![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
The tenure of archaeological chemist Dr. S. Paramasivan (1903–1987) at the Chemical Conservation Laboratory of the Madras Government Museum, India, sheds light on the development of the field of conservation science outside the scholarly centers of Europe and North America. Between 1930 and 1946, Paramasivan defined and broadened the role of a scientist responsible for the care and study of cultural heritage. From building and equipping his own laboratories to serve the museum's many departments, to collaborating with scientists, commercial metallurgists, and even religious practitioners across south India, Paramasivan's work is marked by a sense that the conservation scientist could and should practice beyond a laboratory's typical confines. In fact, working in this way created opportunities not only to physically transform ancient objects through conservation interventions, but also transform the understanding of ancient objects. In tracing his correspondence with Rutherford J. Gettens at the Fogg Art Museum, this paper provides insight into the complexity of defining the work of the conservation scientist even at one of the intellectual centers of the nascent field. Reflecting on Paramasivan's early career provides perspective on enduring challenges in conservation, and offers a way forward for a more expansive, collaborative, and community-engaged practice.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a Fulbright Award from the United States-India Educational Foundation. At the Government Museum, I am grateful to former Commissioner Dr. T.S. Sridhar, and current and former museum staff Mr. Balasubramanian, Ms. Gandhimathi, Mr. N. Harinarayana, Mr. Jagganathan, Dr. V. Jeyaraj, and Mr. Mani. At the Tamil Nadu State Archives, Research Hall, I thank Ms. Gomathi, Mr. Yuvraj, Mr. Chandran, Mr. Neelavarnan, Mr. Suresh, and Mr. Chandran for their assistance. I am grateful to David Saunders of the British Museum, Paul Jett and Donna Strahan of the Freer Gallery of Art, Norbert Baer and Michele Marincola of New York University, Narayan Khandekar and Henry Lie of the Harvard Art Museums, and Sanjay Dhar, for their advice and assistance. I thank K.B. Nair and Mrs. K.P.B. Nair for providing insight into the work of Mr. K.P.S. Nair. Thanks are also due to Elizabeth Rodini, Marya Flanagan, Rebecca Brown, Hillary Snow, Rebecca Hall, and Anand Pandian for their thoughts on previous drafts. I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers and Chandra Reedy and Stavroula Golfomitsou of Studies in Conservation for their helpful comments and encouragement. I thank my grandfather, metallurgist K.P.S. Nair, for beginning this work nearly a century ago.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes on contributor
Sanchita Balachandran is Associate Director of the Johns Hopkins Archaeological Museum, and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Near Eastern Studies at Johns Hopkins University (JHU) in Baltimore, Maryland. At JHU, she teaches courses related to the identification and analysis of archaeological objects, and the history, ethics and practice of art conservation.
Notes
1. Government Order (hereafter G.O.) Nos. 1–81, Law (Education), 21 May 1936, TSNA.
2. G.O. No. 989, 27 May 1930, Edu (MS series), TSNA.
3. Raman received his Nobel prize in physics in 1930.
4. G.O. No. 989, 27 May 1930, Edu (MS series), TSNA.
5. G.O. No. 770–1/24, 25 June, undated year, Law (Edu), TSNA.
6. G.O. No. 521–1/33, 20 March 1933, Law (Edu), TSNA.
7. G.O. No. 1770, 17 June 1896, Public, Government Museum Chennai Archives, Chennai (GMCA).
8. G.O. No. 521–1/33, 20 March 1933, Law (Edu), TSNA.
9. G.O. No. 96, 18 January 1928, Edu (Mis 96), TSNA.
10. G.O. No. 559–1/23, 27 June 1923, Law (Edu), TSNA.
11. G.O. No. 544, 20 March 1928, Edu, TSNA.
12. G.O. No. 107–1/28, 8 September 1928, Law (Edu), TSNA.
13. While an earlier laboratory was set up in the Indian Museum, Calcutta, it was associated with the Archaeological Survey of India which specifically conserved sites and site-related rather than museum collections.
14. G.O. No. 2376, 19 November 1930, Law (Edu), TSNA.
15. Letter from Ram Singh Ahuja to Gravely, 18 June 1924, TSNA.
16. G.O. No. 1917, 6 November 1931, Law (Edu), TSNA.
17. G.O. No. 19179, 6 November 1931, Law (Edu), TSNA.
18. G.O. No. 1224, 26 August 1932, TSNA.
19. G.O. No. 1917, 6 November 1931, Law (Edu), TSNA.
20. G.O. No. 1224, 26 August 1932, Edu, TSNA.
21. Letter No. 1424, 1 May 1933, GMCA.
22. G.O. No. 1224, 26 August 1932, Edu, TSNA.
23. G.O. No. 1917, 6 November 1931, Law (Edu), TSNA.
24. G.O. No. 770–1/24, 25 June 1924, Law (Edu), TSNA.
25. G.O. No. 117, 19 January 1935, Public (Services), TSNA.
26. G.O. No. 1625, 21 July 1937, Edu, TSNA.
27. G.O. No. 968, 22 July 1918, Home (Edu), TSNA. This slide machine was likely purchased from Weston and Co., England, in 1916.
28. G.O. No. 704, 14 March 1949, Edu, TSNA.
29. G.O. No. 521–1/33, 20 March 1933, Law (Edu), TSNA.
30. G.O. No. 712, 22 September 1936, Edu, TSNA.
31. G.O. No. 712, 2 April 1937, Edu, TSNA.
32. Letter No. 1014–1/35, 25 September 1935, GMCA.
33. G.O. No. 1917, 6 November 1931, Law (Edu), TSNA.
34. G.O. No. 1917, 6 November 1931, Law (Edu), TSNA.
35. G.O. No. 117, 19 January 1935, Public (Services), TSNA.
36. G.O. No. 712, 2 April 1937, Edu, TSNA.
37. G.O. No. 1254, 3 June 1938, Edu, TSNA.
38. G.O. Confidential Memo 9043A/42-5, 25 March 1942, GMCA.
39. G.O. No. 1565, 2 August 1935, Law (Edu), TSNA.
40. G.O. No. 1565, 2 August 1935, Law (Edu), TSNA.
41. This metallurgist is the author's own grandfather.
42. This is the subject of a longer paper forthcoming by the author.
43. Letter from MS Raghunatha Thathachariar to Gravely, 11 October 1932, GMCA.
44. G.O. No. 1081, 21 May 1936, GMCA.
45. Letter No. C 6–2/37, 18 March 1937, GMCA.
46. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 5 June 1933, FGA.
47. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 6 July 1933, FGA.
48. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 27 April 1933, FGA.
49. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 16 November 1933, FGA.
50. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 5 June 1933, FGA.
51. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 4 October 1933, FGA.
52. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 11 January 1934, FGA.
53. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 6 December 1934, FGA.
54. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 22 January 1935, FGA.
55. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 4 October 1933, FGA.
56. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 5 June 1933, FGA.
57. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 1 August 1934, FGA.
58. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 9 January 1935, FGA.
59. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 10 September 1936, FGA.
60. Letter from Gettens to Paramasivan, 5 August 1936, FGA.
61. Italian restorers L. Cecconi and Count Orsini conserved the Ajanta paintings between 1920 and 1922. See Singh and Arbad (Citation2013) for a brief history of conservation at Ajanta.
62. Letter from Paramasivan to Gettens, 10 September 1936, FGA.