'Belongings'14th Nov 2004 "Was there indeed something of its past locked up in every ancient object which simply awaited the correct treatment to bring it to light?" T.C. Lethbridge - 'Ghost and Ghoul' - p.70 During his lifetime, the Lincolnshire antiquarian William Stukeley (1687-1767), witnessed first-hand, the ritual destruction of our archaeological heritage, from the removal of megaliths at Avebury(1), through to the robbing of stone from Hadrian’s Wall(2). These wanton acts of ‘vandalism’ were symptomatic of a resourceful age, often fuelled by an uprising of eighteenth century, religious fervour. The Christian re-burial of ancient skeletons by early archaeologists was again, a self-righteous act, carried out by those who truly believed that the original heathens would have eventually ‘seen the light’ and would therefore have approved of their newly adopted Christianised internments. With hindsight, we can look back with a begrudging understanding of these destructive and unconventional acts, for the perpetrators were blissfully ignorant of the gravity and the repercussions of their deeds. For at the time, the comprehension of ancient or alternative religions was virtually non-existent and contemporary phrases such as ‘religious tolerance’ and ‘political correctness’ was unheard of until fairly recent times. The archaeologist T.C. Lethbridge spent many years as the curator of the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology in Cambridge. During his time there, he was responsible for the care and preservation of many ancient, archaeological finds; many of which would have had enormous religious significance to the original owners. I am certain that the methodology adopted by the conservators at Cambridge during Lethbridge’s day would have been purely scientific and little, if no attention paid to the religious sensitivity of the entrusted items. When asked, the layperson may respond to the term ‘conservator’ as someone responsible for the restoration and stabilisation of ancient objects, but the task of conservation in our modern age is a much broader church. The conservation of physical objects is just one aspect of an ever-expanding vocation. At this point in our history, we are able to shift the words ‘conservation’ and ‘preservation’ from the mere physical into the ethereal, for their now exists an understanding and willingness to preserve and conserve both language and cultural beliefs, many of which are threatened by global, anthropological changes. Languages, like religious and political organisations, ‘need’ to evolve to survive. The ability to adapt to society’s evolving demands is the key to their longevity. Maintaining traditions is all very well, but does their maintenance infringe on the rights of the individual? If so, it must surely be opposed, if society’s intention is to ‘protect’ individuals, including the weak and frail, animals or those, for whatever reason, who are without a voice. A ‘just’ society must insist that everyone has freedom of choice. If a tradition prevents this, then surely it must be wrong? Again, we are influenced by our Western viewpoint, where church and government are, or at least appear to be, separate. It is therefore impossible to be impartial when dealing with objectives(3) belonging to parties who do not allow the individual, freedom of choice. This impartiality however, can still be understanding and sympathetic to the cultural requirement of the purpose. Traditions are fine, but they should not be ‘set in stone’, for sometimes their ‘reasons for being’ may well have evaporated along with the generations that inaugurated them. I am not invoking change for changes sake, but a constant appraisal of one’s traditions indicates a ‘forward-thinking’ culture. By adopting a philosophy of constant appraisal, the modern conservator should be flexible enough in their approach to never to take for granted the task in hand when dealing with religiously sensitive objectives. Everything we witness or touch, is in some way, evolving or decaying and therefore a conservator’s interference in its passage through time will prejudice or influence its eventual outcome. Sometimes, the organic nature of an objective is crucial to its being and therefore ‘intervention’ may, at any stage, be inappropriate or unwelcome(4). It is therefore essential that as ‘forward-thinkers’, conservators should not fall into the trap of being like, Stukeley’s ‘stone robbers’ and underestimate the importance of their role. With the modern-day advantages of information technology, conservators have access to a wealth of knowledge that has been collated throughout the ages, but with this knowledge comes a responsibility. The conservator Michelle Maunder writes; “The handling of sacred and culturally sensitive artifacts by individuals can be problematic. Some cultures request that women do not touch sacred and ceremonial artifacts when they are menstruating. This attitude derives from ingrained ancient beliefs that at such times women exude a great energy which would disrupt the spiritual and power balance of religious an ceremonial artifacts."(5) Whatever your feelings on the above statement, would, in the past, have been considered immaterial to the conservators of yore. However, the dilemma that confronts today’s scholar; is how to marry theology – an emotional, subjective philosophy, with the doctrines of an objective, scientific vocation. In the West, we have clear divisions between the sacred and the secular, however, it is understood that in primitive societies, every task, however mundane, was considered sacred. This ‘sacred existence’ again can be applied to many contemporary, devout religions. This of course makes the conservation of any objective a ‘minefield’ and therefore a respect for every objective is not only required, but also needs to be demonstrated from the outset. At Lascaux in south-western France, the conservationists were forced to take drastic action when it became apparent that condensation, caused from the breath of a multitude of visitors, was causing considerable harm to the prehistoric cave-paintings. To remedy this problem, a duplicate of the cave was created and many visitors are still unaware that they are in fact visiting a facsimile. In some incidences, what an object represents to its owner (memories/associations etc.) can be more important than the actual object itself, therefore the retention of this correlation should be the prime objective to the conservator. Ownership of the objective is crucial. It is after all, iconic of a cultural heritage. Any intrusion by the conservator into this relationship between owner and objective, may well result in disassociation or estrangement. In this case, a substitute or copy for conservation purposes, as at Lascaux, would be pointless. For example, the kissing of ‘The Blarney Stone’ is reported to bring the participant ‘the gift of eloquence’. Therefore, replacing the original with a surrogate for conservation purposes would be a pointless exercise, for it is ‘the’ stone that the devotee seeks. It would therefore be improper to instigate Health and Safety regulation that forbade or restricted this ritual act. This imposition would deny the individual their ‘right’, to the benefits that the stone proffers. To deny that right would also mark the end of the ritual, and in some religions, this might be considered unacceptable. It would of course be a different matter if the ritual was itself solely responsible for its own demise, for example if the stone should fall and shatter, as this would mark an ‘organic’ ending. An icon can have a contrasting effect not only on generations, but also on cultures, take for example the effect of the swastika and its differing interpretations and connotations. Similarly, the significance of an ancient artifact will change throughout history and to different generations. The archaeologist Jacquetta Hawkes once commented; “Every age has the Stonehenge it deserves."(6) We are, after all, astutely aware of the iconic value Stonehenge has today, however our view was not shared by men in Stukeley’s day, or some even might say English Heritage, who know own the much maligned site! Bearing in mind the intrinsic value of the objectives, it is important to be aware that culture in which the conservator operates is crucial and will always influence the outcome of any intervention. The ‘we know best’ approach is not an acceptable stance to take when dealing with sensitive items. It ascertains a condescending hierarchy that is ironically reflected in many of the dogmatic religions themselves. If we look around at current or recent conservation projects, do we witness this ‘forward-thinking' approach in reality? What was this for example, the approach utilised recently by the ‘conservators’ at Seahenge in Norfolk? Should ‘Seahenge’ have been designated a religiously sensitive site? If so, who should have had the responsibility to declaring it sacred and to whom? We must ask ourselves, did the ‘conservators’ respect the beliefs of those who considered it to be sacred? I believe not, and I wonder, if it had been an ancient Muslim shrine discovered on that Norfolk beach, what would have been the reaction of the Muslim community to its removal and would the ‘conservationists’ have acted differently? In such cases, the ‘we know best’ approach is best avoided and replaced with an arbitrary appraisal of the intention - but where do we draw the line? Should natural, proto-Neolithic temples or even ancient trees for example, be designated as sacred places? If this is to be the case, the definition of ‘sacred’ becomes a personal, subjective phenomenon. At a recent lecture, I asked the audience to name a place sacred to them. One individual, who claimed to be of no religious persuasion, claimed her bed to be the most sacred place. As you can see, we have now entered a minefield! On a visit to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo in 1990, I was disappointed to discover that the mummies owned by the museum were not available for public viewing. Once the reasoning behind this ‘no-show’ was explained to me, I must admit that I had never previously considered the possibility; that people living today, could still regarded these long-dead Pharaohs as relatives and their exposure to the public was considered a sensitive issue. As a ‘Westerner’, this initially seemed preposterous to me, but my initial reaction exposed how modern-day society had disenfranchised me from my own ancestry. An acknowledgement of immediate linage is a ‘given’ – no one wants to see the mummified corpse of a close relative on display, but respect must go out to those cultures who have a reverence for their entire ancestry, for this exposed a side of my own humanity that has sadly become neglected. Having undertaken this study, it is therefore important to evaluate what we have discussed, but primarily, we have to ask ourselves; have we found a solution to our conundrum? It appears not, but by demonstrating an understanding of the sensitive nature of their objectives, the conservationist can ascertain perceptive and flexible solutions to their responsibilities. In some instances, a solution might require zero intervention and the conservator’s involvement might simply entail the thorough documentation of the objective, therefore securing its place at a single moment in time. The analysis of newly discovered archaeological finds, is crucial for us in our quest to unravel the mysteries of our past, but this eagerness to learn, must not trample rough-shod over cultures and beliefs. Many of these unearthed items have been interred for millennia and they should be allowed time before they are ready to reveal to us their secrets. As every ‘forward thinker’ knows; everything comes to those who wait. welbourn TEKH – Lincoln - November 2004 Notes: 1. ”The barbarous massacre of a stone here with leavers and hammers, sledges and fire, is as terrible a site as a Spanish Atto de fe. The vast cave they dig around it, the hollow under the stone like a glasshouse furnace or baker’s oven, the huge chasms made through the body of the stone, the straw, the faggots, the smoak, the prongs and squalor of the fellows looks like a knot of devils grilling the soul of a sinner.” Bodl. Gough Maps 231, f.25v 2. Piggott S. (1985) ‘William Stukeley – An Eighteenth Century Antiquary’ Thames and Hudson p.145-146 3. I use the word ‘objective’ as opposed to ‘object’ or ‘item’, for this can refer to the conservation/preservation of a language, belief of even species. 4. Litchen that grows on prehistoric standing stones, is considered as an acceptable aberration, for it demonstrates the involvement of time, weather and nature on objects intended to demonstrate their longevity and place in the landscape. 5. Paine C. (2000) ‘Godly Things' – Museums, Objects and Religions’ Leicester University Press p.204 6. Burl A. (1976) ‘The Stone Circles of the British Isles’ Yale University Press p.17 |
 Tehk's Journal |