You are on page 1of 15

Read ngs n Cons er y at on

Edited by
Nr c nor es Sr Lsy Pnr cr
M. Kr nnv Ter - l r v
Jn.
Ar - r ssl N nA MELUcco Vecc no
CONS E RV A T I ON
L OS A NGE L E S
Historical and
Philosophical Issues
in the Conservation
of Cultural Heritage
T HE CET T Y I NS T I T UT E
Publication Coordination; Dinah Berland
Design: Sandy Bell
Poduction Coordination: Anita Keys
Tpesetting: C&S Twesetters, Inc.
OJ. Paul Gtty Trust 1996
All ghts reserved
r o 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
Printed in Canada by Friesens
rsBN
978-o-89236-z5o-9
(clorh)
Isrr o-89236-z5o-z (cloth)
ISBN
978-0-89236-398-8
(paper)
Isnr o-89236-398-3 (paper)
The Getty Conservation Insritute is commited to the preservation of cultural heritage
worldwide, seeking to further scientiffc knowledge and professional practice in the ffeld of
conservation and to aise public awareness of conservation,s importance. Tbrough eld
work, research, training, and the exchange of infomarion, the Insrirte addresses rhe
conservation needs ofmuseum objects and archival collections, archaeological
monuments and sites, and hi$toric buildings and cities.
Honor Daumier, Adrzice to a Yorg Artist,
probably after 186o, oil on canvas,
Vs x D1/s in, Gik o Duncan Phillips
O 1995 Board of Trustees,
Nat i onal Cal l er y ot Ar r . Washi ngt on. D. C.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Dara
Historical and philosophical issues in the consenation ofcultural
heritage
p. cm. (Readings
in conseation)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
sBN978-o-89236-2to-9 rsBN978-0-8923,398-8
rser o-8923-z5o-z
-
sBN 0-89236-398-3
r. At Consewation and restoration. 2. Achitecture-
Conseryation ad restoration. I. Stanley Price, Nicholas, 1947-
lI. Talley, Mansffeld Kirby. ltl. Melucco Vaccaro, Alessandra.
IV Seies.
N85tt.rt7 1996
7oz' . 8' 8
-dczo
Part I
R E A D I N G
I
1 l
l l
1,1
Readi ng
25
relatization
of th
heterogeneous
clu
ums, certainlY
Poit
historian or sociol
processes,
perhaPs
various "cultural
n
that feed them, su
to our interests h(
cially archaeologr
man and his inv
channels for tracl
Thus, in a few der
prehistoric archae
ae of such rers
presentation in th
themselves
to mo
carrier of multiPlt
cally relerant rest
questions to ask o
In this $a
a growing numbe
nature, in this inl
and his environm
To pose thi!
status and the fa
related functoni
property is not ft
"patrimonial"
ch
confusion
betwe
the latter embral
choreographies,.i
succession
of cuJ
as the word cd{
the "common
h!
lect as to transr
say that a cultul
become concem
are not privilego
which is as it shl
upon this or thal
tainly the tool t!
Introduction
to
Archaeological
C onservation
MARI E BERDUCOU
From MARIE BERDUcou, "Introdction
la conserration archologiqe," chap r in
La coflse
'et)ott en archologie: Mthodcs et pntiqu d b corcerwion-restawation
ls
estiget drcWologiqrts' ed. Marie Cl. Berducou
(Paris: Masson,
9go)' 3-r5'
24-26'
@ Masson, Paris, r99o. Translated by Garett White'
244
Part Concerning the Conservation of Cultural Property
The ldza of
'Cubwal
PmPertY"
This expression,
for not having been often defined, is today one of the terms
most frequently used to cover, for better or worse, the immensely diverse
mass of documents of all types upon which our societies confer a particular
artistic, historical. or ethnological interest. According to what criteria do they
assign this kind of "spiritual
slPPlement"
to the strict materidity of these
objects? The answer is not always easy. A glance at national legislation that
seela to establish legal regulations for this special categoryl clearly shows
the difficulty: attemPts at definition often quickly become a drawn-out cata-
loguing process. Readily applicable criteda ae undoubtedly s1'rnbolic of the
capacity of the society under consideration to understand and rePresent its
present and its past, as well as those of others; their fluctuation according to
place and era is obous to anyone.
The extremely broad and hazy concept of cultural
Property
aPPeared
only in recent decades. Immediately employed by numerous international
organizations
working in the cultural domain'2 it seems little by litde to have
encompassed
and supplanted established categories-works
of art, antiqui-
ties, curiosities, specimens-all
of which came to be confused, not long
afterward, th the very notion of culture. The extraordinary
outmoding and
B E R D U C O U
relatization of these classes of objects, as witnessed, for example, by the
heterogeneous character of the collections in the better part of our muse-
ums, certainly points toward a multitude of processes, constituting for the
historian or sociologist a ffeld worthy of research and reflection. Of these
processes, perhaps not all depend solely on the evolution of ideas. The role of
various "cultural markets," notably the at market, and the successive trends
that feed them, suggest, for example, other analyses. But for what is essential
to our interests here, we thnk ffrst of the rise of the social sciences, espe-
cially archaeologr. These disciplines, in thei search for knowledge about
man and his individual as well as collective methods of operation, are today
channels for tracking down information in ever larger fields of exploration.
Thus, in a few decades, the objects of archaeological study-beginning with
prehistoric archaeology-have multiplied, and the documents in its pumew
are of such diversity that it would be impossible for us to give an exhaustive
presentation in this text. At the same time, the majority of these objects lend
themselves to more and more complex studies, as if each were a potential
carrier of multiple meanings, each of these accessible only through specifi-
cally relevant research. In short more and more objects, more and more
questions to ask of them!
In this way, archaeologr prodes a good example of the ways in which
a grong number of widely divergent documents have acquired a cultural
nature, in this instance as sources of nformation about the history of man
and hs environment. Ae all of these documents cultural property?
To pose this'problem is to inquire less into their nature than into their
status and the fate we reserve fo them. Indeed, whatever their nature and
related functions (to
make knor.r'n, educate, contemplate, invest), cultural
property is not found to be decisively clarified except through its implicirly
"patrimonial" character, even to the point of frequently observing a certain
confusion between the notions of cultural property and cultural heritage,
the latter embracing a still more vast domain
(oral
traditions, patronymics,
choreographies, rituals and ceemonies, et cetera) not entirely embodied in a
succession of cultural "things." In this light, the word prcpertl says as mch
as the word cuhutal speaking to us above all of appropation and heritage,
the "common heritage,"3 the material expression of which is as much to col-
lect as to transmit, which is to say, conserve. It is hardly oversimpli$ring to
say that a cultural property is not plainly recognized until the moment we
become concerned with its consenation. And if specialists in conservation
are not privileged officials-neithe more nor less than othe social actors,
which is as it should be-responsible fo the choices that go into confernng
upon this o that object the status of cultural property, their discipline is cer-
tainly the tool that assures the practical realization of this vast corpus.
Re a d n g 2 5
one of the terms
immensely diverse
confer a particular
criteria do they
of these
legislation that
t
clearly shows
a drawn-out cata-
symbolic of the
and repesent its
according to
property appeared
intemational
by litde to have
of art, antiqui-
not long
outmoding and
3-f5,24-26.
P a r t I I
I
T HE E ME a c E Nc E
o F Mo DE RN c o Ns E Rv A - f
o N r HE o Ry
The Cotaeruation
of Cultural
properE
Cultural property ... Did you say cultutal
TtroyterrT?
How strange ,.. I heard
conservatiafi!
It is true that the expression cultural proTterrl
arose only to conveniently
designate a series of things, difficult to define n a restrictive or preclse man_
ner, but which we take the trouble to conserve. There are no texts that sDeak
of cultural properties
in the absolute. Wherever we encounter them_even
when their deffnition laries-it is a question
of their conservation.
What does it mean to conserve)
Conservation is the ensemble
of means that, in carrying out an rnter-
vention on an object or its envionment, seek to prolong its estence as long
as possible. The first goal of consevation is to ensure the dutahlity o cul
tural property.
The means implemented for this goal must in no way afrect
the nature of this property,
neither its mateial constituents nor the meaning
or meanings those materials convey; conservation respects the integrity of
the object, Operating in this wa conser\,Etion
brings its technical assistance
to a global project: the formation of a useful heritage, a heritage capable, in
other words, of being studied, displayed, or archir,ally preserved,
as the case
may be, but always offering a certain ceessibility.
The act of reserving special treatment for certain human productions
of the past or present-with
the goal of bestowing upon them a form of per_
manence-goes
back a long way. In a recent article,4 Alain Schnapp crres a
very beautiful text concemin'g Nabonidus, king of Babylon in the sixth cen_
tury B.c.E., who quasi-archaeologically
researched
and reconstructed in its
odgnal stare the temple of Ebabbar, founded by one of his distant, illustri-
ous predecessors,
King Hammurab,
some twelve centuries earlier. But to
maintain the perrnanence
of a function (useful,
symbolic, or otherwise) is
not conservation in the current sense of the wod, Conserlation
supposes an
awareness of the materiality of the objects in which we are interested, and of
the twofold consequence
of that materiality: their irreplaceable nature and
their physical
vulnerability to the test of time. The -ort -od".., feature of
this conception can be found in the notion of integrity. To respect the
integrity of an object is to recognize in t a kind of inolability; to avoid bring_
ing harm to the original material from which it is made; to devote oneself to
as wide a perception
as possible
of each of its parts, features, and possible
interpretations; to leave it untouched by any intervention that would defini_
tively limit alternative treatments or subsequent ways of comprehending
it.
What formidable requirements!
The ruin, in th not too distant
Dast. to
which we have been led by methods of
,,conservation,,
that did not subscribe
to this principle of integrity (massive
repairs and reconstructions
undertaken
to the detrine
altered) is withr
great texts that
Athens (r93r)
ar
tects concemed
uments, clearly
century of han
mentioned abor
to the current r
know that toda
tion than in th
of that inforni
become accessil
become more c
evidence. Elrn I
thei authenticil
ical makeup, thr
Cetainl
may pose an i
processes involt
sometimes unav
the treatmenB I
theless already I
tiori, how do rlr
based on our cur
tigation that we
,
That is cle
we be able to s
ages, ineluctabl
ing upon the coi
tion) and upon d
and stabilizatiof
is an initial coml
There arer
selves to consei
unrecognizable r
concretions, a sl
corrosion, a met
their "integrity'?
Ther cun
much distinctioi
I T I O N T H E O R Y
w stange ... I heard
ronly to conveniently
Dtive o precise man-
p no texts that speak
lounter them-even
meation.
I
rt'rn8 out an rnter-
ts existence as long
he durability of cr:J-
ust in no way affect
ts
nor the meaning
gcts
the integity of
B E N D U C O U
to the detriment of oiginal parts, occasionally sacriffced or irremediably
altered) is without doubt responsible for this new state of mind. Two of the
great texts that well illustrate this progressive state of mind, the Charter of
Athens (r93r)
and the Charter ofVenice (1964),
were drafted mostly by archi-
tects concerned th the principles to be applied to the care ofhistoric mon-
uments, clearly the objects (and
occasionally e victims) in the previous
century of harsh polemics and extreme appraisals.s But the dwelopments
mentioned above, such as in archaeological research, are no longer strangers
to the current gor of the concept of the iategrity of cultural properry We
know that today an archaeological object yields a great deal more nforma-
tion than in the past, and it is in probing its mateal composition that some
of that information, until quite recently hidden and unsuspected, has
become accessible. The culturl character of these objects has changed and
become more complex; it has gone beyodd their apparent form and value as
evidence. Even their material composition is no longer a simple expression of
their authenticity. Their authenticity is in their structure, their physicochem-
ical makeup, the potential source of new learning.
Certainh to try to ensure both the durability and integrity of an object
may pose an impossible challenge. In order to stabilize it, to slow the
processes involved in its alteration, modifring its material constituents is
sometimes unavoidable. This is what is implied, for example, in nearly all of
the treatments of consolidation by impregnation treatments that we never-
theless already knov will frustrate certain kinds of analysis or dating. A for-
tiori, how do we guarantee that ou interventions, which are necessarily
based on ou current state of knowledge, will not compromise a future inves-
tigation that we are as yet incapable of irnagining!
That is clearly impossible. But the reply is altogether simple: What ll
we be able to study tomorrow of an object that has disappeared?! Matter
ages, ineluctably, and transforms. We can only slow these phenomena by act-
ing upon the conditions in which that matter is placed (preventive
conserva-
tion) and upon the matter itself when necessary
(treatments
of consolidation
and stabilization), all while sacrificing as little as possible oJ its inta{riq. That
is an initial compromise.
There are othes. The majority of the objects we have taken upon our-
selves to conserve have already aged; they are altered and may be at times
unrecognizable or unintelligible. A mural paintng may be partially hidden by
concretions, a stained-glass window partly obscured by the products of its
corrosion, a metal object practically without an identifiable form. Where is
their "integrity''?
Their current state amalgamates (unfortunately,
sometimes without
much distinction) paint, stained glass, a metal object; namely, whatever
R. . d i n g 2 5
asststance
capable, in
as the case
productions
a form of per-
Schnapp ctes a
in the sth cen-
distant, illustri-
earlier. But to
or otherwise) is
supposes an
interested, and of
nature and
moden feature of
To respect the
to avoid bring-
devote oneself to
and possible
that would defini-
distant past, to
did not subscbe
undertaken
25r
Pa r i I I I
I
T H E E M E R G E N c E o F M o D E R N c o N s E R v A T o N T H E o R Y
remains of them o attests to their existence and the products of their trans-
formation over the course of time, products resulting from interactions
established in the milieu in which they have survived until now.
To decipher this amalgam and simply recognize an extremely altered
object, as archaeology is often able to do for us, meticulous esearch of what
remains of the initial object-which must be differentiated from what mashs
it-is necessary. It is through is research, at times difficult, that the object
becomes truly accessibl. lt ends in a commonplace-but never banal-oper-
ation generally referred to as cleaning: the elimnation of all or part of the
products of alteration. Dung cleaning, we excavate-almost in the archae-
ological sense of the rvord-what s to be conserved; the understanding of
the object elaborated at this stage of the work becomes established moe or
less deffnitively and determines the reading of it that l[ henceforth be pos-
sible. One must constantly evaluate what has been eliminated, which is nev-
ertheless always a testimonf if not to the initial object' then at least to a
Part
of its history: its aging.
The problem may become even more comPlicated when a cultual
property comes down to us transformed by earlier interventions that have
degraded, damaged, or misrepresented it, thereby imposing upon us a read-
ing considered debatable today. One must then make ajudgment concerning
an eventual "de-restoration."
Thus, we can appreciate the imrnense degree of difficulty involved, in
actual pactce, in rigorously respecting the integrity of an object, even when
that object is at times discvered or rediscovered ,.at in its orighal state
(tthich has disappearcd.) but thtough th4 i&terpret4tion of the present ste of
what remains of it, and thk often at the price of abandoning patt oJ the trail of
its fiaterial history, This sacfice is also a compromise tretween the necessity
of reaching the object to be conserved and the desire to lose nothing that
concems it nor information conveyed by it, even indirecdy.
We can easily deduce fiom the foregoing that the conservation of cul-
tural property requires both a multidisciplinary approach and e opposite of
a spirit of dogmatism. Every intervention is a special case that must be
Pre-
ceded by as complete a study as possible of the object at hand the nature of
its mateal constituents; the information, messages' or values it carries; the
context in which it would be appropriate to situate it; an appraisal ofits state
of alteration; the probable causes of that alteration; and a prognosis of its
possible evolution. . . , Before manifesting as a series of technical gestures
performed on the material, conservation is first a critical research into the
object and its characteristics6 The sum of the transformations it has under-
gone throughout its history certainly influences what can be understood of
it; there is, then, a dialectical elationship between the preliminary study that
guides conserval
interpretation in
(what is remove
is the con retg
of this process.
To Conserrre anl
Is the work of cr
tion, cleaning, d,
and the sphere c
Customari
native choices.
u
toration. ... Fu
aiming above all
less long period
on the other ha
in particular tht
superio materia
incidentall in a
This deff
gi!n to the w0
to author and c<
tradictory quots
less to opposing
than to a comm
the word restora
cies we have spt
modem word co
times to rejuver]
ing to the eec1
siderations.e Thi
historically sigr
We may h
"9-5 1g
gayl
practice of aburi
hensive wok on
This is no
whch are more
texts on which,'l
based, Teoria ful
I O N T H E O B Y
lcts
of their trans-
hom interactions
l now.
llextremely
altered
p research of what
lfom
what masks
irlt,
that the object
farer
banal-oper-
all or part of the
in the achae-
understanding of
more or
be pos-
which is nev-
at least to a palt
when a cultural
that have
upon us a read-
concemrng
involved, in
even when
its origir.al stote
presen state of
of thc trail of
the necessity
nothing that
of cul-
the opposite of
must be pre-
the nature of
it carries; the
of its state
prognosis of its
gestures
into the
it has under-
understood of
B E R D U C O I J
guides consevational intenentions and the elements of identification and
interpretation in turn proded by it. ln the end, technical intervention itself
(what
is removed, what is found to be modified, what is eventually added)
is the conete expression oJ a critical jdgn@ thus formed in the course
of this process,
To Conserve and,/or to Restore ,..
Is the work of conservation we have
just
set forth-consolidation, stabiliza-
tion, cleaning, de-restoration-a matter of what we currently call restoration
and the sphere of activity of those rvhom we call "restorers"?
Customaril conservation and estoration are presented as two alter-
native choices. "It is essential to differentiate between conservation and es-
toration. ... Fundamentally, conservation may be defined as an operation
aiming above all to prolong the life of an object by preventing, for a more or
less long period of time, its natural or accidental deterioration. Restoation,
on the other hand, nay rather be considered a surgical operation comprising
in particular the eliminaton of later additions and their replacement with
superior materials, going on occasion as far as to reconstitute what is called-
incidentally, in a somewhat incorect manner-its original state."7
This definition has no unanimous support; in reality, the meaning
given to the words c onsertation and restoratiqt vaes considerably according
to author and country.s We could cite here as proof page after page of con-
tradictory quotations. These contradictions, upon closer inspection, point
less to opposing behaors regarding treatments applied to cultural property
than to a common difficult resolved difierently by each: how to reconcile
the word restoration, ancient and charged with history with the new exigen-
cies we have spoken of and that are undoubtedly better sewed by the more
modem word corsrvation. lndeed, we know that the desire to embellish, at
times to rejuvenate, or at the very least rehabilitate cultural proPerty accord-
ing to the expectations of contemporaries has long overshadowed other con-
sideations.e These are the various attepts to "repair" that restoration has
historically signified. How do we come to terms with this past?
We may be tempted to rid ourselves of the'rcrd, restaration altogether,
(or-as
we say more readily today in order to distance ourselves ftom the
practice of abusive restitutions-corseroatiofl," say the atthors of a compre-
hensive work on the treatment of mural paintings.lo
This is not always the attitude that prevails in the Latin countries,
which are more inclined to keep the tem and redeffne it. One of the major
texts on which the current conception of the restoration of works of art is
based, Tbotia. del rcstauro, by Cesare Brandi,
I 1
defines it this way: "Restoration
Re a d i n g 2 5
study that
P a r t l I I
I
T HE E ME Rc E Nc E o F Mo DE RN c o Ns E Rv A T r o N I HE o Ry
is the methodological moment in which the wok of art is appreciated in its
mateial form and in its historical and aesthetic dualit r,uith a liew to tuans-
lnitting it to the
fuhbe"
(our
emphasis). Restoration can therefore no longer
be considered separately from the notion of durability. Brandit work closes
with a chapter titled "Preventive Restoration." Restoration, updated in this
wat encompasses the very content of the modern idea of consevation and
emains the dominant word and concept.
In the Anglo-Saxon countries we see an opposite evolution. Conserva-
tio, is almost always a generic term designating all of the technical actions
carried out on an object and its enronment, from research into the original
material of which it is composed to preventive consetvation, including, along
the way, consolidation, stabilization, and so on. The wotd rcstaratiott is em-
ployed in a restricted manner to designate operations in strict alignment with
the improyement of what subsists of an object, constituting, as rt wete, a
speciffc and optional moment in conservafion as a whole. The consefiator rs
generally the person who ensues the execution of each of these interven-
tons; the word restorer is becoming rare (above
all in writing), employed
occasionally in regard to easel painting or to signify a person specialized in
the retouching and reintegration of lacunae.
In France, the fact that the words cofrsefl)dtion and. consemqtoT are
reserved for the designation of services and persons responsible overall for
our museum collections clearly hinders a plain and simple transfer of the
Anglo-Saxon terminologr.
When, moreover, it is a matter ofexhibiting the concrete woks of con-
serlation and,/or restoration, it is occasonally impossible to make a theoreti-
cal distinction between that \^/hich falls under one and the other. A good
many cleaning operations, for example, answer a twofold necessity: the elim-
ination of certain products of alteration in order to improve the appearance
of an object (an
aesthetic or pedagogical goal), but also because these prod-
ucts present a danger to the original material. The corrosion of metal or
staned glass often provides such examples. In many cases, the cleaning of
textiles is also a measure that is as conservational as it is aesthetic. Likewise,
we know today that certain materials used in the past as protective coatings,
adhesives, consolidants, or to fill in possible lacunae, can generate substances
while aging that are capable of degradng the original material of the object
th which they are in contact; it is therefore not solelv because an older
restoration may be unsuitable on an aesthetic or historical level that the
question ofits removal is posed but perhaps also for reasons of conservatron.
There ae thus numerous situations in which the sarr intervention
pertairrs to both the impwement and tbe safeguarding of an object. Indeed, t
is self-evdent that a treatment of consolidation, for example-strictly neces-
sary for consr
ducted withot
the object. In
in the cleanil
return of misl
taken without
term, to what
take preceden
Consen
linked. The fu
preservation (
ond relates to
easily separab,
This is r
of the express
technical inte
side by side tur
tion in the rest
the advantage
out much mist
use separately
ject:
It is ffrst
of eultural pro
But it is also a
this property,
sage"-aesther
conservanon.
Conceivr
tool-tempora
inheited from
national scor
to have done ar
system of prot
absence of cor
Consent
sense of these
,
the durability '
sible conduct I
based on a criti
to organize the
greatest possih
2.54
A T I O N f H E O R Y
is appreciated
in its
ith c uiew to ttans-
therefore
no longer
work closes
updated in this
conservation
and
Con"serua-
technical actions
into the original
including,
along
restotation
is em-
alignment
th
as it wee, a
The consetlator
is
of these nterven-
employed
specialized
in
cofl,seftatot
ate
oreall for
transfer of the
worlis of con-
maLe a theoreti-
other. A good
the elim-
the appearance
these prod-
of metal or
the cleaning of
Likewise,
coatings,
substances
of the object
because an older
Ievel that the
of conservation.
iataftettion
B E R D U C O U
sary for consenation (this
is what
justifies
it)-can by no means be con-
ducted without constant attention to its impact on the ffnal appearance of
the object. In the same wa an intervention with a purely aesthetic aim, as
in the cleaning of superffcial or inoffensive products of alteation or the
retum of missing parts (reintegations,
restitutions . . .), cannot be under-
taken without assurance of its absolute harmlessness, now and for the long
term, to what remains of the object. The imperatives of conservation always
take precedence.
Conservation and restoration are, then, in terms of treatment, closely
linked. The first evolves around esearch, the understanding and long-term
preservation of e materials of which an object is made, and the sec-
ond elates to their enhancement.l2 In practice, the two procedures are not
easily separable.
This is undoubtedly the reason for the appearance somewhat recently
of the erpression cotNsen)a.t trt-restotatio as a reference to the ensemble of
technical interventions we haye been discussing. These two terms placed
side by side mpl on the whole, conservation in the larger sense and restora-
tion in the restricted sense, conforming to the Anglo-Saxon vision. They have
the advantage of clearing up certain ambiguities and can be translated -
out much misunderstanding from one language to another (contrary
to their
use separatel, to indicate the comprehensiveness and modemity of the sub-
ject
It is first and foremost a matter of ensuring the durability and integty
of cultural property, pf allowing for its study and preservation-conser tion.
But it is also a question of striking a balance between the social usefulness of
this property, transmitted by the revelation and enhancement of its
"mes-
sage"-aesthetic, histodcal, or other-and the constraints imposed by its
conser tion.
Conceived in this way, the telll. coflsetuation-restotation is a useful
tool-temporarily, in any case-for aloiding the pitfalls of a vocabulary
inherited from the past, as tnessed by its increasing use in texts with inter-
national scope.l3 In our estimation, the most important aspect of this link is
to ha! done away with exclusive deffnitions and to be moving toward a shared
system of procedures and requirements. Of what importance, finall is an
absence of consensus on the terminology if there is agreement on the task?
Conservation, restoration, conservation-restoation-in the curren
sense of these expressions, each pursues the triple objective set forth ealier:
the durability, integity, and accessibility of cultural property. The only pos-
sble conduct when intervening concretely upon this property is one that is
based on a critical, well-researched appreciation ofthe object and that strives
to organize these objectives hierarchically and adopt a solution that ofiers the
greatest possible conciliation between them.
R . d i n g 2 5
object. Indeed, it
P r t I I I
I
T RE E ME Rc E Nc E
o F Mo DE RN
c o Ns E Rv A T r o N
T HE o Ry
It is worth noting that to guid
this endeavor,
a number
of principles
have gradually
fomed that apply to cultural
n;;;';l;'r""res (hom
paintings,
posters,
and photographs
to a"chaeologic.l
objects,
regional
cos_
tumes, and African masks).
These prin"ipl""
"r"
,rt _".rr-t to be disciplinary.
fn"t-
*:
i
series of signposts,
theoretical
reminders,
"nj ",frr"",
_."f.".,
largely
elaborated
and disseminated
by and for those who
,.take
acton,,
on
the objects,
for which they bear the unavoidable
"t,i^"r"
.Jrpo"riUfia
,
fact. moreover,
o[which
they are acutely
aware.ra
Part z: Conservation
in Archaeologr
Tbe Arehaeohgical
Specirtcity
of the Object
Obects and structures
do not become
,,classiffed
antiquities,,,
ruins o his-
toric monuments,
intangible
edence
of th past or .Ur",l.
f."g_""o
of
the collective
heritage the moment
they are unearthed.
Th"i.
,tiir"o.ry,,_
which in a way is an
qxtension
of excavti."_i"
"ft.;,
t;;l"g;",
y", ,o U.
accomplished;
and, at least for a while,
they remain p1""""
of"u. overshad_
owing puzzle.
The ffrst difficulty
brought
up by the intrusion
of the archaeological
perspective
into conservation
is the shattering
arrival of c ontext in a unrverse
ruled habitualry
by rbe object in i*erf
and the n.-orr-o.re
.er.i...r,rp
,"in i .
Ah, context!
When he works in archaeology,
rh"
"o"".-;;;;_;;rto.".
rn,rrt
quickly
learn to take it ihto accounl
There is ffrst of all the immediate
archaeological
context,
the sur_
roundings
of the object (what
we may also call the aslsociative
context)r
cer_
tain aspects of the object,s appearance,
its function,
its significance
are not
comprehensible
unless
the object is reinserted
into the set,foii,
ai."o"".y.
Otherwise
it can easily be misinterpeted.
One can ffll in a ieliberately
per_
forated
ceramic object,
reconstitute
or_r,""ighr".,
"
_".pon
i.r"",a""rrr
la._
ken or twisted,
mistake
wea for an alteration,
"
,ig.rii"..ri-a.-p*it
fo soil
pollution,
something
unfinished
for damage (".
,,i.? ;;;;), l"'"".d*,"L"
"
reconstruction
of a group
of fragments
when half of the
fit
has yet
to be
q\cavated.
Archaeological
objects frequently
ao .rot ,p"* for-iil._""lrr"r,
unequivocally
at any rcaei their irntned.iate
archaeological
contarct-
sheds right
on them in a decish)e
fianner,
-
There is also the general
archaeological
context
what we already
know
of an object even before it is studied. Thi recognirion
.f ;;;; ;;;,
*rr. ,"
256
Part
on p
ular exher
traces
of a
same
or s
ments
min!
of the form
guided (but
the gexcral
,
Finalll
particular
cr
erly speakin
applied
to itr
other
a uni(
do not recei
allow for the
tion requires
among
many
on the contrr
this sense,
cDl
Toward
a
pe
In some
cou
archaeologicai
not be confus
aligned
with v
ffrst methods
middle
of e I
r89o by Geor
orgamc
mateii
knowledge.
In :
chemists
were
alteration
in ob
tion
of antiquii
direction
of a gr
tute of Archaeo
students
of arc
conservation,lT
. . . Thec r
notably
techniq
because
we can
-
S E V A T I O N
? { E O R Y
tor, a number
of principles
pperty
of all genres
(from
Eical objects,
regional
cos_
PI
meant
to be discplinarv.
pers,
and
ethical
markers
lose
who
,,take
action,,
on
I
ultimate
responsibilry
a
quities,',
ruins
or his_
obous
fragments
of
Their
"discovery',_
to a degee,
yet
to be
of an overshad-
of the archaeological
cortt
in a universe
relationship
with
it.
context,
the sur_
context)j
cer-
significance
ae not
ofits
discovery.
a deliberately
per_
tntentionally
bro_
deposit
for soil
o undertake
a
pit
has yet
to be
fo
themselves,
cottecct
sheds
light
we already
know
n e a d | | g
2 5
s E RDu c o u
:n:ilffff#|ffi'fi::
we look
ror a given
characteisric
in a patic-
traces
of a .i*"
;.",)'"t:ethod
of assembly'
possible
decoration,
the
same
or similar
t'e.
The
"i1"-"
tl:
0""1t"* is attested
to by others
of the
ments
mingted
"i.un"u
i.TllT,l'-ln."f
u
*1-ouo of glass
or ceramic
frag-
or the
ro.m-.
,,il;;;;;J"::
il]:':lt-
j":"1.'r
Yk
is aided
bv a given
idea
g.,ia" (ut
,,oi"1.,r".r'^11-li::Tmination
of the
objects
themsehes
is
tbe general
archaeo;;;;;-;;:!
'.'ci"
rurnished
bv known
series
or paraltels;
Finallv,
there
" ,t'r" u^ft'r1",\'es
them
in
-an
ensemble
of ,efercnces.
p".ti"ul".
"nt"*t,
.;;
;.;" f.""."J:i:t:vance-
of the
object
according
to its
erlv
speaking,
*,"""t;
;;;;:ji:hrst
time
factors
inte'veDe
that
are, prop-
r*:::j:;l*ln::g::ii".:.:::l!i:;::
jl;ijJ:ffi
:x:
jili:",","::J*j#.,.:}"Tr"
I IiT:T.:t'i:::lil"
::.*.":Tt;
rion requi.es
ir. An
"0.i""._rillj.1l."lj
fJjf:"1il,.
*fi
:*"j,:ffffi
,
among
many
other
comparable
on rhe
conrrary
witt " .".r"." Tli.llllthat
will
be disregarded;
another,
,t",
u^",
"
on,,"ii;;:
;;;
:; ;:,IiLJil)[;;;
^;:,*
*".
;
Toward
a
personal
Conclusion
In some
countries
moe
than
i
archaeological
conservation
.t"u"1,,o,1h""t',
f"*icularly
more
than
in ours,
no' b"
"o"'r"'"i
*l-';
;;t
;"i1ts

hi;torr'
'5
And this
history
should
aligned
with
,'n*
;;
;;il;lll"iot
ror
example'
even if rt is closely
first
methods
t". ,r"",,;
;;;'.tt:^:science
of archaeological
material.
The
middre
of the
,,;";;";;"""J;"ff:0..:-":d
appeared
in Denmak
in the
ttt"
rt
""o"t
*.r"rJ:;#""t;..:
*rk conducted
in that
country
after
organrc
materials,
and
above
all ,fl"ont""td
control'
the consenation
of
knowledge.
t
il;;-.;;
ilo'l:
:::',*t':
or mebl
resulted
in critical
chemists
were
*rgn,
i, *"i""
""-:^-o.:d:n
at:,he
beginning
of this
century
alteraton
in.r.,ir.u.
il,:*i'j:
:: :t'ot
and
combat
the causes
o[
tion
of anriquiti",
;;'ilffi:i'; ]le
hrsr general
works
on the conserva-
direction
ora great
"."h":;;;;;:;,:1":*t}"l
tl.ro
Ir was
unde
the
tur" of a""h".-orogi,.,r*"|i'"oi't
'"'ortimer
wheeler'
that
London's
Insti-
studenrs
of *"rr1"o,
-J l;:l*t:
in conservation,
intended
fist for
consenation.rT
"
to fture
specialists
in archaeological
-
. . . The
contributon
of archae-ological
conservation
to the
knowledge, notably
techncaj
knowledge,
of vestiges
of th. past
;;;r;;;J
^r*,
because
we cannot
conserve
them,
we may ffnd
mateals
that
are ofinterest
some
taits
rests
in
P a r t I I I
I
T HE E ME Rc E Nc E
o F Mo DE RN
c o Ns E v A T r o N
. r . HE o Ry
today (leathers
and skins, for example) that in the past we came to know only
through exceptionally
well-preserved
finds. conservation-restoration
is also
b:com]lg the indispensable
companion
of archaeology
in all of its media-
related developments.
l{oles
lNote numbers ar not given in rhe original text. The following citations were
prepared
from the bibljographic
material in th Frnch ditio; and completed as
information was available.l
B- BURNHM, comp,, Tte
prctectioi
oJ Alhural
prcperr:
Hanbook o
National Leekl$tiots (paris
Inrernarional
Council of Museums
[rcoru], 1974).
UNEsco, me Conseruatim of Cuttrral
prcperty,
wirh Special ReJerence t;
Tropical Condirions n (paris:
Unesco, 1968); a nd CorTventioL
ofu the Mears
of Pohibitine 6nd.
preventins
the rllicit Impo, Expon, m Tra,,sfer of
Ounetship of Cuburat
pmperr1
(paris:
Unesco, reTo).
3.
BERNARD M. FETLDEN, Ar Itroduction to Consenatiofl
of Cult rat
prope
(Paris:
Unesco, 1979).
H. CEr
the Co
fnstitu
School
Diplon
ad Aa
7.
4.
5
ArArN ScHNApp, "L,archologie
apparenre,,,
pfa.ce
7 GBT):
59_6o.
"Ls restauations
hanqaises et la Charte de Veise,, Morrwnents Histo'ques,
ditions de la Caisse Nationale des Monuments
Htstoriques et des Sites, r97i.
PAoLo MoRA, l,AUnA MoRA, and PAUL
pttI-rpp
w, The Corcetvat;on
of Wat
Paintings (Bolognet
Ed. Compositori,
rccRov, t977), t,
P CoREMANS,
"The Trbining of Restorers,,, in
pm
bbms of Corceruetion
in
Mzsenrm, Travaux et Publications de llcov 8 (paris,
Editions Elro es,
1969) : r 5.
8. M. BERDrcou, "La Conservation archologiqu,,,
in A. ScHN,tpp, ed..
L Archaologie aujoud rr tparis: Hacherte, r98o,. rbJ.
9.
A. CoNrt, Storia del restauro e della consenazione
dette opere d.,ane (Milan:
Electa Edrric, 968j reprinr r9Z).
ro. MoRA, MoR {, and
ptrLtppor,
The Colrservation of Watt
paifltinas.
rr. CEs{RE BRANDT. Toria d2l re\tsuro \Rome, Edizioni dt Storia eletterarura,
r93),
34 [see also Brandi, Reading uz, page z3r].
2. C. Dr MArrEo, "Restaurtion
des ceuwes d,art,,, EncTclopae.dia
Universalis 15
( 1985) :
o3t _43.
13. Icou Covvrrroe Fo CoNsERvATroN,
Eghth TieMilrl Meet ng, Sydne/,
Australia, 6-rr Septelnber,
ry87, 3vols.,
preprints (Los
Angeles: Th c;ty
Consenrion
Insrirute, 1987).
14, American Institute for Conservation
of Historic and Artistic Works
[Arc],
Committee on Ethics and Standards, Code oJ nthtcs and Sta_dards of rract;ce
(Washingron,
D.C,r Arc, r979).
15. M. CoFrELD,
'Towards
a Consevarion
profession,,,
Cotsenetion
Today
( 1988) r
a- 7.
16. A. Luc^s, Atiquitics, Their Rest]atioh
and
presenation
(Lonon:
Edward
Amold, r9z4); H.
J.
pr,rrornr_rrrn,
Tlre
presenatioa
of Antiquities (Londonl
The Museum Associarion, r934).
2s8
N S E V A T I O N
T H E
O R Y
e past
we came
to know
only
Ervation_restoration
is also
Eeology
in all of its
media_
Re a d n 0
2 5
a E RDUc o u
17.
ri#:rr;:ffiir';r'###*."{##rJil'lrtrin
#:ryffi#:l#
:ii,i::tt"""
n Advakces
in,h"
con
"rva,ion
e following
citations
were
rch edition
and completed
as
Propetty:
Handbooh
of
cil.of
Museums
frcorvl, ,974;.
llh
special
Refercrrce
to
lConentiofl
on the
Means
,:pon,
an
Transfe
of
970).
lario't
of Cturat ptupertl
ce
7 ls\)t
5s_6a.
se, Monuhent,
Hktoriques,
rrsoques
er ds Sire!,
o7,
Tlw
Cusenata,
of Wat
7),
r.
lbr
oJ Conserratim
;l
is: Editions
Elroles,
n A. Sc{N.a?p,
ed.,
63.
blle opere
d'arte (Milan:
Wall Paintings.
idi Storia
e Letteatura,
ryclopaedia tJnivetsatis
ry
l Mecting,
STdney,
os Angeles:
The cetry
Altisric
Worl$
[Arc],
nnd Snndards
of
practice
Consenation
Toay
otr (London:
Edward
f
Anttquities
(London:

You might also like