Fragments of history... Doing historical research is often compared to solving puzzles, since finding clues to a problem is basically what research is about (and accidentally many academics I know do like crime fiction). Depending on your line of research the sources differ, but in my current work the main focus is on the medieval images (primarily mural paintings and sculpture in wood and stone). Sometimes the artifacts are fragmented in various ways. Long after the reformation images were forgotten, destroyed or just neglected, then from the late nineteenth century onwards removed, restored or manipulated. The question of authenticity occasionally creeps in, especially if something is almost too good to be true.

From the initial study of an image I compare my readings with texts (medieval revelations, prayers, sermons, theological teachings etc.) that give clues to the narrative and meaning, but also with documents from archives (for instance inventories, old photographs, and reports from restorers) that, together with previous research, bring information on the history of the artifact. This is when I find out if something was too good to be true. And when you discover that the painting or altarpiece you found so interesting have been heavily restored or, even worse, is an included original piece by the restorer  — you might get a little pissed off. The intention behind the manipulations is usually that the restorer wanted to give the viewer a more authentic experience of the image: to make it more medieval but also more beautiful.

Here I will present two short examples of how the restored authenticity might look like in the material I use: both are of a workshop from Gotland called "Passionsmästaren". Above you find a detail of a Presentation from Öja parish church, with the inclusion of a consecration cross.  The original painting have been partially destroyed when restored from the later white-washing, but then a few red lines have been added to give an idea of what it probably looked like originally. The addition is obvious in a sense, and if you have seen other murals by the same workshop you can also believe its authenticity. In my research I can only use it in comparison with better preserved example.

Below there is another example of a Presentation in Hemse parish church, but this one is restored in a different way. In this case the restorer wanted to present a complete work of art in order to present a full experience of a medieval church interior. It was criticized almost immediately, but one can read the restorer's long defense in archives. He claimed to have both studied other better preserved examples of the workshop and used the expertise of a local priest. If the intention is to give visitors an idea of what this church might have looked like in another age it might be ok (and I like it even better if information of the history of the interior and its paintings are available), but it is difficult to use this material in art historical research where attention to details are central for a close reading. You have to be honest, a bit creative, use it with great care, and, once again, base your study on other better preserved examples. Only then can this material also be used as fragments in solving the puzzle.