Professional Notes

Conservation:

Conservation Science in the UK ‘95

Encouraged by the success of the con- ference, Conservation Stience in the U.K. held in Glasgow in May 1993, Dr Nor- man H. Tennent of the University of Strathclyde, was moved to repeat the exercise with slightly more papers pre- sented over three days (1 S-20 September 1995). The 1993 papers are available as preprints (ISBN 1 87 393622 2; James & J ames Science Publishers, Waterside House, 47 Kentish Town Road, London NW1 SNZ, UK; E29.50/US$45.00) and publication of the 1995 papers is prom- ised for early 1996, both edited by Norman Tennent.

The proceedings were opened by Dr M. Kirby Talley Jr, whose paper-‘Con- servation Science and Art: Plum Pud- dings, Towels and Some Steam’-was characteristically forthright, defending with vigour toleration of the aberrant viewpoints adopted by Professor James Beck and others, and he emphasized the need for self-questioning and self-criti- cism as essential components of con- servation science. In his comments he drew particular attention to the lack of resources within the profession for crit- ical evaluation and to the consequences of museums policy being display-driven rather than focussing on the preservation of the integrity of the information con- tent of items in our care. The papers and progress reports delivered will be cov- ered in due course by the Publications Digest, but since the present author accepted the invitation to act as rappor- teur and to make a personal assessment

Muuseum Manu,qement md Curmmhip. Vol. 14, No 4, pp. 4211-436. 1995 Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. Printed m Great Britain

0260-4779196 $15.00 + 0.00

of what is happening in conservation science in the United Kingdom (or should be happening), the observations made then in immediate response to the conference might have a certain valid- ity.

On the basis of the conference papers and experience accumulated since the 196Os, there are some very real problems evident between conservation science and hands-on conservation, and between them and the outside world, including the oft-derided curators. Studies in Con- servation has for some years been domi- nated by the publications of conserva- tion scientists to the extent of frightening off practising conservators seeking to draw attention to the conclusions they have derived from practical experience rather than the results gained from designed experiments. Not only is there room for both, but we need the publica- tion of many more brief reports of information gained empirically by prac- tising conservators so that we can be made more rapidly aware of unexpected side-effects of treatments, new areas of concern, etc., without having to wait for the full panoply of formal publication.

In this context it is worth drawing attention, again, to the impact of the artificial divisions between the conserva- tion of the built environment and that of movable cultural artefacts, and of both from the conservation of the natural environment in which, to varying extents, both reside. It is illogical to separate, for example, the conservation of the panelling of a room from that of the furniture contained within it when they were constructed of the same wood and had the same surface finishes. This is not just undesirable on economic grounds but seriously unconstructive because the artificial separation imposed

Professional Notes 429

can lead to the adoption of different conservation criteria and a progressive impairment of the integrity of the whole ensemble. With industrial, military and large-scale technological artefacts/struc- tures the separation becomes an intellec- tual nonsense and the sooner that it is abandoned the better.

Similarly, certain of the papers pre- sented drew attention to the impossi- bility of addressing specific aspects of site and artefact conservation in isolation from the conservation of the natural environment, and in this ‘The Definition of Waterlogged Burial Environments and their Role for in situ Conservation of Archaeological Organic Materials’ (Chris Caple and David Dungworth, University of Durham) provided much food for thought because it involves direct interaction with the natural envi- ronment, and its management, without comprising either. The same should be true of ‘The Effects of Chemical Biocides on Sandstone’ (R. Wakefield et ul., The Robert Gordon University), but in the event little was said about the potentially lethal effects of releasing significant quantities of certain biocides into the natural environment as a by-product of architectural conservation. The sand- stone under treatment is not the only component in the environment to feel the impact of these toxic substances, and perhaps we will have to learn to live with algal growths on our buildings as the lesser of two evils. After all, stone surfaces in Venice covered with layers of pigeon droppings were revealed by stone cleaning to be in better condition than those fully exposed to the rigours of the Venetian atmosphere!

Probably the most important con- tributions made to this conference were the warnings issued to those attending, and which are hopefully already spread- ing through the conservation commu- nity, such as that included in ‘The Preservation of Archaeological Bone Protein’ (A. Child, University of New- castle): “Any conservation treatment

must not intcrfcrc with the interaction between osteo calcium and collagen”. Only subsequently did it emerge that the considerable differences in characteris- tics between mammal and avian bones should inspire even greater caution, while the maturity and diet of the animal/bird may result in differential survival of bone.

Furthermore, the contributions on the ‘Chemical Removal of Stained Glass Weathering Products’ (M. Hood et al., The University of Strathclyde) left those present with the nagging question-in the light of the discrediting of the use of Bettembourg’s Solution-whether there should be a moratorium on cleaning glass until less damaging cleaning agents have been developed?

We live in a world of mirrors in which there has been an explosion of institu- tions which like to call themselves museums and for whom the central archival function of museums is utterly foreign. In the ensuing confusion con- servation scientists and practising con- servators cannot be blamed for revealing on occasion a certain inability to dis- tinguish the wood from the trees, but the great value of loosely-structured gather- ings such as Conservation Science in the UK ‘95 is not only the exchange of technical information and informal peer review of work in hand, but the oppor- tunity to come to a better understanding of the overall content in which day-to- day decisions are being taken. Self- questioning and indeed self-criticism are essential for all conservation scientists and conservators, as well as curators and museum managers, but the conservation profession is still relatively cushioned from the outside world, which remains slightly in awe of its expertise, and has yet to allocate appropriate resources for continuous critical evaluation of both research and its application. This is a serious weakness and needs to be addressed.

PETER CANNON-BROOKES