|
|
|
Ethics Q&A: Interpretation (objects)
|
May 2000
I am a conservator. I have been asked to work with a colleague who is an archaeologist. He has brought in a fragment of copper alloy that he is certain is part of a medieval helmet. He would like to incorporate it into a reconstruction that will go on display at our museum.
My problem is this: I feel there is insufficient evidence on which to base the reconstruction, and that by carrying out the proposed work the true nature of the artefact would be modified or concealed. This would not follow the ethical codes on conservation work that I subscribe to.
There are a number of plausible interpretations of what the original artefact might have looked like. I am concerned that imposing a fixed interpretation is not based on sound scholarship; it might mislead museum visitors and researchers.
Should a different interpretation be preferred in future, although the restoration work will be reversible, its removal will take considerable time and expose the artefact to unnecessary risk.
How should I respond to the management pressure I am being subjected to and how strong is my position on this matter from the point of view of general museum ethics?
Your concerns are well founded. The integrity of the object would be compromised by merging it with the reconstruction, however certain the evidence. The key concept in discussing the ethics of conservation procedure is reversibility - anything that you do, you should be able to undo.
Although the proposed work would be reversible the object would be put at risk, as reversing treatments always carries some risk and the correct conservation approach is minimum intervention.
A far sounder approach is to separate 'evidence' from interpretation. The medieval fragment is the raw evidence, and this should not be tampered with. Next to it a full reconstruction - as a replica - could be displayed and labelled as such, along with some information that enables the visitor to exercise some informed judgement as to the reliability of this particular interpretation.
This kind of honesty always pays off in the long run, and manifests an integrity that wins public respect.
If that doesn't persuade your management team, try costing out your time as a highly skilled conservator in creating a reconstruction around the fragment and compare it with the cost of buying in a replica. The latter course may be substantially more cost-effective.
The key to achieving the best outcome in cases of this sort is to remain courteous and professional in persuading others of the validity of your judgement. If it is a management directive that you reconstruct the object, you can legitimately ask for this to be a written request and that your objections are also documented.
It is advisable to state in writing that you would like to discuss the matter with your professional body, the United Kingdom Institute of Conservators, as a likely breach of its Code of Ethics.
^ TOP
|
|
|
