2 10 17 https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/bb6263168c8e073731839b14c708f7ef.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=wKhK1GUfUnq4H7w0q4z-8eDm5zJupf5XW5bzhuy9b9s76M5I2PnJDwgrHeAjA7X2KkwrEYnfDKfP3jc1Bc0IQPrmhoX9m%7E9zvMo8NbEvs0SWJ5O4IBH82uBojF8J%7ErCiVie7zR85CBouA9d5L367O%7Ep1AHFQYRQlu3AMnJtnIMx9-YLinAtfHhNHPmzqBJZ9f1oemCjzMBW4qIiNDorLcaPUTwDz9KPyi5%7EcyyhmLTBgW-IhOWo6XyEalB4ri9vim0wkxr3gm22h3hNFD5ZoVNBtAGNUARpkUKUWcdgQCP8ywN57dkUxmH-8EG%7E9nPtQjtX6KR0hGPLANNVpAgIyOg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM dd6e0f0b66f4dca7ca6e7ca7e648b09e PDF Text Text A well-planned operation Alison Wain Australian War Memorial Abstract: Just as the physical nature of most large technology objects is composite – a whole emerging from the physical connection of many parts – so the functional nature of these objects is also composite – a whole generated by the interaction of many smaller functions. Conservators and curators routinely make decisions about which parts of an object to prioritise for conservation, but they also need to make clear decisions about which functions they wish to conserve and why. This paper discusses the factors that can make the difference between the well-planned operation of a functional object and a money-guzzling, low-return headache. Introduction Large technology objects are, by definition, big. Most of them are big because they are composed of many smaller components, each with its own distinct function. These smaller functions interact to create higher level functions – the ability of a gasket to function as an effective seal for instance is vital to the correct functioning of an hydraulic system. Large technology objects are, however, often described on display as if each one were an indivisible whole. “It is of period A, it represents technology B, it is in condition C, it fulfils function D”. A simplified description like this is appropriate to many displays, presenting a clear picture to the public in relatively few words. When it comes to actually working on a large technology object however, as any good mechanic knows, it is a collection of small objects. How those objects are put together is vital – the whole is more than the sum of the parts – but it can still be broken down into the parts, and usually has been at regular intervals during its operating life. This reducible quality means that over an object’s lifetime the various different parts acquire distinct life histories. By the time an object enters a museum collection its different components are of different ages and stages of wear, different sources and manufacturers and different materials. The history of each of these determines its degree of historical significance and its relevance to the purpose of the collection. The same can be said of the object’s functions. Most large technology objects have a range of different functions – provision of motive power, ability to move around, ability to perform a specific work task such as lifting or weaving, ability to stop, ability to send signals or register information. Through the object’s working life these functions are adapted, updated, replaced, disused and discarded, along with the components that make them happen. Each of these functions may have a different level of historic authenticity or relevance to the purpose of the collection, and may present different opportunities and difficulties for display. �In particular, functional objects present the opportunity - perhaps the obligation to maintain their functions. The concept of responsibility to preserve intangible heritage is growing rapidly (Galloway, 2004 and Wain, 2004) and includes aspects such as the sensory experience of large technology and the skills associated with its care and operation. To decide whether it is appropriate to maintain a particular function however, it is important to consider the level of cultural significance of that function and determine whether maintaining it will be informative, useful and relevant - or just an expensive white elephant. Which functions are worth keeping? Making large technology functions “go” is much more popular – indeed expected – than the operation of small technological objects. In fact, while it is seen as a worthy aim in itself to collect small objects and place them on static display, to collect large objects and put them on static display is often seen as something to be ashamed of. How often have you heard the heartfelt lament “It’s such a pity you can’t have them all working...”? But when people talk about a large technology object working they often just mean getting the engine going and having the main movable bits move. For large objects built before the middle of the twentieth century these are pretty much all the functions they had to offer and even these were somewhat experimental in nature. So to provide an insight into the technology and “feel” of these early machines, motive power and basic movement works well and is not too difficult to achieve. However maintaining these functions is still a resource hungry commitment and before making that commitment the question should be asked how many engines do the public want to hear? At what point do the costs of maintaining and demonstrating even these limited functions outweigh the return in public interest? Functional complexity begins to explode after the Second World War, with features such as hydraulics, feedback systems, communications, fire suppression systems and many more. And yet “operating” these objects still tends to mean turning the engines on and having the main movable bits move. This is still impressive (these are, after all, big machines), but perhaps this is an area where a wider range of functions could be explored, combining the public’s appreciation for operating objects with a greater variety of experiences. Some of the alternative functions may in fact be safer and cheaper to manage than running an engine, and more suited to use inside interior spaces such as galleries. For example, large technology objects in the Memorial’s collection with functions which run independently of the objects’ engines are the Sea Fury aircraft (folding wings) and the M113A armoured personnel carriers (openable rear access ramps). Some large technology functions may be difficult to manage in their original configuration, but be relatively easily adapted for museum use. Most aircraft hydraulic systems, for example, are normally powered by a pump driven by the running engine (or an electric backup pump) and operate at high pressure to �overcome the aerodynamic forces on the flight surfaces during flight. A pinhole leak in such a high pressure system could result in the escape of a stream of hydraulic fluid. However an alternative low pressure, hydro- electric system could be manufactured to replace or run alongside the existing hydraulic system, and be operated by a simple electronic program. This could perhaps even be made to respond to visitor operated controls and used to demonstrate the effect of changing the shape of flight surfaces on the aircraft’s performance (Croker, 2004). In the early twenty-first century many functions in large technology objects are being designed to be run by separate layer of functional systems – automated computer systems (Graham-Rowe, 2003, issue 2420). For these objects just running the engine and moving the main movable bits is not an option. Most of the movable bits are not directly connected to the control mechanisms used by the operator – they are activated by the electronic systems in response to a combination of operator delivered instructions and factory set instructions about the best way to safely run the machine. To even run the engine and move the main movable bits in these objects it is necessary to maintain the functional electronic operating systems to manage them. This brings new challenges which I do not believe the museum world has yet grappled with. One of these is that a mechanic can no longer maintain these systems without expensive specialist training and diagnostic equipment – dedicated training and equipment which is produced by, and specific to, particular vehicles or products. The Memorial’s Bushmaster infantry mobility vehicle, for instance, requires separate equipment and training to maintain its CAT engine and its Allison gear box. Commercial and (in the Memorial’s case) military secrecy may become an increasing barrier to functional maintenance of historic objects, either passively as a result of training and equipment costs, or actively, particularly with objects which are still sold commercially or used on active military service (Schroeder, 2004). The use of computerised systems in large technology also brings in all the problems currently faced by other users of digital technology in the heritage industry, including rapid obsolescence of hardware and software (particularly specialised proprietary products), bugs, viruses, data corruption and incompatibility with earlier systems. The future may hold a number of other ethical and practical challenges which have not yet landed on the workbench of the unsuspecting conservation mechanic. For example components of modern large technology objects are increasingly being made to be replaced when damaged – it is often not possible to repair them (Graham-Rowe, 2003, issue 2377). The day is also fast approaching when many components will not be built but “grown” using genetic algorithms – not even their manufacturers will know quite how they work, or quite how they could go wrong (Davidson, 1997). A malfunctioning electronic security system could lock down a whole vehicle and send a ear-splitting screech through the galleries. Still want to run the engine…? Running the engine and making the main movable bits move for objects from this era is in any case pretty clearly not the main point of the technology. The point of these objects is not just that they can move, but how well they can do it – how safe they can be in dangerous situations, how fast, how precise. The old large �technology experiences of sound, smell and movement may even be largely irrelevant – many twenty-first century machines are engineered to minimise noise and emissions and to move with the minimum of energy-wasting fuss and excitement (with the exception of Harleys which have forged a whole brand out of energy-wasting fuss and excitement). Along with many other aspects of large technology use and care, selection of functions for display purposes has often been driven by ideas and assumptions that perhaps have more to do with machines from before the Second World War than technology from the last fifty years. Undertaking a more explicit evaluation of the significance of different functions for collection development and display may deliver a variety of advantages, including a wider range of experiences for the public, more options for exhibition developers and opportunities to preserve a wider range of functions and maintenance skills. What other factors should be considered? As well as the cultural significance of functions, a number of other factors must be considered when deciding whether maintaining an object in an operational condition is a viable proposition. The following list covers the factors that our experience at the Memorial has suggested are most critical (a number of these factors are also noted in Paine, 1994). • the current state of the object (which will dramatically affect the cost of making it functional); • the likely impact of wear on significant parts of the object; • the need to update the object to meet modern safety standards; • the restrictions of the museum context, including; ⇒ The requirement to deliberately disable or remove potentially hazardous functions (for example weapons systems); ⇒ The need for special provisions in the exhibit design to facilitate either display operation of the chosen functions or exercise of functional systems for maintenance; ⇒ The cost and availability of certification that will be acceptable legally and to insurers. This includes: - Suitable licensing arrangements for machines and their operators (roadworthiness, authorised drivers etc - this can get quite curly when the machines no longer fit the requirements of current codes and when no training courses are available to teach the skills required to operate them); - Suitable certification for museum use (certification may only be available if a machine is fit for its original use, whereas the museum use may be substantially less demanding and risky and allow for greater retention of original components); • the level of benefit to the museum of operating the object. For example operation may be a direct revenue raiser – a number of small museums in particular charge for rides in operating trains and vehicles; • Non-display reasons for maintaining functionality: �• ⇒ the preservative effect of operation due to both distribution of wear and preservative compounds and the increased level of care and attention that it demands (Paine, 1994 and Hallam and Courtney, 1995); ⇒ large technology objects may be logistically easier to manage and preserve if some functions are maintained. For example the weight of the Memorial’s fifty two tonne Centurion tanks means they are extremely difficult and expensive to move if they are not self-mobile. Equally, to inspect the interior hydraulic and fluid spaces of many First World War guns, it is vital that the breech, recoil, elevation and traverse mechanisms are maintained in a movable condition. Once these systems have seized up through lack of care and exercise, inspection of the internal spaces and maintenance and disassembly of the components are impossible (Pearce, 2004); The resources available to maintain functionality in both the short and long term. ⇒ Money and time – the more complex and potentially dangerous the function, the more money and time is required to maintain it successfully. Money and time are primarily expended on: - Getting it going (and making it compliant with relevant standards); - Keeping it going – regular exercise, changing lubricants, cleaning etc; - Getting it going again – when things wear out and accidents happen; ⇒ Facilities for safe and appropriate operation and repair (including both workshop and exercise areas); ⇒ Record keeping – records of what decisions have been made and why, log books, conservation reports, maintenance plan, parts and spares inventories, photographic documentation, results of periodic performance testing etc; ⇒ Skills – developing and maintaining a pool of skilled people to both operate and repair the machinery. The Plan To make a success of conserving and operating a functioning object, all this information needs to be brought together in a project or object treatment plan. This does not have to be a huge undertaking, but it should be developed with the involvement of key people. These include the person who knows why the object is significant, the person who knows what the object is made of and how it works, the person who knows how the object will be displayed and the person who knows how the object will be moved and stored. It also includes the person who knows how much money is available (and can maybe get some more) and the person who can meld all these other people and their different ideas into a successful project team. The project plan prepared by the team must record the following information: • which functions are to be conserved and why; • what funding, skills and facilities are to be used; �• • • • what health, safety and legal requirements must be complied with; what tasks are required to conserve the identified functions, what supply train is required (identification and purchase/stockpiling of suitable spare parts, lubricants, fuels etc) whether any mothballing or other work needs to be carried out in parts of the object not selected for functional conservation (such work might be needed to ensure the safety or structural stability of the object, or to conserve the possibility that additional functions might be reactivated in the future). After the project is complete, the same team must complete a project report which records changes made to the original plan (and their rationale) and the final outcomes (treatments applied, information discovered, project costs – this will help in planning the next project – and actions taken to ensure legal compliance). The team must also ensure that a maintenance plan is designed, written down (and located somewhere other people can find it) and set in train. The maintenance plan must include periodic monitoring to document the ongoing condition, reliability and safety of the object and the effect of operation of the chosen functions on the rest of the object. She’s a little ripper – just what we wanted The final result should give everyone a warm inner glow. Good decision making up front should result in conservation of a set of functions that closely fit both the intended use of the object in the collection and the money, time and other resources available. People involved in the work should feel satisfied that the job has been done to high standards and management should feel happy that the project has delivered the agreed outcomes on time and on budget. Most importantly, everyone gets the fun of watching, hearing and smelling (and sometimes operating) a real, working object. References Courtney, B., Hallam, D. The Utilisation of Large Technology Items in the AWM collection. Internal paper produced for the Middle Management development Program, Australian War Memorial, 1995. Croker, J. Personal communication. September 2004. Davidson, C. Creatures from primordial silicon - Let Darwinism loose in an electronics lab and just watch what it creates. A lean, mean machine that nobody understands. New Scientist, vol. 156, issue 2108, 1997. Galloway, I. What is in a name? ICOM Australia, September, 2004. Graham-Rowe, D. Now who's in the driver's seat? New Scientist, vol. 180, issue 2420, 2003. �Graham-Rowe, D. 'Gadget printer' foreshadows a new industrial revolution. New Scientist, vol. 177, issue 2377, 2003. Paine, C., editor. Standards in the museum care of larger and working objects: social and industrial history collections 1994, Musems and Galleries Commission, London, 1994. Pearce, A. Personal communication. September 2004. Schroeder, A. Personal communication, September, 2004. Wain, A. TO INFINITY AND BEYOND! A little light crystal ball and navel gazing for the Conservation Profession. AICCM National Newsletter, no. 90, 2004. � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/e15fb1a9875672a6d351c72223303897.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=jLQMzj3-KeGcXLVxJLu4mFRspGBdAzW59OkGrBJMh2fnT-Nsypy3Gl7h6--%7Eu2iutqzXrl-6%7EnmuISMSwrt2L-u7ITzTokSs87x2xm6JHhaiiPJpWaplWtGL7k3959JYq2wFPuu-F-C42cSXvp2IaclwnpWKombx2EaU0VTb0YjLAhlHvwNwNAnGEhZyIYsqfrHGoHGc4BU30baG8nMhFc-XxZxrNS2GPaAdFhR7V3XBhOnnAvi8kF14iicT1nuN7q-90gL10XOgNOV%7Ew5slV7Lf%7EZ-V4aCuCpo-u136NneFuODdubERJ9gS-w2sucOEviF0dehkKiFIMB5t-rMHHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 038757168e7873a4bdfb722bc8b59b86 PDF Text Text A well-planned operation Alison Wain Question and answer session Fred Haynes: In your considerations for keeping the thing moving, nowadays one of the more modern considerations is - can a terrorist can steal it and use it? Alison Wain: That’s one we hadn’t actually thought about I’d have to say. Fred Haynes: Because that’s one of the things…when they took HMAS Brisbane up and they’re sinking it off the coast they’ve got to make all the gun barrels safe so nobody can recover them and use them. And all sorts of those considerations. Alison Wain: We’ve certainly dealt with those considerations with regard to firearms, yes, and we do have a policy in place for that, but a whole vehicle I hadn’t actually considered. Fred Haynes: Particularly the Bushmaster! Alison Wain: Well yes! Chris Knapp: Do you actually advocate running your objects or do you have a secondary collection that you will run? Alison Wain: That’s really something that we decide on a case by case basis, with a huge input from the curators. We would look at, the curators would look at what the object…what its intended role is in the collection, and certainly they have acquired a number of objects specifically with the idea that they will function as running objects for open days, for special events. And certainly if an object’s acquired with that in mind then we would work with it on that basis and yes, it’s a different level of collection. So I think it’s really a case by case basis. Chris Knapp: I don’t know if you have many volunteers work with you, but we find at home – we’ve got a hundred and fifty volunteers - and every now and again one will come to us with their favourite aeroplane or their favourite vehicle and have a case to get it running. Do you find it’s usually personal preference that drives somebody to start the ball rolling on a particular object? Alison Wain: Not these days – I don’t know what it was like in the past. Certainly the volunteers, yes, regularly express a fondness for a particular vehicle and say “I wish you could get the ‘X’ running” and we’ve, I guess, been trying to talk to them a lot about why we do things and what the constraints are and how difficult it is to responsibly keep an object in an operational condition, and I think the people that we’ve got volunteering with us now understand that a lot more. I think the planning processes within the Memorial are actually very well integrated – the business planning and so forth – so while I think that there’s a certain level of personal preference that gets any project up and running - you’ve got to have someone that acts as an advocate for it – I think that’s very much mediated by a very strong planning �process and a very strong consultative process, so if there’s a real problem with that it gets picked up pretty early. Barbara Reeve: I just want to respond to Chris’s last point. We did in the past have a very volunteer-driven conservation program, especially for the large technology objects and the choice of objects that were worked on was very much driven by who the volunteers were, what their background was, what their interest was. And then how the object got conserved or restored was also very strongly driven by what the volunteers knew, how they knew how to do it and so on. Today, as Alison has said, all of our conservation projects are very much part of the overall corporate strategy – where are we going, what are we doing, how are we getting there? And that’s set in three year corporate plans, so at the moment our next big objective is the development of the post 45 galleries. And the last three year project was the redevelopment of ANZAC Hall, so to that end we were working on the Beaufort and the Lancaster and that’s where the volunteers were assigned. We said “You’re hired as a volunteer to work on the Beaufort or to work on the Lancaster – those are our priorities at the moment and that’s what we will be working on.” At the moment there is, I think, a vocal minority in favour of working on the Tiger Moth – it just isn’t in our business plan. In the future, when we get it into the business plan, we’ll certainly contact those people and get them back and say “Hey we’re going to work on the Tiger Moth now”, but we very much respond to what the corporate priorities are. We help to set them to some degree – all the senior managers sit around and determine where we’re going to go and what we’re going to do. But in fact where we are at the moment is at the end of a 10 or 15 year gallery master plan. In the 1980s we said “OK – we’re going to redevelop the galleries - there’s Gallery Redevelopment Stage One, Stage Two and Stage Three”. This is Stage Three, the redevelopment of the post 45 galleries. Once we’ve finished the redevelopment of the post 45 galleries, in fact, it’ll be pretty much a brave new world – I don’t know where we’re going to go after that. We’ll have finished the gallery master plan and that was a huge huge thing that came out in 1990? Alison Wain: I’m sure actually it was before I was here. Barbara Reeve: And so that’s part of that. But bringing everybody on board and changing their perspective from the way things happened in the 1980s when you could put up your hand and say “Hey, I’ve got a volunteer organization and we’d like to work on your DH9” – we’re not dependent on that any more. We have the resources in house, we have the skills in house, and we have the political determination in-house to go where we see that we need to go. And I loved your point about not saying no – that is something that all of the conservators in this institution have had drilled into them – you never say no – you say “Of course we can do it – here’s how”. Alison Wain: Or “Here’s another option”. John White or Mike Cecil would you like to speak to that point from the curatorial point of view? John White: There’s a couple of points here. As a curator I’m very mindful that we do operate on three year cycles. I’m also mindful that projects like the Lancaster and �the Beaufort could never be completed in a three year cycle. And there are some real problems – if you are looking at the solution to REALLY big objects, you actually might need to be working on them for 10 years, and also at that stage you’re well in advance of a display requirement for the item. So I think it would actually be more reasonable to say that we have to factor in some aspects of urgent work – for instance what we’re doing with the V2 at the moment - looking at solving some major problems with that so that we actually have the flexibility to make decisions later on. And I think really the way that, as a curator, I approach this is - I try and be flexible about the use of the objects, and to think imaginatively about the uses of the objects over time. An idea now might take 10 years to turn into a reality and that’s part of a curatorial role - to push on a number of fronts so that a proposition becomes possible in the longer term. But I think that we like to think about issues and treat – as you pointed out – objects very individually and take advantage of the points there. I also wanted to pick up on something mentioned earlier by Dave [Hallam], which is that the operation of some objects is in fact an excellent way of keeping on top of their preservation, and that’s something that we’ve come to recognize much more clearly, particularly in the last five years. Nikki King-Smith: A simple question. Who makes the final decision? Alison Wain: Again, I would say that the way we aim to work here is that we get information from the curators about what the significance of the object is and what its intended role in the collection is, and then as conservators we do a close examination of that object, usually with the curator as well and work out different options for achieving what the curator wants to achieve with it. But also obviously trying to balance long term role in the collection with immediate display imperatives, so it’s really an iterative process – it’s back and forth, back and forth, back and forth. One issue we do have is that I think in the past we haven’t sufficiently involved our management in that iterative process, and so we’ve had unfortunate situations towards the end of projects where management has said “I don’t like that. Change it.” And of course that’s really really difficult – sometimes the object’s on a pole in the gallery it’s difficult and dangerous to access. So we’re at the moment trying to develop a policy or some guidelines on how to – it is really a PR thing like Chris Knapp was talking about – to involve them , to make sure that what we’re thinking about as curators and conservators gets clearly across to management so they’re not surprised by the outcome, they feel part of it. I think that’s really important as well. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A well-planned operation Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 functionality maintenance Operating Objects operation project management significance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/d116b54c46b95f54ef252e9d5d158c3d.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=nE%7EOLsEZfy-yzGcgk80jy8wc38IiP5wXX539pQSedlzI2I%7Eko4iwu5v59hO8T3QTaUNSCUiqxS40ewXvxKM%7E6JuOv9tm3dJaHsyymbBITTMINIBb1I89fQ7FLidB6MvSHxGEuG7mqp-59fFE8V%7E7JVN2%7EPOzzYW-aRAkabQSIFKRRk6HyX%7ESPw50ufwpoRvwhr-v12qUOa7p9tI0ZAquzodt-M46sXfAhQxCuHsIek3YIxKgV58yXqGCUieWDuhs1vXqEKxdX0-CQLjMmJqgJiWRyrTfmFSMYvb1nsd3Hf79uegesdqc%7Et%7EgWcAiF90SnQvmuK5sa42CDsNJOYC1oA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM cf95337ffc7a259c8736a4a2beb93822 PDF Text Text A Spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Andrew Pearce Australian War Memorial Abstract: One of the primary icons of the Australian War Memorial, the Lancaster Bomber “G for George”, was removed from display in 1999 so that conservation work could be conducted. At this point it was known that during the most recent repaint in 1977, decisions on the position and style of the markings had been based on incorrect information. Conservation staff wanted to discover the original positions and styles of the markings. This paper discusses the conservation process of repainting and rerepresenting “G for George”as it appears today and will focus on two topics: 1. Which investigative techniques and what evidence have been used to establish the operational markings of “G for George”? 2. In a “presentation-driven” display environment, what issues govern the presentation of the “lived in” aspects of an object? Introduction Recent conservation work by the staff of the Australian War Memorial has endeavored to give Avro Lancaster W4783 “G for George” the same external appearance as it had when it completed operational service in 1944. Between 1994 and 2003 the aircraft had been repainted on 3 separate occasions but, fortunately, very little paint removal had been done prior to the addition of new paint layers. This gave the conservation staff an opportunity to investigate the underlying paint coats and determine “G for George”’s correct wartime marking and camouflage scheme. However, the discovery of errors, mismatches between sections and stenciling mistakes presented the quandary of how accurately these quirks should be replicated. During this work, a number of questions were raised and worked through: • • • • • • Who decides what the correct appearance for an historical aircraft is? What information is relevant in making this decision? What information sources are available? What investigative techniques are of use? Which information sources have priority? Having decided what the historically authentic appearance should be, what issues does it raise if this appearance is not one that the “general public”, “those in the know” or “the powers that be” consider to be acceptable? 1.1 Development of a presentation approach Over the previous decade or so, the Large Technology Conservation team at the Australian War Memorial has been developing a new approach to the preparation and presentation of objects for display. 1 �Where an object is to be repainted as part of its treatment (not always the case, a prime example being the Messerschmidt Bf109G aircraft), every attempt is made to research the story and history of that particular object, and then determine in which action or era of use the object tells the most historically relevant wartime story. Efforts are then focused on effectively and accurately portraying the object with the particular appearance/configuration associated with those events. As an illustration, the Wirraway training aircraft currently on display in Aircraft Hall was used extensively for the training of RAAF pilots during the Second World War. Its most historically significant feature however, is that it is the only known Wirraway to have ever shot down a Japanese Zero fighter aircraft. For this reason, the Wirraway is no longer painted in its air-training colours, but rather the colours it bore at the time of this significant event. In attempting to present large technology objects “as they appeared at the time” the current presentation approach has evolved. This rationale has informed the repainting/presentation decisions of a number of Memorial aircraft including the Kittyhawk, Sea Fury and “G for George”. As an example, some years ago, the Memorial’s German V1 “Doodlebug” flying bomb was being conserved prior to being placed on display in the Second World War gallery. The V1 had been repainted after the war, and chemical stripping methods were being used to carefully strip these layers of non-original paint in the hope that the original paint surface would be aesthetically suitable for display. During the stripping process, it was noted that many of the exposed underlying wartime paint layers were of unusual colours (for example brown instead of sky blue) or damaged (for example scorched rather than being a pristine, uniform painted surface). Further investigation and analysis of historical photographs showed that, indeed, many V1 flying bombs had been constructed from mismatched parts and did not exhibit a uniform appearance. 2 �Figure 1: Period photograph of V1 flying bomb showing paint scheme Unfortunately, the painted surface after stripping, although showing many details previously not visible, was quite patchy and still had too much overpaint remaining to be suitable for display. Further stripping of overpaint to produce a superior visual result would have been at the detriment of original material (for example stencils). Thus the decision was made to repaint the V1, using the exposed wartime surfaces as the master template for the paint scheme. This treatment resulted in a relic that, while repainted, appears very much as we believe it would have while in service. Figure 2: Memorial V1 flying bomb in current display configuration 3 �1.2 Developing the intended presentation of “G for George” The 460 Squadron Lancaster bomber W4783 “G for George” flew nearly 90 missions over Europe up until June of 1944. At this point it was sent to the AV Roe works at the Woodford RAF base for repainting and refitting, prior to being flown out to Australia for publicity and War Effort fundraising purposes. So what activities make “G for George”most important? To be sure, the flight out to Australia and the Victory Loan tours were notable, but by far, it is “G for George”’s Bomber Command service, its large number of combat missions, and the sacrifice of the crews associated with the Lancaster Squadrons that “G for George” represents, that make the aircraft an item of significance. Certainly the more recent repaints, while not being of historical relevance for the purposes of the Memorial, still serve as evidence of the use of “G for George” as a wartime fundraising tool and as a museum piece. In the interests of preserving this historical information it was decided that, rather than attempting to strip the upper paint layers (should it have proven feasible), a more ethical approach would be to investigate the original markings and then repaint the aircraft according to these over the top of the previous paint layers. In picking a period to represent through repainting, there is really only one viable option. That is to show “G for George”with its “scoreboard” of 90 successful operations complete, and in the camouflage and marking scheme present on the aircraft at the end of its active service, prior to its refurbishment and repainting for the publicity flight out to Australia. 1.3 Researching the intended presentation Given the pressures of wartime activity, little time was allocated to airfield photography. For this reason, very few photographs are available that show the wartime markings and paint scheme present on “G for George”. There are a few images showing the “scoreboard”, a number taken near the crew exit door and some wide shots of the starboard side of the fuselage. To the best of our knowledge, there are no unobscured, wide shots of the port side of the fuselage and no photographs taken from above the aircraft showing the camouflage on the wings. Figure 3: Archival photograph of starboard fuselage of “G for George” 4 �Figure 4: Archival photograph of port fuselage of “G for George” “G for George” was repainted prior to its flight out to Australia, and then again in 1955 and 1977. Aside from some localized paint stripping conducted on the wingtips and sections of the rear fuselage in 1944 during the refurbishment process, underlying paint layers were left intact during each of the repaintings. Instead of having a repainted aircraft with its wartime markings destroyed, the Memorial was presented with an invaluable opportunity to examine and research the original markings preserved under the subsequent paint layers. This information was then used to reproduce the wartime markings. In analyzing the wartime paintwork, transmission x-ray techniques were not viable due to the presence of multiple heavy coats of paint and a metallic substrate. Standard paint flake cross sectioning techniques clearly show the sequence of layers laid down on a surface; however making sense of the positional information they provide once the samples are removed from the surface is problematic. Relating the layers back to a design such as a camouflage pattern would be extremely time-consuming. As an alternative to these techniques, Memorial conservators decided to adapt a technique known as “spot rubbing”. This enables the layers of colour applied at a particular point to be viewed in sequence. Spot rubbing involves taking fine grade emery paper and rubbing a small circle through the paintwork to the undercoat layer. The sequence of paint layers applied to the surface then appears as a series of concentric coloured rings around the perimeter of the spot. Careful rubbing can also be used to widen the exposed colour layer associated with a particular spot, enabling paint matching of the colour to be conducted (a facility not available through thin film cross sectioning). 5 �Figure 5: Spot rubbing on “G for George” By using the manufacturer’s camouflage specification as a guide as to the likely location of markings, targeted spot sampling could be applied to track the course of the camouflage. Due to the “feathering” of spray painted camouflage edges, a definite point of change between green and brown cannot truly be said to exist. Nonetheless, refining of the spot rubbing technique has enabled the zone within which the camouflage demarcation occurs to be narrowed to a region approximately 100mm in width. As previously mentioned, some regions of the airframe had been paint stripped during the previous refurbishment processes resulting in loss of evidence of original markings. Where possible, the available historical photographs of “G for George” were used to locate and reproduce missing markings. If this could not be done, the original AV Roe camouflage specifications were used. So, the information actually found on the aircraft provided the primary evidence for the painting scheme, with secondary evidence coming from well documented photographs known to be from the correct time. Any further gaps were being filled by referring to the official manufacturing specifications. And having gone to such trouble to determine the correct information, what was the result? Was it what the staff/managers/public expected and what was the reaction? 6 �Figure 6: “G for George” as presented today 1.4 The expected result vs the object As a general rule, aircraft restorations in the past have resulted in what one might classify as “pretty” aircraft. Institutions and aviation collectors have had a tendency to restore their aircraft to almost concourse conditions. The paint is all shiny, the markings and stencils are perfect and all the colours match. The finished product appears more like an enthusiast’s model kit than an operational aircraft. In contrast, the evidence found on “G for George” and in photographs indicated a very different result, including mis-matched paint colours, mis-aligned paint transitions, stencils with reversed lettering, lettering applied freehand rather than by stencil and a range of other non-standard details. These unexpected aspects of the markings served as evidence for many features of “G for George”’s military service. They demonstrated the distributed method of manufacture used to produce Lancasters, showed that some sections had been damaged and replaced while the aircraft was in service and reflected the personality and individuality of the ground crew and airmen who served with the aircraft. They were thus of enormous importance to the full understanding of the object and its service conditions, and to the presentation of “G for George” as an object which had genuinely flown in service. 2.1 A presentation dilemma Increasingly, the modern museum environment is heavily presentation driven. Appearance is everything. Displays, objects, text panels, lighting, multimedia presentation and the surrounding furnishings all combine to produce the final “museum experience”. So, in such a presentation driven setting, what place is there for an object with a “less presentable” appearance? Does the “truthful” conservation and restoration of an object’s original appearance come at the expense of the display? Certainly, when many hundreds of thousands of dollars can be spent producing a gallery environment, one can easily see why anything that undermined that work would be considered less than desirable. Specifically, what issues does the presentation of “G for George” raise and how do they affect the final experience? 7 �2.2 The Issues 1. Comparison to similar aircraft elsewhere: Worldwide, there are a number of exceedingly high profile Lancasters held in collections. These include “S for Sugar” at the RAF Museum in Hendon in the UK and “City of Lincoln” flown by the Battle of Britain Memorial Flight (BBMF). Although in the case of “City of Lincoln” the aircraft is regularly flown, the appearance of both these aircraft corresponds to the “model aeroplane” look. The paintwork and stenciling is neat, the colours match and the exterior finish is glossy in appearance. Although they do not represent an accurate image of the way such aircraft appeared under combat conditions, the presence of these aircraft creates a public expectation that this is how aircraft of this type are supposed to look. Figure 7: “City of Lincoln” BBMF Lancaster 2. “But it never used to look like that.” When doing a major conservation/restoration project on a well known icon, altering the appearance from that to which people have become accustomed will always meet some resistance. In the case of “G for George”, the aircraft had been on public display for over 40 years. As far as many people were concerned, they “knew” what it looked like. 3. “The military would never tolerate untidiness or lack of discipline like that.” A number of the features now present on “G for George”, including the mismatched paint colours, hand-applied lettering, reversed stencils and the swastikas on the propeller spinners, do not represent the generally accepted idea of “military precision”. 8 �4. Divergence from popular folklore: Below the cockpit on the port side of the fuselage, “G for George” has a graphical representation of all the successful bombing raids flown. Markings of this type are quite common on military aircraft and are referred to by many names including ‘strike markings’, ‘tally board’, ‘scoreboard’ and ‘bomb log’. For some fifty five years, next to the 33rd mission marking on “G for George”’s bomb log (corresponding to a mission flown on 27th April 1943), a red flag has been painted with a hammer and sickle. The flag is a substantial part of the mythology associated with “G for George” and the reason for its presence has been the subject of much conjecture. Figure 8: Pre 1999 representation of 33rd mission marking Over the years, at least four alternative solutions have been put forward to explain the flag: • The pilot was Goulevitch, a Russian, hence the flag. This is incorrect; the pilot on this mission was named Rose. Goulevitch piloted “G for George” on its 53rd mission, targeting Munich in September of 1943. • • The mission overflew Germany and landed in Russia before heading home. This is also incorrect; the mission came back from Duisburg without heading on to Russia. Duisburg is only around three hundred and fifty miles from Binbrook so this trip was actually one of George’s shortest missions. • 9 The pilot was Rose, roses are red, Russians are “Reds”, therefore… (Clutching at straws here aren’t we?) And finally, the “All for Joe” reason. Bomber command was flying missions in support of the campaign being waged by the Russians and the slogan “All for Joe” (Stalin) was in widespread use. At the time of the 33rd mission, bomber command ceased flying missions to support the Russians and the flag was painted to symbolise “No more for Joe”. �Figure 9: Screen capture from Peter Dunn's "Australia @ War" web page at www.ozatwar.com 10 �Figure 10: 83rd mission bomb log Unfortunately, all the above reasons miss one key point. If you look closely at a wartime photograph of the 33rd mission marking and the flag that accompanies it (such as the one taken at the time of the 83rd mission), it can be clearly seen that the flag in question is not actually a hammer and sickle at all. This is supported by the detailed paint rubbings conducted by the conservation staff researching the bomb log. Rather than being a hammer and sickle, the image in the flag appears to be a circle with a “Y” in the centre (somewhat like an inverted Mercedes Benz logo). It would appear that at some point (currently believed to be the time of the 1944 Woodford refurbishment) the deteriorated paintwork of the bomb log was overpainted by someone who somewhat zealously interpreted the red flag with the curved yellow markings as a hammer and sickle. This flag then remained on the bomb log, repainted in various configurations, for another fifty five years, while people created reasons for its existence. 11 �Figure 11: Close up of 33rd mission flag Figure 12: Current repaint of 33rd mission flag In repainting the bomb log with the corrected flag, we are effectively saying that none of the above theories could possibly be correct. This has the potential to cause a loss of face to those who have claimed to solve the mystery. Fortunately we have given them another mystery to replace it: what is the origin and meaning of the new (old) flag at the 33rd mission? 12 �2.3 Dealing with the issues Faced with the possibility of people having pre-conceived ideas of the final outcome of the conservation treatment (even before the initial disassembly of the aircraft had been completed) it was vital that we deal with the issues rather than just ignoring them until the grand opening of the new display. Fundamental to dealing with the issues was a very open process of communication. As soon as information came to light that could modify our original plans (either photographic evidence or spot rubbings), we made sure that curators and managers were informed. In this way the significance and authenticity of the evidence, its historical importance and its effect on the final product could be openly discussed with the exhibition team. By following this approach nasty shocks and extreme sticking points were largely avoided. As the treatment progressed people “knew what they were getting” and more importantly, knew that any changes to their original mental image were based on sound analysis and strong historical evidence. In the public arena a good flow of communication was similarly of high importance. Conservation staff supplied the Memorial website with regular updates on the progress of the Lancaster work. In this way, “G for George” was not seen as a major icon which was removed for five years and then returned to display looking “wrong”, but rather an icon which had been methodically and carefully worked on to return it to a more historically authentic appearance. Given a formalized process for using the available evidence and incorporating any relevant changes into the treatment planning, what was the final agreed outcome? It was decided that, where possible, any historically verifiable details that could be shown to have been present on “G for George” at the point where it finished active military operations should be as faithfully reproduced as possible. This means that mismatched camouflage colours, hand-applied lettering, stenciling errors and the like have been included. It also means that features which were found to be incorrect (such as the “Russian flag”) have been corrected. Due to the display orientation of “G for George”, many of the more obvious mismatches in paint finish, while accurately reproduced, are not readily apparent to under casual inspection and do not challenge visitors to the Memorial. 13 �2.5 The final reaction During the course of conserving “G for George”, those aspects of the reproduced appearance that were considered unusual (mismatched paint), irreverent (swastikas painted on the propeller spinners) or unsightly (hand applied dinghy release and first aid markings) were the subject of extensive negotiation. A good deal of evidence had to be provided in order to reassure managers that these features were being reproduced with good reason. On viewing the finished product, the general consensus was that the conservation treatment had resulted in an historic object that was faithfully reproduced to an exceptionally high standard. It was agreed that the approach taken, rather than being substandard in its result, was actually at the leading edge of modern museum display techniques. Figure 13: “G for George” port wing - current display Figure 14: “G for George” starboard wing - current display 14 �The public reaction has been interesting to say the least. Many visitors, far from being at all bothered by any unusual aspects of “G for George”’s appearance, do not seem to notice anything unusual at all. Those that do notice a difference sometimes comment that the aircraft appears somehow more “real” and “lived in”. We believe this would not have been the result had a more pristine traditional restoration approach been taken. It is the children visiting the Memorial however, who seem to be more likely to notice the quirks. It is rare that a school group will visit “G for George” without around half the students present asking the guide “How come it’s got Nazi symbols on it?” Conclusion It was the intention of the Memorial’s conservation staff to use all our research and all the resources on hand to portray G for George” as accurately as we possibly could. From time to time there were quite legitimate concerns raised about the final effect our proposed repainting would produce. Certainly, some of the new paint features have raised substantial public interest and comment. Nonetheless the response seems to have been universally positive. We are very pleased to report that the reactions from stakeholders (particularly Bomber Command veterans from 460, 463 and 467 Squadrons and their families) have also been highly favourable. As “G for George” is one of “their” aircraft, their positive attitude towards the conservation treatment is highly valued by both the staff and the volunteers who worked on the aircraft. References Peter Dunn's "Australia @ War" web page at www.ozatwar.com 15 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/0f904db4ecf2faafa76e253e0883587f.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=ONj-TUWHLtQXzxB2gW4abwAs2SjBu11YPLT7p2jXFszhwgzc0Fxb3CO3AUx4O-w8w0VYwvBDlLmloctk%7Es%7EeOoHFePspXRCxjL7sHDQ7ATA5TeRFknmYUOwhLBzTkXhZMPuedJberpjJXp7oARaOgH6JPpJhSvfEhcNYRmrB7g2YFqTli8waoYdZ6-WSwr8%7EC7yGh9GoQtZrSgj5qMBOWs5q1g5e2lGmYuuJLSumPEXP8JTzVuNOpijNDbZGLZZKVmngOJsraZpWQryNB6Yz6SOZWh0qtgkfplUtjq8aB-2yDK59vZCEIl1SbZlj5WllHeTZBhjHjizPGrh8FYgE%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 744076f289ab2f7ccb1bddbcf3eaf152 PDF Text Text A spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Andrew Pearce - Question and answer session Chris Knapp: The idea of stencils and whatever being wrong and sometimes being a bit contentious and upsetting people – there is a positive side, it generates interest and you get people talking about it and you can explain things. An example we had recently – we’ve just finished a Blackburn Buccaneer and we’ve got all the drawings for the stencils and locations. And we ditched that because it’s totally wrong for our aircraft. We’ve got the photographs so we’ve got better accuracy. Do you know why the paint was mismatched on the wings? Is it at the wing join? Andrew Pearce: Yes, it’s quite simply a product of the production methods of the Lancaster. It’s because of the dispersed manufacture. Chris Knapp: It’s not due to battle damage and a wing being replaced? Andrew Pearce: In the case of the tail planes of George we know definitely they have been replaced. There’s quite detailed records that were taken by Harry Tickle, G for George’s senior fitter. He kept a very detailed log of what had been damaged. From our records we know that an incendiary fell from a Lancaster that was flying above George, burnt through the top skin of the tail plane, burnt through the trim cables inside the tailplane, burnt through the bottom skin of the tail plane and fell out. The Lancaster tailplane has no repair in that section. We know it has to have come from a different aircraft. So some of the colour variations are yes, due to battle damage and replacement. Tony Coleman: I can relate to the problem of colours and people telling you it’s the wrong colour. With the tram system in Hobart – all our trams were the one colour from 1935 on. The trams that I’m working on are 1915-1917. There’s nobody in Hobart that can remember what those original colours were. I’ve got the colours from scrapes, but I still have to argue the whole thing of the 1935 colours. And that’s the other thing about colour photographs – I can only get black and white photos obviously of that period. But I can pick up the difference because they were green and cream – the trams were painted during the First World War because green paint became scarce and they were actually painted white/cream at that stage. John Kemister: The funny thing about the Lancaster project – the Russian flag actually, in the repaints, was put on in four renditions. How many variations of a hammer and sickle can you get? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource A Spot of research: investigating the previous paint schemes of “G for George” Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Andrew Pearce Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 aircraft authenticity camouflage conservation engagement restoration significance Treatment and Maintenance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/1d3d6380cf023530522b11cc17460e90.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=ELCTrAedlAOmOm-Is29AlCkjZa5vlq%7EDNvaMRVGROhKT7x1jFlhdQdhXEit1V2YcEiVUvw0iV5VyS60DrorH1-RzTvZwdWozK%7E1VSvCxI6H92sqX6YejOJUEjNwepc%7E8432BvpuqRkV-tCrMDCNg0ciKdD2ku0KxDmba2K1d2tDUOHR3yC37zsiGNGaajG0mG0mY3GXtuOllKWCsOy2QB98qGQXLWhtP1u1aElYcOfleLQ2Vrz4Kz67tngPKkReCev0MSOpZrWn4kKBSSxebX1UjaMSBmcoJPem6QLCkkiHu6VpoutzUzgTG%7EC3gst4uezuMIckuiM%7E5OcTvpyet-g__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM d791bce3b0ae154f6c92060edf7dc6ab PDF Text Text An identity crisis: Hawker Sea Fury FB11 VX730 John Kemister Australian War Memorial Abstract: This paper looks at the role of original paint and other fabric in discovering the identity and history of the Memorial’s Hawker Sea Fury aircraft. Introduction Sea Fury number VX730 is held in the collection of the Australian War Memorial as a relic of the Korean War (1950-1953). However it appears to have had a stormy past, and we could say it is something of a dark horse. Close examination revealed that the aircraft had connections with two other aircraft, numbered TF925 and VW232. By careful rubbing back in critical areas, both of these numbers became visible on underlying sequential paint layers on the wings and fuselage. There will be more of that later. First – a journey into history. Figure 1. A Sea Fury aircraft on the deck of HMAS Sydney Preliminary curatorial research, of apparently contradictory official records, indicated a varied service history for these three aircraft numbers. Records show TF925 being built in 1946 as a Mk. X, serving with the Royal Navy between 1948 and 1949. It was purchased by the Royal Australian Navy and shipped to Australia as a training airframe in 1949 after a ‘hard landing’. It was authorized for conversion to spares in November of that year. 1 �Figure 2. Sea Fury VW232, 8th July 1953. VW232 was taken on charge in 1944 and designated as a training aid in 1951 after taking four cannon shells from an enthusiastic but errant wingman. It was then reduced to spares in 1953. Figure 3. Gate guardian at Nowra (note dent in wing). Note that while these aircraft had a wide service history, no records of either TF925 or VW232 indicate that they ever actively served in Korea. VX730 however, is first 2 �referred to in the 21 Carrier Air Group on HMAS Sydney in 1950. It served in the Korean War and later suffered a forced landing in Australia due to engine failure in 1957. Further records indicate that the original VX730 was set aside for the NSW Department of Technical Education as a training airframe. Figure 4. Sea Fury VX730 on truck Anecdotal evidence indicates that this aircraft, with a long service record including active Korean service, was unfortunately cut up for scrap in error by a contractor when the navy was disposing of its Sea Fury aircraft around 1959. The same anecdotal evidence indicated that another aircraft (presumably TF925/VW232?) was hastily saved from the wreckers and the serial number overpainted with the number ‘VX730’. Figure 5. Sea Fury VX730 at Sydney Technical College. Over the ensuing years VX730 oscillated between various venues - Sydney Technical College, the Museum of Applied Arts and Sciences, the Camden Museum of Aviation, the Australian War Memorial, RAAF Fairbairn, the RAN Historic Flight at Nowra, then back to the Australian War Memorial in 1993. 3 �Figure 6. VX730 in less than ideal storage. Further work by Memorial curatorial staff commenced in December 1998, with a review of two Sea Furys held in the collection, ie VX730 and WG630. This review was intended to determine which of the two aircraft was the most significant historically, taking into account suitability for treatment and the amount of work and resources necessary to achieve the best results. At the same time a parts audit was conducted to determine which components were needed from either airframe in order to obtain one complete aircraft for display. Figure 7. VX730 in the workshop. 4 �As a result of this audit, Sea Fury VX730 was chosen for treatment in the Memorial’s Treloar large technology conservation workshop and subsequent display in Aircraft Hall, with WG630 acting as a source of the spares required for completing VX 730. The conservation project commenced in January 1999 and extended for fourteen months. Considering the confusing evidence available, any historical evidence actually on the aircraft would therefore be extremely useful in determining its true history. The conservation approach was one of minimum intervention in order to retain as much of the original painted surface finish as was possible for future research. This approach was balanced by the requirement to remedy many years of weathering, neglect, use and abuse, to have an object that would meet display requirements and portray the most authentic story for the public. Note that the Memorial endeavours to present relics as they appeared during a significant moment in their history or at the end of their active service. This may differ from other display practices that present objects restored to “as new” condition. The aircraft initially was in a sad condition, reflecting a very chequered past. It was structurally sound though, with minimal corrosion. The major assembly, comprising the engine, fuselage and wing centre sections, was dirty and damaged. Many minor components and panels were missing. Twenty-one pallets of loose components and the two outer wing panels were on hand following the parts audit and subsequent scavenging from WG630, and it was anticipated that a reasonably complete and accurately presented aircraft would result from the treatment. Figure 8. Port wing undersurface (note Hispano cannon). Before any work was commenced, accurate tracings of all markings and stencils were taken. The aircraft was then completely dismantled into major components and thoroughly cleaned. Mechanical damage was repaired where either aesthetics or 5 �safety required it. Non service handling damage was repaired either mechanically, or with standard automotive filling procedures where repair would unacceptably disrupt original material. Figure 9. Starboard wing undersurface. Similarly, missing components were replicated for visual or structural integrity. Such parts were suitably identified as replicas by stamping ‘AWM 99’ into them. No paint stripping was performed. Painted surfaces were solvent cleaned to remove a ‘protective’ varnish and then progressively evaluated. Preparation was limited to a light rubbing back to remove loose paint flakes, to provide a key for inpainting or to minimise colour variations due to weathering. Most of the undersurface paint layer, other than the outer wing panels, was retained, with inpainting of damaged or weathered areas as necessary to achieve an integrated appearance. Most of the top surfaces were lightly repainted as these were badly weathered or worn through by foot traffic. Colours were matched to traces actually found on the aircraft. Roundels and stencils were reapplied using either tracings of the originals, or photographic and printed references. Particular care and detail went into the location and fitout of the cockpit instrumentation and controls as many of these were either badly weathered or missing. Curatorial acquisition and preparation of the necessary instrumentation had preceded the project for many years. Original instrument and cockpit surfaces were retained, with inpainting of missing paint areas as required. Four Hispano 20mm cannon previously shown, obtained via the police gun amnesty buyback scheme, were cleaned and stabilised and fitted to the aircraft. 6 �Figure 10. Cockpit internals. The contribution of local businesses and individuals in reproducing difficult missing components and providing other services is acknowledged. Replica fittings, hydraulic components, canopy rails, leather shrouds, light covers, decals, stencils, paint, screen printing of instrument panels, tyre fitting, donation of an original arrestor hook - the list goes on. Many of these services were performed free or at a discount. These skills and the accompanying willingness to help are gratefully recorded in the full treatment report. But… It was at this stage, eleven months into the project, that the necessity to preserve as much original material as is possible on historic objects was reinforced. Oblique lighting (provided by sunlight conveniently streaming through an opened large sliding workshop door) on the recoated surface of the fuselage, revealed very faint traces of at least twenty-one mission markings that were not originally visible, but showed up after the repaint as a slight thickening of the underlying paint. 7 �Figure 11. Mission marking traces located on side of aircraft. These traces were too faint to photograph clearly, but here is a sketch of the markings. Figure 12. Weathering process. This evidence, combined with possible battle damage at four locations, was a strong indication that the cockpit section performed active service in some theatre, even though no records confirmed this for either TF925 or VW232. The markings 8 �correspond exactly (in size, layout and groups of five), with those on actual photographs of other active service Sea Fury aircraft. Figure 13. Sea Fury group showing mission markings. Figure 14. Markings on VX763. It was initially believed that these markings were bomb tails, but subsequent discussion with pilots indicate that the markings shown are the tails of rockets, with the lower body and head obliterated by weathering. 9 �At this stage, as a result of the scarcity of written active service records for the composite TF925/VW232, a decision was made to continue to represent the aircraft as the more historic VX730, as a complete active service record was available for this. It was hoped that this record, with representation of the aircraft as VX730, would most effectively convey information to the public on Sea Fury aircraft in Korea. All markings specific to VX730, based on original photographs, were applied to the aircraft in an easily reversible medium, so that they could be removed should future evidence or research reveal more of the true service history of Sea Fury TF925/VW232. To assist the investigation into the identity of this aircraft, local and interstate ex Sea Fury pilots took up the challenge, did some research, compared notes and recollections and kindly forwarded the results to the Memorial. A possibly more accurate history of the aircraft is presented below, based on both their information and on the evidence found on the aircraft. 10 �Figure 15. Timeline, slide 1. The three numbers were originally three different aircraft. TF925 was extensively damaged in the ‘hard landing’ on 2 February 1949. VW232 suffered damage on the Starboard side from the four cannon shells mentioned during exercises on 24 February 1949, and was written off. Records exist of both aircraft coming to Australia on HMAS Sydney in November 1949. 11 �Figure 16. Timeline, slide 2. Sometime after coming to Australia the wings and tail section of TF925 could have been used to repair VW232, accounting for the occurrence of both these numbers on the aircraft. This theory appears to be confirmed by the facts that the tail section has a different colour internal primer than the remainder of the fuselage, VW232 has been applied over TF925 on the tail fuselage section, and cannon damage to the Starboard wing leading edge does not match with the remainder of the TF925 wing. Note that 12 �the real VX730 was having a well documented and parallel active Korean service during the period 1950 -57. At this stage it appeared true that the original VX730 was cut up for scrap and the composite TF925/VW232 renumbered as VX730. Figure 17. Timeline, slide 3 The burning question was - why do remnants of strike markings appear on the mid fuselage section? Are they spurious, put on sometime in the past as a dress up, or are they genuine? The latter appears more likely given the weathering pattern of the paint layers in the area of the markings. It seems that the mid fuselage section came from an aircraft that actually did serve in Korea. Was it the original VX 730? Was the centre fuselage section, which includes the cockpit area, saved from the scrap metal merchant? This now appears most likely, but although we do have a clear Starboard image of VX 730 actually on the deck of HMAS Sydney in Korea… Figure 18. VX730 on HMAS Sydney. 13 �we have no images showing the strike markings on the Port side to compare with those found and verify its identity. (Oh @%$#!) The fully treated but still enigmatic aircraft can now be seen on display as part of ‘Air Power in the Pacific’ in Aircraft Hall. Figure 19. Completed aircraft at rollout. And that is the fascinating story of Hawker Sea Fury VX730. Acknowledgements The contributions are acknowledged of John White, Curator, Australian War Memorial, and Toz Dadswell, along with LCDR “Windy” Geale, Museum of Flight, Nowra, and Mr John Bennet, Florey, ACT for their work tracking down some of the history and the pilots who flew Sea Fury aircraft. The project would not have been completed on time without the generous assistance of the Treloar Technology Volunteer Team. 14 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/a651e74df830850bd8999ec67f4ee221.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=Wcr5gVYjhe7-miYrOTsvmdY2gXI3cNnXi%7Eztt4zfMOh4Abr0nBI52jZU5Rnoy6%7EKNEkmyqYxfhQwQA332VT9biOcPevsWBHPwSDJGgeo%7EDIgkm3xzBDtS7vwzxA-NOPxbQoo4Gd9R%7ExpW65to84PbQzKddOnc1tHAQzVYLfesDazFzKmqi4p5k8TiwKol52c6X3Z0K96SGrwrdcUO4hMux8-ztsWeqVNXuU1lkJfKwUfnw6eLHc03laTeDqM1lFdmAFcdbewpc79%7E%7EfbcAMqpUma7O5-xZvQWCjnNg2uDXaFEFyKFBrENo5Kqbkvx-cA84ta%7EiyCyDBmolRPsJov7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 6a563b1c112afcd560c66555ba3ed47b PDF Text Text An identity crisis: Hawker Sea Fury FB11 “VX730” John Kemister - Question and answer session John Kemister: A lot of that approach was a growing process if you like. Like most of our objects, we take care not to rock up to something and say “I’m going to treat it like this". You’ve got an idea but you’ve got to respect what the object is going to tell you too. Any comments? David! David Hallam: I think with large objects it’s absolutely essential that projects like that take years. John Kemister: Take time. David Hallam: Because if you rush them you’re going to goof it, and you’re going to make mistakes - not see the markings. And things like the Lancaster Bomber, which was done here, the lead time to that was just immense. John Kemister: Absolutely. David Hallam: I think John [White] and I started working on it maybe fifteen years before you actually did any work. John Kemister: Absolutely. David Hallam: I think that’s a real lesson and a lovely piece of work you’ve done. Thank you. John Kemister: Is John White here? Okay, we can talk about him. I found it very, very, refreshing yesterday to hear John say that - that he really appreciated people who could take time with their projects. And it’s contrary to the corporate goals usually and you sometimes - you’ve got to fight for it; but please treat your objects with respect for the history that they do present. I think the most I drew out of that project was - for goodness sake - wake up and use raking light in the examinations! This has happened to me three times now by accident. Okay, sure, we go up there and we look at something, but three times by accident I’ve found things on objects. The midget submarine has got flags chiseled on the side of the conning tower. It’s just absolutely fascinating. And the other thing is the surface change. Okay, when I first looked at that aircraft it was dull and weathered and dusty and there was no hope of seeing anything because the surface was so fretted and eroded and scratched, but we put a very light coating of paint on it and it changed the surface sheen on it and I was able to pick up the reflection of the mission markings. So maybe there’s scope there for further work on a nice little, easily removable something-or-other we can put on a painted surface to change the sheen of it and thereby see more detail. Food for thought. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource An identity crisis: Hawker Sea Fury FB11 VX730 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource John Kemister Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 aircraft authenticity conservation restoration significance Treatment and Maintenance https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/8b311f780b9d391ee7eb7ba59e996389.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=bSeWIUB9R7F60GI1f0c0VgbgLGAnLgJ1HSSvb4X-HB5m1eRRReN43nbMIBJ-x6ZKmTykgMzroAUDjP9gJEt8MTxtQByDm-tTPdWqhqpnzVwpeagUs2k0VQfC%7ETO-vBXRk4ZszSdmWyLlwez9PginxIpsqWL0mqXPFv9RjGACYLyhEIibf4wwwWqWyZiD4Ql7p8NLXx7mzwxwBoYEgykH0ll5Tws0%7EbjsMt948CJVvAeLKTjZpn5SUo51OvtZlCBbhG9H5mRpfqMf68vhGQWvVKPUVMSlHxls35hGV2g%7EriY%7E87Sd1oTF9pqWSTcJvue3NhDneUHl32sSshDP6-FDig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM c9c7ccc1d16045cb6c331341dc0929f7 PDF Text Text Application of the Burra Charter to large technology objects: a freelance conservator’s experiences. Gillian Mitchell Conservation Works Abstract: In the heritage architecture field it is standard practice to apply the Burra Charter as a guiding document in planning all conservation work. In the absence of a similar document to guide the conservation of large technology items, this paper will show how the Burra Charter has been applied successfully to large technology. The benefits will be illustrated by drawing on examples of projects completed while in private practice. These examples will provide an insight into the various ways conservators can be involved in large technology projects, from limited consultancy to complete treatments. In 1964 an international charter for the preservation and restoration of historic monuments was drawn up at an international conference in Venice. This became the Venice Charter1. In 1977 after the formation of Australia ICOMOS (International Council of Monuments and Sites) conservation practitioners decided to review the Venice Charter in relation to conservation practice in Australia. The Australia ICOMOS Charter for the conservation of places of cultural significance was adopted in 1979 at a meeting at the historic mining town of Burra Burra in South Australia. Hence its short title, the Burra Charter2. The Burra Charter reflects the concepts and philosophy of the Venice Charter but in a revised format more useful in Australia. The Burra Charter (henceforth referred to as the Charter) has been revised three times, in 1981, 1988 and 1999. The Charter provides guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance. It addresses conservation principles, processes and practices. The Charter is an industry standard document in the conservation and management of heritage sites, most often but not exclusively, built structures. In the absence of a similar document for movable heritage the Charter can be successfully applied to the conservation of large technology objects which have many similarities to sites in terms of size and complexity. In Australia there is a National Conservation and Preservation Policy for Movable Cultural Heritage, which was developed by the Heritage Collections Committee of the Cultural Ministers Council in 19953. While this provides strategic direction for government contributions to the preservation of moveable cultural heritage it does not outline in any practical detail appropriate conservation philosophy. The key concepts outlined in the Charter are already applied by many people working with large technology objects. Nevertheless I have found it is useful to review all treatments using the Charter framework. The Charter uses the term place to describe the site, area or building which is to be conserved. In this paper I have replaced the term place with object to emphasise and clarify the applicability of the Charter to large technology objects. �Definitions Initially the definition of terms in the Charter provides an insightful framework for understanding and managing conservation processes. The key terms from Article 1 of the Charter are: Conservation means all the processes of looking after an object so as to retain its cultural significance. Maintenance means the continuous protective care of the fabric and setting of an object, and is to be distinguished from repair. Repair involves restoration or reconstruction. Preservation means maintaining the fabric of an object in its existing state and retarding deterioration. Restoration means returning the existing fabric of an object to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without the introduction of new material. Reconstruction means returning an object to a known earlier state and is distinguished from restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric. Adaptation means modifying an object to suit the existing use or a proposed use. Interpretation means all the ways of presenting the cultural significance of an object. Significance The most critical idea presented in the Charter is the notion of understanding significance and allowing the significance of an object to guide appropriate conservation. Significant values can be aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual for past, present or future generations. i Conservation is based on a respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings of an object. ii The Charter advocates a cautious approach to change – do as much as necessary to care for an object and make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained. Similarly the Charter states conservation action should not impede the understanding of all of the layers of history in an object, as traces of additions and alterations may be an important part of i Article 1, Definitions, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. ii Article 3 Cautious Approach, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. �the significance of an object. Additionally conservation should not place unwarranted emphasis on any one value at the expense of others.iii In 1998 I was involved in conservation treatment of a landing vessel used at Gallipoli. This object had extensive post conflict alteration. The treatment had to both stabilise the boat, which was actively corroding along the keel, and emphasise the most significant period of the boat’s history – its use in the Gallipoli landing. By assessing and understanding the significance of the object, it was deemed acceptable to repaint the interior of the vessel to imitate the original service colours. Detailed paint examinations were carried out to determine the most appropriate colour and the interior was then painted with a reversible technique. Similarly, many bullet holes which had been painted over after collection were carefully stripped of recent paint to emphasise the conflict involvement of the vessel. In this instance I worked as a contractor and completed all the required treatment works. Skills and materials choice The Charter states that interdisciplinary input is required in the care of objects. In my experience a synergistic relationship between skilled tradespeople and conservation professionals is necessary for good treatment outcomes, particularly when restoration and reconstruction treatments are proposed. The Charter also states that traditional materials and techniques are preferred for the conservation of significant fabric. In many contexts this has the advantage of maintaining traditional skills as well as preserving objects. For example, in 2002 I was contracted to underpin and stabilise a laundry chimney for a regional museum. Traditional lime mortar mixes were used for all masonry repairs. These materials are of appropriate strength and chemically compatible with older building materials. The Charter also states that the use of modern materials is acceptable where they offer substantial conservation benefit and where the materials and techniques are supported by firm scientific evidence or a body of experience. iv Use The Charter specifies that where the use of an object is significant it should be retained. Similarly, objects should have a compatible use. New uses of an object should involve minimal change to significant fabric and should respect meanings and associations and, where appropriate, provide for continuation of practices which contribute to the cultural significance of an object.v I have been involved in a treatment to an Avro Anson cockpit in which original dials that had low levels of radioactivity were replaced with replica dials to facilitate the safe use of the cockpit by visitors. While significant fabric was removed, it was carefully identified, stored iii Article 5, Values, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. iv Article 4, Knowledge, Skills and Techniques, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. v Article 7,Use and Article 23, Conserving Use, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. �and catalogued to facilitate replacement in the future. The benefit of this treatment was the continuation of use of the cockpit in its tradition as a training aircraft. Setting, Location and Contents It could be argued that Articles 8-10 in the Charter, which address setting, location and contents of places, have limited application to moveable cultural heritage. However many large technology objects have site specific histories that contribute to the significance of the objects. I was involved in a conservation study and treatment design for a large working plant room in an historic building. Individually many of the items of plant equipment had limited significance, however as a whole collection that illustrated technological and social change over a period of seventy years they were worthy of preservation. In this case, modern equipment was fitted in around redundant services that were retained in situ. Reversible concrete floors were cast over the historic floors to make the area meet modern OH&S standards for safety while preserving the original floors and markings below. Similarly contents and fixtures within objects can also contribute to their significance and should be retained. The Charter states that removal of contents, relocation or significant changes of setting are not acceptable unless it is the sole means of ensuring the objects’ preservation. In the treatment of the landing vessel mentioned earlier it was necessary to remove large accumulations of soil from against the keel in order to stabilise corrosion. Recognising the potential significance of this material, adhesive lined fabric was used to support the removed dirt and inclusions (including bullets). This material was carefully labelled and accessioned into the museum collection. Participation The importance of providing for the participation of people for whom the object has special associations or meanings is also outlined in the Charter. It states that opportunities for commemoration and celebration should be investigated and implemented.vi As a consultant designing a treatment I was involved in the control of dry rot in a Waka (Maori war canoe). The canoe was to be paddled regularly for celebrations. This requirement for use had an impact on materials selected for consolidating the weakened timber. Change The issue of change to objects is also outlined. Here many of the tenets of museum conservation practice are reflected. The Charter recognises that change may be necessary to retain cultural significance, but that it is undesirable where it reduces cultural significance. Any change which reduces cultural significance should be reversible. Removed significant fabric should be reinstated where circumstances permit. Existing fabric, use, associations and meanings should be adequately recorded before any changes are made to an object. Additionally, any significant vi Article 12, Participation and Article 24, Retaining Associations and Meanings, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. �fabric which has been removed from an object, including contents and fixtures, should be catalogued and protected in accordance with its significance.vii Preservation, Restoration and Reconstruction Treatments that involve preservation (i.e. the protection of an object without obscuring the evidence of construction or use) should always be applied when the fabric is so significant that it should not be altered, or in cases where there is insufficient evidence to allow other conservation process to be carried out. viii I have been involved in making treatment recommendations for a number of items in regional collections, including train carriages, saw mill equipment and coastal defence weaponry. In a number of instances there has been insufficient evidence of the significance of the objects to formulate complex treatments. Instead, low cost preventive solutions have been the key to ensuring ongoing protection while further research can be done. The Charter clarifies that treatments that involve restoration, reconstruction and adaptation should reveal significant aspects of the object. Restoration is only appropriate if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric. Reconstruction and new work should be identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation. ix For example, during the treatment of a First World War Howitzer I applied many reconstructive treatments. This was acceptable as the significance of the object was purely as an example of type and it had no specific service history. For the purposes of interpretation it was necessary to present the object as close as possible to its service appearance. However all changes made were reversible and based on physical or documentary evidence. Conservation Practice The final section in the Charter outlines key considerations in conservation practice. It highlights the necessity for treatment works to be preceded by studies which help to identify the significance of the object. Analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence should always be part of conservation. When completing contracted conservation work I have found that it is often beneficial to have a staged work program that is flexible enough to deal with unexpected findings. The Charter recommends that statements of significance for each item should be prepared, justified and accompanied by supporting evidence.x While this is common practice in the built heritage field, it is also increasingly common in museum environments with moveable collections. While in my experience I have never been presented with a written statement of significance for a moveable item, much of the same information is collected in an informal situation through discussion with curatorial staff. The vii Article 15, Change, Article 27, Managing change and Article 33, Removed Fabric, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. viii Article 17, Preservation, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. ix Articles 19, Restoration, 20, Reconstruction , 21, Adaptation and 22, New Work, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. x Article 26, Applying the Burra Charter, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. �discipline of producing a written statement of significance can nevertheless be beneficial as it ensures all parties involved in work on an object have the necessary background information to inform treatment decisions. The Charter recommends the records associated with the conservation of an object should be placed in a permanent archive and be made publicly available where possible. Similarly the records about the history of an object should be protected. xi The Charter concludes with a comment on resources, stating that adequate resources should be provided for conservation. It also notes that the best conservation often involves the least work and can be inexpensive.xii This paradox is nicely illustrated by some sawmill equipment for which I designed a treatment program. The components were extensively corroded and had suffered significant paint loss. As the evidence and justification for repainting the objects was not available, my recommendations included siting the equipment undercover and raised up off the ground. This inexpensive option preserved all the layers of history embedded in the object and provided the time for the owners to research the significance of the collection before deciding on any more invasive treatments. Similarly, involvement of conservation professionals is not always as expensive as one might expect. I complete work that ranges from quick onsite consultations to full hands-on treatments. In many cases I have been involved in designing treatments for objects that will then be carried out by others with limited skills, in one instance using people on a work-for-the-dole project. Conclusions The Burra Charter provides a user friendly guide to appropriate conservation treatments. It is applicable to both heritage sites and large technology objects without any compromise. It is also a useful tool for communicating conservation philosophy in those instances where treatments or limited treatments need to be justified. References 1 ICOMOS. The Venice Charter, International Charter for the conservation and restoration of monuments and sites, (1964), ICOMOS. 2 Australia ICOMOS. The Burra Charter: the Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of cultural significance (1999), Australia ICOMOS Melbourne. 3 Heritage Collections Committee of the Cultural Ministers Council. National Conservation and Preservation Policy for Movable Cultural Heritage (1995), Heritage Collections Committee of the Cultural Ministers Council. xi Article 32, Records, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999. xii Article 34, Resources, The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for places of cultural significance 1999 � https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/e7bc3208efd2839b76581762efd3aa29.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=k-Uq2pSiu6XxApn6u1vxjs0XHvPvShn7wsgmx%7E07v55YfaFZzsW2g955nECVEOxW6LCULYieiyu8HK4yZXAPvqAGq6wF305NYiYjWEYhOEPnnl9neonC17cmSo09siqTAb4i38C-M895ladEcsUu7sBUOj-yxa8glQaFrCH8ugNDl-cjzt%7EuYRc6c26AUw%7E3RfB9vxoAco-u7JoH3Hq0FDgTwB5J9gndyeLwqevxflgoTQ8qWB1Mq8UVwWy8d9onnzh8CJO34%7EoPunEEZt1MhzrcyQNgWiTViZxuvppFyImy52jwGjO1utdGSIkB-iopdYpcU%7EzuYkmUzUiF0YbcyA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ee3481848c79e6889a55cd9bb97d6be2 PDF Text Text Application of the Burra Charter to large technology objects: a freelance conservator’s experiences. Gillian Mitchell – Question and answer session Fred Haynes: It's probably not a question as much as a statement. The island I work on…in our library I came across a conservation management plan. Oh, this was written, commissioned by the navy - this thing - terrific, great. But from my perspective, actually living amongst the old buildings and heritage buildings, the Defence maintenance people who organise any maintenance for anything pay absolutely no heed to that whatsoever. Joe Bloggs, the local contractor from down the road, comes and brings his bits from Bunnings hardware, screws them on, away he goes. There’s absolutely no auditing of that process. Gillian Mitchell: Yes. Fred Haynes: So that’s from the other end of what you’re getting at I suppose. All those words are terrific but it’s like a quality system – unless somebody actually follows that up it’s bits of paper on a shelf. Gillian Mitchell: Yeah for sure. And that’s probably quite similar to my experience at Old Parliament House, that there is a lot of time and energy put into the communication. Once those ideas have been established - the communication and dissemination of information to everybody, whether they’re staff or whether they’re contractors coming in on site - does take quite a lot of time and energy. But I guess once you’ve got that agreed understanding and the agreed reasons for the significance, then you’ve actually got something to communicate. So it’s a good starting point. But yeah, it’s definitely a long road. John Kemister: Mine’s an allied question if you like. Gillian – you’re out in private practice. A private collection – the owner has the ultimate decision as to what he wants to do with it. Have you had any interesting instances where you’ve had to sort of gently steer somebody away from a course of action to a more conservative course of action in private practice? Gillian Mitchell: In the context of private collections…I haven’t done a lot of work for private collectors. That work tends to be limited to much smaller objects – Mrs Blogg’s ceramic that is broken. No, I can’t really think of a good example of where that’s been the case. As a general rule you can often sell, though, going with a more conservative approach because it’s a lower cost, lower time-intensive outlay, and you can quite often get good results by saying “No look, you don’t actually have to worry about all this really high cost, fancy technological stuff – we can just do this, this and this and that’ll get us out of the woods”. Alison Wain: That’s something that Chris Knapp referred to yesterday actually, was the lower cost of conservation, in fact, than many more restoration based approaches. Gillian Mitchell: Yes. �Alison Wain: You said that the clause on the removal of contents was perhaps not so relevant, but actually I think that’s a really important one for large technologies. Because one thing I’m aware of is that we’re often rather free with interchanging contents and spares from one LTO to the other, or considering parts of one LTO as spares for another, and we’ve referred to that in a number of papers today. And that’s often necessary – it’s the only way you can get parts that you need, to make an object complete for interpretation or structurally complete or operable or whatever. But particularly, also it can be where [there are] contents that you can easily take in and out – they’re not part of the structure of the object, and we are I think perhaps a bit free with that and that’s perhaps somewhere where the Charter would be really good. Gillian Mitchell: That was actually what I meant – [sorry] if I said it upside down. I was saying that if you were looking from outside you might think that that clause was one of the least applicable if we’re transferring it across, but indeed I absolutely agree with you it’s one of the most essential, and it’s perhaps one of the areas where we are too lax and there really are many instances where the contents and the context and the physical situation of the object perhaps should have much more attention than they do, being dragged out of context and plonked in a museum somewhere – absolutely. An example of that that I didn’t actually get to was the Gallipoli boat that I talked about – the importance of contents. Part of the treatment was - the keel, under many layers of paint and dirt, was corroding quite badly and we had to do a corrosion control treatment in that spot, but that meant removing a whole lot of accretions that had been bound in by many many layers of paint. So we actually lined those with adhesive fabric lining and took all of that dirt out and kept it and put it in the Wear Memorial’s collection in storage somewhere as historic dirt. But it actually contained all sorts of bits and pieces, including bullets, so there’s a nice example of how something hidden adds a little bit more to the story. Nikki King-Smith: Just a quick comment on the use of the Burra Charter – I’ve been thinking of using the Burra Charter for the outline for my project which is the submarine in the slipway, and that’s predominantly because I don’t actually have a curator or curatorial guidance on what I’m doing. So the Burra Charter gives me a really good way, and concise way, of thinking about the things that I’m not actually trained to think about. It’s a good backup for a system that’s a bit faulty. Gilian Mitchell: Yeah – good stuff. John Griswold: John Griswold, also a private conservator, from Los Angeles. I wanted to thank you for your talk and applaud you for the cross disciplinary imagination, applying this to the context of objects. And also to let you know that the Burra Charter is something that does resound around the world as something that we certainly discuss in the United States, where we have our own Code of Ethics and Guidelines for Practice from the AIC, but also work within the context of World Heritage – documents like this. And to me the significance of the Burra Charter, and the extreme value of it, is exactly what you just said – the focus on significance, And I think because our professional documents really grew out of the context of, quote, “high art” paintings and sculpture, where connoisseurship and curatorial expertise and input was just sort of endemic to that culture, there was either that sort of fundamental understanding of what the significance was or a qualified expert was there at your shoulder to tell you. But we were often the ones in the front lines coming up with the �primary evidence as we were entering into our treatments and we had a lot to do in participating in that dialogue. And I think it’s a very valuable document in world dialogue right now, for our collective professions to really share that responsibility for recognising significance - and also multiple significances - and shining a real light on the fact that significance will change. And I guarantee you on just about any object over the next 500 years – which is not an unreasonable time span to be looking at things – different factors will affect the significance of the things that we do to enhance or amplify or highlight a particularly perceived significance. [So these ] do need to be reversible, so again thankyou for your talk, I found it really interesting. Gillian Mitchell: No worries – thank you. If you haven’t had the opportunity to read the Burra Charter, if you just get onto the internet and type in “The Burra Charter” you can get the full text and everything. It comes up immediately; it’s very easy to find if you do want to chase it up. Alison Wain: Just one more comment on that issue of change of significance – I was having a very interesting discussion with Nick Langford earlier today. We’ve got a Ford WOT truck which is acquired into our collection because it’s relevant – trucks like that were used in World War Two. But it later had a history with Melbourne tramways, and in fact we were doing an initial induction and clean and Jamie found a tramways button, stuffed right down into layers of dirt that obviously hadn’t been disturbed in decades. So that’s just a really nice confirmation of that history, and we were discussing that - with the distributed national collection (the idea of a national collection, so you’re not duplicating particular types of objects in too many different institutions) - Nick was saying that he wasn’t aware of that type of truck in many other collections. So it may be that we actually have another responsibility besides our responsibility to our own collections framework. Do we have a responsibility to keep that other aspect of its history for the more distributed national collection? And who knows – in 100, 200 years time it might be that other aspect that might be seen as more significant, I don’t know. John Kemister: Just a follow on to the things you find in objects, could I urge everybody who is working with objects to be very very careful of the crud that you get out of the bottom of objects? There is a lot of history in those. It was just referred to there, the context if you like, what do we do with the bullets we found in the bottom of the Gallipoli boat? Do you leave them in there where they can disappear? The most important thing is to keep track of them, get them accessioned, get them as a subaccession to the object so that at least people know they’re there and that they can be displayed. Things in the Lancaster – ammunition clips, propaganda leaflets, a whole heap of things which are part of the context of the object that should be either kept with it, or if impractical, recorded. � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2004 Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Article An article in a journal or periodical Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Application of the Burra Charter to large technology objects: a freelance conservator’s experiences Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Gillian Mitchell Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 2004 Burra Charter conservation significance standards https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/928de6966af828cc249d1fda2ea1f9ed.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=JYTXES4AaB6Ux%7EMf%7EYukq03f9rApgO6Wg6NYpSlu80WlUI5v2kSKDovTS773OI7g1LEjfC2Wv07QdsY7-LKl-AUe4T6QU3LGzm0mQuG5lA2mwUndAmeqMZOXziA12n-Vh3NAf7WmyrWCM%7EHR9nVcxsLls5IN4eK4UDK2E1QBp4yeTiiYIWmJ8Hjy1J4icd0Xg4VgB33bIXCIHarYKelmQNn7OdDgMP9zJO%7EFQ71XwTLdTOA14l4wbm0bn2U3GxmzayV-YLyiwjqXkt9RR-oGWjFhu5BELwSieXOBMuFIJFiw4sre0jyFmL%7E-XtH9UQSRlHZApn0YSzZjEQRO5g%7EPJg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 88c4ba6d4ea216d034ac3500e26b8186 PDF Text Text   Industrial documentations – a collaborative way to build knowledge together Peter Du Rietz, Curator at the National Museum of Science and Technology, Sweden: peter.durietz@tekniskamuseet.se Anna Lindgren, Head of Archive, Library & Conservation at Swedish Transport Administration Museums, Sweden: anna.lindgren@trafikverket.se Keywords: industrial history, documentation, steel industry. Background Many of the presentations on this seminar deals with how to physically preserve industrial buildings and large machinery. Our experience are that there is a perspective that needs to complement these ways of preserving and documenting. Factories are built on commercial industrial sites with an economic value. Industrial buildings are therefore often being torn down and replaced by another buildings that better fits the needs of the business in mind. And the heavy machinery also have an economic value and are being sold to factories in, for example Eastern Europe and China. More and more seldom are physical buildings and machinery from our time available for preservation. These days source material are not preserved in archives as they use to be from industrial companies. In Sweden a lot of industries presented their manufacturing and history in lavish bindings during the first half of the 1900s but not now. Therefore, we need other ways of documenting our contemporary industry, its processes, infrastructure, work, machinery, systems and buildings. And actually, we know quite well how the mills during the 1700s and 1800s worked and look like, but what are we going to know about manufacturing of today in the future? How can memories and stories of today´s industry be preserved to future generations? And how will the cultural heritage from the modern industry look like in the future? Already in 1982 there was a conference in Sweden with the Nordic countries about conservation issues and the cultural heritage at the mining industry. At that conference there was a suggestion to make a handbook about documentation of mining industries. 30 years later there was a conference concentrated to conservation of heavy machinery and in 2007 again Jernkontoret, The Swedish Steel Producers Association, invited to a conference about the cultural heritage from the mining industry and particularly about knowledge and memories from the modern steel industry. At the end of that conference it was decided that a pilot study would be done, to investigate how a modern industry could be documented in collaboration between cultural heritage organizations and industrial companies. An important task was to try new methods of documentation. A project committee was created at The Swedish Steel Producers Association with members from the association, National Museum of Science and Technology, The County Museum of Gävleborg and from the Swedish National Heritage Board. 1     �Documenting the Hofors mill The pilot study was conducted at the Ovako plant in Hofors in 2008-2009. The documenting team was built with members from National Museum of Science and Technology, The County Museum of Gävleborg, The Swedish Steel Producers Association and retired employees from the plant. Two photographers, one from National Museum of Science and Technology and one from Ovako, participated. The goal of the pilot study was to collect material in a documentation report, and that the pilot study could be a starting point for a manual. The questions formulated for the pilot study were: What methods can be used to document the modern steel industry? How can many actors interact around a documentation project? How can the results be presented in an educational way? What is specific in terms of engineering and manufacturing for the industrial plant that are documented? The team were divided in groups of 2-3 persons and appointed different parts of the plant, the steel mill, the cogging roll mill, the pipe mill, the ring mill and the cold working mill. And beside that there was also an archival inventory performed at the historical archive of the plant and at the Municipality archive. Initially, a review was made of relevant documents to the various selected parts of the plant, such as floor plans and drawings of the production equipment. The documentation methodology used can best be described by the expression “walking-talking” in which the company representative showed the museum staff around and told us about the manufacturing processes. Through this approach, we could start building a skeleton of knowledge about the plant, knowledge focused on manufacturing processes. All images from the pilot study are stored at National Museum of Science and Technology, which also acquired a number of objects from the production. Other documentation material are archived at National Museum of Science and Technology and The County Museum of Gävleborg. Apart from that material the pilot study resulted in a book, seminars, an exhibition, a lot of media attention and some new projects. Collaboration as a method In the begging of the pilot study preparations for the documentation was carried out jointly between the actors. The mixed groups proved very good at the documentation. Checklists were developed so that the groups followed the same structure. To the first meetings Ovako had prepared archive material, brochures and compilations. Descriptions of processes and production equipment could be done with this material as a basis and through discussions in the working groups and with employees. Although the days in field only was five, we gathered much more material than we could have predict thanks to the different skills in the team. The pilot study showed us how important it is to establish and prepare a documentation. In Hofors was the directors of Ovako involved from the beginning, which facilitated the 2     �planning and implementation. Besides the cooperation in the field work and the mixed working groups as a collaboration method it proved fruitful that different actors at local, regional and national levels cooperated. Participating organizations The pilot study showed that there are many advantages to cooperate in a documentation project. To document in teams with representatives from the industry and cultural heritage organizations gave many results in a short time during the field-work in Hofors. The knowledge of the business representatives of the production, its processes and equipment were crucial for the documentation. At the place where the industry is located there are often skills and resources to make use of, like historical associations, municipality and schools. In Hofors, we had close contact with several associations, the union and the municipality. At the regional level, the County Museum was represented. At the national level were involved, besides from National Museum of Science and Technology and The Swedish Steel Producers Association, the Swedish National Heritage Board. The pilot study showed that the more people involved in a documentation project, the greater distribution and the knowledge built up and collected gets to several to share. Industrial documentation - How and Why? What´s in it for us? The experience of the pilot study, not least the benefits of documenting in mixed groups, made The Swedish Steel Producers Association wanted to move forward with a handbook for documentation of manufacturing. After discussions at a workshop on developing a handbook determined that there would be an inspirational and methodological book, not just a book of methods, and that the book would focus on attracting industries that wish to document. One year ago, we published the book Industrial Documentation – How and Why? with the two of us as editors. In the first chapter we highlight the various benefits of documenting activities and what one can do with such a project and documentary material. The most important things we identified for industrial companies was these three: 1) History Marketing: Using its history in marketing a company can highlight themselves as stable over time and therefore a credible company with a clear identity, go-ahead spirit, ambition and continuity. A documentation material can be a good help and be a tool for history marketing campaigns in the future. 2) Make the contemporary society visible: In the case of Ovako in Hofors was one of the main insights of the management that there is a more direct value in documenting the processes well and keeping good order in the drawing systems. Anyone who takes the time to define and describe their approach so that they are comprehensible to outsiders will get perspectives on their own business. The knowledge of what the company does and stands for as a record result has a value both internally, in the organization, and externally, in the meeting with the community at large. Common perceptions about what a particular place of work has been, what it 3     �is and where it is heading creating consensus among employees – a “we-feeling”. It is the foundation of a strong corporate culture and contributes pride in the workplace and their own professional skills. One such company is obviously a resource in periods of prosperity and expansion, but perhaps even more so when the business face challenges. The interaction between business and society is not obvious visible by itself, it needs to be formulated and clarified both for the society and for its own employees. Documentations can play an important role to present the company and its production in a broader context, in a social context. 3) Find employees in the future: Through the museums, the industry can reach a young audience that will be future employees. Through collaborations of documentations, a different picture can highlight how it is to work in the industry which may differ a lot from the image that is served by the mass media in Sweden. It may even be tempting to work in the industry. Industrial documentation - How and Why? How can you do it? The second major chapter focuses on how a documentation in a collaborative way can be made. In the manual we describe how: 1) The benefits of different forms of cooperation, not only between a cultural institution and an industry, but also with other organizations in the area, such as the municipality, pensioners associations, educational associations, local history societies, schools and trade unions. Participation creates commitment, and also means that the knowledge about the project can be disseminated. 2) The importance of preparing the documentation properly and what to consider in this work, such as the issues, the purpose, the perspectives, the limitations and anchoring at the workplace that will be documented. 3) The methods of documentation. In this part we go in quite tangible and describes practical methods and tools to make use of during the documentation. 4) A documentation material that ends up in the researcher´s bookshelves or basement is often, in the long term, a lost material. Ensure before the documentation that the created and collected material can be preserved and made available at an existing archive with resources to take care of the material in a professional manner. This will ensure that the material will be preserved and can be used in the near or distant future. To make the material really accessible the archive should at least have their archival holdings searchable on the internet. Several archive databases support today even publishing of scanned documents. 5) During the documentation you also need to make source-critical reflections and attach these in conjunction with archiving. These are a help and a support for those who may want to make use of the material in the future. Target groups This book is aimed primarily to business managements, cultural heritage organizations and local associations. To get more people involved in the cooperation and to distribute the book 4     �to as many people as possible even more organizations and a further branch organization from the manufacturing industry was engaged to write the book. Like the pilot study, the manual was developed in a broad cooperation with regional and national organizations, and the industrial company who have been involved in the pilot study, plus Swedish Railway Museum, The Museum of Work, Swedish Forest Industries Federation, the Centre for Business History, an industry curator with a private company and a researcher in the history of technology. Conclusion Finally, one can say that we with this book wants to create a tool for cultural heritage organizations to develop methods of documenting, to use both to initiate a documentation of an industrial plant and then perform this documentation. We want to highlight the benefits that documentations can have both for the cultural heritage, for the society and for the industry and thereby hopefully creating incentives so that more people wants to document industrial activities in Sweden. We want to encourage and facilitate cooperation between industries and museums. And hopefully contribute to a new paradigm for industrial documentations and actually highlight the industrial activities as something to be pride of, at least at a local level. There are plenty of places around Sweden where it is carried out industrial activities and developments at the international cutting-edge level, but very seldom anyone pay attention to this. Work in the industry has received a bad connotation so that the activity does not create the pride that often would be warranted. The industry in the future depend on that people want to work there, want to settle down in the small industrial towns far from everything that can attract in big cities. Biography Peter Du Rietz is a curator at the National Museum of Science and Technology in Sweden where he works with documentation and collecting issues. Anna Lindgren is Head of Archive, Library & Conservation at Swedish Transport Administration Museums where Swedish Railway Museum is one part. References Alzén, Annika & Burell, Birgitta (red.), Otydligt, otympligt, otaligt. Det industriella kulturarvets utmaningar, Stockholm: Carlssons, 2005. Avango, Dag & Houltz, Anders (red.), ”Industriarvet idag”, Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 65. Uppsala, 2013. Avango, Dag & Lundström, Brita (red.), Industrins avtryck. Perspektiv på ett forskningsfält. Eslöv: B. Östlings bokförlag Symposion, 2003. 5     �Avango, Dag, Jan af Geijerstam, Anders Houltz & Maths Isacson, “The Imprints of Industry: Marie Nisser and the development of industrial heritage research in Sweden”, Patrimoine d'industrie/Industrial patrimony 2011:26. Paris: Le Creusot. Écomusée de la Communauté urbaine Le Creusot-Montceau les Mines, 2011. Avango, Dag & Nisser, Marie, Stålindustri och tung utrustning - vad kan vi bevara? Rapport från ett seminarium vid Karmansbo bruk, den 27-28 maj 2002. Stockholm: Jernkontorets Bergshistoriska utskott, 2006. Bergquist, Magnus & Svensson, Birgitta (red.), Metod och minne: Etnologiska tolkningar och rekonstruktioner. Lund: Studentlitteratur, 1999. Eriksson, Maria (red.) Beskrivningens metodik: Om att sätta ord på det upplevda. Stockholm: Samdok/Nordiska museet, 2002. Du Rietz, Peter & Lindgren, Anna (red.), Industridokumentation – Hur och varför?, Jernkontorets bergshistoriska skriftserie 47, Stockholm: Jernkontoret, 2014. Fägerborg, Eva, Arbetsliv: En handledning i dokumentation av arbetsplatser, Stockholm: Nordiska museet, 1981. Fägerborg, Eva & Björklund, Anders (red.), Dokumentation i dialog: att utforska industrisamhället. Stockholm: Riksantikvarieämbetets förlag, 2002. Gullers, K. W. Industrin är Sverige! Stockholm: Gullers pictorial, 1985. Hofrén, Erik, & Lars-Eric Jönsson, red., Frågor till det industriella samhället. Slutbetänkande, Utredningen om en statlig satsning på det industrihistoriska kulturarvet, SOU 1999:18. Stockholm: Fakta info direkt, 1999. Houltz, Anders, Industrisamhällets kulturarv: En översikt över de kulturhistoriska museernas industriundersökningar, Stockholm: Nordiska museet, 1998. Isacson, Maths, ”Industrisamhällets utmaningar: Samhällsförändringar och kulturmiljövård från 1960-tal till 2010-tal”, Bebyggelsehistorisk tidskrift 65. Uppsala, 2013. Isacson, Maths, Industrisamhället Sverige: Arbete, ideal och kulturarv, Lund: Studentlitteratur, 2007. Jerkeman, Per (red.), Papper och massa i Skåne, Halland, Blekinge och Gotland. Från handpappersbruk till processindustri. Stockholm: Skogsindustrierna, 2012 (Detta är den senaste rapporten i en serie om tolv). Lindgren, Anna & Helene, Sjunnesson (huvudred.). Nedslag i verket. Dokumentation av modern stålindustri – exemplet Ovako Hofors. Gävle: Länsmuseet Gävleborg, 2011. Nilsson, Bo G., Waldetoft, Dan och Westergren Christina (red.), Frågelist och berättarglädje: Om frågelistor som forskningsmetod och folklig genre. Stockholm: Nordiska museets förlag, 2003. 6     �Nisser, Marie, ”Jernkontoret och den bergshistoriska forskningen”, Arbetsliv: Dokumentation av industri och människa. Stockholm: Riksförb. för hembygdsvård, 1978. Nordisk bergshantering: Människor, landskap och bebyggelse: Bergshanteringens bevarandefrågor i ett nordiskt perspektiv, Stockholm: Jernkontoret, 1984. Silvén, Eva (red.), Verbalt, visuellt, materiellt: Om museernas dokumentation och insamling, Stockholm: Nordiska museet, 1991. Silvén, Eva, & Gudmundsson, Magnus (red.), Samtiden som kulturarv: Svenska museers samtidsdokumentation 1975-2000, Stockholm: Nordiska museet, 2006. Storm, Anna, Hope and rust: Reinterpreting the industrial place in the late 20th century. Stockholm: Division of History of Science and Technology, Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, 2008. 7     � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2015 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 03.09.2015 - 04.09.2015 Paper A paper presented at a conference or a workshop Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Industrial documentations – a collaborative way to build knowledge together Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Peter Du Rietz & Anna Lindgren collaboration community documentation industrial heritage intangible significance steel industry working https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/a961545b01e132d786ec66a01a097510.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=WIKdY012Jsax76SWpNhtPj6iOhlLoUeBuxDsiGoenfZNZZtcXXsKapwBy7zXUKSkU%7Es%7E71-SlKtEcWk9PFZYhi8x8ke9GRBHkUozUjrhzmqQG672s8orp0QPgMoXWnWmwwIXhR3ITrBGtEeJAU-A9P9jNHlCo-4jWrURXT37oFqkPbZkT6Q42ReEQbwKN5nRlh40ED8KGIMUEhg3YZ0wa-eubhpWtBPr4I9kilq0aOdqtLJTVwA%7EpxsD95KClmZcwrVZdmSc4CE5-dxk073dcaQy5bG3Gsf7BGAIt2qy5K78OAQr8kIGbZtT-6MopR0yg7gd4HLzLDURlwkYN%7EZU9A__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM ad3f877dc316d70e2b736df1751e3200 PDF Text Text Industrial heritage management in the context of urban planning Dr. Heike Oevermann, Georg-Simmel-Center for Metropolitan Studies, Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Unter den Linden 6, 10099 Berlin, Germany heike.oevermann @gsz.hu-berlin.de Keywords: industrial heritage sites, industrial heritage management, heritage conservation, urban development, architecture Introduction The management of industrial heritage sites requires rethinking in the context of urban change; the issue of how to balance protection, preservation/conservation, and development becomes all the more crucial as urban industrial heritage sites grow in number. This brings into play new challenges—not only through the known conflicts between heritage conservation and contemporary architecture, but also the increasing demand for reusing industrial heritage sites as a driver of economic urban development. The following contribution discusses industrial heritage and conservation concerns regarding urban and site development. Industrial heritage is not only an issue of monument protection or heritage preservation, nor is it only about identity, memories, and cultural traditions; it belongs to cities and their transformations. Beyond the theme of cultural heritage, the conservation and use of industrial heritage (heritage management) is an issue for planning and urban development. Recognition and management of industrial heritage sites—as protection, re-uses, or partial demolition—go hand in hand with conflicts in planning practices. The core message is: Industrial heritage sites are part of urban transformation and its planning practices. Therefore, heritage management involves more than dealing with the protection and conservation of the heritage site itself; it also encompasses the urban transformation of the city and the site. Consequently, heritage management practice has to balance heritage conservation concerns and the interests of development, which often include new production of architecture, and has to bridge the gap between these three different perspectives and rationales. The recent debate surrounding the ‘Maritime Mercantile City’ UNESCO World Heritage Site in Liverpool provides insights into this complexity, and illustrates similar questions faced by agents at other UNESCO sites, such as the former Zollverein Industrial Complex at North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. A three-year project provided profound scientific understanding of the conflicts involving heritage site management in the context of urban planning (Oevermann and Mieg 2015). The project findings will be introduced in the following sections, with some details on the case studies from Liverpool and Zollverein. I argue that the scientific knowledge resulting from our project is useful for heritage management practice, and I will offer first insights into my suggestion on developing best practices for bridging the gap between the concerns of heritage conservation, those of urban development and new production of architecture. Furthermore I suggest a processual collaboration between researchers and practitioners. Transfer of scientific knowledge into practice There is a broad literature providing guidance on heritage management practices, including manuals for UNESCO World Heritage Site Management (Ringbeck 2008; Wijesuriya et al. 2013) and guidance on heritage planning (Kalman 2014). Such guidelines represent a profound depth of knowledge and describe general procedures that are very helpful 1 �in understanding the overall context of managing UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and of heritage conservation in the context of planning. However, existing guidelines do not consider the specific heritage category of large industrial heritage sites, nor do they deeply address the challenge of balancing and bridging heritage conservation concerns and the interests of urban/site development. Approaches to this challenge derive from other categories of heritage: that of the historic city. Goetzmann (2009) describes a successful procedure employed in developing the masterplan (Leitbild) for the UNESCO World Heritage Site at Potsdam. There, conflicts were resolved through establishing alternative concepts, designs, and practices to bridge the gap between heritage conservation and urban development. Another example from the field of historic cities is given by Rodwell (2007), who applies the value of sustainability to bridge heritage conservation concerns and urban development interests. There are also specific tools for conflict management and resolution, such as the internationally acknowledged instrument of Heritage Impact Assessments (HIA), developed by ICOMOS (2011). The heritage management practice in the case of Liverpool shows that this tool supports identifying risks and potential benefits for the heritage site through a largescale urban development project, but that it does support the preparation of alternative concepts, designs, or practices. Furthermore, the case study shows that the HIA does not meet the challenge of resolving competing interests, such as heritage conservation and development. As we see later, its two assessments stick within the perspective and rationale of either heritage conservation or urban/site development. Understanding Conflicts Heritage management is an issue for many diverse agents with different perspectives on and interests in industrial heritage (Kierdorf and Hassler 2000; Albrecht et al. 2011; Douet 2012; Cossons et al. 2015). Creating advocacy among former and new users, local citizens, or local communities is an important issue that has been addressed by several studies (Smith et al. 2011; Cossons et al. 2015, pp.204–207). In this article the empirical studies focus on professional planning agents in heritage management and decision making processes. They mostly advocate either the heritage conservation concerns or the interests of urban/site development. The latter often requires architects and new architecture in order to implement their purposes. Already, it becomes obvious that the differing interests of these various planning agents lead to conflicts. But what are the conflicts about? We can generalize two main lines of conflict that challenge industrial heritage sites. One relates to culture as a driving factor in urban development, the other to architecture and its current production. Conflict 1: Culture in urban development Culture is increasingly recognized as a driving force for urban development. Today, cultural institutions such as museums, or events such as the European Capital of Culture, are used as tools for improving a city’s image, upgrading urban spaces, and providing a lively urban environment. The concept of culture-led development refers to these approaches. Heritage and heritage sites have become assets for urban development, often described as heritage-led development. On the one hand, we can recognize this as an opportunity to legitimize and promote heritage concerns and requirements. On the other hand, this superficial understanding triggers conflicts by failing to acknowledge that heritage values are deeply interwoven with the historical fabric of the sites and city. Conflict 2: Demands on the production of architecture Additionally, conflicts emerge out of the different demands on architectural production. Heritage conservation is based on the intrinsic values of material heritage—be 2 �they objects, buildings, or sites, their authenticity and integrity have to be maintained. Conservation therefore demands careful and minimal architectural intervention. However, urban development often uses architecture as an icon of and for structural change, a new image, and urban brands. Cities employ iconic architecture to promote themselves, attracting both talent and investment. Lastly, architectural design often follows new requirements for reuse, e.g. the upgrading of façades to improve thermal comfort. Architects understand architectural production as a tool to re-design the historical fabric and site. Consequently, conflict with conservationist interests is driven by the reality that competition for professional architectural recognition is better served by singular, iconic projects than by modest and sympathetic treatment of existing sites. We can explain these conflicts due to the differences in values of the three introduced perspectives. Agents of heritage conservation and urban/site development use different concepts and instruments and follow diverse objectives, and their practices are led by different values. In social sciences, we can frame these different concepts, objectives, and values as different discourses. In heritage management, they clash and influence heritage management practice. This conflictive interplay can be understood with the help of synchronic discourse analysis (Oevermann and Mieg 2015a). Through our research, it became obvious that the divergent values encountered throughout the constellation of discourses become sources of conflict (Oevermann and Mieg 2015b). What is needed in heritage management practice is to integrate the different core values and to employ further, shared values to define objectives and concepts for implementation. Both the integrated core values as well as the shared values function as bridges (henceforth ‘bridging values’) between the diverse agents and the differing perspectives and rationales. Table 1 provides an overview of the values and discourses relevant to heritage site management. Table 1: Values and Discourses Value Accessibility Authenticity* Bottom-up Character Design* Development* Economic value* Environmental value* Esthetics* Historic values* (Denkmalwerte) Image Integrity* Re-use Sensitivity Vision* Discourses Architectural production, Heritage conservation, Urban development Heritage conservation Heritage conservation, Urban development, Architectural production, Heritage conservation, Urban development Architectural production Urban development Urban development Urban development Architectural production Heritage conservation Architectural production, Urban development Heritage conservation Architectural production, Heritage conservation, Urban development Architectural production, Heritage conservation Urban development * = Core value Two case studies, from Liverpool and Zollverein, will illustrate the argument. Our research showed that Liverpool and Zollverein are specific cases but not exceptional ones, 3 �regarding this basic conflict between heritage conservation concerns and urban/site development interests. Case studies: Liverpool and Zollverein Liverpool and Zollverein’s UNESCO World Heritage Sites are huge, complex, and constituted by long-term transformation processes. In both cases, it is accepted by all planning agents that both heritage conservation and future urban development are necessary and yet must be balanced. Due to limited space, this article focuses on two details of the transformations. In Liverpool, this concerns the conflictive debate around the ongoing (2014) large-scale development project called Liverpool Waters, located at the Northern Docks. One instrument of heritage management practice—the Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA)—will be introduced to illustrate the extent to which the differences between conservationists and developer influence heritage management practice, and how difficult it is to achieve an appropriate balance. In the case of Zollverein, the Masterplan Zollverein (2001) from the Office of Metropolitan Architecture in Rotterdam is introduced, together with the conservation masterplan (Denkmalpflegerischer Rahmenkonzeption) of Reinhard Roseneck, and the compromises that were agreed—on the basis of bridging values—to balance heritage conservation concerns and development interests. The following discussion does not take into consideration other interesting arguments on the conflicts (e.g. Gaillard and Rodwell 2015 in the case of Liverpool). Liverpool’s large-scale development project Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City has been scheduled as a World Heritage Site since 2004; In 2010 an outline planning application from Peel Land and Property (Peel Waters) was first submitted by Liverpool City Council; since 2012, Liverpool has been included on the UNESCO List of World Heritage in Danger, as a result the density and heights of buildings within the Liverpool Waters proposal, and the resulting impact on the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the heritage site. The Liverpool Waters project is partly located within the heritage territory and its buffer zone north of Pier Head and Prince’s Dock, and will re-use 60 ha of dockland area. It comprises a mixed-use, high-value urban quarter development that will create around 1.7 million square meters of new built space. The project has impacts on archeological objects in the ground, on views and the waterfront, as well as on the overall urban morphology of Liverpool (Bailey 2011; Chadwick and Dicks 2011; Rodwell 2015). In 2014 the project has been revised since the first masterplan; the revised masterplan was approved in 2013, and individual planning applications are still needed. Positive or negative impacts of new development projects on heritage can be assessed by the HIA framework developed by ICOMOS (2011). The central idea is that: “World Heritage sites are thus single heritage assets with an international value that has been clearly articulated. Not everything within them contributes to OUV, but those attributes that do must be appropriately protected.” (ICOMOS 2011, p. iii). Three leading questions will be addressed: What is the heritage at risk and why is it important—how does it contribute to OUV? How will change or a development proposal impact OUV? How can these effects be avoided, reduced, rehabilitated, or compensated? (ICOMOS 2011, p. 4, 2-2-2). It is important for assessing the impact of new developments to understand the intrinsic value of all heritage assets and their contribution to the significance (described as OUV) of the heritage site. Each significance (from minor to major importance as heritage) is assessed to obtain single and cumulative impacts (classified from major beneficial to major adverse) on the heritage site. In summary, the HIA helps to identify upcoming risks or benefits and to differentiate these impacts on heritage sites. However, it does not help to bridge the differences between heritage conservation concerns and the interests of urban/site development. 4 �In the case of Liverpool, both conflicting agents—conservationists and developers— commissioned consultants to produce HIAs. However, the introduced conflicts were repeated in assessing the impacts, as demonstrated by the following quotations from the closing comments. The following conclusion regarding the high density and building heights in the HIA commissioned by English Heritage: “The legibility of the Central Docks and the central commercial core of the City will be damaged by the secondary cluster of tall buildings in the Buffer Zone. Together, the primary and secondary clusters of tall buildings and the string of mid‐rise structures along the Mersey’s edge that form part of this submission, will overwhelm the historic primacy of the Pier Head buildings along the City’s waterfront, causing significant harm to the WHS’s OUV.” (Bond 2012, pp. 392–393). Obviously, this argument gives high importance to the historic values of the site. Historic values are core values of heritage conservation, as Table 1 has shown. In contrast the next argument demonstrates the importance given to economic values as core tenets of urban development: “Tall buildings are included in the scheme to create a new international business destination that will attract investment from around the world. Research confirms that positive economic impacts can accrue from the development of tall buildings. Furthermore, central waterfront locations are a finite and scarce resource, and are highly valued as commercial locations in cities across the world. Therefore, given the difficulties faced by Liverpool in attracting commercial investment and jobs since the demise of the old docks, it is crucial to make the most efficient use of the land through high density development and tall buildings. By using this finite resource carefully, tall buildings also provide more space for creation of high quality public realm.” (Liverpool Waters 2011, p. 13). The different core values influence significantly the two HIAs, not only in this detail but more generally, as shown by the comparative cumulative impact assessment (Table 2). Each number represents a single impact assessment of a heritage asset reflecting OUV, including impacts on (key) views, strategic landmark buildings, townscape characteristics, and compliance with guiding documents and policies. Table 2 shows that the HIA commissioned by English Heritage assesses nine large negative/adverse impacts and no moderate positive/beneficial impacts (versus zero and thirteen respectively, in the HIA commissioned by the developer). Table 2: Cumulative impacts of the Liverpool Waters project on OUV from HIA English Heritage and Liverpool Waters (Bond 2011, p. 356; Bond 2012, p. 386; Liverpool Waters 2011, p. 5). Very large positive/ beneficial Stephen Bond for English Heritage (2012) Peter de Figueiredo for Peel Waters (2011) Large positive/ beneficial Moderate positive/ beneficial Slight positive/ beneficial 0 0 0 3 0 1 13 9 Neutral Slight negative/ adverse Moderate negative/ adverse Large negative/ adverse Very large negative/ adverse 8 7 3 9 3 17 1 1 0 0 5 �From my point of view, the HIA is a very useful instrument to understand in detail the possible impacts on heritage sites, and for assessing these via the core values of a single rationale, such as giving importance to historic values (conservation) or to economic values (development). Nevertheless, it fails to integrate the divergent core values that lead to conflicts, and does not create bridges between the diverse agents and their perspectives and values. Transformation of the Zollverein Industrial Complex Coal extraction at Zollverein ceased in 1986 (Shaft 12), followed by the end of coke production in 1993 (coking plant). At the beginning of the transformation process, discussions were held on whether any (and if so, which) parts of the huge area might have value as monuments. Since 2000, all four of the remaining shaft sites (Shafts 1/2/8, 3/7/11, 4/5/11, and Shaft 12) and the coking plant have been listed as monuments; and in 2001, Shafts 1/2/8, Shaft 12 and the coking plant were also designated an UNESCO World Heritage Site. Since the 1990s, Zollverein has been transformed by creative interventions, and was an anchor project of the International Building Exhibition (IBA) Emscher Park (1989–99). The transformations of the site are ongoing as new uses of art, design, and culture are slowly established. A chronological overview of the history of Zollverein and its transformation (2010) is given in Table 3. Table 3: Chronological overview of the history and transformation of the Zollverein industrial complex, 1928– 2010 Date 1928– 1932 1957 1986 1986 1986 1986 1988 1989 1993 2000 2001 2006 2010 Topic Construction of Shaft 12 by the architects F. Schupp und M. Kremmer 26.11. 15.12. 16.12. 23.12. 24.01. Herbst 30.06. 20.06. 16.12. Jan. Planning of the Cokery Plant by F. Schupp Preliminary listing of parts of Shaft 12 Sale of Shaft 12 at NRW /LEG Listing of Shaft 12 by the ferderal government Closure of Shaft 12 Final listing of Shaft 12 Shaft 12 became IBA project Closure of Cokery Plant Listing of Shaft1/2/8 and Cokery Plant Recognition as UNESCO World Heritage Opening vistor center Opening European Capital of Culture and Ruhr Museum Following the closure of Zollverein, its subsequent transformation stems from the IBA Emscher Park, which was crucial to establishing the linkages between heritage conservation and regional development. The conviction was that future development of the Emscher region would only be possible and successful by conserving the large industrial sites that constitute the region’s historic landmarks (Ganser and Wermker 1994). The agenda Denkschrift Zollverein 2010 (Ganser et al. 1999) followed this integrative planning approach and defined three basic values on which the future transformations of Zollverein: The first of these is to 6 �understand historic shafts and plants as the basic urban design structure, while the others refer to the nature and the future uses of art and design (Ganser et al. 1999, pp. 15–16)1. Despite all critic, Zollverein’s masterplan from 2001/2002 integrated these values in the new development project. A visitor center and Ruhrmuseum, a design school, a congress center, and two industrial design parks are the main new elements, partly realized in 2015. Even more interesting is the urban design concept of the masterplan, which defines the historic complex as the core to be conserved, around which new functions and buildings are to be located. In this ‘shell area’ the demands for protection and preservation are not as stringent as within the former plants. This idea was also implemented in a second masterplan concept, called Denkmalpflegerischer Rahmenkonzeption, written and design by a conservation consultant Reinhard Roseneck (2002). Although there are differences between these two masterplan concepts, both define and respect the protection and conservation area—the core —and define change and development through new buildings in the surroundings. Research findings from synchronic discourse analysis of Zollverein indicate some values function as bridging values between the different concerns and interests of the diverse planning agents. One is accessibility (Zugänglichkeit), a value pointed out by the diverse agents, with nearly the same importance. This became evident through the analysis of planning documents referring to the transformation, from 1989 to 2010 (225 documents in total). Accessibility means facilitating physical access to the formerly inaccessible production site and plants. Graph 1 shows the quantity of documents (in %) that make reference to this value. Next to the common concern of conservation and development, further bridging values are: reuse, and aesthetic values (spatial quality, design and character). However, the value of authenticity—understood according to the rationale of heritage conservation—is introduced. The importance given by the diverse agents differs enormously, thereby indicating sources of conflict, which alsco become obvious in the expert interviews. 92 85 72 70 Conservation 100% = 72 documents Urban Development 100% = 100 documents Amount of docume nts in % 31 28 Architecture 100% = 47 documents Accessibility Authenticity Values Graph 1: Zollverein: Bridging and conflicting values 1The citation in German: “1. Die Gesamtheit der baulichen Anlagen mit den Eckpfeilern Schacht XII, Schacht 1/8, Kokerei, den Gleisanlagen, den verbindenden Bandbrücken und der Kohlenwäsche in der Mitte als Knoten im Netz von Kohleförderung und Kohleverarbeitung. Diese bilden das städtebauliche Gerüst. 2.Die Artenvielfalt und die Schönheit der Natur auf en Industriebrachen. Diese sind Basis für den Zollvereinpark. 3. Die Widmung des Standortes für die Kunst und Kultur des 20. Und 21. Jahrhunderts in einer Qualität die im Weltvergleich bestand hat.” (Ganser et al. 1999, pp. 15–16). 7 �It is striking how few documents on urban development and architecture address values of authenticity. Authenticity is a conflictive value, assigned high importance among agents of conservation yet low importance among agents of urban development and architecture. This result was confirmed by statements in expert interviews. We see that conservation and accessibility function as bridging values because they are implied by most of the documents produced by each group. Development is also integrated within most of the documents, although less so in the field of conservation. The data confirm that the urban design ideas of the two masterplans integrate heritage conservation concerns with the interests of urban development. However, next to these introduced bridging values that facilitate masterplanning, conflicts arise when planning became more detailed. The proposed transformation of the former coal-washing plant into a visitor center and the Ruhrmuseum was a particular issue of debate, which I have reflected in another article (Oevermann 2012, p. 193). In this part of the transformation, addition bridging values were needed to bridge the gap (Oevermann and Mieg 2015a; Oevermann and Mieg 2015c). Identifying best practice in balancing heritage conservation and urban development From my point of view, research findings concerning conflictive and bridging values are useful in the practical sphere of heritage management. In the following sections, I offer first insights into the debate on best conservation practices for bridging the gap between heritage conservation concerns and the interests of urban/site development in this complex field. Four assumptions lead my argumentation: 1. Scientific research findings are generally valid for broader or different constellations of agents. Other values might be relevant. 2. There are tools available, e.g. agent-oriented discourse analysis (akteurszentrierte Diskursanalyse), which allow analysis of different interests and rationales (objectives, concepts, values) and which can be used in practice (Mieg and Oevermann 2015). Synchronic discourse analysis, as briefly introduced here, is an instrument for scientific research. 3. Best practice means the integration of diverse concerns and interests; 4. Understanding the constellation of agents, their perspectives and core values, is the basis for developing best practice for balancing heritage conservation and urban development. The following tools are suggested for identifying best practice in industrial heritage management, balancing heritage conservation concerns with the interests of urban/site development. They are preliminary and need to be discussed and adopted together with partners in practice. Tool 1 (WZ1): A simple matrix might help to structure the perspectives and rationales of diverse agents. Perspectives and rationales can be described by three categories: objectives, concepts, and values. Differences, especially in values, indicate prospective conflicts; shared positions indicate common ground for heritage management practice. Shared values might function as bridging values in practical heritage management. The matrix reveals challenges and opportunities within the constellation of agents, and their perspectives and rationales. It can be used for transparent communication. The use of structured questions can reveal the objectives, concepts, and values of the respective agents during workshops, interviews, round table discussion, etc. These questions are: 1. What are your objectives regarding the industrial heritage management of xxx? 8 �2. What concepts do you use regarding the industrial heritage management of xxx? 3. A prepared list of values, which have to be ticked (multiple-choice), might help to answer the question: What is of great importance regarding the industrial heritage management of xxx? Tool 2 (WZ2): A two-page statement of significance can clarify the OUV/the historic values of the heritage site for all parties involved in the transformation processes. The importance of a shared understanding was highlighted previously, with reference to the ICOMOS Heritage Impact Assessment. In a second step, knowledge on possible bridging values (see Tool 1) can be introduced to all partners. Tool 3 (WZ3): The third tool is a slight revision of the matrix Tool 1. An understanding of the significance of the heritage site and bridging values might enable parties to work out slightly shifted objectives and concepts, and to add some shared values. Examples of shifted objectives might include the adapted re-use of buildings; slightly shifted concepts might involve conservation-led development rather than real estate-oriented development; additional shared values might include accessibility, sustainability, or sensitive design. All agents should be involved in this process of revision. Tool 4 (WZ 4): The fourth tool supports the recognition of best practice to balance heritage conservation concerns and urban development interests. Best practice is identified on the basis of shared objectives, concepts, and values, which are likely be those agreed through the process of mutual understanding and revision. Furthermore, best practice has to take into consideration the statement of significance. The simple matrix can again help to communicate the findings to a broader public and to agents involved in heritage management at other sites. Graph 2 illustrates these first insights toward identifying best practice in industrial heritage management. 9 �Graph 2: Suggested toolkit to identify good practice Conclusion Conflicts in heritage management practice are often based on different perspectives on and interests in industrial heritage sites. Diverse agents might consider the need for both heritage conservation and urban development, but their practice often sticks to the core values of either heritage conservation concerns or development interests. In these cases, planning and assessment instruments such as the HIA do not bridge the differences between the diverse perspectives and rationales. Here, the suggested approach comes into play, a toolkit to help to identify and communicate best practice with the aim of balancing different interests. This suggestion includes: Diverse agents are involved in the process right from the beginning; potential points of conflict are disclosed; the statement on heritage significance is clarified; bridging values are considered; and integrated planning approaches with alternative concepts are defined. It would be of great interest to arrange for collaboration between our research center and partners in practice, to improve the suggested approach and implement it in the practical management of industrial heritage. Acknowledgments This work was supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (Project DFG, MI 788/4,1-2). I am grateful to Prof. Harald A. Mieg, for supporting and guiding the research. Vita Dr. Heike Oevermann is based at the Georg-Simmel-Center for Metropolitan Studies at Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, where she is a researcher and lecturer in the field of heritage and urban studies. Her work focuses on the themes of industrial heritage, urban transformations, the UNESCO World Heritage Programme, historic urban design, and community participation. 10 �References Albrecht, H, Kierdorf, A & Tempel, N (eds) 2011, Industrial Heritage - Ecology & Economy: Selected Papers: Proceedings of the XIV International TICCIH Congress. Freiburg, Sachsen, 2009. Chemnitz, Zweckverb. Sächsisches Industriemuseum. Bailey, M 2011, Liverpool Waters Design & Access Statement November 2011, report prepared by WYG for Liverpool Waters. (Gray literature) Bond, S 2011, Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Proposed Liverpool Waters Master Plan on OUV at Liverpool Maritime Mercantile WHS, report prepared for English Heritage, accessed 23/11/2012, http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/Journals/1/Files/ 2011/5/20/Liverpool%20Waters%20-%20OUV%20Assessment%20-%20FINAL %20REPORT.pdf Bond, S 2012, Assessment of the Potential Impact of the Resubmitted Outline Planning Application Relating to the Liverpool Waters Master plan on Outstanding Universal Value at Liverpool Maritime Mercantile WHS, report prepared for English Heritage. (Gray literature) Chadwick, P & Dicks, S 2011, Liverpool Waters – Archaeological Deposit Model, report prepared by CgMs Consulting on behalf of Peel Land & Property (Ports) Ltd. (Gray literature) Cossons, N, Cramer, J, Ringbeck, B & Watson, M 2015, ‘Discussing Industrial Heritage Conservation and Planning’, in H Oevermann & HA Mieg (eds), Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses, Routledge, New York, pp.199–216. Douet, J (ed) 2012, Industrial Heritage Re-tooled: The TICCIH Guide to Industrial Heritage Conservation, Carnegie Publishing Ltd., Lancaster. Gaillard, B & Rodwell, D 2015, ‘A Failure of Process? Comprehending the Issues Fostering Heritage Conflict in Dresden Elbe Valley and Liverpool Maritime Mercantile City World Heritage Sites ’, The Historic Environment, vol.6, no.1, pp.16–40. Ganser, K, Best, H.-J, Borsdorf, U, Bruder, R, Maack, K.-J, Möhler, D, Roters, W, Scheytt, O & Zec, P 1999, Denkschrift Zollverein 2010: Impulse für eine Fortentwicklung des Zukunftsstandortes Zollverein, [Agenda Zollverein 2010], IBA Emscher Park. (Gray literature) Ganser, K & Wermker, K 1994, ‘Industrielandschaft und Identität’, [Industrial Landscape and Identity], Garten + Landschaft, vol.7, pp.29–34. Goetzmann, A 2009, ‘Potsdam -Leitbild Weltkulturerbe’, in TU Darmstadt FB Architektur (ed) Planungspraxis deutscher Großstädte: Materialien neuer Planungskulturen, [Practice of Planning in German Cities: Materials of New Cultures of Planning], Darmstadt, Druck: BBR, pp.97–101. ICOMOS 2011, Guidance on Heritage Impact Assessments for Cultural World Heritage Properties, ICOMOS, accessed 11/07/2014, http://www.icomos.org/world_heritage/ HIA_20110201.pdf 11 �Kalman, H 2014, Heritage Planning: Principles and Process, Routledge, London, New York. Kierdorf, A & Hassler, U 2000, Denkmale des Industriezeitalters: Von der Geschichte des Umgangs mit Industriekultur, [Monuments oft he Industrial Age. The History of Handling Industrial Culture], Wasmuth, Tübingen. Liverpool Waters 2011, Heritage Impact Assessment: Non-Technical Summary, accessed 18/09/2012, http://www.liverpoolwaters.co.uk/pdf/PlanApps/201111/ Heritage_Impact_Assessment-Non_Technical.pdf Mieg, HA & Oevermann, H, 2015, ‘Planungsprozesse in der Stadt: Die Synchrone Diskursanalyse. Forschungsinstrument und Werkzeug für die planerische Praxis,’ [Processes of Urban Planning: The Synchronic Discourse Analysis], Zürich: vdf. Oevermann, H, 2012, ‘Über den Umgang mit dem industriellen Erbe. Eine diskursanalytische Untersuchung städtischer Transformationsprozesse am Beispiel der Zeche Zollverein,‘ [Dealing with Industrial Heritage Sites. A Discoursenalysis of Urban Transformation Processes of the Coal Mine Zollverein], Essen: Klartext. Oevermann, H & Mieg, HA 2015a, ‘Exploring Urban Transformation: Synchronic Discourse Analysis in the Field of Heritage Conservation and Urban Development’, Journal of Urban Regeneration and Renewal, vol.09, no.01. Oevermann, H & Mieg, HA 2015b, ‘Studying Transformations of Industrial Heritage Sites: Synchronic Discourse Analysis of Heritage Conservation, Urban Development and Architectural Production’, in H Oevermann & HA Mieg (eds), Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses, Routledge, New York, pp.12–25. Oevermann, H & Mieg, HA 2015c, ‘Zollverein and Sulzer: The Tangible and Intangible Dimensions of Industrial Heritage Sites.’, in J Czierpka, K Oerters & N Thorade (eds), Regions, Industries and Heritage. Perspectives on Economy, Society, and Culture in Modern Western Europe, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, pp.260–279. Ringbeck, B 2008, Managementpläne für Welterbestätten: Ein Leitfaden für die Praxis, [Management Plans of World Heritage Sites. A Guideline for Practice], Dt. UNESCOKomm, Bonn. Rodwell, D 2007, Conservation and Sustainability in Historic Cities, Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA. Rodwell, D 2015, ‘Liverpool: Heritage and Development - Bridging the Gap?’, in H Oevermann & HA Mieg (eds), Industrial Heritage Sites in Transformation: Clash of Discourses, Routledge, New York, pp.29–46. Roseneck, R (2002) Denkmalpflegerische Rahmenkonzeption: im Auftrag der Entwicklungsgesellschaft Zollverein, [Master Plan of Conservation. Commissioned by the Development Agency of Zollverein] context_plan, Braunschweig, (Gray literature). Smith, L, Shackel, PA & Campbell, G 2011, Heritage, Labour, and the Working Classes, Routledge, London and New York. 12 �Wijesuriya, G, Thompson, J & Young, C 2013, Managing Cultural World Heritage, UNESCO World Heritage Centre, Paris. 13 � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2015 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 03.09.2015 - 04.09.2015 Paper A paper presented at a conference or a workshop Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Industrial heritage management in the context of urban planning Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Heike Oevermann architecture consensus conservation industrial heritage management significance site urban development values https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/21127/archive/files/1d38a75a624bc3d4cfb26fab8f986b4a.pdf?Expires=1774483200&Signature=DTNTuLbIF63jD9sW8d4PR%7EXL7Tqy1cOuR5u4Cl2jZX%7E%7EPD8RMEsGledPv9adIPg8d%7EBz%7EJj38NObKk1qKEi-bVrIub9UL%7Ebl-8Wi12Um3DVf2tCcPpl1s1QZMleRlkX-WJm2RUoKRUh7F0uMAYo7VabF9mBl4Pw1fBAZwMKVqqaAigLEZiM7s0%7EuLcMBoyZxm3O5fSz2WT8vprCNGAU3WKg9QB01PmZTfXRYhssZ7p65hT2-Z0sbx-TgYP-I41sIyMeGKk1Mt-Rl4Xtw-G9tr-jbtP65rqyklETN5r5Z%7E7W4Jxoku7JX%7Eu0xpxda2SUyp4t51SO%7E3%7EGQBooY8LiCRQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM 42269e6857c7a56a35da51ab40eb6c9f PDF Text Text Large  scale  industrial  structures  conservation  in  China–  a  short  report     Dr.  Yiping  Dong   Department   of   Architecture   Xi’an  Jiaotong-­‐Liverpool  University.   Suzhou,  China     2015-­‐Sep-­‐3   Abstract     This  presentation  will  discuss  the  designation,  conservation  practice  and  heritage   research  about  the  large  scale  industrial  structures  in  China.  Cases  from  Shanghai,   Beijing,  Huangshi,  Benxi,  and  Tangshan,  etc.  will  offer  a  general  view  about  the  big   picture  of  industrial  heritage  conservation  in  China.       With  the  term  of  "Industrial  Heritage"  has  been  widely  accepted  by  the  Chinese   conservation  community,  a  number  of  industrial  buildings  and  structures  have  been   listed  as  National  or  Local  monuments  or  historical  buildings  recently.  The   designation  efforts  by  SACH  have  achieved  great  improvement  in  Industrial  Heritage.   However,  the  conservation  practice  for  industrial  heritage  in  China  is  very  closely   related  to  the  adaptive  reuse  of  industrial  buildings/spaces  in  urban  context,  which  is   driven  by  the  economic  engine  in  creative  industry  or  real  estate  development.  The   preservation  of  the  large  scale  industrial  structures  encounters  the  challenges  of   lacking  in  concepts  and  professional  skills.       Most  of  the  modern  industries  are  imported  to  China  under  a  complicated  historical   context  after  the  first  Opium  War.  The  industrial  heritage  research  and  discourse  in   China  are  focusing  on  the  conservation  of  industrial  buildings  and  brown  field   regeneration.  Considerations  for  the  environment  problems  of  former  industrial  sites   have  faced  the  challenge  of  high  cost  and  long  remediation  period.  The  Ruhr  area   cases  and  other  western  precedents  have  a  strong  influence  in  the  regeneration   proposals  in  China.  The  typical  big  stuff  elements,  steel  plants  and  coking  works’,   need  maintenance  for  rust  proof  treatment  and  safety  reinforcement,  which  are   lacking  adequate  research  and  professional  support  yet.         Almost  all  the  large  scale  industrial  structures  belong  to  state-­‐owned  enterprises.   The  relocation  for  further  production,  the  former  land  redevelopment  request  for   economic  reasons,  either  driven  by  the  local  government  or  by  the  company,  and  the   former  workers  future  are  composing  a  complicated  situation  for  the  conservation   and  regeneration  of  these  structures.             �The  current  research  about  industrial  structures  is  focusing  on  its  humanity   perspectives  while  the  values  of  some  structures  are  hard  to  assess  under  the   semi-­‐colonial  modern  historical  context  in  China.  Taking  the  fact  that  most  industrial   structures  in  China  are  non-­‐native  technology,  this  paper  argues  that  the  localization   process  within  the  technology  transfer  and  its  transition  routes  research  should  be   established  for  the  further  value  assessment.         Key  names:     State  Administration  of  Cultural  Heritage   （SACH）         中国文物局   Beijing  Coking  Plant     北京焦化厂   SHOUGANG-­‐  Capital  Iron  and  Steel  Works(CISW)     首都钢铁集团   Shanghai  Jiangnan  Shipyard  Co.  Group         上海江南造船厂       上海民生路筒仓     Mingsheng  Rd.  Grain  Silos                 Huaxin  Cement  Plant                                                     华新水泥厂   Qixin  Cement  Plant                 启新水泥厂   Benxi  Iron-­‐  Steel  Plant               本溪铁厂   Daqin  Oil  Field                 大庆油田     � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Big Stuff 2015 Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Alison Wain Date A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource 03.09.2015 - 04.09.2015 Paper A paper presented at a conference or a workshop Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Large scale industrial structures conservation in China– a short report Creator An entity primarily responsible for making the resource Yiping Dong adaptive reuse China conservation industrial heritage significance site values