Essay Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/Archaeological-Site-Conservation-Manage 👈

1. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (998) volume 2 pages 129-142
Archaeological site conservation and management
An ap p raisal of recen t tren d s
FRANK MATERO, KECIA L. FONG, ELISA DEL BONO, MARK GOODMAN,
EVAN KOPELSON, LORRAINE McVEY, JESSICA SLOOP AND
CATHERINE TURTON
A B S T R A C T
There is an increasing awareness and interest in the issues of archaeological site conservation and
management. The acknowledgement of these issues has encouraged greater collaboration between
the allied professions of archaeology and heritage conservation. From this is evolving a new body
of literature and practice. This paper offers an assessment of the field through a literature review
of the past 25 years. The investigation reveals a lack of commonly agreed upon standards, principles
and practices and the need for active cooperation between the related disciplines and local
communities. It traces the development of the field from isolated material and object studies to
recent interdisciplinary conferences. What emerges is a new focus on the archaeological site, as
those involved in its protection expand conservation from object or material to an integrative
practice of concomitant concerns. A selected bibliography is included.
The conservation and management of archaeo-
logical sites is a subject of increasing interest, as
evidenced by a growing number of professional
conferences, published proceedings and interna-
tional projects. Archaeological sites have long
been a part of heritage tourism, certainly before
the use of the term 'heritage' and the formal study
of tourism. However, current concern can be
attributed to the perception among the public
and professionals that archaeological sites, like
the natural environment, represent non-renew-
able resources deteriorating at an increasing rate
[49]. This deterioration is attributable to a wide
array of causes, ranging from neglect and poor
management to increased visiting and vandalism,
from inappropriate past treatments to the expiry
of treatments' lifespans. The increase in aware-
ness can also be attributed partly to the growing
cooperation among archaeologists, conservators
and the related professions of architecture, land-
scape architecture, engineering and planning in
discussing issues and examInIng problems re-
lated to heritage management in general, includ-
ing the conservation of archaeological sites. Al-
though the field is maturing, the existence of a
shared approach, based on established princi-
ples, practices and procedures specifically for the
conservation of archaeological sites as a subset of
heritage resources, does not yet fully exist.
To this end, a critical review of the published
literature of the past 25 years was compiled as the
result of a graduate seminar in archaeological site
conservation and interpretation undertaken in
autumn 1995 by students in the Graduate Pro-
gram in Historic Preservation at the University of
Pennsylvania led by Professor Frank Matero.
The aim of this effort was to prepare a critical
bibliography and identify recent trends repre-
sented in the available literature. The view that
there is limited published information available
to guide escalating and diverse site conservation
projects prompted the preparation of a compre-
ISSN 1350-5033 © 1998 JAMES & JAMES (SCIENCE PUBLISHERS) LTD

2. 130 FRANK MATERO, KECIA 1. FONG ET AL.
hensive survey of literature from a variety of
disciplines related to the subject, including ar-
chaeology, architectural conservation, fine arts
conservation, architecture, heritage/cultural re-
source management and cultural tourism.
Like all fields, conservation is shaped by its
historical habit and by contemporary concerns.
To date, limited scholarly attention has been
focused on an historico-critical review and evalu-
ation of site conservation based on past and
current work. With the publication of the first
volume of Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites in 1995, this study is seen as
a timely contribution to defining the extent and
direction of recent activities in archaeological site
conservation through the published literature.
M E T H O D O L O G Y
Six broad topics of investigation defining the
field were identified at the outset of the project.
Justification for the selection of each particular
topic is discussed below.
I. Definitions, concepts, field specialization
Recent attempts to define archaeological site
conservation and management were researched
and evaluated. Attempts were made to compile
concise definitions of terms related to the subject
(see Appendix). Sources that discussed the con-
cepts and principles of the field were also searched
in order to identify the issues unique to archaeo-
logical sites as cultural resources [7,19,20,
49,53,57,71,73,75,88,90,92,93,97,99,101,104-
106,108,111]' Conservation charters and recom-
mendations were an important source of defini-
tions and principles [8,10,55,56,110], especially
those created specifically for archaeological sites.
From the definitions, principles and types of
resources identified, a better understanding of
the extent and direction of the field was gained.
II. Documentation and recordation
Because perceptible deterioration of archaeo-
logical sites often begins immediately after exca-
vation and interventions range from stabilization
to reconstruction, documentation and recordation
of the as-found conditions and the details of inter-
ventions planned and executed are essential in order
to provide a permanent record of information. To
examine the role of project documentation and
physical recordation of archaeological sites for the
purposes of conservation, the topic was divided into
four major subheadings based on method:
photodocumentation [11,16,34,35,41,65,72,86], con-
dition survey [5,24,62,70,79,89], non-computer-gen-
erated drawing [50,51,64,87] and computer imaging
[4,18,30,85], Omitted were examples of total project
documentation, a topic of considerable significance
in itself, given the re-investigation of previously
excavated sites and growing interest in historico-
critical research in archaeological method.
III. Characterization by material and issues
The essential goal of conservation is the preserva-
tion of knowledge through form and material. The
sources gathered for this section discuss the types
of site and building materials, and related issues
addressed in the field of archaeological site con-
servation. The materials that most often appeared
were masonry [9,17,33,36,43,46,60,62,74,92], wall
painting [3,13,14,23,24,27,54,58,63,67,
68,79,89,112], plaster [14,15,25-27,37,40,69,70,77,
78,92,98], mosaics, brick and tile [21,22,78,80-
82,92,103], earth [5,40,52,84,96] and wood [38,100].
Often related to these material studies were
issues such as provenience, dating, composition,
manufacture, construction, and deterioration
mechanisms. This information helped to identify
which materials and issues were being written
about, by whom, and which areas might benefit
from further research.
IV. Treatment by material
As for architectural conservation in general, much
of the published research tends to focus on a
specific class of building material or construction
system, although it may have broader implica-
tions. The focus of this section was on intrinsic
conservation treatments that alter the phYSical,
chemical and mechanical properties of the actual
site materials [9,26,36,38-40,67-70,78,92,
96,98,103,112]. Treatments were grouped accord-
ing to the materials researched in the previous

3. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT: RECENT TRENDS 131
section [3,5,15,24,25,38,40,42,47,52,54,67,
68,74,78,80, 83,84,98,100,103]. Whether or not
previous treatments were performed and evalu-
ated was also considered relevant to this section.
V. Site protection and stabilization
Efforts have been made to protect and stabilize
sites from the time of the first archaeological
investigations. With the introduction of modern
materials and codified principles of conservation,
the methods of site protection and stabilization
have changed, although the basic goal of altering
the immediate site environment to retard deterio-
ration has remained constant. For this section,
resources covering the different methods of ex-
trinsic stabilization and protection were found
[17,42,61]: backfilling [49,84,92,106], shelters
[2,40,59,92,106], structural reinforcement
[32,33,36,43,46,60,92] and relocation [36].
VI. Intetpretation and management
As cultural tourism expands into a major force in
national economies, many archaeological sites
have become the subject of renewed attention and
increased developmental pressures. As part of
many excavation programmes, short- and long-
term interpretation and development have be-
coine required components of the project. As a
result, professionals must pay increasing attention
to the issues surrounding them and how an
archaeological resource is to be interpreted and
managed so that the site is not compromised or
damaged by inappropriate development. Using
case studies, this section focused on the issues of
presentation, interpretation and management
[6,17,20,32,36,44-46,48,49,53,61 ,62,
69,70,75,83,92,93,99, 103,104,106]. A representa-
tive sampling of globally significant sites was
made to determine the presence or absence of site
conservation and management strategies for exist-
ing sites and new archaeological projects.
S C O P E O F R E S E A R C H A N D U M IT A T IO N S O F
T H E S E A R C H
The concentration of the research was on sources
that dealt specifically with archaeological sites
and structures (ruins) as opposed to individual
artefacts. Publication dates were limited to ap-
proximately the past 25 years (1970 to the present),
to reflect the current state of archaeological site
conservation. In addition, topics such as underwa-
ter archaeology and rock art, which present a
unique set of conditions and methodologies, were
excluded. Linguistic expertise limited the search
to sources in English, Spanish, French and Italian.
Materials published in German and other lan-
guages were accessed via English language ab-
stracts. Because there were more sources than
could be covered during the length of one semes-
ter, existing abstracts were used to supplement the
research (see below).
In order to search the six areas of investigation,
several bibliographic tools were utilized, includ-
ing computer databases, abstracting indexes and
reference bibliographies. Many items were found
at the University of Pennsylvania libraries, includ-
ing the Fisher Fine Arts Library, the University
Museum Library and the Van Pelt Library, while
items from outside libraries were obtained through
the interlibrary loan services of the University of
Pennsylvania.
K E Y W O R D S A N D B IB L IO G R A P H IC S O U R C E S
For each topic, a list of keywords was identified.
All searches included the phrase 'archaeological
site' to filter out conservation of nonarchaeological
architecture or museum-based fine arts. Because
'archaeological site conservation' is not a widely
used term, other keywords were used to find the
information indirectly. Some general keywords
were 'cultural property', 'heritage management',
'cultural resource', 'cultural resource manage-
ment', 'site', and 'ruins'. For each subtopic, differ-
ent keywords were added to the list.
Sources ranged from computerized bibliographic
databases to printed indexes. At the outset of the
project an initial search was conducted using the
bibliographic databases of the Conservation Infor-
mation Network (BCIN). Other sources included
Franklin (University of Pennsylvania On-line
Catalog), Avery Index of Periodicals, Anthropol-
ogy Index (ANL), Combined Research Catalog
(BIB), Art and Archaeology Technical Abstracts
(AATA) etc. Indexes to journals such as Associa-

4. 132 FRANK MATERO,KECIA L. FONG ET AL.
tion for Preservation Technology Bulletin, Journal
oftheAmericanInstituteforConservation, Studies
in Conservation and Cultural Resource Manage-
ment were reviewed, and bibliographies from
sources found were also consulted. General conser-
vation and archaeology texts and material-specific
texts were also searched for relevant chapters. In
addition, conference and congress proceedings
proved valuable sources of information.
Throughout the investigation, several obstacles
emerged. At the outset, keyword searches were
difficult. Because the subject area is not yet clearly
defined, a set vocabulary in English does not exist.
Therefore, words that were indirectly related to
the concepts were used in order eventually to
obtain the information desired. After reviewing
over 400 journal articles, books and other sources,
some general observations were made about the
current status of the field of archaeological site
conservation and management. Based on these
observations, a set of recommendations for future
directions was developed.
TRAINING P R O G R A M M E S
The 1994 International Directory of Training in
Conservation of Cultural Heritage, jointly pub-
lished by the Getty Conservation Institute and
ICCROM, lists a total of 453 training programmes.
Of these, 47 Capprox. 10%) cite 'archaeological
conservation' as a subject offering. It is difficult to
determine how much the focus of these pro-
grammes is on in situ treatment of artefacts or site
conservation. Fourteen programmes list 'archaeo-
logical site management' as an element of their
curricula Capprox. 30/0). The majority of these are
in the United Kingdom.
Among the archaeological site conservation
programmes there are differences in the duration
of the programme, the certification offered and
the method of study. The Institute of Archaeology
at University College London is one of the few
institutions that offers a master)s level degree in
archaeological resource conservation and man-
agement. Other programmes vary from certifi-
cates and undergraduate programmes to full mas-
ter's degrees and range from internships and field
schools [28] to postgraduate and short courses.
These programmes may last from one week to two
years. Certain organizations indicate that their
course emphasis is on theory, while others pro-
mote praxis.
D E F IN IT IO N S A N D C H A R T E R S
Past and current attempts to define the parameters
of archaeological site conservation and manage-
ment were researched and evaluated. What was
found were many attempts to define the field
without any universally accepted or utilized stand-
ards. This lack of an established, well-defined
vocabulary of concepts and terms conveys the
still-merging state of the field. Neither the Library
of Congress nor Art and Archaeology Technical
Abstracts offers a distinct subject heading for
archaeological sites. The dearth of standard termi-
nology confounded the search process for litera-
ture on the topic. Charters and recommendations
were an important source of definitions and
concepts, especially those from Athens (1931),
New Delhi (1956), Venice (1964), BUffa (1981)
and Lausanne (1990). Although none of these
explicitly focused on the topic, references were
made to the concepts implicit in the conservation
of archaeological sites as cultural heritage. These
citations are the most widely accepted/acknowl-
edged attempts to define the salient terms of the
field. Within the subcategory of archaeological
site conservation, the terms 'archaeology', 'site',
'archaeological site', 'cultural heritage or prop-
erty', 'cultural heritage management', 'monument',
'preservation', 'reconstruction', 'anastylosis', 'con-
servation' and 'conservation of archaeological
sites' were among the most fundamental concepts
that needed to be addressed. Collective defini-
tions for these terms are cited (see Appendix).
The development of conservation conscious-
ness can be traced through national laws and
international charters. National laws are generally
enacted in response to a problem and thus tend to
be reactive. Charters also react to a recognized
need but are more proactive with regard to future
applications. They are manifestations of the fun-
damental principles within a field and serve to
establish a common language so that the problem
can be understood and the solutions to the prob-
lem enacted. In examining legislation and charters
relevant to the conservation and management of

5. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT: RECENT TRENDS 133
archaeological sites, it is evident that the field has
progressed from the initial first step of recognizing
the need for protection of archaeological sites to the
establishment of an interdisciplinary approach based
on an understanding of the historical and cultural
context of a site, the physical and social mechanisms
of its deterioration, and the material and environ-
mental treatments available for its conservation.
The need to protect archaeological sites in the
United States was formally recognized in 1906
with the passage of the United States Antiquities
Act, although site protection was afforded a dec-
ade earlier at sites such as Casa Grande Ruins
National Monument in Arizona. The purpose of
this act was to create criminal sanctions for the
destruction or looting of antiquities, to promote
the creation of historic and scientific national
monuments and to allow for the establishment of
permit procedures for the examination and exca-
vation of archaeological sites. (The texts of the
1906 Antiquities Act and of subsequent national
legislation are included in [53]). Similar legislation
was passed in other countries in the late nine-
teenth and early twentieth centuries.
On an international level, the philosophical
foundation of archaeological site conservation
was laid out in the 1931 Athens Charter. At this
early date, measures such as accurate documen-
tation and backfilling of material impossible to
preserve were recommended. These procedures
are still integral aspects of site conservation meth-
odology. The Athens Charter also called for inter-
national collaboration between archaeologists and
architects. (The role of the conservator is not
mentioned, presumably because the professional
discipline of conservation had not yet achieved
formal recognition). Thus, the fundamental prin-
ciple of an interdisciplinary approach to preserv-
ing ruins and archaeological sites was established.
The role of a centralized administration in
overseeing excavation and conservation of ar-
chaeological sites was defined in 1956 as part of
the Recommendation on International Principles
Applicable to Archaeological Excavations adopted
by the United Nations Education, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) General Confer-
ence in New Delhi. It was recommended that the
centralized state agency take an active role in
administering archaeological services, coordinat-
ing collaborative research and protecting both
excavated and unexcavated archaeological sites.
Other charters, such as the Venice Charter of
1964, restated the fundamental principles regard-
ing conservation of archaeological sites first ex-
pressed in 1931, with some important additions.
Emphasis was placed on avoiding reconstructions
of archaeological features, except in cases where
the original components were available but dis-
membered (anastylosis). In addition, modern tech-
niques used for the conservation of historic monu-
ments were permitted according to the Venice
Charter as long as they were distinguishable from
the original material in some way. The Australia
ICOMOS Charter of 1981 (commonly known as
the Burra Charter) provided for Australian condi-
tions an updated version of the Venice Charter,
and recognized the variety of forms that an
archaeological site can take, especially in contexts
involving the continued traditional use by native
peoples. In this respect, the Burra Charter ad-
dressed specific problems of preserving the cul-
tural heritage of indigenous groups that were not
acknowledged by the Venice Charter.
of In 1990, the ICOMOS Charter for the Protection
and Management of the Archaeological Heritage
was adopted in Lausanne, Switzerland. Like the
Burra Charter, this document made the important
distinction between components of the archaeo-
logical heritage, including sites and places that are
part of living traditions and those that are not.
While the principles of the 1956 UNESCO Recom-
mendation and the Venice Charter can be applied
to the latter group, conservation and management
of the former group must involve local cultural
affiliates. The Lausanne Charter also placed em-
phasis on the critical role of the archaeologist in
the conservation process.
The evolution of these charters and the work
that has been carried out with deference to them
was evaluated by the group in order to assess the
current state of the field of archaeological site
conservation and management. Critical questions,
such as which professionals and government
bodies are involved, who is writing about the
work and publishing it, where is the work being
done and what is being written about, must be
asked if a useful understanding of the field is to be
gained. Preliminary answers to these questions

6. 134 FRANK MATERO, KECIA L. FONG ET AL.
follow, based on the bibliographic search carried
out by the authors.
W H O IS IN V O L V E D IN T H E F IE L D ?
International groups, such as UNESCO, the Interna-
tional Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS)
and the International Center for the Study of the
Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property
(ICCROM), have taken an active role in coordinating
projects and organiZing conferences where informa-
tion about conservation and management of ar-
chaeological sites is presented. An International
Committee of ICOMOS for Archaeological Heritage
Management specifically concerns itself with the
subject. The Getty Conservation Institute (GCI) of
the J. Paul Getty Trust has also sponsored confer-
ences and courses that focus on archaeological site
management and conservation. In addition, the GCI
has been involved in actual research, management
and training. Government bodies, such as the Na-
tional Park Service in the USA,and cultural ministries
in other countries have long been responsible for the
protection, maintenance and interpretation of ar-
chaeological resources and have also had a similar
role in organiZing and executing conservation work.
In the past, conservation of archaeological sites,
when considered at all, was done by archaeologists
whose primary focus was on movable finds. Re-
ported conservation of architectural features most
often took the form of anastylosis, reconstructions,
and occasionally site protection. Where architectural
remains are prevalent, architects are often enlisted to
record and stabilize large-scale features. Recently,
there has been a greater degree of collaboration
between archaeologists and architectural conserva-
tors and related profeSSionals, such as historians,
ethnographers, engineers and physical scientists. All
have played critical roles in the process of investiga-
tion and research. The interdisciplinary nature of
archaeological site conservation can be seen in the
varied authorship of more recent sources found in
the literature review.
W H O IS W R IT IN G A B O U T T H E W O R K A N D
P U B U S H IN G IT ?
The authors of most of the relevant sources are
those who have directly performed the conserva-
tion work. These authors are most often profes-
sional conservators, indicating that archaeological
site conservation is now considered a specialized
area of architectural or cultural heritage conserva-
tion. Architects and architectural conservators are
writing about the issues of site management and
conservation, researching materials and material
systems that are found in archaeological contexts,
and proposing treatment and site stabilization
techniques. Articles dealing with analysis and
characterization of materials are also being written
by conservators and conservation scientists. In a
few cases, field conservators or project directors
discuss an entire project, from documentation and
treatment to monitoring and management plan-
ning, but these are rare. Archaeologists are writing
very little about the conservation process, despite
the fact that they are often responsible as project
directors. Although many archaeological manuals
contain some information on conservation, this is
often limited to a few introductory remarks, or at
best a chapter, and seldom covers issues specific
to site conservation and management. The con-
tents of books with titles such as Conservation in
FieldArchaeology, The Elements ofArchaeological
Conservation and Conservation Manual for the
Field Archaeologist reveal that what is commonly
defined as archaeological conservation is most often
concerned with artefacts rather than whole sites.i
An important area of discussion that has been
greatly debated among profeSSionals involved
with archaeology is the regulation and control of
archaeological excavation and the whole of in situ
conservation. Information about archaeological
site conservation and management is found in a
variety of sources. Conferences specifically deal-
ing with the discipline have produced the most
substantial body of literature on the subject. These
conference publications include Conservation on
Archaeological Excavations (ICCROM, 1984), Pre-
ventive Measures dUring Excavation and Site Pro-
tection (ICCROM, 1986), In Situ Archaeological
Conservation (GCI/INAH, 1987), Archaeological
HeritageManagement(ICOMOS, 1993), Archaeo-
logical Conservation and its Consequences (Inter-
national Institute for the Conservation of Historic
and Artistic Works - IIC, 1996) and Conservation
of Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Re-
gion (The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1997). A new

7. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT: RECENT TRENDS 135
professional jounal, Conservation and Manage-
ment of Archaeological Sites first issued in the
summer of 1995, is the first serial dedicated solely
to the topic. Another, Common Ground, is a
publication of the United States Department of the
Interior which offers broad coverage of 'archaeol-
ogy and ethnography in the public interest',
focusing on important issues such as the legal and
ethical issues surrounding the management of
archaeological excavations and site conservation.
Relevant articles have been found in professional
journals of allied disciplines such as Journal of
Field Archaeology, Cultural Resource Manage-
ment Bulletin, Journal of the American Institute
for Conservation and the Association for Preserva-
tion Technology Bulletin. Specialized symposia
on the subject sponsored by scientific and cultural
organizations, such as the Materials Research
Society's Issues in Art and Archaeology I-IV and
the International Committee for the Conservation
ofMosaics' recent conference Mosa icsMake a Site:
Conservation, Documentation, Protection and
Maintenance of Archaeological Sites with Mosa-
ics, 1996, also provide useful information. Case
studyreports, such as Art andEternity: the Nefertari
WallPaintings Conservation Project, 1986-1992
(Gel) and The Conservation of the Orpheus Mo-
saic, Paphos, Cyprus (GCl) are particularly valu-
able because they provide comprehensive meth-
odological approaches to an entire project from
beginning to end.
W H E R E IS T H E W O R K B E IN G D O N E ?
The literature indicates that work is being done
primarily in the Americas, Northern and Western
Europe, the Mediterranean and Middle Eastern
region, Southeast Asia, and Australia. The absence
ofpublished material from other parts of the world
may not necessarily reflect·a paucity of work
being conducted. Our findings can be related to
two causes: the limits of our research and the
availability of published work from other areas of
the world. By limiting our research to publications
in English, Spanish, French and Italian, many
other works were undoubtedly overlooked. In
addition, differences in professional practice re-
garding the publication and dissemination of
research findings have meant that published ac-
counts of work done in some areas are not
available or nonexistent. It must be kept in mind
that, in many parts of the world, archaeological
site conservation is being carried out as a routine
part of heritage management. Often under the
guidance of a government agency, this work is
seldom published, but there are encouraging
signs of greater communication and international
collaboration between conservators dealing with
archaeological sites. Work in other countries is
starting to be published, for example recent
articles on conservation projects along the Silk
Road in China D).
W H A T IS B E IN G W R IT T E N A B O U T ?
The various aspects of conservation are repre-
sented in the literature but rarely integrated as a
methodological process. Only a few publications,
such as the GCI project reports cited above,
actually detail the entire process from beginning
to end. Most publications refer only to one or two
steps in the conservation process. The topics
frequently addressed and described are documen-
tation/recordation, planning and management,
interpretation, characterization of materials, treat-
ment' site stabilization, and monitoring. Special-
ists with specific research interests tend to ap-
proach archaeological sites with clearly defined
objectives; consequently a holistic view of the
conservation process is rarely published.
There are two different approaches taken by
the main disciplines involved. Archaeologists tend
to look at materials based on their potential to
yield information about dating, provenience, and
cultural and behavioural associations. Conserva-
tors look at the material culture of sites and seek
information on material characterization, how the
material is used, how it changes over time and its
physical conservation. The two approaches are
brought together by the shared interest in discov-
ering and presenting knowledge about the past to
the public. Recently, this dialogue has expanded
to include the views and involvement of native
peoples whose ancestral and sacred sites often
suffer the impact of governmental stewardship,
excavation and visitors. Thus the long-term goal of
each voice is the same: to conserve the site as a
whole, to preserve the informational and cultural

8. 136 FRANK MATERO.KECIA L. FONG ET AL.
value it possesses through a responsible and
respectful programme of planned management.
R E C O M M E N D A T IO N S
Publication of research and work
Much research, in both archaeology and conserva-
tion, remains unpublished as 'grey literature'. For
the purposes of increasing public awareness of
the problems faced by many archaeological sites
and of contributing to professional discussion of
site conservation and management, the dissemi-
nation of information on the topic is strongly
encouraged. Reports describing the philosophies,
techniques and effectiveness of conservation pro-
cedures should be made available to the general
public, cultural affiliates and interested profes-
sionals [28]. Conferences and other meetings of
professionals involved in the field should be
published as well.
Continuation of conferences
As this review shows, there has been an increasing
awareness and interest in the issues of archaeo-
logical site conservation and management. The
acknowledgment of these issues has encouraged
greater collaboration between the allied profes-
sions of archaeology, fine arts conservation and
architectural conservation, as well as between
non-heritage-specific professions such as archi-
tecture, landscape architecture, planning and en-
gineering. From this collaboration a number of
conferences have recently been held that specifi-
cally addressed the issues of archaeological site
conservation. These interdisciplinary conferences
promote the exchange of concerns and ideas
towards the development of an integrative ap-
proach to the investigation, conservation, man-
agement and interpretation of sites. There is
enough interest in these subjects, as shown by
the launch of Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites, that a regular schedule of
symposia or conferences can now be established.
These conferences are valuable as sources of
current information and indicators of the state of
the field of study. There are several international
groups involved in the area who would be able
to organize such a series: the Getty Conservation
Institute, ICOMOS, ICCROM and UNESCO.
Follow-up studies
As with the field of architectural conservation, there
is a need for more follow-up studies of critical site
histories, past treatments and protection measures
carried out on archaeological sites. Often, the ration-
ale for or efficacy of a treatment cannot be deter-
mined immediately upon application, and it is
necessary to return to the site periodically to evaluate
it. The effects of treatments that are assumed to be
the least harmful to a site, such as reburial or shelters,
must also be evaluated. In addition, international
standards defining terminology should be estab-
lished for professional consistency.
Training and coordination with universities
and other institutions
While many universities offer undergraduate and
graduate programmes in archaeology, fewer of-
fer programmes in cultural resource or heritage
management and architectural conservation. Be-
cause many archaeological excavations are car-
ried out under the direction of a university
faculty, university projects could benefit by coor-
dinating their excavations with existing architec-
tural conservation training programmes for site
conservation. This would contribute to the train-
ing of archaeologists, who do not always con-
sider conservation during and after excavation
but focus on the present informational value
about the past. Similarly, conservators need to
understand the context of their conservation
efforts and the limits of their intervention as they
seek to maintain a line of continuity of that past into
the future through material preservation. Excavation
sites under the protection and management of public
agencies could develop better training initiatives to
establish integrated maintenance and interpretive
programmes, involving, where appropriate, a site's
cultural affiliates or local community. ii
Holistic approach
Conservators who have traditionally focused on
material characterization and treatment should

9. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT: RECENT TRENDS 137
playa more inclusive role during excavation of a
site and its potential development and manage-
ment, especially if it is interpreted for tourism. The
management of archaeological sites, including
maintenance, interventions, and interpretation is
often under the control of government agencies.
The conservator, as should all team professionals,
should have a comprehensive understanding of
the historical, cultural and material context of a
site if a proper methodology is followed. The
conservator can contribute critical information,
such as documentation of the architectural fabric
and condition assessment of a site, diagnosis of
deterioration patterns and rates, and considera-
tions for future interventions. A holistic approach
also implies cooperation between conservators
dealing with artefacts and those involved with the
conservation of architectural features and sites,
and between managers and developers of the
entire archaeological project, from the level of site
to that of the regional context.
S u m m a ry
In summary, conservation at archaeological sites
is not the sole responsibility of anyone profes-
sional group. It applies to all members of the
project team and must be incorporated in the
general standards of approach and methodology.
To this end, further critical reflection, documenta-
tion and reporting of past and current research and
experiences in archaeological site conservation
must be undertaken to raise awareness of the
issues and share the solutions offered. Through a
more coordinated programme of professional and
public communication, training and standards,
archaeological site conservation can lead rather than
follow the driving activities of research, excavation
and economic and touristic development.
T h e au th ors are faculty and graduate students or
recent graduates in architectural conservation of
the Graduate Program in Historic Preservation,
Graduate School of Fine Arts, University of Penn-
sylvania, USA.
C on tact au th or: Kecia 1. Fong, Apartment #4,
1808 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103, USA. Tel: + 1 215 985 2814. E-mail:
kfong@dolphin.upenn.edu
N O T E S A N D R E F E R E N C E S
Dowman, Elizabeth A. Conservation in Field
Archaeology. Methuen, London (1970); Cronyn, ].M.
The Elements of A rchaeological Conservation.
Routledge, London (1990); Sease, Catherine S. A
Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist.
Institute of Archaeology, UCLA,Los Angeles (1987).
ii For example, the Historic Preservation Program of
the University of Pennsylvania has worked closely
with archaeologists and resource managers of the
United States National Park Service in providing
both technical assistance and strategic planning for
11 sites in North America, including Mesa Verde
National Park and Casa Grande Ruins National
Monument, as well as with the Department of
Archaeology, Cambridge University, at <;;:atalh6yuk,
Turkey.
S E L E C T E D B m U O G R A P H Y
Agnew, N. (ed). Conservation of Ancient Sites on the
Silk Road. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los
Angeles (1997).
2 Agnew, N., Maekawa, S., Coffman R. and Meyer,].
Evaluation of the performance of a lightweight
modular site shelter: quantitative meteorological
data and protective indices for the 'Hexashelter'.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 1 (1996) 139-150.
3 Agrawal, O.P. Conservation of wall paintings in
• India. In: Biscontin, G. and Graziano, L. (eds)
Conservation of Architectural Suifaces: Stones and
Wall Covering. II Cardo, Venice (1993).
4 Albertini, A. Arkeoplan. Archeological Computing
Newsletter 34 (1993) 20-21.
5 Alva, A., Doat, P. Guillaud, H., Houben, H., Joffroy,
T., Odul, P., Teutonico, ].M. and Trappeniers, M.
CRATerre-EAG, ICCROM long-term plan for the
preservation of the earthen architectural heritage:
the Gaia Project. In: 6th International Conference on
the Conservation of Earthen Architecture. Adobe 90
Preprints. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los
Angeles (1990).
6 Andrews, G. Management of ArchaeologicalProjects.
Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for
England, London (992).
7 Ashmore, W. and Sharer, R.]. Discovering Our Past:
a Brief Introduction to Archaeology, 2nd ed. Mayfield
Publishing Company, Mountain View, CA (996).
8 The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic
Monuments. Adopted at the First International
Congress of Architects and Technicians
of Historic Monuments, Athens 1931.

10. 138 FRANK MATERa, KECIA 1. FaNG ET AL.
www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_charte.htm
9 Atzeni, C., Cabiddu, M.G., Massidda, L.and Sanna U.
The use of 'stabilized earth' in the consetvation of
megalithicmonuments. Conse-roation andManagement
of Archaeological Sites 1(996) 161-168.
10 Australia/ICOMOS. The Australia ICOMOS Charter
for the Conseroation of Places of Cultural Significance;
Burra Charter, Canberra, Australia (1981).
www.international.icomos.org/icomos/e_charte.htm
11 Badekas,]. (ed.). Photogrammetric surveys of
monuments and sites. In: Proceedings of the First
International Symposium on Photogrammetric
SuroeysofMonumentsandSites, Athens, 1974. North-
Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam (975),
12 Berducou, M. (ed.). La Conseroation en Archeologie:
Methodes et Pratique de la Conservation-Restauration
des Vestiges A rcheo log iques. Masson, Paris (1990). •
13 Biddle, M. and Kjolbye-Biddle, B. The dating of the
New Minster wall painting. In: Early Medieval Wall
Painting and Painted Sculpture in England. Based
on the Proceedings of a Symposium at the Courtauld
Institute of Art, February 1985, Oxford (1 9 9 0 ).
14 Biddle, M. and Kjolbye-Biddle, B. Early painted wall
plaster from StAlbans Abbey. In: Early Medieval Wall
Painting and Painted Sculpture in England. Based
on the Proceedings of a Symposium at the Courtauld
Institute of Art, February 1985 Oxford (1 9 9 0 ).
15 Bohnert, A.S. The presetvation of prehistoric mud
plaster at Mesa Verde National Park. In: 6th
International Conference on the Conservation of
Earthen Architecture: Adobe 90 Preprints. The Getty
Consetvation Institute, Los Angeles (990).
16 Brooke, e. Ground-based remote sensing of buildings
and archaeological sites: Ten years' research to
operation. Archaeological Prospection 1 (994) 105-
119.
17 Casanaki, M. and Mallouchou, F. The Acropolis at
Athens: Conservation, Restoration and Research.
Trans. Judith Binder. Committee for the Presetvation
of the Acropolis Monuments, Athens (985).
18 Chada, B.R. AutoCAD and Fort Union Trading Post:
the field application of a computer aided drafting
program. CRM 1 2 no. 4 (989) 5-6 .•
19 Cleere, H. (ed). Approaches to the Archaeological
Heritage. Cambridge University Press (1984).
20 Cleere, H. (ed.). ArchaeologicalHeritageManagement
in the Modern World. Unwin Hyman, London, Boston
(1989).
21 Conservaci6n in Situ, Soria 1986. Servicio de
Investigaciones Arqueol6gicas, Diputaci6n Provincial
de Soria (1987).
22 Conservaci6n in Situ: Palencia, 1990. Excma.
Diputaci6n Provincial, Departmento de Cultura,
Palencia (1994).
23 Corzo, M.A. and Afshar, M. (eds). Art and Eternity:
the Nefertari Wall Paintings Conservation Project,
1986-1992. ]. Paul Getty Trust, Santa Monica, CA
(993).
24 Corzo, M.A. Wall Paintings of the Tomb ofNefertari:
Scientific Studies for their Conservation, First Progress
Report, july 1987. A joint Project of the Egyptian
Antiquities Organization and the Getty Conseroation
Institute.]. Paul Getty Trust, Century City, CA(987).
25 Costanzi Cobau, A. Excavated wall plasters:
consetvation problems. In: Preventive Measures
during Excavation and Site Protection. Conference.
Ghent, 6-8 November 1985. ICCROM,Rome (986).
26 Costanzi Cobau, A. In situ consolidation of a Roman
fresco near Ein Yael,Jerusalem. In: ICOMCommittee
for Conservation, 10th Triennial Meeting,
Washington, DC, USA, 22-27 August 1993.Preprints.
London (993).
27 Cramp, R.]. and Cronyn,J. Anglo-Saxon polychrome
plaster and other materials from the excavations of
Monkwearn10uth and Jarrow: an interim report. In:
Early Medieval Wall Painting and Painted Sculpture
in England. Based on the Proceedings of a Symposium
at the CUlIrtauld Institute of Art, February, 1985.
Oxford (1990).
28 CRM. A Uni(V afTheory and Practice Bridging to the
Past 2 0 (1997).
29 Crosby, A. Monitoring moisture at Tumacacori. APT
Bulletin 19 no. 4 (987) 32-44.
30 Day, e.O. Rediscovering Pompeii: a pioneering
research team. PC Computing April (1991) 126-136.
31 De La Torre, M. (ed.). The Conservation of
Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region.
Getty Consetvation Institute, Los Angeles (997).
32 Deacon, J. Promotion of a neglected heritage at
Stone Age sites in the Western Cape, South Africa.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 1 (1995) 75-86.
33 Dickens, ].G., Walker, P.J. and Mansell, M.G. The
monitoring of structural movements and the
assessment of instability in dry-stone walls at Great
Zimbabwe. In: Structural Repair and Maintenance
of Historical Buildings II- Proceedings of the Second
International Conference held in Seville, Spain, 14-
16 May 1991. Southhampton (1991).
34 Dorrell, P.G. Photography in Archaeology and
Conservation, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (1994).
35 Drager, D.L. and Lyons, T.R. Remote Sensing.
Photogrammetry in Archeology: The Chaco Mapping
Project. Supplement No. 10 to Remote Sensing: A
Handbook for Archeologists and Cultural Resource
Managers. National Park Setvice,Albuquerque (985).
36 Economakis, R.(ed). AcropolisRestoration: theCCAM
Interventions. Academy Editions, London (1994).
37 Fidler, ]. and Matera, F.G. A consetvation program
for the prehistoric plasters of Mesa Verde National
Park. Unpublished paper.
38 Florian, M.E., Beauchamp, R.and Kennedy, B. Haida
Totem Pole Consetvation Program, Ninstints Village,
Anthony Island, British Columbia. In: Conservation
of Wooden Monuments. Proceedings of the ICOMOS
Wood Committee, IV International Symposium,
Canada, june 1982. Ottawa (983).

11. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT: RECENT TRENDS 139
39 Franco, M.L. Conservation at the Templo Mayor of
Tenochtitlan. In: In Situ Archaeological Conservation
- Proceedings of Meetings, April 6-13, 1986, Mexico.
The Getty Conservation Institute and Instituto
Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, LosAngeles, CA
(1987).
40 French, P. The problems of in situ conservation of
mudbrick and mud plaster. In: In Situ Archaeological
Conservation - Proceedings of Meetings, April 6-13,
1986, Mexico. The Getty Conservation Institute and
Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e Historia, Los
Angeles, CA (987).
41 Fussel,A.Terrestrial photogrammetry in archaeology.
World Archaeology 1 4 no. 2 (October 1982) 157-
172.
42 Gallieri,G. L'uso della terra cruda nella manutenzione
del sito archeologico di Monte Bibele. In: Masetti
Bitelli,L.(ed.) Archeologia: Recupero e Conservazione.
Nardini, Firenze (993).
43 Genovese, R.A. (ed.). L 'Acropoli di Atene:
Conservazione e Restauro. Edizioni Scientifiche
Italiane, Naples (985).
44 Greco, G. (ed.). Serra di Vaglio: la 'Casa dei Pithoi'.
F.e. Panini, Modena (991).
45 Gutierrez, M.L.,Hambleton, E., Hyland,]. and Stanley
Price, N. The management of World Heritage Sites in
remote areas: the Sierra de San Francisco, Baja
California, Mexico. Conservation and Management
of Archaeological Sites 1 (996) 209-225.
46 Harrington, S.P.M. Rebuilding the monuments of
Pericles. Archaeology 4 8 no. 1 Qanuary - February
1995)44-56.
47 Hinkel, F.W. Preservation and restoration of
monuments. Causes of deterioration and measures
for protection. In: Bonnet, e. (ed.) Etude Nubienne:
Conference de Geneve: Actes du VIle Congres
International d 'etudes Nubiennes, 3-8 Septembre
1990. Societe d'etudes Nubiennes. Geneva (992).
48 Historic Preservation Forum: Focus on Archaeology
8 no. 2 (M a rc h i April 1994).
49 Holloway, M.The preservation of the past. Scientific
American 2 7 2 no. 5 (May 1995) 98-101.
50 Hope-Taylor, B. Archaeological draughtsmanship:
principles and practice. Part II: Ends and means.
Antiquity 40 (966) 107-113.
51 Hope-Taylor, B. Archaeological draughtsmanship:
principles and practice. Part III: Lines of
communication. Antiquity 4 1 (967) 181-189.
52 Hoyle, A.M., Carcelen, J. and Saavedra, F.
Conservation of the Tomaval Castle. In: 7th
International Conference on the Study and
Conservation of Earthen A rchitecture, Silves, Portugal
October 24-29, 1993. DGEMN, Lisbon (993).
53 Hunt, S.,]ones, E.W.and McAllister,M.E.Archeological
Resource Protection. The Preservation Press,
Washington DC (992).
54 In the Tomb of Nefertari: Conservation of the Wall
Paintings.]. Paul Getty Trust, Malibu, CA (992).
55 International Charter for the Conservation and
Restoration of Monuments and Sites. Adopted by
the IInd International Congress of Architects and
Technicians of Historic Monuments, Venice, 1964.
56 International Council of Monuments and Sites
(ICOMOS). ICOMOS Charter for the Protection
and Management of the Archaeological Heritage.
Lausanne, Switzerland, October 1990.See Directory
of Archaeological Heritage Management
Organizations. ICOMOS International Committee
on Archaeological Heritage Management (ICAHM),
Montreal (1995). www.international.icomos.org/
icomosl e_ charte. htm
5 7 InternationalPerspectives on CulturalParks. Proceedings
of the First World Conference, Mesa Verde, Colorado,
September 16-21, 1984. Denver, Colorado (989).
58 Jeffries, P. Biodeterioration of wall paintings in
Canterbury Cathedral. In: Biodeterioration of Cultural
Property. Proceedings of the International Conference
on Biodeterioration of Cultural Property, February
20-25, 1989, New Delhi (1 9 9 1 ).
59 Jerome, P. Proposed permanent shelter for Building
5 at the Bronze Age site of Palaikastro, Crete.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites
1(995) 35-42.
60 Korres, M. Study for the Restoration of the Parthenon.
Hypourgeio Politismou kai Epistemon, Epitrope
Syntereseos Mnemeion Akropoleos, Athens (983).
61 Laurenti, M.C. Tutela delle aree archeologiche e
delle ville storiche: la sostituzione de manufatti
originali con repliche. In: Masetti Bitelli, L. (ed.)
Archeologia: Recupero e Co nservazione. Nardini,
Florence (993).
62 Lehner, M. Documentation of the Sphinx. In: First
International Symposium of the Great Sphinx:
Towards a Global Treatment of the Sphinx, Cairo, 29
February-March, 19~2.
63 Ling, R. Romano-British Wall Painting. Shire
Publications, Princes Risborough, UK (985).
64 Lloyd, S. Drawn reconstruction of architecture. In:
Megaw, ].V.S. (ed.) To Illustrate the Monuments.
Essays on Archaeology Presented to Stuart Piggott.
Thames and Hudson, London (976).
65 Lyons, T.R. and Ebert, J.L. Photogrammetry
measurement and monitoring of historic and
prehistoric structures. In: Conservation of Historic
Stone BUildings and Monuments, Washington DC
(982).
66 Maekawa, S.,Lambert, F. and Meyer,]. Environmental
monitoring at Tiwanaku. In: Vandiver, P.B. et al.
(eds) Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology T V
Symposium HeldMay 16-21,1994, Cancun, Mexico.
Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh, PA (995),
67 Majewski, L.]. The conservation of wall paintings in
archaeological excavations. In: Preservation and
Reproduction of Clay Tablets and the Conservation of
Wall Paintings. Bernard Quaritch, London (966).
68 Masuda, K. Restoration treatment of the
Takamatsuzuka paintings. In: International
Symposium on the Conservation and Restoration of

12. 140 FRANKMATERO,KECIA L. FONG ET AL.
Cultural Property. Conservation and Restoration of
Mural Paintings (1), November 17-21, 1983. Tokyo
(984).
69 Matero, F.G. and Bass, A. Orphans of the storm. The
preservation of architectural plasters in earthen ruins.
CRM: Cultural Resources Management 1 7 no. 4
(994) 21-26.
70 Matero, F.G. A programme for the conservation of
architectural plasters in earthen ruins in the American
Southwest, Fort Union National Monument, New
Mexico, USA. Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites 1(995) 5-24.
71 Matero, F.G. The conservation of immovable cultural
property: ethical and practical dilemmas. journal of
the American Institute for Conservation 32 Spring
(993) 15-21.
72 Mathien, F.]. and Windes, T.C. The value of
photographic documentation in archaeological
research. CRM: Cultural Resources Management 12
no. 5 (989) 1-5.
73 Melucco Vacc!lro, A. The crisis of the 'beautiful ruin'.
Present-day problems of conservation of
archaeological areas. In: Masetti Bitelli, L. (ed.)
Archeologia: Recupero e Co nservazione. Nardini,
Florence (993).
74 Mertens, D. Planning and executing anastylosis of
stone buildings. In: Stanley Price, N.P. (ed.)
Conservation on Archaeological Excavations: with
Particular Reference to the Mediterranean Area.
ICCROM, Rome (984).
75 Michel, M. Preservation in the private sector: saving
our prehistoric heritage. CRM: Cultural Resources
Management Bulletin 6 December (983) 13-14.
76 Mitchell,]. Early medieval wall paintings excavated
in Germany, Italy and England: a preliminary survey.
In: Early Medieval Wall Painting and Painted
Sculpture in England. Based on the Proceedings of a
Symposium at the Courtauld Institute of Art, February,
1985, Oxford. (990).
77 Mora, L., Mora, P., Torraca, G. and Bonito, V.A. A
coordinated methodology for the treatment and
study of the peristyle garden wall of the House of
Menander, Pompeii: an interim report. In: Case
Studies in the Conservation of Stone and Wall
Paintings: Preprints of the Contributions to the
Bologna Congress, 21-26September 1986 IIC,London
(986).
78 Mora, P. Conservation of excavated intonaco, stucco
and mosaics. In: Stanley Price, N.P. (ed.) Conservation
on Archaeological Excavations: with Particular
Reference to the Mediterranean A rea. ICCROM,Rome
(984).
79 Mora, P., Mora, L., D'Alessandro, L. and Capriotti, G.
Condition survey. In: Wall Paintings of the Tomb of
Nefertari: Scientific Studies for their Conservation,
First Progress Report,july 1987. Ajoint Project of the
Egyptian Antiquities Organization and the Getty
ConservationInstitute.J. Paul Getty Trust, LosAngeles,
CA (987).
80 Mosaics, no. 1: Deterioration and Conservation,
Rome, November 1977.ICCROM, Rome (978).
8 1 Mosaics, no. 2:Safeguard, Carthage, 1978;Perigueux,
1980.ICCROM, Rome (983).
82 Mosaics, no. 3: Conservation in Situ, Aquileia, 1983.
ICCROM, Rome (985),
83 Ndoro, W. Restoration of dry-stone walls at the Great
Zimbabwe archaeological site. Conservation and
Management of Archaeological Sites 1(1995)87-96.
84 Palma Dias, G.J. A conservadio das estructuras
antiquas en terra crua. In: 7th International
Conference on the Study and Conservation of Earthen
Architecture, Silves, Portugal, October 24-29, 1993.
DGEMN, Lisbon (993).
85 Peregrine, P. Geographic information systems in
archaeological research: prospects and problems. In:
CIS/LIS 1988. Proceedings A ccessing the World. Third
Annual International Conference, Exhibits and
Workshops. San Antonio, Texas (988).
86 La photographie en archeologie. Les dossiers de
l'archeologie, 1 3 November-December (1975).
87 Piggot, S.Archaeological draughtsmanship: principles
and practice. Part I: Principles and Retrospect.
Antiquity 39 (965) 165-176.
88 Prematilleke, P.L. (ed.). Archaeological Heritage
Management. International SCientific Symposium.
ICOMOS 10th GeneralAssembly, SriLanka. Colombo
(993).
89 Preusser, F. Scientific and technical examination of
the tomb of Queen Nefertari at Thebes. In: The
Conservation of Wall Paintings. Proceedings of a
Symposium organized by the Courtauld Institute of Art
and the Getty Conservation Institute, London, july 13-
16, 1987 The Getty Conservation Institute, Marina del
Rey, CA (1991).
90 Reinold, J. Conservation et preservation des sites
archeologiques. In: Bonnet, e. (ed.) Etude Nu bien ne:
Conference de Geneve: Actes du VIle Congres
International d'etudes Nubiennes, 3-8 Septembre
1990. Societe d'etudes Nubiennes, Geneva (992).
,91 Richert, R.V.S. and Vivian, G.G. Ruins Stabilization
in the Southwestern United States. National Park
Service, Washington (974).
92 Roby, T.e. Site conservation during excavation:
treatment of masonry, wall plaster and floor mosaic
remains of a Byzantine church in Petra, Jordan.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 1(995) 43-57.
93 Rogers,].L. and McManamon, F.P. The Federal
Archeology Program. CRM: Cultural Resources
Management Bulletin 1 7 no. 6 (994) 4.
94 Schmidt, H. Schutzbauten. Konrad Theiss Verlag,
Stuttgart (988).
95 Schmidt, H. Wiederaufbau. Konrad Theiss Verlag,
Stuttgart (993).
96 Selwitz, C. Saving the Fort Selden ruins: the use of a
composite blend of chemicals to stabilize fragile
historic adobe. Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites 1 (995) 109-116.

13. CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT: RECENT TRENDS 141
97 Sennhauser, H.R. Archaologie und Denkmalpflege.
In: Denkmalpflege in Graubunden, Tendenzen im
Umgang mit Historischen Bauten. Kantonale
Denkmalpflege Graubunden, Chur (991).
98 Silver, C. Analyses and conservation of Pueblo
architectural finishes in the American Southwest. In:
Sixth International Conference on the Conservation
of Earthen Architecture: Adobe 90 Preprints. The
Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles (990).
99 Smith, G.S. and McManamon, F.P. Archaeology and
the Federal Government: the Federal Archeology
Program. CRM: Cultural Resources Management
Bulletin 1 1 July (988).
100 Spriggs, J.A. Wood, with an emphasis on the
preservation of in situ structures. In: In Situ
Archaeological Conservation. Proceedings of
Meetings. April ~ 13, 1986, Mexico. The Getty
Conservation Institute and Instituto Nacional de
Antropologia e Historia, Los Angeles (987).
101 Stanley Price, N. and Sullivan, S. Conservation of
Archaeological Sites in the Mediterranean Region.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 1 (995) 127-131.
102 Stanley Price, N. Conservation and information in
the display of prehistoric sites. In: Gathercole, P. and
Lowenthal, D. Ceds) The Politics of the Past. Unwin
Hyman, London (990).
103 Stanley Price, N. Ced.). The Conservation of the
Orpheus Mosaic at Paphos, Cyprus. J. Paul Getty
Trust, Century City, CA (991).
104 Stanley Price, N. Excavation and conservation. In:
Stanley Price, N.Ced.)Conservation on A rchaeological
Excavations: with Particular Reference to the
Mediterranean Area. ICCROM, Rome (984).
105 Stanley Price, N. New ethical statements on site
preservation for North American archaeologists.
Conservation and Management of Archaeological
Sites 1 (996) 191-193.
106 Stubbs,j.H. Protection and presentation of excavated
sites. In: Stanley Price, N. Ced.) Conservation on
Archaeological Excavations; with Particular.
Reference to the MediterraneanArea. ICCROM,Rome
(984).
107 Subbaraman, S. Separation of two layers of mural
painting by modified stacco process. In: 1st
International ColloqUium on Role of Chemistry in
Archaeology, 15-18 November, 1991, Hyderabad,
India (991).
108 Sykes, M.H. Manual on Systems of Inventorying
Immovable Cultural Property. Unesco, Paris (984).
109 Tillya, D. Preservation of the Stone Age site of
Isimila, Tanzania. Conservation and Management of
Archaeological Sites 1 (996) 243-246.
110 UNESCO. Recommendation on International
Principles Applicable to Archaeological Excavations.
New Delhi, India, December 1956. See Conventions
and Recommendations of Unesco Concerning the
Protection of the Cultural Heritage. Unesco, Paris
(985).
111 Vlad Borrelli, L. Restauro e conservazione dei beni
archaeologici fra passato e presente. In: Geschichte
der Restaurierung in Europa: Akten des
Internationalen Kongresses "Restauriergeschichte ",
Interlaken, 1989. Wernersche Verlagsgesellschaft,
Worms (991).
112 Yingtao, Q. Studies on conservation of the grotto
temples and the mural paintings of ancient graves in
China. In: International Symposium on the
Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Property:
Conservation and Restoration of Mural Paintings
(1), November 17-21, 1983, Tokyo (984).
A P P E N D IX
Collective definitions of terms are:
A n a sty lo sis: The re-erection of a dismembered historical
structure or one part of it in which every recovered
element takes up its original position and structural role
[1]. The process may entail the minimal introduction of
neutral elements in order to stabilize or integrate the form.
A rch a eo lo g ica l site: The location of a significant event,
a prehistoric occupation or activity or a building or
structure, whether standing, ruined or vanished,
subterranean or underwater, where the location itself
possesses historic, cultural or archaeological value
regardless of the value of any existing structure [2]. A
spatial clustering of archaeological data comprising
artefacts, ecofacts and features in any combination [3].
A rch a eo lo g ica l site co n serv a tio n : The processes of
caring for an archaeological site, in situ, as a repository of
cultural heritage. These processes invariably include
documentation of the site and its property and a
management plan for its present and future states.
A rch a eo lo g y : The study of the human past through
material remains, with the aim of ordering and describing
the events of the past and explaining their meaning [4].
C o n serv a tio n : The processes of caring for a place so as
to safeguard its cultural heritage value. These processes
may include maintenance, preservation, restoration,
reconstruction and/or adaptation [5].
Cultural heritage m a n a g em en t: The planning, direction
and conservation of cultural heritage with an ideological
objective of maintaining and establishing cultural continuity
and identity. The management of cultural heritage serves
an educational function through the preservation and
promotion of a culture's history and material property.
Sometimes referred to as cultural resource management [6 ].
C u ltu ra l h erita g e o r p ro p erty : Both movable and
immovable cultural property. All the effects of a culture's
existence.

14. 142 FRANK MATERa, KECIA 1. FaNG ET A1.
M a n a g em en t: Judicious use of a means to accomplish an
end; conduct directed by care or address; skilfultreatment [7].
M o n u m en t: A lasting evidence, reminder or example of
someone or something notable or great. The concept of a
historic monument embraces not only the single
architectural work but also the urban or rural setting in
which is found the evidence of a particular civilization, a
significant development or a historic event. This applies
not only to great works of art but also to more modest
works of the past which have acquired cultural significance
with the passing of time [8].
P reserv a tio n : The protection of cultural property in its
existing state through activities that minimize chemical and
physical deterioration and damage and that prevent loss of
informational content. The primary goal of preservation is to
prolong the existence of cultural property [9].
R eco n stru ctio n : Reconstruction is the reproduction,
through the introduction of new or old materials, in full or
in part, of the form and detail of a structure or site [10].
S ite: A piece of land considered for a certain purpose [11].
A P P E N D IX R E F E R E N C E S
Numbers in brackets refer to Selected Bibliography,
above.
1 [74] 123.
2 Adapted from National Register Bulletin, no. 15.
3 [7] 242.
4 [7] 234.
5 Adapted from [10], Article 1.4.
6 Adapted from Cleere, H., Introduction: the rationale
of archaeological heritage management. [20]4.
7 Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed.
(954) 1492.
8 [55],Article 1.
9 Adapted from: AIC definitions of conservation
terminology. AICNewsMay(996) and [10],Article1.6.
10 Adapted from Siravo,F.,Definitions of terms frequently
used in conservation, paper read at International
Seminar on Urban Conservation organized by the
Historic Cities Support Programme of the Aga Khan
Trust for Culture, April 1995, Geneva. Photocopied.
11 Webster's New International Dictionary, 2nd ed.
(954) 2350.