The History of Archaeological Conservation Ethics

From MediaWiki
Conservation Specialties

Conservation Specialties Analysis and Imaging Preventive Care Education and Professional Development Workplace Practices About Conservation Lexicon

  • Archaeological Artifacts and Sites
Group
  • Archaeological Heritage Network
Section
  • Conservation Practices

Back to the Archaeological Conservation Page
Back to the Conservation Ethics Page
Back to the Main Page

Contributors: Julie Unruh

Please contribute to the wiki! Become a wiki editor, or email contributions to the Archaeological Heritage Network at AHN@culturalheritage.org.

Copyright 2025. The Archaeological Conservation Wiki pages are a publication of the Archaeological Heritage Network of the American Institute for Conservation. Publication does not endorse nor recommend any treatments, methods, or techniques described herein. This information is published as a convenience for the members of the Archaeological Heritage Network, and is intended to be used by conservators, museum professionals, and members of the public for educational purposes only. It is not designed to substitute for the consultation of a trained conservator.

The Archaeological Heritage Network welcomes suggestions for new content or changes to existing content to this wiki. Please contribute!

Cite this page: Archaeological Heritage Network. 2025. The History of Archaeological Conservation Ethics Wiki. American Institute for Conservation (AIC). Accessed November 17, 2025. https://www.conservation-wiki.com/wiki/Archaeological_Conservation

19th century Western restoration ethics[edit | edit source]

John Ruskin in 1885. (T A & J Green, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.)

It is customary to situate the origin of Western archaeological conservation ethics at the point at which John Ruskin and Eugène-Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc began to spar over appropriate restoration of buildings. Ruskin’s 1849 treatise, “The Seven Lamps of Architecture,” declared that it was a moral obligation to preserve the architecture of the past, but also held that if the effects of time were removed, a building’s essence and character would be eradicated. By protecting a building’s signs of age, a connection to historic memory would be maintained, the building’s “pure and essential character” would be upheld, and a beautiful “picturesqueness” would remain. Ruskin describes restoration as “a destruction out of which no remnants can be gathered; a destruction accompanied with false description of the thing destroyed. Do not let us deceive ourselves in this important matter; it is impossible, as impossible as to raise the dead, to restore anything that has ever been great or beautiful in architecture.” He reminds readers that original surfaces worn away cannot be reconstructed with certainty and must be invented by restorers, and so concludes, “Do not let us talk then of restoration. The thing is a Lie from beginning to end.”[1]

Portrait of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc by Georges Gorvel, n.d. (Georges Gorvel, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Viollet-le-Duc famously wrote: “To restore an edifice means neither to maintain it, nor to repair it, nor to rebuild it; it means to reestablish it in a finished state, which may in fact never have actually existed at any given time.”[2] Viollet-le-Duc was a high-profile European architectural restorer and the driving force behind the 19th century restoration of major icons such as Notre Dame in Paris. His encyclopedic knowledge of Romanesque and Gothic architecture did, in fact, yield an encyclopedia, as well as a series of published lectures in which he expressed his theories. In his view, restoration strove to bring monuments to a unity of architectural style that expressed the highest aspirations of the original makers; and he believed that when necessary, monuments could ethically be restored based on an educated understanding of period styles in lieu of physical proof – or in spite of physical proof. Viollet-le-Duc’s restorations have been criticized for their artistic license. However, Viollet-le-Duc was also an advocate of practices that have since become ethical requirements in conservation, including the importance of thorough research and documentation prior to any restoration work, the use of knowledgeable specialists who attempt to understand the intent of the original makers, and respect for an (undefined) quality of integrity in objects.[2][3]

Partially in response to restorations by Viollet-le-Duc, Ruskin and others founded The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, an organization that remains active in the present day. William Morris (of the Arts and Crafts Movement) wrote the 1877 manifesto.[4] It touches on ethical issues that continued to fuel debate over the course of the next century:

  • What is “original” and “authentic”?
    • “Restoration of ancient buildings [is] a strange and most fatal idea, which by its very name implies that it is possible to strip from a building this, that, and the other part of its history - of its life that is - and then to stay the hand at some arbitrary point, and leave it still historical, living, and even as it once was.”
  • What and who defines “significance,” “value,” and “meaning”?
    • “If, for the rest, it be asked us to specify what kind of amount of art, style, or other interest in a building, makes it worth protecting, we answer, anything which can be looked on as artistic, picturesque, historical, antique, or substantial: any work in short, over which educated, artistic people would think it worthwhile to argue at all.”
  • Have restorers considered the impact on research value and educational value?
    • “…we think that if the present treatment of [ancient monuments] be continued, our descendants will find them useless for study…” “…thus only can we protect our ancient buildings, and hand them down instructive and venerable to those that come after us.” (All quotes from the Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings.[4])


The slightly later architectural restoration theories of Alois Reigl also discuss “historic value,” roughly the value prioritized by Viollet-le-Duc, and “age-value”: the notion that age alone creates value, roughly Ruskin’s argument.[5][6] However, Riegl’s theories of restoration read more as a precursor to late-20th century conservation theory than a continuation of the Romantic ideals of Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc. Riegl introduced the idea of seven competing values in restoration, and notes that the importance the restorer places on each of those values will affect what is preserved. Riegl also introduced the concept of Kunstwollen (literally “art-will”): loosely, a fundamental, collective human drive to create and perceive art.a Anticipating the postmodern position, Reigl proposes that the present-day Kunstwollen influences perception of value: “…we must realize that certain historic works of art correspond, if only in part, to the modern Kunstwollen. It is precisely this apparent correspondence of the modern Kunstwollen and certain aspects of historical art which, in its conflicting nature, exerts such power over the modern viewer…. It is not their original purpose and significance that turn [historical] works into monuments, but rather our modern perception of them.”[6]

Each of these perspectives continue to have relevance in present-day debate. Ruskin’s and Viollet-le-Duc’s restoration theories are based on Romantic ideals – for Ruskin, the romance of the ruin, and for Viollet-le-Duc, the romance of a lost era brought to life. In spite of aspirations to scientific objectivity in both archaeology and conservation,[7][8][9] those ideals continue to figure in justifications for the restoration of archaeological buildings and monuments in the present day, often framed in terms of tourism value. Although current conservation practice echoes Ruskin in recognizing that buildings are not static, and while modern conservation ethics condemn fanciful reconstructions, most archaeological reconstructions are of necessity knowledge-based period reconstructions of the type advocated by Viollet-le-Duc. It can be argued that Riegl’s values system introduced what we would today term value-based preservation; and his assertion that conservation is subjective has become the position held by many 21st century conservators.

Arthur Mace (l) and Alfred Lucas (r) conserve a chariot from Tutankhamun’s tomb, December 1923. Published in Mace's obituary in the Illustrated London News, Saturday 23 June 1928, page 1164. (Unknown author, public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.)

Architectural conservation ethics originated with art historians; objects conservation ethics originated with chemists. Establishing those origins requires reading between the lines, but the early 20th century publications of Friedrich Rathgen, Alfred Lucas, and Harold Plenderleith – all chemists hired by museums to preserve archaeological finds – were enormously influential. What we would today consider to be ethical issues are mentioned by those authors, though they are not discussed as such. Both Rathgen and Lucas are advocates for transparency and documentation. Lucas cautioned that conservation treatment could invalidate materials analysis,[10] and Rathgen also alludes to that possibility as well as encouraging retaining untreated samples, though more as insurance in case treatment should fail than to avert destruction of analytical data.[11] Though he can be inconsistent, Lucas assumes there is an “original condition” and cautions against removing original material.[12] Lucas also recognizes a characteristic of “genuineness” or authenticity, though he does not define it.[12]

Reminiscing about the conservation of Ur materials in the British Museum in the 1920s and 1930s, H. J. Plenderleith wrote, “In those days...it was considered to be unthinkable that anything should be done to museum objects that could not be readily undone”.[13] Whether “reversibility” was in fact an ethical tenet in the 1920s and 1930s or was retroactively emphasized is unclear.

Early 20th century international legislation[edit | edit source]

International charters represent committee consensus, and as such are the codification of ideas that likely had already gained professional purchase. It is then particularly meaningful that by the early 20th century, archaeological conservation ethics had achieved enough consensus to allow a number of international charters to be ratified aimed at improving ethical preservation of monuments and archaeological sites.

The 1931 Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments was ratified at the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. Drawing on a century of European theory, it mandates preservation of “aspect and character” and “historic value,” though without defining those concepts, and advises collaboration with properly trained specialists. However, it also assembles a number of innovative ideas: that modern restorations should be distinguishable from original materials, and that decorative elements should not be separated from monuments. It requires “strict custodial protection” for sites, advocating reburial for structures that will not be restored, and notes the issue of context within landscape. It mentions the importance of community stakeholder buy-in: “the best guarantee in the matter of the preservation of monuments and works of art derives from the respect and attachment of the peoples themselves.” [14]

UNESCO’s 1956 Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations declared the universality of cultural heritage as fact, and for that reason, aimed to transform the profession of archaeology internationally. Conservation of both immovable and movable finds was explicitly mandated as an international principle of excavation. Although the document does not specify conservation ethics further, the Recommendation has had profound ramifications for both archaeology and conservation. The document proposes that each signatory develop a national archaeological service that would oversee archaeological work and ensure compliance with the stated international principles. A duty of that service would be to provide funding for site and collections maintenance, as well as for publications; another would be to prohibit unauthorized excavation and looting; other duties were to enforce rules for foreign excavations and for intellectual rights. The Recommendation hints at the cultural diplomacy possibilities of ancient sites and artifacts, claiming that they “do much to foster mutual understanding between nations,” and asks for governmental protection of sites during warfare.[15]

The Venice Charter of 1964 was framed as an update to the 1931 Athens Charter. Like the UNESCO Recommendations, it takes the universality of cultural heritage as its starting point, but does recognize the possibility of cultural diversity, stating that “each country [is] responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and Traditions.” It reiterates a number of, by now, longstanding directives: respecting the “authentic” and “original,” the importance of marking non-original materials, and maintaining “precise” documentation. Echoing Ruskin, it states, “The valid contributions of all periods to the building of a monument must be respected, since unity of style is not the aim of a restoration.” However, and most contentiously, it unambiguously prohibits restoration of archaeological structures beyond anastylosis: “All reconstruction work should however be ruled out ‘a priori.’ Only anastylosis, that is to say, the reassembling of existing but dismembered parts can be permitted.”[16]

The 1960s saw worldwide development of professional ethical codes for both conservation and archaeology. Of particular relevance, in the United States the Murray Pease Report was adopted in 1963 as the professional standards of conservation practice and was updated four years later as the Code of Ethics for Art Conservators.[17] The Code mandates “respect for the aesthetic, historical and physical integrity” of objects; warns against undertaking work outside of the practitioner’s professional competence; dictates that conservation treatment must aim for a high standard regardless of material value and must be in the “best interests” of the artifact, directs conservators to follow the “principle of reversibility,” and cautions against deceptive restoration.b

By the end of the 1960s, then, a number of ethical principles had been codified either explicitly or implicitly in Western archaeological conservation policy. It was generally assumed that archaeological heritage held value for all humanity. Conservation aimed to preserve an “original” condition, materials, or fabrication, and alteration of the “original” was deemed unethical. Ethical conservation was performed by suitable specialists after appropriate research and scientific investigation. Conservators aspired to reversible treatments. Misleading restoration was unethical, and non-original materials were required to be distinguishable from the original. Minimum intervention – for archaeological monuments and buildings, that now meant reconstruction only, without restoration – was the most ethical position. Detailed documentation of all conservation procedures and materials was required.

Ethics from the late 20th century to the present[edit | edit source]

The ethical tenets developed in the first part of the century were reaffirmed in conservation publications aimed at field archaeologists and field conservators,[18][19] and in conservation, a ballooning sub-discipline of theory prompted increasingly extensive discussions of ethics in conservation methodology texts.[20][21] However, with the advent of postmodernism came a questioning of principles that had provided the foundation for those conservation ethics. A growing emphasis on cultural relativity in both archaeology and conservation made universal meaning or value doubtful, and while preserving the “original,” “authentic,” or “true nature” of an archaeological structure or artifact remained obligatory, defining those properties became more complicated as the existence of intangible and contextual values were recognized. Both conservation and archaeology became understood as subjective and interpretive activities rather than neutral activities, and the possibility of scientific objectivity, long the goal of both archaeology and conservation, was questioned.[22][23][24][25] Local communities and other stakeholders became collaborators in conservation decisions.[26][27][28] The principle of minimum intervention was demonstrated to be inappropriate in some contexts.[29] Conservators admitted that the answer to the question asked at a 1999 conference, “Reversibility – Does It Exist?” – was often “no.”[30] Expectations for ethically required documentation changed as first digital documentation and then 3-D documentation, multispectral imaging, and data sharing platforms became commonplace.

The new concerns prompted the revision of existing ethics codes and the drafting of new documents. Two international documents have had particular impact: the 1979 Burra Charter, written by Australia ICOMOS (revised in 2013), and the Nara Document on Authenticity, created in 1994 at a joint conference of UNESCO, ICCROM and ICOMOS.

Though the 1979 Burra Charter was only binding in Australia, it is now widely considered to be a model for guiding ethical conservation decisions worldwide. The 2013 revision stresses that value and significance may be intangible and encompass more than the heritage object itself, and emphasizes community involvement at all stages, providing “for the participation of people for whom the [object or] place has significant associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the [object or] place.” It states, “Co-existence of cultural values should always be recognised, respected and encouraged. This is especially important in cases where they conflict.” The charter does not preclude restoration, given sufficient evidence and reason, and operating on the principle of minimal intervention; but it mandates that changes should be “reversible” – deliberately choosing a word that had seen decades of debate in 2013 – and makes it clear that “restoration” might apply to meaning or significance as well as to physical fabric.[31]

The 1994 Nara Document built upon the 1964 Venice Charter, but aimed to “challenge conventional thinking in the conservation field,” specifically by questioning definitions of heritage and the concept of universality. It warns that conservation may “undermine [a community’s] fundamental cultural values.” It states that authenticity can only be understood within cultural context, and does not have fixed criteria: “Therefore, it is of the highest importance and urgency that, within each culture, recognition be accorded to the specific nature of its heritage values and the credibility and truthfulness of related information sources.”[32]

Professional organizations’ codes of conduct began reflecting a more relativistic and situational approach to conservation ethics. In the United States, the IIC-American Group became the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC). Its Code of Ethics was most extensively revised in 1994, becoming the Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice. In 2001, a sister document, Commentaries to the Guidelines for Practice, was approved, revised in 2008. Among other changes, the two documents mandate respect not only for the object but for the people who created the object, and for the object’s research value, function, and conceptual characteristics. Treatment decisions must be in collaboration with “appropriate individuals connected with the cultural property.” The concept of reversibility is applied to loss compensation only; otherwise, treatment merely “should not preclude retreatment or future analysis of the cultural property.” Aiming for even less intervention than minimal intervention, preventive conservation is added as a primary conservation activity. Conservators are directed to adhere to the policy documents of related organizations, including archaeological organizations and international charters. The Commentaries recognize that treatment methodologies and analytical techniques evolve and that “taste and fashion in presentation change.”[33][34]

Similar directives to respect competing ethical values, to acknowledge the intangible properties of heritage, or to consult stakeholders are included in The Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property (CAC)’s Code of Ethics,[35] The Archaeological Institute of America (AIA)’s Code of Professional Standards,[36] AIA’s Code of Ethics,[37] The International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)’s Ethical Commitment Statement for ICOMOS Members,[38] ASOR’s Policy on Preservation and Protection of Archaeological Resources,[39] and ASOR’s Policy on Professional Conduct, Section V, B.[40] CAC’s Code of Ethics additionally recasts “reversibility” as removability “with minimal risk to any original part,” requires reporting suspected illegally excavated artifacts to authorities, and, like AIC, adds preventive conservation as a professional requirement.

Practical impediments to conservation ethics[edit | edit source]

Numerous professionals have noted the difficulty of following certain ethical standards in practice.

Restoration in progress of the western facade of the Parthenon, Acropolis, Athens, Greece, in 2015. (Jebulon, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons.)

The prohibition on archaeological buildings restoration imposed by the Venice Charter and reinforced by subsequent charters is openly flouted. Nicholas Stanley-Price lists a number of reasons why restoration is more attractive than compliance with international legislation, including increased educational and research value, generation of tourism revenue (that can be used for long-term site maintenance), and prevention of destructive development;[41] to these reasons could be added improving structural stability, the restoration of religious or community values, and, in some cases, conservation of landscape values (though Stanley-Price notes that a reconstructed building can also falsify a landscape). Those reasons align with ethical conservation objectives, and it can be argued that the legislation forbidding restoration impedes those objectives. Stanley-Price and others suggest that the Venice Charter needs an update. Stanley-Price proposes new principles that would allow reconstruction after meeting certain criteria.[41]

Increasing urban development has increased salvage excavations. The ASOR Policy on Preservation and Protection, the European Council Valetta Treaty, and the Lausanne Charter directly acknowledge that reality.[39][42][43] All appeal for time for adequate study and conservation of threatened sites and, with respect to rescue operations, for cooperation between those authorized to destroy archaeological heritage and those trying to preserve it. However, in practice, “the ability of archaeologists and conservators to influence the time frame of development and construction is often negligible.”[44]

Armed conflict has dramatically increased the destruction of cultural property, both as a casualty of conflict and intentionally as a weapon of war. For multifaceted reasons, a culture of looting has concurrently developed. ASOR and the Valetta Treaty refer to the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention), which mandates governmental protection for cultural property in time of warfare.[45] The reality is that the Hague Convention has not been consistently enforced, leaving archaeologists and conservators to implement their own emergency measures if sites and objects are to be preserved.

ICOMOS states, “In an emergency, where heritage monuments, sites and other cultural places are in immediate danger or at risk, ICOMOS members render all assistance practicable, provided they do not put their own health and safety in jeopardy.”[38] ASOR advises taking “every precaution to insure that parts of the archaeological record for which [ASOR members] are responsible are fully documented and, to the extent possible, protected from the eventuality of warfare.”[39] The AIC Code of Ethics states, “In an emergency that threatens cultural property, the conservation professional should take all reasonable action to preserve the cultural property, recognizing that strict adherence to the Guidelines for Practice may not be possible,”[33] further clarifying that in such cases “actions of the conservation professional must remain consistent with the intent of these documents.”[33] It remains up to the individual conservator to decide how to interpret those instructions. Little ethical direction is offered for navigating limited time, inadequate governmental cooperation, or inability to physically access an archaeological site or collection. ASOR’s “documentation as conservation” approach has led to novel remote documentation procedures spearheaded by organizations such as the ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiative and The Antiquities Coalition,[46][47] but these initiatives cannot substitute for physical investigation and conservation.

A lack of resources can force compromised ethics. Field conservation typically requires working with limited resources under strict time constraints. In that respect, even when an excavation is not a rescue operation, field conservation can resemble emergency conservation far more than it resembles museum conservation. Does that mean that rigorous adherence to the AIC Guidelines may be ethically suspended in the field as long as the intent is retained? The history of field treatments would suggest that some field conservators have operated under that assumption. Core policy documents explicitly state an obligation to plan for and fund conservation.[36][39][48][43][15] Lack of planning and inadequate conservation funding nonetheless continue to result in ethical breaches.[44][49][50][9]

Even when conservation campaigns are adequately funded for the short term, it can be difficult to economically sustain long-term preservation. As one example, the ethical requirement to enact preventive conservation measures may be near-impossible in site storage facilities. ASOR specifically calls for members to “consider appropriate site protection, artifact storage and data management in initial research designs and funding plans; so that all objects of study and research data are properly curated in perpetuity.”[38] Few sites can claim to have secured funding in perpetuity. Applications for funding remain highly competitive, and the cost of permanent preservation can be so prohibitive that it simply leads to inertia.

Core documents state that conservation must be performed by competent professionals, and AIC specifically lists operating outside of one’s area of expertise as a form of professional misconduct.[33][40][39][38][48][36][51] Caple notes that “Funding for conservation is at charitable/recreational/educational levels,”[7] a situation that is sometimes sidestepped by assigning conservation to archaeologists with access to a reference manual or who have taken a conservation short course; by utilizing fine art conservators without field experience who are willing to volunteer; or by relying on inexpensive student labor. In particular, Greene notes that student conservators without adequate training routinely work unsupervised: this has not changed since publication of her paper in 2010.[52] However, a lack of competent professionals is not just a funding issue, but also a training issue, and it is not one-sided. Most archaeologists are not qualified to perform conservation, but most conservators are not trained to understand archaeology, or to work in the field as participants in an archaeological investigation rather than post-excavation in a museum.[52] In 2017, a majority of North American archaeology degree curricula did not include any discussion of conservation principles, and no North American conservation degree required training in archaeological methodology or theory.[53]

Conservation documentation is increasingly integrated with archaeological databases and so-called big data datasets. Integration is a step forward, not least because conservation research, like archaeological research, can be greatly aided by analysis of large datasets. However, relational databases require fixed fields and standard terms. Insufficient fields, a lack of standardization, and incorrect use of terms can create archaeological conservation documentation that does not meet ethical requirements and prevents useful data analysis.

Evolving archaeological conservation ethics[edit | edit source]

Ashley-Smith has proposed that what is needed is not standardized ethical rules or “convenient sound bites such as ‘minimal intervention’ and ‘reversibility,’” but documents that would guide the development of many different ethical codes tailored to individual treatment contexts.[54] In a sense these different ethical codes are already being developed, as codes of ethics move away from the specific and towards the relative. The challenge is to find the balance between guidance and flexibility. When ethics are situational, agendas can be justified that are harmful even to stakeholder-sanctioned preservation goals.

Numerous ethics codes now require seeking input from stakeholders to develop work plans. That directive could be interpreted to apply to the development of ethics codes. Archaeological conservation ethics must incorporate the concerns of all allied professionals – a sentiment that has been repeatedly expressed in archaeological and conservation publications for decades.[44][55][56][49][18][19] Communication must be promoted on all sides. Disconnects between archaeological project goals and conservation treatment, and between conservation requirements and project design, planning and funding, can be lessened via increased collaboration between invested communities, archaeologists, conservators, researchers, subject specialists, data analysts, and others.

Notes[edit | edit source]

[a] - Riegl’s concept of Kustwollen was devised in a milieu contending with Freud’s theory of collective unconscious. The term is never defined, and he uses it broadly to indicate concepts that continue to be the subject of debate.
[b] - It is interesting that none of the international charters discussed mention reversibility, and the 1963 Murray Pease Report also does not mention reversibility. To some extent, ethics are constrained by the properties of the materials available. Development of materials with improved ageing and solubility characteristics allowed a more stringent ethics.

References Cited[edit | edit source]

  1. ↑ Ruskin, John. 1849. ‘’The Seven Lamps of Architecture.’’ London: Smith, Elder & Co.
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène-Emmanuel. 1854. “Restoration.” In ‘’Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage’’, edited by Nicholas Stanley-Price, M. Kirby Talley, and Alessandro Melucco Vaccaro, translated by Kenneth D. Whitehead. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
  3. ↑ Viollet-le-Duc, Eugène-Emmanuel. 1877. Lectures on Architecture. Translated by Benjamin Bucknall. Boston: James R. Osgood and Co.
  4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 Morris, William. 1877. Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings. https://www.spab.org.uk/about-us/spab-manifesto.
  5. ↑ Riegl, Aloïs. 1903. Moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen Und Seine Entstehung. Wien: Zentral-Kommission für Kunst-und Historische Denkmale: Braumüller.
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 Riegl, Aloïs. 1982. “The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin (Moderne Denkmalkultus: Sein Wesen Und Seine Entstehung).” Translated by Kurt W. Forster and Diane Ghirardo. Oppositions 25: 21–51.
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Caple, Chris. 2010. “Conservation: Concepts and Reality.” In The Conservation of Archaeological Materials: Current Trends and Future Directions, edited by Emily Williams and Claire Peachey, 1–10. Oxford: Archaeopress.
  8. ↑ Clavir, Miriam. 1998. “The Social and Historic Construction of Professional Values in Conservation.” ‘’Studies in Conservation’’ 43 (1): 1–8. https://doi.org/10.2307/1506631.
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Caldararo, Niccolo Leo. 1987. “An Outline History of Conservation in Archaeology and Anthropology as Presented through Its Publications.” ‘’Journal of the American Institute for Conservation’’ 26 (2): 85–104. https://doi.org/10.2307/3179458.
  10. ↑ Lucas, A. 1948. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries. 3rd ed. London: Edward Arnold Ltd.
  11. ↑ Rathgen, Friedrich. 1905. ‘’The Preservation of Antiquities’’. Translated by George A. Auden and Harold A. Auden. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  12. ↑ 12.0 12.1 Lucas, A. 1924. Antiques: Their Restoration and Preservation. London: E. Arnold & Co.
  13. ↑ Plenderleith, H.J. 1960. “Reminiscences from the Laboratories.” Iraq 22: 20–22. https://doi.org/10.2307/4199665.
  14. ↑ Advisory Council for Antiquities and Fine Arts. 1931. “The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments: Adopted at the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments.” International Museums Office.
  15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 UNESCO. 1956. “Recommendation on International Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations.” http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13062&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
  16. ↑ ICOMOS. 1964. “International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites (The Venice Charter): Adopted at the Second International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Buildings.” International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). https://www.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.pdf.
  17. ↑ IIC - American Group. 1968. The Murray Pease Report; Code of Ethics for Art Conservators; Articles of Association of IIC; Bylaws of the American Group. New York: IIC - American Group.
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 Cronyn, J. M. 1990. ‘’The Elements of Archaeological Conservation’’. Routledge.
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Sease, Catherine. 1987. ‘’A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist.’’ Archaeological Research Tools 4. Los Angeles: Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
  20. ↑ Appelbaum, Barbara. 2010. ‘’Conservation Treatment Methodology’’. New York: Routledge.
  21. ↑ Caple, Chris. 2000. ‘’Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method and Decision Making’’. London; New York: Routledge.
  22. ↑ Muñoz-Viñas, Salvador. 2004. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. 1st ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
  23. ↑ Matero, Frank. 2000. “Ethics and Policy in Conservation.” GCI Newsletter 15 (1). http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications_resources/newsletters/15_1/feature1_2.html.
  24. ↑ Hodder, Ian. 1984. “Archaeology in 1984.” Antiquity 58 (222): 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003598X00055940.
  25. ↑ Hodder, Ian, ed. 1982. Symbolic and Structural Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  26. ↑ Heritage, Alison, and Jennifer Copithorne, eds. 2018. Sharing Conservation Decisions: Issues and Future Strategies. Rome: The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM).
  27. ↑ Karlström, Anna. 2013. “Local Heritage and the Problem with Conservation.” In Transcending the Culture–Nature Divide in Cultural Heritage, edited by Sally Brockwell, Sue OʹConnor, and Denis Byrne, 36:141–56. Views from the Asia–Pacific Region. Canberra: ANU Press.
  28. ↑ Wharton, Glenn. 2010. “Collaboration and Community Involvement in Archaeological Conservation.” In The Conservation of Archaeological Materials: Current Trends and Future Directions, edited by Emily Williams and Claire Peachey, 201–4. BAR International Series 2116. Oxford: Archaeopress.
  29. ↑ Wharton, Glenn. 2011. The Painted King: Art, Activism, and Authenticity in Hawai‘i. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.
  30. ↑ Oddy, W. A., and Sara Carroll, eds. 1999. Reversibility: Does It Exist? London: British Museum.
  31. ↑ Australia ICOMOS, and International Council on Monuments and Sites. 2013. The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance.
  32. ↑ ICOMOS World Heritage Committee. 1994. The Nara Document on Authenticity ICOMOS. https://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf.
  33. ↑ 33.0 33.1 33.2 33.3 “Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice.” American Institute for Conservation. https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/administration/governance/code-of-ethics-and-guidelines-for-practice.pdf?sfvrsn=21.
  34. ↑ “AIC. 2008. “Commentaries to the Guidelines for Practice of the American Institute for Conservation of Historic & Artistic Works.” American Institute for Conservation. https://www.culturalheritage.org/docs/default-source/administration/governance/commentaries-to-the-guidelines.pdf?sfvrsn=15
  35. ↑ Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property (CAC). 2009. “Code of Ethics and Guidance for Practice of the Canadian Association for Conservation of Cultural Property and of the Canadian Association of Professional Conservators.”
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 36.2 AIA. 2008. “AIA Code of Professional Standards.” https://www.archaeological.org/code-of-professional-standards/.
  37. ↑ AIA. 1997. “AIA Code of Ethics.” https://www.archaeological.org/pdfs/AIA_Code_of_EthicsA5S.pdf
  38. ↑ 38.0 38.1 38.2 38.3 AIA. 2008. ICOMOS. 2002. “Ethical Commitment Statement for ICOMOS Members.” https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Secretariat/StatutesAmendments_R2_20130325/st2002-ethical-commitment-en.pdf.
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 39.2 39.3 39.4 ASOR. 2003. “Policy on Preservation and Protection of Archaeological Resources.” http://www.asor.org/initiatives-projects/asor-affiliated-archaeological-projects/standards-policies/asor-policy-on-preservation-and-protection-of-archaeological-resources/.
  40. ↑ 40.0 40.1 ASOR. 2015. “Policy on Professional Conduct.” https://www.asor.org/about-asor/policies/policy-on-professional-conduct/.
  41. ↑ 41.0 41.1 Stanley-Price, Nicholas. 2009. “The Reconstruction of Ruins: Principles and Practice.” In Conservation: Principles, Dilemmas and Uncomfortable Truths, edited by Alison Richmond and Alison Bracker, 32–46. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  42. ↑ Council of Europe. 1995. “European Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage (Revised).” https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?documentId=090000168007bd25.
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 ICAHM. 1990. “Charter for the Protection and Management of the Archaeological Heritage (Lausanne Charter).” International Committee for the Management of Archaeological Heritage (ICAHM).
  44. ↑ 44.0 44.1 44.2 Pedelì, Corrado, and Stefano Pulga. 2014. Conservation Practices on Archaeological Excavations: Principles and Methods. Translated by Erik Risser. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute.
  45. ↑ UNESCO. 1954. “Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (Hague Convention).” United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). http://www.un-documents.net/cpcpeac.htm.
  46. ↑ “ASOR Cultural Heritage Initiatives.” n.d. Accessed April 28, 2020. https://www.asor.org/chi.
  47. ↑ ““The Antiquities Coalition | Pioneers Against Cultural Racketeering.” n.d. Antiquities Coalition. Accessed April 27, 2020. https://theantiquitiescoalition.org/.
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 ASOR. 1995. “Statement of General Standards for Projects Affilated with ASOR.” https://www.asor.org/initiatives-projects/asor-affiliated-archaeological-projects/standards-policies/.
  49. ↑ 49.0 49.1 Foley, Kate. 1995. “The Role of The Objects Conservator in Field Archaeology.” In ‘’Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, with Particular Reference to the Mediterranean Area’’, edited by Nicholas Stanley-Price, 2nd ed., 11–19. Rome: ICCROM.
  50. ↑ Stanley-Price, Nicholas. 1995. “Conservation on Excavations and the 1956 UNESCO Recommendation.” In Conservation on Archaeological Excavations, with Particular Reference to the Mediterranean Area, edited by Nicholas Stanley-Price, 2nd ed., 135–42. Rome: ICCROM.
  51. ↑ UNESCO. 1978. “Recommendation for the Protection of Movable Cultural Property.” UNESCO. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13137&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.
  52. ↑ 52.0 52.1 Greene, Virginia. 2010. “Training Archaeological Conservators.” In The Conservation of Archaeological Materials: Current Trends and Future Directions, edited by Emily Williams and Claire Peachey, 25–32. Oxford: Archaeopress.
  53. ↑ Unruh, Julie. 2017. “Survey of Archaeology and Conservation Programs Course Descriptions: Produced for The Interdisciplinary Training for Archaeologists and Conservators Initiative (ITAACI) Outreach/Dissemination Group.” Unpublished manuscript.
  54. ↑ Ashley-Smith, Jonathan. 2017. “A Role for Bespoke Codes of Ethics.” In ICOM-CC 18th Triennial Conference Preprints, Copenhagen, 4–8 September 2017, edited by Janet Bridgland, art. 1901. Paris: International Council of Museums.
  55. ↑ Hester, Thomas R, Harry J Shafer, and Kenneth L Feder. 2016. Field Methods in Archaeology. Milton: Taylor and Francis.
  56. ↑ Rotroff, Susan I. 2001. “Archaeologists on Conservation: How Codes of Archaeological Ethics and Professional Standards Treat Conservation.” Journal of the American Institute for Conservation 40 (2): 137–46.


Retrieved from "https://www.conservation-wiki.com/w/index.php?title=The_History_of_Archaeological_Conservation_Ethics&oldid=69242"