Archaeological finds made of white stone in the conditions of museum storage: to the problems of exposure and preservation

Makarova Anasatsiia Sergeevna Scientific Secretary, Federal State Budgetary Research Institution "State Research Institute of Restoration". 107014, Russia, Array-Array oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Gastello, 44 str. 1, kab. 214 aanpilogova@mail.ru

Archaeological finds made of white stone or limestone represent a fairly extensive group of museum items, among which there are monuments associated with the funeral cult, such as steles, slabs, sarcophagi, as well as fragments of architectural decor, household items and other products, the purpose of which is not always possible to reliably determine. Despite the fact that the objects of the selected group, perhaps, are united only by the material of manufacture, such a generalization is appropriate since it is on the basis of the physico-chemical characteristics of the monument material in museum practice that it is customary to determine the storage regime and recommendations for restoration work. In addition, from the point of view of the specifics of the mechanisms of destruction of these objects, their archaeological origin is critically important.

Limestone, due to its natural properties, which include relative strength, high machinability and good decorative qualities, has been used since ancient times in construction and for the creation of sculptural works. The largest deposits located on the territory of modern Russia, and developed in ancient times, are located in the central region of the European part of Russia and the Crimea. These include the Myachkovsky limestone, mshankovy, Alminsky and others. The main museum collections of archaeological finds from this material are also concentrated in these two regions. The common name of such collections was the term "lapidary collection", from the Latin lapis – stone.

The tradition of collecting stone sculptures, including those of archaeological origin, has a long history. The origins of this phenomenon are attributed to the era of Hellenism ^{[1, pp. 24-25]}. The first private collections of sculpture probably appear in Ancient Rome ^{[1, p. 25]}. However, sculpture collecting gained popularity most of all in the Renaissance ^{[1, p. 51]}. Collections of antique sculpture formed the basis of the Capitoline and Vatican Museums. The beginning of the formation of lapidary collections in Russia is attributed to the turn of 18-19 in ^{[2, p. 14]}. Today, the identification and inclusion of stone archaeological objects in museum collections can be associated with several processes: with the study and preservation of archaeological heritage objects, as well as with the production of construction and repair and restoration work on historical sites and territories.

Perhaps most of all, archaeological finds made of limestone are presented in museums of ancient profile and collections dating back to the Middle Ages. Chronologically, lapidary monuments of antiquity in the collections of domestic museums belong to the V century BC–III century AD ^{[3, p. 8]}, finds of the Middle Ages are usually dated to the XIII–XVII century. ^{[4, p. 24, 41]}

Impressive collections are collected in the funds of several museums located in Moscow. Among them: Museums of the Moscow Kremlin, the Moscow State United Art Historical-Architectural and Natural Landscape Museum-Reserve (Kolomenskoye), Museums of Moscow, the Central Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art named after Andrei Rublev, the A.V. Shchusev Museum of Architecture. An extensive collection is available in the Vladimir-Suzdal Museum-Reserve, the Bulgarian State Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve. Almost all museums that preserve the ancient heritage also have impressive lapidary collections. Among them: the East Crimean Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve, the Museum-reserve of Chersonesos-Tauris, the Anapa Archaeological Museum, the Archaeological Museum-Reserve of Tanais and others.

It also seems important that such finds, primarily funerary monuments, are in demand in private, primarily parish museums. As an example, we can cite the expositions of several Moscow parish museums: at the Church of the Resurrection in Kadashi, at the Krutitsky patriarchal compound, at the Zachatievsky Monastery, etc.

It is difficult to overestimate the informational potential of lapidary monuments. They, being the subject embodiment of material and spiritual culture, are able to broadcast social, historical, artistic and other aspects of information.

An impressive volume of scientific literature is devoted to the study of lapidary monuments of antiquity. Without trying to give an exhaustive bibliography of the question, we will note only some works. Vaults of ancient epigraphic monuments of the South of Russia have been published since the beginning of the XX century, among them the vault of V. V. Latyshev "Greek and Latin inscriptions found in Southern Russia in 1895-1898" ^[5], the vault of Greek tombstone reliefs of G. Kizeritsky and K. Watzinger "Griechische Grabreliefs aus S?drussland" ^[6] and others. In 1965, a summary of the epigraphic monuments known by that time, "The Corpus of Bosporan Inscriptions", was published ^[7]. Lapidary monuments as works of sculpture are considered in the works of V.D. Blavatsky ^[8], O.F. Waldgauer ^[9], A. P. Ivanova ^[10], M. M. Kobylina ^[11], N. N. Britova ^[12], E. A. Savostina ^[13] and many other researchers. A somewhat smaller bibliography is devoted to medieval stone products, among which funerary monuments are most studied, we note some of the studies. Thus, the monograph of L. A. Belyaev is devoted to the Russian medieval tombstone ^[4]. T. D. Panova focuses on white stone sarcophagi ^[14]. A.V. Alekseev and S. V. Kuzmenko investigate the typology of medieval stone crosses of the Moscow region ^[15].

Despite the fact that archaeological finds made of limestone are widely represented in museum collections and have long remained in the field of view of researchers, the problems of approaches to their exposure and conservation measures remain insufficiently studied. In general, lapidary collections are exhibited much less frequently than other collections. This is probably due to the difficulties of any movement of these objects due to their size and weight, as well as the inability to organize restoration and pre-exposure preparation.

The analysis of existing exhibition practices on the example of museums in the Moscow region and the Republic of Crimea allows us to identify some patterns. From the point of view of the conditions of exposure, two ways of organizing the display of stone monuments can be distinguished: indoor exposure and outdoor exposure. It should be noted that there is a false idea that monuments made of stone are practically not destroyed when exposed in the open air. The practice of forming sculpture parks in front of museum buildings, as well as the placement of stone statues in the entrance groups, corridors and other auxiliary rooms of museums is probably connected with the existence of this idea. Such expositions, of course, refer us to the history of collecting stone sculpture and the tradition of decorating the spaces of residential and public buildings with it. From the point of view of ensuring the safety of objects, such a practice is possible, but requires significant efforts to create safe conditions (waterproofing, canopies and fences), as well as regular restoration care. In the same case, when stone monuments are exhibited inside museum premises, two ways of organizing their museum display are also conditionally distinguished: this is exhibiting as part of temporary exhibitions and permanent expositions, or creating a special space for the collection – a lapidary.

It is the creation of a lapidarium – a building (premises) for exhibiting lapidary collections that seems to be the most promising way to demonstrate large collections and partly a trend. In the museums of the Russian Federation, the most interesting concept of lapidary is implemented in the East Crimean Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve. The author of the publication is aware of the creation of two more lapidaries at the moment: in the Bulgarian Museum-Reserve and in the Central Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art named after Andrei Rublev.

From the point of view of the method of constructing the exposition, it is practiced to exhibit as part of systematic expositions and include the monuments in question in thematic expositions. At the same time, a systematic exposition is understood as a collection of similar objects organized into a typological series based on the classification adopted in a certain field of scientific knowledge; and a thematic exposition is a specially organized set of exposition materials that reveal a certain problem or topic ^{[1, pp. 344-351]}. Systematic expositions of lapidary monuments are most characterized by expositions of certain groups of objects (tombstones, statues, etc.) organized according to chronological principle. It is in this way that it is planned to group the monuments from the collection of the Central Museum of Ancient Russian Culture and Art named after Andrei Rublev in the lapidarium being created. In a similar way, most open-air expositions have been created, which introduce visitors (and often casual passers-by) to a variety of typologies of stone monuments from the collection of a particular museum. The concept of thematic expositions is much more complicated. The multifaceted information potential of stone monuments allows them to be used in projects that are diverse in content. Most often, stone monuments are included in historical expositions that reveal the history of a particular region. Thus, in the updated antique exposition of the Chersonesos-Tauris Museum-Reserve, which opened in 2017, stone monuments are organically included in the narrative of the history of the ancient city, illustrating various aspects of public life (features of the state structure, political events, religious cults, etc.). In the Kolomenskoye Museum-Reserve, the monuments of the lapidary collection are included in the exposition "The wonderful City, the ancient city ... The Art of the Russian builder of the XIV–XIX centuries". The exposition reveals the techniques of masters of construction crafts, among which stonemasonry is represented. The most spectacular and complexly organized is the exposition of the lapidarium of the East Crimean Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve (Kerch). Based on the materials of the museum's collection, it was possible to create four exhibition complexes dedicated to the history of Kerch and ancient settlements on its territory. The exhibition "Kerch at the crossroads of history" presents archaeological finds from the Bronze Age to the XIX century, discovered on the territory of the city. The exposition "Monuments of the Lapidary Collection" presents the typological diversity of antique lapidary plastics in the museum's collection. The exposition "Pantikapei – the capital of the Bosporan Kingdom" highlights all aspects of the life of the ancient city captured in stone. The exhibition "Hymn of Eternity" is dedicated to the funerary culture of the ancient Bosporus. It is the example of the Kerch lapidary, in our opinion, that today serves as the most vivid illustration of the disclosure of the information potential of stone monuments.

If the display of lapidary collections demonstrates a variety of approaches, then the problem of ensuring their safety remains a little-studied issue. The main feature of the preservation of archaeological objects is the need to organize conservation measures both during archaeological excavations (so-called field conservation) and after the transfer of objects for permanent storage. Field conservation remains the least developed topic in the Russian literature devoted to the preservation of archaeological heritage. There are much more similar publications in foreign practice, however, there are no special recommendations on limestones ^{[16, 17]}. Another important nuance of the preservation of the archaeological heritage can be called the priority of conservation measures over restoration measures. At the same time, by the method of informal interviewing, it is possible to identify some discrepancy in the methods adopted in the largest restoration organizations, such as the All-Russian Art Research and Restoration Center named after Academician I. E. Grabar and the State Research Institute of Restoration. Methodological contradictions relate to the mandatory removal of water-soluble salts from all objects extracted from the ground, and materials recommended for gluing, making up for losses and strengthening the surface. The issue of the stylistics of making up for losses remains relevant, and the problem of the repeated restoration of archaeological finds is also highlighted. The existing differences in methodological approaches are connected, in our opinion, with the fact that in some cases restorers are guided by the experience of preserving monuments of museum storage, in others – by the specifics of working with monumental sculpture. At the same time, the preservation of archaeological objects has its own characteristics and seems closer to the problems of restoration of monumental sculpture.

Another important problem of ensuring the safety of archaeological finds made of stone remains the training of personnel. Specialists of this profile are available in the staff of few museums. Cooperation with educational institutions could partially solve this problem. Limestone objects of archaeological origin in the vast majority of cases have typical damage and are not very difficult to restore. The positive experience of using them as educational material is available at the Russian State University for the Humanities together with the East Crimean Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve (Kerch); at the Moscow College of Architecture, Design and Reengineering "26 FRAME" together with the Museum of Moscow; finally, a similar project in 2018-2021 was implemented with the participation of Kazan (Volga) Federal University and the Bulgarian State Historical and Architectural Museum-Reserve.