Conclusion 
 
Towards a meta-theory of 
restoration reconciling the 
tangible and intangible 
heritages 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 333 
 
…when a part of one’s person is lost, it should be replaced in kind, bone 
for bone, muscle for muscle, hairless skin for hairless skin, an eye for an 
eye, a tooth for a tooth’. Accordingly, when filling in a defect, the first 
principle of reconstructive surgery is: replace ‘like-with-like’.1 
………. 
 
Part I and Part II of this thesis argued that the tangible and the intangible heritages 
support diverse interpretations of the past and that each domain appears to come 
together (and/or fracture) over the concept of authenticity in the practice of 
restoration. The thesis also argued that recent movements with respect to intangible 
heritage (now understood as the overarching paradigm through which all heritages 
are perceived) have challenged traditional notions of authenticity that were formerly 
based solely on materials and form but now are also understood in terms of process. 
Part III argued that process was central to the Heritage Preservation Movement of the 
C19th. and that the idea of intangible heritage was equally important and, although 
not hitherto formally sanctioned, has recently had an important influence on aspects 
of the heritage sector in the United Kingdom – in particular architectural preservation 
and the role of museums. Crucially, however, the professionalisation of conservation 
has not formally incorporated these wider developments; and, indeed, in many ways 
is diametrically opposed to them. 
 
In addition to this, the theoretical analysis provided throughout the text highlighted 
how scientific epistemology affects the ‘stock of knowledge’ in the field and argued 
that this, in turn, contributes to the historical ‘separation’ of the tangible heritage 
from the intangible heritage – a characteristic of Western culture, wherein intangible 
heritage remains of only secondary importance. This has been described in this thesis 
as a process of naturalisation – whereby unique, value-laden, and historically-
transcendent perspectives of ‘heritage’ are subsumed into the authorised, the given 
and the consensual – as part of an essentially reductive and ‘closed’ view of the past. 
 
For this reason, the thesis has drawn attention to methodological tools used for 
                                               
1  Dr. R. Millard, Principlization of Plastic Surgery, Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1986 (p.685). 
 334 
interpreting the past (and our subsequent intentions) which have their own lineage 
and why it argues that this must be taken into account if we are to understand the 
breadth and depth of intangible heritage. This is based on the hypothesis that the 
central philosophical problem of preserving ‘heritage’ (in the fullest sense) is 
essentially epistemological in nature. It is with this in mind that the conclusion to this 
thesis calls for an ‘opening up’ of our understanding of the past, in part, to counter 
these reductionist tendencies.  
 
The accomplishment of this would necessitate the creation of an intellectual 
‘pathway’ into a broader (and therefore more inclusive) understanding of ‘heritage’ 
which would enable the transmutation from the exclusivity of a ‘modern’ to the 
plurality of a ‘post-modern’ vision. Indeed, this seems essential when one considers 
the recent broad paradigmatic movements in global heritage concerns (with respect 
to values and diversity) and the ‘world picture’ which is subsequently emerging. 
Such an approach would in effect aim to (re-)synthesise ontology with epistemology 
(fractured by naturalisation) and heal a historical rupture brought about by 
methodological abstraction and reduction, which (this thesis has argued) has brought 
about a sense of disconnectedness and discontinuity (and therefore disinheritance and 
disenfranchisement) within the heritage community; hence the separation of the 
tangible v. intangible domains. 
 
In order to achieve this ontological / epistemological synthesis, it is first necessary to 
understand the intangible heritage of European culture. We are, therefore, invariably 
led to the historical movements in European thought which formulated the historical 
antecedents of our present day intentions – some of which have become 
institutionalised and subsequently administered (i.e. ‘authorised’), others not. With 
respect to this, a clear turning point concerned the ‘authentic’ and (in particular) how 
our understanding of this concept was historically transformed through the (so-
called) intellectual evolution from ‘faith to fact’ – which has been described herein as 
a transition from religion to science, from the spiritual to the material, from the inner 
to the outer, from the living subject to the inanimate object, from ontology to 
(scientific) epistemology and from the intangible to the tangible and so on.  
 
This dualistic character of European thought has also been described as reflecting a 
 335 
hermeneutical shift from a hermeneutic interius to a hermeneutic extrinsecus which 
is connected to the emergence of Western materialism (sometimes derogatorily 
referred to as ‘scientistic materialism’). This is historically inextricably bound to the 
European Church Reforms and the intellectual developments of the succeeding 
centuries, such as the European Enlightenment, which can be understood as part of 
the ‘Great Transformation’ of modernity – a phrase used to describe the changes 
which occurred in European culture from about 1700 to about 1900.2 It is for this 
reason why a broad interpretation opens this conclusion (in Section 4.1.1, next), 
which also helps to ‘locate’ the ‘intangible’ within a wider historiographical context; 
thus offering breadth and depth. 
 
4.1.1: Understanding the past: prelude to an era 
The issues concerning restoration that emerged in the early C19th. in the United 
Kingdom and continued throughout the C20th. can be connected historically to the 
European Church Reforms of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The Reforms 
were the precursor to the period of European Enlightenment which saw a new 
consciousness emerge particularly in Protestant countries. The interpretation and 
subsequent re-inscription of the New Testament was a characteristic of 
Protestantism. The search for original meaning through textual exegesis was 
essentially a response to the questions raised by the Reformation debate about the 
authentic meaning of the Biblical text and by the Enlightenment questions about 
epistemology and philology.  
 
The Reformers challenged the Roman Catholic understanding that the text could only 
be interpreted through the lens of a tradition of understanding and that its true 
meaning was not immediately evident to the individual reader. They (the Reformers) 
asserted that ‘truth’ was accessible to the contemporary reader and that the basis for 
faith and doctrine could (therefore) be developed sola scriptura without reference to 
tradition. This had the effect of cultivating a hermeneutical consciousness which 
                                               
2  The changes most central to the Great Transformation are: the growth of modern market 
economies; the development of modern nation-states and a state-based system of international 
relations; technological changes involved in the industrial revolution; advances in military 
technology and organisation; and the expansion of the franchise and erosion of aristocratic 
privileges. See for example, Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic 
Origins of Our Time, Beacon Press, 2002 (first published in 1944). 
 336 
pervaded all aspects of the ‘modern’ civilisation.3 
 
In contrast with Protestantism, Catholicism (the formative religion of Europe) 
maintained a predilection for continuity and belief in or advocacy of change by 
degrees and the authority of the clergy (based on a tradition of understanding). 
Catholicism, therefore, tended to resist ‘going back’ to origins in favour of 
accumulated meaning (which may also be called ‘incrementalism’ or ‘gradualism’). 
The influence of this theological schism (which has become familiarly known as the 
Reformation), and the resultant hermeneutical consciousness, may thus be 
understood as a kind of Protestant restoration. Its emphasis on the individual became 
a characteristic of the Protestant era.  
 
The attempt to reform the Church by a restoration of primitive Christianity (i.e. based 
on the study of Scripture) was largely instigated by the work of Desiderius Erasmus. 
It had the effect of breaking the continuity of the Western religious tradition, 
invariably leading to a hiatus in the continuity and unity of the common inheritance 
of culture. The ‘separation’ from Rome, and the subsequent assertion of the Nation 
States of Europe (a characteristic of the Great Transformation of modernity) were 
part of this historical process.4 However, the tradition of Western culture continued 
to be transmitted through the Guilds of the craftsmen and the workshops of the 
artisans at the vernacular-level. 
 
In thought, observation and explanation shaped modern intellectualism in the ‘new’ 
Protestant era; reason and rationality became the guiding ‘lights’ of modern 
‘Enlightenment’ philosophers who came to ‘rescue’ civilisation from the ‘dogma’ of 
tradition and laid the foundations of the Western epistemological tradition. All things 
knowable could henceforth be ascertained in a rational manner; anything that could 
not was not reasonable. The ‘new’ hermeneutical consciousness, postulating the 
supremacy of reason and rationality, empiricism and methodological reductionism 
and objectivity (i.e. impartiality) demanded evidence in the form of observable, 
                                               
3  Friedrich Ast (1778 – 1841) was an important early writer on the subject. See also, P. Harrison, 
The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, Cambridge University Press, 1998. 
4  H-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975 (first published in German in 1960) and 
Christopher Dawson, The Crisis of Western Education, Sheed and Ward, 1961, combined with The 
Eighteenth Century, edited by A. Cobban, Thames and Hudson, London, 1969 and N. Hampson, 
The Enlightenment, Penguin, 1968 are recommended further reading. 
 337 
measurable phenomena.5 Such ‘unprejudiced’ knowledge implied control which 
conferred ‘power’.6 Directed towards the natural world (i.e. hermeneutic extrinsecus) 
this led to advances in the physical sciences; (such as, physics, chemistry and 
biology). ‘Origin’ subsequently became a guiding metaphor; Newtonian mechanics 
searched for originary laws while Darwin, originary species. The human sciences 
followed; for example, in politics, economics, history and later the social sciences – 
which became ‘the true heirs of humanism’ (but perhaps without the spiritual 
dimension of a Religion).7  
 
It was the quest for positive factual knowledge that characterised the Western 
(scientific) epistemological tradition; museums and universities – which became the 
intellectual ‘engine rooms’ of the Secular State – are (arguably) its contemporary 
heirs.8 Scientific economics has its origins in Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations.9 Its 
outcome was Capitalism; later consumerism. When Capitalism fused with 
Newtonian mechanics; the practical (i.e. rational and reasonable – and perhaps 
inevitable) outcome was C19th. industrialism.10 Capitalistic industrialism – the basis 
of political economy (the so-called ‘dismal science’ whose driving force is profit)11 
thus (in a sense) entered the vacuum created by the separation of the newly reformed 
Church from the Secular State – marking the shift from Theocracy to Polity (and 
forming modern democracy) which characterised modern liberalism. Its success was 
most noticeable amongst the Protestant peoples – in particular in Holland and the 
                                               
5  Francis Bacon (1561-1626); John Locke (1632-1704); Isaac Newton (1643-1727) and René 
 Descartes (1596-1650) were important early influences. 
6  This is a reference to Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) the Meditationes Sacrae, 1597 in which he 
declared scientia potentia est – a Latin maxim which has been translated into English as: 
knowledge is power. Bacon preached the instrumental character of science and its power to 
transform – so that man might become the master of nature. This recalls the distinction between 
the Ruskinian and Viollet-le-Ducian conceptions of history discussed in Section 3.1.1. 
7  H-G. Gadamer Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975 (p.10). 
8  According to Christopher Dawson political nationalism took the place of Christian humanism over 
the past two centuries as part of the secularisation of education (p.68); and was eventually 
superseded by the ideal of scientific specialisation (p.119); for him scientific specialisms do not 
provide a complete intellectual education and tend to disintegrate into ‘technologies’. Such a 
technologist is not an educated person but merely an instrument of the industrialist or the 
bureaucrat (p.132); in The Crisis of Western Education, Sheed and Ward, 1961. 
9  A. Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776 was a 
cornerstone in its development. 
10  Some believe the Industrial Revolution to be applied Newtonian Science; see Interpretive Social 
Science: A Reader, edited by P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan, University of California Press, 1979 
(p.281). 
11  This derogatory view of modern political economy was expressed by Thomas Carlyle; see Section 
3.1.1. 
 338 
United Kingdom.12 
 
Through this ‘Great Transformation’, the United Kingdom emerged as one of the 
most prosperous nations in the C19th. but at the same time responsible for vast 
environmental pollution. Thomas Carlyle, Augustus Pugin and John Ruskin and their 
followers were important critical voices in their concerns for the environment 
(especially Ruskin) and for the moral well-being of mankind which had (for them) 
been corrupted by various aspects of a modern civilisation which had become 
dominated by a new scientific order. Its materialistic, individualistic, money-
grubbing ‘trading’ characteristics (which had the effect of liberating mankind’s 
natural impulse to greed); its tendency to mechanise human thought; and the 
progressive alienation of mankind from nature and from the roots of his origins were 
all abhorrent to them. It was the creed of the Enlightenment that Western civilisation 
was destined to expand by the progressive influence of science, trade and 
humanitarian ideals until it became a true world civilisation. The processes of 
globalisation are (arguably) a continuation of this goal.13  
 
This historical process has thus determined (in the widest sense) our methodological 
tools of interpretation and our subsequent modes of practice. The C19th. Arts and 
Crafts Movement, for example, imbued with a Christian moral ethic, rejected the 
scientific management of the ‘alienated’ modern worker who in the process was 
reduced to a mere mechanical contrivance – stifling his spiritual well-being and 
denigrating his freedom of expression.14 This would be resisted by supporting the 
continuity of practice – the antithesis to the ‘non-participating observer’ who 
attempts to ‘restore’ knowledge about the past that he himself has not inherited 
through practice. The traditional Arts and Crafts were sanctified in the process, and 
at the same time became an anachronism in the context of the new ‘technocratic’ 
                                               
12  A useful source here is Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Dover 
Publications, 2003 (first published in German in 1905 and first translated into English in 1926) 
which the author recommends should be read together with R.H. Tawney’s Religion and the Rise 
of Capitalism, Penguin, 1922. 
13  See for example, The Cultures of Globalization, edited by Fredric Jameson (et. al), Duke 
University Press, 2003 (first published in 1998). Organisations such as UNESCO and the World 
Bank and concepts such as One World Archaeology are (arguably) part of this crusade. 
14  This is not unlike ECCO’s understanding of the conservator-restorer as requiring merely ‘manual 
dexterity’ and the ability to think in accordance with the bureaucratic system (i.e. the profession) 
that envelopes him; quite the antithesis of intangible heritage. 
 339 
civilisation. 
 
Crucially, it was Ruskin’s and Morris’s view that the modern alienated worker had 
no right to restore the monuments that belonged more properly to ‘Christendom’ and 
which thus represented the creative spirit of a bygone era. The Arts and Crafts 
Movement sought to harness this spirit through traditions of practice (which also 
provided the knowledge-base for the work of the Society for the Protection of 
Ancient Buildings). History would be lived out in practice in order to ensure deeper 
and, therefore, more complete understanding of the past. This was seen by its 
followers as a form of restitution – it was pre-capitalistic, pre-industrial, pre-
mechanical and (for that reason) pre-scientific in character – creating a tendency 
towards pre-lapsarianism.  
 
This understanding established the need for an ecology of human life – perhaps the 
greatest of all possible preservation theories; an idea which has (in recent times) 
found its way into UNESCO through the formal recognition of intangible heritage. 
The thesis argues, therefore, that a similar hermeneutical consciousness, based on 
people and their values (i.e. hermeneutic interius), characterises the post-modern 
period. The Arts and Crafts Movement thus can be seen in some ways to anticipate 
the post-modern conception of heritage preservation. It was a comprehensive 
understanding of ‘heritage’ that sought to sustain and incorporate what has 
subsequently become known as the safeguarding of the intangible heritage. The 
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) in 1877 and the Arts and 
Crafts Movement (which followed shortly after) taken together were a modern cult of 
authenticity15 which synthesised the tangible / intangible heritages; and, overcame 
the diachronic / synchronic paradox16 through an elevated concept of an historical 
document. 
 
However, the C20th. has seen the field riven by competing theories. The practice of 
scientific conservation (for example) emerged in the first quarter of the C20th. and 
found favour in the scientific / technical and political-institutional sectors in Europe 
                                               
15  From William Morris: Building Conservation and the Arts and Crafts Cult of Authenticity 1877-
1939, edited by C. Miele, Yale University Press, 2005. 
16  Refer to Part I and Part II conclusions. 
 340 
and throughout the West. This essentially archaeo-museological approach (which 
also now draws on fine arts restoration theory) subsequently formed the basis of 
tangible heritage preservation. 
 
4.1.2: Tangible heritage preservation 
In broad terms, in Europe and throughout the West, tangible heritage preservation 
was established upon an essentially ‘scientific’ interpretation of existing material 
remains. This was characterised by an essentially positivistic historiography 
combined with technical studies in the physical sciences (for example, chemistry and 
physics). This approach continues to predominate in the scientific / technical and 
political-institutional sectors. This provided the basis for professional conservation 
practice (as reflected in the formalisation of ethics and guidelines for education and 
training and continuing development). The C20th. has introduced this approach to 
the preservation of wider heritage domains. It may be generically referred to as 
‘scientific conservation’ or ‘scientific restoration’. Some consider scientific 
conservation-restoration to be the second phase of ideas instigated by the C19th. Arts 
and Crafts-oriented Heritage Preservation Movement – gaining wide acceptance in 
the post-WWII period (particularly in advanced ‘technological’ societies).17 
 
The practice of conservation and restoration is essentially what might be termed a 
creative practical discipline. Thus the restorer, the preserver of tangible heritage, is 
necessarily an artist of his time.18 However, education and training in the heritage 
sector has become increasingly scientific; and thus technical and rational in its 
thinking rather than being artistic and based on ideologies that are informed by 
custom. This is attributable, in part, to the on-going aspiration for professional 
standing (historically, technical / rational studies and ‘professionality’ are 
synonymous in the United Kingdom) and the difficulty that training institutions have 
in cultivating high levels of artistic / creative capabilities (and associated aesthetic 
sensibilities) which are vital in some disciplines, such as furniture and decorative art. 
Like the discipline of archaeological conservation (which has been hugely influential 
                                               
17  B. Feilden, ‘Conservation – Is There No Limit? – A Review’, in Journal of Architectural 
Conservation, Volume 1, Number 1 March 1995. Available from: 
http://www.donhead.com/vol1.htm [Accessed on 3rd December 2004]. 
18  H-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975 (pp.138-139) – about the preservation 
of ancient monuments. 
 341 
in the shaping of the profession in the United Kingdom), the discipline of artefact 
conservation emphasises the positive interpretation of materials and their subsequent 
documentation. Documentation of interventive practice is also fundamental. The 
availability of resources, such as libraries, advanced technologies and funding, is a 
major factor in its success in public sector institutions. 
 
In such contexts, the practice of restoration (which is formally defined as adding to 
not removing from the historical document) is generally not favoured; it may even be 
considered unethical. In practice, the primary concern of conservation (as reflected in 
education and training) lies in the revelation, identification and subsequent 
preservation of original material fabric. This places greater value in originality not in 
later alterations / additions (hence the tendency to reject restoration by adding to). 
This can lead to the tendency to remove later additions (i.e. restoration by removing 
from) which are shown (typically by textual research and technical examination) to 
not be historically ‘appropriate’. In the case of furniture and decorative art, for 
example, the removal of surface coatings through ‘cleaning’ – sometimes referred to 
(in a derogatory sense) as stripping – is not uncommon. When restoration 
(interpreted as adding to) is deemed necessary, ‘non-like’ materials may be used 
‘ethically’. This is usually determined on two primary grounds; i: to preserve the 
original historical fabric and ii: to unify the object visually to make it more 
aesthetically ‘legible’. This approach relates to the values that are attributed to the 
object; in this case ‘historical’ and ‘aesthetic’, respectively. In line with the 
introduction of conservation teaching, the use of ‘non-like’ ‘conservation grade’ 
materials has increased substantially in this domain in recent years. 
  
In loss-compensation, the use of ‘non-like’ materials is typically not considered 
restoration because it only seeks to realise visual unity (or ‘oneness’ in Brandian 
terms). Casting modern synthetic resins in order to replicate wood-carving is a 
typical example, but this may also include modern foams used to replace traditional 
upholstery or modern synthetic coatings to replace traditional lacquer and so on. 
Conservation ethics, such as reversibility, are designed to ensure their removal 
without causing harm to the ‘valued’ historical fabric – which bears out that such 
added material is not valued. Minimum-intervention (another ethical principle) may 
also be used to justify the use of ‘non-like’ materials. Justification (in terms of the 
 342 
written word) is based on compatibility – which, in scientific conservation is 
determined scientifically – and not necessarily on any conceptual grounds, such as 
authenticity. Such restorations may be referred to as ‘neutral’. In furniture and 
decorative arts – a highly skilled area requiring a great deal of ‘hands-on’ practical 
expertise (i.e. knowledge of how) – complex restorative intervention tends not be 
undertaken in public institutions.19 This is largely due to time / cost factors and the 
availability of the necessary expertise. In such cases, restoration work tends either to 
be contracted out (to appropriate artists and/or craftspeople) or it is acquired by the 
institution having already been restored by the same. In this sense, the (so-called) 
craftsman-restorer is anonymous because his/her (arguably vital) contribution to the 
field tends not to be included in the ‘authorised’ literature (more on this later).20 
 
It is upheld in scientific conservation that authenticity cannot be added to the object; 
it can only be revealed in so far as it exists. This is consistent with the general 
disliking of restoration (in the adding to sense of the meaning) and the associated 
traditional arts and crafts practices. The object is also understood as an historical 
document – which (supposedly) represents physically human activity stratified in 
time. This is central to the object’s accumulated symbolic meaning and acquired 
aging characteristics (i.e. ‘age-value’). However, this interpretation of authenticity 
has the effect of denying the continuity of the historical document (understood as the 
tangible expression of intangible heritage) from the time when it ‘emerges’ as 
historically significant. In museums, for example, aesthetic and historical values 
(intangibles but not intangible heritage) are given preference while others, such as 
function and use, materials and substance; spirit and feeling, traditions, techniques 
and original creative propriety (other aspects of authenticity) typically change and 
tend to be downplayed. From then on an attempt is made to suspend (or ‘freeze’) the 
                                               
19  The author has examined every conservation journal published by the Victoria and Albert Museum 
(from 1992 to 2005) but was unable to find a highly complex restoration project in furniture. 
Examples looked for were such things as major splits and/or warps in table-tops, missing legs on 
chairs (such as cabriole – which are difficult to make), major losses (at least 30%) in decorative 
veneer-work (such as marquetry or Boulle-work); no suitable examples were found.  
20  A good example of this can be found in Oddy’s introduction to The Art of the Conservator, edited 
by A. Oddy, British Museum Press, 1992 in which he criticises ‘craftspeople’ but does not take 
into account that the British Museum’s Horological Department contracts out to such specialists 
when the restoration work is too difficult to do in-house. This information was obtained in a 
discussion with Jeremy Evans (who has been working in the Horological Department for over 
thirty years) during an arranged site visit to the British Museum on 8th November 2005. The 
discussion has not been transcribed. 
 343 
object in time. It is for this reason that the primary goal of conservation practice is to 
understand, explain and retard the underlying causes of material deterioration (i.e. to 
arrest mutability). This goal is a specific condition of the museum (or gallery) 
environment in which these ideas first emerged and have subsequently been 
deployed. 
 
However, in museums the hermeneutical function of time becomes distorted through 
time; which has been referred to in this thesis as the ‘time-wall’ of historicism. This 
is largely attributable to a scientific interpretation of the heritage which is based 
solely on its materiality; the tangible object being the evidence which provides 
information or ‘factual’ data about the past. This positivist historiography is, for the 
most part, constructed by ‘non-participating’ observers and not lived out in practice 
by ‘connected’ participators; i.e. it is disconnected from relative ‘human’ concerns. 
This informs the ‘synchronic’ conception of heritage preservation; a conception 
which predominates in the Western scientific / technical and political-institutional 
sectors of Europe and the West. It is superimposed upon culture itself – primarily 
through education; for example, by museums and universities. The acquired effect 
has been described in this thesis as a feeling within Western civilisations that the past 
is a completed development – as if viewed through a diorama – leading to a feeling 
of disconnectedness or disinheritance; a product of the so-called ‘time-wall’. 
Scientific conservation (as informed by an essentially archaeo-museological / fine 
arts model), brings this conception of ‘tangible heritage preservation’ into wider 
disciplinary and cultural contexts through its administrative organisation (associated 
with professionalisation). It is theoretically diametrically opposed to intangible 
heritage (and the diachronic viewpoint). 
 
4.1.3: The safeguarding of the intangible heritage 
The intangible heritage has been defined (broadly) in this thesis as essentially 
referring to the values that are attributed to a historicity of understanding as 
represented by the activities of people in the present; for example, through continuity 
of practice. Essentially it is knowledge-led rather than information-led. This may be 
manifested in individuals, groups, communities, regions or even nations. It may thus 
be an entire way of life or a unique specialism. But essentially it concerns particular 
forms of knowledge, and may incorporate the (so-called) ‘tacit dimension’. Value is 
 344 
attributed to this knowledge which typically has been shaped through time in the 
form of technique (i.e. knowledge of how). The continuity of its ‘performance’ 
determines its significance as a meaning-conferring activity which (in turn) 
determines its essentially ontological status. It is distinct from scientific 
epistemology – but it is nonetheless knowledge. For this reason intangible heritage 
can be described as ontological and epistemological (in the knowledge of how sense). 
Such practices are associated with custom; which may extend for many generations 
remaining relatively unchanged. Typically, this intensifies their meaning-conferring 
qualities (and therefore value). However, they are not static. Intangible heritage is in 
constant flux; relative to the environment (as with tangible heritage). But unlike 
tangible heritage (which is inanimate) intangible heritage is ‘living’ through its 
embodiment in people. The person (or subject) is thus the bearer and transmitter of 
this knowledge and his/her work is its physical (i.e. tangible) manifestation. 
 
Intangible heritage is associated with traditional arts and crafts practices. It is 
typically highly skilled and characterised by heightened aesthetic understanding. It 
has deep significance to the bearer who will have a highly emotive ‘connection’ with 
the activity – i.e. it is subliminal. Practice is informed by a body of knowledge 
manifested in traditional skills, typically (but not always) associated with the use of 
simple technology and natural materials (as opposed to advanced technology and 
synthetic materials). The kinds of tools (i.e. technology) have been designed and thus 
evolved historically in relation to the knowledge and the material. A change in the 
material necessarily means a change in the technology and, by extension, the 
knowledge required in its use (and a potential break in continuity). Intangible 
heritage, in this sense, is ‘pre-scientific’ (and thus pre-synthetic) in character. Such 
modalities of knowing are typically extant in localised, non-institutionalised, 
contexts – a traditional craft workshop, for instance. In the past this would have been 
conditioned by local need; although this is less relevant today – particularly in 
advanced technological societies. They, nonetheless, have a social and cultural 
connectedness which provides a living mediation of an otherwise ‘de-humanised’ 
tangible record ‘of the past’. 
 
For the bearers of intangible heritage the past (i.e. history) is experienced as a mode 
of understanding. It represents the aggregate of human thoughts which have been 
 345 
conditioned by a world of complex values and meanings. It is an inheritance. And 
practice is the idiom of performance. As such, the continuity of practice may be 
experienced as a process of self-realisation; like an unbroken ‘stream of 
consciousness’ which has been shaped and sustained in practice by the transmission 
of ‘knowing’ from one generation to the next – from one bearer to another. This may 
be described (intellectually) as a historicist historiography. The continuity of 
intangible heritage links the past to the present in living form – which contrasts with 
the positivist historiography (which understands history as a form of enquiry about 
what actually happened in the past).21 In the traditional arts and crafts, for instance, 
this sense of continuity was typically achieved through father-to-son apprenticeship 
(i.e. subliminal apprenticeship) or from master to apprentice (i.e. formal or contract 
apprenticeship). This method of knowledge-transfer is highly valued amongst artist / 
craftspeople for its attainment of high levels of artistic / creative capability.22 
 
Being practice-based, artefacts (which are frequently considered to be part of the 
history of that practice) are interpreted as conveyors of meaning – rather than solely 
(or even primarily) as evidence or data-carriers (as typified by the positivistic 
interpretation). The approach to restoration requires an ability to ‘negotiate’ with the 
creator but not in a literal sense (which is clearly impossible) but in a knowledge-of-
practice sense and in a sublimated way. Without the historicity of understanding this 
de facto cannot occur. High standards in training – which must surely seek to 
cultivate this – are thus vital to its safeguarding. Accordingly, for the bearer of 
intangible heritage the action of restoration may be an emotive experience (not 
merely a mechanical one). For instance, a contemporary master wood-carver is likely 
to know when Grinling Gibbons ‘had a bad day’ because he/she will have cultivated 
the ability to ‘read’ his work; he/she will see his failings and equally appreciate his 
genius. In this sense, he will be in ‘negotiation’ with the maker at a high level of 
sublimation. This clearly cannot be achieved by the technical study of materials, or 
allied academic disciplines such as, design or art history – which are merely an 
adjunct to restoration. Nor can it be achieved by learning how to cast with modern 
                                               
21  This has been described by Michael Oakeshott in Roy Tseng’s The Sceptical Idealist, Imprint 
Academic, 2003. 
22  In fact, many highly skilled artists and/or craftspeople that I communicated with during this 
research believe that the heritage sector has suffered at the demise of the traditional apprenticeship 
training system. The formal training that replaced this (i.e. universities and colleges) is clearly not 
very good at transmitting this ‘tacit dimension’ from one generation to the next. 
 346 
synthetic resins instead of learning how to carve in wood. Yet, this is the present 
national (possibly international) requirement of conservation training to become a 
(so-called) ‘Master of Art’. 
 
In understanding the work in this way the trained practitioner (be he/her referred to 
as a ‘conservator’ or ‘restorer’) is ‘connected’ to the original maker – 
epistemologically and (to some extent) ontologically. The continuity of that practice, 
which, in terms of knowledge, is (arguably) its closest connection to the present, is 
surely a testament to the continuity of the maker’s field of expertise?23 It is for this 
reason that such knowledge links the past to the present (and thus bridges the ‘gap’ 
of historicism). Typically, therefore, the object to be worked on is not understood as 
a material thing that has ailments. And although some technical understanding may 
be useful in practice, this is generally considered subsidiary – useful information 
which can (nowadays) be called upon whenever needed. It can be argued that only at 
this level of understanding can judgements about restoration (i.e. materials, 
techniques and extent of intervention) be truly ethical because without this there is no 
reliable datum for such judgements to take place. 
 
With intangible heritage there is no formalisation in ethics or guides and/or codes of 
practice but in relation to restoration there may be an implicit understanding of 
authenticity; which is often reflected in the use of such terms as ‘respect’, ‘integrity’ 
and ‘feeling’ (hence its subliminal nature). Because of its complexity it cannot 
readily be ‘reduced’ to the level of rational criteria (such as inscribed values) or 
delineated in the form of a text; it is objectified in the work carried out. Typically 
(but not always), restoration follows a ‘like-with-like’ approach as the materials used 
are closely related to the techniques employed (and therefore central to the continuity 
of practice). Importantly, it can follow a ‘like-with-like’ approach (whenever deemed 
necessary) because the knowledge is in place which allows for this; it cannot happen 
otherwise. Attitudes to minimum-intervention tend to be less hostile. There is less 
emphasis on the scientific identification of original material fabric – largely because 
of the lack of availability of (and therefore reliance upon) advanced technologies in 
                                               
23  According to Gadamer, true historical knowledge can be gained only by seeing the past in its 
continuity with the present; see Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975 
(pp.292-293). 
 347 
‘localised’ working contexts (where intangible heritage exists).  
 
Some deviation to materials (and therefore techniques) may occur as part of the 
advancement of the practice but this tends to be gradual and not usually done in such 
a way that it subordinates practice. As such, when a new material or process gains 
preference, this must be determined within the tradition itself and not by anyone who 
has not been ‘enculturated’ into that tradition; the very purpose of education (the 
very basis of culture). However, this can lead to insularity which has often been 
criticised in a derogatory way by ‘outsiders’ as secretive or narrow-minded 
(consider, for example, the phrase ‘trade secrets’), but which originates historically 
in a form of protection.24 Intangible heritage can thus be recognised for its insularity 
which becomes a habit of mind for its bearers. It safeguards against appropriation 
from ‘outsiders’ who do not understand the more subliminal, meaning-conferring 
aspects – because they are not trained to (or they simply do not value them). Such 
insularity is essential for its survival as a ‘living entity’ (i.e. as a ‘stream of 
consciousness’) which transcends individual partakers. This is especially so in 
advanced technological societies. This is arguably one of the reasons why it is 
difficult to gain entry into certain disciplines in Japan, Germany and France. In the 
United Kingdom attitudes are more open but, as this thesis has shown, many feel that 
standards of practice have declined – both quantitatively and qualitatively.25 
 
With intangible heritage, authenticity tends to be guided by the continuity of the 
historical document; it is an incremental perspective based on an implicit recognition 
of the necessity of constant renewal, embedded in practice. Thus the process of 
restoration (in terms of what is added to the historical document) is considered to be 
an important aspect of the ‘authentic’. In other words, authenticity does not solely 
reside in existing material fabric but can equally be confirmed by the nature of the 
restorative intervention – which is fundamentally different to restoration understood 
                                               
24  In many ways, this is what the conservation profession is doing; by creating an ideological 
framework which (according to ECCO) is seeking legal enforcement which would effectively 
criminalise non-professionals (‘outsiders’). Intangible heritage does not presently enjoy the benefit 
of such legal enforcement – so it becomes secretive as a safeguarding mechanism. See for 
example: Janet Blake, Developing a New Standard-setting Instrument for the Safeguarding of 
Intangible Cultural Heritage, UNESCO, 2001. 
25  This was confirmed in conversations with Yannick Chastang (from France) and Dr Edgar Mantz 
(from Germany) and with various Japanese students on UK conservation courses (because they 
could not train – and therefore gain entry – in Japan). 
 348 
in the context of scientific conservation. Consequently, there is less emphasis on 
returning to historical accuracy (i.e. originality) and on control (by suspending the 
original object in time) and greater acceptance of transformation. 
 
Intangible heritage reflects what has been described as a ‘diachronic’ conception of 
‘heritage’ which seeks also to incorporate the continuity of history as sustained by 
people in traditions of practice. What is key here is that restoration is expressive and 
artistic (over and above mechanistic and scientistic); it resists subornation by 
formalised ethics (and the narrowing into particular ‘value-domains’) which are 
frequently felt to be oppressive in their administration (especially when they are 
applied by ‘outsiders’ who are felt to know little of their practice). The function of 
intangible heritage in restoration is to put the history of practice into the lacunae in 
order to sustain the symbolic meaning of the historical document because it is the 
physical object’s being in history that is to be understood as constituting its 
significance. So understood, the restorer is an author of history; the ‘artist of his 
time’. For him/her there are no ‘time-wall’ and no impasse of historicism to 
overcome and no sense of metaphysical ‘neutrality’. Intangible heritage is, therefore, 
the antithesis of the purely ‘synchronic’ conception of heritage.  
 
At the centre of the tangible v. intangible dichotomy is a bifurcation in history, 
engrained in Western consciousness, which, this thesis argues, is a product of 
Western (scientific) epistemology. 
 
4.1.4: The Western epistemological tradition 
In broad historical terms, Western scientific epistemology is based upon the 
systematic observation and subsequent explanation of things or occurrences. 
Typically, phenomena are interpreted and the ‘data’ objectified in textual form (i.e. 
books). This process of ‘media-conversion’ can be seen to be linked historically to 
the European Church Reforms of the C17th. (through, for instance, the instigating 
works of Erasmus). The dissemination of the New Testament (i.e. a text) henceforth 
became the primary means of disseminating knowledge per se.  
 
In the natural sciences data may be encoded in numbers which are combined with a 
form of abstract symbolism (as with, for example, physics or chemistry). A major 
 349 
part of training in science is learning this language. Positive knowledge is validated 
by scientific method – in accordance to pre-given ‘qualifying’ criteria – such as, 
standards. Scientific method is systematic; its methods are technological; and 
scientific methodologically is objective. In practice, the process of objectification can 
be described as representing a ‘separation’ of knowledge of what from knowledge of 
how (a phenomenon which reveals itself through time). But in thinking it attempts to 
be impartial to relative ‘life-worldly’ (in Husserlian terms) concerns, such as 
religious feelings or any other form of relative ‘metaphysical’ cultural preferences; it 
is ‘beyond’ metaphysical intrusion. 
 
For Husserl, the ‘life-world’ is the world in which we are immersed in the ‘natural 
attitude’ (of everydayness) that never becomes an object but which constitutes the 
pre-given basis of all experience – and which is historically-grounded. The ‘life-
world’ exists in a movement of constant relativity and validity and is, therefore, the 
antithesis of all scientific objectivism.26 The scientific nature of modern science 
consists precisely in making tradition objective and methodologically eliminates any 
influence of the interpreter on understanding; hence the ‘non-participating’ 
observer.27 Consequently, its objectifying tendencies involve the dissolution of the 
connection with life. This owes much to its foundation in mathematics (i.e. logic); 
for instance, two plus two is always four, ten plus ten always twenty – regardless of 
one’s religious or cultural distinctiveness or personal preferences. 
 
According to Kant, the explanatory power of science is the consequence of its basis 
in a logical, epistemic subject whose activities can be generalised and understood as 
‘context-free’ operations.28 This logic ensures consistency, measurability and 
repeatability. It is universally applicable – an essential requirement of standardisation 
(in terms of thinking) and the reason why it denies metaphysical complexity in 
preference for (apparently) objective ‘neutrality’. However, the domination of the 
scientific epistemological model in Western culture leads to the discrediting of all the 
possibilities of knowing that lie outside of its methodological horizons – leading 
                                               
26 H-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975 (p.218). 
27  H-G. Gadamer, Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975 (p.297) 
28  P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan, ‘The Interpretive Turn: Emergence of an Approach’, in Interpretive 
Social Science: A Reader, edited by P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan, University of California Press, 
1979 (p.3).  
 350 
(inevitably) to metaphysical (i.e. ontological) liquidation. It is for this reason (the 
thesis argues) why ‘heritage’ in Western civilisations is (erroneously) perceived as a 
completed development. And why methodological objectivity is recognised to be a 
major factor in the demise of the world’s cultural diversity.29 
 
In conservation (in terms of practice), scientific / technical studies improve 
understanding of underlying causes of deterioration and thus form an important part 
of preserving tangible heritage. The information gained (which can be disseminated 
in textual form) is instrumental to interventive practice. Training in the scientific 
aspects of conservation usually involves mastering the use of advanced technologies, 
such as using a Scanning Electron Microscope to see a surface topology. Using 
instrumental analysis to understand material problems (and potentially reveal other 
data) ensures more informed judgements (and arguably more technical problems). 
However, complex restoration frequently requires additional kinds of knowledge and 
judgement which scientific / technical knowledge does not provide on its own. The 
predominance of one over the other has been described in this thesis as sustaining a 
process of ‘epistemological fission’ (i.e. the separation of knowledge of what from 
knowledge of how). 
 
In the practice of conservation, ‘epistemological fission’ is reflected in the gradual 
(i.e. historical) transformation of the literature – from books that describe techniques 
(which are practice-centred) to what are essentially recipe books (which are 
material-centred).30 This is part of the process of naturalisation (i.e. sciencing) which 
is reflected in the discipline’s development throughout much of the last century – but 
it is especially noticeable in recent times. In furniture and decorative arts (for 
example), this transformation has occurred since the early 1990’s – coinciding with 
the various processes of professionalisation. The new literature (which is public 
knowledge) becomes the basis for educating the next generation of practitioners thus 
leading to a (so-called) knowledge-based discipline.  
 
However, in education, practice (in the form of restoration) has been subordinated by 
                                               
29  See for example: Objectivity and Cultural Divergence, edited by S. Brown, Cambridge University 
Press, 1984. And: Rethinking Objectivity, edited by A. Megill, Duke University Press, 1994. 
30  Examples of literature have been provided in Section 1.3.4: ‘Education and training’. 
 351 
(scientific) academic studies, recording and writing reports. This has decreased the 
time spent on mastering creative techniques (i.e. the additional kinds of knowledge). 
Higher education – provided by museums and universities – is the primary training 
route (which is a requirement of the profession at European-level) but such 
institutions do not provide training in specialist craft techniques to any credible 
standard. They, therefore, (in turn) do not provide training in restoration (in the 
adding to sense) to any credible standard. This is reflected in the rapid decline in 
standards – voiced by many in the field (and documented by this thesis) – which has 
occurred at the same time as professionalisation (i.e. since the early 1990’s).31 
 
This has led to degree of polarisation in the field. This ‘stereotyping’ (which has 
occurred on both the art/craft and the academic/science sides) is linked to 
connotations of ‘professionality’ and the cognitive supremacy of science and 
research-based education and continuing development which, in the United 
Kingdom, is synonymous with status, reward and social class. However, the 
profession does make explicit that a conservator is not an artist or craftsperson, so 
one could reasonably argue that the professionalisation of conservation (and all that 
this entails) has been a causal factor in the decline of such capability by explicit 
denial of its value.32 This is the unfortunate outcome of what was essentially 
archaeological conservation (which had no theory of its own) adopting a fine arts 
approach as the basis of professionalisation – which, in turn, has (arguably) become 
an anti-craft movement; the very thing that John Ruskin (and his followers) deplored 
about the (so-called) ‘Mechanical Age’. In this sense, the association of Ruskin with 
scientific conservation in contemporary literature (it can be argued) represents a 
debasement of his legacy. 
 
Crucially, understanding material heritage does not lie solely in the nature of the 
materials of fabrication because the making process is always ‘culturally-specific’ 
(otherwise it would not be cultural heritage). This means that the materials used in its 
making cannot be considered ‘context-free’ (i.e. in purely objective terms) in their 
                                               
31  Discussed in Section 1.3.4: ‘Education and training’. 
32  Refer to Section 1.4.3: ‘Modern historical consciousness’ where Philippot characterised the 
traditional crafts as fraudulent; originally cited from: P. Philippot, ‘Historic Preservation: 
Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines’, in Preservation and Conservation: Principles and Practices, 
Proceedings of the North American International Regional Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, 
and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972, Washington Preservation Press, 1976 (pp.367-374). 
 352 
selection and, by extension, neither can the materials and techniques of conservation 
and restoration. In other words, in scientific conservation the symbolic meaning of 
the object which is (ipso facto) ‘culturally-specific’ lies outside of the formal 
methodology of interpretation. As a consequence of this, interventive actions 
frequently bear no relation whatsoever to the original maker’s work and, therefore, 
what he/she is likely to have wanted, expected or even been able to comprehend. 
This is why, on this conceptual level, traditions of practice are important because 
they maintain a thread of implicit understanding; the ‘stream of consciousness’. 
 
When the new form of data (i.e. the books that form the basis of education) 
subordinates capability in practice, the long-term effect inevitably leads to the de-
sublimation of the tradition of practice and the negation of its historicity of 
understanding (and related aesthetic sensibilities, aspirations, spirit and so on) in 
favour of the technical / rational interpretation, which eventually takes its place. 
Crucially, this may not be felt by the newly trained generation of practitioners (until 
they enter practice) leading to a ‘why shouldn’t I do it that way?’ attitude. This is a 
common response from conservation students. The overall effect is a loss of 
intangible heritage which (from the bearer’s perspective) is replaced by what might 
be described as a kind of learned ignorance; an apparent education without training.33 
 
This difficulty is routed in the predominating ‘materialist’ view of history. Unlike 
intangible heritage (when the ‘partaker’ is a descendent of the ‘living’ tradition of 
practice – in the historicist historiography sense), the positivist historiography (in this 
sense) prefers ‘dead’ history in that it does not connect to the present through living 
practice. The pieced together data becomes ‘effective history’ when it is 
superimposed upon culture itself. This anomaly (i.e. between the world understood 
as lived experience and the world studied as data) causes epistemic tension in 
interpreting heritage. It has been argued in this thesis that this tension is felt most 
strongly at the point in time when history becomes ‘nearer’ to the present; when the 
horizons of the positivist historiography ‘fuse’ with the horizons of the present 
reality. The positivist historiography must focus on the past in order to exist at all. 
                                               
33  Many experienced practitioners I communicated with explained that they felt that newly ‘trained’ 
graduates often possessed some knowledge about what should be done but lacked the capability to 
do it – even at a very basic level. 
 353 
 
There is, therefore, an abridgement to be overcome between the past (as constructed 
within a positivist historiography) and the present. The fact that all activities in the 
present are the culmination of the past does not enter into its horizon of knowing 
because this historical method recognises only the past as historical (essentially in 
materials) while ‘forgetting’ the historicity of the present (in people). It is for this 
reason that it requires an (undefined) lapse in time before it takes effect. In 
conservation, for example, not knowing whether to remove an earlier repair (even 
though aesthetically acceptable but historically ‘wrong’) is partly a reflection of this 
tension; leading to the ‘conundrum’ discussed in Section 2.2.2. Also linked to this is 
the general anonymity of the restorer, who is, in a very real sense, the author of the 
historical document,34 but whose work only later becomes valued once it enters the 
horizon of the positivist historiography. By contrast, intangible heritage because it is 
embodied in people, and thus ‘living’ in the present reality, requires no time-lapse for 
the work to have intrinsic historical worth; it is instantaneously historical. And there 
is (therefore) no abridgement (or impasse) to overcome. 
 
It is largely as a result of this that the historicity of practice is not valued 
commensurate with its importance to the heritage sector. The authors of history are 
thus alienated from the material of history which ‘their’ tradition of practice (which 
they have inherited) created in the first instance (and subsequently fashioned through 
their work). In other words, the subjects of history are separated from the objects of 
history. This object / subject dualism is replicated today in the competing claims of 
the tangible v. intangible heritages internationally. Consequently, it is not considered 
(for example) that much of the architectural heritage throughout Europe in reality 
represents the work of contemporary ‘authors’.35 Much the same may be said of our 
national collections. 
 
The positivist historiography can be understood then, as a form of methodological 
                                               
34  W. Murtagh speaks of the cultural responsibility of the restorer in making history in Preservation 
and conservation: principles and practices, edited by S. Timmons, Preservation Press, 
Washington DC, 1976 (p.387), cited in P. van Mensch, ‘Conservation’ (Chapter 10), Towards a 
methodology of museology, PhD thesis, University of Zagreb, 1992. 
35  For illustrative examples see: The Future of the Past: Attitudes to Conservation 1174-1974, edited 
by Jane Fawcett, Thames and Hudson, London, 1976. Alternatively, visit the buildings and look 
for yourself and while you are there talk to the ‘authors of history’ (as I do). 
 354 
abstraction – which forms the foundation of the modern historical consciousness and 
contributes to a sense of disconnectedness with the past. The predominance of this 
historical method in Western culture, therefore, not only distorts reality but at the 
same time annihilates history itself (i.e. history in the making, in the form of practice, 
or process). Our understanding of the past (and the present) is accordingly made 
partial; hence the ‘closure’ of thought. This is a major factor in the broad 
downgrading of maintenance / repair / restoration practice and the knowledge / 
expertise associated therewith (which is apparent in conservation literature). It has 
contributed to the ‘us and them’ attitudes that have polarised much of the heritage 
sector throughout the United Kingdom – which is central to the ideological division 
documented by this thesis and why (it argues) the central philosophical question of 
preserving heritage is epistemological. This situation is the inevitable outcome of the 
Western epistemological tradition – the foundation of which is science – which has 
also been a major influence on fine arts restoration theory. 
 
4.1.5: The misappropriation of Brandian theory 
The figure of Cesare Brandi has come to dominate much contemporary discussion. 
Brandi’s Theory of Restoration36 was essentially formulated for the restoration of 
paintings and sculpture (i.e. the fine arts). It is also well-suited for archaeological 
restoration (in terms of both moveable and immoveable heritage), although Brandi 
does place greater emphasis on aesthetics than might normally be called for in the 
restoration of archaeological objects; but the underlying principles are nonetheless 
similar.37 Training institutions (throughout the United Kingdom) such as, universities 
and museums, use the fine arts model as a template for their courses for furniture and 
decorative arts conservation-restoration – in accordance with European-wide 
professional guidelines on education and training provided by ECCO. This is 
combined with scientific / technical studies (deriving historically from archaeology).  
 
Brandi’s ideas were largely influenced by C19th. European ‘philosophies’ and are 
thus ‘modernist’ and ‘Euro-centric’ (i.e. ethno-centric) in nature. According to his 
                                               
36  C. Brandi, Theory of Restoration, Nardini Editore, 2005 (first pub. 1963). 
37  It has been mentioned (in Section 2.2.3: ‘Authentic restoration – from materials and form to 
process’) that Brandi, together with Paul Philippot (ICCROM) and Harold Plenderleith (ICCROM) 
formed a significant triumvirate in shaping the direction the field of tangible heritage preservation 
took during the second half of the C20th. 
 355 
theory, the object for restoration is understood as pure phenomena; as a physical 
entity which transmits a visual image. Brandi’s theory thus starts from a 
phenomenological position. It does not start from an epistemological, ontological, or 
spiritual position as would be required, for example, by a theory based on practice 
which, by extension, might effectively incorporate intangible heritage (and 
authenticity as an aspect of intangible heritage). His theory of restoration is, 
therefore, superficial in the sense that it emphasises visual appearance (or visual 
oneness in Brandian terms) and the retention of historical material fabric. As such, its 
primary value-domains are the ‘aesthetic’ and the ‘historical’, respectively – which 
are believed to be inherent qualities of objects (rather than attributes of knowing 
subjects). His theory is, therefore, also reductionist. 
 
In practice, in general terms, objects are considered unique. This is particularly so in 
the case of paintings which embody the unique genius of the painter’s technique; 
his/her individual brush-strokes are considered sacrosanct, for example, and thus can 
never be repeated or replicated without aesthetic and historical misrepresentation (i.e. 
forgery). In addition to this, the painter is frequently known. Much the same can be 
said of the uniqueness of sculpture. It may also apply (to some extent) in architecture 
– although the need for ‘conservation-led’ renewal of architectural fabric (largely due 
to the devastating effects of pollution in certain regions) is typically quite different to 
paintings – as restoration frequently is with other ‘functional’ objects such as, 
furniture, objects of the (so-called) handicrafts and much decorative art. 
 
When an object is considered archaeological in kind there is considerable time 
distance (i.e. distanciation) between the time of initial creation and the present. A 
primary concern of archaeology is to develop ‘scientific’ knowledge associated with 
the civilisation to which the object ‘belonged’ (but not necessarily to which it 
‘belongs’ in the historically-transcendent sense). Distanciation can have the effect of 
lessening the obvious connectedness with the present. In many ways, archaeology 
helps to overcome this tendency but it can also contribute to it if the heritage is not 
understood in the appropriate way. For instance, archaeology is a science (and thus 
epistemological in the scientific sense) and therefore, as a discipline, not very good at 
recognising ontological connections that civilisations may have with certain kinds of 
heritage; such as, religious monuments which cannot be fully understood when 
 356 
interpreted with a scientific epistemological model (some reasons have been given 
above). In this sense, archaeology, when it ‘sees’ only the past as historical, can 
diminish the object’s living vitality by not taking into account the ontological ‘status’ 
of the artefact in terms of the present reality. A current example of this (arguably) is 
the issues in the Middle-East between archaeologists (many of whom have trained in 
Western institutions) and religious leaders and other ‘cultural’ representatives. 
 
According to Brandian theory then, in ‘restoration’ appearance takes precedent over 
material substance (as in homogeny of) and (where applicable) the functional 
qualities of objects (i.e. their ‘use-value’) are downplayed. For this reason, when 
lacunae are in-filled or losses replaced (i.e. restoration in the adding to sense), the 
primary objective is to re-create visual unity. It thus advocates ‘non-like’ restoration 
– which leads to the idea of ‘neutrality’ (i.e. neutral restoration undertaken in such a 
way to avoid causing a so-called aesthetic or historical forgery). In architecture 
(typically archaeological) this may be referred to as anastylosis – a term which also 
has its origins in European practice (such as, the Greek architect Nikolas Balanos); it 
is also an abstract, reductionist and ‘non-like’ form of restoration. Conversely, 
Brandi states that the reverse is true in the handicrafts when the material (as in 
homogeny of) must take precedence over the image (i.e. appearance) whenever 
restoration is deemed necessary.  
 
However, Brandi does not expand on this nor does he establish a definition of 
‘handicrafts’ and which objects might be included under the term. This is because his 
theory is essentially concerned with fine arts (particularly paintings). Nonetheless, 
the importance placed on material substance over appearance (in ‘handicrafts’) 
implies that process is important (because the process of restoration is determined by 
the use to which materials and technology are put). This suggests that an 
epistemological (i.e. in the knowledge of how sense), ontological, and/or spiritual 
starting point (as would be found in the intangible heritage) may be more appropriate 
for the handicrafts. The functioning of Brandian theory (through, for example, 
professionalisation – and all that this entails) in areas typically associated with hand-
craft practice would appear then, to offer some explanation as to why there are 
tensions in the field today relating to process. It is essential, therefore, to understand 
just what constitutes ‘hand-craft’. 
 357 
 
Well, objects of hand-craft traditions might be understood as the physical 
manifestation of accumulated knowledge / expertise which has been passed-on 
through continuity of practice (because it is valued as such). It could be argued that 
this progression is unique to any given culture and even regions or groups within a 
culture and gives rise to diverse styles, materials and techniques which are 
characteristic of that particular culture, region or group. Indeed, the same could be 
said for both the portable and importable heritage. But unlike in paintings and 
sculpture, the creator is nearly always anonymous and the object seldom the outcome 
of a single creative instance (as tends to be assumed in Brandian theory). There is, 
therefore, rarely an attempt made to identify him/her, although the culture, region or 
group is often well-studied (in the positivistic historiographical sense). In addition to 
this, the designer, or perhaps the firm that the maker worked for, may also be known, 
but seldom the maker him/herself which, in furniture and decorative arts (for 
example) may involve many specialist artists/craftspeople. 
 
Objects tend, therefore, to be understood generically as the products of creative 
traditions of practice; for instance, ‘the cabinet-making tradition’ which might 
incorporate a range of specialists in: surface decoration, finishing techniques, wood-
turning and carving, upholstering, veneering, gilding and so on. For the practitioner, 
the tradition exists prior to his entry and continues after departure from it. It can, 
therefore, be understood as a living system of knowing that is sustained through 
continued practice. It does not remain static. As a ‘living entity’ it transcends the 
individuals who are merely ‘partakers’. The partakers are thus bearers and 
transmitters of an historical continuum; the (so-called) ‘stream of consciousness’ – 
upon which the continuity of that tradition resides as a meaningful and ‘value-laden’. 
In other words, through time (i.e. historically) it acquires intrinsic value which is the 
basis of intangible heritage.  
 
The intrinsic value of intangible heritage – because it transcends individuals – can 
only be apprehended on a ‘higher’ dimension of knowing; hence it is subliminal and 
thus ontological in character (and not epistemological in the scientific sense). In an 
attempt to explain this, if one considers a team sport, such as a football or rugby 
match, one can sense the temper of the game at different stages – competitive, 
 358 
intense, relaxed, fast or slow moving and so on – this higher sense transcends the 
individual players and thus cannot be apprehended by focusing on a single player’s 
performance or by any quantitative analysis. Yet, it determines the quality of the 
game and, therefore, the way we tend to remember it and attribute value to it. 
Traditions of practice (this thesis argues) work in much the same way – as living 
cultural entities. As the intrinsic value becomes associated with a particular mode of 
practice it attracts new partakers which sustain the living entity – both in terms of its 
character and its connectedness to the past. Working with particular materials and 
techniques or using particular tools, or setting up one’s workshop in a particular way 
or area, is all part of the intrinsic value which sustains the tradition of practice. It 
needs noting, however, that many (so-called) ‘partakers’ will be aware of this only 
on a sub-conscious level.38 Therefore, the introduction of another knowledge system 
– in the case of conservation: ‘science’ (which brings technological innovation) – 
would be rather akin to playing hockey in the middle of a football match; although 
their may be certain ‘universal’ benefits (such as, keeping fit and healthy, team spirit 
etc.) it simply does not work because its underlying structure is entirely different. 
This rationalization is necessary in order to understand the essence of intangible 
heritage. 
 
The progression of styles is the tangible outcome of this historical process; museum 
collections, for example, are its temporal realisation – a physical record of intangible 
heritage. Cultivating and sustaining this depends upon those who are ‘enculturated’ 
by appropriate education and training, understanding and experience. Knowledge-
transfer is thus essential for its survival. For this reason (the thesis argues), an 
epistemological, ontological (or spiritual) starting point for a theory of restoration 
based on practice is necessary. The misappropriation of Brandin theory, which is 
based on an understanding of tangible heritage as pure phenomena and which 
(therefore) reduces authenticity to an apparent visual integrity alone, in disciplinary 
and material contexts for which it was not formulated is a methodological fallacy. 
This fallacy is arguably sustained by the international heritage community; 
                                               
38  The similarity between the size, contents, arrangements and situations of the furniture / decorative 
arts workshops I visited during this research was undeniable. Indeed this was part of my visual 
observations. Also, the frequently expressed view that a single practitioner should (ideally) be 
responsible for each project he/she works on ‘from start to finish’ (in terms of its 
repair/restoration) is a legacy of the Ruskinian / Morrisian philosophy. 
 359 
professionalisation is an aspect of this. 
 
4.1.6: Authenticity 
The development of the concept of authenticity has become central to the (so-called) 
‘post-modern’ understanding of heritage. In the discipline of scientific conservation 
(and in accordance with Brandian theory), authenticity is primarily identified in 
historical material fabric. With the use of advanced technologies (typically found in 
public institutions), this can sometimes be taken to extremes. For instance, 
instrumental analysis (such as the use of a microscope) facilitates the ‘positive’ 
identification of original substance from later accretions / additions / alterations 
which may subsequently be removed because they are not valued as such in that 
working context – despite being considered by some to be a vital part of the 
historical document. This phenomenon (a common enough occurrence) can lead to 
so-called ‘conservation controversies’.39 This kind of ‘instrumental’ interpretation 
(and problem) tends, therefore, to be ‘resource-specific’ and, by extension, ‘context-
specific’. 
 
This thesis argues that it is largely because of this that contemporary practice can 
lead to a tendency towards technological-determinism (i.e. when advancements in 
technology, through its application in practice, become discernable on the historical 
document itself) and thus have massive bearing on its future ‘reading’ and historical 
authenticity. In fact, continuing professional development (discussed in Chapter 1.3) 
is largely based on research into new material applications, indicating that the field 
itself is largely driven by technology. It is, however, important to recognise that 
technological determinism is not necessarily a phenomenon which can be identified 
on a single object but can be understood in terms of the way in which the discipline 
is organised and administered and how it ‘sees’ progress and development. For 
example, in scientific conservation, technological innovations are understood as part 
                                               
39  See for example, James Beck’s (et al.), Art Restoration: The Culture the Business and the Scandal, 
Cambridge University Press, 1993 which discusses the restoration of fine arts heritage – the issues 
are not unrelated to such technological developments (and especially the use of solvents). In 
relation to this, ArtWatch International was founded by Beck, Professor of art history at Columbia 
University, to monitor and campaign for better practices in the conservation of art works. The 
United Kingdom branch, ArtWatch UK, is run by Michael Daley. Information about ArtWatch 
International is available from: http://www.artwatchinternational.org/ and ArtWatch UK: 
http://www.artwatch.org.uk/ 
 360 
of the field’s progress – which today has a market-orientation. Such forces are not 
attributable to single institutions but are part of a wider international movement. It is, 
therefore, substantive in character. This can cause material ‘trends’ which typically 
fluctuate according to availability and context (and, this thesis argues, the stock of 
knowledge in the field at a given time).40 The use of advanced technologies in 
practice is a foreseeable outcome of positivism in interpretation because science 
(more accurately scientific thinking) and advanced technologies are synonymous (as 
evidenced on conservation courses).  
 
In conservation practice in public institutions there is broad denunciation of 
conjectural restoration (in the adding to sense). This tends to be interpreted in terms 
of design (i.e. form) rather than process (i.e. the materials and techniques used in 
practice). However, it can be argued that the use of any material that puts an object’s 
appearance at odds with its structure and substance is also conjectural – on grounds 
of incomplete understanding of ethical practice and a lack of awareness or 
consideration of the importance of process. Ruskin, for example, found such practice 
wholly undesirable (see Section 3.1.1). Typically, the age of the object determines its 
historical worth (i.e. its ‘age-value’) although other specific factors may also be 
taken into account, such as ‘style’. If later restorations have been undertaken then 
they might be retained on grounds of their historical worth. A balance, therefore, 
tends to be struck between appearance and age-value; in other words, the object’s 
aesthetic and historical qualities (which is consistent with Brandian theory). 
However, the emphasis on retarding deterioration inevitably results in the actual 
realisation of ‘newness-value’ (but only in terms of its appearance). Importantly, the 
uses of modern synthetics have no obvious aesthetically-favourable aging 
characteristics. It was for this reason (i.e. acquired ‘age-value’) that Ruskin (for 
example) strongly opposed the use of modern building materials and techniques, 
putting him in opposition to Viollet-le-Duc who supported their use. 
 
Therefore, in terms of process, restoration (carried out in the name of scientific 
                                               
40  In recent years in the domain of furniture and decorative arts (for example) epoxy resin has 
become popular, as has Paraloid B72 (used as a surface finish). There are a good number of other 
so-called ‘conservation grade’ materials that have recently found favour in training institutions. It 
is important to note here that the author has found none whatsoever that requires greater expertise 
to apply than traditional methods. There use is evidently linked to capability – although this may 
be masked by ethics. 
 361 
conservation) typically does not attempt to ensure acquired historical worth, i.e. 
authenticity cannot be added to the historical document; it can only be revealed in so 
far as it exists. This way of understanding authenticity informs the fundamental 
precepts of ‘minimum-intervention’ and ‘reversibility’ (which is today more 
precisely known as ‘re-treatability’); while ‘discernability’ is a (perhaps inevitable) 
by-product. The function of reversibility, therefore, denies the continuity of the 
historical document and, in terms of restoration (in the adding to sense), is arguably 
an admission of that which is in-authentic. It can further be argued that reversibility 
(perhaps paradoxically) legitimises repeated restoration – which necessarily works 
against ‘minimum-intervention’ over the long term. 
 
Authenticity thus has the effect of subverting the concept of ‘living authorship’ 
particularly when interpreted in an extremely positivistic way (which is not 
uncommon in the United Kingdom). The inevitable subversion of ‘living authorship’ 
that this implies is partly due to the lack of an epistemological (as in knowledge of 
how), ontological, or spiritual understanding of restoration practice – the inevitable 
outcome of Brandian theory. The replacement of lacunae, in this sense, is 
intentionally a-historical (i.e. neutralised). As such, restoration practice is value-less 
and rendered intentionally meaningless – and, therefore, lacking authenticity; 
necessarily so. In this way, there can (arguably) be no real possibility of enhancing 
the symbolic meaning of an historical document – except in so far as the interventive 
treatments may be of interest exclusively to conservation scholars; for instance, as a 
tangible record of ‘scientific’ expression. But this does not represent ‘heritage’ in the 
intangible heritage sense of the meaning because it is devoid of such meaning 
(because it pertains to be ‘neutral’ and thus beyond metaphysical ‘intrusion’).41 As a 
general rule, therefore, in the discipline of scientific conservation, with respect to the 
practice of restoration and from the standpoint of process; the greater the historical 
value of an object the greater the loss of its historical authenticity. 
 
This is one of the main reasons why in universities (for example) on conservation 
courses in furniture and decorative arts (which is taught at Bachelor-level up) there is 
                                               
41  The ‘meaninglessness of intentionality’ is the antithesis of intangible heritage, cultural diversity 
and much that the (so-called) ‘post-modern’ Heritage Preservation Movement has come to stand 
for (discussed in Part II). 
 362 
a great deal of ‘non-like’ restoration carried out which is encouraged by the teachers. 
This might be anything from fills, to surface coatings and decoration, to the 
replacement of entire elements. In fact, as a general rule: on conservation courses 
quite literally any material / technique might be used in restoration. Such students 
frequently do not possess the knowledge / expertise to follow a ‘like-with-like’ 
approach.42 However, at Higher National Diploma (HND)-level (which is usually not 
considered conservation in the scientific sense) there is more emphasis on practical 
craft skills. There is, therefore, more emphasis on ‘like-with-like’ restoration and far 
less emphasis on ‘non-like’ restoration. Where both kinds of courses are run at the 
same institution the contrast in approaches is palpable.43 The variability in outcomes 
that this causes correlates with the introduction of conservation teaching in this 
domain in recent times in line with the professionalisation of the field. Such ‘non-
like’ restoration is not only synonymous with the science component of the courses; 
it is also evidently synonymous with a fundamental lack of skill nominally associated 
with traditional craft practice. It is for this reason that conservation ethics are 
(arguably) untenable. And further, that the contemporary concept of authenticity (i.e. 
authentic process) is not achievable. 
 
The movement in the concept of authenticity (i.e. from materials and form to 
process) reflects a ‘world view’ of heritage in all of its diverse tangible and 
intangible manifestations which has come about largely because of the global context 
within which heritage preservation is today understood. The realisation in the West 
that not all cultures interpret authenticity solely in the materials of fabrication is 
(theoretically) diametrically opposed to the essentially ‘authorised’ positivistic 
methodology. Other cultures appear to be better able to ‘see’ beyond the material 
dimension by exalting other values and understandings of ‘heritage’ and other 
reasons for its preservation – as evidenced in formal documentation.44 The West 
would typically describe such cultures as either ‘traditional’, ‘underdeveloped’ or 
‘third world’ (and sometimes as all three).  
 
                                               
42  One student I spoke with returned to the same institute to undertake an HND following successful 
completing of a BSc(Hons) in conservation the previous year.  
43  This was discussed in Chapter 1.3: ‘Professionalisation in the United Kingdom’; see in particular 
Section 1.3.4: ‘Education and training’. 
44  It needs stressing here that these are the formally ‘authorised’ views; many artists/craftspeople I 
communicated with have no problem ‘seeing’ beyond the material dimension. 
 363 
This ‘trans-culturalisation’ of the Heritage Preservation Movement has thus revealed 
other ‘life-worlds’ (in Husserlian terms), manifested in complex systems of knowing 
and experience, which have transcended time and continue in the form of meaning-
conferring practice into the present. In many ways, this is a reminder of our own pre-
industrial and pre-scientific and pre-mechanical past (which, although declined in the 
form of practice, has evidently not entirely disappeared); their validity surely lies in 
their rarity. The continuation of traditional art/craft practices in the United Kingdom 
throughout the C20th. owes a great deal to John Ruskin and William Morris and their 
supporters. Their continued influence is (no doubt) among the primary reasons why 
the (so-called) ‘paradigm shift’ from craft to science in the field of conservation 
(brought about by professionalisation) has been such a problematical transition. 
These difficulties (it can be argued) are largely the result of the homogenising effects 
of international standardisation and the subsequent loss of cultural specificity and 
diversity – embodied in the traditional arts and crafts – which Ruskin and Morris 
sought to safeguard. That is why they are associated with intangible heritage and 
why (in turn) they are central to the contemporary concept of authenticity. 
 
This broadening of the heritage horizon first makes known and then undermines 
‘modern’ Euro-centrism (or ethno-centrism). The concept of ‘heritage’ in the post-
modern period is characteristically relativistic, plural and democratic in nature which 
contrasts with the modern ‘Enlightenment’ tendency towards foundationalism in 
philosophy and absolutism in knowledge (in the scientific sense).45 Recent times 
have brought growing respect for cultural diversity and recognition that there are 
sub-groups within cultures that are important to our understanding of the past. New 
terms such as, ‘inclusivity’, ‘sustainability’, ‘values’ and ‘renewal’ create a new 
understanding of heritage preservation as one that is based on ‘the cautious 
management of change’46 – it is, therefore, less ‘rigid’ and cannot be scientifically 
‘reduced’ (or simplified) and it is more complex than merely retarding decay. Not 
only is transformation recognised to be inevitable; but agreeable.  
 
                                               
45  This is an Oakeshottian interpretation, explained in Roy Tseng’s The Sceptical Idealist, Imprint 
Academic, 2003. See in particular Chapter II, Section II.2.5: ‘Foundationalism in Philosophy’ 
(p.26). 
46  The idea of ‘managing change’ is accredited to Jonathan Ashley-Smith who is presently writing a 
chapter of a book about these wider ‘cultural’ issues. 
 364 
Authenticity understood as a form of process is a celebration of the ‘living’ – as the 
embodiment of the past – thus overcoming the conception of ‘heritage’ as one based 
purely on materials and ‘disengaged’ memory (and perhaps overcoming the impasses 
of modern historical consciousness and the subsequent ‘time-wall’ of preservation). 
Authenticity is no longer solely based on the ‘aesthetic’ and the ‘historical’ – it is 
cultural, meaningful and historically-transcendent. 
 
4.1.7: Authenticity understood in relation to intangible heritage  
It has been noted above that the discipline of conservation throughout the Western 
scientific / technical and political-institutional sectors does not recognise the concept 
of adding to authenticity. Interventions (especially noticeable in loss-compensation) 
are subsequently not undertaken with the intention of enhancing meaning in terms of 
restoration process but may be intended to enhance understanding (of the physical 
object) by re-creating visual oneness. This is the derivation of European restoration 
theory which has been most comprehensively articulated by Cesare Brandi 
(following a number of earlier European theorists). Ethics attempts to ensure that 
such interventions are not permitted to become part of the historical document in any 
historically-transcendent meaningful way (except perhaps for scholars of 
conservation who might wish to retain them). The primary purpose of restoration is 
merely to re-create visual parity in order to improve the object’s visual legibility – 
nothing more. 
 
This diminution of authenticity to an apparent visual integrity alone has been 
identified as being attributable to Brandi’s phenomenological starting point. This 
‘superficial’ interpretation of the ‘external and given material’ is largely because the 
conceptualisation of the materials found in works of art is lacking. In Western 
aesthetics this can be traced back (through Brandi) to Georg Hegel’s ‘epiphany of the 
image’ – a view which has been attributed to his attraction to mysticism in his youth 
(see Section 1.4.2). It is this lack in the conceptualisation of the materials which 
allows for the use of ‘non-like’ materials in restoration (in the adding to sense). But 
it is, nonetheless, still restoration. However, the material used has a great bearing on 
the stock of knowledge in the field – especially with respect to the role and status of 
the historic arts and crafts (which represent centuries of heritage in European 
culture). Indeed, it could be argued that Hegel’s continuing influence has contributed 
 365 
to anti-craft sentiment within the international heritage community which clearly has 
religious / spiritual underpinnings. 
 
The suitability of such ‘non-like’ restoration is invariably considered from the point 
of view of not harming the ‘valued’ material – hence a ‘synchronic’ conception of 
restoration. Making judgements about compatibility is usually achieved (in the first 
instance) by identifying a problem and then, by experimentation and testing, 
‘scientifically’ validating the solution. The application of such a treatment is thus 
technologically-determined from start to finish. The scientific basis of practice leads 
to an ‘infinity of tasks’ (a Husserlian concept) which gives purpose to the problem-
solution activity of science; which, in turn, gives rise to a self-perpetuating dynamic 
– which subsequently becomes the basis of professional development. This 
‘problem-solution’ dynamic is typically understood as progress. The association with 
advanced technologies (including materials) gives the impression of advancement, 
while the cognitive supremacy of science (synonymous with ‘invention’, ‘discovery’ 
and ‘breakthrough’) confers authority, leadership (and perhaps: ‘Vanguard’). Science 
has the peculiar tendency to present itself as the solution to the problems it has 
created, but none of this means that restoration (in the adding to sense) is carried out 
with corresponding supremacy. Indeed, quite the opposite may be the case – as this 
thesis has attempted to bring to light. And, of course, it fails to take into account 
associated ‘intangibles’. 
 
Attempts to restore only visual parity tends to have the effect of ‘reducing’ the 
interventive process to a pragmatic (or empirical) level; thereby arguably rendering 
the newly restored item quite unrepresentative – and thus a falsification – of the 
creative tradition whence it derived. The examples referenced periodically 
throughout this text may appear pedantic but the contention presented applies to 
numerous objects and many heritage domains. Therefore, it is surely vital that the 
conservation profession understands that the materials and techniques used in any 
work of art or fine craft will not have been ‘context-free’ in their selection and 
application, respectively – as tends to be assumed. Much the same, therefore, can be 
said of any making tradition that intentionally uses natural materials. And the sole 
reason why makers such as, Alan Peters, Martin Grierson and Humphrey Sladden – 
who are arguably ‘authentic’ heirs to the Ruskin-Morris-Webb-Lethaby legacy in 
 366 
furniture and decorative arts – all insist upon a ‘like-with-like’ approach to 
restoration (which is also consistent with SPAB’s ‘unique philosophy’). 
 
The attempts that the field of conservation makes in order to retard decay (the 
principal problem) has been particularly necessary in public institutions which have 
the responsibility of caring for artefacts. This has been hugely beneficial to their 
preservation; but this is not the same as restoring them. In their ‘new’ environments, 
the artefacts have been removed from their cultural contexts (i.e. their ‘life-worldly’ 
contexts) by a process of phenomenological reduction47 (museum collections often 
having been put together from all regions of the world). In the process, they have 
different values ascribed to them (typically ‘aesthetic’ and ‘historical’). As such, they 
are de-contextualised which, in a broad sense, can have the effect of denying their 
cultural specificity – especially in the sense of their ontological connectedness – 
causing them to become partially ‘muted’ in terms of their symbolic meaning and 
‘performative power’ (and perhaps even, depleted as works of art). This has surely 
occurred in some measure and has (it would seem) become an issue facing Western 
museums in the contemporary ‘post-modern’ era; embodied in the concept of 
‘Inclusive Museology’. In other words, the museum itself has become disengaged 
and culturally abstract (on the ontological level) which is surely the inevitable 
conclusion of methodological reductionism (and physical re-location) relating to the 
‘scientific’ objectification of the past in material form only. 
 
In a sense, by creating an archive of material remains, and thus laying the foundation 
of a positive historiography, haven’t the objects been systematically ‘separated’ from 
their subjects? And, isn’t this why the tangible heritage has inevitably lost its sense 
of connectedness to culture itself – particularly on a higher subliminal level? Is this 
not then, also the sum achievement of an essentially scientific epistemological 
interpretive model which engenders the discrediting of all the possibilities of 
knowing that lie outside of its paradigmatic horizons, thus leading to the 
overwhelming of the performative qualities of ‘heritage’, ‘accessible’ through, what 
might be called, an ontological paradigm? If this is the case then this is another 
reason why there is a need to (re-)synthesise ontology with epistemology and the 
                                               
47  This methodological approach was examined in Section 1.4.2: ‘Phenomenological reduction’. 
 367 
rupture brought about by ‘scientific’ epistemological reductionism (and subsequent 
‘closure’) – argued in this thesis. Surely this is all the more vital as the (essentially 
occidental) Heritage Preservation Movement expands into a global context? 
 
Many museums tend to acquire their collections in an already ‘restored’ state. More 
often than not the objects ‘do not require extensive work’ – hence there is an 
emphasis on care.48 This is because such objects have already been restored by 
artists and craftspeople; the (so-called) ‘authors’ of the historical document. Outside 
of the museum context, work is often highly complex and frequently demands a great 
deal of artistic / creative expertise. This helps to sustain certain forms of knowledge 
which has been inherited (and is valued accordingly).49 Yet, this essential knowledge 
is grossly under-developed within conservation practice in the United Kingdom.50 
This is partly because museums (which have been influential in the development of 
the conservation profession and all that this entails) do not recognise the need for it, 
partly because they do not appear to value it and partly because they do not appear to 
understand it. And the professionalisation of conservation (based on an essentially 
archaeo-museological model) aims to standardise practice throughout Europe – 
something which bearers of intangible heritage would surely wish to resist and which 
is inconsistent with wider concerns relating to cultural diversity.  
 
Crucially, intangible heritage is ‘organic’; it lives. As such, recording the 
practitioners’ (i.e. the bearers’) actions (or even collating oral histories) would 
provide no more than a tangible recording of intangible heritage not intangible 
heritage as it is in itself. And, as noted earlier, museums (for example) already 
possess a tangible record of intangible heritage. The living heritage would be 
                                               
48  J. Kitchin, Interview with the author, 12th June 2005. 
49  One of the interviewees is a fifth-generation cabinet-maker – inheriting a practice which extends 
(in the same family) for over 250 years. He values its continuity. He considers himself essentially 
a craftsman-restorer and teaches ‘qualified’ conservators who lack necessary expertise while at the 
same time (ironically) feeling marginalised by the ‘scientific’ conservation profession. 
50  See Chapter 1.3: ‘Professionalisation in the United Kingdom’. This appears to be the case 
throughout the heritage sector in the UK – as expressed in various reports in Section 3.1.2: ‘Recent 
developments with respect to intangible heritage’. However, this situation is also consistent with 
many of the views expressed to me by specialists in various heritage domains internationally 
through online discussion. Mark Gottsegen, Associate Professor, University of North Carolina, 
Greensboro provided his (unpublished) paper: The Decline of Visual Arts Education, and a 
Remedy, 2005 which explains how craftsmanship has been downplayed in higher education and 
emphasises the importance of knowledge of materials and techniques in conserving and restoring 
art (in this case paintings). 
 368 
different every time it was recorded because it is a lived experience which does not 
stop at the time of objectification (and subsequent media-conversion). In fact, 
attempts to record intangible heritage might even constrain its vitality and subsequent 
on-going transformation. It can live only in a free state. It, therefore, cannot readily 
be controlled in a scientific way. In other words, full (not partial) knowledge of 
intangible heritage comes only through performance; it is thus objectified only 
through the practitioners’ actions in the form of practice. Value is attributed to the 
historicality of the performance – which is an expression of the past but which 
always resides in the present reality. Therefore, in order to safeguard it, the factors 
that cause it to diminish must be removed, or at least reduced (as with all 
preservation), and the factors that sustain must be recognised and enhanced so that it 
may flourish.  
 
It must resist the objectifying tendencies of science because (this thesis has argued) it 
is largely because of this why, in Western heritage administrations, the tangible 
heritage became ‘separated’ from intangible heritage – both consciously through 
methodological reduction (i.e. reduction to aesthetic and historical values), 
representing the closure of all possible value-domains; and spatially through 
methodological abstraction (i.e. physical separation from its ‘life-worldly’ context; 
for example, by museum-acquisition). However, objects (portable and moveable) 
cannot be ‘authentically’ sustained for an indefinite period without intangible 
heritage (despite the attempt to ‘freeze’ them in time). Treatment interventions are 
always an expression of their time (which reveals itself in time). Consider for 
instance, architecture (because it is easily observable); a great deal of the most 
significant buildings throughout Europe, due to the need for constant renewal of their 
material fabric – both inside and outside – represents (in terms of form and 
substance, techniques, feeling, expression etc.) the restoration works of C20th. 
‘authors’. They are artists of their time. Yet, this is under-acknowledged in heritage 
preservation discourse; the perspective is simply not developed. 
 
For example, a superficial observation (as indeed most people will make) of the 
North entrance of Westminster Abbey in London confirms that it is a contemporary 
building. A substantial amount of material was, in fact, put in place within the past 
twenty years. However, what tends to remain most powerful to one’s mind is the 
 369 
idea of Westminster Abbey (typically understood in terms of style, period, social, 
cultural and political context and so on) but frequently with such buildings very little 
(if any) of the original idea remains a physical reality. Surely (one can argue) what 
keeps it unmistakeably and thus ‘authentically’ Westminster Abbey, or St Paul’s, or 
Hampton Court Palace (or Cologne, or Trondheim, or St Ouen – and so on) is its 
connectedness to culture itself; restoration, by the constant renewal of material 
fabric, sustains this connection and prevents it from becoming symbolically 
depleted.51 
 
In this sense, if their fabric was restored in a radically ‘non-like’ way; for instance, 
with a modern material, such as prefabricated concrete, then, due to the rapid 
deterioration of their existing fabric and the subsequent need for its constant renewal, 
surely they would in a very short period of time lose their authenticity? It is for this 
reason that it can be convincingly argued that such restoration sustains (historical) 
authenticity and also sustains intangible heritage. The idea that authenticity cannot be 
added to the historical document is extremely restrictive and (in any case) tends not 
to reflect much of what is actually done in practice – as the examples above 
illustrate. Moreover, if authenticity exists only in the original (i.e. it can only be 
revealed in so far as it exists), then what part of a monument (for example) that may 
have taken one, two, three, five or six-centuries (or even longer) to build is 
authentic? In other words, what is the fixed point upon which authenticity (so 
conceived) is determined? Surely such buildings are never completed without being 
restored? 
 
It has been argued in this thesis that this is partly the effect of positivism in 
historiography which does not ‘see’ (and therefore value) the historicity of the 
present, although the present restoration work will become valued ‘historically’ in 
time (but only after a ‘time-lapse’); and typically, therefore, when the original 
‘author’ of the restoration is dead (hence conservation’s affinity with dead history). 
There is always a requirement of a lapse in time before what is done in the present 
                                               
51  See for example, The Future of the Past: Attitudes to Conservation 1174-1974, edited by Jane 
Fawcett, Thames and Hudson, London, 1976 in which images of Westminster Abbey taken in 
1654 and 1880 (p.89) show the extent of transformation – which is quite different again today due 
to the work which has been carried out since WWII but particularly in the past two decades. Other 
examples can be found in Stephen Tschudi-Madsen’s, Restoration and Anti-Restoration: A Study 
in English Restoration Philosophy, Universitetsforlaget, 1976. 
 370 
enters its horizon of knowing. Hence it sees only the past as historical while 
‘forgetting’ the historicity of the present – leading to the (so-called) ‘time-wall’ of 
heritage preservation. To restate, it is essentially history that has been re-created and 
inscribed by non-participating observers (who attempt to restore meaning in the form 
of historical knowledge they themselves have not inherited through practice). 
 
This lack of participation confirms its abstract (methodologically ‘objective’ or 
‘neutral’) stand-point. It is a product of the objectifying tendencies of scientific 
thought (and the subsequent liquidation of metaphysics) which lies beneath the 
Western epistemological tradition. It has the effect of overpowering perspectives that 
have developed around the continuity of practice (which are essentially incremental 
and not necessarily backward-looking).52 It is interesting to consider then, in what 
ways (other than in terms of information or its physical structure) might a (so-called) 
non-participating observer ‘know’ a piece of finely-crafted work, more completely 
than a practising master craftsman who has inherited an age-old tradition – over two, 
three, four, five or even ten centuries – in the full richness of its authenticity? This 
abstract approach to interpreting ‘heritage’ has (arguably) contributed to the feeling 
that the past is a completed development and thus ‘separated’ from the present 
(which, of course, is a factual impossibility).53  
 
Authentic process is determined by the use of particular materials and techniques and 
by particular people in particular contexts. This departure, which represents a 
comparatively recent bifurcation in history, tends therefore, to be revealed in the way 
in which technologies (including materials) are used in restoration practice. This has 
caused disagreement between the essentially Eastern and Western approaches to 
heritage preservation. In some areas of Japan (for example) intangible heritage 
rejects the Western conception of conservation-restoration by resisting modern 
scientific / technological means. In other words, Japan seeks to sustain the (so-called) 
historical ‘streams of consciousness’ by supporting traditional practices and, 
                                               
52  This became clear to the author when Beckford described how he adds to his collection of wood-
carving chisels – a step-by-step incremental process of advancement. One who uses a modern tool 
(that is not the correct shape) is necessarily taking a backward step. 
53  One of the outcomes of this is the contemporary phenomenon of (so-called) ‘live interpretations’ 
and/or ‘re-enactments’ which might be described as a kind of post-modern pathological 
idiosyncrasy – suggesting a loss of inherited understanding. Surely such phenomenon would be 
logically incomprehensible to other civilisations – especially pre-industrial and pre-scientific 
cultures that maintain a strong sense of continuity?  
 371 
therefore, authentic restoration process. They appear to know that the Western 
scientific approach to ‘heritage’ severs this continuity and annihilates intangible 
heritage in the process – just as it is (arguably) in danger of doing in the United 
Kingdom. 
 
Notwithstanding, the traditional arts and crafts throughout the West are in many 
ways similar to Japan in their thinking (for that is surely what makes them what they 
are). But the prevailing professional conservation ideology, which is dominated by 
the scientific / technical and political-institutional sectors throughout the West, does 
not see it this way. This is one of the main reasons (this thesis argues) why there 
have been so many issues in the United Kingdom with respect to process (such as, 
standards of capability, materials / techniques used, exclusion / marginalisation from 
the field and so on).54 Consequently, the traditional arts and crafts, as a bona-fide 
aspect of intangible heritage are eradicated, and such ‘academic bullying’ (based 
largely upon the cognitive supremacy of science) is de facto a form of cultural (or 
sub-cultural) negation. 
 
One of the underlying problems of globalisation, as underpinned by Western political 
economies (which are information-led and founded on an essentially scientific 
epistemology), is the threat it poses to the world’s cultural (and natural) diversity. It 
was mentioned earlier in this conclusion that the objectifying tendencies of science 
are recognised as a major contributory factor in the demise of the world’s cultural 
diversity. The emergence of scientific thinking has also (in this conclusion) been 
linked historically to the European Church Reforms and the subsequent success of 
political economies in Europe; the (so-called) ‘dismal science’. Thus, globalisation 
may be understood as an extension of the (so-called) ‘Protestant era’ but which is 
(arguably) devoid of its spiritual content which has become extinguished (or maybe 
hidden) by its materialist and consumerist virtues. The homogenisation of cultural 
divergence – which is essentially a process of standardisation and thus conformity – 
is not unrelated to the present reaction, manifested in the upsurge in religious 
consciousness in various regions of the world. It seems then, that what happened in 
the United Kingdom in the eighteenth and nineteenth-centuries with respect to the 
                                               
54  Discussed in Chapter 1.3: ‘Professionalisation in the United Kingdom’. 
 372 
(so-called) ‘Mechanical Age’ has in many ways become a global issue.  
 
This is one of the reasons why UNESCO, among others, has recognised the need to 
safeguard the world’s intangible heritage. It is also one of the reasons why 
environmentalism has become a global concern – which was given impetus by John 
Ruskin in the C19th, coinciding with the rise of the ‘Mechanical Age’. The 
proliferation of advanced technologies, which globalisation brings to new regions of 
the world, poses a serious threat to the continuity of intangible heritage. In fact, by 
extension, this has a great bearing on the world’s ‘stock of knowledge’ which has 
shifted massively in recent times from knowledge to information (led essentially by 
occidental trans-national corporations). In broad terms, this is one of the main 
reasons why, throughout the last two centuries, the peoples of other civilisations have 
tended to become ‘Westernised’ rather than Westerners becoming ‘Easternised’ (for 
example).55 The net effect is a gradual homogenisation of humankind – according to 
Western ‘universal’ ideals – and a simultaneous loss of the world’s cultural (and 
biological) diversity, culminating in the need for an ecology of human life (intangible 
heritage). 
 
UNESCO (which is essentially a Western scientific organisation), although it 
recognises the need to safeguard intangible heritage, formally maintains the 
separation between the tangible and intangible domains. This is a reflection of the 
bifurcation in history (expressed by this thesis) which is symptomatic of the subject / 
object dualism in Western thought. This organisation (as with the Western political-
institutional sectors in general) still largely circulates the idea of ‘universal value’. 
This is also reductionist in the sense that it can have the effect of homogenising 
difference instead of nurturing plurality. How, for example, can the deeply symbolic 
aspects of different cultures (and inherited customs and practices), which may have 
been cultivated for thousands of years, be valued universally without being levelled 
out (i.e. reduced) in the process? The advocacy of universal values does not reflect 
reality; it is an ideology; a scientistic ideology. How can, for example, a creation that 
is steeped in the evolution of one civilisation be ‘valued’ in the same way by 
someone from outside of that civilisation? It is palpably impossible – as it is 
                                               
55  Useful sources here are The Cultures of Globalization, edited by Fredric Jameson (et al), Duke 
University Press, 1998; and the writings of Noam Chomsky and Immanuel Wallerstein. 
 373 
impossible to convey the full depth of meaning of speaking in another person’s 
tongue by merely reproducing the same sounds. Universal recognition or appeal or 
responsibility perhaps; but universal value, no.56 
 
In the United Kingdom (and throughout much of Europe and the West), although 
recognition of intangible heritage is gaining acceptance, the (authorised) conception 
of ‘heritage’ as a completed development stills tends to prevail. This is an extension 
of the modern historical consciousness that emerged in Europe at the end of the 
C18th. – as a product of the Enlightenment philosophies. It has been largely 
‘manufactured’ (and sustained) by the scientific / technical and political-institutional 
sectors of the State (such as, museums, universities and other heritage organisations) 
through an educational system which is established upon an essentially scientific 
epistemology; but it is not established on the historicity of practice (and related ways 
of life) and the values that may be attributed to this and necessary in order to sustain 
it.  
 
This conclusion began by arguing that intangible heritage remains of only secondary 
importance within the context of the Heritage Preservation Movement of Western 
culture. The (so-called) ‘authorised’ approach to ‘heritage’ was described as 
perpetuating a general shift from ontology (of practice) towards technology (a 
consequence of scientific methodology). With respect to the practice of restoration, 
this (so-called) ‘sciencing’ necessarily contributes to the de-sublimation of the field, 
manifested in the loss of aesthetic sensibilities and certain kinds of ‘tacit knowledge’ 
(which is under-valued and/or becomes de-valued). This was described (in 
philosophical terms) as a process of naturalisation, whereby unique, value-laden, and 
historically-transcendent perspectives of ‘heritage’ become subsumed into the 
authorised, the given and the consensual – and in effect ‘reduced’ to the ‘aesthetic’ 
and the ‘historical’ in the process. 
 
The subsequent ‘closure’ of thought is arguably the sum achievement of the so-called 
‘paradigm shift’ from craft to science augmented by professionalisation (ICOM, 
ECCO, ICON etc.) and which (in terms of practice) has its origins in archaeology. 
                                               
56  UNESCO’s Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001 in some respects concedes this. 
 374 
Consequently, put in simple terms, the United Kingdom, Europe and the West are 
not very good at sustaining intangible heritage – as evidenced in comparing the 
UNESCO ‘World Tangible Heritage List’ with its equivalent ‘World Intangible 
Heritage List’. Crucially, the prevailing conception of heritage does not reflect the 
aspirations of many practitioners within the wider heritage community who wish to 
sustain their practices in living form but who have been marginalised by mainstream 
conservation discourse in recent years. 
 
This thesis (therefore) has established the need to synthesise the tangible v. 
intangible heritages by acknowledging authenticity of process. Achieving this will 
re-create the subject / object relationship that has become ‘separated’ historically in 
the West by the processes of methodological abstraction and reduction and 
subsequent objectification (the basis of scientific thought). In practice, how materials 
and technology are used in restoration (in terms of what is added to the historical 
document) and our ability to interpret and understand this will determine the nature 
(and therefore the authenticity) of the historical document of the future. It will also 
determine the fate of intangible heritage the world-over. It is because of this that this 
thesis calls for an ‘opening up’ of our understanding of the past (and the present) in 
order to counter these reductionist tendencies. Authenticity must surely be 
understood in relation to intangible heritage – especially given that intangible 
heritage is understood to be the overarching paradigm through which all heritages are 
perceived. It was made clear at the beginning of this conclusion that this necessitates 
the fostering of a broader (and therefore inclusive) understanding of ‘heritage’ which 
would enable the transmutation from the exclusivity of a modern to the plurality of a 
post-modern view. It is largely because of this that the central philosophical problem 
of preserving ‘heritage’ is epistemological. This forms the basis of the reflections / 
recommendations outlined below. 
 
4.1.8: Reflections / recommendations 
 
A contemporary theory of restoration 
This thesis recognises the need to cultivate a more broadly conceived view of 
‘heritage’. In order to achieve this, Cesare Brandi’s (and much of the West’s) theory 
of restoration would need to be rethought from a broader epistemological starting 
 375 
point and not a phenomenological one. ‘Epistemological’ in this sense does not 
solely refer to scientific knowledge (i.e. in the knowledge of what sense) nor does it 
preclude it; it also reflects knowledge which is sustained in the form of practice (i.e. 
knowledge of how) and the value that may be attributed to that practice; the so-called 
‘tacit dimension’. As such, the complex ‘life-worldly’ modalities of experience 
related to this, which presently support alternative reasons for preserving the past 
which often lie beyond aesthetic and historical values alone, may also be 
incorporated; or indeed vice-versa, given that the intangible heritage is now 
considered to be the overarching paradigm through which all heritages are 
understood. Knowledge of practice, for example, in its social context, cultural 
specificity, and its spiritual, religious, ritualistic and/or aesthetic inflections (and so 
on) are all aspects of intangible heritage. This is surely no less relevant to the West, 
than it is to the East, the North and/or the South? 
 
Formulating a theory of restoration around an epistemological position would open 
up a ‘pathway’ into an essentially ontological dimension, which is otherwise 
precluded by the limitations of the prevailing phenomenological position. The 
synthesis between epistemology and ontology would at the same time synthesise the 
tangible and intangible heritages. This might be described as the next phase of the 
Fichetian / Hegelian triadic ‘thesis, antithesis, synthesis’; the synthesis of the tangible 
v. intangible ‘elevates’ the heritage sector to a ‘higher’ dimension which fits well 
with the post-modern vision of heritage. So understood, the aim of restoration – 
when it is deemed necessary and in terms of what is added to the historical document 
– would be the restitution of the ‘authentic’ intention and the re-establishment of 
historical concordance (thereby overcoming the impasses of historicism and the 
subsequent ‘time-wall’ of heritage preservation). Only by recognising this in relation 
to the process of restoration can we move closer to passing on to future generations, 
their inheritance – tangible and intangible – ‘in the full richness of its authenticity’ 
while at the same time sustaining cultural diversity and ensuring a more 
representative, inclusive, and thus democratic approach to the past, the present, and 
the future. 
 
On a more practical level, this recognition of the necessity to rethink a theory of 
restoration from an epistemological starting point (i.e. to ‘incorporate’ intangible 
 376 
heritage and authenticity as an aspect of this) necessitates the formulation of a 
doctrine based around the conceptualisation of the materials and processes found in 
tangible heritage. But this must also take into account how such materials sustain 
intangible heritage; for instance, urishi lacquer sustains the age-old practice of urushi 
lacquering; wood, wood-carving and so on – no scientifically formulated substitute 
does this. This might represent the first stage towards synthesis between the tangible 
/ intangible domains. It is vital, though, to recognise that the ideas expressed here are 
not about the wholesale restoration of the tangible heritage – far from it. They are 
about seeing restoration as a necessary means to sustainable preservation and 
bringing thinking about the practice of restoration into line with contemporary 
developments. To that end, interdisciplinary research and leadership is essential. 
 
Interdisciplinary research and leadership 
The époque-making Yamoto Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding 
the Tangible and Intangible Cultural Heritage (2004)57 might be used as a starting 
point in developing this ‘new’ vision of heritage. Perhaps a meeting of experts 
should similarly be convened to discus the possibilities for Europe and the West. In 
this connection, national and international authorities, governmental and non-
governmental organisations and specialist scholars and practitioners actively engaged 
in heritage preservation should welcome and explore strategies to integrate – in a 
consistent and mutually beneficial way – the safeguarding of tangible and intangible 
heritage. In this connection, the conservation profession would surely benefit by 
being more willing to embrace the multiplicity of diverse and unique forms of 
cultural expression which together constitute the tangible and intangible heritages of 
humanity – the world-over. And public institutions (such as museums and galleries) 
should perhaps be more transparent with respect to their ‘in-house’ conservation-
restoration activities by (for instance) making readily accessible (to the public) 
records / documentation pertaining to this. 
 
In terms of leadership in the United Kingdom, the Department for Culture, Media 
                                               
57  The Yamoto Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible 
Cultural Heritage, 2004, Japan. Available from: 
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/Yamato_Declaration.pdf?URL_ID=238
63&filename=10988742599Yamato_Declaration.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=3564
5&name=Yamato_Declaration.pdf&location=user-S/ [Accessed on 15th February 2005]. 
 377 
and Sport (DCMS) might perhaps consider setting up a section (similar to that in 
France – discussed in Section 3.1.3) responsible for policies (e.g. legal), strategic 
development (e.g. the creation of national inventories to ensure appropriate 
stakeholder inclusion) and liaison at UNESCO-level. It might also consider proposals 
for potential funding for research, development and knowledge-transfer. With respect 
to this latter point, it is recommended that appropriate means of specialist training 
provision are identified and established – both formal and informal. This must be 
done in such a way to attract (potential) bearers of intangible heritage in a variety of 
disciplines. This might necessitate (for instance) a carefully considered selection 
process in order to ensure that: i. the bearer has the necessary knowledge; ii. that 
he/she should desire to promote their knowledge to inspire learning; iii. that he/she is 
willing and capable of passing this on; and iv. that an equally careful selection 
process is established for potential trainees. 
 
In addition to establishing a central authority for recognising, promoting and 
ensuring the direct transmission of intangible heritage, the living context should not 
be precluded. This would necessitate a broadly conceived approach, which might 
involve (for instance) liaison with specialists located in various regions and/or 
groups. Once identified (by selection based, for example, on a national inventory), 
mechanisms would need to be developed to ensure that it does not conflict with their 
interests; it would be quite inappropriate to expect specialists to pass on their 
knowledge if this was not in their personal interests to do so. For example, there may 
be significant cost factors to consider because it is (typically) time-consuming to pass 
on the kinds of knowledge that has (often) been inherited from several generations of 
practice. There may also be issues relating to the availability of tools and equipment 
or the limitations of the market etc. Appropriate levels of funding would therefore 
need to be awarded to bearers of intangible heritage in order to alleviate such 
difficulties and to create a harmonious situation for trainer and trainee. Such funding 
would be allocated by the DCMS (via the respective funding bodies) in recognition 
of its overall responsibility to the intangible heritage domain. 
 
All this said. One cannot overstate the magnitude and complexity of the 
recommendations suggested here. Essentially, it involves a change in thinking about 
heritage by the recognition of a much broader perspective. Therefore, in addition to 
 378 
the above, this must involve the various key institutions and authorities working 
together with the relevant stakeholders in order to generate the will – so that formal 
mechanisms can be implemented – and build capacities on a national (or indeed 
international) scale. This might involve, for instance, input from institutions of 
Higher Education – in particular museums and universities, which (this thesis has 
argued) have a central role to play; not least because of their responsibility to care for 
vast collections of tangible heritage, but also because this can be used to create 
awareness of the intangible through their numerous communication networks 
internationally. And teaching about intangible heritage would surely help to foster 
greater interest amongst subsequent generations. Such institutions might also 
establish greater links with the architectural sector on aspects of intangible heritage 
which could add to this momentum. 
 
Some of these ‘key’ institutions might also work in collaboration with the United 
Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO which is in regular liaison with 
UNESCO Headquarters, Paris (and thus in touch with current developments on the 
international scene). The UK Commission advises the DCMS on such broader 
developments (with the aim of establishing formal policies which provide direction 
and encourage outreach) but which also might create incentive for Government in 
general to recognise the vital role of intangible heritage – to our cultural and creative 
diversity, to our ‘fuller’ sense of inheritance and perhaps also as beneficial to the 
economy at large. This latter point might encourage support for small businesses 
(SME’s) which are (potentially) a dynamic source of intangible heritage. Indeed, 
there is a vast amount that can be achieved if a comparable effort was committed to 
the safeguarding of the intangible heritage as is presently being considered (for 
instance) with respect to ‘heritage science’.58 But it is important to acknowledge that 
it is likely to be some time before this ‘new’ perspective of intangible heritage 
(understood as the overarching paradigm) is fully realised in the United Kingdom. 
And to that extent, this thesis should be understood as a small step in that direction. 
 
With these suggestions in mind, Ralph Millard’s principle of ‘like-with-like’ 
                                               
58  See; Science and Heritage, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 9th Report of 
Session 2005-2006. Published by the authority of the House of Lords, London, The Stationary 
Office Ltd., Nov 2006. 
 379 
restoration / reconstruction in medical surgery (cited at the beginning of this 
conclusion) invites comment. Firstly, Millard upholds that if ‘like-with-like’ 
substitution cannot be accomplished, then one should use the next, ‘most similar 
tissue substitute’; the goal being ‘to camouflage the reconstruction as much as 
possible’. This is done in order to create an effect ‘as subtle as a chameleon changing 
colours’. Therefore, if the surgeon’s work can ‘pass unnoticed’, he/she is to be 
‘congratulated as having accomplished his/her task as a reconstructive surgeon’. 
Millard also makes clear that one should ‘avoid settling for the simplest procedure 
just for the sake of simplicity’ but acknowledges that more complex problems ‘may 
require more complex solutions’, and that ‘the simplest approach may be 
inadequate’. He also recommends that ‘a sound plan must provide restoration of 
function and aesthetic form’ which he explains are ‘the fundamental goals of plastic 
and reconstructive surgery’.59 
 
Now, although the conservation profession has sometimes been inspired by the idea 
of medical surgery (as evidenced in contemporary literature), clearly this approach 
cannot be applied to all heritages; for instance, it would be ridiculous to think that we 
should simply restore all heritage on this principle. No, it has been included here 
mainly to emphasise the fact that preserving the past concerns far more than 
retarding the decay of old materials and to make clear that the practice of restoration 
(in particular) is not ‘a necessary evil’ and that the historic arts and crafts do not 
constitute ‘faked expression’ but are in fact intimately connected to activities which 
in so many ways embody the past – a past manifested in the idea of the intangible. 
However, we are in real danger of losing all the wealth of knowledge tied up in a 
generation who have come to be the guardians of generations of practice and 
terminating a continuity (and all that this implies) that would otherwise sustain this 
legacy for the benefit of future generations. Whether specialists such as, Beckford, 
Sladden or Luckhurst, or the stonemasons at Lincoln, York, Wells or St Paul’s call 
themselves ‘conservers’ or ‘restorers’ does not matter. But the idea of intangible 
heritage, and the way this has in recent times impacted upon the cultural function of 
restoration, surely does matter. It is with this in mind that it is necessary to stress 
                                               
59 Dr. R. Millard, Principlization of Plastic Surgery, Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1986 – this 
appraisal cited from http://www.emedicine.co./plastic/topic241.htm [Accessed on 8th November 
2006]. 
 380 
here one last time, that it is ultimately our responsibility to safeguard this legacy. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 381 
Account of sources 
The account of sources is divided by seven sub-headings, as follows: ‘References’ – 
which includes all material referred to in the main text in a single alphabetical 
listing;60 ‘Personal communications’ – which includes electronic communications 
(such as emails) and interviews / discussions. The transcribed interviews / 
discussions are held in the Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College furniture 
archives;61 ‘Other personal communications’ includes other discussions (not 
transcribed); ‘Exhibitions’ – includes visits to various institutions; ‘Site visits’ – 
includes visits to various workshops / places of significance etc; ‘Conferences / 
seminars attended’ – provides details of those events attended; ‘Other useful 
websites’ – provides the web addresses for the various institutions / organisations; 
and finally, ‘Suggested further reading’ – provides other references (not referenced 
in the main text) that may be useful for further research. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                               
60  The single alphabetical listing (rather than divided by sub-headings for various kinds of literature) 
is based on P. Dunleavy, Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral 
Thesis or Dissertation, Palgrave MacMillan, 2003 who recommends the following: ‘A single 
unified bibliography arranged in a strict and predicable alphabetical ordering is best for all textual 
materials’ (p.130). 
61  These are filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Creativity and Culture (formerly 
Faculty of Design), Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe and may be 
made available by contacting Prof. Jake Kaner. 
 382 
References 
 
 
A 
 
AIC, Code of Ethics, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 
Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/pubs/ethics.html [Accessed on 31st January 2006]. 
ALCOUFFE, D. The Restorers’ Handbook of Furniture, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1977. 
ALLEN, S. Classic Finishing Techniques, Sterling, 1994. 
APPELBAUM, B. ‘Criteria for Treatment of Collections Housed in Historic Structures’, Journal of 
the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 33, Number 2, Article 9 (pp.185-191), 1994. 
Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic33-02-009.html [Accessed on 2nd June 
2005]. 
APPELBAUM, B. ‘Criteria for Treatment: Reversibility’, Journal of the American Institute for 
Conservation, Volume 26, Number 2, Article 1 (pp.65-73), 1987. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-001.html [Accessed on 9th July 2004]. 
Arts and Crafts Movement 1850-1915 (The) – information available from: 
http://www.artscrafts.org.uk/branches/handicrafts.html [Accessed on 15th May 2005]. 
ASHLEY-SMITH, J. ‘The Ethics of Conservation’ (1982), in C. Caple, Conservation Skills: 
Judgement, Method and Decision Making, Routledge, 2000 (p.59). 
Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, edited by  M. de la Torre, The Getty Conservation Institute, 
Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2002. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessing.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
October 2003]. 
 
 
B 
 
BACON, F. The Advancement of Learning, edited by G. Kitchin, Heron Books, 1861. 
BAMBURA, D. ‘Authenticity and Dignity – Heritage and Human Dimension’, in Proceedings of the 
Nara Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.279-282). 
BAMFORTH, N. ‘Ranjit Singh: The Lion of the Punjab’, Conservation Journal of the Victoria and 
Albert Museum, London, Number 31, April 1999 (pp.14-15). 
BAMFORTH, N. ‘Yomeimon of Toshogu’, Conservation Journal of the Victoria and Albert Museum, 
London, Number 49, Spring 2005 (pp. 8-9).  
BECK, J. and M. Daley, Art Restoration: The Culture, the Business, the Scandal, John Murray, 1993. 
BELLAH, R. ‘New Religious Consciousness and the Crisis of Modernity’, in Interpretive Social 
Science: A Reader, edited by P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan, University of California Press, 1979 
(pp.341-360). 
BENJAMIN, W. ‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’, 1936 (this version 
transcribed by A. Blunden (1998)); proofed and corrected in 2005. Available from: 
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm [Accessed on 15th 
July 2004]. 
BENNETT, M. Discovering and Restoring Antique Furniture, Cassell, 1990. 
BERGER, P. and S. Huntington, Many Globalizations: Cultural Diversity in the Contemporary 
World, Oxford University Press, 2003. 
BILEN, O. ‘The Historicity of Understanding and the Problem of Relativism in Gadamer’s 
Philosophical Hermeneutics’, Cultural Heritage and Contemporary Change, Series I, Culture and 
Values, Vol. 27, Council for Research and Values, 2001. 
BLAKE, J. ‘Safeguarding Traditional Culture and Folklore – Existing International Law and Future 
Developments’, in Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO 
Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and 
Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1999. Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/blake.htm [Accessed on 15th February 2005]. 
BLANCHFIELD, D. ‘The Research and Treatment of a Late 18th-Century Lyre Guitar: A 
Collaborative Effort’, in Wooden Artifacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of 
Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 1996. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/1996/WAG_96_blanchfield.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
 
 383 
Bologna Declaration on the European space for higher education: an explanation, prepared by the 
Confederation of European Union Rectors’ Conferences and the Association of European 
Universities (CRE). Full text available from: http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:Izb9AYBYZ-
UJ:www.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf+bologna+declaration&hl=en&
gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=2 [Accessed on 8th May 2005]. 
Bologna Process proposed at the University of Bologna, 1999. Full text available from: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bologna_process [Accessed on 19th September 2005]. 
Bologna process: next stop Bergen 2005, Europa – Education and Training. Available from: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna_en.html [Accessed on 28th 
January 2006]. 
BOUCHENAKI, M. ‘International Conservation Organizations’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, 14.3, 
1999. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/14_3/feature1_8.html [Accessed on 
26th January 2005]. 
BOUCHENAKI, M. ‘Views and Visions of the Intangible’, in Museum International No. 221-222, 
(Vol. 56. No. 1-2), Blackwell Publishing, 2004: (pp. 6-11). 
BOYLAN, P. ‘The ICOM Curricula Guidelines for Museum Professional Development and the 
extension of ICOM’s official role into the Living Intangible Heritage’. Presentation from the 
Concurrent Session Museums and Living Heritage, organised by ICME, The National Folk Museum 
of Korea, ICOM Korea and ICTOP, International Council of Museums (ICOM) General 
Conference, Seoul, Korea, Oct 2004. Available from: 
http://www.museumsnett.no/alias/HJEMMESIDE/icme/icme2004/boylan.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
December 2005]. Full text on Guidelines available from: http://www.city.ac.uk/ictop/curricula.html 
BRADFORD, S. ‘Global Steps to Local Empowerment in the Next Millennium’, in Safeguarding 
Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the 
Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.56-86). Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
BRANDI, C. ‘The Cleaning of Pictures in Relation to Patina, Varnish and Glazes’, in C. Brandi, 
Theory of Restoration, Nardini Editore, 2005 (pp.101-108). 
BRANDI, C. ‘Teoria del Restauro’ (1977), in F. Matero, ‘The Conservation of Immovable Cultural 
Property: Ethical and Practical Dilemmas’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, 
1993, Volume 32, Number 1, Article 2 (pp.15-21). 
BRANDI, C. Theory of Restoration, Nardini Editore, 2005 (original title Teoria del Restauro first 
published 1963). 
BRAUN, T. ‘A New Material for Producing Faux Tortoise-shell Fills’, in Wooden Artifacts Group 
Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 2002. 
Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2002/WAG_02_braun.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 
2006]. 
BRESSANI, M. ‘Notes on Viollet-le-Duc’s Philosophy of History: Dialectics and Technology’, in 
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians (JSAH) XLVIII: pp.327-350, 1989. 
BRINCH MADSEN, H. ‘Artifact conservation in Denmark at the beginning of the last century’ 
(1987), cited in E. Pye, Caring for the Past, James and James, 2001 (p.13). 
BROOKS, M. ‘International conservation codes of ethics and practice and their implications for 
teaching and learning ethics in textile conservation with special reference to the Diploma in Textile 
Conservation taught at the Textile Conservation Centre’ (1998), cited in C. Caple, Conservation 
Skills: Judgement, Method and Decision Making, Routledge, 2000 (p.59). 
BRUMFIELD, G. ‘Craft Apprenticeship in Historic Site Museums’, Volume 7, Number 2, Education 
and Training, May 2003, reprinted from G. Williams, Apprenticeship in Craft, Dan Clark Books, 
1981. Available from: http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byorg/abbey/an/an07/an07-2a/an07-a201.html 
[Accessed on 6th January 2005]. 
BUCK, R. ‘Prosthesis for Aphakia’, offprint from Miscellanea in Memoriam Paul Coremans (1908-
1965), in Bullitin de l’Institut royal du Patrimoine artistique, XV-1975. 
BURMAN, P. ‘A Question of Ethics’, article in The Conservation and Repair of Ecclesiastical 
Buildings, 1995. Available from: http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/ethics/ethics.htm 
[Accessed on 18th April 2004]. 
 
 
 
 
 384 
C 
 
CALDERARO, N. ‘An Outline History of Conservation in Archaeology and Anthropology as 
Presented through its Publications’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 26, 
Number 2, Article 3 (pp.85 to 204), 1987. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-003.html [Accessed 9th July 2004]. 
CAPLE, C. Conservation Skills: Judgement, Method and Decision Making, Routledge, 2000. 
CARLYLE, T. ‘Sign of the Times’, in The Collected Works of Thomas Carlyle, Chapman and Hall, 
1858 (first published in the Edinburgh Review, 1829). 
CARLYLE, T. Past and Present, New York University Press, 1977 (first published in 1843). 
CARR, M. ‘Lacquer Loss Compensation Revisited: More Big Holes in the Top’, in Wooden Artifacts 
Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 2003. 
Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2003/carr_03.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
CARR, M. and J. Driggers, ‘Loss Compensation of Lacquer on Two Chinese Tables’, in Wooden 
Artifacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 
(AIC) 1997. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/1997/WAG_97_carr.pdf [Accessed 3rd 
August 2006]. 
CASSAR, M. ‘Education and training needs for the conservation and protection of cultural heritage: Is 
it a case of one size fits all? In Cultural Heritage Research: a pan-European Challenge, Cracow, 
16th-18th May 2002. Available from: 
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainableheritage/learning/MCCracow.htm [Accessed on 4th June 2004]. 
CASSON, H. ‘United Kingdom Museums Association Conference’ (1960), cited by R. Strong 
‘Obituary for Sir Hugh Casson’ (1999), in E. Pye, Caring for the Past, James and James, 2001 
(p.73). 
CEN, Conservation of Cultural Property, annex to BT N 6732. European Committee for 
Standardisation, Technical Board, December 2003. Available from: http://www.encore-
edu.org/encore/encoredocs/9732.pdf [Accessed on 15 January 2005]. 
Charter of Cracow, drafted at the International Conference on Conservation, Cracow, 2000. Available 
from: http://www.tscont.ts.it/pag5-e.htm [Accessed on 18th April 2004]. 
CHOAY, F. ‘Seven Propositions on the Concept of Authenticity’, in Proceedings of the Nara 
Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.297-299). 
CLAVIR, M. ‘Reflections on Changes in Museums and the Conservation of Collections from 
Indigenous Peoples’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 35, Number 2, 
Article 2 (pp.99-107), 1996. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic35-02-002.html 
[Accessed on 9th July 2004]. 
CLEERE, H. ‘The Evaluation of Authenticity in the Context of the World Heritage Convention’, in 
Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.57-
66). 
CON.BE.FOR, Conservator-Restorers of Cultural Heritage in Europe: Education Centres and 
Institutes. A Comparative Research. CON.BE.FOR. Associaziones Giovanni Secco Suardo, Laruno 
(BG), Italy, 2000. 
Conflict in the Archaeology of Living Traditions, One World Archaeology, edited by R. Layton, 
Routledge, 1988. 
Conservation of Decorative Arts (The), edited by V. Horie, Archetype Publications, the United 
Kingdom Institute of Conservation (UKIC), 1999. 
Conserving Culture: A New Discourse on Heritage, edited by M. Hufford, University of Illinois Press, 
1994. 
Conserving the Textile Traditions of Oaxaca, edited by K. Klein, Getty Conservation Institute, 1997. 
Convergence Consultation Document, ‘Questionnaire Feedback Report’, Bluespark Consulting, May 
2005. Available from: http:///www.bapcr.org.uk/Convergence%20Consultation%20Document.htm 
[Accessed 11th March 2005]. 
CRAMER F. ‘Durability and change: a biochemist’s view’ (1994), cited in E. Pye, Caring for the 
Past, James and James, 2001 (p.74). 
Culture of Craft (The), edited by P. Dormer, Manchester University Press, 1997. 
Cultures of Globalisation (The), edited by F. Jameson and M. Miyoshi, Duke University Press, 1998. 
 
 
 
 385 
D 
 
DALY HARTIN, D. ‘An Historical Introduction to Conservation’ (1990), cited in E. Pye, Caring for 
the Past, James and James, 2001 (pp.40-41). 
DAWSON, C. The Crisis of Western Education, Sheed and Ward, New York, 1961. 
Declaration of Oaxaca (The), adopted at the Seminar on Education, Work and Cultural Pluralism, 
convened by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and 
the Mexican National Commission for UNESCO, 1993. Available from: 
http://www.icomos.org/unesco/oaxaca.html [Accessed on 3rd December 2004]. 
Declaration of San Antonio (The) held at the InterAmerican Symposium on Authenticity in the 
Conservation and Management of the Cultural Heritage in association with ICOMOS National 
Committees, San Antonio, Texas, United States of America, 1996. Available from: 
http://www.icomos.org/docs/san_antonio.html [Accessed on 3rd December 2004]. 
DELLER, C. ‘French polish from a conservator’s point of view: Some ideas for a better coating’, in 
Wooden Artefacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic 
Works (AIC), 1998. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/1998/WAG_98_deller.pdf 
[Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
DEMEL, S. Architectural Additions, MA Thesis, 1997. Available from: http://www.demel.net/th-
ch1.html [Accessed on 3rd December 2004]. 
DENNEY, M. Arts and Crafts and Vernacular Furniture, PhD Thesis, 1997. 
Destruction and Conservation of Cultural Property, edited by R. Layton, P. Stone and J. Thomas, 
Routledge, 2001. 
Document of Pavia (The). Available from: http://www.encore-edu.org/encore/documents/Pavia.html 
[Accessed on 18th April 2004]. 
Document of Vienna (The), 1998. Available from: http:www.encore-
edu.org/encore/documents/vienna.htm  [Accessed on 18th April 2004]. 
DODDS, R. ‘Knowing ways / ways of knowing: reconciling science and tradition’, in Debates in 
World Archaeology, Volume 36(4): pp.547-557, Routledge, 2004. Available from: 
http://taylorandfrancis.metapress.com/(02gwegaqzkncc14511nbgd45)/app/home/contribution.asp?re
ferrer=parent&backto=issue,9,18;journal,8,24;linkingpublicationresults,1:104736,1 [Accessed on 
15th October 2005]. 
DONKIN, L. Crafts and Conservation: Synthesis Report for ICCROM, International Centre for the 
Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), e-doc 2004/02, 
Version 1.0, released 2004. Available from: http://www.iccrom.org/eng/02info_en/02_04pdf-
pubs_en/ICCROM_doc02_CraftsandConservation.pdf [Accessed on 5th July 2005]. 
DORGE, V. ‘Photographic Reproductions Used to Replace Decorative Veneer Losses on a Small 
Sewing Box’, in Wooden Artifacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of 
Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 1992. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/1992/WAG_92_dorge.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
DREYFUS, S.E. (1981) and H.L. Dreyfus (1984) ‘Novice to Expert Scale’, cited in Professional 
Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers (PACR) ‘Candidate Pack’, Institute of Conservation, July 
2003 (updated 2005). Available from: http://www.pacr.org.uk/docs/pacr_candidate_packv2005.pdf 
[Accessed on 9th Mat 2006]. 
DROSTE, B. von and U. Bertilsson, ‘Authenticity and World Heritage’, in Proceedings of the Nara 
Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.3-15). 
DUNLEAVY, P. Authoring a PhD: How to Plan, Draft, Write and Finish a Doctoral Thesis or 
Dissertation, Palgrave MacMillan, 2003. 
DYKSTRA, S. ‘The Artist’s Intentions and the Intentional Fallacy in Fine Arts Conservation’, 
Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 35, Number 3, Article 3, 1996 (pp.197-
218). Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic35-03-003.html [Accessed on 20th 
October 2003]. 
 
 
E 
 
EASTER, J. ‘Craft and Art in France (or, the need to keep up the good work)’, in Furniture in 
France: 2004, Wooden Artefacts Group (WAG) of the American Institute for Conservation (AIC), 
2004 (pp.62-63). Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2004/France2004.pdf [Accessed on 
15th April 2006]. 
 386 
EASTOP, D. and K. Gill, Upholstery Conservation: principles and practice, Butterworth-Heinemann, 
2001. 
ECCO – ENCoRE Paper on Education and Access to the Conservation Profession, approved by the 
General Assembly of ECCO (Brussels 7th March 2003) and by the General Assembly of ENCoRE 
(Turin 9th May 2003). Available from: 
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:pI5e81kbemIJ:www.encore.edu.org/encore/encoredocs/ECCO
-ENCoRE.pdf+ecco+-+encore+Paper+%22access+to+the+conservation- 
restoration+profession%22&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1 [Accessed 15th March 2005]. 
ECCO, Professional Guidelines (I): The Role of the Conservator-Restorer, Official documents of the 
European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers’ Organisations (ECCO), adopted by its General 
Assembly, Brussels, 1993. Available from: http://www.ecco-
eu.info/index.php?container_id=163&doc_id=170 [Accessed on 1st February 2006]. 
ECCO, Professional Guidelines (II): Obligations towards Cultural Property. Official documents of 
the European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers’ Organisations (ECCO), adopted by its 
General Assembly, Brussels, 1993. Available from: http://www.ecco-
eu.info/index.php?container_id=163&doc_id=170 [Accessed on 1st February 2006]. 
ECCO, Professional Guidelines (III): Basic Requirements for Education in Conservation / 
Restoration. Official documents of the European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers’ 
Organisations (ECCO), adopted by its General Assembly, Brussels, 1994. Available from: 
http://www.ecco-eu.info/index.php?container_id=163&doc_id=170 [Accessed on 1st February 
2006]. 
ECCO-ENCoRE Draft Proposal for Amendment to P6_TA-PROV(2005)0173, Recognition of 
professional qualifications ***II. Section X, Article 3: Acquired rights specific to conservation-
restoration practitioners/conservator-restorers. Annex I.1 Conservator-restorer, 1.1.1 ‘Knowledge 
and Skills’. Official documents of the European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers’ 
Organisations (ECCO), June 2005. 
Economics and Heritage Conservation, edited by R. Mandy, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los 
Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1999. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/econrpt.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
May 2006]. 
EDWARDS, C. ‘The Castration of Skill?’ in Obscure objects of Desire: Reviewing the Crafts of the 
20th-Century, edited by T. Harrod, Crafts Council, 1997 (p.350). 
ELLIS, L. and A. Higginbotham, ‘An Evaluation of Four Barrier Coatings and Epoxy Combinations 
in the Structural Repair of Wooden Objects’, in Wooden Artefacts Group Postprints, American 
Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 2002. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2002/WAG_02_ellis.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
ENCoRE, Background to European Network for Conservation-Restoration Education (ENCoRE) – 
documents available from: http://www.encore-edu.org/encore/AboutENCoRE.html [Accessed on 
7th February 2005]. 
European Higher Education Area: joint Declaration of the European Ministers of Education, 
Bologna, 1999. Available from: http://www.encore-edu,org/encore/documents/bologna.htm 
[Accessed on 7th February 2005]. 
Exhibiting cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, edited by I. Karp and S. Lavine, 
Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991. 
 
 
F 
 
FAGAN, B. ‘A Responsibility for the Past: Integrating Conservation and Archaeology’, Conservation 
at the Getty, Newsletter 18.1, 2003. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/18_1/feature.html [Accessed on 22nd 
June 2005]. 
FEILDEN, B. ‘Conservation – Is There No Limit? – A Review’, in Journal of Architectural 
Conservation, Volume 1, Number 1 March 1995. Available from: 
http://www.donhead.com/vol1.htm [Accessed on 3rd December 2004]. 
FITZ, S. ‘Saving Cultural Heritage in Germany: A Spotlight on the Present Situation at the Beginning 
of the New Millennium’, 2001. Available from: http://www.arcchip.cz/w06/w06_fitz.pdf [Accessed 
18th October 2004]. 
FLICK, U. An Introduction to Qualitative Research, Sage 2002 (first published in 1998). 
 
 387 
FMB, ‘Fired by Conservation’ (author not stated), Master Builder, Federation of Master Builders, 
August 2004.  
FODDY, W. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires, Cambridge, 1993  
FOLEY, K.  ‘Conservation Future Challenges’ (1999), cited in E. Pye, Caring for the Past, James and 
James, 2001 (p.175). 
FOLEY, K. ‘Education and Training for Practice’, in Archaeological Conservation, Training and 
Employment, papers presented at a meeting organised by the Archaeological Section of the United 
Kingdom Institute of Conservation (UKIC), 1991 (pp.27-28). 
FOLEY, K. ‘FULCO, a framework for competence for professional conservation-restoration practice: 
the project discussed’, in ICOM Committee for Conservation Preprints of the 12th Triennial Meeting 
Lyon 29th Aug-3rd Sept, 1999, James and James, 1999 (pp.139-146). 
FOLEY, K. and S. Scholten, ‘FULCO – a Framework of Competence for Conservator-Restorers in 
Europe’ (1998), cited in E. Pye, Caring for the Past, James and James, 2001 (p.175). 
FOLEY, K. Education and Training in Conservation: A Report for the Conservation Unit of the 
Museums and Galleries Commission, Museum and Galleries Commission, London, 1989. 
FRIEDLANDER, M. ‘On Restorations’, in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of 
Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The 
Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 (pp.332-334). 
From William Morris: Building Conservation and the Arts and Crafts Cult of Authenticity 1877-1939, 
edited by C. Miele, Yale University Press, 2005. 
Future of the Past: Attitudes to Conservation 1174-1974 (The), edited by J. Fawcett, Thames and 
Hudson, London, 1976. 
 
 
G 
 
GADAMER, H-G. Truth and Method, Sheed and Ward, 1975. 
GARCES, E. ‘Heritage, policies of memory and the institutionalization of culture’, in City and Time 
2(1): 2, 2006. Available from: http://www.ct.ceci-br.org [Accessed on 15th February 2006]. 
GEAR, J., A. McIntosh and G. Squires, ‘Informal learning in the professions’ (1994), cited in S. 
Lester, ‘Professional bodies, CPD and informal learning: the case of conservation’, in Continuing 
Professional Development 3 (4), 1999 (pp.110-121). Available from: 
http:www.devmts.demon.co.uk/cpd.htm [Accessed on 6th February 2006]. 
GETTY, ‘Finding a Certain Balance: A Discussion about Surface Cleaning’ (joint discussion), Getty 
Conservation Newsletter, 15.3, 2000. Available from: 
http://www.edu/conservation/resources/newsletter/15_3/dialogue.html [Accessed on 22nd January 
2004]. 
GILBERG, M. ‘Alfred Lucas: Egypt’s Sherlock Holmes’, Journal of the American Institute for 
Conservation, Volume 36, Number 1, Article 3 (pp.31 to 48), 1997. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic36-01-003_1.html [Accessed 2nd February 2003]. 
GILBERG, M. ‘Friedrich Rathgen: The Father of Modern Archaeological Conservation’, Journal of 
the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 26, Number 2, Article 4 (pp.105 to 120), 1987. 
Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic26-02-004_1.html [Accessed 15th October 
2003]. 
Gilded Wood: Conservation and History, edited by C. Hutchins, Sound View Press, 1991. 
GILL, K. ‘The development in upholstery conservation as a practice of investigation, interpretation 
and preservation’, Reviews in Conservation, the International Institute for Conservation (ICON), 
Number 5, 2004. 
Globalisation and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Opportunities, Threats and Challenges, held at the 
United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan, 26th-27th August 2004. Available from: 
http://portal.unesco.org/fr/ev.php-
URL_ID=22099&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html 
GLOVER, H. ‘Two Furnishings from Strawberry Hill: Exploration and Treatment’, in Wooden 
Artifacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 
(AIC), 2002. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2002/WAG_02_glover.pdf [Accessed 
3rd August 2006]. 
GODWIN, K. ‘William Morris’ ‘New and Lighter Design’, in The Journal of the William Morris 
Society, Vol. II, No. 3, 1968. 
 
 
 388 
GUTIERREZ-CORTINES, C. ‘Cultural Heritage Research: a view from the European Parliament’, 
Welcome addresses and plenary lectures. Available from:  
http://www.heritage.xtd.pl/pdf/full_gutierrez-cortines.pdf [Accessed on 26th October 2005] 
GUTIERREZ-CORTINES, C. ‘Session summaries’, keynote speaker at the 6th European Commission 
Conference on Sustaining Europe’s Cultural Heritage: From Research to Policy, held at the Queen 
Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London, United Kingdom, 1st-3rd September 2004, 
Centre for Sustainable Heritage, University College London. Text available from: 
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainableheritage/conference-proceedings/session-summaries/cortines.html 
 
 
H 
 
HACKNEY, S. in L. Backhouse, Work Placement in the Frame Conservation Department of the Tate 
Gallery, 30th Aug-28th Oct 2005, BSc(Hons) Restoration and Conservation, Sir John Cass 
Department of Art, Media and Design, London Metropolitan University, submitted December 2005. 
HACKNEY, S. ‘The Development of Conservation Science at the Tate Gallery’, in The Interface 
between Science and Conservation, edited by S. Bradley, British Museum Occasional Paper, 
No.116, British Museum, 1997 (pp. 9-13). 
Hague Convention, Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed 
Conflict: ‘The Hague Convention’, The Hague (1954), entering force in 1956. Full text available 
from: http://www.icomos.org/hague/ [Accessed on 30th September 2005]. 
HARPAINTER, M. ‘Tips on Removable Upholstery Caps and Backing Fretted Panels’, in Wooden 
Artefacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 
(AIC), 2002. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2002/WAG_02_harpainter.pdf 
[Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
HARRISON, P. The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science, Cambridge University 
Press, 1998. 
HAYWARD, C. Antique Furniture Repairs, Evans Brothers, 1976. 
HEGEL, G. Phenomenology of Spirit (translated by A. Miller), Oxford University Press, 1979. 
HELD, K. ‘The Origin of Europe with the Greek Discovery of the World’ (translated by S. Kirkland), 
in Epoche, Volume 7, Issue 1, 2002 (pp.81-105). 
HIGINBOTHAM, A. ‘What’s Old is New: B-72 and the Treatment of Degraded Furniture Finishes’, 
in Wooden Artefacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic 
Works (AIC), 2001. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2001/WAG_01_heginbotham.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
Historic Environment: A Force for the Future (The), Department for Culture, Media and Sport 
(DCMS), 2001. Available from:  
http://www.culture.gov.uk/global/publications/archive_2001/his_force_future.htm [Accessed on 
27th April 2006]. 
Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley 
Price, M. Kirby Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul 
Getty Trust, 1996. 
HLF, ‘Heritage Lottery Fund new £4million bursary scheme to save heritage skills’, The National 
Lottery Good Causes Portal, Heritage Lottery Fund, (no date stated). Available from: 
http://www.lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/includes/print_page.cfm [Accessed 14th February 2005]. 
HLF, Sustaining our Living Heritage, Heritage Lottery Fund, 2002. Available from: 
http://www.hlf.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AF4898F5-ADD7-4735-BC01-
D2080BEC62B4/0/sustaining_heritage.pdf [Accessed on 27th April 2006]. 
HOENIGER, C. ‘The Restoration of the Early Italian “Primitives” During the 20th Century: Valuing 
Art and its Consequences’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 38, Number 
2, Article 3 (pp. 144 to 161), 1999. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic38-02-
003.html [Accessed 15th October 2003]. 
HOOPER-GREENHILL, E. Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge, Routledge, 1992. 
HUNTINGTON, S. The Clash of Civilizations: And the Remaking of World Order, Free Press, 2002.  
HUSSERL, E. ‘Philosophy and the Crisis of European Man’, lecture delivered in Vienna, 10th May 
1935 (‘The Vienna Lecture’), in Edmund Husserl, Phenomenology and the Crisis of Philosophy, 
(translated with Notes and an Introduction by Quentin Lauer), Harper Torchbooks, 1965. 
 
 
 
 389 
I 
 
ICOM Chronology 1946-1998, International Council of Museums (ICOM). Available from: 
http://icom.museums/chronology.html [Accessed on 12th February 2006]. 
ICOM, ‘Museums and Cultural Diversity: Policy Statement’, Report of the Working Group on Cross 
Cultural Issues of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), presented at the 89th session of 
the Executive Council of ICOM, 1997. Web version prepared by P. Boylan, City University, 
London, 1998. Available from: http://wwwicom.museum/diversity.html [Accessed on 7th February 
2005]. 
ICOM, ‘The Conservator-Restorer: A Definition of the Profession’, ICOM – Code of Ethics, 
International Council of Museums (ICOM), 1984. Available from: http://www.encore-
edu.org/encore/documents/ICOM1984.html [Accessed on 18th April 2004]. 
ICOM, Development of the Museum Definition according to ICOM Statutes (1946-2001), 
International Council of Museums (ICOM) Statutes, amended by the 20th General Assembly of 
ICOM, Barcelona, Spain, July 2001. Available from: http://icom.museum/hist_def_eng.html 
[Accessed on 20th May 2006]. 
ICOM-CC, ‘A Qualified Community: towards internationally agreed standards of qualification for 
conservation’, in Proceedings of the Interim Meeting of the Working Group on Training in 
Conservation and Restoration of the ICOM-CC, Maastricht, 6th-8th April 1995, edited by J. Cronyn 
and K. Foley, International Council of Museums (ICOM) Committee for Conservation, 1996. 
ICOM-CC, ‘Role of Science in Conservation Training’, in Proceedings of the Interim Meeting of the 
Working Group on Training in Conservation and Restoration of the ICOM-CC,  British Museum, 
6th-10th October 1986, edited by C. Pearson, International Council of Museums (ICOM) Committee 
for Conservation, 1996. 
ICOMOS – UNESCO, Intangible Heritage Bibliography, 2005. Centre of Documentation, 
International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS). Available from: 
http://www.international.icomos.org/centre_documentation/intangible.pdf 
ICOMOS, ‘Place – memory – meaning: preserving intangible values in monuments and sites’, 
ICOMOS 14th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium, Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe 27th-31st 
October 2003. Full text available from: 
http://www.international.icomos.org/victoriafalls2003/papers.htm [Accessed on 12th January 2005]. 
ICOMOS, Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments: ‘The Athens Charter’, adopted 
at the First International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, Athens, 
1931. Available from: http://www.icomos.org/athens_charter.html [Accessed on 18th April 2004]. 
ICOMOS, Australian ICOMOS Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Significance: ‘The 
Burra Charter’, adopted by the Australian National Committee of ICOMOS, 1979. Updated version 
available from: http://www.icomos.org/australia/burra.html [Accessed on 14th May 2004]. 
ICOMOS, Charter on the Built Vernacular Heritage, ratified by the ICOMOS 12th General Assembly, 
held in Mexico, 2000. Available from: http://www.international.icomos.org/vernac-eng.htm 
[Accessed on 22nd January 2005]. 
ICOMOS, The International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites: 
‘The Venice Charter’, held at the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of 
Historic Monuments, International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), Venice, 1964. 
Available from: http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
INSALL, D. ‘Kelmscott Manor, the Home of William Morris and its Repair for the Society of 
Antiquaries London’, 1968. Available from: 
http://www.international.icomos.org/monumentum/vol8/vol8_2.pdf#search=%22kelmscott%20man
or%20the%20home%20of%20william%20morris%22 [Accessed on 30th September 2003]. 
Interface between Science and Conservation (The), edited by S. Bradley, British Museum Occasional 
Paper No. 116, British Museum, 1997. 
ITO, N. ‘“Authenticity” Inherent in Cultural Heritage in Asia and Japan’, in Proceedings of the Nara 
Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.35-45). 
 
 
J 
 
JAMES, D. Upholstery Restoration, Guild of Master Craftsman, 1997. 
JEDRZEJEWSKA, H. ‘Ethics in Conservation’ (1976), cited in C. Caple, Conservation Skills: 
Judgement, Method and Decision Making, Routledge, 2000 (p.59). 
 390 
JOKILEHTO, J. ‘Considerations on Authenticity and Integrity in World Heritage Context’, in City 
and Time 2(1): 1, 2006. Available from: http://www.ct.ceci-br.org [Accessed on 15th February 
2006]. 
JOKILEHTO, J. A History of Architectural Conservation, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999. 
JOKILHETO, J. ‘Authenticity: A General Framework for the Concept’, in Proceedings of the Nara 
Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp. 17-34). 
 
 
K 
 
KECK, C. ‘Salute to Paul Coremans’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 30, 
Number 1, Article 1 (pp. 01 to 02), 1991. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic30-
01-001_indx.html [Accessed 16th October 2003]. 
KECK, C. ‘The Position of Conservation in the Last Quarter of the Twentieth Century’, Journal of the 
American Institute for Conservation, Volume 18, Number 1, Article 1, 1978 (pp.3-7). Available 
from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic18-01-001.html [Accessed on 12th October 2003]. 
KECK, S. ‘Some Picture Cleaning Controversies: Past and Present’, Journal of the American Institute 
for Conservation, Volume 23, Number 2, Article 1 (pp. 73 to 87), 1984. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic35-03-003.html [Accessed 9th July 2004]. 
KENT, D. cited in ‘A Hard Truth’, article by Naomi Marks in Cornerstone, The Magazine for the 
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, Vol. 27, No.4, 2006 (pp.45-46).  
KINDRED, B. ‘Proposed UNESCO Convention on the Intangible Heritage: Implications for the 
Institute of Historic Building Conservation’. Available from: 
http://www.ihbc.org.uk/Unesco/intengible_assets.html [Accessed on 14th February 2005]. 
KIRKINEN, H. ‘Problems of Traditional Culture and Folklore in Europe’, in Safeguarding 
Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the 
Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1999. Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/kirkenen.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
KOLLER, M. ‘Surface Cleaning and Conservation’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, 15.3, 2000. 
Available from: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/newsletter/15_3/feature1.html 
[Accessed on 22nd January 2004]. 
KOPYTOFF, I. ‘The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process’ (1986), cited in E. 
Pye, Caring for the Past, James and James, 2001 (p.74). 
KRESTEV, T. ‘Cultural Diversity and the Concept of Authenticity’, in Proceedings of the Nara 
Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.343-345). 
KRISHNA MENON, A.G. ‘Conservation in India – a search for direction’, in Research, Abstracts 
and Texts: Conservation in India, 2002. Available from: http://www.architexturez.net/+/subject-
listing/000058.shtml [Accessed on 14th December 2004]. 
KUHN, T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, International Encyclopaedia of Unified Science, 
Volume 2, Number 2, University of Chicago Press, 1962. 
KURIN, R. ‘The UNESCO Questionnaire on the Application of the 1989 Recommendation on the 
Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore: Preliminary Results’, in Safeguarding Traditional 
Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of 
Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.17-31). Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
KURTZ, D. ‘Up the Creek without a Paddle: The History and Conservation of an 1870’s Birch Bark 
Canoe’, in Wooden Artefacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic and 
Artistic Works (AIC), 1997. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/1997/WAG_97_kurtz.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
KUTNEY, M., C. Swan and C. Howlett, ‘Conservator, Curator, Craftsman: Collaborations at Colonial 
Williamsburg’, in Wooden Artifacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of 
Historic and Artistic Works (AIC), 1996. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/1996/WAG_96_kutney.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
 
 
 
 391 
L 
 
LAENEN, M. ‘Authenticity in Relation to Development’, in Proceedings of the Nara Conference on 
Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.351-357). 
LAMEI, S. ‘Authenticity and the Egyptian Heritage Diversity’, in Proceedings of the Nara 
Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.359-361). 
LANGFORD, R. ‘Our Heritage – Your Playground’ (1983), cited in K. Puri, ‘Protection of 
Traditional Culture and Folklore’, in Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment of 
the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, 
Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.43-
50). Available from: http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th 
October 2003]. 
LARSEN, R. ‘Clarification of Conservation / Restoration Education at University Level or 
Equivalent’, European Network for Conservation-Restoration Education (ENCoRE) 3rd General 
Assembly, Munich, Germany, June 2001. Available from: http://www.encore-
edu.org/encore/encoredocs/cp.pdf [Accessed on 15th January 2005]. 
LARSEN, R. ‘Comments to FULCO – A Framework of Competence for Conservator-Restorers in 
Europe’. A Discussion Paper for the Vienna Meeting 30th Nov-1st Dec 1998. European Network for 
Conservation-Restoration Education (ENCoRE) Newsletter, March 1999. Available from: 
http://www.kulturnet.dk/homes/ks/encore/ [Accessed on 7th February 2005]. 
LARSEN, R. ‘Report of the Chairman of the Board on 4th General Assembly’, European Network for 
Conservation-Restoration Education (ENCoRE), 2002. Available from: http://www.encore-
edu.org/encore/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=201 [Accessed on 15th January 2005]. 
Lausanne Charter (The), Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage 
(‘The Lausanne Charter’), International Committee for the Management of Archaeological Heritage 
(ICAHM), approved by the 9th General Assembly, Lausanne, 1990. Available from: 
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf [Accessed on 15th January 2005]. 
LESTER, S. ‘Becoming a profession: conservation in the United Kingdom’, in Journal of the Society 
of Archivists, volume 23, number 1 (pp. 87 to 94), 2002. Available from: 
http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/consprof.htm [Accessed on 21st January 2003]. 
LESTER, S. ‘Professional bodies, CPD and informal learning: the case of conservation’, in 
Continuing Professional Development 3 (4), 1999 (pp. 110-121) Available from: 
http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/cpd.htm [Accessed on 6th February 2006]. 
LESTER, S. ‘The Professional Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers: developing a competence-
based professional assessment system’, in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (4), 
2000 (pp. 407 to 409). Available from: http:www.devmts.demon.co.uk/pacr.htm [Accessed on 21st 
January 2003]. 
Lethaby Scholarship (The), Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB). Available from: 
http://www.spab.org.uk/edcuation_scholarship_history.html [Accessed on 15th May 2005]. 
Lausanne Charter (The), Charter for the Protection and Management of Archaeological Heritage 
(‘The Lausanne Charter’), International Committee for the Management of Archaeological Heritage 
(ICAHM), approved by the 9th General Assembly, Lausanne, 1990. Available from: 
http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/arch_e.pdf [Accessed on 15th January 2005]. 
LEVIN, J. ‘The Future of Conservation’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, 6.1, 1991. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/pf/PF [Accessed on 8th February 2005]. 
LOWENTHAL, D. ‘Age and artefact: dilemmas of appreciation’ (1979), cited in E. Pye, Caring for 
the Past, James and James, 2001 (p.74). 
LOWENTHAL, D. ‘Changing Criteria of Authenticity’, in Proceedings of the Nara Conference on 
Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.121-135). 
LOWENTHAL, D. ‘Possessed by the Past: The Heritage Crusade and the Spoils of History’ (1996), 
cited in C. Caple, Conservation Skills, Judgement, Method and Decision Making, Routledge, 2000 
(p.140). 
LUFT, S. ‘Husserl’s Theory of Phenomenological Reduction: Between Life-World and Cartesianism’, 
in Research in Phenomenology, 34 (pp. 198-234), The Netherlands, 2004. 
LYNCH, G. Brickwork: History, Technology and Practice, Donhead, 1994. 
 
 
 392 
M 
 
MADDEN, C.A. and V. A. Mitchell, ‘Professions, standards and competence: a survey of continuing 
education for the professions’ (1993), cited in S. Lester, ‘Professional bodies, CPD and informal 
learning: the case of conservation’, in Continuing Professional Development 3 (4), 1999 (pp.110-
121). Available from: http:www.devmts.demon.co.uk/cpd.htm [Accessed on 6th February 2006]. 
Maintenance Education and Training for Listed Buildings ‘Maintain our Heritage’, submitted by De 
Montfort Expertise Limited, Leicester, 2003. Available from: 
http://www.maintainourheritage.co.uk/pdf/module6intro.pdf [Accessed on 15th December 2005]. 
MARCUSE, H. One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, 
Routledge, 1964. 
MASON, R. ‘Assessing Values in Conservation Planning’, in Assessing the Values of Cultural 
Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2002 (pp.5-30). 
Available from: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessing.pdf 
[Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
MATERO, F. ‘Ethics and Policy in Conservation’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, Volume 15, 
Number 1, 2000. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/newsletter/15_1/feature1_2.html [Accessed 22nd 
January 2003]. 
MATSUURA, K. ‘Towards a Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage’, Press 
Release No. 2003-15, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 
UNESCOPRESS, February 2003. Available from: http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=9712&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed on 13th 
October 2003]. 
MATSUURA, K. speaking at the ‘First Meeting of the Jury named to select Masterpieces of the Oral 
and Intangible Heritage’, June, 2000, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organisation (UNESCO) Office of Public Information (OPI). Available from: 
http://www.unesco.org/bpi/eng/unescopress/2000/00-60e.shtml [Accessed on 13th October 2003]. 
MATSUURA, K. speaking at the ‘First Meeting of the Jury named to select Masterpieces of the Oral 
and Intangible Heritage’, June, 2000 in UNESCO to protect Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible 
Heritage of Humanity, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO) Office of Public Information (OPI). Available from: 
http://www.unesco.org/bpi/eng/unescopress/2000/00-48e.shtml [Accessed on 13th October 2003]. 
McCANN, A., J. Early, A. Harowitz, R. Kurin, L. Prosterman, A Seeger and P. Seitel, ‘The 1989 
Recommendation Ten Years on: Towards a Critical Analysis’, in Safeguarding Traditional 
Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of 
Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian 
Institution, Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.31-35). Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
McINTOSH, A. (Minister for Media and Heritage), speaking at the launch of the National Heritage 
Training Group research Building on the Past: Training for the Future: published in ‘English 
Heritage and CITB-ConstructionSkills tackle skills crisis with the National Heritage Training 
Group’, Oct 2003. Available from: http://www.citb.co.uk/news/press-releases/pr-20031029.asp 
[Accessed on 7th January 2005]. 
MENSCH, P. van, ‘Magpies on Mount Helicon’, paper presented at the joint meeting of ICOFOM and 
MINOM during the General Conference of the International Council of Museums (ICOM), 
Stavanger, 4th July, 1995, in Museum and Community, ICOFOM Study Series 25 (pp.133-138), 
Stavanger, 1995. Available from: 
http://www.mus.ahk.nl/03_onderzoek_ontwikkeling/03_publicaties/13_1996/magpies.jsp [Accessed 
on 14th February 2005]. 
MENSCH, P. van, Towards a Methodology for Museology, PhD thesis, University of Zagrab, 1992.  
MILNER, C. ‘One for all and all for one: a new single voice for conservation’, Journal of the 
National Preservation Office, 2003. Available from: 
http://www.instituteofconservation.org.uk/archive/nccr/docs/oneforall_sep03.pdf [Accessed on 11th 
March 2005]. 
MORA, P., L. Mora and P. Philippot, ‘Problems of Presentation’, in Historical and Philosophical 
Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley (Jr.) 
and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 (pp. 343-
354). 
 
 393 
MORRIS, W. Manifesto of the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, 1877. Available from: 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1877/spabman.html 
MUJICA, E. ‘Authenticity and Heritage Diversity: Archaeological Sites and Cultural Landscapes in 
the Andean Countries’, in Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage 
Centre, 1995 (pp.233-250). 
MURCH, A. People Development in Museums and Galleries, 2000. Available from: 
http://www.hlf.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/81B1E074-A75D-4D3F-387951F72D17/0/needs_people.pdf 
[Accessed on 15th March 2006]. 
Museum Provision and Professionalism, edited by G. Kavanagh, Routledge, 1994. 
 
 
N 
 
Nara Document on Authenticity (The), drafted at the Nara Conference on Authenticity in relation to 
the World Heritage Convention, Nara, Japan, 1994. Available from: 
http://www.international.icomos.org/naradoc_eng.htm [Accessed on 14th May 2004]. 
NCCR, Introduction to the Professional Accreditation Scheme, PACR 1, National Council for 
Conservator-Restorers (NCCR), April 2001. Available from: http://www.ipc.org.uk/PACR1.doc 
[Accessed on 15th January 2004]. 
NCCR, Professional Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers (PACR), Candidate Pack, National 
Council for Conservator-Restorers (NCCR), July 2003 (updated 2005). Available from: 
http://www.pacr.org.uk/docs/pacr_candidate_packv2005.pdf [Accessed on 9th May 2006]. 
NCCR, Professionalisation of Conservator-Restorers (PACR), Continuing Professional Development: 
Principles, National Council for Conservation-Restoration (NCCR), 2005. Available from: 
http://www.ipc.org.uk [Accessed on 15th January 2004]. 
New Museology (The), edited by Peter Vergo, Reaktion Books, 1989. 
NIETZSCHE, F. The Gay Science (first published in 1882). 
NISHIMURA, Y. ‘Changing Concept of Authenticity’, in Proceedings of the Nara Conference on 
Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp. 175-183). 
 
 
O 
 
O’HEAR, A. ‘Art and Technology: An Old Tension’, in Philosophy and Technology, edited by R. 
Fellows, Cambridge University Press, 1995 (pp.143-158). 
Objectivity and Cultural Divergence, edited by S. Brown, Cambridge University Press, 1984. 
Obscure objects of Desire: Reviewing the Crafts of the 20th-Century, edited by T. Harrod, Crafts 
Council, 1997. 
ODDY, A. The Art of the Conservator, edited by A. Oddy, British Museum Press, 1992 (pp.7-27). 
ODEGAARD, N. ‘Artist’s Intent: Material Culture Studies and Conservation’, Journal of the 
American Institute for Conservation, Volume 34, Number 3, Article 3 (pp.187-193), 1995. 
Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic34-03-003.html [Accessed on 20th October 
2003]. 
 
 
P 
 
PEARCE, S. ‘Museums, Objects and Collections’ (1992), cited in E. Pye, Caring for the Past, James 
and James, 2001 (p.74). 
PETZET, M. ‘“In the Full Richness of their Authenticity” – The Test of Authenticity and the New 
Cult of Monuments’, in Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage 
Centre, 1995 (pp.85-99). 
PETZET, M. ‘Grundsatz der Denkmalpflege’ (‘Principles of Monument Conservation’), in ICOMOS 
– Journal of  the German National Committee, Volume X, International Council of Monuments and 
Sites (ICOMOS), Munich, (undated) (pp.1-42). English version available from: 
http://www.icomos.org/germany/publ/uk_poc_main.htnl  [Accessed on 20th July 2005]. 
 
 394 
PHILIPPOT, P. ‘Historic Preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines, I’, in Historical and 
Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby 
Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 
1996 (pp.268-274). 
PHILIPPOT, P. ‘Historic Preservation: Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines’, in Preservation and 
Conservation: Principles and Practices, Proceedings of the North American International Regional 
Conference, Williamsburg, Virginia, and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1972, Washington 
Preservation Press, 1976 (pp.367-374). 
PHILIPPOT, P. ‘Restoration from the Perspective of the Humanities’, in Historical and Philosophical 
Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley (Jr.) 
and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 (pp. 216-
229).  
PLENDERLEITH, H. The Conservation of Antiquities and Works of Art: treatment, repair and 
restoration, Oxford University Press, 1971 (first published in 1956). 
PLENDERLEITH, H. The Preservation of Antiquities, Museums Association, London, 1934. 
PODMANICZKY, M. ‘Structural Fills for Large Wooden Objects: Contrasting and Complementary 
Approaches’, Journal of the American Institute for Conservation, Volume 37, Number 1, Article 8 
(pp.111-116), 1998. Available from: http://aic.stanford.edu/jaic/articles/jaic37-01-008.html 
[Accessed on 9th July 2004]. 
POLANYI, K. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time, Beacon 
Press, 2002 (first published in 1944). 
POLANYI, M. The Tacit Dimension, Archer Books, New York, 1967. 
Power of Place, English Heritage, 2000. Full text available from: http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1447 [Accessed on 27th April 2006]. 
Preservation of Cultural Heritage: Towards a European Profile of the Conservator-Restorer, The 
Document of Pavia, 1997. Available from: http://www.encore-
edu.org/encore/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabindex=1&tabid=188 [Accessed on 6th May 2006]. 
Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 
1995. 
Proceedings of the Symposium on Decorative Wood, held at the Burrell Collection, Glasgow, 31st 
March 1984, edited by D. Carthy and C. McWilliam, Scottish Society for Conservation and 
Restoration, 1984. 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the recognition of 
professional qualifications, presented by the Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, 
March 2002. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/en/qualifications/com02-
119_en.pdf [Accessed 15th March 2005]. 
PROTT, L. ‘Some Considerations on the Protection of the Intangible Heritage: Claims and Remedies’, 
in Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation 
on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, 
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.50-56). Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
PUGIN, A. Contrasts or A Parallel between the Noble Edifices of the Middle Ages, and 
Corresponding Buildings of the Present Day: shewing the Present Decay of Taste (1836) and True 
Principles of Pointed or Christian Architecture. Combined version published by Spire Books, 2003. 
PURI, K. ‘Protection of Traditional Culture and Folklore’, in Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A 
Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional 
Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.43-50). Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
PUWAINCHIR, M. ‘The Globalization of Interculturality’, in Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A 
Global Assessment of the 1989 UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional 
Culture and Folklore, Centre for Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Institution, 
Washington, DC, 1999 (pp.35-36). Available from: 
http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/mccann.htm [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
PYE, E. and J. Cronyn, ‘The Archaeological Conservator Re-examined: a personal view’, in Recent 
Advances in the Conservation and Analysis of Artefacts, edited by J. Black, James and James, 
Summer School Press, 1987 (pp.355-357). 
PYE, E. Caring for the Past, James and James, 2001. 
 
 395 
 
R 
 
RABINOW, P. and W. Sullivan, ‘The Interpretive Turn: Emergence of an Approach’, in Interpretive 
Social Science: A Reader, edited by P. Rabinow and W. Sullivan, University of California Press, 
1979. 
Renaissance in the Regions: a new view for England’s museums, The Council of Museums, Archives 
and Libraries, 2001. Available from: 
http://www.mla.gov.uk/resources/assets//R/rennais_pdf_4382.pdf [Accessed on 15th October 2005]. 
Renaissance museums for changing lives. Diversify! The impact of Positive Action Traineeships, 
Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, 2004. Available from: 
http://www.museumsassociation.org/asset_arena/text/on/diversify_mlaevaluation.pdf [Accessed on 
15th October 2005]. 
Restoration ’92. Conservation, training, materials and techniques: latest developments, preprints to 
the conference held at the RAI International Exhibition and Congress Centre, Amsterdam, 20th-22nd 
October, 1992, edited by V. Todd, United Kingdom Institute of Conservation (UKIC), 1995. 
Restoration of Tewkesbury Abbey (The), letter to the Times, 6th September 1890 – available from the 
SPAB archives. 
Restoration: Is it Acceptable? edited by A. Oddy, British Museum Occasional Paper No. 99, British 
Museum, 1994. 
Reversibility - Does It Exist? edited by A. Oddy and S. Carroll, British Museum Occasional Paper 
135, British Museum Press, 1999. 
RHYNE, C. ‘The First International Document for Diverse Cultural Values in Conservation: “The 
Document of Nara”, paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the Conservation of Historic and 
Artistic Works, St. Paul, Minnesota, 7th June 2005. Available from: 
http://www.reed.edu/~crhyne/papers/first.html [Accessed on 25th August 2004]. 
RICOUER, P. ‘The Hermeneutical Function of Distanciation’, in Hermeneutics and the Human 
Sciences: Essays on Language, Action, and Interpretation, Cambridge University Press, 1981. 
RIEGL, A. ‘The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Essence and Its Development’, in Historical and 
Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby 
Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institution, J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 
(pp. 69-83). 
RIVERS, S. ‘Conservation of Japanese lacquer in Western collections: conserving meaning and 
substance’, The 14th Triennial Meeting The Hague Preprints, Volume II, International Council of 
Museums – Committee for Conservation (ICOM-CC), 2005. 
RIVERS, S. and N. Umney, Conservation of Furniture, Butterworth-Heinemann, 2003. 
ROSE, C. ‘Conservation of Museum Collections’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, 14.3, 1999. 
Available from: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/14_3/feature1_5.html 
[Accessed on 26th January 2005]. 
RUSKIN, J. ‘The Seven Lamps of Architecture’, cited by P. Philippot ‘Historic Preservation: 
Philosophy, Criteria, Guidelines, I’, in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of 
Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The 
Getty Conservation Institute, 1996 (p.269). 
RUSKIN, J. Selections from the Writings of John Ruskin, Smith Elder and Co., London, 1865. 
RUSKIN, J. The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Cassell, 1909. 
RUSKIN, J. The Stones of Venice, (edited and abridged by J. Links), Pallas Editions, 2001 (originally 
published in 1851). 
RUSKIN, J. The Storm Cloud of the Nineteenth Century, 1884. Available from: 
http://www.uta.edu/English/danahay/storm.html [Accessed on 15th April 2005]. 
RUSSELL, B. A History of Western Philosophy, Counterpoint, 1984 (first published in 1946 by 
George Allen and Unwin). 
 
 
S 
 
SCHON, D.A. ‘The Reflective Practitioner: how professionals think in action’ (1983), cited in S. 
Lester, ‘The Professional Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers: developing a competence-based 
professional assessment system’, in Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 25 (4), 2000 
(pp.407 to 419) Available from: http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk/pacr.htm [Accessed on 21st 
January 2003]. 
 396 
SCHUTZ, A. Structures of the Life-World, William Heinemann, 1974. 
Science and Heritage, House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, 9th Report of Session 
2005-2006. Published by the authority of the House of Lords, London, The Stationary Office Ltd., 
November 2006. 
SIENA, J. ‘From the Heart: A Conservation with Paolo and Laura Mora’, Getty Conservation 
Newsletter, 6.1, 1991. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/newsletter/6_1/mora.html [Accessed on 22nd January 
2004]. 
SMITH, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and the Causes of the Wealth of Nations, 1776  
SMITH, L. Uses of Heritage, Routledge, 2006 (in press at time of writing). 
Smithsonian Institution, Safeguarding Traditional Cultures: A Global Assessment of the 1989 
UNESCO Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Centre for 
Folk-life and Cultural Heritage, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC, 1999. Full text available 
from: http://www.folklife.si.edu/resources/Unesco/index.htm [Accessed on 15th February 2005]. 
Sorbonne Declaration (The): Joint Declaration on Harmonisation of the Architecture of the European 
Higher Education System, by the four Ministers in charge for France, Germany, Italy and the United 
Kingdom, Paris, 25th May 1998. Available from: 
http://www.bmbf.de/pub/sorbonne/_declaration.pdf [Accessed on 16th May 2005]. 
SPALING, H. ‘Cultural Sustainable Development: concepts and principles’, in American Scientific 
Affiliation, 1996 (pp.1-13). Available from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/1996/PSCF12-
96Spalling.html [Accessed on 8th February 2005]. 
Stained Glass of William Morris and His Circle: Text and Illustrations, edited by A. Sewter, Yale 
University Press, 1974. 
STANIFORTH, S. ‘Conservation: Significance Relevance and Sustainability’, in Tradition and 
Innovation: Advances in Conservation. The Forbes Lecture, Melbourne Conference Papers, 
International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works (IIC) Melbourne Congress, 
2000 (pp.1-10). Available from: http://www.iiconservation.org/conference/melbrn/melbnpaper.php 
[Accessed 15th February 2003]. 
STOVEL, H. ‘Working Towards the Nara Document’, in Proceedings of the Nara Conference on 
Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995, ‘Foreword’. 
SUMMERSON, J. ‘Royalty, Religion and the Urban Background’, in The Eighteenth Century, edited 
by A. Cobban, Thames and Hudson, 1969 (pp.77-94). 
SUMMERSON, J. ‘Ruskin, Morris, and the “Anti-Scrape” Philosophy’, in Historic Preservation 
Today: Essays Presented to the Seminar on Preservation and Restoration, Williamsburg, Virginia, 
8th-11th September 1963, University Press of Virginia, 1966. 
 
 
T 
 
TAMASZEWSKI, A. (an observer at the Nara Conference), in Proceedings of the Nara Conference 
on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural 
Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (p.254). 
TAWNEY, R. Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, Penguin, 1938 (first published in 1922). 
Technological Requirements for Solutions in the Conservation and Protection of Historic Monuments 
and Archaeological Remains, edited by M. Cassar, Working Paper for the Scientific and 
Technological Options Assessment (STOA) Unit, Directorate General for Research, European 
Parliament, PE 303.120/Fin.St., Luxembourg, 2001. Available from: 
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainableheritage/STOA_report.pdf [Accessed on 15th February 2005]. 
The Desecularization of the World: the Resurgence of Religion in World Politics, edited by P. Berger, 
Eerdmans, 1999. 
THROSBY, D. ‘Cultural Capital and Sustainability Concepts in the Economics of Cultural Heritage’, 
in Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, The J. 
Paul Getty Trust, 2002 (pp.101-118). Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessing.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
October 2003]. 
Too Much Stuff, the National Museum Director’s Conference, 2003. Available from: 
http://www.nationalmuseums.org.uk/images/publications/too_much_stuff.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
October 2005]. 
 
 397 
TORRACA, G. ‘The Scientist in Conservation’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, 14.3, 1999. Available 
from: http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/14_3/feature1_3.html [Accessed 
on 26th January 2005]. 
TORRE, M. de la, and R. Mason, Assessing the Values of Cultural Heritage, The Getty Conservation 
Institute, Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2002 (pp. 3-4). Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/assessing.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
October 2003]. 
Tradition and Modernity: Key for European Arts and Crafts in the Year 2000, held in Toledo 26th-27th 
June 1997: Available from: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise.html [Accessed on 21st January 
2005]. 
Traditional Building Craft Skills: Skills Needs Analysis of the Built Heritage Sector in England, 
National Heritage Training Group (NHTG), 2005. Available from: http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk/upload/pdf/craft_skills_report.pdf [Accessed on 15th December 2005]. 
TRAUTMANN, C. speaking at the opening of the 3rd International Heritage Exhibition at the 
Carrousel du Louvre in 1998, in Traditional crafts: day-to-day excellence, Number 35, April, 1999, 
published by Raphaelle Lucas (journalist). Available from: 
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/DOSSIER/patrimione/09metiers.html 
[Accessed on 21st January 2005]. 
TRAVERS, M. Qualitative Research through Case Studies, Sage 2001 
TRUPIN, D. ‘Bottoms Up! (Some Solutions for Supporting Sprung Seats in Historic Upholstered 
Furniture)’, in Wooden Artefacts Group Postprints, American Institute for Conservation of Historic 
and Artistic Works (AIC), 2002. Available from: 
http://aic.stanford.edu/sg/wag/2002/WAG_02_trupin.pdf [Accessed 3rd August 2006]. 
TSCHUDI-MADSEN. S. Restoration and Anti-Restoration: A Study in English Restoration 
Philosophy, Universitetsforlaget, 1976. 
TSENG, R. The Sceptical Idealist: Michael Oakeshott as a Critic of the Enlightenment, Imprint 
Academic, 2003. 
 
 
U 
 
UKIC, Code of Ethics and Rules of Practice, United Kingdom Institute for Conservation of Historic 
and Artistic Works (UKIC). Official Documents. Available from: 
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/ukic/docs.html [Accessed on 15th April 2006]. 
Understanding the Future: Museums and 21st Century Life, Department for Culture, Media and Sport 
(DCMS), Museums and Cultural Property Division, 2005. Available from: 
http://www.culture.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/31419198-35C1-4A00-8C12-
CB0572EC9B57/0/UnderstandingtheFuture.pdf [Accessed on 30th June 2005]. 
UNESCO to protect Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), Office of Public Information (OPI). 
Available from: http://www.unesco.org/bpi/eng/unescopress/2000/00-48e.shtml [Accessed on 13th 
October 2003]. 
UNESCO, Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World 
Heritage Convention), United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO), adopted by the General Conference, Paris, 1972. Available from: 
http://whc.unesco.org/world_he.htm [Accessed 15th February 2005]. 
UNESCO, Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 2003. Available from: 
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001325/132540e.pdf [Accessed on 15th February 2004]. 
UNESCO, Globalisation and Intangible Cultural Heritage: Opportunities, Threats and Challenges, 
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), held in association 
with the United Nations University, August 2004. Available from: 
http://www.unu.edu/globalization/intangible-cultural-heritage/ [Accessed on 15th February 2005].   
UNESCO, Living Human Treasures, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO), 1994. Available from: http://poprtal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2243&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed on 15th October 
2003].  
 
 
 
 398 
UNESCO, Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention, United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), World Heritage Centre, 
February 2005. Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/opguide05-en.pdf [Accessed on 15th 
March 2006]. 
UNESCO, Proclamation of Masterpieces of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity, United 
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 1998. Available from: 
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2226&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html [Accessed on 15th October 
2003]. 
UNESCO, Recommendation on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 1989. Available from: 
http://www.unesco.org/culture/laws/paris/html_eng/page1.shtml  [Accessed on 15th October 2003]. 
UNESCO, Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), adopted by the 31st Session of the General Conference of 
UNESCO, Paris, November, 2001. Available from: 
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001271/127160m.pdf [Accessed 15th February 2005]. 
UNESCO, World Heritage List, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation 
(UNESCO). Available from: http://whc.unesco.org/en/map [Accessed on 12th February 2006]. 
UNESCO, World Map of the Oral and Intangible Heritages of Humanity, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). Available from: 
http://www.unesco.org/culture/intangible-heritage/index.htm [Accessed on 12th February 2006]. 
UNESCO, Yamoto Declaration on Integrated Approaches for Safeguarding Tangible and Intangible 
Cultural Heritage, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 
2004, Japan. Available from: 
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/admin/file_download.php/Yamato_Declaration.pdf?URL_ID=23863
&filename=10988742599Yamato_Declaration.pdf&filetype=application%2Fpdf&filesize=35645&
name=Yamato_Declaration.pdf&location=user-S/ [Accessed on 15th February 2005]. 
URBANI, G. ‘The Science and Art of Conservation of Cultural Property’, in Historical and 
Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby 
Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 
1996 (p.445-450). 
 
 
V 
 
VACCARO, A. ‘Historical Perspective’, in Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of 
Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The 
Getty Conservation Institute, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 (pp. 262-267). 
Values and Heritage Conservation, Research Report, edited by E. Avrami, R. Mason, M. de la Torre, 
The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, The J. Paul Getty Trust, 2000. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/pdf_publications/valuesrpt.pdf  
VATELOT, E. (president of the Cou Neil des M étiers d’Art), in Traditional crafts: day-to-day 
excellence, number 35, April, 1999 published by Raphaelle Lucas (journalist). Available from: 
http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_france/ENGLISH/DOSSIER/patrimione/09metiers.html 
[Accessed on 21st January 2005]. 
VENNING, P. ‘The Continuing Work of the SPAB’, in From William Morris: Building Conservation 
and the Arts and Crafts Cult of Authenticity, 1877-1939, edited by C. Miele, Yale University Press, 
2005 (pp.259-297). 
Victoria and Albert Museum, Conservation Journal, Vol. 1 (October 1991) to Vol. 47 (July, 2004) 
available from the Victoria and Albert Museum Library. Volume 48 (October, 2004) and all 
subsequent publications available online from: http://www.vam.ac.uk/res_cons/conservation/journal  
VILLERS, C. ‘Post Minimal Intervention’, in The Conservator, Number 28, 2004. 
VINAS, S. Contemporary Theory of Conservation, Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2005. 
VIOLLET-LE-DUC, E. ‘Lectures on Architecture II’ (1872), cited by M. Bressani, ‘Notes on Viollet-
le-Duc’s Philosophy of History: Dialectics and Technology’, in Journal of the Society of 
Architectural Historians (JSAH) XLVIII: pp.327-350, 1989. 
VIOLLET-LE-DUC, E.E. The Foundations of Architecture: Selections from the Dictionnaire 
Raisonne, 1868. Reprint translated by K. Whitehead, George Brazier, New York, 1990. 
 
 
 399 
W 
 
WALLERSTEIN, I. The Modern World System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the 
European World Economy in the Sixteenth Century, Academic Press, New York, 1974. 
WEBB, M. Lacquer: Technology and Conservation, Butterworth Heinemann, 2000. 
WEBER, M. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Dover Publications, 2003 (first 
published in German in 1905 and first translated into English in 1926). 
WETERING, E. van de, ‘The Surface of Objects and the Museum Style’, in Historical and 
Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, edited by N. Stanley Price, M. Kirby 
Talley (Jr.) and A. Melucco Vaccaro, The Getty Conservation Institution, J. Paul Getty Trust, 1996 
(pp. 415-421). 
WHALEN, T. ‘Conservation at the New Century’, Getty Conservation Newsletter, Volume 15, 
Number 1, 2000. Available from: 
http://www.getty.edu/conservation/resources/newsletter/15_1/feature1.html [Accessed on 22nd 
January 2003]. 
WILMERING, A. ‘Traditions and trends in furniture conservation’, in Reviews in Conservation, 2004 
(pp.23-37). 
 
 
Z 
 
ZHAN, G. ‘The Particularity of “Authenticity” in the Conservation of Cultural Property in China’, in 
Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity, edited by K. Larsen, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage Centre, 1995 (pp.323-
325). 
 
 
 
Personal communications 
 
ASHLEY-SMITH, J. Unpublished communication with the author (by post), 2nd December 2005. 
BAMFORTH, N. Interview with the author, Victoria and Albert Museum, 16th March 2005. 
Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns 
University College, High Wycombe. 
BARCLAY, R. (Bob_Barclay@pch.gc.ca) 18th April 2005. RE: The Advancement of Conservation, e-
mail to F. Hassard (f.hassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
BARRINGTON, M. Personal communication with the author (by telephone), 15th March 2005. 
BARRINGTON, M. (headoffice@bafra.org.uk) 21st March 2005, RE: Restoration Crafts and CPD, e-
mail to F. Hassard (fhassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
BARRINGTON, M. (headoffice@bafra.org.uk) 24th March 2005, RE: Restoration Crafts and CPD, e-
mail to F. Hassard (fhassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
BARRINGTON, M. Interview with the author (by telephone), 7th March 2005 with interviewee’s 
amendments 5th August 2006. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
BECKFORD, L. Interview with the author, Beckford Artworks, 4th June 2005. Transcript filed at the 
Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High 
Wycombe. 
BRUGMAN, F. (f.brugman@unesco.org) 14th November 2005. RE: Intangible heritage preservation, 
e-mail to F. Hassard (f.hassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
CROSS, J. speaking at the interview: E. Gregory, Interview with the author, 23rd May 2005. 
Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns 
University College, High Wycombe. 
GREGORY, E. Interview with the author, London Metropolitan University, with amendments by the 
interviewee 23rd May 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
GOTTSEGEN, M. The Decline of Visual Arts Education, and a Remedy, 2005 (unpublished paper), 
provided by personal communication with the author. 
GRIERSON, M. Interview with the author (by telephone), 6th January 2006. 
 
 
 400 
HIGGINS, R. Interview with the author (by telephone), 11th October 2005. Transcript filed at the 
Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High 
Wycombe. 
HUNTELY, M. Interview with the author, Wiltshire, 16th May 2005 with amendments by the 
interviewee 28th June 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
HYDE, C. Interview with the author, Rycotewood Furniture Centre, 7th April 2005. Transcript filed at 
the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, 
High Wycombe. 
KITCHIN, J. Interview with the author, 12th June 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research 
Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
LESTER, S. (s.lester@devmts.demon.co.uk) 9th May 2005, RE: Conservation – development of the 
profession, e-mail to F. Hassard (fhassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
LESTER, S. Unpublished communication with the author (by post), 15th October 2005. 
LOWENTHAL, D. (lowenthal@lowenthal.free-online.co.uk), 26th November 2005, RE: Conservation 
Research, e-mail to F. Hassard (f.hassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
LUCKHURST, B. Interview with the author, Little Surrenden Workshops, 12th April 2005 with 
interviewee’s amendments 20th May 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty 
of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
MANTZ, Dr E. Interview with the author, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, United 
Kingdom, 6th July 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
PADFIELD, S. Interview with the author (by telephone), 8th March 2005. 
PETERS, A. Interview with the author (by telephone), 5th February 2006. 
POWELL, C. Interview with the author, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, 12th April 2005 with 
interviewee’s amendments 12th August 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, 
Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
RIVERS, S. Interview with the author, Victoria and Albert Museum, London, with amendments by 
the interviewee 3rd June 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
SLADDEN, H. Sladden, Interview with the author, The Edward Barnsley Workshops, Petersfield, 10th 
May 2005 with interviewee’s amendments 11th June 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research 
Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
SLOCOMBE, M. Deputy Secretary, The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) 
(matthew@spab.org.uk), 16th September 2005, RE: Conservation Discussion, e-mail to F. Hassard 
(f.hassard@tiscali.co.uk). 
SMITH, A. Interview with the author, Windsor Castle, 18th May 2005 with amendments by the 
interviewee 26th June 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
TEAR, P. Interview with the author, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, United 
Kingdom, 4th April 2005. Transcript filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe. 
 
 
 
Other personal communications 
 
ALABONE, G. Frames Department, Tate Gallery, 23rd November 2005. 
BLACKWELL, M. Interview with the author, St. John’s College, Oxford, 7th April 2005. Transcript 
filed at the Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University 
College, High Wycombe. 
CHASTANG, Y. Sittingbourne Research Centre, Kent, 26th September 2005. 
EVANS, J. The Horological Department, British Museum, 8th November 2005. 
EDGE, D. The Wallace Collection (discussion at Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College 
College, High Wycombe), 14th June 2006. 
GREENHILL, Miss. Morris and Co. Case-work, The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings 
(SPAB), several visits in January and February 2006.  
GREENWOOD, J. Lincoln School of Art and Design, University of Lincoln, 30th June 2005. 
HIBBERD, A. Carver and Sculpture, specialising in Grinling Gibbons’ strap-work, St. Paul’s 
Cathedral. 
 401 
LEIGH, D. The Institute of Conservation (ICON), 30th November 2005. 
LESTER, S. meeting 23rd October 2005. 
NEWMAN, N. Conservation Department, British Museum, 28th October 2005. 
 
 
 
Exhibitions 
 
Bucks Chilterns University College, High Wycombe, Degree Show, 10th June 2005 and 15th June 
2006. 
City and Guilds of London Art School, London, Degree Show, 23rd June 2005. 
Manchester College of Arts and Technology (MANCAT), Arts and Creative Crafts End of Year Show 
(including conservation-restoration), 19th June 2005. 
Royal College of Art, Victoria and Albert Museum, Degree Show, 27th June 2006. 
Rycotewood Furniture Centre, Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, Oxford, Student Show, 21st June 
2005. 
Sir John Cass Department of Art, Media and Design, London Metropolitan University, Summer 
Show, 26th June 2005 and 17th June 2006 
Textile Conservation Centre, Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton, Winchester, 
Open Day Visit, 24th June 2005. 
Tower of London Show, 17th July 2006. 
York College, Furniture Exhibition, The Guildhall, St Helen’s Square, York, 20th June 2005. 
 
 
 
Site visits 
 
All Saint’s Church, York 
Ashmolean Museum of Art and Archaeology, Oxford 
Balliol College, Oxford 
Bodleian Library, Oxford 
British Museum 
Church of St. Michael le Belfrey, York 
Darwin Centre, Queen’s Gate, London 
Edward Barnsley Workshops, Petersfield 
Guildhall, London 
Houses of Parliament, Westminster 
Lincoln Castle 
Lincoln Cathedral 
Little Surrenden Workshops, Kent 
Manchester College, Oxford 
Natural History Museum 
Radcliffe Camera, Bodleian, Oxford 
Royal Albert Hall 
Sion House, Middlesex 
St. Benedict’s Church, York 
St. John’s Church, York 
St. John’s College, Oxford 
St. Leonard’s, York 
St. Margaret’s Church, Westminster 
St. Martin le Grand, York 
St. Martin’s Church, York 
St. Mary the Virgin’s Spire, Oxford 
St. Mary’s Abbey, York 
St. Mary’s, London 
St. Paul’s Cathedral 
Trinity College, Oxford 
Victoria and Albert Museum 
Wells Cathedral 
Westminster Abbey 
 402 
Windsor Castle 
York Minster Cathedral 
 
 
 
Conferences / seminars attended 
 
6th European Commission Conference on Sustaining Europe’s Cultural Heritage: From Research to 
Policy, held at the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre, Westminster, London, United Kingdom, 
1st-3rd September 2004, Centre for Sustainable Heritage, University College London. Information 
available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/sustainableheritage/conference-proceedings/session-
summaries/cortines.html 
Period Detail: Interpreting historic locations and their collections, Museums Association Conference, 
Tower of London, 17th July 2006. 
Royal College of Arts / Victoria and Albert Museum Conservation Student Symposium, Lecture 
Theatre 1, Royal College of Art, Kensington Gore, London, 9th May 2005. 
20th-Century Furniture Research Group, Furniture Research Centre, Faculty of Design, 
Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, High Wycombe, 13th November 2004. 
BAFRA 10th Student Section Conference, ‘Why not this way?’ Oxford and Cherwell Valley College, 
Oxford, 14th March 2005. 
Nigel Seeley Memorial Symposium, Faraday Lecture Theatre, Royal Institution of Great Britain, 
London, 27th May 2005. 
 
 
 
Other useful websites 
 
ArtWatch International – information available from: http://www.artwatchinternational.org/   
ArtWatch UK – information available from: http://www.artwatch.org.uk/ 
Best in Heritage – information available from: http://www.thebestinheritage.com/home.php  
Council for Research in Values and Philosophy (RVP) – information available from: 
http://www.crvp.org/ 
Crafts Council, United Kingdom – information available from: 
http://www.craftscouncil.org.uk/about/index.html 
European Confederation of Conservator-Restorers’ Organisations (ECCO) – documents available 
from: http://www.ecco-eu.info/  
European Network for Conservation-Restoration Education (ENCoRE) – documents available from: 
http://www.encore-edu.org/encore/DesktopDefault.aspx 
Institute of Conservation (ICON) – documents available from: 
http://www.icon.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1&Itemid=2 
International Council of Museums – Conservation Committee (ICOM-CC) – documents available 
from: http://icon-cc.icom.museum/Home/ 
International Council of Museums (ICOM) – documents available from: 
http://icom.museum/mission.html 
International Network on Cultural Policy (INCP) – information available from: 
http://206.191.7.19/index_e.shtml     
Local Heritage Initiative – Skills for the 21st-Century – information available from: 
http://www.lhi.org.uk/heritage_matters/editorial_archive/skills_for_the_2.html 
Regional Centre for the Safeguarding, Revitalization and Diffusion of Traditional Culture and 
Folklore Heritage in Europe – information available from: http://www.folkline.hu/index_e.html 
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB) – documents available from: 
http://www.spab.org.uk/edcuation_scholarship_history.html 
Stan Lester Developments – documents available from: http://www.devmts.demon.co.uk  
UNESCO programme in safeguarding intangible heritage. Information available from: 
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-
URL_ID=2225&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html 
UNESCO, Guidelines for the establishment of National ‘Living Human Treasures’ Systems – 
information available from: 
http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/file_download.php/1422690320114549c199903cf8ba93f9Guideli
nes_lht.pdf 
 403 
William Morris Internet Archive – information available from: 
http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/index.htm 
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) – information available from: 
http://www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/  
 
 
 
Suggested further reading 
 
ADAMS, J. Paul Tillich’s Philosophy of Culture, Science and Religion, University Press of America, 
1983. 
ADORNO, T. Against Epistemology, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1982. 
ADORNO, T. and M. Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Verso, 1986. 
ADORNO, T. The Culture Industry, Routledge, 1991. 
ARENDT, H. The Human Condition, University of Chicago Press, 1999 (first published in 1959). 
ASHBEE, C.R. An Endeavour towards the Teachings of John Ruskin and William Morris, The Essex 
House Press, 1901. 
BARTHES, R. ‘The Death of the Author’, from Image, Music, Text, 1977. Available from: 
http://faculty.smu.edu/dfoster/theory/Barthes.htm [Accessed on 1st July 2005]. 
BARTHES, R. Mythologies, Cape, London, 1972 (first published in 1957). 
BEAR, W. ‘Should art or science be preservation’s guiding metaphor?’ An examination of historic 
preservation’s underlying philosophy. Supplied by the British Library (undated). 
BEARDSLEY, M. and W. Wimsatt, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’, Sewanee Review, Volume 54, pp.468-
488, 1946, reprinted in Aesthetics: A Critical Anthology, edited by R. Sclafani, G. Dickie and R. 
Roblin, Bedford Books, 1989.  
BEJCZY, I. Erasmus and the Middle Ages: The Historical Consciousness of a Christian Humanist, 
Brill, 2001. 
BOULTON, W. The Romance of the British Museum, Sampson Low, London, (undated). 
BURLEIGH, M. Earthly Powers: Religion and Politics in Europe from the French Revolution to the 
Great War, Harper/Collins, 2005. 
CARR, H. The Philosophy of Benedetto Croce: The Problem of Art and History, Macmillan, 1917. 
CHOAY, F. The Invention of the Historic Monument (translated by L. O’Connell), Cambridge 
University Press, 2001. 
CHOMSKY, N. Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, Penguin, 2004. 
CORMACK, P. Heritage in Danger, Quartet Books, 1978. 
Cultural Memory and Historical Consciousness in the German-speaking World Since 1500. The 
Fragile Tradition: Vol. 1, edited by C. Emden and D. Midgley, Peter Lang, 2004. 
CURRUTHERS, A. Edward Barnsley and his Workshop, White Cockade, 1992. 
Eighteenth Century (The), edited by A. Cobban, Thames and Hudson, London, 1969. 
ELLUL, J. The Subversion of Christianity (translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley), Eerdmans, 1986. 
ELLUL, J. The Technological Society, Random House, 1967. 
ELLUL, J. The Technological System, Continuum, 1980. 
FARRELL, R. Feyerabend and Scientific Values: Tightrope-Walking Rationality, Boston Studies in 
the Philosophy of Science, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. 
FAYERABEND, P. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge, Verso Books, 
1993. 
FEENBERG, A. and A. Hannay. Technology and the Politics of Knowledge, Indiana Series in the 
Philosophy of Technology, Indiana University Press, 1995. 
FEENBERG, A. Critical Theory of Technology, Oxford University Press, 1991. 
FOUCAULT, M. The Order of Things, Routledge, 2001. 
FOUCAULT, M. Archaeology of Knowledge, Routledge, 2002. 
FOUCAULT, M. The Essential Works: Subjectivity and Truth: Essential Works of Michel Foucault 
1954-1984, Vol.1, edited by P. Rabinow, Penguin, 2000. 
FRANKS, F. Polywater, MIT Press, 1981. 
GANGJEE, D. Geographical Indications Protection for Handicrafts under TRIPS, M.Phil Thesis, 
Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, 2002. Available from: http://users.ox.ac.uk/~edip/gangjee.pdf 
[Accessed on 16th December 2005]. 
GEERTZ, C. The Interpretation of Cultures, Fontana, 1973. 
GREENSTEAD, M. The Arts and Crafts in the Cotswolds, Allan Sutton, 1996 (first published in 
1993). 
 404 
HAMPSON, N. The Enlightenment, Penguin, 1968. 
HEIDEGGAR, M. The question concerning technology and other essays (translated by W. Lovitt), 
Harper and Row, 1977. 
HOBSBAWM, E. The Age of Revolution 1789-1848, Peter Smith, 1999 (first published in 1962). 
HORKHEIMER, M. The Eclipse of Reason, Continuum, 2001 (first published in 1947). 
HUSSERL, E. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology, North-western 
University Press, 1970. 
JOAD, C. Philosophy for our Times, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1940. 
LETHABY, W. The Study and Practice of Artistic Crafts, London, 1901. 
LUCIE-SMITH, E. The Story of Craft, Phaidon, Oxford, 1981. 
Making Their Mark: Central School of Arts, 1896-1966, edited by S. Backemeyer, A. & C. Black, 
2000. 
MANDEL, R. ‘Copyrighting Art Restorations’, Bulletin, Copyright Society of the USA, Volume 28, 
Number 3, 1981. 
MUMFORD, L. Technics and Civilisation, Routledge, 1934. 
MUMFORD, L. The Condition of Man, Secker and Warburg, 1944. 
NAYLOR, G. The Arts and Crafts Movement, Studio Vista, London, 1971. 
PHILLIPS, D. Exhibiting Authenticity, Manchester University Press, 1997. 
Philosophy and Technology: Readings in the Philosophical Problems of Technology, edited by C. 
Mitcham and R. Mackey, Free Press, 1983. 
PIVCEVIC, E. Husserl and Phenomenology, Hutchinson, 1970. 
POGGEMILLER, D. ‘Hermeneutics and Epistemology: Hirsch’s Author Centred Meaning, Radical 
Historicism and Gadamer’s Truth and Method’, in PREMISE, Volume II, Number 8 / (p.10), 1997. 
Available from: http://capo.org/premise/95/sep/p950810.html [Accessed on 24th October 2003]. 
POSTMAN, N. Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology, Vintage, 1993. 
Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge (The), edited by J-F Lyotard, Manchester University 
Press, 1984. 
PYE, D. The Nature and Art of Workmanship, Cambridge University Press, 1988. 
Rethinking Objectivity, edited by A. Megill, Duke University Press, 1994. 
RORTY, R. Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers: Volume 1, Cambridge 
University Press, 1990. 
SAUL, J. Voltaire's Bastards: The Dictatorship of Reason in the West, The Free Press, 1992. 
SCHWARZER, M. ‘Myths of Permanence and Transience in the Discourse on Historic Preservation 
in the United States’, in Journal of Architectural Education (pp.2-11), 1994. 
STILL, A. The Future of the Past, Picador, 2002. 
UNESCO, World Culture Report: Cultural Diversity, Conflict and Pluralism, United Nations 
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 2000. 
W.R. Lethaby (1857-1931): Architecture, Design and Education, edited by S. Backemeyer and T. 
Gronberg, Lund Humphries, 1984. 
WEIR, R. William Richard Lethaby, London 1938 
WILLIAMS, R. Culture and Society 1780-1950, Penguin, 1961 (first published by Chatto Windus in 
1958).