The equestrian statue was then moved
The equestrian statue was then moved from the showcase in the Capitoline Museum to the new Hall of the Giardino Romano on December 12, 2005, ten days before the opening of the new Hall, on December 22 (Figure 14).The transfer was not made public to prevent dangerous crowds, which could have endangered the precious monument. The horse was placed on a trestle upon a truck, which brought it vegf inhibitor from the New Museum to Via del Tempio di Giove in a few minutes. Here a crane heaved the horse and placed it in the Giardino Caffarelli. The statue of the Emperor was subjected to the same procedure, although it was secured with a harness and temporarily placed in the Galleria degli Horti.
A more difficult task was yet to come: the horse was to be placed on a steel pedestal inside the Hall. However, given that the horse rested on three points holding a precarious balance, special hinges to balance its weight were devised by the Science and Technology Research Center for the Preservation of the Historical and Architectural Heritage of the Sapienza University of Rome. A slight mistake in the harnessing process or minor oscillations of the statue could have caused irreparable damage to it. Moments of great tension and emotion occurred for those who participated to the operation, but once the horse was placed, the statue of Marcus Aurelius could finally be mounted on it again (Giuliani, 2005a, 2005b).
The completion of the new Hall: 2002–2005 The new pedestal of the statue, designed by Francesco Stefanori, architect of the Municipal Superintendence to the Archaeological Heritage, consists of a long catwalk, 10m long and 3m wide, jutting from a sturdy pedestal starting from the stair-ramp around the Hall. Although this specific shape originated from the intention to avoid any imitation of Michelangelo׳s pedestal, shunning the possibility of any comparison, it was considered too emphatic and was not widely acclaimed. Indeed, it hinders a 360° view of the equestrian statue. The insufficient funds alloted by the Municipal Superintendence for the Archaeological Heritage, which are modest relative to the financial investments for monumental works conducted in the past decade or that are underway in Rome, impoverished the quality and the care of individual details. On the one hand, the restoration works of the archaic walls are commendable, along with the advanced technology that characterizes the steel-and-glass elements and the lighting system designed by Corrado Terzi, one of the most talented lighting engineers in Rome. On the other hand, the defective travertine ramp and the poor quality of the “battuto alla Veneziana” paving cannot be overlooked. Despite the many difficulties caused by changes in the Museum׳s programme and by the hostility of some political and administrative circles, the new Hall of the Marcus Aurelius is one of the most significant pieces of contemporary architecture in Rome and deserves a specific place in Michelangelo׳s Capitolium (Figures 15–20).The conservation of the foundation system of the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter, on which Carlo Aymonino devoted a great amount of work before passing away, leaving many ideas but no viable solution for the city of Rome, is bound to be the next step. The difficulties faced by Aymonino—a true challenge for anyone—is due to the presence of the Giardino Caffarelli and to the remains of the Palazzo, although deprived of its precious decorations. Indeed, microsporangia is bound to be a “tectonic” endeavour that will deeply transform the morphology of the place, unless it is confined to the foundations brought to light within the perimeter of the Palazzo. A virtual reconstruction of the Temple of Capitoline Jupiter will be impossible because of the lack of relics. In one of his last beautiful drawings, Aymonino evoked the presence of the Temple above the new Hall and over Michelangelo׳s Capitolium in a meta-historical vision, seemingly reaffirming that the memory of urban events depicting the history of a given site continues to influence its identity and its urban value, although tarnished by time (Strappa and Pullara, 2005; Bucci, 2005; Maestosi, 2005; Novelli, 2005).