This article was downloaded by: [Alison Wain]On: 11 December 2011, At: 02:48Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Australian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjau20

A many-headed axe: originality in largetechnology heritageAlison Wain aa Australian National University, Canberra

Available online: 08 Dec 2011

To cite this article: Alison Wain (2011): A many-headed axe: originality in large technologyheritage, Journal of Australian Studies, 35:4, 495-510

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14443058.2011.617385

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

A many-headed axe: originality in large technology heritage

Alison Wain*

Australian National University, Canberra

The nature of authenticity and the role of originality are perennial subjects ofdebate in heritage. The role of originality is arguably to anchor the imaginativereconstruction of the past in reality, underpinning affective understandings of thepast with accurate physical and sensory evidence. In practice, however, the term‘‘originality’’ is used rather haphazardly, to mean many different things and manydifferent ways of preserving and interpreting heritage objects. It is particularlyproblematic in the field of large technology heritage, where objects typicallyreflect historical evidence of multiple owners and service contexts, and extensivefunctional and aesthetic change. This article uses interviews with large technologyheritage producers and visitors to examine how different understandings oforiginality influence the ways in which people conserve, restore, interpret andview this type of heritage, and the crucial role these different approaches can havein the success or failure of large technology heritage projects. The very practicaldifficulties of defining and preserving originality in large technology heritage arebrought into focus with a discussion of the HMAS Brisbane display at theAustralian War Memorial in Canberra.

Keywords: originality; large technology heritage; heritage values; authenticity

Introduction

Most of these locomotives that we perceive as being 100 years old, they are the axeman’saxe. There are so many bits that have been replaced in various ways over the years thatthere is probably very little that is original on them. [Originality means] . . . originality inconcept I think . . . it could be original 1950s, 1890s . . . [but] it is a locomotive made inthe 1890s, which has worked through to the 1950s, and at that point we have drawn aline in the sand and said ‘‘That is the original’’.1

Originality, in heritage, is a complex idea. Heritage practitioners like Eamonn

Seddon, quoted above, wrestle with it on a daily basis. Does original mean material

present when an object was first manufactured? A reflection of the intellectual intent

of the designer? The accumulation of material from many different periods of an

object’s life? Seddon uses all three meanings in the space of as many sentences. From

a theoretical perspective this plurality is not a problem. Originality can be all of these

things, even in the one object. The intellectual understanding of an object is in fact

enriched by such multiple viewpoints.2 Physical management of the object, though,

usually demands that choices be made and conflicts resolved. As Matthew

Churchward, senior curator of engineering and transport at Museum Victoria,

remarked when discussing conservation procedures: ‘‘. . . we had to come up with

*Email: alison.wain@anu.edu.au

Journal of Australian Studies,

Vol. 35, No. 4, December 2011, 495�510

ISSN 1444-3058 print/ISSN 1835-6419 online

# 2011 International Australian Studies Association

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14443058.2011.617385

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

some definition of original because we were asking [the workshop staff] a series of

questions. Things like ‘Is this treatment going to affect original finishes, or original

parts?’’’3

Originality is a temporal concept: it implies a relationship with a point of origin

that, by definition, was in the past and preceded any later versions or copies.4 As

Seddon and Churchward make clear, however, every object is connected to many

different points of origin, and it is a matter of choice which of those points are valued

and preserved as heritage. This element of choice, though, is rarely acknowledged;

the nature and identity of what is ‘‘original’’ are usually left unexplained and

undefined, as though they were too obvious to require description, and too universal

to require debate. Heritage charters and codes of ethics regularly instruct practi-

tioners to treat ‘‘original material’’ in specific ways, without indicating how original

material can be identified. These documents express confidence that originality is

significant and distinctive, yet none of them either defines the concept or explains

their particular use of it. The Venice Charter for example notes ‘‘The process of

restoration . . . is based on respect for original material’’.5 Consistent with this, the

professional code of ethics for Australian conservators states that ‘‘Testing on unique

or rare original materials/objects should be avoided’’.6 The Barcelona Charter

discussing the conservation and restoration of traditional ships observes that

‘‘Obligatory navigation and safety equipment must integrate harmoniously with

the whole, but at the same time must be distinguishable from the original’’.7

Academic and philosophical works also use the words ‘‘original’’ and ‘‘origin-

ality’’, but usually in discussions of other concepts, particularly authenticity. The

Marxist historian Raphael Samuel uses the word original in his discussion of

authenticity, but does not clarify what he means by it.8 Historian Randolph Starn

briefly notes the issue of conflicting definitions of original (again while discussing

authenticity), but as the following quote shows, he clearly feels that the subject is

tiresome, limited in scope and likely to increase rather than reduce confusion:

Preserve the design and the techniques for executing it and an original can arguablyremain ‘the same’. Preserve the historical material and the wear and tear of time willdistinguish the original from its copy and indeed from its own original state. Stretchedbetween alternatives such as these, the case for historic preservation seems bound to goaround in circles or turn downright incoherent.9

Originality in these and other texts is not discussed in any detail except in reference

to the notion of creative originality; the production of a creative point of origin (as

with David Lowenthal’s discussions of originality in The Past is a Foreign Country).10

This usage of originality, however, does not have the link to the past and to previous

traditions that is connoted by the more general use of the term originality in heritage

contexts. The lack of attention to the nuances of originality in the literature both

denies the theoretical richness of the concept, and leaves heritage practitioners

without resources or guidance to help them apply it. The purpose of this article is to

draw attention to the need for a larger discussion, and to contribute to that

discussion through the use of interview data collected at large technology heritage

sites within Australia. Analysis of the data shows how heritage consumers and

practitioners use the idea of originality in the large technology heritage context, and

496 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

how their understanding of the concept influences their views, practice and

outcomes.

Context and issues

The nature of originality is particularly difficult in relation to large technology

objects. By the time a large technology object reaches the end of its service life, itsoperating context, appearance and even function may have changed dramatically

from when it was manufactured, and it is likely to have undergone routine

replacements of many of its components and surface treatments, both internal and

external. The challenges this creates for the interpretation and preservation of

originality are best illustrated by considering an actual object. For the purposes of

this article I will focus on an object placed on display at the Australian War

Memorial (AWM) in 2008: the bridge of the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) destroyer

HMAS Brisbane (Figure 1).The HMAS Brisbane was built in Connecticut in 1967. In 1969�71 she completed

two tours of service in Vietnam, and then embarked on a long peacetime career

before a further tour of service in the first Gulf War in 1990�91. Much of her

equipment was upgraded or replaced during her working life, as it became obsolete,

wore out, or as the tactics used in modern naval operations changed.11 These changes

were not always sudden, or attributable to a particular period or event, but rather

formed a background of constant change in both her physical condition and her

operational capabilities. Eventually her 1960s design, compromised by many years ina corrosive marine environment, was unable to meet the standards expected of a ship

in the twenty-first century, and in 2001 she was decommissioned.12

Figure 1. HMAS Brisbane in service c. 1968. The areas now on display at the AWM are

indicated by the pale line. Photograph reproduced and annotated with permission from the

Australian War Memorial, AWM300463.

Journal of Australian Studies 497

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Rather than being scrapped, however, she acquired a new lease of life as heritage.

The bulk of her physical fabric was scuttled off Maroochidoor to become a dive

wreck, but a few comparatively small sections were removed to the AWM in

Canberra as collection items. In 2006 these sections were prepared for outdoor

display as part of the AWM’s renewal of exhibitions on the subject of post 1945

conflict and peacekeeping operations. This preparation involved replacing missing

floors, removing corrosion, repainting all exterior surfaces, and reassembling or

replicating internal furniture and equipment. And because the biggest parts of the

ship had been actually removed, the remaining sections had to be stitched together

on a new support structure (Figure 2).

In this article I will not address the AWM’s wider approach to interpretation and

display,13 except to ask one question. What is it that we can say is still ‘‘original’’

about the bridge of the HMAS Brisbane? Through the transformation of this object,

from a working battleship to a museum display, much has been changed. The smells

and sounds of her service life are gone, the vast bulk of her fabric has been discarded,

her bridge’s functions are simulated by modern theatrical techniques and the bridge

floor, paintwork and several pieces of equipment are new. In proposing this question

it is necessary to distinguish originality from two other key heritage concepts, namely

authenticity and significance.

Authenticity is a concept that, in relation to the definitions, conventions and

practices of heritage, has increasingly become a centre of attention. In the late-

nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries the word authenticity was used compara-

tively rarely in relation to heritage,14 though a concern for ‘‘character’’ and

‘‘historical values’’ was mentioned in the canonical Athens Charter of 1931.15

Randolph Starn sees the aftermath of the Second World War, however, as the period

in which the concept of authenticity came to be more explicitly debated, as a result of

Figure 2. The exterior of the HMAS Brisbane display at the AWM. Photograph # Alison

Wain, July 2009.

498 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

efforts to repair and re-create heritage that had been damaged or lost during the

war.16 The post-war Venice Charter, for instance, explicitly identifies authenticity as a

defining quality of heritage, and sees the preservation and passing on of that

authenticity to future generations as a key responsibility.17

The Venice Charter does not define the nature of authenticity, however,

apparently seeing the concept as a self-evident part of a ‘‘common heritage’’ of

universal human values. In the later twentieth century, though, the nature of

authenticity began to be debated in detail, and the understanding of the term became

increasingly complex and fragmented. In particular, one school of thought held that

the past was so coloured by the needs and assumptions of the present that

authenticity was only an illusion, or at least an unachievable ideal,18 (this idea has

formed the basis of an ongoing discussion of the mutually influential relationshipbetween tourism and authenticity).19 Another school of thought held that

authenticity was not to be found in material things, but in the processes by which

they were produced, experienced and authenticated.20 This idea, which questioned

the Western search for authenticity in the physical fabric of objects from the past,

and raised the possibility that authenticity was more a product of traditions in the

present, has underpinned an international movement to recognise living and

intangible heritage as having as much legitimacy as physical monuments and objects.

As Laurajane Smith suggests ‘‘. . . the authenticity of heritage lies ultimately in themeanings people construct for it in their daily lives’’.21

Originality is frequently cited as an important aspect of authenticity*indeed the

two words are often used synonymously.22 The debate about the nature of

authenticity has not, however, dealt with the subtleties of the concept of originality

or with the ways in which originality differs from authenticity. Taking as a reference

point the Oxford English Dictionary, to be original heritage must encapsulate

something from a point of origin (which is usually in the past), but to be authentic

heritage must be authorised: authenticity is the value conferred when an item ofheritage is judged to be entitled to belief and acceptance by a recognised authority.23

Authenticity is thus based on legitimacy rather than point of origin, and while much

heritage has aspects of both of these qualities (which is why they are often conflated),

the aspect of originality provides a grounding that is predominantly in the past, while

the aspect of authenticity provides an attachment that is predominantly in the

present.

Originality is also considered to contribute to significance. A heritage item, for

example, is generally considered more significant if it is ‘‘the original’’ or is in‘‘original’’ condition.24 However, when the aspect of originality that is used is not

clearly identified it remains unclear what the supposed originality contributes to the

item’s significance, or why it is important. The following analysis articulates some of

the ways in which originality is understood and used in the large technology heritage

context, and investigates how these understandings intersect with issues of

significance and authenticity.

Defining originality

The data that informs this analysis comes from an ethnographic study of attitudes to

large technology heritage that was undertaken in Australia in 2007�09. Interviews

were conducted at five professionally run museum sites that display heritage

Journal of Australian Studies 499

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

machinery (Melbourne Museum, Scienceworks, Western Australian Maritime

Museum, Australian War Memorial and National Museum of Australia), two

associations of private owners of heritage machinery, both of which display their

machinery at regular public gatherings (Campbelltown Steam and MachineryMuseum, and Automobile Restorers Association Gold Coast), a heritage railway

(Puffing Billy) and, to capture the views of people who were not specifically engaging

in heritage-focused activities, the Paddy’s Market area of Darling Harbour, a leisure

environment that does not display heritage machinery but that attracts a wide variety

of people and social groups.

Long interviews were conducted with 82 large technology heritage producers

(people who work with large technology heritage in a professional, volunteer or

private capacity). These interviews included the question: ‘‘Large technology objectsare serviced and updated throughout their lives, and parts, lubricants, and paint

coatings are regularly replaced. With this in mind, what do you think is a good

definition of the word ‘original’’’? Short interviews were also conducted with 368

visitors, and while these did not specifically include a question on originality, 24 per

cent of visitors (89 of 368) still used the words ‘‘original’’ or ‘‘originality’’ in their

responses to other questions, which illustrates the importance of the concept even to

casual visitors.25 The different ways in which interviewees used the concept of

originality clustered around a primary theme, period, and two secondary themes,realness and method of manufacture. Each of these themes reflected a different lens

for viewing originality, and each demonstrated the influence of the viewer’s

background and needs on the lens they chose.

Period

The theme of period encompassed three phases: the creation of the object; its

working life; and the time when it entered heritage care. Interviewees who usedoriginal to refer to the period of the creation of the object spoke with a sense that this

moment in the object’s life was fixed and well defined. Use of original in this way also

referred almost exclusively to the fabric of the object. Lyle Ross, a private owner at

Automobile Restorers Association Gold Coast, explained that, for a car to be

original, ‘‘It’s got to be completely untouched since brand new. Original upholstery,

original paint, original chrome’’.26 In a variation on this idea Steve Gower, director

of AWM, who has a background in mechanical engineering, saw each Mark, or

iteration, of the design of a machine as a new point of originality.27 This viewpointreflected not only the temporal aspect of originality, in that each new iteration of the

machine was the first of its exact type, but also the creative aspect of originality, in

that each iteration also reflected a new intellectual development. The downside of

this moment of purity was that the only history it represented was that of the object’s

manufacture, and for mass-produced objects that history was largely shared with all

its brethren from the same factory line. Even handmade objects such as boats, and

assemblies such as blast furnaces, were, at their point of creation, only waiting to

begin the history for which they were made.Many interviewees, on the other hand, preferred to see the wear and tear of a

busy life reflected in the fabric of an object. They saw changes to the object

throughout its life as being original, but original to later periods rather than to the

period when the object was first made, the points of origin being the creation of the

500 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

different phases of its history. As one visitor at the Campbelltown Steam and

Machinery Museum (CSMM) field day remarked: ‘‘. . . there’s a lot of originality in

it, the history is there. It is like an old racing car . . . They had dirt on them, sweat,

and a bit of blood on them’’.28 A number of interviewees also used evidence of the

object’s working life to evaluate the trustworthiness of the object as a witness to

history: ‘‘If they’re in original condition and working well and safely I think that’s

more pleasurable . . . [it’s] good to see an old tractor that’s honest. You can see that it’s

had a life . . .’’29 Where evidence of later phases of use had been removed, however,

and an object had been restored to look as though it was newly manufactured, its

ability to carry an historical message was in doubt:

I think they should be left in their original condition . . . I think it adds more to itshistorical significance if it’s left the way it is, whereas if it’s restored and looking brandnew then it doesn’t look historical anymore.30

For most large technology objects, their service life (the period of functional

contribution to human society) is followed by a period of decommissioning and

neglect, which often leads to rapid deterioration. As with the period of creation, this

is undeniably part of the object’s history, but its significance is debatable. Most

interviewees ignored it or dismissed it as irrelevant, though some noted that this

period might be more significant if it included associations with any significant

people or events, and some thought that evidence of this period should be

documented if it was to be removed during conservation or restoration treatments.

Most people, though, felt that preserving evidence of this period on the object itself

would be detrimental to both its survival and interpretation. Richard Garcia,

conservator at the Western Australian Maritime Museum (WAMM), illustrated the

problem: ‘‘. . . what’s left of this bus [was] in a terrible state. So there wasn’t really

anything else they could do but to try to restore it . . . it would have been either that or

just dump it’’.31

The bridge of HMAS Brisbane has, or had, elements that were relevant to all

these views of originality. The built structure of the bridge consists of the metal

sections riveted together when the ship was first built, and as these come from the

point of origin of the ship as a complete entity, these are as materially original as

anything can be. By contrast, the interior fit-out is an assemblage that reflects the

incremental changes of three decades of active service: different generations of

equipment speak of many tours of duty, a comfortable seat suggests a pragmatic

response to long hours spent on watch, and multiple coats of worn paint subtly

convey an impression of a well-used and regularly maintained space. Choices have

had to be made, however, and original material from some parts of the bridge and its

history have been lost. First, the removal of the rest of the ship has had a major

impact, both on the material that is left and on its context. The integrity of the larger

whole has been compromised, which raises questions that will be discussed in the

next section about the capacity of an object to evoke an earlier era. Second, the

marks of history that give the interior of the bridge such a sense of passing time have

been obliterated on the exterior surfaces by new paint, to protect the object while it is

on outdoor display. Certainly the ship would have been regularly repainted while in

service, but the harsh conditions of life at sea would quickly have taken their toll, and

the bridge can rarely have looked so shiny and untouched as it does on display at the

Journal of Australian Studies 501

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

AWM. This is perhaps an issue of authenticity rather than originality: time on

outdoor display will expose the paint to weather, dirt and birds, producing a similar

appearance to that of the ship in service. A feeling of age and genuineness may

therefore be achieved through the continuation of the same processes that affected

the ship in service, even though the actual materials have been renewed.

Analysing definitions of authenticity for the complex, multi-period entity of a

city, Zancheti, Lira and Piccolo note the importance of such continuity between

processes in the past and the present.32 Their principal concern is the continuity of

human actions and process, but processes related to non-human agents, especially

the cycles of change and renewal associated with outdoor environments, are equally

critical in maintaining the affect of many types of heritage.33 This is certainly true of

the trains at Puffing Billy, which have been completely repainted to cope with life

outdoors but which, having been weathered through exposure to the traditional

processes of outdoor operation, were perceived by most of the visitors interviewed in

this study to look authentically old.

Finally, original evidence of the period of decommissioning and neglect*which

resulted in the floor of the bridge of the HMAS Brisbane being cut away, the

structure and its furniture being separated, and the structure accumulating dirt and

corrosion in unprotected storage*has been completely removed, though it has been

documented in the conservation treatment report. As mentioned above, this period is

generally seen as being of little significance and its passing is a source of celebration

rather than regret. This is perhaps because, while such evidence is original to a period

of the object’s life, it is not a period that reflects continuity with the traditional use of

the object. In the words of Zancheti, et al., it does not have the capacity to ‘‘express

for the . . . visitors a given way of life in the past . . .’’ or to be a ‘‘condition for renewed

reproduction of the past by the society or community’’.34 This is another instance

where originality of material does not necessarily provide authenticity of spirit; where

the condition of the object is certainly derived from a real period in the object’s

history, but equally certainly does not tell the story of the object’s most significant

contribution to human affairs.

Defining originality through the lens of period, therefore, reflects a search for

evidence, significance and story. These are important issues for heritage producers

when they are choosing an object, deciding how they will manage and interpret it and

justifying those decisions to themselves and others. They are also important issues

for visitors when they are choosing whether to engage with an object, whether to

trust what they experience, and whether the experience is worth a return visit.

Realness

The theme of realness was spoken of by the people interviewed for this study in two

ways: faithfulness to the way the object would have looked and felt in a previous era,

and faithfulness to the way the object was designed to function.

Faithfulness to the way the object would have looked and felt is perhaps the

aspect of originality which correlates most strongly with the concept of authenticity,

as it centres around intangible, affective experiences and a sense of wholeness and

continuity. Heinz Hermann, a workshop volunteer at Puffing Billy, defined

originality as being: ‘‘That it works on the same principles as the original, it looks

502 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

like the original, not when you are down there with a magnifying glass but when you

stand back and watch it’’.35

Faithfulness to the way the object was designed to function, on the other hand,

was spoken of as a matter of respecting the intent of the people who had made and

used it, even if new materials were used to achieve that intent. John Kemister, large

technology conservator at AWM commented that: ‘‘. . . it would be good if [it] can be

freed-up to rotate, slide, turn, or whatever. I believe that is restoring part of its

original integrity, because originally it wasn’t completely . . . frozen . . . ’’36 Col

Ogilvie, engineering conservator at the National Museum of Australia, explained

this idea in more detail:

. . . if the intent of the bearing was to haul a very heavy shaft, I wouldn’t make it out ofsoft material . . . They used a hard bronze. Therefore I’ve got to use a hard bronze, toreplicate what they’ve done. If you put something in there that’s aesthetically correct butit doesn’t follow the intent, then it’s bad conservation.37

The ability to evoke an era is probably the aspect of originality in which the HMAS

Brisbane bridge display is the least successful. Externally, the areas of the ship that

have been preserved are too small to evoke either the look and feel or the

functionality of the full ship, especially as they are displayed in a context totally

unlike their maritime service life. The interior of the bridge is more evocative, being

furnished to reflect historic photographs of the bridge and augmented with

audiovisual dramatisations of a night-time action. The dim light of the night display

provides an engagingly theatrical experience for visitors, but the disconnection of the

bridge from its service context means that the display still feels more like a walk-in

showcase than an immersive evocation of an era (Figure 3).

The function of the bridge was to run the ship, a task that it achieved through the

processes of receiving information, making decisions and communicating those

decisions outwards. Separated from the ship, the tactical and communications

equipment is useless, and being faithful to the way the bridge was designed to

Figure 3. The interior of the Brisbane bridge display. Photograph reproduced with permission

from the Australian War Memorial.

Journal of Australian Studies 503

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

function is no longer an option. This is an endemic problem with museums. The

gathering of significant historic artefacts together under one roof creates many

efficiencies and opportunities, but removing the artefacts from their historic contexts

too often also removes the intangible heritage that gives them life, and that isessential to understanding them. This is where sites like Puffing Billy are very

effective, as they provide an immersive context that evokes the sensory experience of

an earlier era and a supportive context that allows at least some of the functions and

skills associated with such objects to be maintained.

Manufacturing method

The theme of manufacturing method was also understood in two different ways by the

people interviewed for this study: old parts that were made in the same period as thecreation or use of the object in question (and preferably by the same maker),38 and

new parts made to the same design and using the same techniques as in the eras when

the object was created or used. Henry South and John Boardman, private owners

from CSMM, preferred the first of these interpretations:

South: [Original means] made at that time. [The part] can come from a different engine,but of that era.39

Boardman: . . . a lot of tractors that had petrol-kero engines, later on they wanted morehorse power so they put a . . . GM or something in them . . . One of the things withthe historic plate scheme [is]*you can’t have a vintage truck with a modern drivetrain . . . But if in its time they did retrofit GM engines . . . that’s OK. It fits in with theera and the working life of the truck.40

However Steve Deacon, also a private steam engine owner at CSMM, was happy

with the latter interpretation: ‘‘if you make a new one, and you make it identical tothe workshop drawing, then it really is an original part . . . if they are made by the

same processes . . . and made to the same shape and drawing sizes . . . ’’41

These very practical definitions reflect the influence of the concept of originality

on what people consider acceptable restoration practices, and they divide into an

emphasis on material*components that were physically manufactured in the past*and process; components manufactured using the same techniques that were used in

the past. In this context it is worth noting that the emphasis on the preservation of

tangible material heritage, which is such a key element of Western heritageconservation, explicitly prejudices the preservation of intangible process heritage*the skills and knowledge required to use the objects. In relation to large technology

heritage, operating an object is usually understood to degrade the physical condition

of the object (through processes of wear and breakage) and maintenance is

understood to degrade the originality of the object (through changes to, and

replacement of, existing fabric).42 Aside from the fact that most machinery degrades

as much from lack of movement as from too much movement, this approach fails to

recognise that most of the operational knowledge and culture associated with largetechnology heritage is not documented, and that much of it can never be adequately

documented, as it is tacit knowledge that depends upon the embodied learning of the

individual.43 While the fabric of the object might be changed by operation and

maintenance, the intangible and tacit knowledge associated with these processes will

504 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

be lost entirely unless it is renewed through practice and through being taught to new

generations.In preparing the Brisbane bridge for display, AWM staff identified only items that

were present during the service life of the object as original. A few items such as

electronic equipment had to be sourced to replace missing furniture, but while these

were considered original to their time, they were recognised as having a separate

historical identity to items that were actually used on the ship in service. Where

missing elements such as the floor of the bridge had to be replaced, they were

manufactured using modern materials and techniques that were not held to be

original in any way.

Confusing originality and value

The three views of originality described above*period, realness and method of

manufacture*each address a different stage of the construction of a heritage

experience. Period comes into play when deciding which of several stages in an

object’s life to focus on for a display. Realness comes into play when deciding how

best to communicate the significance and interest of the chosen period to the object’s

various audiences. Manufacturing method comes into play when making detailed

decisions about how to translate an object from its old service life into its new

heritage life. The issue of originality is affected not only by how it is defined, though,

but also by how it is valued. When their concept of originality conflicts with modern

requirements, heritage producers often seem to feel that, even though originality

might be an important quality, it seems to have little practical application to their

project, or to be merely a stumbling block to imaginative ways to present their

objects to the public. As Heinz Herrmann commented, ‘‘If you want to go and

nitpick, there are lots of things you can find that aren’t original on the engines but

they don’t make any difference to the average person who is looking at it’’.44

The modern requirements mentioned by the people interviewed for this study fell

into the interlinked areas of interpretation and practicality; interlinked because how

an object is to be interpreted determines the practical measures needed to achieve

those goals, but knowing what can be achieved very often guides decisions on

interpretation. Most of the requirements mentioned were very pragmatic*relating to

the challenges of safety, limited resources, wearing parts and leisure values*but some

were more emotional, relating to personal needs for creativity, active involvement and

satisfaction.Safety often involves compliance with regulations that were not in place when the

objects were manufactured or in service. Many of these regulations reflect the fact

that the objects are operating in a different context to their service life. For instance,

the restrictions now placed on the use of the Puffing Billy steam trains during the fire

season were not necessary when railway staff routinely burned away vegetation on

either side of the lines to prevent sparks starting fires. However burning-off is no

longer an acceptable practice because many visitors come not just to ride on the train

but to see the forest. Other modern safety regulations are necessary because the

objects are inherently dangerous: guards and safety rails substantially alter the look

of heritage objects, but serve to protect both untrained visitors and careless

operators.

Journal of Australian Studies 505

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Limited resources are a perennial problem with such large and complex objects,

especially when they are operational. Using traditional materials and methods to

maintain them incurs endless labour and expense; improvements in technology mean

that modern materials and parts are easier to use and last longer, which reduces

labour costs, wear on the object and downtime when the object is out of use. Such

economies are often necessary because heritage, though it can be demonstrated to

contribute to a happy and productive society,45 is not an essential daily need, andmost heritage owners and organisations face limited funding, a limited supply of

people with the skills to maintain and operate the objects and limited availability of

suitably original or traditional parts and materials.

Wearing parts (those designed to be regularly replaced to keep the object

functioning correctly) were a particularly contentious issue with the producers

interviewed for this study. Some felt that these parts were so insignificant that

replacing them (with either traditional or modern components) did not impact at all

on the originality of the overall object, whereas others felt that the object could not

be said to be truly original if they had been replaced. These alternative views reflect

two different approaches to understanding originality. The first of these is focused on

intangible aspects of originality. Replacement of wearing parts, though it reduces the

amount of fabric that remains from the object’s creation or service life, generally

facilitates the object’s operation, enabling the preservation of functionality and

operating and maintenance skills, and in turn enhancing visitor understanding and

engagement through the recreation of the sensory experience of the working object.The second of these approaches focuses on originality as a matter of how much of an

object has been replaced. For Michael Brevenholt, museum educator at WAMM,

original fabric (the fabric that remained from the period of creation or the service life

of the object), was a bridge through time, and the strength of that bridge was affected

by the proportion of original fabric left in the whole.46

Leisure values have become important because such objects are no longer

performing the functions they did in their service lives. The appreciation of heritage

is essentially a leisure activity (even for schools it provides the ‘fun day out’ aspect of

learning47), and as the objects are being used for pleasure rather than utility their

past functions are at best of secondary importance. The departure of a steam train at

Puffing Billy for instance, is all about theatre: fountains of white smoke curl up

among the trees, the sounds of steam whistles echo off the hillsides and there is sense

of mounting excitement as the train fills up. People who are not even going on the

train come to watch this part of the experience, especially with children. (Many

people visit Puffing Billy precisely because it provides an event for a child’s birthday

party: the popular association between real steam trains and Thomas the TankEngine is one that Puffing Billy actively and profitably exploits.) Actual transport

here is much less important than spectacle.

The HMAS Brisbane bridge clearly demonstrates the application of leisure

values, in the sense that the original function of the object has been discontinued,

and it now functions solely as a heritage-themed leisure experience for visitors. It is

an extreme case: so much material has been removed to fit it into the museum

environment that, externally at least, it is barely recognisable as part of a ship. While

it does retain fabric from when the ship was first built, and from her many years of

service, its ability to create a sense of realness has been severely compromised by the

modern requirements that have been imposed on it.

506 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

Personal needs, as noted above, relate to creativity, active involvement and

satisfaction. People who satisfy these needs through their objects are usually private

owners, whose restorations of their objects tend to be creative and imaginative rather

than faithful to the detail of earlier times. Carl Thomson, for instance, private ownerof a restored international truck, wanted to recapture the ‘‘buzz’’ he had felt when, as

a young man, he had first driven the new truck his boss had bought:

The big turn on for me was the day I picked it up brand-new and I put all these extrason it and away I went down the highway . . . The one I have restored is exactly the sameas the one I drove, same brand, everything was the same.48

Everything on Thomson’s present truck is, however, not the same as his working

truck actually was, but as he would have liked it to be: ‘‘[My restored truck] has got

what they call step tanks. The step is made into the tank and they fit you beaut, but

my boss couldn’t afford them. But [now] I have got the step tanks’’.49

Owners are not always interested in keeping to the original physical limitations of

these objects, which can now feel like privations. Instead they want to re-create thethrill that such objects engendered when they were first part of daily life: the

emotional buzz when they were new, the pleasure of being able to make them reflect

their owner’s personal taste and the satisfaction of using them for everyday (as

opposed to heritage) purposes. In doing so, these owners are trying to recapture an

intangible, experiential aspect of heritage that cannot be re-created merely by a static

presentation of the surviving historical fabric of an object.

Conclusion

The long lives of large technology objects connect to multiple events, people, skills,

and configurations, all of which provide points of origin for different aspects of theobjects’ histories and their significance as heritage. It is these different aspects of

history and of significance that make decisions about originality complex and multi-

faceted, and often difficult to operationalise. It is possible, from an intellectual

standpoint, to recognise both original material and original skills as significant

heritage: it is another matter to preserve both of these aspects of heritage in the one

object, or even in the one organisation. They require different approaches and

different resources, and these are sometimes inherently in conflict.

It is also possible, intellectually, to recognise original material from differentperiods as equally significant, but it is not easy to translate a machine in the livery of

a later period into an effective evocation of an earlier period. Both original periods

can be conceptualised, but only one period can be visually represented. Under-

standing that these different aspects of originality can coexist in the one object is,

however, vital to understanding that there is no single answer to the preservation of

any object, and very often no clear rights or wrongs. Judgements about originality

must take all these aspects into account, and then build these understandings into the

decisions about significance, survival and presentation that are vital to a machinemaking a successful transition from discarded obsolescence to valued heritage.

Originality refers to the points of origin of heritage, and while its interpretation can

be transformed, it cannot itself change. Heritage, though, is about more than just

points of origin: it combines elements of the old and the new, and is constantly being

Journal of Australian Studies 507

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

re-evaluated and re-created. Originality, therefore, provides a connection to the past,

but it is only in response to the needs of the present that it becomes a relevant and

significant value in heritage.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the staff and visitors at the interview sites for their generosity and time,and the Australian War Memorial for assistance with details and images of the HMASBrisbane project.

Notes

1. Eamonn Seddon (CEO, Puffing Billy Railway), in discussion with the author, May 29,2009. For details of interview protocols, see section ‘‘Defining Originality.’’

2. Roslyn Russell and Kylie Winkworth, Significance 2.0, (Collections Council of Australia,2009), accessed June 11, 2011, http://significance.collectionscouncil.com.au/, 13.

3. Matthew Churchward (senior curator of engineering and transport, Museum Victoria), indiscussion with the author, April 15, 2008.

4. See definitions 1a, 2a and 5a for ‘‘original.’’ OED Online. March 2011. Oxford UniversityPress, accessed June 12, 2011, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/132564?redirectedFrom�original.

5. ‘‘The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration ofMonuments and Sites (1964),’’ ICOMOS, 1964, accessed June 11, 2011, http://www.international.icomos.org/charters/venice_e.htm, Article 9.

6. ‘‘AICCM Code of Ethics and Code of Practice,’’ Australian Institute for Conservation ofCultural Material, 2002, accessed June 11, 2011, http://www.aiccm.org.au/index.php?option�com_content&view�article&id�39&Itemid�38, Article 31.

7. ‘‘The Barcelona Charter: European Charter for the Conservation and Restoration ofTraditional Ships in Operation,’’ European Maritime Heritage, 2001, accessed June 11,2011, http://www.european-maritime-heritage.org/bc.aspx, Article 10.

8. Raphael Samuel, Theatres of Memory: Past and Present in Contemporary Culture, vol. 1,(London: Verso, 1994), 112�13.

9. Randolph Starn, ‘‘Authenticity and historic preservation: towards an authentic history,’’History of the Human Sciences 15, no. 1 (2002): 2.

10. David Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, (Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress, 1985), 70�3, 94�5, 303, 373.

11. For example the Ikara weapons system was replaced with the Tartar system; electronicsand radar systems were updated; and consumables like telephones and headsets wereroutinely replaced.

12. Information on the HMAS Brisbane was provided by John Kemister, senior largetechnology conservator at the Australian War Memorial, in discussion with the author,November 4, 2008.

13. For information on the AWM’s interpretation and exhibition strategies see ‘‘AustralianWar Memorial Heritage Strategy: Final Report,’’ Australian War Memorial, 2008,accessed July 6, 2011, http://www.awm.gov.au/about/AWM_Heritage_Strategy_Aug_08.pdf. See also relevant AWM annual reports, such as ‘‘Australian War Memorial AnnualReport 2009�2010,’’ Australian War Memorial, 2010, accessed July 6, 2011, http://www.awm.gov.au/about/annual_report/ann_rep09-10.pdf.

14. Walter Benjamin’s discussion of authenticity in relation to mechanically reproducedobjects being a notable exception. Walter Benjamin, ‘‘The Work of Art in the Age ofMechanical Reproduction,’’ in Illuminations, ed. Hannah Arendt, trans. Harry Zohn,(New York: Schocken Books, 1969), 220�21. Originally published in German inZeitschrift fur Sozialforschung, 5 (1936).

508 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

15. ‘‘The Athens Charter for the Restoration of Historic Monuments,’’ (First InternationalCongress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments, 1931), ICOMOS,accessed June 12, 2011, http://www.icomos.org/athens_charter.html.

16. Randolph Starn, ‘‘Authenticity and historic preservation,’’ 7�8.17. Venice Charter, Preamble.18. Lowenthal, The Past is a Foreign Country, xvi�xviii.19. See, for example, John Urry, The Tourist Gaze, 2nd ed. (London: SAGE Publications,

2002), 9.20. Jukka Jokilehto, ‘‘Authenticity: A General Framework for the Concept,’’ in Nara

Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World Heritage Convention, ed. Knut EinarLarsen, (Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1995), 25.

21. Laurajane Smith, Uses of Heritage, (London: Routledge, 2006), 6.22. Jukka Jokilehto, ‘‘Session 1 Report,’’ in Nara Conference on Authenticity, 70. See Michael

Petzet’s comment on this issue.23. See definitions 1a and 3a for ‘‘authentic.’’ OED Online. March 2011. Oxford University

Press, accessed June 12, 2011, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/13314?rskey�c36NKO&result�1&isAdvanced�false

24. Russell and Winkworth, Significance 2.0, 40.25. Semi-structured interviews were used for both groups. For producers interviews were

conducted with the director or president of the organisation at each site, as well as aselection of staff and volunteers. Producers were invited to provide identifying details andthey are therefore identified by name in the paper. For visitors a random selectiontechnique was employed. Visitors were asked for demographic but not identifying detailsand are therefore identified in the paper only by their sex, age and principal occupation.

26. Lyle Ross (private owner of vehicles at Automobile Restorers Association Gold Coast), indiscussion with the author, April 5, 2009.

27. Steve Gower (director, Australian War Memorial), in discussion with the author, May 6,2009.

28. CSMM129: male, 56�65, accountant.29. CSMM131: male, 46�55, mechanic.30. W75: female, 36�45, schoolteacher.31. Richard Garcia (conservator, Western Australian Maritime Museum), in discussion with

the author, September 22, 2008.32. Silvio Mendes Zancheti, Flaviana Lira and Rosane Piccolo, ‘‘Judging the Authenticity of

the City,’’ in Conserving the Authentic: Essays in Honour of Jukka Jokilehto, ed. NicholasStanley-Price and Joseph King, (Rome: ICCROM, 2009), 167.

33. Feliu, for instance, discusses the impact of such natural processes on perceptions ofauthenticity in relation to historic gardens. Carmen Anon Feliu, ‘‘Authenticite: jardin etpaysage,’’ in Nara Conference on Authenticity in Relation to the World HeritageConvention, ed. Knut Einar Larsen, (Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, 1995), 221.

34. Zancheti, Lira and Piccolo, Conserving the Authentic, 167�8.35. Heinz Hermann (workshop volunteer, Puffing Billy Railway), in discussion with the

author, May 29, 2009.36. John Kemister (large technology conservator, Australian War Memorial), in discussion

with the author, May 8, 2009.37. Col Ogilvie (engineering conservator, National Museum of Australia), in discussion with

the author, May 7, 2009.38. This included both parts that came with the object as spares and parts that were acquired

for restoration purposes.39. Henry South (private owner of agricultural machinery, Campbelltown Steam and

Machinery Museum), in discussion with the author, May 14, 2008.40. John Boardman (private owner of earthmoving machinery, Campbelltown Steam and

Machinery Museum), in discussion with the author, May 18, 2008.41. Steve Deacon (private owner of steam traction engines, Campbelltown Steam and

Machinery Museum), in discussion with the author, May 16, 2008.42. John Ashley-Smith, Risk Assessment for Object Conservation (Oxford: Butterworth

Heinemann, 1999), 118.

Journal of Australian Studies 509

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11

43. There is an extensive literature on the nature and transmission of tacit knowledge, butMichael Polanyi’s classic description of the difficulty of capturing and transmitting theembodied skill of riding a bicycle remains precisely relevant to the difficulties of capturingand transmitting the knowledge associated with the operation of large technologyheritage. Michael Polanyi, The Tacit Dimension, (London: Routledge, 1967).

44. Hermann, in discussion with the author, May 29, 2009.45. There is a large literature on the benefits of heritage, both within formal heritage

institutions and in a wider sense. One study in particular that has looked at the way peopleuse the past to help them in their present day lives is that by Roy Rosenzweig and DavidThelen, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life, (New York:Columbia University Press, c. 1998).

46. Michael Brevenholt (museum educator, Western Australian Maritime Museum), indiscussion with the author, September 15, 2008.

47. Surveys of teachers and children by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council in theUnited Kingdom suggest that ‘‘what museums are good at is creating an emotionalengagement that inspires children to learn.’’ Sue Wilkinson, ‘‘Capturing the impact ofmuseums on learning’’ (paper presented at Capturing the Public Value of Heritage: theProceedings of the London Conference, English Heritage, 2006), 46.

48. Carl Thomson (private owner of an International truck, Campbelltown Steam andMachinery Museum), in discussion with the author, May 5, 2008.

49. Carl Thomson (private owner of an International truck, Campbelltown Steam andMachinery Museum), in discussion with the author, May 5, 2008.

510 A. Wain

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Alis

on W

ain]

at 0

2:48

11

Dec

embe

r 20

11