Condition documentation

Every conservation action, whether it involves preventive work or direct intervention, must build upon a basic documentation of the physical condition of the rock art. Such documentation, carried out at a definite point in time, is an important part of the total documentation of the rock art. It contributes to our understanding of what happened in the past and what will happen in the future. In other words, it can help us take action and decide which action should be taken. Since it is the basis for future monitoring and management, condition documentation is an important premise supplier for all conservation.

Mapping of condition comprises a majority of the Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s Documentation Standard. In order for the documentation to be complete relative to the standard, the rock art panel should be investigated by an archaeologist, conservator, botanist and geologist. Mapping of this type is done at a relatively detailed level, and in many instances resources are too limited for such in-depth recording. The degree of documentation detail must be considered in each case. More resources are commonly used on localities that will receive many visitors and are also threatened with damage. The more detailed condition mapping is, the better the basis for monitoring of the locality in the future.

There are three elementary steps that must be taken in connection with condition documentation:

1. Observe, locate and record.

2. Build up knowledge about the materials (the rock, paintings, etc.), how they change over time and what this is attributed to.

3. Consider strategies that can counteract problems.

Condition has three main aspects:

1. Physical traits that can be observed → the effect.

2. Reasons for the effect → environmental factors (natural and human-related).

3. How the effect appears and develops → the process.

It is important to consider these three aspects, both individually and collectively. This helps us analyze what is occurring and why it occurs. Of course it is impossible to provide an approximately complete picture of decomposition factors and processes that are the reason for the current condition, since the environment consists of a large number of parameters (mutually variable factors) that make up a extremely complicated system.

But we should at least seek to map the main traits. One of the difficulties is that fully visible effects often have hidden causes.

When we describe the reasons for a panel’s condition, it is common to divide these into two categories: the natural and the anthropogenic (human-induced). The first category relates to the “normal”, natural processes that cause the condition to change through a transformation – commonly decomposition – of the materials. These processes are expressed by the term weathering. The other category includes wear, vandalism and other damaging effects from visitors. In reality, the natural and anthropogenic

decomposition factors can mutually influence one another. Damages due to visitors can

contribute to making the locality more sensitive to natural decomposition, while the degree of weathering can contribute to determining the impact of wear from visitors. In this way a synergy effect¹² can be created that not only involves the actual rock art panel, but also its immediate surroundings.

Standard condition documentation of rock art includes:

The environment around the rock art

• Type of area (agricultural, housing area, urban environment, industrial).

• Type of terrain (valley, hilly terrain, open location, mountain, fjord, river, mountain plateau, lake, beach, ocean).

• Local vegetation (field, meadow, grazing land, grass lawn, garden, coniferous forest, deciduous forest, mixed forest, tree plantation, scrub, bog, beach vegetation, mountain vegetation).

• Highway traffic / other sources of pollution.

Rock art surfaces

• Each figure is described with consideration to motif, material and technique.

Condition is characterized by explaining what is preserved and how this expresses itself: Strong or weak, clearly bounded or diffuse and indistinct, etc. It is also important to include what seems to have disappeared and the likely reason for the loss. (This is based on a visual and subjective impression. Trials have shown that it is advantageous for two persons to provide a description independent of one another. Everything is dependent on good light conditions. A halogen headlamp is essential for documentation of cave paintings.)

• Orientation (exposure and slope).

• Rock type.

• Moisture effects (rain, sea spray, periodic seepage, permanent seepage).

• Macro-vegetation.

• Micro-vegetation (type of vegetation: moss, lichen, algae, biofilm, coverage percentage).

• Weathering damage (loose grains, exfoliation, granular weathering, air pockets, chemical weathering, crack-related weathering, flake weathering, mineral precipitates, incising, graffiti, chalking, fire damage, soot from torches, wax drippings from candles).

Important factors that influence weathering processes on rock carving surfaces

• Water (infiltration water, condensation, surface water from rain and snow melting, ice formation, snow accumulation).

• Vegetation (macro and micro).

• Climatic factors (temperature, relative humidity, air currents, sun exposure).

3.8.1 Damage map

12 Synergy effect is the increased effect through an association between to or more components.

This is greater than the sum of the effects of each individual component acting alone.

The regional museums commonly document damages in the following ways: (1) by photographic documentation and (2) by illustrating the damages on reduced copies of tracings, or possibly by drawing in the damages on the rock surface at the same time as the archaeological tracings are done (Figure 42). If a panel is scanned, most damages are visible on the scanning printout, but air pockets, for example, must be drawn in

afterward.

Figure 42. Completed damage map of the locality at Hjemmeluft/Jiebmaluokta, Alta, Finnmark. The different damages are marked with different colours and symbols. Photo: B. H. Helberg.

Figure 43. A) Overview photo of rock art panel Ausevik II, Flora, Sogn og Fjordane. Photo: J. M.

Gjerde.

Figure 43. B) Damage tracing of the same panel at Ausevik, Flora, Sogn og Fjordane, from Gjerde and Gundersen 2000. The different types of damage are marked with different colours.

Bomparti

Figure 44. Symbols used when drawing a damage map.