Protection Of Ancient Monuments Research Articles

Natural Inhibitory Treatment of Fungi-Induced Deterioration of Carbonate and Cellulosic Ancient Monuments: Isolation, Identification and Simulation of Biogenic Deterioration.

Fungi play a significant role in the deterioration of various types of monuments. Therefore, the protection of ancient monuments from fungal attacks is an important goal that must attract the attention of researchers worldwide. A total of 69 fungal isolates were recovered from 22 deteriorated objects compromising paper, textiles, wood, and stone in the National Museum of Egyptian Civilization (NMEC) storeroom, Cairo, Egypt. The isolates were identified as 12 different species categorized into three different genera, namely, Aspergillus (9 species), Penicillium (2 species) and Trichoderma (1 species). Among them, Aspergillus fumigatus was the most prevalent species. Three essential oils were assessed for antifungal activity and compared with the antifungal effects of five synthetic microcides to identify a natural inhibitory treatment. Thyme oil and sodium azide were found to be the most active growth inhibitors, with minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) of 625 and 100 ppm, with inhibition zone diameters of 19.0 ± 0.70 - 23.76 ± 1.15 and 13.30 ± 0.35 - 19.66 ± 0.54 mm, respectively. An in vitro simulation of the biodeterioration process was conducted using spores of the A. fumigatus strain NMEC-PSTW.1 on model cubes made of paper, textile, wood, and stone materials. The changes in the characteristics of the artificially deteriorated materials were analyzed using environmental scanning electron microscopy/energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy and Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. The results revealed changes in the morphology, physical properties, and chemical composition induced by A. fumigatus NMEC-PSTW.1. Overall, thyme oil is recommended as a natural inhibitor to protect carbonate and cellulosic monuments in NMEC against fungal attack.

ХХ ҒАСЫРДЫҢ БАСЫНДАҒЫ ҚОҒАМДЫҚ ҚОРЛАРДЫҢ МҰРАЖАЙ ІСІН ҰЙЫМДАСТЫРУ БАҒЫТЫ

The article examines the social aspects of the formation and cultural and educational activities of museums of Kazakhstan at the beginning of the twentieth century on the basis of archival materials. Socio-economic and political changes that took place in the 20s of the Soviet period had a significant impact on the culture and education of Kazakhstan, the elimination of illiteracy, there was a need to develop cultural and educational direction. A special Central Asian Committee for Museums and the Protection of Ancient Monuments has been established for the republics of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, and a society of local historians has been organized in the republic. The article describes how the research society of Kazakhstan has established the organization of libraries, museums and archival affairs, has made every effort to make them a place for the promotion of knowledge and culture among the population.

ХХ ҒАСЫРДЫҢ БАСЫНДАҒЫ ҚОҒАМДЫҚ ҰЙЫМДАРМЕНҰЛТЗИЯЛЫЛАРЫНЫҢМУЗЕЙ ІСІН ҰЙЫМДАСТЫРУДАҒЫҚЫЗМЕТІ

Based on archival sources, the article examines the formation of museums in Kazakhstan at the beginning of the 20th century, the social aspects of their cultural and educational activities, the role of the national intelligentsia in the design of museum work. Socio-economic and political changes that took place in the 1920s of the Soviet period had a significant impact on the culture and education of Kazakhstan, the elimination of illiteracy, there was a need to develop cultural and educational direction. Aspecial Central Asian Committee for Museums and the Protection of Ancient Monuments has been established for the republics of Central Asia and Kazakhstan, and a society of local historians has been organized in the republic.The article describes how the research society of Kazakhstan has established the organization of libraries, museums and archival affairs, has made every effort to make them a place for the promotion of knowledge and culture among the population.

ПЕРШИЙ АНГЛІЙСЬКИЙ ЗАКОН ПРО ОХОРОНУ СТАРОДАВНІХ ПАМ’ЯТНИКІВ

The advent of the first special antiquity law was preceded by a long stage of studying and organizing knowledge about historical and cultural monuments. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 18 August 1882 was the first of its kind by an Act of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. The Act lists the first 68 monuments or sites that have been protected by law. The text of Act consists of 11 paragraphs. The analysis of paragraphs 2, 3 and 11 gives us the opportunity to formulate the very concept of a «monument» contained therein, as well as to consider the types of ancient monuments that are distinguished by law. The Ancient Monuments are: houses, buildings and other structures located on the surface of the earth or underground, as well as caves and zones of archaeological sites and location of such houses, buildings and other structures, as well as caves and zones of archaeological sites. All the constituent elements and structures of the monument are considered to be its parts. The location of the monument includes not only the area of land on which it is located, but also the surrounding zones. Deliberate destruction or deterioration of protected monuments entails criminal liability in the form of imprisonment for up to one month and a fine. However, criminal and financial responsibility rests solely with outsiders. The owner of the monument is not punished for any action he may take on his property. Paragraphs of Act for the first time regulate the state registration of monuments. Such registration involves the identification of monuments, surveys and determining their value, inclusion in the list of protected, informing the owner or tenant of the monument about the inclusion of this object in the list etc. The Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882 was one of the most important results of a set of socio-political reforms in Victorian England. The brevity of the 1882 Act made it impossible to cover all the ancient monuments, which made it only partly a source of law. Currently, there is no single legislative act in the UK on the protection and use of historical and cultural monuments. After the act of 1882 by the middle of the 20th century were adopted and enforced several laws on various aspects of the protection of monuments. However, the main provisions governing this area of social relations were laid in the late nineteenth century.

Protection of Limestone Coated with Different Polymeric Materials

The uniaxial compressive strength is an important parameter in selecting and design of rock and brittles structure. Protection of ancient monuments or historic structure has a great intense in material science point of view. Limestone is commonly rock material which has a great sense in historical buildings and temples. The strength of this material may be influenced by natural weathering like moisture, rains and varying temperature. Samples of ancient limestone rock are coated with Paraloid B44, Paraloid B72, ethyl silicate and Wacker OH100. The results concluded that both Wacker OH100 and Paraloid B44 coating material have more efficient and give considerable protection when the sample is immersed in salinity water for a week. The compressive strength of limestone decreases due to water action. Water absorption, porosity, and rock density are enhanced with the coating process.

ЗБЕРЕЖЕННЯ СВІТОВОЇ КУЛЬТУРНОЇ СПАДЩИНИ ЮНЕСКО: ВІДНОВЛЕННЯ ПАЛЬМІРИ В УМОВАХ ВІЙНИ В СИРІЇ (НА МАТЕРІАЛІ ЕЛЕКТРОННИХ ВИДАНЬ)

The war in Syria, in addition to a number of military-political, geo-strategic and humanitarian challenges with which the international community faced and directed eff orts, actualized the need to develop more effective mechanisms for the protection of cultural heritage, which is undergoing destruction, damage, theft in the territory where military operations unfold. Middle East region (Syria, Yemen, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq, etc.) are the most vulnerable in this respect. In addition, there are dozens of architectural, sculptural and natural sites were added to the UNESCO list. It is the very organization at the moment, which is responsible for the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration of historical monuments, the financing of restoration work worldwide and the best professionals involvement. Tragic events in Syria and capture Palmyra belonging to six World Heritage sites by the militants of the Islamic State (IDIL), were the real test of the strength and effectiveness for UNESCO. UNESCO experts have to assess the damage, develop a plan of preventive measures, the reconstruction of destroyed ancient city by terrorists. Since all of these problems arose against the backdrop of a series of military and political events, geopolitical confrontation in the Middle East between the US and Russia, the struggle with the powerful terrorist organization, the importance of the subject no doubt requires a comprehensive analysis and research. New media, including online media, efficiently inform the international community on the capture of Palmyra, “the pearl of the desert”, by Syria, the response and actions of UNESCO in connection with the destruction of ancient art by terrorists and about the city liberation. In addition, reports in the media about the CAP attracted the attention of billions people because the fight against global terrorism stronghold — the Islamic state is in progress, that is why electronic and online publications serve as the main source of research. On May 20, 2015 Palmyra was captured by terrorists of «Islamic state» grouping. Soon it became known that they began to destroy the ancient monuments. On June 27, they demolished the statue «Lion Allat». In August, two churches were blown up: on August 23 — Temple of Baalshamina, on August 30 — the temple of Bel. On September 4, three best preserved funerary tower tombs in the Valley were destroyed. Later, Syrian State Agency for the Protection of ancient monuments reported that militants had exploded the famous Arc de Triomphe. According to one version, terrorists began the search for gold and precious things and that is the reason for this vandalism. After almost a year stay in the hands of the terrorist group IDIL, on March 27, 2016 Palmyra was returned to the Syrian people. Military barbaric destruction of architectural and cultural heritage of the I-II century inflicted irreparable damage to the objects included in the list of UNESCO cultural values, but what was destroyed and what is left can be reconstructed. The world community led by UNESCO is ready to help Syria with finances and experts in this urgent matter.

Genfundne gravhøje i Nordjylland – Kartografiske studier

Genfundne gravhøje i Nordjylland – Kartografiske studier

A Review of From Antiquarian to Archaeologist: The History and Philosophy of Archaeology

From Antiquarian to Archaeologist brings together fourteen of Tim Murray’s papers on the history, philosophy and sociology of archaeology published over two decades. The volume displays many of the common characteristics of collected papers: both strengths such as convenience and the drawing out of common threads, and weaknesses such as overlap and repetition. In volumes of this kind there are inevitably a mixture of well known and less well known papers: Murray’s study of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act is anthologised and widely cited; whereas his chapter on Archbishop Ussher’s chronology has hitherto been buried in Leo Klejn’s intimidatingly Cyrillicheavy festschrift.

Devotion, Antiquity, and Colonial Custody of the Hindu Temple in British India

AbstractIn 1904, the British Indian government passed the Ancient Monuments Protection Act and, in doing so, radically enlarged the state's bureaucratic claim to structures defined, for the purposes of the Act, as monuments. The project of conserving the Hindu temple was beset by disagreements. The claims of the colonial state and local Hindu devotees were separated by different precepts about religiosity and alternate orders of aesthetics, time, and history. However, it is clear that there were also confluences: legislative authority could masquerade as custody of the antiquarian and, in practice, the secular veneration of material antiquity blurred with Hindu divinity. This paper combines an exploration of the principles of archaeological conservation, as they were formed in the European bourgeois imagination, and then traces their transfer, though imperial administration, to case-studies of specific temples. Of particular interest is the deployment of the Act by local administrations and the counter-challenges, appropriations, and manipulations of the same legislation. How were the aesthetic codes of conservation—and the legislation that sought to order and enforce their introduction—compromised by religious claims and practices?

The repatriation of greenland’s cultural heritage

During Greenland’s colonial period (1721–1953) a sizeable number of Danish and Norwegian citizens lived in Greenland, while scientists from abroad acquired a significant amount of ethnographic material and other objects. These items found their way into royal and museum collections in Denmark and across Europe, including the collection housed at the National Museum in Denmark. In 1979 Greenland obtained home rule. As of 1-January 1981 all matters relating to museums and the protection of ancient monuments became the responsibility of Greenland’s national government, one consequence of which was the creation of the Greenland National Museum. The museum then initiated talks with the Danish National Museum in order to transfer parts of its collections back to Greenland. Repatriation of such artefacts is a common desire among Greenlanders, who during colonial times lost essential aspects of their cultural heritage. Repatriation is inextricably bound up with the restoration of cultural pride and identity. The legal instruments that define the relationship between Greenland and Denmark do not encompass repatriation. As such, Greenlanders instead based their arguments on ethical and post‐colonial considerations.

ジョン・ラボックによる古記念物保護法の制定とその後の建築保存行政への影響について : 英国における歴史的建造物の保存に関する研究

The purpose of this paper is to clarify the process of approval of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882 enacted by Sir John Lubbock, and to consider the people's attitude to the conservation of historical monuments in Britain at that time. It took 9 years to approve the act. Meanwhile, a lot of discussions were performed in the Parliament. These discussions are very important to understand the British building conservation system since they are related to the basic idea for the administration of them. Then, I focus on details of enactment of the act. I discuss the difference between the National Monuments Preservation Bill 1873 that Lubbock presented first and the Act that actually approved, and I argue about the discussions in the Parliament. I also examine the influence to the later British building conservation administration system briefly. In conclusion, I show how the British people thought about the conservation of historical monuments and buildings in late 19th Century, and how the 1882 Act influenced to the later system.

Archaeological Reflexivity and the "Local" Voice

There have recently been a number of attempts to develop reflexive field methods in archaeology (eg Andrews et al 2000, Bender et al 1997, Chadwick 1998, Dowdall and Parrish 2003, Faulkner 2002, Fotiadis 1993, Gero 1996, Hodder 1999a, 2000, Lucas 2001, Politis 2001). It might be argued that this turn to the reflexive in archaeology is ironic. After all, socio-cultural anthropology has recently seen a sustained critique of the concept of reflexive ethnographic method (Lynch 2000, Salzman, 2002, Robertson 2002). At the very least, the archaeological move might seem delayed, given what Robertson (2002) describes as a 20-year history of reflexive discussion in anthropology (Clifford and Marcus 1986, Gupta and Ferguson 1997) and given the indications of even earlier beginnings (Robertson 2002). I wish to argue at the start of this paper, however, that the development of reflexive field methods in archaeology is neither delayed nor ironic. Rather it results from specific issues and problems which are of a rather different nature from those found in ethnography. Archaeology as a discipline grew in the 18th and 19th centuries as an integral part of the projects of nationalism and colonialism (Trigger 1984). For many European countries, for example, the archaeological past still has a self-evident relationship with the state. The protection of ancient monuments is a function of national governments, however much local and diverse voices might be raised against them. A closely related issue is that the distant past in many parts of the world may have no present communities which can stake a direct claim on it. There is no one today, for example, who can speak for, or represent the interests, of the Beaker people of the 3rd millennium be in Europe, and the same is true for countless other cultural groupings identified by archaeologists in the deep past. A reflexivity that derives from the fieldworker's interaction with 'other', 'indigenous' voices of 'informants' is less likely to emerge in archaeology. It is precisely when the past is claimed by present communities that a reflexivity has been forced on archaeology. By reflexivity here, I mean initially the recognition and incorporation of multiple stakeholder groups, and the self-critical awareness of one's archaeological truth claims as historical and contingent. Post-colonial processes, global interactions, and the massive rise in the destruction of archaeological sites and monuments around the world have together created an awareness of divergent opinions about how the past should be managed. While there have been parallel intellectual debates in archaeology over the last 20 years (Shanks and Tilley 1987), the main impulse towards reflexive concerns has been the increased use of the past in identity formation and land-rights claims (Layton 1989; Gathercole and Lowenthal 1989, Kohl and Fawcett 1995. For a recent review see Meskell 2002a). While reburial issues in the United States have led to some objectivist retrenchment, they have also led to greater consultation (in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act) and to anti-objectivist calls for the full integration of oral histories and indigenous knowledge (eg Anyon et al 1996; Stoffle et al 2001, Watkins 2000). The materiality and monumentality of the archaeological past mean that archaeological sites and monuments are often central to the construction of the national and colonial memory and counter-memory (eg Abu el-Haj 1998, Rowlands 1993; Meskell 2002b). The resulting conflicts over ownership, guardianship and interpretation have often been very public. The moves towards reflexivity, as defined above, have proceeded in the increasingly ethically-conscious halls of the academy, but also in local, national and international heritage management committees. Indeed, it has been the world of heritage management that has often been in the forefront of the development of guidelines which lead towards collaboration and multiple perspectives. …

The role of the Environment and Heritage Service in Northern Ireland archaeology

The Environment and Heritage Service (EHS), an agency within the Department of the Environment, aims ‘to protect and conserve the natural and built environment and to promote its appreciation for the benefit of present and future generations‘ (EHS 1996: 7). EHS has a central statutory, regulatory, management and participatory role in Northern Ireland archaeology.Official care of archaeological sites and monuments in what is now Northern Ireland goes back to the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland and the Irish Church Act of 1869. This made provision for the upkeep of certain irnportant ecclesiastical sites; 137 ruined churches and crosses were vested in the Commissioners of Public Works, to be maintained as National Monuments. Of these, 17 were in what was to become Northern Ireland. This precedent was noted in Parliamentary debates on the Ancient Monuments Protection Act 1882, which applied to Britain and Ireland, and of the 18 Irish sites, 3 were in what is now Northern Ireland. The Ancient Monuments Protection (Ireland) Act 1892 increased the scope for protection of sites in the earlier schedule.

Changing the way we do things: The impact of funding changes on heritage management and site interpretation in late twentieth-century England

There is an underlying conflict in the management of historic sites and monuments in the UK between public interest and private property. Such conflict can be recognized in the genesis of the earliest legislation (the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882). This tension remains important and the relative weights given to public and private interest might be seen as a barometer of wider political and economic conditions. This paper seeks to address changes in the funding of archaeology and heritage presentation during the period of the Conservative administration of 1979–97, when the economics of the free market were espoused with vigour in the UK. Funding of fieldwork shifted from direct grants from the central purse, to the support of job creation schemes and latterly to developer funding. Meanwhile heritage presentation has become more aggressively commercial, as English Heritage, the National Trust, the museums and private entrepreneurs seek to maximize financial return to underwrite the conservation and curation of historic places.

Critical traditions in contemporary archaeology: essays in the philosophy, history and socio-politics of archaeology

Part 1 Philosophical analysis: introduction - philosophical analysis, Alison Wylie philosophy of science and archaeology, Robert C.Dunnell efficient explanations and efficient behaviour, Merrilee H.Salmon inference to the best explanation in archaeology, Marsha Hanan and Jane Kelley the interpretive dilemma, Alison Wylie the structure of American theoretical archaeology - a preliminary report, Lester Embree dialectics, critical inquiry, and archaeology, Dean J.Saitta commentary - common knowledge and archaeology, Ezra Zubrow. Part 2 Historical foundations: introduction - historical foundations, Valerie Pinsky the history, philosophy and sociology of archaeology - the case of the Ancient Monuments Protection Act (1882), Tim Murray philosophical lessons from the history of Stonehenge studies, Christopher Chippindale Childe's early marxism, Peter Gathercole commentary - a critical role for the history of archaeology, Valerie Pinsky. Part 3 Socio-political context: introduction - socio-political context, Alison Wylie producing prehistory, controlling the past - the case of New England beehives, Joan M.Gero archaeology as socio-political action in the present, Christopher Tilley living history and critical archaeology in the reconstruction of the past, Russell G.Handsman and Mark P.Leone commentary - a socio-politics of socio-politics in archaeology, H.Martin Wobst.

A Century of Ancient Monuments Legislation 1882–1982

In his Anniversary Address to the Fellowship on St. George's Day 1883 Lord Carnarvon commented on The Act for the Better Protection of Ancient Monuments of the previous year:Gentlemen, I am sure you will agree with me that one of the first subjects on which I ought to congratulate both this Society and the archaeological world of England is the passing into law of the Bill for the Protection of Ancient Monuments to which successive Presidents of this Society have so often, during the last ten years, wished success from this place. Perhaps I ought rather to have said a Bill than the Bill, for we all know, and so knowing we all regret—no one more than Sir John Lubbock himself—in what a mutilated condition, shorn of many of its original provisions, crippled in its powers and limited in its scope that measure finally become the law of the land. For these untoward results we must thank the supineness of the public, the prejudices of Parliament and perhaps I may add the all absorbing pressure of Irish Measures.

Anniversary Address

On two occasions during the past year our apartments here have been the scene of festive celebrations unusual in our normally unexciting routine, but none the less welcome for that. On 2 May 1974 we were privileged to entertain our Royal Fellow Queen Margrethe of Denmark who graciously agreed to accept an invitation to be formally admitted to her Fellowship in the course of her State Visit to this country. After the admission ceremony, which followed traditional lines in this room, Her Majesty attended a reception in her honour in the Library at which she was able to meet the Officers and their wives, members of Council, and many Fellows and guests, including a number who had been her teachers or contemporaries when she was studying archaeology at Cambridge some years ago. She also showed great interest in some of our treasures, such as the portrait of her ancestor King Christian II of Denmark, and in a special exhibition of material illustrating our Society's links with the Danish pioneers of European archaeology in the heroic age a century and more ago when her country led the world in the systematic study of prehistory and in the protection of ancient monuments. This exhibition, admirably contrived and displayed by our learned Librarian, showed once again what a wealth of material our collections contain on so many aspects of antiquity. The arrival and departure of the Queen were signalled by splendid fanfares from our good friends the Guild of Gentlemen Trumpeters, and we have reason to believe that Her Majesty enjoyed these outbursts of joyful noise, and indeed the whole delightfully informal occasion, every bit as much as we did ourselves.

Preservation of Museums in Italy

REPLYING to questions in the House of Commons, Sir James Grigg, Secretary of State for War, stated that an adviser is being appointed to deal with archaeological questions such as measures for the protection and conservation of ancient monuments and works of art in countries occupied by British troops. Meanwhile British and American experts are already in occupied territory engaged in the supervision and protection of ancient monuments, museums, etc. The British officers sent or provisionally selected are from the British Museum, Inspectorate of Ancient Monuments (Ministry of Works), National Gallery and the Royal Institute of British Architects. Lists of aesthetic and ancient monuments have been prepared in Great Britain, and detailed instructions supplied to these officers regarding closing, guarding and, where necessary, repairing museums and similar institutions. Italian curators and their staffs, where suitable, are to be retained. In this connexion it is interesting to read Dr. G. B. Bidder's letter in The Times of October 14, in which he states that the aquarium in the Villa Nazionale of Naples, and so presumably the famous Stazione Zoologica Internazionale, is safe. Dr. Bidder adds that so lately as last August, the director, Dr. Reinhard Dohrn, was still in charge of the Station.

The Right Hon. W. G. A. Ormsby-Gore

ARCHÆOLOGISTS, while congratulating Mr. Ormsby-Gore on his promotion in the ranks of His Majesty's Ministry, will feel that, in his appointment to succeed Mr. J. H. Thomas as Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Empire gains what archaeology can ill afford to lose. No more suitable appointment to the Colonial Office could have been made; but as First Commissioner of Works Mr. Ormsby-Gore has been responsible for the protection of ancient monuments, and to that duty of his department has brought a knowledge of archaeology and an enthusiasm for the surviving relics of the past in Britain that has been an inspiration to the members of his staff and an encouragement to all who are interested in the scientific investigation and the preservation of sites and structures of archaeological or historic interest in Great Britain. Of the work?much of it of first-rate scientific importance?which has been carried out under the supervision and with the co-operation of the Office of Works during his tenure of office, it is unnecessary to speak here in detail; but by his personal activities, more especially in his efforts to secure the preservation of the unique character of Avebury and its surroundings, and in the initiation of the excellent series of guides to ancient monuments, of which he has already published two volumes, while a third is in an advanced stage of preparation, he has widely extended public interest in this class of evidence of the nation's cultural development. He leaves behind him a well-established tradition of official sympathy with, and cooperation in, the aims of archaeological studies in Great Britain, which will not readily be allowed to die out.

Restoration of Roman Bridge, Littleborough, Lancs

ADVANTAGE has been taken of the unemployment problem at Littleborough, Lancs, to invite the cooperation of voluntary workers among the unemployed on the ‘dole’ in the repair of the Roman road over Blackstone Edge. A part of the work contemplated has now been completed by the repair of the Roman bridge at the junction of Black Castle Clough and Rag Sapling Clough, which carries the road over Black Castle Clough. Some time ago, Mr. J. H. Price of Rochdale directed the attention of the Rochdale Literary and Scientific Society, and through it, of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Monuments, to the fact that the bridge was in danger of being swept away. Mr. Price's examination of the bridge had revealed the fact, which had been completely forgotten in the course of time, that originally it consisted of two culverts, one of which had collapsed and had become completely overgrown with grass. The original length of 25 ft. had thereby been reduced to 12 ft. This culvert has now been restored and the bridge repaired, under Mr. Price's supervision, with the assistance of local firms who volunteered transport, material, etc. The work was carried out with the approval of H.M. Office of Works. Both Roman road and bridge are scheduled as ancient monuments. It is hoped to carry out repairs on part of the road in due course by the same method.