|
|
EDITORIAL374 February 2009 Digging out conservation In this issue we have included two articles concerning conservation of archaeological objects. The first reports a volunteer programme for conservation of archaeological sites in developing countries while the second describes the study of a Neolithic terracotta figurine. These projects are fine examples of good collaboration, understanding and mutual respect between archaeologists and conservators. However, archaeology and conservation cooperation is not always easy. Although both archeologists and conservators are committed to the safeguarding of cultural heritage, they often find themselves in opposing positions. The primary purpose of the archaeologist is the retrieval of information from the object while the conservator’s is the preservation of the object itself. This slight difference has created an ongoing conflict that often makes the archaeologist see the conservator’s work as of lesser importance. This may be a major potential discussion issue as these two concerns – information retrieval and object preservation – may not be easily reconciled. In extreme cases the study of the object may be harmful for its physical state while in conservation procedures information may be lost in order to salvage the object. Although it is not my personal field, I have not seen this to be a prolific area of discussion so I imagine that many of these conflicts are limited to the on-site level and not often brought to an academic level of discussion. The lack of professional recognition is also an important issue that is implicit in the collaboration between these different professions. Evidence of this is found in the multiple short courses about conservation of objects, commonly of ceramic materials, some of which are specifically designed for archaeologists who often replace conservators in archaeological diggings. In fact, the practical experience of a qualified conservator may not be acquired in a short course nor for that matter is the work limited to post-excavation treatments but is also important during the excavation when the safeguarding of many objects may be at stake. Professional recognition is closely related to the history and maturity of each profession. Archaeology has been a recognized profession since the XIX century but the conservator’s role has only recently been accepted and it is still unfamiliar to the general public. I believe that this subjective but strong reason may also be the originator of many misconceptions. In my opinion, and I believe that of many other professionals, the best results may only be achieved if conservators are recognized as equal stakeholders and are fully integrated within the teams they are engaged in. Our profession is now reaching maturity; it has evolved and the background of its evolution is very important. We, as conservators, must be aware of our own history, which sometimes gets forgotten or remains unknown to younger professionals or students. In relation to this subject, the present article of Hans-Christoph von Imhoff is a valuable up-to-date of the current situation at present, and helps to better understand where and why we conservators are right now on the historic timeline. This is a subject of reflection that needs to grow in the public awareness. Rui Bordalo, Executive Editor
Permanent link to this resource: http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/711 |