Part I the Preservation of Tangible Heritage

Part I The Preservation of Tangible Heritage art I of this thesis discusses the historical development of the modern discipline P of conservation. It examines the influence of archaeological practice with particular reference to its scientific basis and how this emerged in the first quarter of the last century in artefact conservation. It argues that this became a central characteristic of the professionalisation of the field throughout the C20th, distinguishing the modern discipline of conservation from its historic origins in traditional arts and crafts-based practices. It also discusses how the modern practice of (so-called) ‘scientific conservation’ (and the practice of restoration as an aspect of this) has become an international phenomenon largely fashioned by the scientific / technical and political-institutional sectors. The implications of this movement – especially in terms of its institutionalisation and ‘professionalisation’ – are discussed; both with respect to its administration and in terms of practice in the United Kingdom. Finally, the theoretical basis of these developments (derived from the fine arts) is also examined. Part I consists of four chapters, as follows: Chapter 1.1: ‘Scientific restoration’, Chapter 1.2: ‘International professionalisation’, Chapter 1.3: ‘Professionalisation in the United Kingdom and Chapter 1.4: ‘European restoration theory’. 35 1.1. Scientific restoration This chapter examines the relationship between science, archaeological practice and the emergence of the modern discipline of artefact conservation in the first quarter of the last century. Key specialists are identified through their work in museums together with related scholarly institutes, all of which have contributed to the development of scientific conservation and restoration (it is argued) by the extension of archaeological practice into wider heritage domains. The scientific basis of practice – both in terms of adding to and subtracting from the historical document – is shown to be based around the primary value domains of the ‘aesthetic’ and the ‘historical’ which act to determine the nature of the treatment process. Attention is given to restoration in the adding to sense which is based on the visual appearance of objects and which is necessarily superficial in that the interventive treatment intentionally precludes any form of creative expression (other than scientific expression) which is considered inappropriate (and therefore unethical). It is also argued that the scientific basis of practice is essentially technical and rational in its thinking – which is a determining factor with respect to the kinds of materials and techniques used for restoration. When any such restoration (in the adding to sense) is carried out it is revealed on the historical document itself as ‘non- like’ restoration. This is the essence of the scientific approach. This thesis argues that the emergence of scientific restoration as an aspect of the modern discipline of artefact conservation marks a decisive departure from it’s (and indeed archaeology’s) historic origins in the traditional arts and crafts. Finally, this chapter aims to convey the historical basis upon which the professional practice of conservation has been established – the growth of which (throughout the course of the last century) has introduced scientific restoration to wider domains of heritage. Historically, methods and techniques derived from the physical sciences, such as chemistry and physics (which were later employed in artefact conservation) were 36 first developed in archaeology. Rathgen, for example, was an early pioneer through his work in the laboratories of the Royal Museums of Berlin. His Die Konservierung von Alterumsfunden [ The Conservation of Antiquities ] was first published in 1898. Rathgen recognised the need for a more systematic approach to the conservation of antiquities which had hitherto been the province of craftsmen who had a familiarity with the medium but, it was felt, lacked positive knowledge of the underlying causes of material deterioration. 1 According to Gilberg, many consider Rathgen to be: ‘…the father of modern archaeological conservation’.2 In the United Kingdom, Harold Plenderleith, who was the former Keeper of the Research Laboratory of the British Museum, London, further developed Rathgen’s earlier work through the publication of The Preservation of Antiquities in 1934. 3 According to Gilberg: ‘This handbook has long been considered the “Bible” of conservation’.4 However, as Gilberg notes of Plenderleith’s second book: …it was not until 1956 with the publication of The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art that conservation, so far as the broader material heritage was concerned, was truly established, at least in the English-speaking world.5 According to Calderaro, Plenderleith’s The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art : ‘…was directed at introducing scientific methodology into a field which had been previously dominated by craftsmen’. 6 The development of scientific conservation (and restoration) from its craft-based 1 M. Gilberg, ‘Friedrich Rathgen: The Father of Modern Archaeological Conservation’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation , Volume 26, Number 2, Article 4 (pp.105-120), 1987. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-004_1.html [Accessed 15th October 2003]. 2 Gilberg, 1987. 3 H. Plenderleith, The Preservation of Antiquities , Museums Association, London, 1934. 4 Gilberg, 1987. 5 Gilberg, 1987 referring to Harold Plenderleith ( et. al ), The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art , Oxford University Press, 1956 (reprinted in 1962; second edition published in 1971 and reprinted in 1974, 1976, 1979, 1988 and 1989). 6 N. Calderaro, ‘An Outline History of Conservation in Archaeology and Anthropology as Presented through its Publications’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation , Volume 26, Number 2, Article 3 (pp.85-204), 1987. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-003.html [Accessed 9th July 2004]. 37 origins is discussed by Oddy in the introduction to The Art of the Conservator .7 A similar view is expressed in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage which also discusses some of the historical and philosophical aspects of conserving cultural heritage confirming the complex nature of the field. 8 Plenderleith’s key contribution is acknowledged by Caple in the following terms: ‘…these two books became the textbooks to the emerging subject of archaeological and artefact conservation’ [ my emphasis ]. 9 Plenderleith was later to become director of the International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), Rome and took part in the drafting of the Venice Charter (1964), confirming his substantial contribution to the field of heritage preservation internationally.10 What is important to note here is the movement from archaeological conservation to wider heritage domains, a phenomenon expressed by Pye in the following terms: Originally archaeological material was limited to artefacts from excavations, but recently the role of the archaeological conservator has extended to cover not just excavated artefacts, but other materials, such as ethnographic and folk-life objects. Some conservators feel that this is a spread outside the proper field of archaeological conservation, others see it as a logical progression and reflection of the range and type of evidence with which an archaeologist may work, from excavated material to standing buildings and modern ethnographic data.11 The connection between archaeological conservation and museums is a long established one, as Madsen notes: 7 A. Oddy, The Art of the Conservator , edited by A. Oddy, British Museum Press, 1992 (pp. 13-15). 8 Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage , edited by N. Stanley Price, The Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 (p.471). 9 C. Caple, Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method and Decision Making , Routledge, 2000 (p.154). 10 International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter), held at the 2 nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Venice, 1964. Available from: http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. The Venice Charter was a landmark in the development of heritage preservation internationally. 11 E. Pye, ( et. al ), ‘The Archaeological Conservator Re-examined: a personal view’, in J. Black, Recent Advances in the Conservation and Analysis of Artefacts , James and James, Summer School Press, 1987 (p.355). 38 Archaeological conservation first developed in museums; for example effective treatments for waterlogged wood and for corroded metals were devised during the second half of the nineteenth-century in the National Museum of Antiquities in Copenhagen. Here the emphasis was not so much on the appearance of the object as on the evidence it contained.12 The use of such terms as ‘evidence’ and ‘data’ indicates how the materials were understood and valued and subsequently studied. For example, typically in archaeology, a material will be valued for its historical quality – as evidence of the past. As such, the object is understood in terms of the information (i.e. ‘data’) it can provide about the past. Technical studies are important

Load more