Preventive Conservation: a Key Method to Ensure Cultural Heritage’s Authenticity and Integrity in Preservation Process

This is an electronic reprint of the original article. This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail. Author(s): Title: Year: Version: Please cite the original version: All material supplied via JYX is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not an authorised user. Preventive Conservation: a Key Method to Ensure Cultural Heritage’s Authenticity and Integrity in Preservation Process Wirilander, Heidi Wirilander, H. (2012). Preventive Conservation: a Key Method to Ensure Cultural Heritage’s Authenticity and Integrity in Preservation Process. e-conservation magazine, 6(24). http://www.e-conservationline.com/content/view/1081 2012 PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION A Key Method to Ensure Cultural Heritage Authenticity and Integrity in the Preservation Process By Heidi Wirilander Introduction Cultural heritage represents society’s collective memory and its self‐image [1]. Society’s heritage also possesses a universal perspective. This is a matter that concerns all mankind because all the nations’ cultural heritage can be seen as part of the world's cultural heritage [2]. Preservation of cultural heritage has been seen as a moral respon‐ sibility in societies because it maintains and strengthens a nation’s identity and understand‐ ing of its past. In general, preservation and con‐ servation of cultural heritage aims to safeguard the existence of cultural heritage of all mankind [3]. The preserved cultural heritage from different centuries indicates that societies have valued aspects of both their past and contemporary cultures: all the cultural phenomena are first con‐ temporary culture and if they are valued and preser ‐ ved they may become past culture representatives. Societies have also actively ensured the transmis‐ sion of its valued cultural features to the future generations: institutions such as museums, libra‐ ries and archives were established to preserve their heritage [4]. Cultural heritage is used in societies to construct and reconstruct identities and multiple cultural and social values [5]. The concept of cultural heritage is always a result of definition and evaluation based processes [6]. International cultural heritage conventions and legislation (Table I) play a significant role in establishing the frameworks through which social cultural elements and features are evaluated at national level. This criterion is used by organized societies cultural heritage professionals and institutions in determining the valued elements in the nation culture and past [7]. International conventions and legislation have a significant part in the cultural heritage process [8]. Table I presents international conventions that have influenced the norms through which the concept of cultural heritage is evaluated. There are two main criteria in the evaluation process, authenticity and integrity of cultural heritage, which arise from UNESCO’s World Heri‐ tage Convention (WHC) that started the List of World Heritage Sites [1]. Integrity comes from the operational guidelines of WHC from 1977. Inte‐ grity is used in measuring the wholeness and in‐ tactness of natural or cultural heritage sites [9] and it has been defined as the object’s continuing significance over time [10]. The concept of authen‐ ticity is a creation of cultural identity that con‐ sists of comprehensive cultures and communities This article studies the role of preventive conservation in cultural heritage preservation. It shows through cultural heritage theory and conservation professions development process how important part preventive conservation has had and still has in cultural heritage preservation and damage prevention. Preventive conservation is a multidisciplinary orientation that uses indirect measures and actions to avoid or to minimize future deterioration or loss of cultural heritage. Conservation professionals should recognize its importance as the most effective method in promoting the long‐term preservation of cultural heritage. Therefore, preventive conservation should be the basic theoretical perspective in all cultural heritage preservation. It can and ought to be used in the entire field of cultural heritage and maintenance work because it considers all the circumstances that may cause deterioration of cultural heritage. Additionally, it is the key method of ensuring that cultural heritage is preserved as authentically as possible through cultural heritage management and care. PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION 165 e‐conservation in societies [1]. Authenticity is often defined as being genuinely and exactly what is claimed to be [11]. The World Heritage Convention gives para‐ meters through which the authenticity of cultural heritage can be evaluated using the "test of authenticity”. This test is used in WHC to justify nominations to the World Heritage List. There was a need to study the meaning and applicability of authen ticity dimensions in WHC context and, therefore, UNESCO’s World Heritage Committee’s eighteenth session published The Nara Document on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention in 1994, which was drafted at the conference with the same name in Japan in November 1993. The purpose of the Nara docu‐ ment was to clarify the dimensions of authenti‐ city in different cultures in WHC relation [12]. The test of authenticity creates a picture of genuine cultural heritage in the World Heritage Convention. In this test, the first criterion is that the work of human creativity is genuine and it stands on its own merits. The second criterion is that the authentic work refers to testimony or is a representative sample of true cultural tradition. The third criterion is that the authenticity refers 166 e‐conservation HEIDI WIRILANDER to the interchange of values or ideas and that the interchange of values has originally taken place in the cultural heritage site in question [12]. According to the Nara Document, authenticity is defined as an essential element in defining, assessing and monitoring cultural heritage. The document asserts that an object’s authenticity ori‐ ginates from a specific cultural context that should be evaluated to confirm its existence [13]. The Nara Document on Authenticity also declares that the diversity of cultures and heritage are irreplaceable sources of intellectual richness of humankind and, therefore, should be protected. The document states that diversity in cultural heritage exists in modern societies and its survival demands respect for other cultures and all aspects of their belief systems. Authenticity is linked to a large variety of information sources on cultural heritage. Relevant information on authenticity enables evaluation of the form, design, materials, use, function, traditions, techniques, location, setting, spirit, feeling, as well as internal and external factors of cultural heritage. These factors define the originality level of cultural heritage [13]. Table I. Cultural heritage conventions that have influenced the norms trough which cultural heritage is evaluated. Convention Institution Year European Cultural Convention European Council 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict UNESCO 1954 Charter of Venice ICOMOS 1964 World Heritage Convention UNESCO 1972 Nara Document on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention UNESCO 1994 Second Protocol for the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict UNESCO 1999 Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions UNESCO 2005 Framework Convention on the Value of Cultural Heritage for Society European Council 2005 and archaeological sites. Cultural heritage could exist in countryside landscapes and in urban and industrial sites [8]. New museology tendencies have defined cultural heritage as a representa‐ tion of contemporary society values. It produces information that creates a vision of cultural ele‐ ments chosen to be part of cultural heritage and others that have been left out [14]. According to Tomislav Šola, cultural heritage is always an expression of society tradition and values. Šola’s general theory on heritology affords the under‐ standing on the background and meaning of cul‐ tural heritage and the objectives of heritage professionals. This results in that the concept of cultural heritage is influenced by memory insti‐ tutions, their visions and missions, as well as their position in society [15]. UNESCO released the Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity in 2001. This document recog‐ nized the multiform nature of culture in time and space. According to it, versatile nature of culture can be reached through unique and plural groups identities, which make up human societies. Cultu‐ ral diversity was declared to be as important to humankind as biodiversity because it is a source of cultural exchange, innovation and creativity [8]. Therefore, cultural heritage process should be as open and democratic as possible, engaging different groups and entire societies in the cul‐ tural heritage definition process. The Tradition of Preservation Conservation means to keep and to preserve [16]. Conservationofculturalheritagehas, inallitsforms and history, pursued the preservation of values that are attached to the features of heritage [13]. The aim of preventive conservation at mini mizing deterioration and loss of cultural heritage has a long history and tradition in societies. This is Even though international conventions and legal instruments create the frame through which cultu‐ ral heritage is defined and evaluated globally, the applications that select the cultural elements of societies for the cultural heritage process are managed at national level. The cultural heritage process at the national level represents the na‐ tion’s vision of its significant history and cultural elements. This process of definition results in that cultural heritage has a significant role in the construction of national identities and commonly appreciated cultural customs [7]. Cultural heritage has sometimes been seen as a way society has to preserve its cultural values. The ability of an individual people to understand these values depends on the amount and the quality of information that is produced in the cultural heritage process [13]. Additionally, the concept of authenticity has sometimes become an indicator of shifting tastes that change through generations and times [1]. The credibility and truthfulness of the values connected to cultural heritage can be revealed by evaluating society’s history [13]. The concept of authenticity can also give rise to phenomena that influence negatively the process of cultural heritage. Cultural identities are some ‐ times presented through aggressive nationalism, which strives to eliminate minority cultures in societies [13]. When true authenticity is at risk, the credibility of cultural heritage is lost [11]. Therefore, the meaning of authenticity in the preser vation of cultural heritage is to illuminate the collective and diverse nature of the memory and history of society [13]. The concept of cultural heritage began to broaden after the World Heritage Convention (1972). Cultural heritage began to include both human and natural environment as well as architectural PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION 167 e‐conservation evident in the long standing practice of cultural heritage protection such as buildings, sculptures, aesthetic objects and work of art from fire, floods, rainwater, earthquakes, insects, mould and high humidity [17]. The tradition of preservation is mucholderthanthe modernconservationhistory. The De Architectura (On Architecture, published as Ten Books on Architecture) by Marcus Vitruvius Pollio, written around 15 BC, recorded the exper‐ tise about roman materials, techniques and con‐ struction processes. The work of Vitruvius was followed in the 15th century Italian Renaissance by Leon Battista Alberti in his De Re Aedificatoria (1452, On the Art of Building) [18]. Simon Lambert introduces the idea that there are written docu‐ ments from around the seventeenth century that discuss the idea of protecting cultural heritage from damage and further destruction [17]. One of these instances was the conservation projects of the frescoes by Raphael in Rome in 1659 and 1702, which were documented thoroughly. Pre ‐ vention methods were used in these intervention projects to avoid damages to the frescos during the conservation works [17]. According to Lambert, conservation professionals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries also understood the possibi‐ lity that certain treatments themselves could cause harm to cultural heritage. As an example of this, Lambert [17] brings up Pietro Edwards’ writings from 1777 [19] and 1798 [20]. Pietro Edwards was the director of Restoration of The Public Pictures of Venice and Rialto and managed the painting restorers and inspectors. Edwards was against highly invasive interventions and ensured that the preventive care methods were applied to entire collections during restoration works [17]. Simon Lambert states that one of the earliest written documents on preventive conservation applications were introduced in Casper F. Neickel’s Museographia, a guide to museums, galleries and libraries in Europe published in 1727. In his guide , Neickel provides instructions on how to avoid moisture problems, how insect pests should con‐ stantly be monitored for, and how damages to th e exhibits can be avoided through careful planning. Additionally, Neickel listed 25 rules1for collec‐ tion care that resemble modern methods [17]. Protection of cultural heritage has often meant planned activities that included regular monito‐ ring and maintenance of objects. In 16th century England, care of cultural heritage was introduced through the idea of “housekeeping”. Housekeep‐ ing guidelines were given to maintenance and management personnel and included practical advice and recommendations about dust, humid ‐ ity, heat, light, insect control and even damage that could be caused by abrasion [17]. Modern Conservation According to Jukka Jokilehto, the theoretical foundations for modern conservation gave John Ruskin and the anti‐restoration movement in mid and late 19th century. The anti‐restoration movement criticized restoration architects for destroying the authenticity of historic buildings and fought for the protection, conservation and maintenance of the authentic values in buildings . Although Ruskin did not write a theory for con‐ servation practise, he identified the values and significance of historic authenticity in buildings and objects. Ruskin’s guiding principles in iden‐ tification were: sacrifice, truth, power, beauty, life, memory and obedience [21]. 168 e‐conservation 1 Neickel’sguideincluded forexampleguidanceinobject handling and theftprevention. 2The International Museum Office was a body of the Leagues of Nations that existed before UN [4, p. 2]. HEIDI WIRILANDER Progress in scientific research in the beginning of the 20th century also provided new means that could be applied to cultural heritage preservation [17]. It may be considered that modern conser‐ vation started in 1930, when the International Museum Office2organized the first International Conference for the Study of Scientific Methods for the Examination and Conservation of Works of Art. Once the United Nations (UN) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cul‐ tural Organization (UNESCO) were established, the International Museum Office was integrated with the International Counsel of Museums (ICOM) in 1946. The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) was founded by UNESCO in 1965 [22]. The first international measure for conservation practice was given in 1931 in the Athens Charter. This charter later inspired the second measure setting document, the Venice charter in 1961 [23]. The conservation profession began to develop in Europe and in the United States during the 1950’s and 1960’s [24]. The incentive behind this deve‐ lopment was the rising concern over lack of con‐ trol over treatments carried out by poorly trained conservation technicians and artisans [24]. The history of organized conservation training begun in 1956 when UNESCO established the Rome Centre which started working three years after the initial proposal in 1959. The Rome Centre has been known as ICCROM since 1977 [25]. Since the early 1980’s many countries have established their conservation training at higher education insti‐ tutions, mostly at universities [22]. The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works’ (IIC) American Group presented its first set of guidelines and standards in the field of conservation in 1963 in a document known as the Murray Pease Report. A code of professional ethics was later added to this document and it was published as The Code of Ethics and Practice in 1979 [24]. Standards in conservation are based on past expe‐ riences and current knowledge. The objective was to improve the preservation of cultural heri‐ tage and maintain its usability [24]. According to Rebeca Alcántara, the use of standards was introduced in the field of conservation trough recommendations for preservation of collections in the late 1940’s. These standards gave recom‐ mendations for suitable levels of relative humidity, temperature and light. During the 1960’s, these early recommendations began to use by the word stand in relation to preventive conservation measures. The earliest standards concerning preventive conservation were Robert Fuller’s Standards of Exposure to Light (1963) and Nathan Stolow’s Standards for the Care of Works of Art in Transit (1981) [24]. In the 1970’s, the theoretical concepts of conser‐ vation started to evolve into appreciation of minimal intervention in the care of cultural heri‐ tage objects, which influenced the fast develop‐ ment of preventive conservation theory. This development and the re‐evaluation of the rever‐ sibility question resulted in minimalist tendencies becoming dominant in conservation [25]. This progress made preventive conservation methods more precise and extensive [26]. Theory of Preventive Conservation and Risk Management The intention of conservation is to safeguard the authenticity and the integrity of cultural heritage [27]. Itusesallmeasuresandactionstoensure the accessibilityofcultural heritage in thepresent and future times. Conservation prevents or retards the deterioration of cultural heritage by controlling PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION 169 e‐conservation the environment and item’s structure to maintain the items as unchanged as possible [28]. Accord‐ ing to the latest definitions, conservation includes preventive conservation, remedial conservation and restoration. All measures and actions in conservation respect the significance and the physical properties of cultural heritage item [29]. Preventive conservation actions are taken in the context or surroundings of cultural heritage ob‐ ject or group of objects. The measures and actions are indirect and should not interfere with the objects structure and materials. Preventive con‐ servation methods do not modify the appearance of object. Remedial conservation actions are all those directly carried out on an item or group of items. According to ICOM‐CC, remedial actions should be carried out when the objects are so fragile and deteriorated so severely that they could be lost in a relatively short time period if left without treatment [29]. Remedial conser‐ vation actions may also sometimes modify the appearance of the objects. Restoration actions are applied to a single item when it has lost part of its significance or function because of past change or deterioration, although it should be always based on respect for the original materials . Restoration actions often modify object’s appear ‐ ance [29]. The actions and measures of conservation have been organized according to four criteria. First of all they target future, current and past deteri‐ oration. Secondly, they influence the materials and structures of the cultural heritage items both directly and indirectly. Thirdly, they can be applied to only one object or groups of objects. The fourth criterion evaluates conservation actions by evaluating whether these actions can be seen or not on the cultural heritage item [30]. Prevent‐ ive conservation is more than a technical set of methods of monitoring and adjusting climate, light and handling conditions to non‐destructive levels, it seeks answers to questions of how and why cultural heritage is preserved [17]. Preven‐ tive conservation activities also include learning from prior traditions and experiences in collec‐ tion care [18]. Scientific research on the factors that cause de‐ terioration in cultural heritage have made possi‐ ble to apply more specific methods of preventive care in collection management [31]. Planning based preventive conservation applications are also a cost‐effective way to reduce deterioration and to maintain integrity and authenticity of cultural heritage [32]. The theory of preventive conservation is strongly influenced by the concept of non‐interventive approaches [25]. This theory also provides tools for the develop‐ ment of damage prevention in catastrophic situ‐ ations and daily maintenance of cultural heritage sites. Barclay Jones defined two deterioration mecha‐ nisms that threaten cultural heritage: the factors that slowly deteriorate cultural heritage materially, and the incidents that rapidly and catastrophically destroy cultural heritage in a very short time period [33]. Slow deterioration of objects over a long time period is generally caused, for example, by environmental, storage material or place of storage issues. Rapid and catastrophic damage in cultural heritage are caused by, for example, water damages such as floods, fires, sabotage, natural disasters, terror attacks or acts of war [34]. There are two important aspects to preventive conservation, the technical and the organisational aspects. The technical aspect deals with monito‐ ring and controlling the collections. The organi‐ sational aspect involves people who are working with cultural heritage or who are in contact with 170 e‐conservation HEIDI WIRILANDER it [35]. At the institutional level the preventive care begins with the collection policies and the means of collection management [31]. To work effectively, preventive conservation methods require multidisciplinarily approach and aware‐ ness in everyday actions. The organizational level in preventive conservation should be viewed more broadly especially in the cases of cultural heritage sites and landscapes. In these cases, the preventive conservation process should involve all people and entire communities that live nearby the cultural heritage site [32]. Simon Knell has presented the idea that there are four scientific research levels when preventive conservation methods are developed to protect cultural heritage [36]: at the first stage, para‐ meters of the factors threatening the cultural heritage are listed and evaluated; at the second level the significance of the listed safety threats are evalu ated; the third step in the development process is to find methods to estimate the effects of these threats on cultural heritage; and the fourth level in the development process is to apply methods to remove the collection safety threats. The main risk factors for collections are found in indoor storage environments. These factors are climate, gases, pollution and microbiological factors. Significant risks in indoor climate relate to inappropriate humidity, temperature and light, and it is affected by wall thickness, air leakage, ventilation system, heating, solar radiation and the number of visitors. The amount of outdoor pollens in indoor environment depends on the building’s ventilation system. Microbiological attacks in indoor environment are related to the temperature and relative humidity of the air [35]. Risk assessment and risk‐based models have been increasingly applied to preventive conser‐ vation field since the 1990’s [37]. Jonathan Ashley‐Smith’s Risk Assessment for Object Conser ‐ vation that was published in 1999 is a fundmental publication in the field of risk assessment. According to Robert Waller, risk analysis, material research on cultural heritage items and more precise definition of deteriorative parameters effects on cultural heritage have enabled the use of risk management applications in preventive conservation methods [37]. This has made the evaluation of potential damages and threats to collections very effective. Evaluation does not concentrate on existing damage when setting overall priorities for the preservation [36]. Risk assessment is always based on surveys evaluating the collection condition. Otherwise, the chosen treatments to manage the collection are not tar‐ geted specifically to what is affecting it at the moment and what might affect it in the future [38]. Minimal intervention can be examined individu‐ ally for each item in the collection as well as for one entire collection inside a large and diverse collections complex. This conservation approach can sometimes be considered problematic if an item is important from both cultural history and aesthetic standpoint. Minimal intervention treatments can sometimes focus on short‐term results on individual object’s deterioration. Long‐term effects on the object’s aesthetic appe‐ arance might fail in this preservation process. Minimal intervention approach has also been seen as problematic from the collection’s accessi bility perspective.Forexample,thishassometimesmeant that objects are considered unfit to be loaned or displayed because of their poor condition [25]. According to Joel Taylor, integration of the co l‐ lection condition study and risk assessment has made possible to establish a probable cause of damage in addition to the type of damage. Robert Waller introduced the idea that the format of risk assessment can be based on the following PREVENTIVE CONSERVATION 171 e‐conservation