Quote:
|
Originally Posted by not2sharp
I prefer having the specimen in original condition; worn, damaged, bent, , what-have-you, but, indicative of how the thing originally was made rather then of some later attempt to restore its asthetic qualities.
These are historical artifacts which should be preserved, but, otherwise left alone.
n2s
|
As a general rule of thumb I'd agree with you, so long as allowance is made for the unfortunately numerous exceptions to the rule. For example, I have two jambiyas with wootz blades, but the only way I discovered that was by etching them myself. Previous owners had polished them so heavily the wootz pattern was completely missing. In the second case the jambiya had been broken and shabbily repaired, so in order to preserve the dagger for future generations I had to separate the blade from the hilt, repair the hilt, and re-polish and etch the blade before reassembly. So, is correcting a shoddy, non-historical repair job tampering, or is it preserving an otherwise neglected piece?
I believe the majority of collectible pieces that come into our hands can be left alone, but there will always be those victims of neglect that need restoration in addition to preservation. After all, look at the difference between the photos taken at the opening of Tutenkhamen's tomb, and the items now on display in the museums. If the archaeologists who found King Tut can restore items to their former glory, why can't we?
