Upload
others
View
3
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Report on the results of the Regional Survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe
Belgrade 2012
Maja Franković
Branislava Lazarević
Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade
Contents
INTRODUCTION 5
MISSION 6SCOPE 6METHODOLOGY 6IMPLEMENTATION 7
SURVEY RESULTS 8
MOSAIC PAVEMENTS IN MUSEUMS 9MOSAIC PAVEMENTS ON ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES OPEN TO PUBLIC 12MOSAIC CONSERVATORS 17
DATABASE 20
EFFECTS OF SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION 21
CONCLUSION 22
POSSIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT IN THE FUTURE 23
APPENDIX 25
PROJECT: REGIONAL SURVEY MOSAIC CONSERVATION AND TRAINING OF
CONSERVATORS IN SOUTHEAST EUROPE
Partners
Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade
UNESCO Venice Office - BRESCE
National Academy of Art, Sofia
RA ICOM SEE
Responsible person
Prof. Dr. Mila Popović-Živančević, Director of Central Institute for Conservation in
Belgrade, President of RA ICOM SEE
Project authors and coordinators
Maja Franković, MA, senior conservator, Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade
Branislava Lazarević, MA, conservator, Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade
Survey team
Albana Hakani, Ministry of Tourism, Culture, Youth and Sports, Archaeological Service
Agency (ASHA), Albania (2007-2010)
Edvin Lamce, Albanian Heritage Foundation, Tirana, Albania (2010 -
Erjona Qilla, Butrint National Park, Albania (2007 -
Amra Šarančić, Commission to Preserve National Monuments, Bosnia and Herzegovina
(2007 – 2011)
Admir Ibričić, Faculty of Philosophy, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011 -
Vanja Šotra Dursun, The Republic Institute for Protection of Cultural, Historical and
Natural Heritage of the Republic of Srpska, Bosnia and Herzegovina (2011 -
Krassimira Frangova, National Academy of Arts, Sofia, Bulgaria (2007 -
Marijeta Babin, Conservation Department Trogir, Ministry of Culture, Croatia (2007-2011)
Antonija Buljan, Croatian Conservation Institute, Croatia (2011 -
Toni Šaina, Croatian Conservation Institute, Croatia (2011 -
Željko Čelebić, Republic Institute for the Protection of the Cultural Monuments, Cetinje,
Montenegro (2008-2010)
Jasminka Grgurević, Regional Institute for the protection of the Cultural Monuments,
Kotor, Montenegro (2011 -
Nikola Upevče, NI Institute and Museum Ohrid, FYROM (2007-
Toni Nikolovski, NI Institute and Museum Bitola, FYROM (2011-
Slivana Blaževska, National Institution for Management of the Archaeological Site Stobi,
FYROM (2011 -
Nemanja Smičiklas, Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments,
Belgrade, Serbia (2011-
Jovana Mijatović, Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade (2012-
Blaž Šeme, Academy of Fine Arts and Design, Ljubljana, Slovenia (2008-
Asparuh Mihailov, Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of Slovenia, Slovenia
(2011-
INTRODUCTION
Regional survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe was
initiated in 2007 with the aim to define the needs for conservation of ancient mosaic
pavements in the region and to develop educational programs in the field of mosaic
conservation at the regional level. It was initiated by a group of young professionals from the
region, all being participants in the ICCROM Programme of Archaeological Conservation in
Southeast Europe. The idea behind this initiative was to try to raise awareness at regional
level, both amongst professionals and national authorities, about the needs for more organized
and active protection of the ancient mosaic heritage in the region.
After the preliminary survey was done in 2008 and first results presented on various meetings
of conservation professionals in the region and internationally, the survey received attention
and support of conservation community, considering the obvious benefit that could be gained
from a systematic review on the situation in the region and the fact that surveys of this type
were rare1
. The survey was then developed into the project by Central Institute for
Conservation in Belgrade. From 2011, the project was supported by UNESCO Office in
Venice, Regional Alliance ICOM SEE and National Academy of Art, Sofia and was led by the
Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade.
1 The survey was presented at: 10th ICCM Conference, Conservation: An Act of Discovery, 20 – 26 October
2008, Palermo, Italy; IIC 2010 Congress - Conservation and the Eastern Mediterranean, 20 – 24 September 2010
Istanbul, Turkey (poster presentation) (oral presentation, paper in press); ICOMTwenty-second General
Conference - Theme: Museums for Social Harmony, 7 – 12 November 2010, Shanghai, China (poster
presentation); 11. Strokovno srečanje konservatorjev-restavratorjev, Slovenski etnografski muzej, Ljubljana, 17
May 2011, Ljubljana, Slovenia (poster presentation).
Mission
Project mission was to determine capacities of the region regarding ancient mosaic heritage
and its state of conservation, as well as conservation resources, in order to allow for efficient
planning and implementation of conservation and educational projects in the future.
Scope
The survey referred to ancient mosaic pavements in the region of Southeast Europe. The
region is rich in mosaic heritage, but a large number of sites are closed to public visit and
documentation is mostly unavailable. To make the survey feasible, it was directed only at
ancient mosaic pavements on archaeological sites that are open to public and at mosaics in
museum collections. It covered
Methodology
eight countries in the region: Albania, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro, FYROM, Serbia and Slovenia.
The survey was conducted trough questionnaires.
1.
Three questionnaires were conceived to
fulfill the following objectives of the survey:
2.
To present a quantitative picture of the existence of ancient mosaic pavements on
archaeological sites open to public and in museums in the region of Southeast Europe
3.
To present the quantitative and qualitative picture of the state of conservation of
ancient mosaic pavements on archaeological sites open to public and in museums in
the region of Southeast Europe
To determine the number of people working in mosaic conservation, their professional
qualifications, as well as the existence of academic study programs and professional
training programs in the region.
Questionnaires for mosaics on sites and in museums were conceived in a way to provide
answers needed to achieve the first two objectives. They contained questions concerning
general information on archaeological site/museum, surfaces of mosaics in relation to
conservation methods, preventive conservation and maintenance, availability of mosaics for
public visit, estimated state of conservation and urgency of conservation treatment, current and
planned conservation projects (funding systems, institutions involved in execution of such
projects), as well as information accessibility (existence and accessibility of archaeological,
conservation and monitoring documentation, mosaic corpuses, published papers).
Questionnaire treating mosaic conservation practice served to achieve the third project
objective. It gathered information on educational systems (existence of academic studies,
specializations and/or training courses in the field of mosaic conservation), number of people
working in the field of mosaic conservation, their level of education, affiliation and
memberships in international and local professional organizations, institutions responsible for
mosaics conservation, institutional and professional collaboration at local, regional and
international level.
Survey team was composed of colleagues from the region who took responsibility to
coordinate survey in their countries. The list of institutions responsible for mosaics was
established. Invitation to take part in the survey was sent to 61 institutions around the region,
out of which 44 accepted participation and filled questionnaires for mosaics in their
responsibility. Two institutions declined participation in the survey, four were responsible for
mosaics on sites that are not open to public and therefore couldn’t be included in the survey
and 11 institutions didn’t reply to the invite. Complete survey, that included all museums and
sites open to public with mosaics, was carried out in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro,
Implementation
FYROM, Slovenia and Serbia. As some institutions in Albania, Bulgaria and Croatia didn’t
take part in the survey, not all museums and sites open to public from those counties have
been included in the survey. In the period from April 2011 to April 2012, questionnaires were
filled for 39 sites and 32 museums (Appendix).
SURVEY RESULTS
Data processing of 71 questionnaires received from the whole region give total of 12881,75m2
of mosaic pavements. From that number, 1807,55m2 (18%) are in museums and 11075,3m2
Figure 2
(82%) are on archaeological sites open to public ( ). Contribution of each country in
the total sum is calculated from mosaic surfaces, not number of museums and sites included in
the survey.
Figure 1 Surfaces of mosaic pavements in museums and on archaeological sites open to public processed in the survey, distribution by countries
Figure 2 Museum-site ratio of mosaic surfaces processed in the survey
Mosaic pavements in museums
In museums, 728,5m2 (40%) of mosaics surfaces are exhibited and 1078,9m2
Figure 3
(60%) are in
storage ( ).
Figure 3 Stored and exhibited mosaic surfaces in museums according to the type of support
From the total surface of mosaics in museums, both exposed and in storages, 40% is not
conserved, i.e. mostly left as they were when lifted from sites (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Methods of conservation of mosaic surfaces represented in museums
This number represents very high percentage that indicates a significant risk of loss over
time if nothing is done to restore them on a stable support. The largest surfaces of not
conserved mosaics in museums are in Bulgaria and FYROM, followed by Serbia and
Montenegro (Table 1).
Conserved mosaics are placed on different types of supports, following the development of
conservation methods over time. Supports differ from gypsum and cement, to honeycomb
panels (Figure 4).
It is interesting to compare to what extent various kinds of mosaic supports were adopted in
different countries in the region (Table 1). Since type of support can roughly be tied to the
period when mosaics were restored, it can also suggest when most of conservation work had
been done. Even if statistically there is a significant surface of mosaics under category
imbedded in wall or floor, this refers mostly to mosaics on sites in urban areas, where
museums are built over the sites and mosaics are conserved in situ or lifted and relayed on the
new support.
Table 1 Mosaic surfaces according to the type of support exhibited and stored in museums – distribution by countries
Mosaic surfaces exhibited in museums (m2)
country not conserved
imbeded in wall/floor
gypsum cement
cement+ interm.l.
synthetic synthetic+ interm.l.
honeycomb other total
Albania 0 1 0 0 21 0 0 0 0 22 B&H 0.1 0 0 18.8 0 0 0 0 0 18.9 Bulgaria 0 0 0 50.5 0 200 0 20 6 276.5
Croatia 0 111 0 0 3.88 0 0 8.33 0 123.21
FYROM 0 3 0 0 7 0 0 50 0 60 Montenegro 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Serbia 0 83.2 0 0 0 0 2.8 13.8 0 99.8
Slovenia 0 3.35 0 48.89 0 0 0 0 76 128.24
total 0.1 201.55 118.19 31.88 200 2.8 92.13 82 728.6 Mosaic surfaces stored in museums (m2)
country not conserved
imbeded in wall/floor
gypsum cement
cement+ interm. l.
synthetic synthetic+interm.l. honeycomb other total
Albania 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 30 B&H 17.81 0 0 26.62 0 0 0 0 0 44.43
Bulgaria 366.52 0 1.87 73.39 0 150 0.98 0 0 592.76
Croatia 5.62 0 0 0.96 0 0 0 13.2 0 19.78 FYROM 190 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 190 Montenegro 75 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75 Serbia 52.7 0 27.9 0 7 0 0 27.8 0.1 115.5 Slovenia 10.66 0 0.3 0.16 0 0 0 0 0.31 11.43 total 718.31 30.07 101.13 37 150 0.98 41 0.41 1079
Questionnaires also contained questions that required respondents to provide an assessment on
mosaics condition and need for their conservation. Although subjective, these ratings showed
the overall trend related to the need of mosaics conservation in the region (Figure 5). Processed
data showed that 33% of museums rated their mosaics as urgent for conservation and 46%
stated that mosaics conservation is necessary for presentation. Ten museums (30%) have plans
regarding conservation of mosaics in their collections, but only five (15%) have active
conservation projects.
Figure 5 Estimated state of conservation and urgency of conservation treatment for mosaics in museums
Mosaic pavements on archaeological sites open to public
Unlike mosaics in museums, mosaics on archaeological sites open to public are, for the most
part, conserved. Considering method of conservation, almost equal parts of mosaics on sites
are conserved in situ (43%) and lifted and relayed on cement with intermediate layer (37%).
Adding small portions of mosaics lifted and relayed on lime support (2%), mosaics lifted and
relayed directly on cement (3%) and lifted and restored on a movable support (2%), 87% of
mosaic surfaces in the region have undergone conservation treatment in one way or another
(Figure 6).
Figure 6 Methods of conservation of mosaic surfaces represented on archaeological sites open to public
Displacing mosaics from sites is the approach that is rarely practiced. Only 178,7m2 are lifted
and restored on movable support and 366,3m2
Table 2
are lifted and not restored, which makes 5% of
mosaic surfaces in the whole region that have been removed from sites open to public. Lifting
and relaying mosaics on the new support seems to be predominant practice in Serbia and while
conservation in situ is more often practiced in Albania, Croatia and Bulgaria. In FYROM, both
methods are almost equally represented ( ). This can be in relation to the period when
most of conservation had been done, but since the question about period of conservation
treatment had not been included in the questionnaire, it cannot be taken for a fact. In Bosnia
and Herzegovina, currently no sites with mosaics are open to public.
Even if majority of mosaics are conserved, quite a small portion is available to the public -
17% is permanently exposed and 19% are periodically exposed during the season. Covering is
predominant measure of preventive conservation taken to protect mosaics on sites – 73% are
covered (54% is covered throughout the year and 19% are periodically uncovered) (Figure 7).
Figure 7 Appearance of mosaic surfaces on archaeological sites open to public
Sheltering is quite rare, from 17% that are permanently exposed, only 11% of mosaic surfaces
are protected with shelters. Figure 7 shows different methods of conservation of mosaics in
relation with their appearance on sites open to public (whether they are reburied, covered,
periodically or permanently exposed with or without shelters, lifted and stored on the site or
lifted and displaced outside of the site) (Figure 8).
Figure 8 Methods of conservation of mosaics in relation with their appearance on archaeological sites open to public
Table 2 Methods of conservation and appearance of mosaic surfaces on archaeological sites open to public (m2) – distribution by countries
Albania Bulgaria B&H Croatia FYROM Montenegro Slovenia Serbia in situ, not conserved
196 303 0 42.3 13 0 38 427.25
conserved in situ
2470.1 211.5 0 337.3 1292.2 0 263.58 24
lifted+relayed on cement
27 30 0 139.7 114.5 43 116 0
lifted+relayed on cement with intermediate layer
0 0 0 0 1369 8 0 2560
lifted+relayed on lime mortar
0 70.5 0 145 124.5 0 0 0
lifted+restored on movable supp.
30 48 0 0 2 0 7.5 91.2
lifted not restored
16 30 0 0 312.8 7.5 0 0
other 1 0 0 7 1 0 0 0
Albania Bulgaria B&H Croatia FYROM Montenegro Slovenia Serbia rebur. 150 200 0 0 37 0 0 0 covered 1776.1 103 0 12 752.1 0 263.58 2970.5
5 periodically exp. without sh.
734 0 0 0 1416.6 0 16.35 0
periodically exp. with sh.
0 0 0 0 51.5 0 21.65 0
permanently exp. without sh.
0 0 0 379.5 234 0 0 4
permanently exp. with sh.
33 282 0 221.6 378 51 118.5 36.75
lifted stored on the site
0 0 0 0 1 7.5 0 12
lifted displaced
47 108 0 58.2 67.4 0 5 76.6
According to respondent’s assessments, overall state of conservation for mosaics on sites is
not satisfactory – 47% of mosaics are rated in poor and very poor condition. Conservation
treatment is rated urgent on 32% of sites and necessary for presentation on 55% (Figure 9).
These ratings are due to the fact that maintenance of mosaics on sites is not planned and
organized. Fifteen out of 38 sites have develloped maintenance plan or strategy, but only 3
have separate budget for maintenance activities. Even if there is no planning of maintenence,
on another 8 sites maintenance actvities do take place, but they vary in frequency and quality.
As for conservation projects, 12 sites (32%) have active conservation projects, and 23 sites
(60%) have projects planned in future.
Figure 9 Estimated state of conservation and urgency of conservation treatment for mosaics on archaeological sites open to public
Mosaic conservators
Results of the survey regarding conservation professionals working in the field of mosaic
conservation pointed out that there is disballance between the quantity of mosaics (Figure 1)
and the number of conservators involved with their conservation, especially those who have
had specialised training in mosaic conservation (Table 3).
Table 3 Profession of mosaic conservators in SE Europe
Country
Acad. studies in cons.
Spec. in mosaic cons. on academic level
Approx. No. of graduates with mosaic cons.
Approx. No. of graduates working in the field
Courses and other kinds of training
Approx. No. of people working on mosaic cons.
Level of education of people practicing mosaic cons.
Albania no no / / yes 10 MA and PhD in archeology
B&H no no / / no 2 MA in arts and archaeology
Bulgaria yes yes (MA) 5 (MA) 3 no 12 mostly MA in conservation
Croatia yes yes 30 10 no 20 BA in conservation
FYROM no no / / yes 6 BA in arts
Montenegro no no / / no 3 BA in conservation
Serbia yes yes (MA) 3 (MA) 1 yes 7
BA/MA in conservation, conservation technicians
Slovenia yes yes (MA) 2 (MA) 2 no 10 BA/MA in arts or conservation
Conservation treatment on sites is carried out by conservators from institutions specialized in
conservation. It is interesting that mosaic maintenance on 49% of sites is entrusted to
conservators-restorers from those institutions as well. Only 7 museums (21%) have
conservators in their staff who can carry out treatment on mosaics. Private companies,
freelancers and NGOs are involved in mosaic conservation in 4% of cases.
In order to assess the interest for training programs in the region of Southeast Europe, an
additional inquiry was run among institutions that participated survey.
Institutions were asked to state their needs for training programs in three areas and to indicate
which of these three areas of training represent priority for their institution:
1. Training of conservators for conservation of mosaics in museums
2. Training of conservators for in situ conservation of mosaics
3. Training of managerial personnel at sites with mosaics
They were also asked to state for each area of training whether there are potential candidates
among their personnel and whether the candidate would be allowed absence from work for 6
weeks to participate in the course. Information collected trough this inquiry is displayed in
Table 4.
Table 4 Results of the training inquiry
CONSERVATION OF MOSAICS IN MUSEUMS
Institution Country Candidate Background
Regional Directorate of National Culture, Tirana Albania 2 Mosaics Conservator and Art conservation specialist
Croatian Conservation Institute Croatia 2 Conservator-restorer
Stari Grad Museum, Hvar Croatia 1 Conservator-restorer
PI Institute and Museum Bitola FYROM 1 Mosaics Conservator
PI Institute and Museum Ohrid FYROM 1 Mosaics Conservator
Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade Serbia 3 Mosaics Conservator
Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural
Monuments, Belgrade
Serbia 2 Mosaics Conservator
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of
Slovenia
Slovenia 2 Conservator-restorer
CONSERVATION OF MOSAICS IN SITU
Institution Country Candidate Background
Regional Directorate of National Culture,Tirana Albania 2 Mosaics Conservator and Art conservation specialist
DRKK Durres Albania 1 Archaeologist
Archaeological Park Butrint Albania 2 Archaeologist, Monunent specialist
Archeological Park Bylis Albania 1 Archaeologist
Stara Zagora Regional History Museum Bulgaria 1 Conservator-restorer
Croatian Conservation Institute Croatia 2 Conservator-restorer
Stari Grad Museum, Hvar Croatia 1 Conservator-restorer
PI Institute and Museum Bitola FYROM 1 Mosaic Conservator
PI Archaeological Site Stobi FYROM 1 Mosaic Conservator
PI Institute and Museum Ohrid FYROM 1 Mosaics Conservator
Centre for Conservation and Archaeology of
Montenegro, Cetinje
Montenegro 1 Conservator-restorer
Apart from the evident need to build capacities in mosaic conservation profession, this inqiry
showed that there is a considerable interest amongst institutions in the region to train staff in
mosaic conservation. Contacts have been made with MOSAIKON program in order to
investigate possibilities for including SE Europe in this program.
DATABASE
Data obtained trough questionnaires have been incorporated into a database in order to be
systemized, statistically analyzed and to enable presentation of the survey results. Database
can be searched through a number of parameters: conservation methods, availability of
mosaics to the public, preventive conservation, estimated state of conservation, urgency of
conservation treatment, maintenance, active and planned conservation projects, collaboration,
existence of academic studies and training programs, institutions involved with mosaic
conservation, availability of documentation, existence of publications, etc.
Centre for Conservation and Archaeology, Kotor
Database is
available through online web application (website: www.seemosaics.org). Access to integral
versions of the questionnaires (read-only version) is limited with username/password system
Montenegro 1 Conservator-restorer
Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade Serbia 3 Mosaics Conservator
Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural
Monuments, Belgrade
Serbia 2 Mosaics Conservator
Institute for the Protection of Cultural Heritage of
Slovenia
Slovenia 2 Conservator-restorer
MANAGEMENT OF SITES WITH MOSAICS
Institution Country Candidate Background
DRKK Durres Albania 1 Archaeologist
Archaeological Park Butrint Albania 2 Archaeologist, Monunent specialist
Archeological Park Bylis Albania 1 Archaeologist
PI National Park Brijuni Croatia 1 Archaeologist
Centre for Conservation and Archaeology, Kotor Montenegro 1 Conservator-restorer
Central Institute for Conservation in Belgrade Serbia 1 Conservator-restorer
Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural
Monuments, Belgrade
Serbia 1 Conservator-restorer
and is available only to registered users. Regular site visitors have access to summarized
versions and various search reports, as the web application allows users to search and display
data in various forms.
EFFECTS OF SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION
Except as a tool to present survey results, the website is also conceived to enable presentation
of all the sites, museums and other institutions that took part in the survey. As such, it could be
further developed to serve for the promotion of mosaic heritage of SE Europe. It could also
serve as information source for activities related to mosaic conservation in the region and,
through a forum, as a meeting point for people involved with mosaic research and
conservation. These possibilities for expending the contents of the website are directions in
which it will be developed in the future.
1. Through implementation of the survey, data on mosaic heritage in SE Europe, their
state of conservation, availability to public, as well as professional capacities had been
gathered, quantified, qualified and systemized.
2. Statistical analysis of the results gives a clear picture of the capacities and the needs for
the conservation and presentation of mosaic heritage in SE Europe.
3. Survey results are made available online to a vast range of users.
4. Access to a complete database is made available to professionals from all the
institutions that took part in the survey (44 institutions from 8 countries).
5. Papers with survey results will be published in conservation publications2
6. Apart from direct results that emerge from the survey, its implementation led to
creating contacts with a large number of professionals and institutions involved with
mosaic heritage, creating a nucleus of professionals interested to foster mosaic heritage
in the region and a platform for developing network of specialists involved with
mosaic conservation – SEE mosaics.
and will
enable professional community to have insight into the capacities of SE Europe
regarding mosaic heritage and its conservation:
CONCLUSION
Overview of the situation regarding mosaic conservation in the region obtained trough the
survey, point out several critical issues:
- In museums, the most serious problem represent quantity of mosaics that have been
lifted but never transferred to the new support. The risk of loss progresivly increases
by leaving them untreated.
- On sites, majority of mosaics are unavailable to the public, mostly due to the fact that
shelters are rare. Since most of mosaics on sites are conserved, poor ratings of their
2 Franković, M., Lazarević, B., Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe, in: Conservation: An act of Discovery, Proceedings of the 10th ICCM Conference, Palermo, Italy, October 20-26, 2008, in press;
Franković, M., Lazarević, B., Results of the Regional Survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe, in: Managing Archaeological Sites with Mosaics: from Real Problems to Practical Solutions, Proceedings of the 11th ICCM Conference, Meknes, Morocco, October 24-27, 2011, in press;
Franković, M., Lazarević, B., Regional Survey Mosaic Conservation and Training of Conservators in Southeast Europe - Overview of the situation in Serbia, in: “Risk Assessment of Cultural and Natural Heritage in the Region of Southeast Europe”, Proceedings of the Second Regional Scientific Conference of ICOM SEE, Niš, Serbia, May 22-25, 2012, in press.
state of conservation are linked to unorganized maintenance, especially to the lack of
separate budget for these activities, but also the lack of personnel.
- Unsufficient number of conservators are in charge of conservation and maintenance of
mosaics on sites and in museums, there is a lack of training programs and specialized
studies in mosaic conservation.
When we take into the account quantity of mosaic pavements in the region, profession
capacities, estimated needs for mosaic conservation and availability of mosaics to the public,
general conclusion is that mosaic conservation in Southeast Europe needs improvement.
POSSIBILITIES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT IN THE FUTURE
Improving mosaic conservation and presentation in the region was discussed at the meeting of
the survey team that was held in September 2011 in Ohrid. Representatives from all the
countries involved with the survey were present. The meeting was organized to make an
overview of the survey results and plan completion of the project, but also to discuss
possibilities for project development in the future. From the conclusions of this meeting,
possibilities for further development and continuation of the project could be summarized:
1. The best way to improve the situation at the regional level would be to connect
institutions by providing training programs in mosaic conservation with the objective
to develop and put in practice conservation projects trough training of participants.
Double objective of such programs could have greater impact on ameliorating state of
mosaic heritage in the region – dissemination of knowledge regarding the modern
approach to mosaic conservation, while at the same time improving state of
conservation of mosaics on sites/museums where program is implemented. Organized
in that way, training programs would advance comunication and exchange of
experiance amongst conservators in the region and allow joint work on eather regional
or international projects.
2. Annual meetings of mosaic conservators from the region could also contribute to
creating contacts and exchange between professionals and institutions involved with
conservation of mosaic heritage.
3. Website, made through this project, could be developed to serve as information source
for activities related to mosaic conservation in the region and as a meeting point for
people involved with mosaic research and conservation. On the other hand, it could
also help wide promotion of mosaic heritage of SE Europe.
APPENDIX
List of museums and archaeological sites open to public that
participated in the survey
Albania museums sites
Butrint Museum, Saranda Apolonia, Fier National Historical Museum Tirana Butrint, Butrint National Park, Saranda Bylis, Hekal Roman Villa and Paleochristian Church, Tirana Shen Mehillit Arapaj Basilica, Durres
Bulgaria museums sites
Archaeological Museum Sandanski Basilica 7, Kyustendil NAIM-BAS Sofia Largo, Kyustendil RHM "Acad. Yordan Ivanov" Kyustendil Stationary Shop, Kyustendil RHM Stara Zagora 32, Neofit Rilski Str., Kyustendil Bishop's Basilica Sandanski House in G.Stoletov Str, Stara Zagora Peristylic building near the Post Palace, Stara
Zagora Bosnia and Herzegovina
museums sites City Museum of Zenica Museum of Herzegovina, Trebinje National Museum, Sarajevo
Croatia museums sites
Archaeological Museum of Istria, Pula Baska, Island Krk, Baska Archaeological Museum Narona, Vid Verige villa rustica, Verige bay Brijuni Complex of Early Christian Churches St. Ivan/St.
Maria, Hvar Archaeological Collection Osor Early Christian Basilica, Liznjan Cres Museum Osor Lošinj Museum Cathedral of the Assumption of the Blessed
Virgin Mary, Pula Museum of Stari Grad, Hvar St. Franjo Monastery, Pula Villa urbana – Punishment of Dirce mosaic, Pula Museum of Trilj County St. Thomas the Apostol Church, Porec NI National park Brijuni Uzarska 23, Rijeka Poreč Heritage Museum Diocletian's palace, Arhidjakonova Street, Split Diocletian's palace, Sector I, Buliceva street, Split Gradina, Roman Therme, Vis
FYROM museums sites
Deboj/NI IPCMM-Ohrid Heraclea Lyncestis, Bitola House of Miladinovi brothers - Struga House of Manchevi, Ohrid NI Institute and Museum - Bitola Plaoshnik, Ohrid
Stobi Church of the Holy Mother of God Perybleptos,
Ohrid Montenegro
museums sites PI "Museums, Gallery and Library" Budva - Museum
Ancient Roman Villa with Mosaics, Risan
Slovenia museums sites
Museum and galleries of Ljubljana Archaeological Park Early Christan Centre (Baptisterium and porticus), Ljubljana
National Museum of Slovenia Archaeological park Emonian house, Ljubljana Regional Museum Celje Church of the St. Spiritus, Crnomelj Regional Museum Koper Simons' Bay, Izola Regional Museum Maribor Regional Museum Ptuj Ormoz
Serbia museums sites
Belgrade City Museum Caričin Grad (Ivstiniana Prima), Lebane Museum of Srem Felix Romuliana, Zajecar National Museum in Belgrade Mediana, Nis National Museum Zajecar Sirmium, Sremska Mitrovica