Historical and Cultural Connection of Restoration of Museum Objects with Traditional Crafts

Outstanding examples of crafts and nomadic culture in the Eurasian steppes are currently kept in museum expositions and funds. Over time, the historical and cultural value of these museum items increases and enters the scientific circulation. One of the areas of antiquities in the museum’s funds are artifacts found in archaeological excavations, and the later part is handicrafts belonging to the ethnographic period. Among the artifacts found during archaeological excavations, several restored “Golden Men” are preserved in the National Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan. This is given as a great result of Archaeological Research in Kazakhstan today. However, in addition to such golden objects, there are important artefacts that determine each of the cultural periods in the museum's collections. Besides, objects belonging to traditional crafts such as labor tools, jewelry, weapons, utensils and others also replenish the collection of the museum fund.

The preservation level of the fund materials, which are collected as an important monument of each historical period, is also different. In accordance with this, each item has its own issue that is solved by restoration. This is also due to improper storage conditions of the museum item, inappropriate temperature conditions or defects caused when the item enters the museum fund, damage during archaeological excavations, lack of conservation work or careless actions of employees.

The collected challenging areas require consideration of a number of issues in the field of restoration in Kazakhstan in the following areas: the problem of the using restoration on archaeological materials in museums of Kazakhstan; restoration of objects from the ethnographic period among samples of material culture, cultural value left by Kazakh artisans, jewelers; Restoration School of the Soviet period; modern restoration achievements and problems. In search of answers to relevant questions, materials from the National Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan were taken as a basis. Research additionally used historical and ethnographic data related to the traditional jewelry art and artisans. These museum materials and historical data increase the cultural value of the research topic. Similarly, the activities of modern restorers are considered as a continuation of jewelry art in traditional society. This demonstrates the authenticity of the social basis of the research work.

2.    Materials and methods

Work on restoration work in museum funds is carried out using different methods, depending on the composition and nature of the item. Depending on the nature of the substance, there are its own methods of material made of wood, metal, ceramics, leather. We show the methods used, including those found as a result of archaeological research. These are chemical and electrochemical methods of restoration, methods of restoration of metal objects, methods of restoration of bronze objects. Modern restorers in museums of Kazakhstan carry out restoration works according to the specified methods. For example, 39 412 museum items were in need of restoration in the museums of Kazakhstan in 2023, of which only 3 878 exhibits were restored. This showed a large base of objects in the museum’s funds that need recovery and emphasized the current problems of restoration work in Kazakhstan. A large material base, which requires restoration work, need various methods. If we consider the level of restoration work carried out so far, we can be convinced that the existing restoration methods are not fully effective. It shows that the methods developed in the Soviet period do not meet modern requirements and demonstrates its one-sided weaknesses. However, at present, major museums of the country are working on the restoration of archaeological finds, including such major achievements as the “Golden Man”. This was highly productive in most cases. After analyzing these trends in the museums of Kazakhstan, most of the restoration work is focused on large-scale productive works (such monuments as the Golden Man). This, in turn, leads to the fact that the materials of the ethnographic period remain the smallest research methods.

3.    Findings and Discussion

Most of the works that give an overview or a detailed description of the restoration works in the museum’s collection were carried out by Russian authors.

As a prerequisite for conservation and restoration research, we can mention the studies carried out in the 60–80s of the 20th century [Altshuller et al., 1980; Fyodorov-Davydov et al., 1987; Bazarova et al., 1987; Bulatov, 1975; 1982: 7–18]. We can also note a number of works of subsequent years.

In the works of E. L. Bazarova, V. G. Novgorodova, G. A. Razumova, N. P. Zvorykin and O. I. Sergeeva [Sergeeva, 1987: 62–65], E. G. Devlet [Devlet, 2002] and V. I. Fedorov [Fedorov, 1965: 9–15] factors that negatively affect the physical preservation of archaeological sites are indicated.

Also, in the works of L. V. Piletskaya [Piletskaya, 2018: 48], A. V. Kiryanov [Kiryanov, 1960: 94], E. V. Efremova [Efremova, 2014: 95–101], M. S. Kustov [Kustov, 2006] and others, ways of restoration of various archaeological objects are revealed.

Among domestic researchers, we can mention the works of K. A. Akishev [Akishev, 1978], A. K. Akishev [Akishev, 1979], R. Akhmetkaliev [Akhmetkaliev, 2010: 20–24] and K. Altynbekov [Altynbekov, 2013: 64]. K. A. Akishev, A. K. Akishev’s work “The origin and semantics of the Issyk headdress” [Proiskhozhdenie I semantika Issykskogo golovnogo ubora] focuses on the origin and semantics of the Golden Man’s headdress found in the Issyk mound. The work of K. Altyn-bekov “Revived treasures of Kazakhstan: the experience of scientific restoration” [Vozrozhdennye sokrovischa Kazakhstana: opyt nauchnoj restavracii] describes the experience of restoration of archaeological artifacts from Berel, Tambalytas and other sites.

After the war, a new stage of conservation and restoration of exhibits was started. The activity of Restorers is manifested in the preservation of museum items and the inability to prevent future destruction. In the post-war period, the main directions of the department were determined. In most cases, outdated methods had to be revived.

In the 1950s, the expansion of the museum’s Expeditionary work led to an active growth in the collections in the fund. The study of newly received materials in the museum’s funds has created a need to understand the technology of their creation. At the same time, work was carried out on the conservation and restoration of exhibits.

The beginning of a comprehensive study of monuments and the identification of its features led to the emergence of new technologies and methods. In 1970, physical and chemical laboratories were established. These units have become analytical and scientific-experimental bases for the preservation of exhibits.

These trends continued in our country in the State Central Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which was transferred from Orenburg. Restoration work began to be carried out on poorly preserved items in the fund to create the basis for the preservation and non-destruction of exhibits in the museum. These phenomena, which took place in the first term of the 20th century, continue nowadays and are established in a lot o museums of the country.

According to historiography, we can notice serious problems in the restoration of archaeological artifacts.

In order to preserve museum and archaeological heritage for a long time, a number of problems will have to be solved [Altshuller, 1980: 37; Fyodorov-Davydov et al., 1987: 116]. Currently, when opening archaeological sites, untimely conservation and restoration works pose a threat of destruction of monuments [Bazarova et al., 1987: 51]. If we analyze domestic studies, it shows that there are currently no studies related to the museumfication of archaeological heritage. It is noted that many years of archaeological sites have been studied by restoration and conservation methods [Fyodorov-Davydov et al., 1987: 113; Bulatov, 1975: 79; Bulatov, 1982: 85; Sergeeva, 1987: 62– 65]. We can confirm that conservation and restoration studies were first conducted in the 60-80s of the 20th century [Altshuller, 1980; Bulatov, 1975; Bulatov, 1982: 7–18]. We can also note a number of works of subsequent years.

The works of E. L. Bazarova, V. G. Novgorodova, G. A. Razumova [Bazarova et al., 1987: 48– 57], N. P. Zvorykin [Zvorykin, 1969: 23–30] and O. I. Sergeeva [Sergeeva, 1987: 62–65] indicate factors that negatively affect the physical preservation of archaeological sites. Among them: a sharp change in the temperature and humidity regime, chemical contamination [Bazarova et al., 1987: 52– 53; Zvorykin, 1969: 23; Sergeeva, 1987: 63]; uncontrolled occurrence [Zvorykin, 1969: 23; Sergeeva, 1987: 63] and vibrodynamic Load [Bazarova et al., 1987: 53]. The article by N. P. Zvorykina describes the methodology of measures to prevent the specified causes [Zvorykin, 1969]. However, the work does not specify the classification of general restoration and conservation work. And V. I. Fedorov considers conservation work in two parts. At first, architectural and technical measures are the constructive fixation of the monument (addition to the main volume of the monument using restoration methods and replenishment of missing areas). Secondly, the preservation of the monument is achieved through the use of physical and chemical substances to protect it from surface and underground waste. This creates conditions for the preservation of the monument without any changes. In addition, the primer of the foundation must be strong, various ointments must be applied to protect against groundwater [Fedorov, 1965: 11]. B. L. Altshuller and O. N. Postnikov describe the methods of conservation, anastilosis, analytical restoration and restoration as a whole. In addition, what method is needed for the monument will depend on the conditions of its preservation [Altshuller et al., 1987: 30]. And in the studies by N. D. Nedovich and L. A. Belyaev, the authors give three different methods of conservation and restoration work. That is, the “Kolpak (cap)” method, nature and layout conservation [Nedovich et al., 1987: 121–123]. The method of “Kolpak” is one of the ways to prepare an archaeological site for museum exhibition. In our opinion, the creation of pavilions protects the archaeological site from external negative factors. This ensures its physical integrity.

Available informational conservation and restoration issues of archaeological sites undergo a two-block process in the process of turning the monument into a museum item. The first is the natural aspect of archaeological sites. It includes stone, wood, burnt or unburned brick, a layer of soil, bone. The second includes works devoted to the problems of layout.

If we pay attention to the research of the first block, then according to the research of N. D. Nedovich and L. A. Belyaev, in the natural method, we try to make as few changes as possible to the archaeological site to show the population the most authentic preserved form, even without changes [Nedovich et al., 1987: 122]. According to the researchers, the conservation as archaeological method is the most useful, but not fully developed method for technical support. According to S. F. Strzheletsky, conservation methods include a number of methods necessary for the preservation and implementation of the monument, regardless of its nature and value [Strzheletsky, 1969: 36]. According to N. M. Bulatov, the conservation event should consist of two stages: fixing the remains of the structure found by archaeologists and preserving the fixed structural remains in the excavation [Bulatov, 1975: 100].

P. D. Baranovsky in his report “On the methods of conservation and restoration of ruins of architectural cultural monuments based on the works of the Caucasian expeditions of the Scientific Research Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences 1946–1947 [O metodakh konservacii I restavracii ruin arkhitekturnykh pamyatnikov kultury po rabotam kavkazskikh ekspedicij NII AN SSSR 1946–1947]” touched upon the problem of conservation of destroyed stone pile structures. On December 16, 1949, at the Presidium of the Scientific Council of the USSR Academy of Sciences, he raised the issue of preserving the ruins of the Lecith temple in the Caucasus.

According to P. D. Baranovsky, the conservation work of the ruins is carried out in order to separate objects with an architectural element from the rubble. This includes methods such as using archaeological materials, engineering fixation, restoration of the ruin, coating the restored mound with a coating to protect it from external factors, atmospheric influences, etc [Baranovsky, 1949].

The work of N. M. Bulatova tells about the restoration and analysis of the foundations and walls of the ancient “Tanais” and some destroyed stones [Bulatov, 1982: 106].

In modern studies, there are descriptions of the preservation of archaeological sites with stone architecture. For example, the article by S. V. Faterov and I. N. Melnikov tells about conservation work at archaeological objects [Melnikov et al., 2008: 238]. According to researchers, many years of care for monuments gave rise to a number of technological proposals. These recommendations ensure the physical preservation of the monument. Among these measures are herbicide, biocide treatment, decontamination from various substances, mineral enrichment, protection against atmospheric influences with an organic silicon compound.

The most rapidly destroying type of archaeological sites are wooden objects. According to A. N. Medvedev, there will be rotting, drying out and the effects of microorganisms [Medved 1999: 94]. And, according to A. N. Bulatova [Bulatov, 1975], O. N. Bader [Bader, 1978] and A. N. Medved [Medved, 2004], it is better to carry out heat treatment of wooden materials found in archaeological excavations, wrapped in polymer with deep burning with synthetic resin [Bulatov, 1975: 100; Bader, 1978: 143; Medved, 1999: 94, 95]. The main content of these methods was used in the process of museumfication of many medieval towns on European soil. V. E. Vikhrova, V. A. Borisova and S. Yu. Kazanskoy discussed it in their research [Vihrov et al., 1973: 277-279].

The main factors affecting the preservation of soil residues (protective ditches, mounds, basements, pits, etc.) are plants, precipitation, dust, industrial waste, etc. according to A. N. Medved [Medved, 1992: 91, 92]. According to the researcher, soil waste does not resort much to the help of restorers. The only thing that can be done is to get rid of the plants in a temporary manner. However, it is more profitable to place a security zone around the monument. According to A. N. Kondrashev, conservation work is not carried out on the destroyed archaeological layer. This is the main problem of preserving archaeological sites [Kondrashev, 2011: 294]. In addition, according to I. N. Melnikova and S. V. Faterova, restoration works in archaeological museums began to be created in 1979. Restoration and conservation experiments began to be carried out. This was the basis for the preservation of the soil layer [Melnikova et al., 2008: 238].

One of the materials found in the archaeological site is a brick. Researchers consider bricks to be divided into fired and unburned. G. A. Fedorov-Davydov, N. M. Bulatov [Fedorov-Davydov, 1987], P. D. Baranovsky [Baranovsky, 1996] state that an unburned laundry should not be left in the open air. Because the monument begins to be destroyed by atmospheric influences. The only way to preserve an archaeological site made of unburned bricks is to strengthen the wall using chemical-technological methods [Fedorov-Davydov et al., 1987: 115]. And the issue of conservation of burnt brick structures was written by B. L. Altshuller and O. N. Postnikova [Altshuller et al., 1987: 25–34].

As for the preservation of archaeological materials made of bones, most scientists note the need to process bone objects with a buteral processing in the process of museumfication. In addition, it is customary to use alcohol, PVA glue [Dubrovsky et al., 2010].

A separate group of archaeological sites is represented by rock paintings. In the monographs of D. K. Dubrovsky and V. Yu. Gracheva the work done to preserve petroglyphs is considered. Scratches on the rock surface and subsequent painted images indicate that they were restored using epoxy resin. According to the researchers, it is found that this method is ineffective. According to some opinions, it is necessary to take measures to create a water-repellent canopy on top of the rock paintings, remove the applied epoxy resin, etc [Sergeeva, 1987; Dubrovsky et al., 2010: 202].

Further, we pay attention to the researchers from the second group. According to V. I. Fedorov, the approach to layout should be implemented according to ancient technology, restoring the stone walls and ancient brickwork of an architectural monument and laying another new one [Fedorov, 1965: 11, 12]. And S. S. Aidarov and A. S. Voskresensky argue that laying old bricks with new bricks contributes to its long-term preservation [Ajdarov et al., 1969: 60]. According to Fedorov, a specially overlapped structure can be used to store bricks. That is, only if it is impossible to use the physico-chemical necessary substance. In addition, protective bricks must have facades [Fedorov, 1965: 14]. As an alternative to this, the researcher considers the use of a plastic coating. B. L. Altshuller and O. N. Postnikova note the absence of a difference in the color of the additional protective shield on the monuments using the materials of other monument. If the colors are different, this can only be temporary.

Over the years, museum objects and exhibits from the collections have become the storage units of the fund. Many of these items represent samples of material culture, household items, various things, furniture that were used in traditional society. Samples of material culture were transferred to the museum fund after ethnographic research, when memorial items are considered exhibits handed over by the descendants of famous personalities. It is also obvious that a large number of archaeological artifacts from the museum's collections are also the result of scientific research. The priority in the museums of Kazakhstan is the restoration of archaeological artifacts, in particular, the “Golden Warriors” from the mounds of Issyk, Shilikty, Berel, etc. And the daily work of restorers is connected not only with the “golden man”. Therefore, the main activity of a simple restorer depends on items from the museum's collections. Most of the items in need of restoration are wooden and leather products, as well as metal jewelry and objects reflecting national culture. These items are the epitome of jewelry art in a traditional society. In general, the jewelry art of the Kazakhs originates from the work of craftsmen who created rich jewelry found in the Issyk mound. It is also associated with the Berel masters of the 4–3 centuries BC. The main materials for making jewelry were gold and silver. The natural plasticity of these metals contributed to the fact that jewelers made various products. Various techniques have been developed in the processing of such soft metals. The most common types of steel are forging, stamping, forming, wire stretching, casting, welding, blackening, etc. It is natural that such a highly developed jewelry art, which developed in the Saka times, developed in the Kazakh society. For example, the fastening of tiny gold beads on the clothes of the Golden Man from the Shilikty mound is currently considered a scientific discovery. Kazakh jewelers call this method “stringing beads”. The decoration with the smallest beads testifies to the high level of professional training of jewelers. This concept appeared among jewelers, but was also used in other spheres of life. For example, skillful performance on musical instruments is described as “the finest performance of a melody”. This means performing a piece of music with great skill. In the Kazakh people, the concept of “sewn with gold, covered with silver” reflects the technology of jewelers making jewelry.

This jewelry art in Kazakh society is a mature art form that has gone through processes that cover a long historical period from Saka tribes.

The profession of jewelers was associated with high mystical powers. Considering that “the idol of iron is the prophet David”. It is known in religious writings that the prophet David was a blacksmith. According to the Scriptures, jewelers also worshipped the prophet David. Blacksmiths and jewelers called their forge a “shop”. The dynasties of blacksmiths with similar workshops were respected in society. Their forges were also recognized as the sanctuary where their property was located. For example, some sick, child-bearing women made their pilgrimages to the workshops of the "holy" blacksmiths. For such masters, firearms will be used the very next day. There were many such blacksmiths in Kazakh history. Some sources associate the profession of jewelers with the activities of shamans. One of these blacksmiths is the Mendala master, who lived in the 19 century in the Tabyn district of Aktobe region (now Bayganin district). Mendaly was a well-known and respected blacksmith of his time. He made weapons, tools necessary for everyday life, but also his workshop was visited by people for treatment, women who could not have children. In addition, he was an elder of the Koshen family, who helped with food in difficult times: he put a taikazan in front of the workshop, slaughtered cattle and distributed meat to the villagers. In the mouths of the people, the master of Mendalу was the man who provided 40 families.

In 1981, one of the founders of Ihlas museum of Folk musical instruments was Darkembay Shokparuly. At the end of the 20th century, Darkembay Shokparuly was recognized as a master propagandist of traditional Kazakh crafts. In 1981, after the opening of the museum of folk musical instruments, he created musical instruments of the Kazakh people in a short time. Dombra, dangyra, kobyz, created by the master, are still on exhibition of the museum. Darkembay Shokparuly’s son Daulet Darkembaeyuly runs the museum named after his father and carries out restoration work on musical instruments. A special workshop has been created in this museum under the leadership of Daulet Darkembaeyuly. Visitors have the opportunity to see the master's products at master classes. Currently, Daulet Darkembaeyuly is popular in the country as an artisan carpenter.

After the foundation of Ihlas museum of Folk musical instruments, the ensemble of National Instruments “Sazgen-Sazy” will be created. All musical instruments of this ensemble were made by masters led by Saparbek Dilmanov. Currently, the brothers of Saparbek Dilmanov founded the Musical instrument company “Sherter”. Its leader is Bakytzhan Dilmanov. The masters of the company “Sherter” not only do business in their company, but also actively participate in the restoration work of the music museum.

Many master restorers are members of the Art Council created at the museum. Based on this professional connection, the Ihlas museum of Folk musical instruments organizes festivals of instrument-making Masters called “Legendary dombra” every two years. At this festival, Modern Masters make copies of such masters of art as Kazangap, Makhambet, Nausha, Sugir, Dina, Zhambyl, and bring them to the sound.

Among professional restorers, one can also trace the trends that are emerging as a kind of school. For example, K. Altynbekov's own restoration school has been formed, which has restored such major archaeological achievements as Berel and Shilikty. Here, too, there is a continuation of the traditional generation. The daughter of K. Altynbekov D. Altynbekova is a professional restorer of the National Museum of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

4.    Conclusion

In conclusion, restoration work in the museums of Kazakhstan began to develop in the middle of the 20 century. But despite modern scientific discoveries, restoration still remains at an initial level. In addition, the restoration of objects in the museum's collection, where samples of traditional Kazakh crafts and jewelry are stored, was not on the agenda. The problem here is that the works created by traditional craftsmen are being restored by their descendants. But in the future, if the restoration search is established in a scientific and professional manner, these intergenerational ties will be broken. This is because, in today's rapid social changes, the importance of artisans, which has been passed down from generation to generation, is being lost day by day. As a solution to these problems, the government of Kazakhstan also implements projects to support artisans. Some of the largest museums have created craft centers, creative industrial centers, and private associations. Here craftsmen can develop their craft, conduct master classes and present it to the public.

Since the issue of restoration of museum objects is one of the main problems of museums in Kazakhstan, we offer several solutions.

First of all, conducting bi-directional advanced training courses for restorers in museums. The first direction is to prioritize employees who are descendants of artisans, the second priority is to conduct restoration searches in historically and culturally close countries. This is due to the fact that along with Kazakhstan, the cultural heritage of other Turkic peoples is similar in common. It is beneficial for the restorer to carry out work on the restoration of similar historical artifacts. The second priority is training in developed countries, from qualification to the content of items necessary for restoration in our museums. For example, in which countries is the restoration of leather or metal products developed. In accordance with this, education should be improved in these countries. On the contrary, our employees prefer to study where the language is light, that is, in a Russian-speaking environment. This happens depending on the subjective potential of restorers.

Secondly, it is necessary to create common associations, associations or unions of museum restorers. At the moment, restorers do not have such special organizations, and even a common discussion platform is not fully formed. It’s just that the “Qazqaitajanarty” organization brings together a number of restorers. However, it creates individual projects and work as a separate institution. Some artists who restore the heritage of Fine Arts are registered with the Union of artists of Kazakhstan. It is necessary to create a special discussion environment, a common meeting platform for restorers. Under these conditions, new areas of restoration would develop. This will allow young restorers to form as well. Perhaps, as a third point, it is necessary to exclude restoration activities from museums as a whole. Restoration work will be carried out on the basis of the activities of special institutions, such as “Qazqaitajanarty” organization. If the same situation is created in museums, it will accelerate the restoration of many museum items and create conditions for the formation of high-quality services.