The controversial topic must be led out of fixed patterns of thought, as it has ceased to be simply the continuous representation of an image, instead shifting the paradigm towards a new construction of history. The ever-present idea and practice of re-presenting again what is missing must be seen in the new perspective of “re-construction”, stressing the attention on the prefix “re-”, linked to the possibility of repetition of actions, in same or opposite way, moving expected results from precise copy to broader quote of invention. The basic principle of any cognitive structure is repetition. If intended as the action of performing again something that already occurred, it allows the formation in the subconscious of an image in which users can recognise specific values. Reconstruction, in the action of building again and filling gaps, supports the desire for continuity of a constructed memory that is also part of contemporary cultural self-construction. The concept of reconstruction weaves relationships concerning ontological, ethical and pragmatic aspects. Reconstruction tackles the dichotomy between complete form and ruins, a condition in which architecture, although reduced to minimum formal terms, still manages to exist through an image that constantly lies in collective memory. It opens questions on the ratio between original contents and replicas and on its social and political legitimacy and investigates building techniques involved and the innovation impressed on the remains by the rehabilitation project. This contribution aims to clarify how a reconstructive approach to heritage intervention can play, in multiple fields, a significant role in the transmission of memory and value, and also to broaden the spectrum of investigation onto various reconstructive models, which provide the theoretical basis for a subsequent practical approach for the heritage.