Conservation practice, material exploration and their respective ‘scientific’ rationales were not confined to the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. They also existed in the early modern and modern periods. The papers in this special issue seek to challenge the idea that these types of physical and intellectual interactions with collected objects only emerged in the Industrial Age. Great scientific advances in conservation and related materials analysis were made in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by various museum directors, conservators and chemists, and with them the evolution of prominent conservation theories. But these achievements have become disproportionately represented in the growing literature on the history of conservation and have served to dominate the narrative. The idea for this special issue developed from a one-day online conference held in 2021, organized by Morwenna Blewett at the Ashmolean Museum. Lucy Wrapson chaired a panel session and made closing remarks, drawing together the interrelationships between seven diverse papers, which tackled the preservation of art and material culture at a wide range of places and dates. The papers highlight the themes that were right at the heart of the early development of the Ashmolean Museum in the seventeenth century, and were so very clearly in train the century before. Among them are: material investigation; preservation; debates around damage; deterioration; loss compensation; documentation; and the very function and purpose of conservation and preservation. All these considerations motivated interpositions that were certainly not ‘unscientific’. The shadow of achievements in the history of conservation history, stemming from the nineteenth century, serves to cement and provide a compelling origin story, particularly for those who played a traceable and autobiographical part in those events. And, if we look closely, we can see this tendency emerging in the comments of some of the indisputably accomplished figures of the twentieth century. A typical example comes as late as 1978, when Harold Plenderleith, the chemist, archaeologist and conservator who had worked at

中文翻译：

---

简介：1500-1800 年的橱柜，精制，画廊。欧洲艺术和物质文化的保存

保护实践、材料探索及其各自的“科学”原理并不局限于 19 世纪和 20 世纪。它们也存在于近代早期和现代时期。本期特刊中的论文试图挑战这样一种观点，即这些类型的与收集到的物品的物理和智力互动只出现在工业时代。19 世纪和 20 世纪，各种博物馆馆长、保护者和化学家在保护和相关材料分析方面取得了巨大的科学进步，并伴随着重要保护理论的发展。但这些成就在越来越多的关于保护历史的文献中得到了不成比例的体现，并主导了叙述。本期特刊的创意源于 2021 年由 Morwenna Blewett 在阿什莫林博物馆举办的为期一天的在线会议。Lucy Wrapson 主持了一次小组会议并致闭幕词，总结了七篇不同论文之间的相互关系，这些论文涉及在广泛的地点和日期保存艺术和物质文化。这些论文突出了 17 世纪阿什莫尔博物馆早期发展的核心主题，并且在前一个世纪非常明确地进行了培训。其中有：材料调查；保存; 围绕损害的辩论；恶化; 损失赔偿；文件；以及保护和保存的功能和目的。所有这些考虑促成了肯定不是“不科学”的干预措施。源自 19 世纪的保护史成就的阴影有助于巩固并提供引人入胜的起源故事，特别是对于那些在这些事件中发挥了可追溯性和自传性作用的人。而且，如果我们仔细观察，我们可以在 20 世纪一些无可争议的成就人物的评论中看到这种趋势。一个典型的例子出现在 1978 年，当时曾在 我们可以在 20 世纪一些无可争议的成就人物的评论中看到这种趋势。一个典型的例子出现在 1978 年，当时曾在 我们可以在 20 世纪一些无可争议的成就人物的评论中看到这种趋势。一个典型的例子出现在 1978 年，当时曾在