of creation. It was created in the 1930s as a result of the eforts of a conservator, Professor France Stelè (Stelè 1928), to prevent the remains of the Emonan wall being demolished to make way for new construction. Jože Plečnik, already at that time an internationally renowned architect, was entrusted with the renovation of the neglected and abandoned walls (Fig. 1). Plečnik reinterpreted the remains of the Roman wall and linked them into an integrated park arrangement: he placed a pyramid above the gateway into Murnikova Ulica, covering it with turf (Fig. 6a), planted poplars along the outer face of the wall, and on the inside placed two earth pyramids (no longer present). Behind the wall he laid out a park in which elements of ancient architecture were exhibited, and in one of the secondary Roman gates in the wall he built a lapidarium. he other two Emonan archaeological parks were created later, in the second half of the twentieth century: in 1966 the Jakopič Garden (cf. Plesničar 1968; Fig. 2) and in 1976 the Early Christian Centre (cf. Plesničar-Gec et al. 1983; Fig. 3). Today the two parks are protected monuments within the Ljubljana Archaeological Area (Heritage No 329). All three of Ljubljana’s archaeological parks are the product of a speciic view of archaeological heritage – particularly the heritage of classical antiquity. he outline project regarding the presentation of Emonan heritage continued to be developed until the period following the First World War, after which it remained practically unchanged for the rest of the twentieth century. It brought together three premises which although never explicitly expressed nevertheless stood in the background of the formulation of this concept. he irst premise was that classical antiquity and its heritage are inherent bearers of values such as “civilisation” and “culture”, from which the high value of this heritage derives. he second premise, essentially an elitist one, was that presented architectural remains arranged as an archaeological park are a space intended above all for the cultural enjoyment of intellectuals who understand and appreciate these remains. Last but not least, in accordance with the diferent evaluation of the historical monument that developed in the nineteenth century and its gradual institutionalisation across the whole of Europe (cf. Choay 2001, 82ss), in the period following the Second World War a rigorously protective attitude towards heritage, including the heritage of Emona, established itself fully in this country. Heritage was conserved and exhibited in an entirely documentary form, with minimal use of museological aids to interpretation. Another important factor in the development of the concept of Ljubljana’s archaeological parks was the attitude of the archaeological profession. Archaeology acted as a privileged interpreter of the past, both because of the authority that Western society attributes to intellectual activity and because of the superiority of science in this context (cf. Županek 2005, 159ss). In the period in which the presented Emonan heritage was being designed, archaeology in Slovenia was in the process of establishing its own scientiic credibility. his is one of the reasons why the presentations designed in this period were scientiic and authoritative. A similar consideration applies to museum work: museums, developed as elitist institutions, remained so even after being opened to the public during the Enlightenment, since they were only accessible to the upper classes. In Slovenia, museums continued to be established above all as research institutions right up until the 1980s, and were only secondarily intended to be visited by the public – and an adult and educated public at that. For the reasons above, the conceptualisation of the archaeological parks of Emona remained static for the whole of the twentieth century (Županek 2008, 272s). Among experts the parks were seen as being expressive in their own right and appreciated by and attractive to the appropriate section of the public. he dilemmas caused by such a conception, however, were soon apparent, and eforts began to bring about changes: “[…] presentation is not the inal procedure in the context of the representation of a monument, but merely the initial phase of its revitalisation” (Slabe 1986, 126). As a result, numerous ideas were formulated in this period for the incorporation of Emonan heritage into the fabric of contemporary Ljubljana. Starting points for its incorporation into the urban VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 213 fabric were duly considered and elaborated by the profession, but remained just as unrelected as they were decades earlier. he profession inherently understood Emonan heritage as a remnant of ancient culture frozen in time, intended for the enjoyment of narrow social groups who were familiar with it and appreciated it. As a result, over time Ljubljana’s archaeological parks slipped to the margins of interest for citizens and tourists alike. The revitalisation project: concept and starting points he above three archaeological park areas in Ljubljana are the property of the City of Ljubljana. he Emonan House and Early Christian Centre parks have been managed since their creation by the City Museum of Ljubljana, today Museum and Galleries of Ljubljana (MGML). With the project presented here, the Roman wall in the Mirje district also passes under the management of MGML. he situation described in the previous chapter is something that we at MGML wished to change by means of a comprehensive revitalisation programme. Alongside the demanding conservation-restoration work on the Roman remains, a new architectural image and infrastructure were planned in both archaeological parks (footpaths, replacement of the roof in the Emonan House park, uniform auxiliary structures, etc.). he improvements were designed both to improve the protection of the heritage and enable easier access to visitors. Of key importance for the latter are the introduction of various museological aids to interpretation (information panels, printed matter, multimedia guides) and the arrangement of a marked itinerary around Emona equipped with information panels, placing separate areas and monuments into the common context of the former Roman town. he primary aim of the project was for the parks to become a living part of the modern city of Ljubljana, high-quality public areas with a public function; in short, to include the heritage of Emona in the life of the modern city. Cities such as Ljubljana, with a thousand years of history, are an important historical and archaeological resource, where buildings, structures and parts of the ground plan help us to understand the past, while at the same time connecting citizens with their history. But cities cannot remain static. hey need to thrive and develop. For this reason, heritage in cities that is rigidly closed to even the smallest changes and is not a place for children to play, a place to sit and relax, a venue for events, remains outside, marginalised, lifeless. Heritage is above all communication (Smith 2006) and is best realised through public programmes, projects designed to involve the public and similar activities. Only in this way will heritage be something living; it will come alive through experiences, activities, involvement and realisation, and this is what we wish to achieve with this project. 214 Conservation plan: the Emonan House, the Early Christian Centre and the Roman wall in Mirje In October 2011 the Restoration Centre began drawing up, on behalf of MGML, a conservation plan for three monuments within the Ljubljana Archaeological Area (Heritage No 329): the Emonan House and Early Christian Centre archaeological parks and the Roman wall in Mirje (Heritage No 22658). Before elaboration of the conservation plan commenced, we veriied and assessed the state of archaeological remains on the ground and carried out thorough photographic documentation of the area. he analytical part of the conservation plan was prepared (File 01), in which the situation and position of each monument was established. With the help of literature, sources and research, the development of each individual monument through time, right up to its presentday appearance and form, was revealed. On the basis of these indings (see Bobek 2012, 11–33), the level of social importance of the monuments was determined. In the archaeological parks this ranges from medium to outstanding, while in the case of the Roman Wall it is high or outstanding (Bobek 2012, 35–37). In accordance with this, and with the cases of damage identiied in individual parts of the monuments, guidelines were drawn up for the conservation of the protected valuable elements of the monuments and for their development and potential changes and alterations. At the same time restorers specialised in individual ields established the state of conservation and damage of the constituent elements of the individual monuments. On the basis of their indings they prepared an inventory of conservation-restoration work for interventions on stone elements, frescoes and mosaics and submitted a joint estimate of the investment necessary for the renovation of the monuments. hese data were collected together in File 03 of the conservation plan, which served as the basis for the implementation of conservation-restoration interventions on the monuments. State of the monuments before intervention At the end of January 2012 MGML submitted a tender for the implementation of conservation-restoration interventions at all three locations. Since limited funds were available, we identiied the elements most at risk that could be improved in this phase. he tender for the implementation of works thus included repairs to plasterwork and walls, the cleaning and repair of mosaics and frescoes in the two archaeological parks, and conservation-restoration work on Plečnik’s pyramid with balustrade (Fig. 6b) and Plečnik’s lapidarium in the Roman wall. In the expert opinion of the restorers, it was precisely these sections of the wall in Mirje that were most at risk, since the balustrade in front of the pyramid was partly ruined and almost entirely overgrown with ivy, while the area around the base of the balusters was afected by strong spontaneous tree growth, with roots dislodging the balustrade and balusters. At the pyramid itself, the roof over the gateway was leaking. he exterior of the pyramid was in several places covered with graiti. he pointing of the stonework had been carried out inexpertly during the last renovation, and with an aesthetically very displeasing effect, since mortar had been applied well past the edges of the stones. he lapidarium was also in a poor state. Its roof likewise leaked, as a result of which every time it rained water would collect on the loor of the lapidarium and remain there for a long time. A consequence of this was the growth of algae over the pavement, while the brick parts of the pavement had sufered considerable damage. he brick lining of the walls was also damaged and crumbling in several places. he exterior of the lapidarium was entirely covered by ivy and the corner ridge-tiles had disintegrated entirely. he situation in the archaeological parks was good above all in the parts protected by a roof, while meteorological factors and rising damp over the years had caused considerable damage to other parts of the walls. Cracks and breaks had occurred, while in places the entire lower part of the wall had fallen to pieces as a result of rising damp. Considerable damage has also been caused by mismatched interventions and restoration in the past, since over time the walls had been repaired using diferent technologies and diferent methods, while at the same time we were unable to ind the documentation corresponding to these interventions in the archives. Conservation-restoration work In early March 2012, in accordance with the inventory of works from the conservation plan for plasterwork and walls (File 03), contractors began by knocking out the old, disintegrating and inappropriate mortar joints in the walls of the Emonan House park. It turned out that the wall in the far north-west corner was in the worst state. In accordance with the inventories for interventions relating to plasterwork and walls, new joints and illings were executed using lime mortar made to the traditional recipe (1 : 3), to which a small amount of cement was added for better solidity, since the walls are in the open air and are therefore constantly exposed to the elements. Remains of a hypocaust heating system are presented in the “winter room” of the Emonan House. he suspensurae supporting the loor, which were presented following archaeological digs in the 1960s, no longer existed, but the situation was documented in photographs. With the help of these we reconstructed the suspensurae (the piers supporting the loor in a hypocaust system), the foundations of which were still visible below the sand. It was also necessary to supplement the broken parts of the brick arches of the hypocaust system and the arch of the oven through which hot air once lowed into the system. In early April 2012 work on the plasterwork and walls of the Emonan House was complete and the contractor began repairing the plasterwork and walls in the Early Christian Centre archaeological park. At the Emonan House restorers were then able to start cleaning and consolidating the mosaic surfaces (Fig. 5) and the terrazzo and brick pavements, and re- moving the inappropriate coatings of the fresco preserved in the “winter room”. During excavations the remains of murals had been discovered in the corners of the walls of the winter room and were presented in a red shade. Some decades later the fresco was inappropriately restored and coloured yellow; the restorers removed this yellow coat. he biggest job for the restorers was the terrazzo pavement in the space next to the winter room, where paint had dripped onto the loor during painting of the metal roof structure. he paint stains were extremely stubborn and a special detergent had to be used to remove them from the surface. Meanwhile, at the Early Christian Centre, interventions were taking place on the plasterwork and walls, following the same principle as at the Emonan House. Some joints in the walls in the extreme western section of the park and the drainage channels had been coloured in a slightly brick-like colour. We therefore decided to colour the new mortar with a little brick dust in order to achieve a similar colour to the existing joints. At the far eastern end of the park, repairs were needed to the concrete retaining wall near the ancient baptistery, next to the area where MGML holds educational workshops. Several stone remnants, hypocaust piers, etc. had been deposited in front of the retaining wall. By agreement with MGML these were taken to the repository. After completion of the work in the Emonan House park, the restorers of the Restoration Centre joined the workers in the Early Christian Centre park, where it was likewise necessary to clean the mosaics around the baptismal pool and repair the ventilation system below them. he small brick pools of the former thermae required repairs and consolidation. he central pool in particular was in a poor state. As a result of prolonged exposure to rain in the spring of 2011, when the tarpaulin cover was ripped during a storm, it began to deteriorate more quickly and the brick began to rot. he science department at the Restoration Centre researched the composition and type of brick mortar used to build the pools, and on the basis of their indings the restorers were able to prepare a suitable mortar for the consolidation of the brick surfaces. In early April 2012 work also began on the Roman wall in Mirje. To begin with it was necessary to steam clean the surfaces of the lapidarium and pyramid, which had blackened as a result of exposure to the elements and pollution. At the same time the lapidarium and the balustrade had to be thoroughly cleaned of ivy and other vegetation, by which they were entirely covered in places. Ivy roots cling so tightly that it was impossible to remove them completely using noninvasive methods. Following cleaning of the balustrade, the restorers found that only half the balusters were suiciently well conserved, needing only cleaning and consolidation. hese balusters are actually large concrete pipes which the architect Plečnik illed with concrete made of coarse sand, quarry stone and gravel and topped with proiled capitals of artiicial stone. he majority of the balusters were cracked from within or had fallen over and were broken. he original state of the balustrade and the pyramid was documented in two surviving old photographs. With their help, we were able to carry out a comparison with the current situation. he pyramid, which under Plečnik’s original design VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 215 was almost entirely covered by turf, was originally topped by a sphere – as were the balusters in the stone balustrade in front of the pyramid (Fig. 6a). Together with the restorers, the responsible conservator from the Ljubljana Regional Unit of the ZVKDS, the curator of the classical antiquity department at MGML and architects from the architecture department of the Restoration Centre, we agreed that in the case of the balustrade we would attempt to re-establish a situation similar to that which is documented in the archival photograph, and to use as much surviving material as possible. A lack of funds meant that reconstruction of the turf covering on the surface of the pyramid was not possible. Of the 22 original balusters of the balustrade, 11 still survived. he remainder, so badly damaged that it did not make sense to restore them, were replaced by replicas modelled on the existing balusters (Fig. 6c). More original capitals had survived than balusters; these were cleaned and placed on the replicas. he replicas of the balusters, the moulds for the new capitals and the spheres to top them were prepared by stone restorers at the Restoration Centre; using various sanding methods and other techniques, they attempted to obtain a surface as similar as possible to the original. It should be understood here that the materials used in the past by Plečnik are today extremely diicult if not almost impossible to obtain. Materials and their manufacture have changed and modernised, and manufacturing is now industrial. Not only that, but Plečnik’s original elements have been exposed to the weather for decades and this, and the passage of time, has given them a special patina. We therefore endeavoured to produce new elements in such a way that their appearance would be as close as possible to the appearance of original, although at the same time we were careful to ensure that the new elements, when viewed closely, difered from the originals, since we did not wish to counterfeit Plečnik’s work. he patina will, as always, come with time. Following the cleaning of the lapidarium, work began in the interior and repairs to the roof commenced. Once again there was the problem of the colour and texture of the renovated roof. We tried to make it as close as possible to the original, although the roof will only gain its true patina over time. As noted above, the brick corner ridge-tiles of the roof had entirely disintegrated. Plečnik used Roman ridge-tiles, which were considerably larger than those used today, and up to two or three centimetres thick. Today such tiles are no longer made, and although the MGML repository contains identical tiles which could have been used to substitute the missing ones, it did not seem right to use original Roman heritage in this case, since sooner or later it would deteriorate in the open air. Today ridge-tiles are made by machine and therefore have a rather sterile efect. For this reason they did not seem to us to be the most appropriate replacement for the originals. We needed to ind a diferent, better solution as quickly as possible. After a thorough search, we tracked down some suitable ridge-tiles in Primorska, where old tiles from the 1930s were being sold as second-hand building material for a token sum following the renovation of a roof. After cleaning and trimming their edges, we used them on the corners of the lapidarium. he result is good; the new old tiles 216 have enough patina not to spoil the overall appearance of the lapidarium, while at the same time they are not as valuable and irreplaceable as the Roman originals. Work was also carried out inside the lapidarium, which was irst subjected to thorough steam cleaning. he missing parts of the stone frieze along the walls had to be modelled, and cracks and breaks in the brick surfaces of the walls repaired using a brick compound where the condition of the brick was worst. Damaged parts of the brick pavement of the lapidarium were replaced by new pieces cut to measure. It was also necessary to clean and sand the rusty metal railings of the lapidarium, which were then coated with a dark grey antique paint. he conservation-restoration work was completed on schedule and the next phase of the project – renovation of protective and tourism infrastructure in the parks – could begin. Infrastructure in archaeological parks he rapid changing of cities and the construction of new economic and transport infrastructure can result in a process of gradual erosion of heritage, including archaeological remains. his raises questions about the possibilities of establishing dialogue between the new and the old, between enabling the development of the city in terms of the needs of its users and the simultaneous preservation of historic elements. How can we design solutions that are able to resist the opposing tendencies to conserve the city as a museum and those that announce that remains are the subject of the past and insist that the city is a place of the present, subject to development and expression of creativity? he complex topic of the conservation and presentation of archaeological remains is particularly interesting in the urban context. Archaeological remains within the city can today be treated as a type of “theme park”, with considerable tourism, scientiic and educational potential. Archaeological parks also have aesthetic, symbolic and cultural value. he conservation of built archaeological heritage can mean the regulation of a space that also has potential for a variety of uses. Although archaeological parks no longer fulil their original function, the quest for suitable presentation, appropriate infrastructure and modern functional enhancement – combined with appropriate measures to prevent their degradation and improve public accessibility – can allow these parks to become spaces that represent added value in their immediate surrounding area and in the city as a living organism of diversity. he urban environment is also speciic because of the speed with which it changes. he way this environment is understood is unpredictable. Something that today seems useless, without added value, can tomorrow become an object of interest to tourists and also to the general public. Within the urban environment archaeological parks are spaces of the timeless, they are part of the history that must remain for our descendants. Undoubtedly opening archaeological parks to the public is diferent from other forms of popularisation of a space. he primary aim of archaeological parks is to show the past, to establish a genuine contact between the visitor and tangible historical evidence, and to show the connection between the archaeological form and the society that created it. Establishing their potential value in an urban context is of course highly demanding. Finding a balance between the changing trends of the city and a timeless archaeological structure is the basis which can serve as a guide for the regulation of archaeological parks today. Methods of presenting remains that are accessible, suiciently visible, attractive, interesting and understandable to the public must take into account the requirements of their conservation and protection. he establishment of tourism infrastructure designed to enable the best quality presentation of archaeological remains while at the same time conserving them can be divided into three main approaches that are employed in practice: – the non-invasive approach mainly conserves the existing state of archaeological excavations in the surrounding area and only carries out the technologically most urgent interventions that enable conservation of heritage. Regulation within the archaeological park covers the route to be followed by visitors, the park area and the provision of basic information necessary to understand the heritage (e.g. the Petit-Chasseur archaeological site in Sion, Switzerland; remains of the early medieval bishop’s palace in Eger, Hungary); – the infrastructure approach brings to the existing environment of the archaeological park the impulse of the new, which explicitly difers from the existing and is oriented towards new strategies of presentation and park visits. he infrastructure approach covers the installation of new structures that are necessary to provide a better quality experience and better understanding of heritage. he new structures (street furniture and signage, paths, viewing areas and protective areas) are designed in such a way that they difer in material, colour or form from the appearance of the archaeological heritage itself, while their arrangement follows the strategy of presentation of the archaeological remains (e.g. the remains of the southern part of Roman Sisak, Croatia; the remains of the Roman theatre in Saragossa, Spain); – the invasive approach signiicantly alters the existing heritage environment, building on it and adding presentation contents. he installed structures are accents that stand out in terms of form, material or colour and in most cases dominate with respect to the appearance of the archaeological heritage itself (e.g. the Vesunna Gallo-Roman Museum, Périgueux, France; the Praça Nova archaeological site in the Castle of São Jorge, Lisbon, Portugal). Renovation of infrastructure in the Emonan House and Early Christian Centre archaeological parks he Emonan House and Early Christian Centre archaeological parks, which were the subject of the regulation of park infrastructure within the larger project “he Archaeological Parks of Emona and the Emona Promenade” are open to visitors all year round, although in winter, when night-time tempera- tures fall below 0°C, the remains are covered to protect them from the elements. In the past, visitors to the two parks were able to walk directly on the mosaics, which meant a considerable likelihood of damage to these remains. At the same time, access to the most interesting parts of the archaeological parks was not possible to those with reduced mobility. In the Emonan House park the protection of the mosaics – a prefabricated roof – was unsuitable both from the point of view of presentation and in the technical sense, and needed to be replaced by a more suitable solution. he old roof (originally conceived as a temporary solution) was pitched, which gave the visitors a false impression of the shape and size of the ancient roof. It was also too small to cover all the remains most susceptible to the weather. he modern visitors’ path ran along an embankment in the middle of the Roman house and it was therefore diicult to get a full sense of the scale and the connections between the ancient remains in the park. Furthermore, there were no information panels in the park, and therefore it was diicult for visitors to understand the remains. In the Early Christian Centre park the protection of the mosaics is provided by the existing canvas roof supported by a metal structure, which it made sense to retain. In addition to the problem of unsupervised access to the mosaics, in this park the necessary infrastructure for educational workshops, formerly provisional, lacked comprehensive regulation. We decided that the most suitable approach for the regulation of Ljubljana’s two archaeological parks was the infrastructure approach, because of several aspects that combine in the deinition of sustainable development. Economic, social and environmental aspects are best balanced by the chosen approach, something which through the outline project and its implementation was transferred as far as possible right down to the details. he infrastructure approach speciies interventions whose aim is above all the preservation, inclusion, exploitation and exposure of urban archaeological parks in a sustainable manner, so that they become part of the city, function as attractors in a space of diferent lows, and – above all – are accessible to all. Another characteristic of the infrastructure approach is its own unrepresentativeness. In architecture we must distinguish between presentation techniques, which relate to mapping, projections, notations – in short, graphic representations of architecture and space – and the idea of architecture as a system of representation (Allen 2003). In this case we are dealing, of course, with the issue of the latter and its relationship to strict engineering functionality in the given case, in the manner of the proto-functionalist Carlo Lodoli, who linked architectural expression to the characteristics of the materials used (Košir 2006, 209; Kruft 1994, 199; Rykwert 1967), and the post-functionalists, who realised that architectural expression cannot be justiied by structural determinism but as an artefact that through the expression of the materials used, just as they are, establishes a dialogue with the existing and only gains meaning through its interaction with users (cf. Pérez-Gómez 1983). he relationship between the static existing and the new, as explicitly other, rests on the parameters bottom up, low, lexibility, modularity, plug-in and VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 217 time. he bottom up parameter conditions the contextuality of the design and the minimum physical encroachment on the area of the remains, while the low parameter is adapted to the desired channelling of visits to the archaeological park and also directs communication itself. he other parameters determine the structural system of the various elements, a system that is lexible, able to be dismantled, and also allows modiications or development in an unpredictable future. he regulation of the infrastructure of the two archaeological parks was designed in a manner that corresponds to the needs of both individual visitors and organised groups. Regulations of park and tourism infrastructure is functionally and formally structured with regard to functional components and spatial conditions (Figs. 7 and 9). Access to the archaeological park is via an entrance area with a consolidated sand illing. Located in the entrance area is a steel container cabin divided into two sections. One section contains chemical toilets and the other is used to store protective and maintenance equipment for the archaeological park. he outside of the container also serves as an information panel at the entrance to the park. Visitors proceed through both parks from the entrance area along a main access path consisting of a walkway made from prefabricated panels mounted on a metal substructure, which does not evoke a connection with the former Roman paths, either in terms of material appearance, to the area containing the more representative remains (Figs. 7 and 9). In places where, in order to facilitate access to visitors with reduced mobility, the walkway includes ramps and lies above the level of the excavations, foundations have been implemented as necessary with minimum encroachment into the area of the archaeological excavations. Information “totems” and benches have been installed at the more important points along the access path and viewing path. At the same time access to the level of the digs is possible via prefabricated steps. In the Early Christian Centre park (Figs. 9 and 10) a space with at-grade access from the access path has been made from prefabricated panels in the education corner area. his space is equipped with two sandpits, four tables and benches. On the renovated retaining wall a lexible system of attachments for teaching aids is planned. Fixed to the wall are tiles with pins to which shelves, magnetic boards and other teaching aids can be attached during educational workshops. In this way creative and instructional workshops for visitors can take place within the area of the archaeological park, in the direct vicinity of the archaeological remains. In the Emonan House archaeological park (Fig. 7) it was necessary, in order to protect the mosaics and the hypocaust from rainwater and ultraviolet radiation, to substitute the existing pitched roof – unsuitable both structurally and in terms of presentation – with a new one. Unfortunately, owing to the time limits of the project, we were unable to provide a new permanent roof. he cover over the mosaics has therefore been implemented as a temporary protective structure – a prefabricated marquee roof of suitable height with regard to the coniguration of the terrain and the possibility of drainage, so that water does not cause damage to the mosaics; the roof also means a better overall presentation of the archaeo218 logical excavations. Just as at the Early Christian Centre, in accordance with the conservation conditions laid down by the Ljubljana Regional Unit of the ZVKDS, the roof is made of stretched canvas and is of a shape that does not evoke a connection with the shape of the roof of the original Roman house (Fig. 8). he central and perimeter supports encroach as little as possible into the area of the excavations and are executed without foundations. During the winter the mosaics are protected with specially made covers. Use of the infrastructure approach to regulation of the archaeological parks has allowed both parks to be preserved as green areas, where as a result of infrastructure interventions we are able to: – manage and direct a large number of visitors, – ofer improved access and functionality for diferent target groups of visitors. he infrastructure system adds a layer that enables a more complete understanding of archaeological heritage while adding to the attractiveness of the overall presentation. A space arranged in this way becomes part of the modern urban reality of the city centre and wider area. Parks and visitors: new paths and programmes he renovation project for the archaeological parks took account of the latest practices in the ields of conservation and infrastructure appearance, and also of museum presentation, accessibility and the popularisation of parks. Presentation has thus followed the criteria of museum-type presentation, while aids to interpretation and a variety of educational and adventure programmes provide users with a better quality experience of culture and more accessible learning about it. Within the project, a great deal of energy was directed towards the above areas. We have developed new educational programmes for various target groups, new adventure/popularisation programmes for individuals, groups and families, and also new tourism products. All are designed in such a way as to actively include visitors, strengthen the identity of the citizens of Ljubljana and create a connection between life in this area in the past and present. At the same time this type of promotion of heritage also means a way of protecting it – one of the most efective forms of protection, in the opinion of modern heritage studies, in the sense of preventing vandalism by ofering various opportunities for participation. Archaeological parks can be an excellent environment for educational activities, since with the help of suitable aids to interpretation and/or guides and activity leaders they offer numerous opportunities for diferent insights into the themes presented, for experiences and for the development of new knowledge and meanings in an informal learning environment. As part of the project we have supplemented existing programmes and developed new ones, which now fully take into account both the new standards of the museological and educational professions and standards in the ields of didactics and pedagogy. Existing programmes for our youngest visitors (nursery school children, years 1–3 of primary school) have been modernised with a workshop called Archaeo-sandpit with Honorata. he renovated education area in the Early Christian Centre archaeological park, featuring interactive elements, has enabled us to introduce new activities. We have also overhauled the Traces of Ancient Emona programmes with worksheets for older children (years 4–6 and years 7–9). Since previous knowledge and methods of imparting information difer for diferent age groups, three subprogrammes have also been designed. he project has also seen the creation of a brand-new programme aimed at teenagers, traditionally a section of the public that it is hard to attract to museums. his programme, which we have called Archaeology is Cool, focuses on the excavation of two experimental units, two “Roman graves” and introduces teenagers to the work of the archaeologist through hands-on experience and teamwork. Students dig, learn about tools and methods of recording artefacts, and share their excitement and enthusiasm at their discoveries. he archaeological parks renovation project enabled us to set up infrastructure for this workshop in the Emonan House park, where we had previously not held workshops; in this way we have also actively included this park in our programmes. his will contribute to better knowledge of the location among visitors and to higher visitor numbers and better recognisability for this park, which as a result of its location among private houses in a quiet part of Ljubljana has until now been the least well known of the parks among the general public. We have placed a special emphasis on bringing the remains of ancient Emona closer to families, as part of active leisure time. A new guide, Emona from E to A, featuring attractive illustrations and fun tasks, encourages families to explore and study the open-air Emonan monuments. In this way visitors get to know the Roman archaeological heritage of Ljubljana through active participation. he programme is designed in such a way as to encourage intergenerational cooperation and group learning. We intend to bring revitalised archaeological heritage closer to the broadest cross section of the public through popularisation programmes and events. We provide these for the purpose of familiarising the public with archaeological heritage and the services that we provide as the manager of the archaeological parks. Two diferent popularisation projects have been prepared in the context of the project: When Ghosts Come to Life (guided visits to the monuments of Emona with costumed guides; Fig. 11) and Roman Day (one-day programme featuring various workshops). Our popularisation programmes and events are aimed at diferent target groups including those not primarily interested in ancient heritage. Within the context of these programmes we therefore seek out various forms of collaboration with the organisers of different kinds of events, e.g. recycling workshops, readings and recitals, small concerts, etc. Simultaneously with the renovation of the archaeological parks, a tourist trail called Emona/hrough Roman Ljubljana was created, representing a new platform for the development of cultural tourism in Ljubljana. Emona/hrough Roman Ljubljana is a platform that unites and connects the archaeologically presented remains of Emona (e.g. the archaeological parks, part of the west wall by Cankarjev Dom, the monument area by the statue of the citizen of Emona in Zvezda Park, the presented cloaca on Aškerčeva Cesta, etc.), which previously lacked context and were therefore diicult or impossible to understand, into a uniied story. he hrough Roman Ljubljana itinerary is equipped with interpretative panels with texts and drawings showing reconstructions of individual remains (Fig. 12). Additional content (texts, graphics, audio recordings) on the development of Emona, everyday life in the town and Roman culture in general can be accessed via QR codes on the panels). here is also a lealet with map that helps individuals or groups discover the Roman town of Emona, now recognisable even to non-experts as a logical whole within the city centre of present-day Ljubljana. As well as the possibility of individual tours in conjunction with city tourist organisation Turizem Ljubljana, which has years of experience with tourism, including cultural and historical tourism, in Ljubljana, we are developing specialised tourism products aimed at group and guided tours. We have also collaborated with them on the preparation of a guide, Experience Emona!, one of the multilingual guides to the various historical faces of the capital which Turizem Ljubljana publishes on a regular basis. he planned promotion is oriented towards attracting potential users, increasing their interest in Ljubljana’s Roman archaeological heritage, and of course encouraging them to try the newly created tourist itinerary, the various programmes and the renovated parks. In this context, a marketing mix has been developed on the basis of analysis of the market and target groups and the previously evaluated needs and wishes of users; as well as a public relations plan, this marketing mix includes advertising, sales promotion and direct marketing. Using promotional materials such as lyers and guides, we will inform potential users about Emonan heritage, the programmes on ofer and the opportunities to visit or participate. he promotional material also contains all necessary information for users (location, opening times, prices, etc.). All the promotional material has been produced in six different languages, which means extremely broad access to information for a variety of language groups. We are particularly proud of having included in the renovation an improvement in the accessibility of Emonan heritage for people with special needs. he new walkways in the archaeological parks enable access for visitors with reduced mobility (and pushchairs), tactile maps of the parks allow the blind and partially sighted to discover the complex ground plan of the archaeological remains, while a video guide for the deaf and hearing impaired, produced as part of the Museum in Signs project (see http://www.auris-kranj.si/ index.php/muzej-v-znakih; 17 September 2012), makes the hrough Roman Ljubljana itinerary accessible and interesting for this target group too. Within the context of the project we also sought potential partners for collaboration on the promotion of the new products. his has resulted in partnerships with the tourism, cultural and educational sectors. VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 219 Conclusion: guidelines for the future he parks revitalisation project also included the elaboration of a management plan, through which we deined the management strategy for a medium-term period. Besides the content deined by Article 60 of the Protection of Cultural Heritage Act (inspection of valuable cultural elements, management structure, plan of activities with inancial outline, method of monitoring implementation), we devoted particular attention to the management of Emonan heritage for people, i.e. for visitors. Among the strategic objectives we included ascertaining the needs of potential visitors, ensuring the accessibility of the parks to visitors of all proiles and age groups from Slovenia and abroad, ensuring maximum accessibility to visitors with special needs and the development and expansion of the tourism services provided by the parks. Implementation of the revitalisation project has established conditions for the conservation and more successful protection of Ljubljana’s presented Emonan heritage, while at the same time the numerous educational potentials of this heritage have been clearly highlighted and the necessary platform has been established for the enrichment of tourism in Ljubljana and Slovenia as a whole (Fig. 12). In short, since we understand Emonan heritage as a social and cultural process and not merely as the physical presence of monuments, we intend to manage it as such. In our vision of the protection and development of the monuments, alongside the protection of the monuments themselves there is also a focus on the protection of the heritage of Emona as “public heritage”. We emphasise quality communication with visitors, inclusion, dialogue and removing barriers. We intend to put heritage into efect as a social and communication practice in public programmes, projects designed to involve the public, and so on (Figs. 11 and 12). Naturally we cannot reduce the management of Ljubljana’s archaeological parks, like the management of heritage in general, merely to a few specialist and technical practices. Our starting point in the management of Emona’s heritage is that this is a complex and continuous social and cultural process (cf. Harvey 2001, 320ss; Smith 2006). Heritage is in fact constantly being created, in a dynamic process in which the past is used as a starting point for debate, conlicts and negotiations about what should be evaluated and protected and why. he awareness that heritage is a constantly evolving construct is of key importance when it comes to inding the right balance in heritage management: a way to present the past in a manner that is historically appropriate and at the same time comprehensible to the broadest cross section of the public, a way to balance the strict protection criteria governing archaeological sites with the development of tourism and urban development. Since many diferent groups oriented towards diferent goals are involved in this process (citizens of Ljubljana, the City of Ljubljana, archaeologists, conservators, museum workers, property developers, Turizem Ljubljana, etc.), the management process is an emotional and frequently conlictual one. It is therefore vital to keep asking ourselves what the concepts of heritage, owner- ship, power, knowledge and “public heritage” actually mean in this context.1 Summary he heritage of Roman Emona, presented within modern Ljubljana, consists of two archaeological parks, part of the south wall in the Mirje district and a few individual monuments or smaller monument areas. Despite numerous efforts, over the decades this heritage had become hard to see, both for citizens and for tourists, and was therefore frequently overlooked, growing increasingly marginalised and hard to understand; the remains were also in a poor state from the conservation-restoration point of view. he renovation and revitalisation of Ljubljana’s archaeological parks, a project carried out in 2011 and 2012, included elaboration of the conservation plan and conservation-restoration work in the Emonan House and Early Christian Centre archaeological parks and at the Roman wall in the Mirje district, the renovation of protective and tourism infrastructure in the two parks, the setting up of an information point with a model of Emona in the underpass of the Kongresni Trg underground car park, the design and implementation of aids to interpretation and new public programmes for visitors to the parks, and elaboration of a management plan. During the process of elaboration of the conservation plan, the level of social importance of the monuments was determined. In accordance with this, and with the cases of damage identiied in individual parts of the monuments, guidelines were drawn up for the conservation of the protected valuable elements of the monuments and for their development and potential changes and alterations. he conservation plan served as a basis for the implementation of conservationrestoration interventions. Alongside the demanding conservation-restoration work on the Roman remains, a new architectural image and infrastructure were planned in both archaeological parks (footpaths, replacement of the roof in the Emonan House park, uniform auxiliary structures, etc.). he improvements were designed both to improve the protection of the heritage and enable easier access to visitors. he infrastructure approach was selected as the most suitable approach to the regulation of the two archaeological parks, because of several aspects that combine in the deinition of sustainable development. he infrastructure approach speciies interventions whose aim is above all the preservation, inclusion, exploitation and exposure of urban archaeological parks in a sustainable manner, so that they become a part of the city that is accessible to all. he regulation of the infrastructure of the two archaeological parks was designed in a manner that corresponds to the needs of both individual visitors and organised groups. he infrastructure is functionally and formally structured with regard to functional components and spatial conditions. Of key importance for the understanding of the heritage in the parks and, consequently, for its protection are the intro1 220 Ang. public heritage. duction of various museological aids to interpretation (information panels, printed matter, multimedia guides) and the arrangement of a marked itinerary around Emona itted with information panels, which places separate areas and monuments into the common context of the former Roman town. he primary goal of the project was to include the heritage of Emona into the life of modern Ljubljana. We intend to achieve this through a variety of educational programmes, events and other forms of public involvement. References Allen, S. (2003): Practice: Architecture, Technique and Representation. London, Routledge. Bobek, K. (2012): Konservatorski načrt: Ljubljana – (1) Arheološki park Zgodnjekrščansko središče (EŠD: 329), (2) Arheološki park Emonska hiša (EŠD: 329), (3) Rimski zid na Mirju (EŠD: 22658). Ljubljana, ZVKDS, Restavratorski center. Breznik, A. (2006): Arheološki park – dejavnost rekonstruiranja preteklosti. Varstvo spomenikov 41, 79–99. Harries, K. (2000): he Ethical Function of Architecture. Cambridge (Mass.), London, MIT Press. Harvey, D.C. (2001): Heritage pasts and heritage presents: temporality, meaning and the scope of heritage studies. International Journal of Heritage Studies 7/4, 319–338. Košir, F. (2006): K arhitekturi: razvoj arhitekturne teorije (1. del). Ljubljana, Fakulteta za arhitekturo. Kruft, H.-W. (1994): History of Architectural heory From Vitruvius to the Present. New York, Princeton Architectural Press. Pérez-Gómez, A. (1983): Architecture and the Crisis of Modern Science. Cambridge (Mass.), London, MIT Press. Plesničar, L. (1968): Jakopičev vrt. Kulturni in naravni spomeniki Slovenije, zbirka vodnikov 14. Ljubljana, Zavod za spomeniško varstvo Republike Slovenije. Plesničar Gec, L., Slabe, M. (1979): Varovanje arheoloških ostalin. In: Mesesnel, J., (ed.), Rešena arheološka dediščina Ljubljane, katalog razstave. Ljubljana, Mestni muzej, 7–13. Plesničar-Gec, L., et al. (1983): Starokrščanski center v Emoni. Katalogi in monograije, Ljubljana, Narodni muzej. Rykwert, J. (1967), Lodoli: On Function and Representation. Architectural Review 953 (7), 21–26. Slabe, M. (1986): O vrednotenju nepremične arheološke dediščine, Varstvo spomenikov 28, 121–127. Smith, L. (2006): he uses of heritage. Abingdon, New York, Routledge. Stelè, F. (1928): V obrambo rimskega zidu na Mirju v Ljubljani. Ljubljana, Spomeniški urad. Županek, B. (2005): Dediščina rimske Emone: med nostalgijo in avtoriteto. In: Hudales, J., Visočnik, N., (eds.), Dediščina v rokah stroke. Županičeva knjižnica 14. Ljubljana, Filozofska fakulteta, Oddelek za etnologijo in kulturno antropologijo, 155–163. Županek, B. (2008): Dediščina na razpotju: emonski spomeniki med včeraj in jutri. Varstvo spomenikov 44, 271–290. VarStVO SpOmenIKOV 47–48 JOURNAL FOR THE PROTECTION OF MONUMENTS 221