In The Language of Preservation, the introductory chapter of William J. Murtagh's book, Keeping Time (1988), the author, commenting at length on the confusion of historic preservation terminology, said: "Today, the typical interdisciplinary team of specialists working on preservation projects and programs is composed of people united by common goals, but not necessarily a common language." These are some of the names used to describe work done on historic places:

• stabilization
• remodelling
• refurbishment
• maintenance
• protection
• renovation
• preservation
• restoration
• adaptive reuse
• reconstruction
• replication
• conservation

The "Work" Standards
But, looking at 1988 from another different vantage point, there seemed to be good reason to believe that considerable progress had been made in achieving "a common language," where, for example, Preservation and Restoration were broadly understood for their distinct differences and not used interchangeably in everyday speech or work proposals.

Optimism for the adoption of "a common language" in the late 80s was based on the fact that the Department's first professional standards for work on historic resources, codified in 1978 as 36 CFR 68, had already been in use across the country for a decade! The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Preservation Projects were, without a doubt, linguistic and philosophical ground-breakers in the United States. Their publication in 1978 represented a pioneering effort in the development of principles (together with accompanying Guidelines) that would successfully link historic preservation theory to practice.

Use of the Standards
The first Standards held up remarkably well in spite of the fact that the "common language" problems seemed to persist. They were cited as the requirement for all grant-in-aid projects assisted through the National Historic Preservation Fund for 14 years. But, with over a decade of debate in the field, coupled with an expanding "register" of places and burgeoning technologies, the first Standards were bound to need updating. Revision, viewed by Murtagh, is more than merely inevitable. "It seems clear that the vocabulary of preservation will continue to evolve so long as the activity it describes remains a vital one." Within that positive framework of change, The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, completed in 1992, were codified as 36 CFR 68 in the July 12, 1995 Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 133). The revised 1995 Standards replace both the 1978 and 1983 versions.

Old and New - The Differences
Revisions to the 1978 Standards for Historic Preservation Projects began in 1990 in conjunction with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and meetings with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and a number of other outside organizations. Goals included broadening the Standards to encompass all National Register property types; sharpening the language; reducing the document in length; and making clearer distinctions between treatment approaches. The results follow.

1. The 1995 Standards may now be applied to all historic resource types listed in the National Register of Historic Places, including buildings, sites, structures, objects, and districts.

2. The revised Standards eliminate the general and specific standards format. Further, the Standard for Acquisition was deleted; and Protection and Stabilization were consolidated under a single Preservation treatment. As a result, the total number of treatments was reduced from seven to four--Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction.

3. Most important, the four treatment options constitute a clear hierarchical framework.

Thus, the first treatment, Preservation, places a high premium on the retention of all historic fabric through conservation, maintenance and repair. It reflects a property's continuum over time, through successive occupancies, and the respectful changes and alterations that are made.

Rehabilitation, the second treatment, emphasizes the retention and repair of historic materials, but more latitude is provided for replacement because it is assumed the property is more deteriorated prior to work. (Both Preservation and Rehabilitation standards focus attention on the preservation of those materials, features, finishes, spaces, and spatial relationships that, together, give a property its historic character.)

Restoration, the third treatment, focuses on the retention of materials from the most significant time in a property's history, while permitting the removal of materials from other periods.

Reconstruction, the fourth treatment, establishes limited opportunities to re-create a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object in all new materials.

In summary, the simplification and sharpened focus of these revised sets of treatment Standards is intended to assist users in making sound historic preservation decisions--and promote the use of "a common language" in the planning stages of work.

Key Ideas of the Standards
The following central ideas in the 1995 Standards (36 CFR 68) are shown in juxtaposition, to emphasize the relationship and differences among the four philosophical constructs:


Standards for Preservation

Use the property as it was used historically or find a new use that maximizes retention of distinctive features.



Preserve the historic character (continuum of property's history).



Stabilize, consolidate, and conserve existing historic materials.



Replace minimum amount of fabric necessary and in kind (match materials).

---




Standards for Rehabilitation

Use the property as it was used historically or find a new use that requires minimal change to distinctive features.



Preserve the historic character (continuum of property's history).



Do not make changes that falsify the historical development.



Repair deteriorated historic materials and features. Replace a severely deteriorated feature, using to the greatest extent possible, matching new materials.



New additions and alterations should not destroy historic materials or character. New work should be visually compatible from the old, yet be differentiated from it, e.g., the form, features, and detailing of the historic building should not be replicated in the new work.

---




Standards for Restoration

Use the property as it was historically or find a new use that reflects the property's restoration period.



Remove features from other periods, but document them first.



Stabilize, consolidate, and conserve features from the restoration period.



Replace a severely deteriorated feature from the restoration period with a matching feature (limited substitute materials may be used).



Replace missing features from the restoration period based on documentation and physical evidence. Do not make changes that mix periods and falsify history to create a "hybrid" building.



Do not execute a design that was never built.

---




Standards for Reconstruction

Do not reconstruct vanished portions of a property unless the reconstruction is essential to the public understanding.



Reconstruct to one period of significance based on documentary and physical evidence.



Precede reconstruction with thorough archeological investigation.



Preserve any remaining historic features.



Re-create the appearance of the property (substitute materials may be used).



Identify the reconstructed property as a contemporary re-creation.



Do not execute a design that was never built.




---




A Common Language...And More
Certainly, as the field of historic preservation continues to grow and change, the Standards will be revised again. No philosophical system is ever permanent. But this announcement is, in part, to underscore the notion that achieving a common language for historic preservation treatment is at least in an active state of evolution. And the concern, as Murtagh also consistently argued in Keeping Time, is far more than a matter of language.

Treating historic properties has the capability of changing their physical history, and, as a result, the way they will be remembered, studied, and interpreted by future generations. If historians, architects, administrators, and practitioners agree on treatment philosophy and methodology prior to work, the long-term consequences of treatment can be better predicted and managed.

When historians make errors in fact or interpretation, the record of ideas may be corrected at a later time. Historic preservation--history manifested in tangible materials--does not permit that luxury.

Knowing what the consequences of work will be in the planning phase provides the basis for more informed judgments about the irreplaceable material record. What we choose to repair, replace, or demolish ultimately determines how the property is understood by today's and tomorrow's viewers. Signs fall down and interpreters aren't always there. So essentially, the work itself is the explanation.