Caitlin O’Grady

Assembling and Legitimizing the Past: The Role of Conservation, Expertise, and Institutions in Transforming Archaeological Heritage in Turkey

Caitlin R. O’Grady

The professionalization of conservation and its transformation into an accepted discipline has its roots in the development of archaeology as a science in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The ethical importance of preservation was predicated on recognition that excavation was an inherently destructive process—one which recovered artifacts in degraded and fragmented condition. Lack of archaeological expertise and skill led to sites and artifacts being “shamefully mishandled, so that their secrets, instead of being gathered up, were spilled and lost.”[1] Risk of information loss was a constant threat given the finite and non-renewable nature of archaeological resources. Preventing artifactual data loss was an ethical imperative that facilitated sustainable research and highlighted conservation’s ability to transform recovered materials—often degraded and fragmented—into interpretable data. This process legitimized authoritative claims about the past, which were often rooted in colonial, imperial, or nationalistic foundations.

My ANAMED research project investigates the practice of conservation and the roles played by identity, expertise, and authority in constructing the past. Hierarchical choices made by experts and institutions influence the ways in which conservation knowledge, judgement, and authority are codified and used to authenticate accepted histories. While these concepts can be difficult to trace, the use of images, documents, data, and artifacts preserved in archaeological archives provides insight into this social process and the roles various agents played. Whilst their construction was rarely neutral, one gains insight into the ontological frameworks used in their creation. Tensions between acknowledged experts (archaeologists and scientists) and the presence of skilled, yet invisible, technicians (early conservation practitioners and local laborers) are evident along colonial, socioeconomic, and gendered lines.[2] These individuals are rarely acknowledged for their contributions to archaeological research in public products (e.g., publication, exhibits, lectures, etc.), and traces of their significant work in knowledge production exist only in archival documents (e.g., excavation diaries, internal reports, photographs/film, unpublished staff lists, budgets, etc). The transmission of preservation expertise, knowledge, and practical skills is tightly controlled by a hierarchy of actors valuing scientific knowledge and expertise over that of practical hand skills. Tracing the mechanisms by which individuals and institutions constructed these archives provides insight into contemporary conservation practice.

When examining disciplines during a period of their formation, we should view training and the role of participants as a community of practice, in this case centered around and supported by the archaeological project.[3] It is in this context that the conservation workforce participated—each actor coming to the project with existing skill sets that aid preservation and which are capitalized on by experts. Within the archaeological hierarchy, unskilled and skilled laborers, as well as educated non-Western agents worked with acknowledged experts (archaeologists and scientists associated with Western research institutions), who mediated expertise and judgement that effectively negated their authority in the field sphere.

Explicit trust in the observations and hand skills of these participating actors—local laborers and conservation practitioners—was necessary.[4] Field hierarchies built on perceptions of identity, expertise, and education directly influence the ways in which epistemic trust was granted to unskilled laborers, skilled laborers, and non-Western educated agents. At the bottom of this hierarchy were local, unskilled laborers frequently drawn from populations with backgrounds in agriculture. The recognition of practical excavation skills, managerial experience, and facility with local languages separated skilled laborers from these local workforces. There is a final group noted in archives and literature comprised of Non-Western educated agents, whose identity was distinct and elevated from their unskilled and skilled counterparts. They had formal education and technical skills (e.g., accounting, illustration, surveying, etc.), as well as being multi-lingual, with facility in Western languages (English, French, German, etc.). These acknowledged hierarchies explicitly separated Western experts from the contributions of their local colleagues.

Attitudes towards local unskilled workforces were predicated on racially, culturally, and socially motivated views and a common feature of archaeologists working in these spaces. John Turtle Wood, who excavated Ephesus in the 1860s on behalf of The British Museum, writes that he could never trust local laborers, as “gold or silver coins or jewelry, could easily be stolen by the men.”[5] However, there are numerous Egyptian men or reises, identified as skilled laborers recognized for their manual dexterity and leadership / management skills, who were highly regarded and valued by archaeologists across the Middle East. Many of these individuals engaged directly in preservation activities in the field (e.g., careful excavation of delicate burials or mosaics) and laboratories (e.g., reconstruction and restoration of pottery) to support analysis of finds. Foreign projects paid them higher wages, negotiated passports, and covered the costs of their international travel when retaining their services.[6] Archaeologists wishing to engage these reises needed personal relationships with them—such as those held by Clarence Fisher.[7] Further, these skilled laborers were considered valuable commodities that could be traded to colleagues interested in retaining their services[8] or dismissed when perceived to be disloyal.[9]

Non-Western educated and skilled agents existed in a liminal space separated by their education, technical skills, knowledge of English/French/German, and identity. They were paid higher wages, allocated greater trust and responsibility by their Western colleagues, and managed reises and local laborers in the field.[10] As an educated Egyptian with training in surveying, William Gad Gabriel was responsible for the supervision and management of the mosaic crew at Antioch-on-the-Orontes, who lifted and conserved several hundred mosaics from the site in the 1930s. He was a trusted staff member tasked with directing mosaic preservation in between excavation seasons, as well as safeguarding excavated mosaics in the event of political instability or war.[11] However, despite this level of confidence and respect, the agency of Gabriel and other non-Western, educated agents was bounded in a distinctly separate space from their colleagues. Their work, while valued, was considerably underpaid when compared to American or European counterparts, and the products of their labor were never acknowledged in publication, international acclaim, or other measures of professional advancement.

This bounded role mediated by experts is also visible in the museum environment for educated Turks working in the Istanbul Arkeoloji Müzerleri (Istanbul Archaeological Museums). The study of antiquities and their preservation at Turkish museums has origins in the work of Eckhard Unger, a German Assyriologist employed as a curator in the Ottoman Imperial Museum (precursor to the Istanbul Archaeological Museums), who taught the earliest courses on İlm-I Asar-ı atika Medhali (Introduction to the Science of Antiquities in Ottoman Turkish) to Turkish students and museum professionals.[12] Unger’s lectures included preservation topics and were intended to provide practical knowledge. He also recommended the establishment of a museum conservation laboratory staffed by German-speaking chemists.[13] This would be in addition to the preservation work completed by sculptors working in the Heykeltraş Atölyesi (Department of Plaster Casts and Repairs), who were employed specifically for their artistic skills. Unger’s expert opinion explicitly subverted the value of professional scientific work conducted in Ottoman Turkish or Turkish by highlighting the need for fluency in European languages. Local experts could engage their Western counterparts within an already-existing professional academic structure that hierarchically valued scientific knowledge over artistic skill.

Realized in 1936, the Kimyahane (chemical laboratory) engaged Nurettin Akbulut (first lead chemist) and Hadi Tamer, German-speaking Turkish chemists who were hired specifically for their chemical expertise to preserve the museums’ collections[14]—seemingly fulfilling Unger’s expert opinion. Akbulut and Tamer existed within the museum hierarchy as scientific experts—distinct from their colleagues in the Heykeltraşi Atelyesi. There is some tension related to their roles, due to overlap in the distribution and scope of collections treated in each department. Further, Akbulut and Tamer completed additional preservation training in European museums and universities for extended periods—opportunities directly sponsored by the Turkish government.[15] My ongoing work will continue in this area, and I will continue to interrogate these hierarchical concepts of identity, expertise, and authority.

Finally, my ANAMED project aims to unpack the ways in which conservation can and has been used to develop and transform archaeological finds into robust narratives about the past. There is a need to research the histories surrounding conservation professionalization and identify who benefitted from these processes and interactions. Insight into the actors, relationships, and institutions that guided the development of archaeological conservation in the field will better place preservation within colonial, imperial, and/or political contexts, as well as articulate its role in establishing the supremacy of science and other nationalistic aims. This is relevant for contemporary projects, where expertise continues to be imported, despite increased calls for financial and intellectual sustainability.

References

Badé Museum of Biblical Archaeology. Tell en-Nasbeh Expedition for 1931. Unpublished. Badé: Badé Museum of Biblical Archaeology Archives, 1931.

Campbell, William A. “Unpublished Letter to William Gad Gabriel. November 2, 1935.” Committee for the excavation of Antioch-on-the-Orontes 1932–1939 collection. Princeton: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1935.

Cephanecigil, Gül. “Teaching the ‘Science of Antiquities’ in the Late Ottoman Turkey: Eckhard Unger and “İlm-i Asar-ı atika Medhali [Introduction to the science of antiquities].” ITU A|Z 13, no. 2 (2016): 175–84.

Dissard, Laurent. “Learning by Doing: Archaeological Excavations as ‘Communities of Practice.’” Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 29, no. 2 (2019): 1–8.

Droop, John P. Archaeological Excavation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915.

Fisher, Clarence. “Unpublished Report Submitted to the Antioch-on-the-Orontes Committee.” Committee for the excavation of Antioch-on-the-Orontes 1932-1939 collection. Princeton: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1931.

Guy, P. L. O. “Unpublished Letter to Chief Immigration Officer, Jerusalem. 14^th May 1927.” Excavations: Megiddo, ATQ_7/6(56/56). Israel Antiquities Authority Archive of the Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine, 1927.

Hadi Tamer Belgeleri Koleksiyonu. “Unpublished document from Fransa Bölgesi Öğrenci Müfettişliği. Mesleki Belgeler. Hadi Tamer’in yurt dışı eğitimiyle ilgili yazışma.” Suna Kıraç Kütüphanesi Özel Koleksiyonlar ve Arşivleri Odası. Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi, 1952.

Loud, Gordon. “Letter to The Director. Department of Antiquities. Jerusalem. April 25, 1936.” Unpublished letter. Israel Antiquities Authority Archive of the Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine, 1936.

Mickel, Allison, and Nylah Byrd. “Cultivating Trust, Producing Knowledge: The Management of Archaeological Labour and the Making of a Discipline.” History of the Human Sciences 35, no. 2 (2022): 3–28.

Reisner, George Andrew, Sue D’Aria, Jonathan Elias, and Peter Lacovara. Archaeological Fieldwork in Egypt: A Method of Historical Research. Albany, New York: The Ancient Egyptian Heritage and Archaeology Fund, 2020.

Shapin, Steven “The Invisible Technician.” American Scientist 77, no. 6 (1983): 554–63.

Shepherd, Nick. “‘When the Hand that Holds the Trowel is Black’… Disciplinary Practices of Self-Representation and the Issue of ‘Native’ Labour in Archaeology.” Journal of Social Archaeology 3, no. 3 (2003): 334–52.

Wood, John T. Discoveries at Ephesus Including the Site and Remains of the Great temple of Diana. London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1877.

Yarlıgaş, Vildan. “Türkiye’de kültür varlıkları konservasyonunun öncü kurum va kişlileri: Kimyahane ve iki uzmanı Nurretin Akbulut ve Hadi Tamer.” Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları 22, no. 1 (2021): 121–38.

[1] John P. Droop, Archaeological Excavation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1915), viii.

[2] Steven Shapin, “The Invisible Technician,” American Scientist 77, no. 6 (1983): 554–63; Nick Shepherd, “‘When the Hand that Holds the Trowel is Black’… Disciplinary Practices of Self-Representation and the Issue of ‘Native’ Labour in Archaeology,” Journal of Social Archaeology 3, no. 3 (2003): 334–52.

[3] Laurent Dissard, “Learning by Doing: Archaeological Excavations as ‘Communities of Practice,’” Bulletin of the History of Archaeology 29, no. 2 (2019): 1–8.

[4] Allison Mickel and Nylah Byrd, “Cultivating Trust, Producing Knowledge: The Management of Archaeological Labour and the Making of a Discipline,” History of the Human Sciences 35, no. 2 (2022): 3–28.

[5] John T. Wood, Discoveries at Ephesus Including the Site and Remains of the Great temple of Diana (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1877), 202.

[6] Badé Museum of Biblical Archaeology, Tell en-Nasbeh Expedition for 1931, Unpublished (Badé: Badé Museum of Biblical Archaeology Archives, 1931); Gordon Loud, “Letter to The Director. Department of Antiquities. Jerusalem. April 25, 1936,” Unpublished letter (Israel Antiquities Authority Archive of the Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine, 1936).

[7] Clarence Fisher, “Unpublished Report Submitted to the Antioch-on-the-Orontes Committee,” Committee for the excavation of Antioch-on-the-Orontes 1932-1939 collection (Princeton: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1931).

[8] George Andrew Reisner, Sue D’Aria, Jonathan Elias, and Peter Lacovara, Archaeological Fieldwork in Egypt: A Method of Historical Research (Albany, New York: The Ancient Egyptian Heritage and Archaeology Fund, 2020), 103.

[9] P. L. O. Guy, “Letter to Chief Immigration Officer, Jerusalem. 14th May 1927,” Unpublished letter, Excavations: Megiddo, ATQ_7/6(56/56 (Israel Antiquities Authority Archive of the Department of Antiquities of Mandatory Palestine, 1927).

[10] Badé Museum, Tell en-Nasbeh; Fisher, “Unpublished Report.”

[11] William A. Campbell, “Unpublished Letter to William Gad Gabriel. November 2, 1935,” Committee for the excavation of Antioch-on-the-Orontes 1932–1939 collection (Princeton: Department of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1935).

[12] Gül Cephanecigil, “Teaching the ‘Science of Antiquities’ in the Late Ottoman Turkey: Eckhard Unger and “İlm-i Asar-ı atika Medhali [Introduction to the science of antiquities],” ITU A|Z 13, no. 2 (2016): 175–84.

[13] Vildan Yarlıgaş, “Türkiye’de kültür varlıkları konservasyonunun öncü kurum va kişlileri: Kimyahane ve iki uzmanı Nurretin Akbulut ve Hadi Tamer,” Osmanlı Bilimi Araştırmaları 22, no. 1 (2021): 121–38.

[14] Yarlıgaş, “Kimyahane.”

[15] Hadi Tamer Belgeleri Koleksiyonu, “Unpublished document from Fransa Bölgesi Öğrenci Müfettişliği. Mesleki Belgeler. Hadi Tamer’in yurt dışı eğitimiyle ilgili yazışma,” Suna Kıraç Kütüphanesi Özel Koleksiyonlar ve Arşivleri Odası (Istanbul: Koç Üniversitesi, 1952).