Atsitiktiniai artefaktai iš nekropolių: medžiagotyros galimybės ir moralinės dilemos
LTStraipsnyje aptariamos etinio pobūdžio dilemos, kylančios dėl atsitiktinai rastų ir aiškių atribucinių nuorodų nebeturinčių artefaktų iš Klaipėdos krašto nekropolių (paminklų ar jų dekoro dalių, epitafinių lentų, kryžių fragmentų ir t. t.). Jos susijusios su tokių radinių identifikavimu, paveldosauginio ir muziejinio statuso nustatymu (saugotini, eksponuotini ar beverčiai), galima panauda (kaip mokslinių bei technologinių tyrimų objektų ar memorialinių ženklų, restauravimo darbų žaliavų) ir jų likimu. Patirtis rodo, kad dalis šių artefaktų yra vertingas žinių apie XIX–XX a. vidurio meistrų naudotas medžiagas, dekoro detales, įgūdžius, technologinius ir koloristikos sprendimus šaltinis. Aiškių atribucinių požymių neturintys artefaktai gali būti panaudoti instrumentinei analizei: keramikos, metalo, dažų, glazūrų sudėčiai ir struktūrai nustatyti; tačiau visų pirma tokio artefakto likimą nulemia jį radusiojo (priglaudusiojo, demontavusiojo ir kt.) asmens moralinis apsisprendimas. [Iš leidinio]Reikšminiai žodžiai: Atsitiktiniai radiniai; Kalvystė; Kapinės; Klaipėda; Klaipėdos kraštas [Klaipeda region]; Kryžiai; Kryžiai, metaliniai; Menas; Metalas (menas); Moralinis aspektas; Muziejus; Nekropolis; Palaidojimai; Paminklai; Skulptūra; Art; Burials; Cemetry; Cross; Cross, metallic; Klaipėda; Klaipėda's region; Lithuania; Memorials; Metal (art); Moral dilemma; Museum; Necropolis; Sculpture; Smithery; Stray artefacts.
ENArticle focuses on ethical dilemmas caused by accidentally found artefacts from the necropolis of Klaipėda Region that no longer have clear attribute references. In the research into confessional heritage, ‘accidentally found necropoles artefacts’ are understood as all artefacts that may relate to the cemeteries, individual tombs, or cenotaphs (tombstones or their parts, epitaph tables, whole or broken crosses, parts of fences, etc) whose immediate location may be other than a cemetery, the circumstances of their removal from the location are not clear, and they frequently can not be related to a specific buried person. The examples in the text prove that the artefacts may become an object of research and a source of new facts about the confessional heritage of the region and its technological and artistic development. due to the said artefacts, we learn about the existence of one or another style of decorations, the symbols, and the custom-related, artistic, and technological traditions; about the links of the cemetery artefacts with seemingly unrelated areas of technologies, construction, and art, etc. occasionally the artefacts can be used as raw materials for restoration. Regretfully, due to a weak current system of monument protection, moral undecidedness of the majority of the public, and narrow utilitarian aims we are not able to properly assess and understand the value of such findings. Therefore, it is important for the findings to be assessed by specialists from different areas of science, art, and technology: historians, restorers, art scientists, archaeologists, heritage conservationists, materials scientists, etc.On the other hand, the artefacts remind of the uniqueness of the city and the region, their rich history, and, regretfully, frequently of its tragic periods and events: therefore, they should be accepted as memory signs of people of different nationalities and confessional groups who lived in the region, whereas the type and the physical state of the artefacts should be just a secondary attribute of their value. However, due to a poor state, such artefacts seldom find way to museums, while those accidentally found in construction sites are neglected, sometimes buried in the ground, or remain ‘unnoticed’. Still, the issue of cemetery artefacts that have no clear attribute references in Klaipėda and its Region remain topical to date and will be topical in the future, as it is caused by decadeslong destruction of cemeteries. Therefore, the accidentally found artefacts become, and will become, the sources of different moral dilemmas and decisions: what to do with them, especially if the fact of their existence will extend the duration of a project of the territory development, etc. we argue that the findings and the circumstances of their discovery should be registered and processed, and at least minimal accounting should be systematized and possibly institutionalized at least at the level of the city municipality or elderships. The article appeals to the institutions of Klaipėda Region that have any political-administrative or economic levers and should feel the responsibility for the collection, registration, and storage of the above-named signs of regional identity and for their use in a broad sense.[...]. [From the publication]
