Zur Navigation springen |Zum Inhalt springen

Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege, Heft 3/2011

ÖZKD 2011, Heft 3

Österreichische Zeitschrift
für Kunst und Denkmal-
pflege 2011, Heft 3

ÖZKD Heft 3 2011

Österreichische Zeitschrift
für Kunst und Denkmal-
pflege 2011, Heft 3

Theorienbildung in der Archäologie. Symposion, Schloss Thinnfeld 2010

Buch Kurzinfo

Titel: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst und Denkmalpflege, Heft 3/2011

Untertitel: Theorienbildung in der Archäologie. Symposion, Schloss Thinnfeld 2010

Seiten: 86 Seiten

ISBN: AUT 0029-9626

Preis: € 9,00


Zu beziehen beim Verlag Berger


Bernhard Hebert

Theorienbildung in der archäologischen Denkmalpflege.
Beiträge des ExpertInnengesprächs vom 24. August 2010 in Schloss Thinnfeld

Bernhard Hebert
Zur Gültigkeit der Denkmalpflegerischen Begriffe  „Substanz“ und „Erscheinung“ in der Archäologie

Anton Distelberger
Bedeutung und Bedeutungsort

Theodor Brückler
Zur Entwicklung staatlicher Denkmalpflege: Von der handwerklichen Praxis zur wissenschaftlichen Theorie

Marianne Pollak
Zur Theorienbildung der archäologischen Denkmalpflege in Österreich

Ulf F. Ickerodt
Meine Geschichte – Deine Geschichte: Quo vadis archäologische Denkmalpflege?

Raimund Karl
Bekanntes Wissen oder unbekannte Information? Gedanken zum eigentlichen Ziel und zur bestmöglichen Umsetzung des Schutzes archäologischer Funde

Ulf F. Ickerodt
Anmerkung zu Raimund Karls „Bekanntes Wissen oder unbekannte Information“ und seinen Gedanken zum eigentlichen Ziel und zur bestmöglichen Umsetzung des Schutzes archäologischen Erbes

Ulla Steinklauber
Anfangen mit der Kenntnis, das Neue von dem Alten, und das Wahre von den Zusätzen zu unterscheiden. „Authentische substanz“ versus „Ursprüngliche Erscheinung“ von archäologischen Denkmalen anhand des Strettweger Wagens


On the Validity of the Terms ‘Substance’ and ‘Appearance’
in the Field of Archaeology

„Substance“ and „appearance“ are central terms in the Austrian preservation of monuments act. Despite, or better because of their continual use, it is rarely reflected what the core meaning of these terms actually is, and in which way they can be applied appropriately to archaeological monuments. This essay approaches the terms from both an ethymological as well as a historico-philosophical perspective. The convoluted use of both terms soon reaches limits when applied to archaeological objects because such objects are not apparent prior to excavation, or alternatively lose most of their substance through the excavation process. Consequently, it has to be stated that the preservation of archaeological objects in both „substance“ and „appearance“ is not considered possible.

Meaning and Places of Meaning

We learn from an early age to trust our own perception only when, through communication, it is proven that the perception is compatible with our cultural surroundings. If eye-witnesses are present at a spectacular event which overwhelms their usual pattern of perception, they subsequently feel the vehement and spontaneous need to compare their own perception with those of other eye witnesses. The individual views are exchanged until a common shared vision is created. Communication compensates the existential unsettledness in situations of unique and incomparable perception. Perceived and incorporated in the long-term memory is only what proves to be the meaningful building block to a construction of reality. The communicative context produces an `instruction manual´, a blueprint of how the individual perceptions match. Using two significant places of meaning in Lower Austria, I will elaborate on the following hypotheses.

  1. Out of the own existence, no thing or matter, may they be as concrete as they can be, creates meaning.
  2. Without associated meaning, things can never arrive at the constructed reality.
  3. What is not part of a constructed reality cannot be perceived.

The Development of State Care of Monuments in Austria: From Artisan Practise to Scientific Theory

The „Zentral-Kommission für die Erforschung und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale“ (Central Commission for Research and Care of Monuments) founded by Emperor Franz Joseph, held in its title the ideological agenda. The research into monuments was a primary aim, while preservation in the modern sense was less important. The basic philosophy was not without inner logic: It is only possible to preserve what one has already researched. The „Zentral-Kommission“ (henceforth called ZK) was organized like a hierarchical pyramid. Correspondents acted as informants on the lowest level, conservators on the intermediate level and the Viennese head quaters consisted of a president and the so-called „Mitglieder“, or members, who were an assemblage of prominent architects (e.g. Schmied, van der Nüll, Ferstel), established scientists and representatives from the high government bureaucracy in the top position. In 1873 the responsibilities were divided in three sections: archaeology, art history and archives. Because the ZK had to start from scratch with its endeavours, the results achieved over the first few years must be seen as impressive performance. This is especially true for the scientific publications, the „Jahrbuch“ and the „Mitteilungen der ZK“, which still exists today. The achievements in the so-called „praktische Denkmalpflege“, the care of monuments, were, by contrast, more modest. This was partly due to the structure of the ZK, which, not being a government agency, had no power to command. As the name implies, it was only a commission with an advisory function, and not able to act on a legal basis. During the first years of its activity the word and advice of its prominent members carried such a weight and conviction, that their recommendations were largely followed as if they were indeed legal directives. In addition, the most important architectural art works with which the ZK was dealing, were in church ownership and the clergy, active in considerable numbers within the ZK as correspondents or conservators, made it possible for an effective cooperation to come into existence almost on its own accord. Regarding restoration methods, they initially lacked theoretical knowledge and technical expertise, advances in the field where purely based on direct experience. Through ongoing discoveries in the fields of chemistry and materials science, as well as specialisation by professionals, a highly developed technique of restoration arose, which was then able to withstand every professional criticism.

On Construction of Theories in the Field of Archaeological Preservation of Monuments in Austria

The construction of theories in the field of archaeological preservation of monuments in Austria, has developed in several steps. Internationally, in the course of this, scientists have argued concurrently and consensually. The earliest considerations related to the preservation and most practicable conservation of antique coins and later all kinds of small finds and stone monuments. During the first quarter of the 19th century, the first attempts at restoration and maintenance of Roman ruins in coastal areas are recorded. In this field, the architect Pietro Nobile, sensitised by his studies in Rome, became a leading figure. Only the 2nd half of the 19th century brought the awareness that, as a minimum, the monuments in prehistoric and ancient historic sites are particularly vulnerable cultural heritage and worthy of preservation. However, in spite of constant attempts to persuade the political decision-makers, it was never possible to convince them to create legislation for monument preservation. Not until 1923 was the first conservation law enacted, but its provisions are rarely implemented due to inadequate human and financial resources allocated to the archaeological preservation of monuments. The incorporation of Austria into the Third Reich first caused an ideology-based brief improvement followed by a painful interruption. The modern integrative understanding of archaeological monuments as part of the historic cultural landscape emerged in the last quarter of the 20th century. As may be seen today, understanding on the preservation of archaeological objects has been continually adapted and updated to match the growing level of scientific knowledge. This led to a constantly changing view of the nature and extent of the monument inventory. Here, the Austrian archaeological preservation of monuments followed the international trend, but without ever achieving the necessary legal means to ensure resource sufficiency.

My Story, Your Story: Quo Vadis Archaeological Preservation of Monuments?

The existing German (and European) cultural heritage protection agencies are, as far as their routine work is concerned, torn between the demands of university research and their mandate as administrative bodies. The preference tends towards university research. In this article I wish to examine two main questions: Firstly, who benefits from cultural heritage management, i. e. who is it done for? And secondly, what is the social purpose of cultural heritage management? When tackling these questions we must keep three important factors in mind: the current demographic changes, the increasing mobility of modern societies, and the accelerating changes that are taking place both in world economics and land-use structures.

Common Knowledge or Unknown Information? Thoughts on the actual goal and how best to implement protection of archaeological finds

The protection of archaeological finds in Austria currently focuses, mainly for epistemological and ideological reasons, on the physical object itself rather than on the protection of the historical information stored within them. As a consequence, no distinction is made in Austrian heritage law and administration between archaeological finds as monuments – symbols that ought to remind the public of some significant past event or condition – and archaeological finds as cultural resources – historical sources that can (and must) be examined to better understand the human condition. This paper argues that this lack of distinction between the former, who need to be physically preserved, visible and explained to the public, and the latter, who need to be analysed even if this leads to their destruction, has worked to the detriment of the protection of both. Instead of focussing on physical preservation, it is proposed that for most archaeological finds – those not classed as monuments – the emphasis should be put on the preservation of the historical information they contain, which may in many cases be much better preserved by record. Instead of writing increasingly restrictive but inefficient laws which exclude the public from the (destructive) recording of archaeological finds, it is argued based on a comparison of finds recording in Austria and England and Wales that the public should be fully involved in archaeological cultural resource management.

Remarks on Raimund Karl’s „Bekanntes Wissen oder Unbekannte Information“ (Common Knowledge or Unknown Information) and his thoughts on the actual goal and how best to implement the protection of archaeological heritage.

This article deals with the critical view of Raimund Karl regarding the (especially Austrian) preservation of archaeological heritage. In his contribution, Karl raises questions which have been increasingly discussed of late, and now constitute an important aspect of archaeological self-reflexion. This article discusses, by way of scientific discourse, Karl´s deliberation about contemporary preservation of monuments. On centre-stage are the different work fields of archaeological preservation of monuments and archaeological research at universities, which are inherently aligned in different directions. An important aspect here is the existing legal framework which regulates the preservation activities. Here it must be immediately stated that, in this respect, the goals of preservation and archaeology cannot be congruent. Another important aspect is the social effect of archaeology, which requires a critical complement between university and monument care. Even if there is thematic overlap between archaeological preservation of monuments and university research, what must also be stated here, is a divergence of existing goals.

„Authentic substance“ versus „original appearance“ of archaeological monuments using the example of the Strettweger Wagen (the so-called „Strettweger wagon“)

Decisions dealing with the conservation or restoration of archaeological monuments require a theoretical foundation as do decisions on art and architectural monuments. Based on the example of the more than 100 year preservation history of the „Strettweger Wagen“, an outstanding work of art found in Styria and dated to the Hallstatt period, the hitherto largely unreflected uncertainty between presentation of authentic material and reconstruction of an assumed „original look“ is exemplarily demonstrated. The recently appeal for a limitation to anastylosis and for the acceptance of the torso-like shape still contradicts the mostly accomplished archaeological praxis of restoration; however, with the „Stettweger Wagen“ this has found wide consideration.

English abstracts translated by Andrew C. Leggatt