Zur Navigation springen |Zum Inhalt springen
 
 

Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Denkmalpflege 2014, Heft 3/4

ÖZKD 2014, Heft 3/4

Österreichische Zeitschrift
für Kunst- und Denkmal-
pflege 2014, Heft 3/4

Denkmalwerte und Restaurierziele in der Archäologie

Buch Kurzinfo

Titel: Österreichische Zeitschrift für Kunst- und Denkmalpflege 2014, Heft 3/4

Untertitel: Denkmalwerte und Restaurierziele in der Archäologie

Erscheinungsjahr: 2014

Seiten: 104 Seiten

ISBN: AUT 0029-9626

Preis: € 20,00

Zu beziehen beim Verlag Berger



AUS DEM INHALT

DENKMALWERTE UND DENKMALSCHUTZ IN DER ARCHÄOLOGIE

Ulf Ickerodt
Was ist ein Denkmal wert? Was ist der Denkmalwert? Archäologische Denkmalpflege zwischen Öffentlichkeit, denkmalrechtlichen Anforderungen und wissenschaftlichem Selbstanspruch
        
Marc Kühlborn, Anhang zu Ulf Ickerodt
Der Denkmalwert in der Umweltverträglichkeitsprüfung. Das Fallbeispiel „380KV-Höchstspannungsleitung Heide-Niebüll“ in Schleswig-Holstien
        
Gabor Viragos
Monument Values or Values of Monuments? Scientific and Social Appreciations of Heritage Sites
        
Marianne Pollak
Archäologische Denkmalwerte in Raum und Zeit
       
Bojan Duric
Protecting and/or Managing Archaelogical Remains, Heritage and Monuments
       
Raimund Karl
Theorie und Praxis. Zur in der Fachwelt vorherrschenden Wertschätzung von Oberflächen- und Oberbodenfunden


17. Tagung der österreichischen RestauratorInnen für
archäologische Bodenfunde 6.–8. Mai 2013


Christoph Blesl / Bernhard Hebert / René Ployer / Marianne Pollak
Das Archäologiezentrum Mauerbach – Forschungsort und Wissensspeicher
       
Jörg Fürnholzer
Alte Mauern – Neue Konzepte
       
Hans Reschreiter / Dorothea v. Miller / Carine Gengler / Silvia Kalabis / Nina Zangerl /
Robert Führhacker / Michael Grabner

Aus dem Salz ins Depot – Organische Funde aus den prähistorischen Bergwerken von Hallstatt
       
Ulla Steinklauber
Archäologische Museumsobjekte als Herausforderung für Restaurierung und Präsentation. Der Strettweger Wagen und Anderes




ENGLISH ABSTRACTS

Ulf Ickerodt

What is a Monument Worth? What is Monument Value? Archaeological Monument Conservation between the General Public, the Requirements of Monument Conservation Law and the Demands of Science Itself

The amendment of the Schleswig-Holstein Monument Conservation Act in 2012 gave increased importance to the concept of historic heritage value. Despite initial fears, it has proven to be useful for archaeological and monument conservation practice. This contribution will first show the specialist, administrative, legal and public level of this term, which is established in law and hence determines the specialist’s work, and then summarise it in a monument conservation analysis framework.


Gabor Viragos
Monument Values or Values of Monuments? Scientific and Social Appreciations of Heritage Sites

The present paper aims to create a better understanding for the effects of the constantly varying interaction between cultural heritage and changing society through the investigation of the relationship between a local cultural heritage and a population that does not have a direct and/or primary emotional connection to it.
People growing up or living in a culture different from the one their parents lived in or from the one the majority for the surrounding people live in, have a different sense of personal and collective belonging. Consequently, their relationship with the locally accessible cultural heritage is different. How do immigrants, the local Roma population or other local national minorities relate to national monuments or memorial sites of a state or a nation? What are the various impacts of this situation on cultural artefacts, buildings, sites and landscapes, and what is the impact of this cultural heritage on the local non-native population or on the social groups otherwise not committed to this heritage? These are definitely among the most intriguing questions when efforts are being made to give a new definition to cultural heritage management.
Such a research seems more than timely in the light of the recent economic and emerging social and political crises, because the risk is increasing particularly for the today’s societies, identities, the built environment and the historical basis of the European community.


Marianne Pollak
Archaeological Heritage Value in Space and Time

Archaeology and monument conservation as products of 19th-century nationalism, when seen overall from a cultural historical point of view, developed time-bound heritage values into specific narratives that were reinforced by religion and ideology and used by the elites for the own specific purposes or – as in the Habsburg Empire – ignored, or whose significance was only recognised much too late. The history of research demonstrates the dependence of classical studies and monument conservation on policy prescriptions and social significance. While it was the national heritage values that were emphasised up to the collapse of the Third Reich, in the following decades preference was given to strictly positivistic interpretations.
The allocation of research funds for projects that prove the existence of large historical entities serves not only the archaeological investigation of the past but also the creation of a future European identity.
What constitutes a threat is the subordination of politics to the principles of the economy. The question of the economic value of heritage leads one to fear the worst for the unprepossessing, mostly invisible and in many cases altogether unknown archaeological monuments.


Bojan Djuric
Protecting and/or Managing Archaeological Remains, Heritage and Monuments

The situation in the field of conservation archaeology and the concepts governing its activities at the end of the twentieth century in Slovenia were guided mostly by the European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (adopted 1969) with its focus on the application of scientific methods to archaeological research. Its protection strategy was inventorying, as well as a legal and physical protection of the important archaeological monuments, primarily the visible ones. Protection was understood as a static concept of ‘taking care of monuments’. It was the monuments historical value that was prevalent throughout, monuments mostly being the visible remains in urban and rural landscapes, later also sites, which were understood as places where the past happened and where it existed so to be discovered. The academic terminology of the time saw an archaeological monument as an archaeological source (record, evidence, archive) containing encoded information that only archaeological expertise could extract. Entire field of archaeology, its academic and conservation parts, was dominated by archaeological research and its goals.
With the introduction in the USA of the concept of cultural resources (in 1974 by the National Park Service) and similar concept of heritage resources in Europe, understood as property belonging to all, to which different stakeholders participate on an equal footing, the status of archaeologists regarding the power relations within the heritage field changed completely. When archaeologists speak about archaeological heritage, their voice is today one of many competing for the same object. The archaeological value of the heritage is in competition with other values delivered by other stakeholders. But to become part of heritage depends entirely on contemporary knowledge and political will. It is obvious that we cannot assign value to something unknown and unseen; to be ‘heritage’ it needs to be recognized as such. In this new situation knowledge is actually not enough, as we are continuously caught in the realtionship between the orders of the Real, the Symbolic and the Imaginary.


Raimund Karl
Theory and Practice. On the Specialist World’s Appreciation of Surface and Topsoil Finds

There is a serious and systematic discrepancy between the theory and practice of determining the historic heritage value of surface and topsoil finds that discriminates against a general public that has not undergone relevant archaeological education at university level. Where the legislation applicable to “the others”, and its interpretation by the competent authority, the Bundesdenkmalamt (Federal Office for the Protection of Monuments), applies the theory that - and behaves as if - every find on the surface and in the topsoil was a hugely important monument whose conservation is in the public interest, archaeological practice proceeds very differently: surface and topsoil finds, where measures have been approved by the Bundesdenkmalamt, are carelessly swept aside by excavators or thrown away by the archaeologists responsible, i.e., destroyed, and taken into significant account neither in scientific analysis nor in the field of monument conservation, i.e. they are treated as if they were mainly or even completely worthless as sources of scientific information and as monuments, and did not need preserving. The result is that to all appearances there is an authority and scholarly world arbitrarily making decisions to the benefit of a few privileged archaeologists, that protects archaeological finds, not, as claimed, for but primarily from the public. This paper argues that this type of determination of the heritage value of surface and topsoil finds is untenable, and proposes the development of a generally accessible and easily understandable list of criteria on the basis of which everyone can themselves decide whether a surface or topsoil find is in all probability a monument to be conserved in the public interest, an ordinary monument that, while not requiring conservation, does need to be notified to the Bundesdenkmalamt, or not a monument at all. This would not only increase the public reputation of and understanding for archaeology, but would also ensure better protection for archaeologically relevant surface and topsoil finds.


Christoph Blesl/Bernhard Hebert/René Ployer/Marianne Pollak
The Mauerbach Archaeology Centre – a Place of Research and a Storehouse of Knowledge

The Mauerbach Archaeology Centre (opened in 2012) houses the documentation archive and the central finds depository for archaeological monument conservation in Austria. The reinstallation allows easy access for all users to:
– documentation of archaeological excavations throughout Austria
– the department’s own specialist library with a focus on Austria and Central Europe
– the extensive find files and planning archives.
It is connected to the central archaeological depositary, where the results from numerous rescue excavations by the Department for Archaeology of the Bundesdenkmalamt (Federal Office for the Protection of Monuments) are kept available for scholarly research. The combination of research institution and depository allows excavation results to be investigated scientifically, and is also available as of now to fellow researchers and students. In this way, Austria has acquired a new competence centre for the investigation of the country’s archaeological heritage.


Jörg Fürnholzer
Old Walls – New Concepts

In many cases, once archaeological excavations have been completed, building structures remain on site that are at risk of falling into decay if they are not adequately secured. The simplest and most lasting approach to protecting exposed finds against the influences of the weather, vandalism etc is still to refill the excavation site with the earth removed. However, it is often difficult to explain to the interested observer why the laboriously disclosed area is to disappear under the soil again once it has been documented. An alternative to refilling that does justice to the monument could be protective buildings of various kinds that are capable of satisfying both expectations and monument conservation necessities. It is difficult to find a patent remedy in this context, and every sensible approach must in each case take account of all the conditions such as the natural situation, the basic laws of structural physics, financial resources and above all aesthetic expectations. This paper presents and discusses a number of such projects, ranging from a simple protective roof to a modern building, that have been carried out recently in the south of Austria.


Hans Reschreiter/Dorothea v. Miller/Carine Gengler/Silvia Kalabis/Nina Zangerl/Robert Fürhacker/Michael Grabner
From the Salt into the Depository – Organic Finds from the Prehistoric Hallstatt Mines

In the Hallstatt salt mine, Bronze Age and Iron Age organic material finds have survived the millennia in perfect condition. Thanks to these extraordinary preservation conditions, the materials found represent an unusually broad spectrum: over 90% of the finds are made of wood – millions of burnt-down kindling, thousands of broken tools and pit props are buried in the mine. However, the working waste also contains hundreds of finds made of leather, pelt and skin as well as textiles and excrement.
The unique quantity of the finds from the salt is matched by the variety of challenges that they present during their recovery, exposure and treatment in museums. Since worldwide there are only three prehistoric salt mines (Hallstatt, Hallein and Chehrabad), only a small group of archaeologists and restorers are occupied with these specific finds. In many cases, there are no standardised, tried and tested methods for handling finds conserved and soaked in salt. For this reason, it was necessary to develop our own restoration and conservation concept, which is continuously being improved.


Ulla Steinklauber
Archaeological Museum Exhibits as a Challenge for Restoration and Presentation – the Strettweg Chariot and Other Things

Every long-standing archaeological museum also has correspondingly old collections that were often created without any specific collection strategy. The current, often unsatisfactory appearance of the inventories is often due to differing, changing and at times unfocused restoration objectives that, not only in the 19th century but also in the 20th century, were frequently aimed at completing and “recreating” as far as possible a supposedly assured original appearance.
Using two late-classical goddess heads from Idalion (Crete) and the Hallstatt-period Strettweg Chariot (Styria) from the Universalmuseum Joanneum (Graz), an attempt is made to show how cautious conservation and restoration remaining as close as possible to anastylosis and that does not attempt to deny the ageing process of ancient works of art permits a more direct access, including from an aesthetic point of view, to the ancient heritage in all its authentic truncated state.