Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The Social and Cultural Divisions created by Preservation
Cultural and social diversity and its implications in preservation.
The social dilemma present in historic preservation is a result of history, which is the interpretation of a community and social phenomenon and written by a small group of people. This is reflected in the preservation of heritage where monuments and monumental sites are the center stage of preservation activities, vernacular architecture remains in the background. UNESCO acknowledged Cultural Diversity in Preservation only as recently as November 2001[1] when it adopted the universal declaration on cultural diversity. This declaration elevates cultural diversity to the ranks of the common heritage of humanity and necessary to human race as bio-diversity is to the natural realm. The declaration realizes that “culture takes in diverse forms through time and space and is embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up humankind.” Cultural diversity was recognized as a factor in development creating a wider range of options for everyone beyond the world of economics to include the “intellectual, emotional, moral and spiritual existence.” The Declaration also realizes that cultural dialogues between cultures cannot exist with huge inequalities.
The West portrayed as a dominant culture.
Edward Said in his book “Culture and Imperialism” condemns the imperialists for misrepresenting the role of the imperial conquests in the shaping of their culture- “one which they continue to regard as superior to all others.” This concept is taken further by Jane Collier who contends that western law ignores the imperialistic context in which it developed and the dominated cultures that stress their preservation which stereotype the western as dynamic and the others as conservative (backward).[2] This phenomenon can be seen in most post colonial developing nations where the indigenous languages have been replaced by the colonial languages as the medium of education as well as the official language used by these governments perpetuating a continuation of the colonial thought and the viewing of the indigenous as antiquated. However, this concept is seen even at a national scale where most of the local cultures do not find adequate representation, a dominant national culture determines the national heritage at the expense of local cultures.
“The battle over the past and its future is not one which belongs to the citizens- it is a part of a modern nation-state with a monumental conception of history.” [3] Herzfeld argues that the bureaucracy tends to see the “familiar domestic spaces as monumental” as a part of nationalist thought creating what he calls “traditional neighborhoods” and “archaeological monuments” out of what, for residents, are the streets where their friends and enemies live and die. [4] He tries to distinguish between what he calls “monumental time” and “social time” and defines social time as being “the grist of everyday existence” which gives reality to events because it experiences them. He calls monumental time “reductive and generic” where events are encountered as a realization of a supreme destiny and the social experience to that of collective predictability. Lowenthal terms the “past as a foreign country” making the remains of the past irrelevant in the present space and time. Herzfeld extends this concept to relate the human aspect of the past, which he claims are “forced to live in these monumentalized relics”. He contends that this creation of an increasingly marginalized underclass living in monumentalized spaces is a result of a common Euro centric impetus. A phenomenon seen in much of the historic cities in tradition based countries. Antony Tung’s book “ Preservation of the World’s Greatest Cities”, takes the example of Cairo where this phenomenon of the marginalized underclass in a historic core of the traditional city is apparent.
“The conversion of chance into destiny displaces intimacy in favor of form. If the play of chance is what enables everyday experiences to grow from imperfection and spontaneity, destiny must ultimately render human action socially meaningless and reduce it to the status of a cipher in some immovable grand design. Materially, this reduction is enshrined in that triumph of place over time- here monuments over social experience- that characterizes ideas over propriety. In other words, the ‘undue attention’ with which the state intrudes into ordinary people’s everyday affairs is part of a reductive process. memory saturated homes are formally catalogued as historic houses, all socially experienced sense of time disappears in favor of a set of banal, bureaucratic verities…”[5]
The concept of the insider and the outsider in preservation.
The concept of the insider and the outsider in preservation- is one directly related to the issues of ownership of cultural property. The various debates and arguments in preservation are visible in the great divide between the insider and the outsider in preservation. The term “insider” pertains to groups who are included in the decision making process of preservation and the “outsider” comprises of those who are excluded from this process. The line between the two groups is not a clear one as values keep changing and also the persons attesting to these values. While ownership is one factor, various social, class and other sociological and economical factors play key roles in this determination of the constitution of these groups.
These groups have been represented in history in various forms. They were represented by the clashes between the right wing and their “status” issues and the left wing and their struggles with status deprivation. While an anxiety in the right led to its preservation, the same with the left led to demands for equalization.[6] Political scientists such as Tatalovich and Smith argue that this conflict which they term as “identity politics” are used by victim groups to elevate their social status by gaining political recognition and legal rights as groups and not as autonomous individuals. This divide between the groups is present and manifested in the manner in which they perceive themselves: the “traditionalists and the progressives”, the “conservationists and the anti-conservationists” as well as various other groups. Each one perceives a conflicting identity of what constitutes the “insider” or “outsider”. In preservation, as mentioned earlier, the insider comprised of the dominant group in a particular time and space. The reason why cultural heritage is used as a powerful exclusionary tool is because people are aware of its use as a force to bind people or break social groups.
Prof. Philip Marshall on the concept of the insider and the outsider in preservation quotes Tschudi Madsen’s definition of preservation – as the act of strengthening a fortification or stockade by adding stakes. Prof. Marshall has a different take on this quote and feels that “ instead of feeling that we need to physically intervene and insulate ourselves behind stockades, keeping out others, preservationists must engage local stakeholders, making preservation inclusive rather than exclusive”- a concept of the stakeholders in cultural heritage.
International cultures and indigenous cultures.
“Are you the keeper of the right or the wrong? That is not the ways of the Cherokee. We believe that the keeper of right and wrong is the Great Spirit or God. My grandmother used to teach me that to look back and decide “right” or “wrong” would ruin the Cherokee. That we needed to “be where we are and go on.” This is the problem with the tribe today. We are too involved in the ways of the whites, which is the way of the “right” and “wrong”. And this, according to my grandmother, is the road that leads to “nowhere”. That is a traditional Cherokee belief.” [7]
Indigenous knowledge also termed, as “traditional” knowledge is today an international concern represented by UNESCO’s 1989 Recommendations on the Safeguarding of Traditional Culture and Folklore, Local Empowerment and International Cooperation. This was followed in 1999 by the global assessments of these recommendations. In 2002 UNESCO started a project “Local and Indigenous Knowledge Systems in a Global Society”. Various governments and nations had realized the uniqueness of inherent cultures present in their national boundaries. Various legislations in countries had been passed in different countries to protect the interests of the indigenous cultures; in America, the NAGPRA was passed to protect the rights of the native Americans to their ancestral gravesites, the scheduled castes and tribes in India were given special protection, the aboriginal interests in Australia are protected by the Aboriginal Sacred Sites Protection Authority.
“Preservation of indigenous cultures- non-western cultures extends beyond physical bounds to include much, much more.”[8] Marshall contends that the act of preservation in the context of indigenous people is “not a treatment, but a process whose workings must be considered in the greater context of non-Western worldviews… (it) is not an end goal but a means to preserve culture at large..” Indigenous people have also been known by a myriad of names such as “Indian”, “tribal”, “native”, “aboriginal”, “mixed blood” etc. These terms are widely used in legislations and viewed in different ways throughout the world. In Brazil, during the 70’s indigenous land and riches were collectively ascribed to the exclusive use of each ethnic group. The dominion was vested with the federal government but it could not be diverted for any other purpose. However, since then changes in legislation and the division of indigenous land to private owners led to lands being put into the market. Much has changed since.
Indigenous people today have to deal not only with their frontiers, as they are no longer along the borders of the “universal system” but have become partners with central institutions such as UNESCO and the World Bank.[9]However this view is not shared by all- Suswap Chief George Manuel defines the indigenous world as being a “Fourth World” [10]-one whose populations are today completely or partly deprived of the right to their own territories and its riches. Indigenous cultures are involved in the struggle to gain some autonomy and preserve their cultural heritage and identity.
“World economic policy tends to view the fourth world cultures as obstacles to economic expansion and development, or as outdated relics pushed ineluctably towards extinction in a shrinking, increasingly technological world”. [11]
Dynamic and Static cultures and their implications on the preservation process.
The concept of the dynamic and the static cultures present in preservation is generally portrayed as a debate between the eastern and western cultures. The west is generally portrayed as a static culture with a fanatical emphasis on the material conservation when compared with eastern cultures.[12] Analysis of certain practices in the east and in the west would help to continue the dialogue in both directions. The west leans more towards science and professionalism and the east on a traditional and belief oriented system. It is a common misconception that preservation in the east is more of an effort of maintenance and the focus in the west as a fight against time to continue to keep something in its particular space. No culture can be termed static until it is dead, preservation as practiced in the west due to the fact that it focuses a great deal on the material authenticity of a particular time and space sometimes loses track of those cultural ideologies present in that space and time which may cease to be valid in the present. The treatment meted out to archaeological and lost cultures may be appropriate but in the realm of the cultures, which continue to breathe, preservation based on material authenticity may not be appropriate both in the east and the west. In static cultures, a focus on material authenticity could be emphasized but in the context of living cultures, the “living” aspect – the local people need to be consulted and taken into account in preservation. The debate lies in the preservation of living and dead cultures and not in western and non-western cultures.
[1]UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity , Adopted by the 31st Session of UNESCO’s general conference, Paris, 2nd November 2001. http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/extern/gats2000/decl_en.pdf
[2] Jane F. Collier . “Intertwined Histories: Islamic Law and Western Imperialism”. Available Online: http://www.stanford.edu/groups/SHR/5-1/text/collier.html
[3] Michael Herzfeld. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P. 5.
[4] Ibid. P. 6.
[5] Michael Herzfeld. A Place in History: Social and Monumental Time in a Cretan Town. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. P. 11.
[6] Raymond Tatalovich and T. Alexander Smith . Status Claims and Cultural Conflicts: The Genesis of Morality Policy. Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Indiana University . Available Online:
http://www. apsapolicysection.org/vol10_4/tatalovich.htm
[7] As quoted by Ann Maloney in the article by Ashley Montagu’s article “ Identity and Ideology”.
[8] Philip Marshall . “Snow and Fire in the Fourth World: Perspectives on Western Preservation and Hopi Cultural Preservation Initiatives,” presented at Culture, Environments and Heritage, US/ICOMOS, 2nd Annual International Symposium, Washington D.C., March 20-21, 1999.
[9] Carneiroda Cunha and Almeida, Conservation in the Amazon.
[10] As quoted in an article by Andy Thomason. Andy Thomason. “Introduction to the Fourth World” . 23 March 2003.< http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3665/16924>
[11] Andy Thomason. “Introduction to the Fourth World” . 23 March 2003.
< http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/3665/16924>
[12] This misconception is visible in statements, which are made by Chen Wei and Andreas Aas, earlier quoted in the thesis.
Biocides on Stone
Biological Growth such as algae, lichens, fungi and mosses are common on the façade of stone buildings and sculptures. They grow in patches where adequate light, temperature, humidity and moisture are available which would be conducive to its growth. These biological agents on the façade are sometimes detrimental to the structure of the stone but also sometimes act as protective coatings against the vicissitudes of nature. Some of the organisms, which grow such as the algae, are sticky and traps dust particles in the atmosphere leading to soiling of the surface of the stone. Generally when these organism are undesirable, they can be removed or prevented by control the surface of the stone- by providing for drainage of the water and encouraging the quick drying out of the stone. The most recent of interventions to prevent the growth of bio organisms on the stone is the application of biocides on the stone. The term biocide denotes any chemical that is able to kill or inhibit the growth of living organisms; it is most commonly used with regard to microorganisms and higher plants. The earlier interventions were generally physical interventions to the stone and its environs while the use of biocides as a means of control biological growth is a chemical process. The biocides used on the stone surfaces are generally effective for only a short period of time and due to its toxic nature, some of these have been discontinued in use owing to the health and safety regulations. The paper is an attempt to understand the process of bio deterioration of stone and some of the applications of biocides on the stone.
Bio deterioration of stone.
The term bio deterioration refers to any undesired change in the material properties due to the activity of microorganisms and/or organisms belonging to various systematic groups. Stones are constantly undergoing a transformation, which is a result of microorganisms and other organisms – be it in the form of weathering or the degradation of the same. This deterioration on significant works of art and architecture is detrimental to the aesthetics and threatens the conservation of these artworks. The nature of the deterioration of the stone is actively linked with various physical, chemical and various other processes. Bio deterioration of stone due to biological organisms (bio deteriogens) is linked to the environment as a whole. The processes of nature and the environment are very complex and determined by:
- Light (Primary energy input)
- Nutrition (Secondary energy input)
- Climate.
Light: The growth of the photosynthetic organisms is dependent on the Light energy as the primary source of energy. Various organisms have preferences for various types of radiations as determined by their photosynthetic pigments. Some bacteria and algae are limited in their growth in the absence of light.
Nutritive factors: The minerals present in the stone – in relation to the petrographic nature of the stone and the organic substances play a role in the growth of bio deteriogens. All organisms need mineral elements for photosynthetic processes. The petrography of the surface of the stone determines the pH of the substrate of the stone for the biological organism. For organism that can grow with a large tolerance of pH, this is not a consideration. Some organisms like bacteria grow in alkaline substrates, while others like fungi grow better in an acidic substrates. The growth of bio deteriogens is also enhanced by dry deposition of particle mass, protective wax treatments and the like.
Climate: The growth of the bio- organisms is hugely determined by the climate- the temperatures and humidity of the environment. High temperatures generally increase growth as it increases the rate of chemical reactions. The duration of the period of wetness increases the growth of the organisms.
Type of stone: Various characteristics of the stone determine the influence and effect that biological growth could have on the stone surface. Some of these include the surface texture, the porosity of the stone and the surface roughness.
Bio deterioration- the Processes.
The biological deterioration of the stone is both a physical and a chemical process. Physical processes are mechanical in nature. The growth of the roots of the organisms in the stone exerts a pressure on the stone. Microorganisms do not limit to superficial growth on the surface but penetrate into the stone structure, which could cause fracturing of the stone. The minute disintegration of microorganisms collectively leaves behind a soft and loose surface susceptible to attack from larger factors such as wind and rain. The affected stone surfaces are also more susceptible to the freeze/ thaw weathering due to water which gets trapped in the crevices.
Chemical processes act directly on the stone and lead to the production of organic and inorganic acids and the production of chelating substances. Acids may be strong and lead to the formation of salts on the substrates. All organic materials produce carbon dioxide, which dissolves to form a weak carbonic acid, and this dissolves lime in marbles and other carbonic rocks.
Types of Biological Growths.
The few classes of bio deteriogens that are found in stone are the following classes of plants:
1. Algae and Cyanobacteria.
2. Bacteria.
3. Fungi.
4. Lichens.
5. Mosses
6. Liverworts.
Algae and Cyanobacteria-Algae are simple plant forms without leaves, stems and roots. They exist as cells, which clump together and range from microscopic in size to the size of seaweeds. They grow across a range of pH, light intensity, moisture content and temperatures. Algal spores are very resistant to drying out and may remain viable for long periods of time. Cyano bacteria – or blue green algae are different from other algal groups in that their internal structure resembles bacteria but are smaller and have photosynthetic pigments. They exist as filaments or as single cells. Cyano bacteria grow on substrates, which are more alkaline based. These organisms are photosynthetic. Cyanobacteria can even tolerate lower light levels. They accelerate stone deterioration in that algae are water retentive and in some cases lead to the dissolution of material elements through mineral elements through acidic secretions, chemical and physical effects of mucilage.
Bacteria-They are single- celled organisms invisible to the naked eye. They can thrive in varied physical conditions though some bacteria require organic material for growth. Secretions by bacteria cause some stones to decay . Some species of bacteria secrete acids such as sulphuric acids which cause severe damage to calcium based stones.
Fungi-Fungi cells grow as long strands or hyphae. They have a diameter of 5-9 microns and can grow to lengths of several meters. They are very resistant to desiccation and can withstand extreme conditions for long periods of time. They require organic matter as nutrients and cause decay to stones by physical penetration into and around the grains.
Lichens-Lichens are plant forms created through a symbiotic relationship between algae and fungi. They affect the stones by causing bleaching and blistering of the surface through physical processes.
Mosses-These are small plant structures and appear on stone surfaces generally around cracks. They require much more water for nutrition and photosynthesis than all the other smaller plants and have a high capacity to hold water.
Liverworts-These are small plants, which are found in stone areas where there is a lot of moisture and humidity. No effects of liverworts have been reported on stone.
Identification of common biological growths on stone:
Growth Colour Appearances Habitat
Algae Green- sometimes black, red, orange or yellow
• Can appear as uniform patches or streaks on the stone surface.
• Sometimes slimy to touch.
• Favors areas that retain moisture and light.
Blue green algae Green, blue green, grey, black.
• Can appear as dark mats, patches or streaks on stone surfaces.
• Sometimes slimy to touch
• Favors humid environment – requires less light than algae.
Bacteria Not visible to naked eye.
• Microscopic determination required to distinguish from algae.
• Grows where water is present.
• No sunlight required.
Fungi Depends on species.
Long strands of filaments massed together.
Requires moisture but not sunlight.
Lichens Many colors ( white, grey, orange, red, black, yellow and green)
Flat crusts close to the surface growing away from the surface. Grows in areas too dry for other organisms to grow.
Mosses Mainly green or red.
Leaf region of the cells and root grow together in small lumps loosely attached to the surface. Requires a very damp environment, sunlight and soil.
Liverworts Green
Flat lobed thallus with primitive roots – loosely attached to the surface.
Requires a very damp environment, sunlight and soil.
( Source: Cameron, Urquhart, Wakefiled, Young. Biological Growths on Sandstone buildings. Historic Scotland.)
The identification of the type of biological growth on the substrate of the rock is very important as the biocidal treatment on each of them varies.
Biocides:
The Biological growth on the stone is treated with biocides generally for aesthetic reasons. Streaks of growing fungi and mosses on stone structures detract from the aesthetic values. Algae are primarily the first microorganisms to attack the surface of the stone, which paves the way for other higher organisms to follow. The prevention of the growth of algae could reduce the potential for other organism to attack the surface. Most organisms require water for growth. Keeping the stone dry could help in the process of prevention of biological growth. As some organisms have the potential of withstanding these phenomena, biocides are used to eliminate these organisms.
Biocides act on contact. They have a capacity to inhibit the biosynthetic process such as the synthesis of amino acids, lipids, and proteins and can interrupt the connection between respiration and ATP synthesis, block photosynthesis or interfere with the growth processes. Biocides do not have a lasting effect and their effect could last from a few months to a few years.
There are numerous factors, which have to be kept in mind:
1. The treatment of the biocides must kill all the biological organisms but should not affect human health. The toxicity of the biocide is generally quantified by using the LD-50( Lethal Dose –50) values as indices. It is a measure of the amount of active substance that can be expected to cause death to a group of experimental animal species. ( See Annexure 1 for information biocides and their toxicity)
2. It should be effective for a considerable period of time.
3. It should not leave behind deposits on the stone and maintain the original color and texture of the stone.
Some types of Biocides:
Early studies showed that the biocides generally belonged to the following chemical groups :
1. Quaternary ammonium compounds.
2. Borates.
3. Metals- such as copper.
4. Chlorophenols.
5. Phenoxides.
Organo tin compounds are no longer used. Sodium hypochlorite is another effective biocides, which is no longer used due to the sodium salts that cause efflorescence. Biocides generally work in two ways- by inhibiting the growth of the organisms and a irreversible lethal biocidal effect.
Selection of Biocides:
1. Bacterial or fungicidal compounds.
The same compounds are generally used for controlling the growth of bacteria and fungi. They consist of derivatives of carbamic acid, bezothriazoles, benzalkonium chlorides, isotiazoline chlorides and formaldehydes. Quaternary compounds of ammonia are also used.
2. Algicidal compounds.
Algae, lichens and mosses are generally controlled by compounds which inhibit or prevent photosynthetic processes. Spraying or painting the compounds often achieves this. The most often used compounds include sodium salts of dimethyliocarbamic acid and mercaptobenzothriazoles, borates, uracils, derivatives of urea, pyridil mercuric acetate, and cupritetramine sulphate, complexes of copper and hydrazine and quaternary ammonium compounds.
3. Herbicides.
Herbicides are used rarely on stones.
Treatment:
The treatment of the affected stones with biocides requires consideration. A biocide, which works effectively with one type of organism, may not work at all with the other. It thus becomes important to recognize the type of bio organism on the stone substrate. Stone cleaning affects the stone surface and the near surface characteristic of the stone and this may influence the re growth of organisms on the stone surface. Chemical cleaning may affect the stone surface – roughness. Some biocides use acids, which could have affected the calcite-based stones. It becomes necessary to identify the nature of the biological growth and test various biocidal treatments. There are many ways in which biocidal treatments are applied to the surface of the stone. Some of these processes involve spraying using pneumatic sprayers and adjustable nozzles, as cellulose poultices, injection in the stumps of higher plants etc.
Spores produced by bacteria, fungi and some algae are very resistant to biocides and can remain dormant for long periods of time. Most spores are resistant to biocides that contain quaternary ammonium compounds, disinfectants, alcohols, solvents, phenoxides and hypo chlorides. Biocide compounds that are effective include ethylene oxide, gluteraldehyde, formaldehyde, halogens (chlorine, iodine and bromine), hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide. They are mostly formulated as fungicides. Biocide products keep changing constantly both in the product name and in the compounds used in its formulation. It becomes difficult to identify the active ingredients in the compounds. Biocides are tested in the laboratory on liquid cultures of the target organisms. There are often cases when the reaction with the target compounds on a substrate is totally different.
The effective lifetime of the different biocides depend on:
• Type of biocide.
• Concentration of the biocide.
• Nature of the organic growths.
• pH of the environment.
• Temperature.
• Microclimate.
• Exposure of the treated areas.
• Type of stone.
Regular re-application of the biocide on the surface of the stone is required. Minor change sin the concentration could affect the efficacy of the biocide. Compounds such as phenols and alcohols are generally more biocidal at lower concentrations than the quaternary compounds. The presence of dirt and other organic debris can reduce the effectiveness of the biocide. Biocide could be lost from the surface of the stone due to the washing out action of rain. Porous stones can hold biocides in its pores and are less susceptible to washing out than non-permeable rocks.
Effects of Biocides:
One of the most significant side effects of biocide application on the stone surface is the ability of the biocide to alter the color of the stone. The other effect that is of concern is the possibility of salt crystallization due to the compounds used in the biocide. Deposits in stone from salts, which expand due to crystallization could have devastating results in the stone. Some biocides can cause changes in the stone surface altering the water absorption and water penetration in the stone.
Application of Biocides:
Choosing the period of time for the application.
The best period of time would be in the summer after a dry spell of time. Organic growths are most susceptible during the wet period but the biocide gets washed off more easily. The substrate has to be maintained dry to ensure that the biocide does not run off. The biocide should be well brushed in. After the initial application, the dead organic material should be removed as the organism could absorb much of the biocide.
Some tests done on biocides:
The following is a test done by Claudia Pincki, Riccardo Balzarotti and Reiner Mansch.
Summary of the test.
They took four biocides and tested their efficacy against nitrifying bacteria isolated from building stone.
The four biocides were:
- Algophase applied in organic solvent (isopropylic alcohol + 20% acetone) (PHASE, Firenze,Italy)
- PH025/d a new water based formulation of Algophaseâ (PHASE, Firenze, Italy)
- Kathon WT a derivate of isothiazolinone (Rohm & Haas, Frankfurt, Germany)
- Benzalkonium chloride (Sigma chemicals, No. B 6295)
From the natural building stone – nitrifying bacteria were isolated. All biocides were screened over a wide range (0.00001-12%) of concentrations in liquid culture using sterile media for nitrifiers as diluent. Tubes without the addition of biocides were used as controls. Specimens of Ihrlersteiner green sandstone and Sander sandstone were inoculated with ammonia- and nitrite-oxidizers as well as chemoorganotrophic bacteria and fungi isolated from mortar [3]. The specimen were regularly supplied with ammonium chloride and incubated for seven month at 28 °C and high stone moisture. Sub samples of grounded stone material were incubated with the biocides for 30 min, washed and cell numbers were determined by a most-probable number test (MPN) and agar plates respectively. Samples without the addition of biocides were used as control.
Efficacy against mixed populations on natural stone –
After incubation for 30 min, Algophaseâ as well as PH025/d killed all nitrifying bacteria, hemoorganotropic bacteria and fungi grown in a biofilm on natural stone at MIC (Table 2). In contrast to this, Kathon and benzalkonium chloride just reduced the numbers of bacteria and fungi even at 10 times MIC ( minimum inhibitory concentration). Benzalkonium chloride was more effective than Kathon.
Conclusions
• Algophase and PH025/d with their low toxicity and high efficacy are promising biocides.
Algophase( 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-4( methylsuphonyl) pyridine).
Algophase belongs to the group of biocides that are applied as they have a preventive effect to reduce in time the recolonisation of the restored surfaces. It is generally applied at the end of the conservative treatments and is effective against algae, fungi and cyanobacteria . It has an effective activity against fungi and lichens for up to 5-6 years. The tests at the Templete de Mudejar showed that eight years after the application of the biocide Algophase, organic growth was beginning to appear. It was concluded that the biocide Algophase though it dramatically reduced the test samples of the organic materials in the laboratory were successful in the field to a lesser degree. On the field, test samples showed the absence of the biocide on the façade after 8 years, which pointed towards the washing off of the biocide from the façade in the interim. The data showed that Algophase was able to inhibit the growth of micro organisms for a period of 5-6 years.
Other research on Biocides:
Another interesting experiment in recent years is the tests done by Masonry Conservation Research Group in the Robert Gordon University, Scotland. They assessed the efficacy of various biocides on sandstone.
For the experiment, they used six different types of sandstones and the effect of three different biocides. The biocides chosen for evaluation contained:
(1) alkylaryl trimethyl ammonium chloride,
(2) Dodecylamine lactate and dodecylamine salicylate and
(3) A copper salt.
The aim of the experiment was to determine the effective life spans of some typical biocides when applied to sandstones under field conditions and to investigate whether sandstone type had any influence on the rate of algal growth and/or the effective life span of the biocides investigated. The rate of green algal growth on six different sandstone types, both fresh (control) and biocide treated, was monitored using a chroma meter. It was found that the growth of algae on these stones which were of different porosities differed and also that the effect of the biocide was dependent not only on the biological growth and the porosity of the stone but also on the mineralogy of the stone. The presence of clays in the stone affected the efficacy of the biocides; quartz and feldspars had no effect. Bio efficacy depended on the stone types- sandstones required higher concentrations than limestones. (See Annexure 2.)
Alternative methods of Control:
Copper strips: The water run off from the copper flashing strips produces a mildly toxic biocidal wash. This however leaves behind a slightly greenish stain, which is sometimes difficult to remove.
Brushing and washing: The organic growth can be physically removed by brushing and scraping. This is to be followed by washing down with de- ionized water. The physical action leaves behind bristle marks on the surface of the stone.
Water repellants and consolidants: Water repellents have been used to prevent growth of organic materials in porous stones. This could sometimes lead to the crystallization of salts in the salts and the entrapment of moisture in the stone due to the waterproofing layer on the outside.
Ultraviolet light: Ultraviolet light is used in the control of growth of algae. UV light can kill photosynthetic organisms and does not have the risks which are attached to the other processes.
Health and Safety:
Biocides are hazardous compounds, which can be irritant to both the skin and the eye. They should be used with extreme care and not ingested. Precautionary measures would include providing personal protection, and controlling exposure and also preventing exposure.
Concerns:
1. Potential damage. -There has been general concern in recent years that the addition of biocides has become a major concern that the removal of the natural coating of the stone could accelerate future weathering and decay.
2. Aesthetic. -The application of biocides in some cases change the color of the stones and hence could not affect the look of the building.
3. Other considerations. -When biocides are applied to organism, they are destroyed and leave behind a black residue, which takes a long time to get removed.
Bio deterioration of stone.
The term bio deterioration refers to any undesired change in the material properties due to the activity of microorganisms and/or organisms belonging to various systematic groups. Stones are constantly undergoing a transformation, which is a result of microorganisms and other organisms – be it in the form of weathering or the degradation of the same. This deterioration on significant works of art and architecture is detrimental to the aesthetics and threatens the conservation of these artworks. The nature of the deterioration of the stone is actively linked with various physical, chemical and various other processes. Bio deterioration of stone due to biological organisms (bio deteriogens) is linked to the environment as a whole. The processes of nature and the environment are very complex and determined by:
- Light (Primary energy input)
- Nutrition (Secondary energy input)
- Climate.
Light: The growth of the photosynthetic organisms is dependent on the Light energy as the primary source of energy. Various organisms have preferences for various types of radiations as determined by their photosynthetic pigments. Some bacteria and algae are limited in their growth in the absence of light.
Nutritive factors: The minerals present in the stone – in relation to the petrographic nature of the stone and the organic substances play a role in the growth of bio deteriogens. All organisms need mineral elements for photosynthetic processes. The petrography of the surface of the stone determines the pH of the substrate of the stone for the biological organism. For organism that can grow with a large tolerance of pH, this is not a consideration. Some organisms like bacteria grow in alkaline substrates, while others like fungi grow better in an acidic substrates. The growth of bio deteriogens is also enhanced by dry deposition of particle mass, protective wax treatments and the like.
Climate: The growth of the bio- organisms is hugely determined by the climate- the temperatures and humidity of the environment. High temperatures generally increase growth as it increases the rate of chemical reactions. The duration of the period of wetness increases the growth of the organisms.
Type of stone: Various characteristics of the stone determine the influence and effect that biological growth could have on the stone surface. Some of these include the surface texture, the porosity of the stone and the surface roughness.
Bio deterioration- the Processes.
The biological deterioration of the stone is both a physical and a chemical process. Physical processes are mechanical in nature. The growth of the roots of the organisms in the stone exerts a pressure on the stone. Microorganisms do not limit to superficial growth on the surface but penetrate into the stone structure, which could cause fracturing of the stone. The minute disintegration of microorganisms collectively leaves behind a soft and loose surface susceptible to attack from larger factors such as wind and rain. The affected stone surfaces are also more susceptible to the freeze/ thaw weathering due to water which gets trapped in the crevices.
Chemical processes act directly on the stone and lead to the production of organic and inorganic acids and the production of chelating substances. Acids may be strong and lead to the formation of salts on the substrates. All organic materials produce carbon dioxide, which dissolves to form a weak carbonic acid, and this dissolves lime in marbles and other carbonic rocks.
Types of Biological Growths.
The few classes of bio deteriogens that are found in stone are the following classes of plants:
1. Algae and Cyanobacteria.
2. Bacteria.
3. Fungi.
4. Lichens.
5. Mosses
6. Liverworts.
Algae and Cyanobacteria-Algae are simple plant forms without leaves, stems and roots. They exist as cells, which clump together and range from microscopic in size to the size of seaweeds. They grow across a range of pH, light intensity, moisture content and temperatures. Algal spores are very resistant to drying out and may remain viable for long periods of time. Cyano bacteria – or blue green algae are different from other algal groups in that their internal structure resembles bacteria but are smaller and have photosynthetic pigments. They exist as filaments or as single cells. Cyano bacteria grow on substrates, which are more alkaline based. These organisms are photosynthetic. Cyanobacteria can even tolerate lower light levels. They accelerate stone deterioration in that algae are water retentive and in some cases lead to the dissolution of material elements through mineral elements through acidic secretions, chemical and physical effects of mucilage.
Bacteria-They are single- celled organisms invisible to the naked eye. They can thrive in varied physical conditions though some bacteria require organic material for growth. Secretions by bacteria cause some stones to decay . Some species of bacteria secrete acids such as sulphuric acids which cause severe damage to calcium based stones.
Fungi-Fungi cells grow as long strands or hyphae. They have a diameter of 5-9 microns and can grow to lengths of several meters. They are very resistant to desiccation and can withstand extreme conditions for long periods of time. They require organic matter as nutrients and cause decay to stones by physical penetration into and around the grains.
Lichens-Lichens are plant forms created through a symbiotic relationship between algae and fungi. They affect the stones by causing bleaching and blistering of the surface through physical processes.
Mosses-These are small plant structures and appear on stone surfaces generally around cracks. They require much more water for nutrition and photosynthesis than all the other smaller plants and have a high capacity to hold water.
Liverworts-These are small plants, which are found in stone areas where there is a lot of moisture and humidity. No effects of liverworts have been reported on stone.
Identification of common biological growths on stone:
Growth Colour Appearances Habitat
Algae Green- sometimes black, red, orange or yellow
• Can appear as uniform patches or streaks on the stone surface.
• Sometimes slimy to touch.
• Favors areas that retain moisture and light.
Blue green algae Green, blue green, grey, black.
• Can appear as dark mats, patches or streaks on stone surfaces.
• Sometimes slimy to touch
• Favors humid environment – requires less light than algae.
Bacteria Not visible to naked eye.
• Microscopic determination required to distinguish from algae.
• Grows where water is present.
• No sunlight required.
Fungi Depends on species.
Long strands of filaments massed together.
Requires moisture but not sunlight.
Lichens Many colors ( white, grey, orange, red, black, yellow and green)
Flat crusts close to the surface growing away from the surface. Grows in areas too dry for other organisms to grow.
Mosses Mainly green or red.
Leaf region of the cells and root grow together in small lumps loosely attached to the surface. Requires a very damp environment, sunlight and soil.
Liverworts Green
Flat lobed thallus with primitive roots – loosely attached to the surface.
Requires a very damp environment, sunlight and soil.
( Source: Cameron, Urquhart, Wakefiled, Young. Biological Growths on Sandstone buildings. Historic Scotland.)
The identification of the type of biological growth on the substrate of the rock is very important as the biocidal treatment on each of them varies.
Biocides:
The Biological growth on the stone is treated with biocides generally for aesthetic reasons. Streaks of growing fungi and mosses on stone structures detract from the aesthetic values. Algae are primarily the first microorganisms to attack the surface of the stone, which paves the way for other higher organisms to follow. The prevention of the growth of algae could reduce the potential for other organism to attack the surface. Most organisms require water for growth. Keeping the stone dry could help in the process of prevention of biological growth. As some organisms have the potential of withstanding these phenomena, biocides are used to eliminate these organisms.
Biocides act on contact. They have a capacity to inhibit the biosynthetic process such as the synthesis of amino acids, lipids, and proteins and can interrupt the connection between respiration and ATP synthesis, block photosynthesis or interfere with the growth processes. Biocides do not have a lasting effect and their effect could last from a few months to a few years.
There are numerous factors, which have to be kept in mind:
1. The treatment of the biocides must kill all the biological organisms but should not affect human health. The toxicity of the biocide is generally quantified by using the LD-50( Lethal Dose –50) values as indices. It is a measure of the amount of active substance that can be expected to cause death to a group of experimental animal species. ( See Annexure 1 for information biocides and their toxicity)
2. It should be effective for a considerable period of time.
3. It should not leave behind deposits on the stone and maintain the original color and texture of the stone.
Some types of Biocides:
Early studies showed that the biocides generally belonged to the following chemical groups :
1. Quaternary ammonium compounds.
2. Borates.
3. Metals- such as copper.
4. Chlorophenols.
5. Phenoxides.
Organo tin compounds are no longer used. Sodium hypochlorite is another effective biocides, which is no longer used due to the sodium salts that cause efflorescence. Biocides generally work in two ways- by inhibiting the growth of the organisms and a irreversible lethal biocidal effect.
Selection of Biocides:
1. Bacterial or fungicidal compounds.
The same compounds are generally used for controlling the growth of bacteria and fungi. They consist of derivatives of carbamic acid, bezothriazoles, benzalkonium chlorides, isotiazoline chlorides and formaldehydes. Quaternary compounds of ammonia are also used.
2. Algicidal compounds.
Algae, lichens and mosses are generally controlled by compounds which inhibit or prevent photosynthetic processes. Spraying or painting the compounds often achieves this. The most often used compounds include sodium salts of dimethyliocarbamic acid and mercaptobenzothriazoles, borates, uracils, derivatives of urea, pyridil mercuric acetate, and cupritetramine sulphate, complexes of copper and hydrazine and quaternary ammonium compounds.
3. Herbicides.
Herbicides are used rarely on stones.
Treatment:
The treatment of the affected stones with biocides requires consideration. A biocide, which works effectively with one type of organism, may not work at all with the other. It thus becomes important to recognize the type of bio organism on the stone substrate. Stone cleaning affects the stone surface and the near surface characteristic of the stone and this may influence the re growth of organisms on the stone surface. Chemical cleaning may affect the stone surface – roughness. Some biocides use acids, which could have affected the calcite-based stones. It becomes necessary to identify the nature of the biological growth and test various biocidal treatments. There are many ways in which biocidal treatments are applied to the surface of the stone. Some of these processes involve spraying using pneumatic sprayers and adjustable nozzles, as cellulose poultices, injection in the stumps of higher plants etc.
Spores produced by bacteria, fungi and some algae are very resistant to biocides and can remain dormant for long periods of time. Most spores are resistant to biocides that contain quaternary ammonium compounds, disinfectants, alcohols, solvents, phenoxides and hypo chlorides. Biocide compounds that are effective include ethylene oxide, gluteraldehyde, formaldehyde, halogens (chlorine, iodine and bromine), hydrochloric acid and hydrogen peroxide. They are mostly formulated as fungicides. Biocide products keep changing constantly both in the product name and in the compounds used in its formulation. It becomes difficult to identify the active ingredients in the compounds. Biocides are tested in the laboratory on liquid cultures of the target organisms. There are often cases when the reaction with the target compounds on a substrate is totally different.
The effective lifetime of the different biocides depend on:
• Type of biocide.
• Concentration of the biocide.
• Nature of the organic growths.
• pH of the environment.
• Temperature.
• Microclimate.
• Exposure of the treated areas.
• Type of stone.
Regular re-application of the biocide on the surface of the stone is required. Minor change sin the concentration could affect the efficacy of the biocide. Compounds such as phenols and alcohols are generally more biocidal at lower concentrations than the quaternary compounds. The presence of dirt and other organic debris can reduce the effectiveness of the biocide. Biocide could be lost from the surface of the stone due to the washing out action of rain. Porous stones can hold biocides in its pores and are less susceptible to washing out than non-permeable rocks.
Effects of Biocides:
One of the most significant side effects of biocide application on the stone surface is the ability of the biocide to alter the color of the stone. The other effect that is of concern is the possibility of salt crystallization due to the compounds used in the biocide. Deposits in stone from salts, which expand due to crystallization could have devastating results in the stone. Some biocides can cause changes in the stone surface altering the water absorption and water penetration in the stone.
Application of Biocides:
Choosing the period of time for the application.
The best period of time would be in the summer after a dry spell of time. Organic growths are most susceptible during the wet period but the biocide gets washed off more easily. The substrate has to be maintained dry to ensure that the biocide does not run off. The biocide should be well brushed in. After the initial application, the dead organic material should be removed as the organism could absorb much of the biocide.
Some tests done on biocides:
The following is a test done by Claudia Pincki, Riccardo Balzarotti and Reiner Mansch.
Summary of the test.
They took four biocides and tested their efficacy against nitrifying bacteria isolated from building stone.
The four biocides were:
- Algophase applied in organic solvent (isopropylic alcohol + 20% acetone) (PHASE, Firenze,Italy)
- PH025/d a new water based formulation of Algophaseâ (PHASE, Firenze, Italy)
- Kathon WT a derivate of isothiazolinone (Rohm & Haas, Frankfurt, Germany)
- Benzalkonium chloride (Sigma chemicals, No. B 6295)
From the natural building stone – nitrifying bacteria were isolated. All biocides were screened over a wide range (0.00001-12%) of concentrations in liquid culture using sterile media for nitrifiers as diluent. Tubes without the addition of biocides were used as controls. Specimens of Ihrlersteiner green sandstone and Sander sandstone were inoculated with ammonia- and nitrite-oxidizers as well as chemoorganotrophic bacteria and fungi isolated from mortar [3]. The specimen were regularly supplied with ammonium chloride and incubated for seven month at 28 °C and high stone moisture. Sub samples of grounded stone material were incubated with the biocides for 30 min, washed and cell numbers were determined by a most-probable number test (MPN) and agar plates respectively. Samples without the addition of biocides were used as control.
Efficacy against mixed populations on natural stone –
After incubation for 30 min, Algophaseâ as well as PH025/d killed all nitrifying bacteria, hemoorganotropic bacteria and fungi grown in a biofilm on natural stone at MIC (Table 2). In contrast to this, Kathon and benzalkonium chloride just reduced the numbers of bacteria and fungi even at 10 times MIC ( minimum inhibitory concentration). Benzalkonium chloride was more effective than Kathon.
Conclusions
• Algophase and PH025/d with their low toxicity and high efficacy are promising biocides.
Algophase( 2,3,5,6-tetrachloro-4( methylsuphonyl) pyridine).
Algophase belongs to the group of biocides that are applied as they have a preventive effect to reduce in time the recolonisation of the restored surfaces. It is generally applied at the end of the conservative treatments and is effective against algae, fungi and cyanobacteria . It has an effective activity against fungi and lichens for up to 5-6 years. The tests at the Templete de Mudejar showed that eight years after the application of the biocide Algophase, organic growth was beginning to appear. It was concluded that the biocide Algophase though it dramatically reduced the test samples of the organic materials in the laboratory were successful in the field to a lesser degree. On the field, test samples showed the absence of the biocide on the façade after 8 years, which pointed towards the washing off of the biocide from the façade in the interim. The data showed that Algophase was able to inhibit the growth of micro organisms for a period of 5-6 years.
Other research on Biocides:
Another interesting experiment in recent years is the tests done by Masonry Conservation Research Group in the Robert Gordon University, Scotland. They assessed the efficacy of various biocides on sandstone.
For the experiment, they used six different types of sandstones and the effect of three different biocides. The biocides chosen for evaluation contained:
(1) alkylaryl trimethyl ammonium chloride,
(2) Dodecylamine lactate and dodecylamine salicylate and
(3) A copper salt.
The aim of the experiment was to determine the effective life spans of some typical biocides when applied to sandstones under field conditions and to investigate whether sandstone type had any influence on the rate of algal growth and/or the effective life span of the biocides investigated. The rate of green algal growth on six different sandstone types, both fresh (control) and biocide treated, was monitored using a chroma meter. It was found that the growth of algae on these stones which were of different porosities differed and also that the effect of the biocide was dependent not only on the biological growth and the porosity of the stone but also on the mineralogy of the stone. The presence of clays in the stone affected the efficacy of the biocides; quartz and feldspars had no effect. Bio efficacy depended on the stone types- sandstones required higher concentrations than limestones. (See Annexure 2.)
Alternative methods of Control:
Copper strips: The water run off from the copper flashing strips produces a mildly toxic biocidal wash. This however leaves behind a slightly greenish stain, which is sometimes difficult to remove.
Brushing and washing: The organic growth can be physically removed by brushing and scraping. This is to be followed by washing down with de- ionized water. The physical action leaves behind bristle marks on the surface of the stone.
Water repellants and consolidants: Water repellents have been used to prevent growth of organic materials in porous stones. This could sometimes lead to the crystallization of salts in the salts and the entrapment of moisture in the stone due to the waterproofing layer on the outside.
Ultraviolet light: Ultraviolet light is used in the control of growth of algae. UV light can kill photosynthetic organisms and does not have the risks which are attached to the other processes.
Health and Safety:
Biocides are hazardous compounds, which can be irritant to both the skin and the eye. They should be used with extreme care and not ingested. Precautionary measures would include providing personal protection, and controlling exposure and also preventing exposure.
Concerns:
1. Potential damage. -There has been general concern in recent years that the addition of biocides has become a major concern that the removal of the natural coating of the stone could accelerate future weathering and decay.
2. Aesthetic. -The application of biocides in some cases change the color of the stones and hence could not affect the look of the building.
3. Other considerations. -When biocides are applied to organism, they are destroyed and leave behind a black residue, which takes a long time to get removed.
Values, Authenticity and Preservation
Heritage, Culture and its Preservation
The field of preservation often requires clarifying the questions: What is heritage? What is culture? Why preservation? The answers are deeply embedded in human memory, its associations and its need to identify with other humans, values and objects- culture is a broad term.
The working definition offered to cultural heritage by the World Bank defines that it “ encompasses material culture, in the form of objects, structures, sites and landscapes, as well as living (expressive) cultures in the form of music, crafts, performing arts, literature, oral tradition and language.” Much of the material culture can generally be classified under “ cultural property” while the latter is slowly finding its way into this definition. There are two schools of thought in the treatment of this “cultural property”. One, which is object-centric, focusing on the “primacy of the object” while the other, places the “user” of the cultural heritage into the center- a functionalist view for cultural heritage[1].
There has been a long discussion regarding the ownership of cultural heritage – two approaches dominate this debate. One which places cultural heritage within the realm of national law- a cultural nationalistic approach while the other argues for cultural heritage to be a part of the common heritage of mankind- the approach of an internationalist.[2]
“Values” in Preservation.
All cultural components have by virtue of age and association some intrinsic traits in them. These traits may be both tangible and intangible. Some components may have more than one trait or value, which may be associated with them. In the case of cultural heritage preservation, values are essential in determining what aspect of heritage requires to be preserved in what form for the future generations. Values give some things significance over others and thereby transform some objects and places into heritage. [3] The aim of preservation is not the materiality of the culture but rather maintaining the cultural values, which are embodied in it thereby making it essential to realize to understand the heritage and the people whom this heritage affects.
Assessing values.
The assessment of values is one of the most important aspects of preservation. It determines the shape of decisions and the priorities. Some of the values which cultural heritage comes to embody are known to all but some values are unique to certain cultures and an understanding of these values is difficult to persons from other cultures. It is accepted that value assessments is a difficult task due to the diverse nature of the values- social, political, religious, economic etc. and secondly due to the presence of diverse cultures. Values of one culture sometimes conflict with that of others and within cultures the priorities placed on the values may vary.
Randall Mason[4] classifies the challenges that this process of assessment faces as being threefold:
1. Identifying all the values of the heritage in question.
2. Describing them
3. Integrating and ranking these values.
The traditional values which culture comes to embody can be grouped together in a few broad categories like political, religious, social, historical etc. In most cases, the values cannot be placed in just one broad category; these groups overlap and are difficult sometimes to distinguish. The process of description is also not without difficulty as much of the cultural heritage lies in the intangible realm. The assessment of values for cultural heritage is most often influenced by personal preferences and prejudices. This process of analysis does not work firstly within a particular culture and secondly for preservationists working with other cultures. Heritage is not fixed in time; it is an intervention, which looks at the past, works in the present and plans towards a future. The priorities, which are attributed to a certain values of cultural heritage, do not in most cases remain the same. Cultures are not static and are always evolving. Certain values, which are given precedence at a particular period, may cease to be important in the future and some attribute of culture, which may have been trivial in the past, may become the central focus in the present.
Statements of significance and assessments in preservation.
Value assessments lead to the creation of a statement of significance. This significance statement is an articulation of all the aspects of the cultural heritage in question along with all the conflicting values that are embodied in it and along with making comparisons with others to give an idea of the relativity of the cultural heritage. These value judgments and assessments are then identified with the tangible heritage, in most cases buildings and objects. Once the relation between the significance of the material is established conservation and planning mechanisms come into play to ensure its preservation.
Authenticity
The preservation of monuments and cultural heritage involves a message, which is “authentic”[5]. The term authentic refers to something, which possesses genuineness rather than a falsified version of the authentic or genuine. A copy of an original can be authentic if it shares the sense of actuality and does not misrepresent the original. All originals are authentic but not vice versa. The concept of authenticity was predominant from the earliest preservation works of Ruskin and Viollet with the latter preferring authenticity in the form of “unity of style” and Ruskin towards “minimal intervention”. The debate on authenticity is an ever- continuing one. In the 70s,the World Heritage Convention emphasized for cultural properties meet the test of authenticity in “ design, materials, workmanship and settings”. [6] Jukka Jokilehto and Sir Bernard Fielden in Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites further elaborate the authenticity in materials and workmanship in terms of age, patina and techniques of treatment. The guidelines suggest respecting the authenticity of design and settings.
Authenticity and the dynamic nature of authenticity.
As heritage, the criteria that authenticate it are equally diverse.[7] Authenticity is seen as being complimentary to values. While the spectrum of values remains broad and keeps changing, the test of authenticity, which is applied, is not as diverse. It is recognized that in several cultures- Herb Stovel [8]suggests that in Japan the craftsmanship does not play as great a role as the techniques and the traditions, which produce such substances. In the US the Secretary of Interiors Standards acknowledges the four authenticities and adds three others – location, feeling and association in its examination of the integrity of rural landscapes[9]. These authenticities of location and association refer to significant personalities or events and the significance of this phenomenon on the authenticity of the site. The “feeling” of a site is intangible and comprises of certain physical characteristics, which reflect the historic site.
The test of Authenticity was applied in the Venice charter to the original design and material. In the Burra, it applied to a “sense of place”, setting and social meaning while in the Nara Document it is used in the cultural context and diversity. Lowenthal[10] classifies changes in authenticity as a result of changes over time and changes in culture. He argues that present day with relevant ease of communications and contact with other cultures, foreign cultures seem more closer than the past of ones own culture. He argues that as authenticity is based on values, which are constantly, changing and which are reflective of a culture at a particular time. The criteria, which authenticate it at a given time, may not be relevant in the future. He also argues that authenticity seems different to people in various environments and cultures and context. An example used by Lowenthal is the shift in the medieval focus on faith and revelation to a more material focus-, which he terms as “faith to fact”.
[1] Markus M Muller. Cultural Heritage Protection: Legitmacy, Property and Functionalism. International Journal of Cultural Property. Vol.7 (1998). No 2. Oxford University Press.
[2] Ibid. P. 396.
[3]Edited by Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, Marta de la Torre. Research Report . The Getty Conservation Institute . Los Angeles. Values and Heritage Conservation. P.7 .
[4] Randall Mason, Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices Research Report . The Getty Conservation Institute . Los Angeles. Values and Heritage Conservation. P. 5- 30.
[5] Michael Petzet. “ In the full richness of their authenticity”- The test of Authenticity and the New Cult of Monuments. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
Authenticity is defined as something that is credible and based on authentic traditions of different cultures and attested to monuments as authentic evidence. Something which is beyond the authenticity of the material.
[6] Unesco. Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Committee. December 1993. Attiele 24.
[7] David Lowenthal. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
[8] Herb Stovel. Notes on Authenticity. . The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
[9] L. F. McClelland, J.T. Keller, G. P. Keller and R.Z. Melnich; Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 30. p. 22-23.
[10] David Lowenthal. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
The field of preservation often requires clarifying the questions: What is heritage? What is culture? Why preservation? The answers are deeply embedded in human memory, its associations and its need to identify with other humans, values and objects- culture is a broad term.
The working definition offered to cultural heritage by the World Bank defines that it “ encompasses material culture, in the form of objects, structures, sites and landscapes, as well as living (expressive) cultures in the form of music, crafts, performing arts, literature, oral tradition and language.” Much of the material culture can generally be classified under “ cultural property” while the latter is slowly finding its way into this definition. There are two schools of thought in the treatment of this “cultural property”. One, which is object-centric, focusing on the “primacy of the object” while the other, places the “user” of the cultural heritage into the center- a functionalist view for cultural heritage[1].
There has been a long discussion regarding the ownership of cultural heritage – two approaches dominate this debate. One which places cultural heritage within the realm of national law- a cultural nationalistic approach while the other argues for cultural heritage to be a part of the common heritage of mankind- the approach of an internationalist.[2]
“Values” in Preservation.
All cultural components have by virtue of age and association some intrinsic traits in them. These traits may be both tangible and intangible. Some components may have more than one trait or value, which may be associated with them. In the case of cultural heritage preservation, values are essential in determining what aspect of heritage requires to be preserved in what form for the future generations. Values give some things significance over others and thereby transform some objects and places into heritage. [3] The aim of preservation is not the materiality of the culture but rather maintaining the cultural values, which are embodied in it thereby making it essential to realize to understand the heritage and the people whom this heritage affects.
Assessing values.
The assessment of values is one of the most important aspects of preservation. It determines the shape of decisions and the priorities. Some of the values which cultural heritage comes to embody are known to all but some values are unique to certain cultures and an understanding of these values is difficult to persons from other cultures. It is accepted that value assessments is a difficult task due to the diverse nature of the values- social, political, religious, economic etc. and secondly due to the presence of diverse cultures. Values of one culture sometimes conflict with that of others and within cultures the priorities placed on the values may vary.
Randall Mason[4] classifies the challenges that this process of assessment faces as being threefold:
1. Identifying all the values of the heritage in question.
2. Describing them
3. Integrating and ranking these values.
The traditional values which culture comes to embody can be grouped together in a few broad categories like political, religious, social, historical etc. In most cases, the values cannot be placed in just one broad category; these groups overlap and are difficult sometimes to distinguish. The process of description is also not without difficulty as much of the cultural heritage lies in the intangible realm. The assessment of values for cultural heritage is most often influenced by personal preferences and prejudices. This process of analysis does not work firstly within a particular culture and secondly for preservationists working with other cultures. Heritage is not fixed in time; it is an intervention, which looks at the past, works in the present and plans towards a future. The priorities, which are attributed to a certain values of cultural heritage, do not in most cases remain the same. Cultures are not static and are always evolving. Certain values, which are given precedence at a particular period, may cease to be important in the future and some attribute of culture, which may have been trivial in the past, may become the central focus in the present.
Statements of significance and assessments in preservation.
Value assessments lead to the creation of a statement of significance. This significance statement is an articulation of all the aspects of the cultural heritage in question along with all the conflicting values that are embodied in it and along with making comparisons with others to give an idea of the relativity of the cultural heritage. These value judgments and assessments are then identified with the tangible heritage, in most cases buildings and objects. Once the relation between the significance of the material is established conservation and planning mechanisms come into play to ensure its preservation.
Authenticity
The preservation of monuments and cultural heritage involves a message, which is “authentic”[5]. The term authentic refers to something, which possesses genuineness rather than a falsified version of the authentic or genuine. A copy of an original can be authentic if it shares the sense of actuality and does not misrepresent the original. All originals are authentic but not vice versa. The concept of authenticity was predominant from the earliest preservation works of Ruskin and Viollet with the latter preferring authenticity in the form of “unity of style” and Ruskin towards “minimal intervention”. The debate on authenticity is an ever- continuing one. In the 70s,the World Heritage Convention emphasized for cultural properties meet the test of authenticity in “ design, materials, workmanship and settings”. [6] Jukka Jokilehto and Sir Bernard Fielden in Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Sites further elaborate the authenticity in materials and workmanship in terms of age, patina and techniques of treatment. The guidelines suggest respecting the authenticity of design and settings.
Authenticity and the dynamic nature of authenticity.
As heritage, the criteria that authenticate it are equally diverse.[7] Authenticity is seen as being complimentary to values. While the spectrum of values remains broad and keeps changing, the test of authenticity, which is applied, is not as diverse. It is recognized that in several cultures- Herb Stovel [8]suggests that in Japan the craftsmanship does not play as great a role as the techniques and the traditions, which produce such substances. In the US the Secretary of Interiors Standards acknowledges the four authenticities and adds three others – location, feeling and association in its examination of the integrity of rural landscapes[9]. These authenticities of location and association refer to significant personalities or events and the significance of this phenomenon on the authenticity of the site. The “feeling” of a site is intangible and comprises of certain physical characteristics, which reflect the historic site.
The test of Authenticity was applied in the Venice charter to the original design and material. In the Burra, it applied to a “sense of place”, setting and social meaning while in the Nara Document it is used in the cultural context and diversity. Lowenthal[10] classifies changes in authenticity as a result of changes over time and changes in culture. He argues that present day with relevant ease of communications and contact with other cultures, foreign cultures seem more closer than the past of ones own culture. He argues that as authenticity is based on values, which are constantly, changing and which are reflective of a culture at a particular time. The criteria, which authenticate it at a given time, may not be relevant in the future. He also argues that authenticity seems different to people in various environments and cultures and context. An example used by Lowenthal is the shift in the medieval focus on faith and revelation to a more material focus-, which he terms as “faith to fact”.
[1] Markus M Muller. Cultural Heritage Protection: Legitmacy, Property and Functionalism. International Journal of Cultural Property. Vol.7 (1998). No 2. Oxford University Press.
[2] Ibid. P. 396.
[3]Edited by Erica Avrami, Randall Mason, Marta de la Torre. Research Report . The Getty Conservation Institute . Los Angeles. Values and Heritage Conservation. P.7 .
[4] Randall Mason, Assessing Values in Conservation Planning: Methodological Issues and Choices Research Report . The Getty Conservation Institute . Los Angeles. Values and Heritage Conservation. P. 5- 30.
[5] Michael Petzet. “ In the full richness of their authenticity”- The test of Authenticity and the New Cult of Monuments. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
Authenticity is defined as something that is credible and based on authentic traditions of different cultures and attested to monuments as authentic evidence. Something which is beyond the authenticity of the material.
[6] Unesco. Operational Guidelines for the implementation of the World Heritage Committee. December 1993. Attiele 24.
[7] David Lowenthal. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
[8] Herb Stovel. Notes on Authenticity. . The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
[9] L. F. McClelland, J.T. Keller, G. P. Keller and R.Z. Melnich; Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes. National Park Service. National Register Bulletin 30. p. 22-23.
[10] David Lowenthal. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. The Proceedings of the Nara Conference on Authenticity. Nara, Japan. November 1994. Published by Unesco World Heritage Centre. 1995.
Summarizing key historical phases in the field of international preservation
The early development of the field – people and philosophies.
Preservation is not an invention of our times. It has a part of human existence and practiced in some form or the other in most cultures. Through history its parameters may have changed but the essence has in most parts remained the same. Early in the history of man, various objects have been chosen by people to characterize their self and these have in turn been used as symbols of power. The masculine was represented with symbols of the traditional virile virtues such as strength and endurance and the feminine with objects symbolizing equally stereotyped feminine qualities, such as seductiveness, fertility, and nurturance. [1]
Preservation fueled by human interest and travel.
Much of the concern towards old buildings and sites has its roots in the history. The glowing descriptions left behind by travelers, of the monumental architecture they had came across during their travels, fueled an interest towards the architecture and subsequently towards its care and preservation. Some of the historic travelers include luminaries such as Herodotus (450 B.C) Plutarch, Strabo and Pausanius[2]. Similarly scholars and travelers in the East like Fa Hien (5th Century AD) and Huien Tsang (7th Century AD) from China visited various Buddhist sites and cities in India leaving behind descriptions of various cities and buildings. Their descriptions of some sites such as Nalanda are all that is left of the architecture of the period, which was destroyed by the invading Moslems.
Collection of Curiosities and the Formation of Museums.
The interest towards various sites and buildings in other places led to individuals wanting to own a part of history. Towards the end of the 15th Century, wealthy individuals with an interest in the material culture began organizing private collections. This became a fashionable phenomenon in Europe. As travel became easier and the writings on various monuments and cultures increased, the interest towards monuments was on the rise. Collections of the wealthy grew out of the need to share in this knowledge and subsequently to own a piece of the original.
The Vatican led by the Popes: Sixtus IV (1414-1484), Julius II (1443-1513) and Julius III (1487-1565) had a huge role to play in this amassing of curiosities.[3] It was probably under such circumstances that in 1666, the King Carl of Sweden wrote the Proclamation for the Protection of Antiquities.[4] This was probably the first public proclamation of its kind though not much is known of its immediate outcome.
A result of the interest towards the collection of antiquities was the need to produce buildings that could house them. One such house was the Soane House in London. Noted architect Sir John Soane built the House and it became what we could term today as one of the earliest museums or historic house museums.[5] However, the collection of antiques and its acquisition processes got out of hand in the later years. In 1802, Lord Elgin received permission from the Turkish authorities to remove a number of sculptures from the temples of the Acropolis. Sculptures were hacked out of the temples and were taken to London where they later bought by the newly formed British Museum.[6]
International Activities and Cooperation
In 1751, the Society of Dilettanti financed a trip to Athens with intentions of recording its great monuments. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett were in charge of this monumental work, which took several decades to complete and consisted of several volumes of precise drawings. These books generated an interest in the Greek Style and its immediate result was the Greek Revival Style becoming the dominant style in Europe and parts of America. It also led to an awareness of the historic context of the cities.[7]Another great discovery of the period was the excavation of Pompeii and the subsequent finding of Herculaneum. These discoveries led to a greater appreciation of the past and the need for conservation of these sites.
The French and the English in the 18th and the 19th Centuries.
James Wyatt was one of the earliest “restoration architects” of the period. After training in Italy, Wyatt returned to England where he won the competition for the Pantheon at Oxford Street. He got involved in the restorations of several cathedrals for which he was severely criticized. It was felt that his interventions were not sensitive to the building. His work at the Cathedral at Salisbury plays an important role in the development of the field of Restoration. His interventions, which consisted of moving the altars and the removal of the stained glass windows and paintings, were highly criticized by his contemporaries who wrote articles that attacked these insensitive restorations. Wyatt’s work made people question the role of restoration as an appropriate intervention.
The conquest of Egypt in 1798 by Napoleon paved the way for the numerous artists and historians who accompanied him to take back to France numerous treasures. This import of Egyptian treasures into Europe opened the eyes of the West towards the vast treasures of Egypt and this interest continued to influence French art and culture for over a century.[8] In 1809, when Italy came under the purview of the French, Giuseppe Camporese and Giuseppe Valadier were appointed in charge of the restorations of specific architectural monuments. [9] They submitted plans for excavations to be carried out to reveal some of the monuments that did not gain approval in Paris. After the French occupation, Valadier in 1820 worked on the restoration of the Arch of Titus. His work is one of the earliest examples of anastylosis[10] that can be seen historically. The monument was stripped of all additions and the missing parts were replaced. Deliberate attempts were made to be able distinguish between the original materials and the replacements.
Viollet- le- Duc
The French had a great interest in the Preservation of old buildings. In 1831, Ludovic Vitet was appointed the Inspector General of Ancient Monuments as a result of legislation for the protection of historic buildings. In 1838, Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc joined the agency to the post of auditeur-suppleant. He started his career with the restoration of Vezelay and in 1945 won the competition for the restoration of Notre Dame. Viollet believed that
“ To restore a building is to reestablish it to a completed state which may never have existed at any particular time.”[11]
In his restoration of Notre Dame, he proposed a scheme including spires that never existed, while in his restoration of the Chateau de Pierrefonds, he created new forms in the structure that was based on his knowledge of medieval architecture. [12]
In 1818, as a result of the passing of the Church Building Act in England, numerous restorations took place between 1840 and 1880. Restorations were judged based on the respect of the historic integrity of the monuments rather than improvements, which were made on the original. This period was vital for the development of the field of restoration. Diverse ideas ranged from Freeman’s destructive philosophy, which directed that “ in restoring any building, the original style, arrangement and proportion be entirely left out of the question.” to the ideals of Sir George Gilbert Scott who believed that monuments were jewels “ handed down for our use only, but given to us in trust, that we may transmit it to generations having more knowledge and more skill to use it alright.”
John Ruskin
Undoubtedly, one of the major contributors to the field during that period was John Ruskin. Ruskin’s ideas on restoration were highly influenced by his exposure to restorations during his trip to Italy. In his book, “The Seven Lamps of Architecture”, he states that time represented history and that it should be preserved on old buildings. He was a romantic and had strong feelings against restorations, which he said was “ a lie from the beginning to end”. Ruskin’s writings created awareness towards preservation but it was more through the efforts of William Morris in 1877 that it took a more physical form. William Morris known for his founding role in the Arts and Crafts Movement formed the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB). The members of the society were outspoken opponents of Restoration and felt that Restoration had until then been an insensitive intervention -generally stripping the history from artifacts. They favored protection over restoration and due to the realistic goals that they set out to achieve attracted a large group of followers. Much of the movement in Britain is a result of its members such as the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882, which was the result of the actions of one of the members of the group.
Towards an international preservation movement-
The Athens Charter.
Similarly, the work of Valadier in Italy influenced Camillo Boito, a restoration architect, who tried to bridge the gap between the anti- restorationists and the Viollet le-Duc school of thought. His philosophy that was a middle path of minimal interventions would not alter the building’s physiognomy. [13] G. Giovanni following Boito’s path after his death was instrumental in stopping a number of insensitive interventions and creating Italy’s first legislation for the Protection of Monuments. This legislation in turn laid the ground for the Charter of Athens- the first international document on the protection of monuments.
In 1931, the international symposium on the protection of Historic Monuments took place in Athens that resulted in the drafting of the Athens Charter, which became the earliest document on international recognition of preservation and acceptance. The principle focus of the Charter was the need for closer co-operation between the nations and the formation of a forum where information could be shared between nations. The Charter deemed that the protection of monuments was not an individual concern but that the general public had a right to learn about their heritage and take an active part in its protection. Following the Charter, there were major upheavals in the world with the Depression and the World War that left much of Europe in ruins. Hundreds and thousands of historic buildings were razed to the ground. Warsaw was leveled to the ground, London struck with fires and much of the built heritage of many countries destroyed. After the war, the other problem, which much of these countries faced, was the rapid changes due to mechanization. There were serious concerns towards the approaches that the restoration of these cities and the route that architecture would take.
The World Wars and the interest towards preservation.
The First World War (1914-1918) upset the social balance. It took away many young men, servants became scarce, and the class structures eroded. The days of the serviced country estate were over. Much of the monuments came under the purview of the Office of Public Works, which also looked after archaeological sites, historic buildings, and medieval ruins during the interwar years. The task comprised mostly of maintenance and tidying up and it was not until 1932 that any protection was given to historic buildings in Britain through the first of its Town and Country Planning Acts. The cultural disasters of the war were not lost upon the authorities. The German armies deployed special officers to units in charge of protecting cultural objects. [14]
The debate on the various reconstructions that took place moved in three directions- those who wanted to keep the ruins as a memory of destruction, those in favor of creation of gardens and others who favored rebuilding it exactly as it had been before the war. In most cases the third solution was considered the most favorable.
The Second World War (1939-45) shattered the historic core of many cities—Warsaw, Berlin, Dresden, Coventry and Portsmouth. The Limited resources at the end of the war went to survival and economic recovery while restoration and conservation were low priorities. Mass housing and prefabrication were the prevailing themes in construction. The spirit of the age after the war was for a better future based on a need for space, health, and education, rather than on cultural heritage. The Second World War had more destructive effects than the first. In France itself almost 460,000 buildings were destroyed and 15% of the listed buildings were damaged.[15]
The city of Warsaw rose up from the ashes with a massive campaign of rebuilding which was based on a set of existing measured drawings, prints and paintings and other pre-war documentation. Buildings in new Warsaw corresponded to the old in its façade but changes were made internally to incorporate modern amenities and facilities. In 1978, this reconstructed center of Warsaw was inscribed into the World Heritage List for its outstanding universal value. [16]
The Venice Charter[17]
It is certain that among the Council of Europe’s achievements can be counted the consultative effective interest in conservation, stemming from the decision of the Consultative Assembly set up in 1963. The Council was formed in 1946 at a time when Europe was passing though a difficult economic phase and the various European states were resolved to ensure that this tragedy would not reoccur. In the years that followed, symposia held in varies European cities advanced not only the study and understanding of Europe’s heritage in monuments and sites but also the organization of a conservation apparatus. The delegates to those symposia were the constituent State’s outstanding experts; their contributions in papers and in discussion are impressive. The nature of the seven conferences contains essential information about the history of the conservation movement, the problems involved and the solutions proposed.
The movement was initiated with an appropriate formality and even stiffness in Venice in 1964 when a group from 17 countries assembled in Venice to discuss these issues. The Venice Charter- the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites was drafted. It was recognized that it was “essential that the principles guiding the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings should be agreed and be laid down on an international basis, with each country being responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions.”[18]
The Venice Charter is used as the principal guiding in international preservation practice. The Charter defines the historic monument as embracing not only a single architectural work but also incorporating the urban or rural setting in which it is found and lays down the aim of conserving and restoring monuments primarily to safeguard them much in the manner of works of art. It specifies the processes of restoration and conservation.
The Venice Charter has defined the path of preservation since with countries adapting in various forms, partially or in entirety depending on its needs. The various charters since then build on the Venice Charter and it remain the “datum point” for nations to abide. [19]
The field of historic preservation has been greatly affected by developments and discoveries in its allied fields of architecture and archaeology. Though archaeology as a scientific study is only around 150 years old, interest in the past and excavations of artifacts is an age-old phenomenon. One of the earliest probes in the past was as early as 2650-2140 B.C. in Egypt when the pharaohs excavated and reconstructed the Sphinx. [20]
Preservation in the colonies.
Along with the allied field of archaeology, international research, documentation and concertino methods evolved in tandem with developments in international affairs from over the past two centuries. Early examples of the set up by foreigners of departments for cultural heritage management are the establishment of the Archaeological Survey of India by the British in 1814 and the establishment of the Ecole Francais Extreme Oriente in various locations in French Indochina. The set-up of government bureaucracies for monuments management by foreign powers has undeniably had lasting effect in places countries such as India, Pakistan, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and Laos. These have in turn often, either directly or indirectly, served as models for neighboring countries such as Nepal, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. Indeed the French model of their being separate branches of museums and monuments under one ministry of culture, is a model used in many countries throughout the world from their original creations to the present.
The efforts by these various agencies had a positive effect on the protection of many of the historic sites in the various countries where this concept was introduced by the colonizers. In India, the Archaeological Survey continues to carry on its work even after the departure of the British and has been responsible for the protection of over 5000 monuments directly or indirectly over the last century. The neighboring countries of Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka look up to its activities and much of the initial works and legislation in these countries have been affected and based on the working of the Indian model.
International assistance.
Similar efforts have been noticed in other countries. Russia sent architects to Demre to restore the St Nicholas Church. The Keats-Shelley House, the boarding house where Keats died in 1821, was bought in 1903 after years of fundraising on both sides of the Atlantic. The house was turned into a museum and is dedicated to memorabilia related to Shelley, Keats and Byron, the trio of young poets who symbolize the English Romantic movement. The interest and concern towards historic architecture and heritage has over the years extended to encompass a wide variety and range of people and nations. Relief efforts for Versailles after the First World War, which started as a single soldier’s rescue efforts, sparked off the interest of John D. Rockefeller who sponsored much of the restoration. After the Second World War, others such as the Kress Foundation joined in the fray to support the preservation works at Versailles. Since then they have been joined by many individuals and organizations, which include the World Monuments Fund, in efforts to preserve and to expand the collections of this world heritage site.
Emperor Alexander II of Russia called in Brussels the first international conference to discuss the international laws and customs of war. This declaration, which remained on paper, declared culture to be belonging to common heritage of mankind and artistic treasure which once destroyed was considered irreplaceable. [21]However the First World War, which followed this declaration, showed the complete failure of this declaration.
In November 1966, Venice was flooded with filthy, oily water as a result of high tides and other phenomenon combined. This left behind a trail of sticky blackness underneath. The Venice in Peril Fund was started by Sir Ashley Clarke, the former ambassador to Italy shortly after to bring help to Italy and Florence. The Fund started with the restoration of the late Gothic church of Madonna dell’Orto and various other churches, which were less famous to bring attention to the lesser-known monuments and also to aid churches, which would not likely get any aid.
Much of the works of the fund has been concentrated towards the religious and artistic works in the city and the work is carried out by the specialist of the superintendencies, the local part of the Italian Ministry of Culture and paid for by the Fund. In 1966, in response to the appeal by UNESCO, numerous groups were established in various countries to collect and channel contributions to the works at Venice and numerous buildings benefited from these contributions. An International Campaign for the Safeguarding of Venice was set up. The set-up under this campaign for a three- way co-operation between the locals- represented by the superintendencies, the private committees and UNESCO. This set-up has been responsible for the restoration of over 100 monuments and over 1000 pieces of art.
In his book Conservation of Buildings, John Harvey agues that “The honor of producing the first general decree dealing with the whole problem of architectural monuments seems to belong to Louis X, Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt (1753-1830)”. Significantly, the Hessian movement followed the Napoleonic Wars with the German patriots reacting to the destruction of their cultural heritage by the troops of a revolutionary France. A century and a quarter later a greater war produced a greater reaction. The aftermath of the second world war saw the creation of UNESCO, which despite its need to appear impartial with its true effect being limited to the power of persuasion, more than actual execution, has nevertheless triggered a number of important rescue operations, which otherwise probably would not have taken place. The effort to rescue Abu Simbel is a case in point. While it was a spectacular feat that caught the world’s attention at the time, the second best technical solution was used since less than half of the sum needed to do the optimum approach could be raised. Nonetheless it did generate publicity for that particular cause and point the way for more international rescue operations of the sort.
Threats to the heritage of a place are not necessarily from natural forces alone. In 1960, the construction of the Aswan Dam threatened the obliteration of numerous historically and architecturally significant structures in Egypt and Sudanese Nubia. Traditional rulers of Egypt built their palaces and monuments, temples and shrines along the Nile, as they knew that the flooding and silting of river was the lifeline of the agriculture and subsequently the lifeline of the people. The damming of the river to allow for irrigation for a greater area of land was a conscious intervention on the part of the government to promote other interests over the protection of the numerous monuments, which lay scattered along the river. An international campaign to save the Nubian monuments was started simultaneously. A committee was set up to look into the effects of the dam, which recommended a survey, excavation and research of all the sites. A result of this campaign was the saving of over 20 monuments in Egypt and 4 monuments in Nubia. [22]
At the 9th Unesco general conference in New Delhi, the decision was made to found an international center for the study and the preservation and restoration of cultural properties. This inter-governmental organization, earlier known as the Rome Center or sometimes as the International Centre for Conservation has since been called ICCROM. It was established in 1959 in Rome. Its primary task since it’s founding has been in the identifying and creating a worldwide network of experts and specialized institutions in the conservation and restoration. ICCROM has since then focused its attention in the multidisciplinary collaboration in conservation with archaeologists, architects, planners, curators etc. It offered initial courses in the conservation of historic towns and buildings in the early 60s along with courses on material conservation.
International Agencies.
International Agencies had a major role to play in the conservation of cultural heritage globally with Unesco playing one of the key roles. Unesco was founded in 1945 by 37 countries and was ratified by 20 countries the next year when it came into force. The purpose of the Organization was defined as: "to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations".[23] Unesco was entrusted with the task of “ensuring the preservation and protection of the world heritage of works of arts and monuments of historic and scientific interest”. Simultaneously in 1946, the International Council of Museums was founded in November in Paris. The Documentation Centre is placed under the charge of ICOM, which becomes the resource center for museums all around the world.
These came at a time when much of Asia and Africa was getting de-colonized and there was a conscious effort of the national and cultural identities. Much of Unesco’s early work pertained to movable heritage and hence the co-operation between the two agencies was mutually beneficial. In 1949, Unesco called a meeting of experts to decide on the establishment of an International Committee on Monuments. This was approved in soon. In 1951, it was decided to send a team organized by Unesco to assist in the restoration of the city of Cuzco, which was heavily damaged by an earthquake. Thus began Unesco’s missions towards cultural heritage protection, which has over the year spread and continues to do so in every corner of the globe.
The International role of Unesco was first tested when the monuments of Nubia were being seriously damaged. Unesco’s first international campaign for saving these monuments was successful in the response that it received from every level, of all age groups and nationalities. This made it clear that these monuments belonged to everyone- to all humankind. Unesco’s role in cultural heritage has primarily been in the provision of preparation of various charters and guidelines, which could be used to guide international legislation regarding cultural heritage. One of the earliest such documents which Unesco was responsible for was the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict. This document, which was initiated early in 1899 and 1907, was updated in 1954 when it was finally adopted in Nederland by 102 countries in the wake of the Second World War. This document led to the development of the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) and various other charters. Unesco collaborated with the French to organize an international meeting of various professionals responsible for cultural heritage to draft the Venice Charter in 1957. 600 participants from over 61 countries and representatives of Unesco, ICOM and ICCROM attended the meeting, which was held at Venice. The Charter was considered as a revision to the Athens Charter and in it, the concept of historic settings was included as being significant along with the buildings.
The ICOMOS – International Council on Monuments and Sites was formed the next year and till date uses the Venice Charter as a datum point in all their preservation practices. The ICOMOS is an international non-governmental organization of professionals, dedicated to the conservation of the world's historic monuments and sites providing a forum for professional dialogue and a vehicle for the collection, evaluation, and dissemination of information on conservation principles, techniques, and policies. ICOMOS is Unesco’s principal advisor on matters pertaining to cultural sites and also the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS like Unesco is based in Paris and has local offices and national committees in various countries. Raymond Lemaire one of the founders of ICOMOS sums up the role of ICOMOS as an organization “promoting on an international level the conservation, protection, utilization and valorization of monuments, ensembles and sites.”
Other agencies such as the Getty, the World Monuments Fund, the Smithsonian Institute, the Aga Khan Trust, the World Bank and many other international bodies have played a big role in the development of the field as well as increasing international understanding and appreciation of both heritage and its protection. The Council of Europe was established in 1949, and aims to promote co-operation in heritage policies and technical assistance amongst its 47 States. The Amsterdam Declaration that was adopted as a part of the European Year of Architectural Heritage laid the basis for a series of principles to promote preservation of historic properties and led to the recognition that historic preservation was an integral part of urban planning and land development. It also laid down legal and administrative measures for the successful implementation of preservation initiatives. In 1977, the Granada Declaration was adopted which addressed issues pertaining specifically to the cultural heritage of rural environments of Europe. European institutions have been engaged in partial financing of pilot projects of historic preservation and restoration of European sites and monuments of exceptional quality. In recent years, the Council has been actively involved in developing an Action Plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina following the civic conflicts, which devastated the historic fabric.
The Getty Conservation institute was formed in 1982 when the Trust decided to establish a conservation center for scientific research, collection and dissemination of information, and training in conservation theory and practice. Since then, the Institute has developed both in size and expertise and conducted a number of projects in Asia, Africa, North and South America, and Europe. Some of the works include development of a Cultural Heritage site management plan for the Mayan region, repairs of damaged bas-relief at t Benin in West Africa, the stabilization of wall paintings of the tomb of Nefertari in Egypt, conservation and management of the Mogao Grottoes in China and the collaborative effort with the Chinese in the formulation of the China Principles for conservation works in China. The Institute provides internships for graduate students in conservation that vary from 8 to 12 months.
Colonel James Gray founded the World Monuments Fund in 1965 as a result of concern towards the imminent collapse of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The initial projects of the Fund were focused on individual buildings, which were paired with donors for the period of the project. WMF’s art historian and Chair Dr. Marilyn Perry describes the transition of the Fund from “nice charity that cares about old buildings to an organization like the Red Cross that can go wherever necessary to help with emergencies or avert them”. The initial projects were concentrated in Western Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 revealed the amount of neglect and damage of aesthetically and historically important buildings in the former Communist countries. The World Heritage Fund with a $5 million from American Express launched a worldwide program to bring global attention to cultural heritage sites all around the world under a program called the World Monuments Watch. The first List of 100 Most Endangered Sites was issued in 1996 followed by subsequent lists every two years. The WMF focuses on going beyond the protection and preservation of aesthetics and encourages public participation in its activities
The Aga Khan Trust for Culture, with a primary purpose of improving built environment in societies where Muslims have a significant presence, has initiated, planned and promoted various projects such as the planning for the historic city of Samarkand, the master plan of Zanzibar and various other projects. One of the greatest developments in the field of Cultural Heritage towards the end of the last millennium was the interest of the World Bank in Cultural heritage and the recognition of the richness of the diversity of cultural diversity. The Bank funded and supported the urban projects of Lahore City in Pakistan and the historic district in Tunis where it realized that the Bank needed to be active in the following fields of conceptual analyses, financial and technical support and providing partnerships with other agencies. The bank intended to support financially, and technically in alliance with the other agencies, the protection of cultural heritage as well as the expression of the local culture.
Apart from the larger international agencies, there are numerous smaller agencies some of which have a more regional focus. The Katmandu Valley Preservation Trust founded by Americans, works in Nepal and looks at the monuments in the Katmandu Valley in Nepal. The Tibet Heritage Fund founded by Norwegians, looks after monuments that have Tibetan origins in the Tibetan Plateau and beyond. They have done extensive surveys of buildings in Lhasa in Tibet as well as Tibetan influenced architecture in Mongolia.
World Heritage Sites
Much of the charters and resolutions were paper documents and Unesco did not have much control over the actual sites and monuments. In 1972, at the 17th General Conference of Unesco held at Paris, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted. This document provides precise definitions of world cultural and natural heritage, and at the same time stipulates the guiding principles for implementing the Convention. It is an international standard instrument with far-reaching influence worked out and executed by UNESCO on a global scale. This document has since then been ratified by 152 State parties.
One of its principal functions is to identify cultural sites and landscapes of outstanding significance and universal value all over the world to include in the World Heritage List and to place them under the general protection of the international community as the common heritage of mankind. The Convention aims to promote cooperation and mutual support among all peoples of the world for safeguarding mankind’s common heritage and to urge them to make active contributions to the cause.
To heighten the professional level of their protection, evaluation, monitoring and technical assistance work, UNESCO and the world heritage committee have invited the international council of monuments and sites (ICOMOS), the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), all international prestigious professional organizations, to act as advisory bodies and to offer expert help in the investigation, evaluation and monitoring of heritage sites and in the work concerning training, financial, and technical assistance. ICOMOS advises chiefly in the field of cultural heritage, IUCN in the field of natural heritage, and ICCROM in the work concerning technical training, research, and publicity and expert service in the field of cultural heritage. By the end of 2002, there were 730 sites included on the world heritage list, which are distributed in the territories of 125 States Parties. Of these 563 are cultural, 144 are natural, and 23 are mixed cultural and natural sites (including cultural landscapes). [24]
In addition to the List, the World Heritage Committee prepares and publishes a List of World Heritage in Danger, which includes world heritage properties, which are threatened by serious and specific danger owing to development, armed conflicts or natural disasters. A trust fund has been established under the convention to meet immediate conservation needs of the properties listed under the List of World Heritage in Danger. The World Heritage has been described as one of the most effective tools to protect heritage. However, the recognition of cultural heritage puts these sites under huge stresses owing to the interest generated to them by tourists, which without an adequate management and control has a detrimental effect.
Molding the various international charters
Though preservation as an interest is a phenomenon of the 19th Century, it blossomed into a profession only in the mid 20th Century. The comprehensive legal frameworks and the various other international guidelines, which framed the profession internationally, began with the Athens Charter. The Hague Convention of 1907as a result of the Russian War (an attempt to protect monuments in events of conflict) and the Madrid Conference of 1904 (which classified monuments as dead or living and the need to restore living monuments) were not successful documents. The Venice Charter of 1964 went beyond the Athens to incorporate the settings of the monuments. The successive charters have been addendums to the Venice.
There are numerous examples of the adoption of international conventions with flexibility and wisdom in order to incorporate the culture of various countries and regions. Two specific examples of the adaptation are the Burra Charter and the Declaration of Oaxaca. In Australia, the greatest challenge has been to make the Burra Charter applicable to Aboriginal places, and adapt its methodology for use by their Aboriginal custodians. The Charter’s strength lies in the assessment of cultural values and important role that it plays in the management of culturally significant values. The Burra Charter recommends that where possible all established cultural values of the place should be conserved. The Burra Charter was adopted in 1988 and has since been revised several times with the last revision in 1999.
Charter of Aotearoa- is being rewritten to include Maori views of significance and value, particularly the Maori belief that places imbued with the spirit of the ancestors should be allowed to decay. The Cultural Treaty of the Arab League, November 1946 is one where a group of countries came together to co-operate regionally on various which also included the revival and the safeguarding of intellectual and artistic legacy.
The Venice Charter has been argued as not being necessarily reflective of the global perspective of preservation. Experts in the United States have argued since its inception that the Document is a charter, which deals primarily with the conservation of stone monuments – a European phenomenon and does not cater to the preservation of monuments of wood and other materials as in the US. Similarly, Eastern preservationists think that the western preservation movement is very based on the preservation of the material while in the East; preservation is more of the spirit of the place.[25] While preservation of heritage is thought of as being a more universal and collaborative effort there are cases where this opinion is not shared and is surprisingly just the opposite. In the words of former ICOMOS Canada president, Francois Leblanc: 1990-1994.
“Internationally, sharing knowledge is even worse, it is very difficult and generally bad, although this is normal and understandable. Problems of communication are very great. There are tremendous cultural differences across the world including different concepts of culture and heritage, which often cannot translate, from one language to another. If it is an untranslatable spiritual concept and intrinsic to heritage value then communication becomes very difficult. Likewise issues differ enormously and the issues in one part of the world are completely irrelevant to another part. For example, in northern Mozambique one issue is what techniques to use to survey a site when the principle issue is that surveyors are eaten by lions at certain times of the year. The issues are very different for those in Paris or Tokyo.”[26]
The realization of Cultural Diversity
Culture diversity exists in two forms diversity within a culture in the form of beliefs, social forms and various components of culture and diversity among the various cultures, which exist. The concept of cultural diversity has moved from broad based ideas of western and eastern cultures or large geographic and ethnic units to recognize smaller units within these larger ethnic and geographic divisions. The earlier concept of western and non- western cultures has been described as over simplification that serve no purpose but rather an attempt to obscure the values held most deeply by each group. [27] Even within groups such as the Native Americans, there are considerable differences from one part of the continent to the other and the presence of a distinct character of each of the tribes.
The Venice Charter was drafted by a predominantly European group and called upon the various signatory countries to use the charter within its framework of culture and traditions. The Venice Charter was adopted by many nations from beyond the European realm in most cases in its entirety. Repercussions regarding this direct adoption were felt, first in the “non western” world and later within the western world within the world of material conservation.
The Nara Document of Authenticity [28]
Experts gathered in Nara, Japan as the criterion for heritage preservation laid down by the Venice Charter was found to be lacking in catering to the diverse cultures. The charter was generally thought of as being very Eurocentric with a focus towards the conservation of stone buildings.[29]
If we are to pin our conservation principles to the point of these being the forerunners in terms of present day practices, then a good starting point in modern times, is the "Venice Charter" of 1964. Many attempts have been made to revise the Venice Charter and even we, proposed such a course of action in 1983. But subsequently, the ICOMOS organization resolved in 1990 to enshrine the Venice Charter, like the old religious precepts of the “Ten Commandments”, or the “Eight Fold Noble Path” of the Buddhists, and treat it as a Monument. Thereafter, we permitted Nations and Regions to formulate their own practices in greater depth, while the “Venice Charter” remains the “datum point” or the “minimum provisions” for nations to abide.
Dr. Roland Silva, Honorary President, ICOMOS
The Nara Document was envisaged as an addendum to the Venice Charter and acknowledges that the diversity of cultures and heritage in our world is an irreplaceable source of spiritual and intellectual richness for all humankind calling for the active promotion of its protection and enhancement. It calls upon the protection and enhancement of cultural and heritage diversity in our world to be actively promoted as an essential aspect of human development and places the responsibility for cultural heritage and the management to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that, which cares for it.The Nara Document also recognized that values that are attributed to cultural properties differ between cultures and that value judgments should not be based within fixed criterion but rather with the context to which these properties belong. [30]
One reason for the importance of the Document of Nara is that, unlike the revisions in the Australian and New Zealand charters and unlike NAGPRA in the United States, the values of indigenous peoples are not identified as uniquely different; with, therefore, unique provisions for the treatment of their objects, structures and sites. In the Nara document, there is no mention of indigenous peoples or their values. Cultural diversity is valued worldwide, and preservation practices should take into account the varying traditions, varying types of monuments, and varying environments of all peoples. [31]
More recently the general conference of UNESCO in November 2001 adopted the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity. This declaration affirmed that “respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and co-operation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding was among the best guarantees of international peace and security.” It also recognized that culture took on diverse form across time and space and this was embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up mankind.
[1] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, excerpts from “Why We Need Things” in History of Things: Essays on Material Culture, Lubar, Steven and W. David Kingery, eds. (Smithsonian Institution Press 1993) P. 20-28.
[2] Not much is known of the life of Pausanius (mid 2nd Century AD)- a Greek traveler and geographer. “Description of Greece” which was written by him runs in ten volumes and was meant to be a kind of a tourist guide to Greece with its historical and religious artifacts. Strabo (64 BC to 21 AD) a Greek historian and geographer’s “Geography” runs into 17 books and is a wealth of information on the historical geography of the area. Both of them have written vivid descriptions of the historical architecture, which no longer exists today such as the Statue of the Zeus in the Ancient Olympic Complex. These descriptions along with the other discoveries by archaeologists (in the case of the Statue of Zeus- excavations of terracotta molds) help in the visually reconstruction of these various sites.
[3] Daniel, Glyn. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology (London:Duckworth,1978), P. 17.
[4] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P1.
[5] Ibid. P.24
[6] Hellenic Ministry of Culture, A Review of Seizure. (Online) Rev. October 10, 2002. Available: http://www.culture.gr/6/68/682/e68201.html. [October 10, 2002]
[7] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P25.
It was events such as these that triggered the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property Paris, 14 November, 1970
This document is the first agreement of its kind to be accepted worldwide and seeks to protect cultural property against theft, illicit export and wrongful alienation. States which are party to the Convention are bound to return to other State Parties cultural property that has been stolen from a museum or similar institution and is inventoried, to take measures to control the acquisition of illicitly traded cultural objects by persons and institutions in their country, to co-operate with other States having severe problems of protection of their heritage by applying import controls based on the export controls of other States Parties, and to take steps to educate the public. The Parthenon marbles and the Elgin fiasco has been an international debate for a very long time. While England is party to the Charter, these marbles still remain in the British Museum.
[8] Rosenweig , Brahm. Napoleon’s Lost Fleet: Napoleon in Egypt. (Online) Rev. October 11, 2002. Available: http://exn.ca/napoleon/egypt.cfm. [October 11, 2002]
[9] Linstrum. Derek, “Giuseppe Valadier et l’Arc de Titus”. Monumentum (March 1982),p.51.
[10]“Anastylosis aims to make the spatial character of a ruined structure more comprehensible by reinstating its lost original form, using the original material which is located at the site and is in satisfactory condition. Anastylosis as an intervention refers in general to structures consisting of clearly identifiable components.”
Lagerqvist, Bosse . A System approach to Conservation and Cultural Resources : Management photogrammetry as a base for designing documentation models. (Online) Rev. October 11, 2002. Available: http://cipa.icomos.org/system.pdf. [October 11, 2002]
[11] Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene Emmanuel, Dictionaire Taisonne de l’Architecutre de Xle siecle, vol 8, (Paris : B.Bance, A. Morel, 1866), P14-34.
[12] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P74.
[13] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P 83.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Jukka Jokilehto, A history of architectural conservation (Oxford, England ; Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999),p.285
[16] Ibid.
[17] See Appendix for full document.
[18] The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monument and Sites. ( Online) Rev. October 18, 2002. Available: http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html [ October 18, 2002]
[19]Silva, Roland. Problems, Aims and Future Directions to Conserving the Past: (Online) Rev. October 18, 2002. Available: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/roland.htm [October 18, 2002]
[20]Hirst, K. Kirst. The History of Archaeology, Part I: The Treasure Hunters. ( Online) Rev. October 17, 2002. Available: http://archaeology.about.com/library/weekly/aa113097.htm [October 17, 2002]
[21] Jukka Jokilehto, A history of architectural conservation (Oxford, England ; Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999),p.282
[22] The Nubian Campaign saved a larger number of monuments along the Egyptian side while only four were saved in the Nubian region. This intervention though most noble is often used by the Nubians as an example of how their culture is passed over for the greater Egyptian culture.
[23] Unesco 1945-2000:A Fact Sheet : (Online).Rev ( October 22, 2002) Available: http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/about/history/back.shtml [October 22, 2002]
[24] The World Heritage List (Online). Rev (October 22, 2002). Available: http://whc.unesco.org/heritage.htm . [October 22, 2002]
[25] Chen Wei and Andreas Aas 1989Heritage Conservation: East and West. ICOMOS Information – July/ September n. 3/1989.
[26]Ward John, Sharing ICOMOS information (Online) Rev: October 24, 2002. Online: http://canada.icomos.org/bulletin/vol6_no2_ward_e.html [October 24, 2002]
[27]Charles S. Rhyne. “Cultural Diversity and Conservation,” keynote address given at a symposium at the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, CA., June 1995.
[28] See Appendix for full document.
[29] Charles S. Rhyne. The First International Document for Diverse Cultural Values in Conservation: "The Document of Nara" a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works St. Paul, Minnesota 7th June 1995.
[30] The Nara Document of Authenticity
[31] Document of Nara" a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works St. Paul, Minnesota 7th June 1995.
Preservation is not an invention of our times. It has a part of human existence and practiced in some form or the other in most cultures. Through history its parameters may have changed but the essence has in most parts remained the same. Early in the history of man, various objects have been chosen by people to characterize their self and these have in turn been used as symbols of power. The masculine was represented with symbols of the traditional virile virtues such as strength and endurance and the feminine with objects symbolizing equally stereotyped feminine qualities, such as seductiveness, fertility, and nurturance. [1]
Preservation fueled by human interest and travel.
Much of the concern towards old buildings and sites has its roots in the history. The glowing descriptions left behind by travelers, of the monumental architecture they had came across during their travels, fueled an interest towards the architecture and subsequently towards its care and preservation. Some of the historic travelers include luminaries such as Herodotus (450 B.C) Plutarch, Strabo and Pausanius[2]. Similarly scholars and travelers in the East like Fa Hien (5th Century AD) and Huien Tsang (7th Century AD) from China visited various Buddhist sites and cities in India leaving behind descriptions of various cities and buildings. Their descriptions of some sites such as Nalanda are all that is left of the architecture of the period, which was destroyed by the invading Moslems.
Collection of Curiosities and the Formation of Museums.
The interest towards various sites and buildings in other places led to individuals wanting to own a part of history. Towards the end of the 15th Century, wealthy individuals with an interest in the material culture began organizing private collections. This became a fashionable phenomenon in Europe. As travel became easier and the writings on various monuments and cultures increased, the interest towards monuments was on the rise. Collections of the wealthy grew out of the need to share in this knowledge and subsequently to own a piece of the original.
The Vatican led by the Popes: Sixtus IV (1414-1484), Julius II (1443-1513) and Julius III (1487-1565) had a huge role to play in this amassing of curiosities.[3] It was probably under such circumstances that in 1666, the King Carl of Sweden wrote the Proclamation for the Protection of Antiquities.[4] This was probably the first public proclamation of its kind though not much is known of its immediate outcome.
A result of the interest towards the collection of antiquities was the need to produce buildings that could house them. One such house was the Soane House in London. Noted architect Sir John Soane built the House and it became what we could term today as one of the earliest museums or historic house museums.[5] However, the collection of antiques and its acquisition processes got out of hand in the later years. In 1802, Lord Elgin received permission from the Turkish authorities to remove a number of sculptures from the temples of the Acropolis. Sculptures were hacked out of the temples and were taken to London where they later bought by the newly formed British Museum.[6]
International Activities and Cooperation
In 1751, the Society of Dilettanti financed a trip to Athens with intentions of recording its great monuments. James Stuart and Nicholas Revett were in charge of this monumental work, which took several decades to complete and consisted of several volumes of precise drawings. These books generated an interest in the Greek Style and its immediate result was the Greek Revival Style becoming the dominant style in Europe and parts of America. It also led to an awareness of the historic context of the cities.[7]Another great discovery of the period was the excavation of Pompeii and the subsequent finding of Herculaneum. These discoveries led to a greater appreciation of the past and the need for conservation of these sites.
The French and the English in the 18th and the 19th Centuries.
James Wyatt was one of the earliest “restoration architects” of the period. After training in Italy, Wyatt returned to England where he won the competition for the Pantheon at Oxford Street. He got involved in the restorations of several cathedrals for which he was severely criticized. It was felt that his interventions were not sensitive to the building. His work at the Cathedral at Salisbury plays an important role in the development of the field of Restoration. His interventions, which consisted of moving the altars and the removal of the stained glass windows and paintings, were highly criticized by his contemporaries who wrote articles that attacked these insensitive restorations. Wyatt’s work made people question the role of restoration as an appropriate intervention.
The conquest of Egypt in 1798 by Napoleon paved the way for the numerous artists and historians who accompanied him to take back to France numerous treasures. This import of Egyptian treasures into Europe opened the eyes of the West towards the vast treasures of Egypt and this interest continued to influence French art and culture for over a century.[8] In 1809, when Italy came under the purview of the French, Giuseppe Camporese and Giuseppe Valadier were appointed in charge of the restorations of specific architectural monuments. [9] They submitted plans for excavations to be carried out to reveal some of the monuments that did not gain approval in Paris. After the French occupation, Valadier in 1820 worked on the restoration of the Arch of Titus. His work is one of the earliest examples of anastylosis[10] that can be seen historically. The monument was stripped of all additions and the missing parts were replaced. Deliberate attempts were made to be able distinguish between the original materials and the replacements.
Viollet- le- Duc
The French had a great interest in the Preservation of old buildings. In 1831, Ludovic Vitet was appointed the Inspector General of Ancient Monuments as a result of legislation for the protection of historic buildings. In 1838, Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc joined the agency to the post of auditeur-suppleant. He started his career with the restoration of Vezelay and in 1945 won the competition for the restoration of Notre Dame. Viollet believed that
“ To restore a building is to reestablish it to a completed state which may never have existed at any particular time.”[11]
In his restoration of Notre Dame, he proposed a scheme including spires that never existed, while in his restoration of the Chateau de Pierrefonds, he created new forms in the structure that was based on his knowledge of medieval architecture. [12]
In 1818, as a result of the passing of the Church Building Act in England, numerous restorations took place between 1840 and 1880. Restorations were judged based on the respect of the historic integrity of the monuments rather than improvements, which were made on the original. This period was vital for the development of the field of restoration. Diverse ideas ranged from Freeman’s destructive philosophy, which directed that “ in restoring any building, the original style, arrangement and proportion be entirely left out of the question.” to the ideals of Sir George Gilbert Scott who believed that monuments were jewels “ handed down for our use only, but given to us in trust, that we may transmit it to generations having more knowledge and more skill to use it alright.”
John Ruskin
Undoubtedly, one of the major contributors to the field during that period was John Ruskin. Ruskin’s ideas on restoration were highly influenced by his exposure to restorations during his trip to Italy. In his book, “The Seven Lamps of Architecture”, he states that time represented history and that it should be preserved on old buildings. He was a romantic and had strong feelings against restorations, which he said was “ a lie from the beginning to end”. Ruskin’s writings created awareness towards preservation but it was more through the efforts of William Morris in 1877 that it took a more physical form. William Morris known for his founding role in the Arts and Crafts Movement formed the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB). The members of the society were outspoken opponents of Restoration and felt that Restoration had until then been an insensitive intervention -generally stripping the history from artifacts. They favored protection over restoration and due to the realistic goals that they set out to achieve attracted a large group of followers. Much of the movement in Britain is a result of its members such as the Ancient Monuments Protection Act of 1882, which was the result of the actions of one of the members of the group.
Towards an international preservation movement-
The Athens Charter.
Similarly, the work of Valadier in Italy influenced Camillo Boito, a restoration architect, who tried to bridge the gap between the anti- restorationists and the Viollet le-Duc school of thought. His philosophy that was a middle path of minimal interventions would not alter the building’s physiognomy. [13] G. Giovanni following Boito’s path after his death was instrumental in stopping a number of insensitive interventions and creating Italy’s first legislation for the Protection of Monuments. This legislation in turn laid the ground for the Charter of Athens- the first international document on the protection of monuments.
In 1931, the international symposium on the protection of Historic Monuments took place in Athens that resulted in the drafting of the Athens Charter, which became the earliest document on international recognition of preservation and acceptance. The principle focus of the Charter was the need for closer co-operation between the nations and the formation of a forum where information could be shared between nations. The Charter deemed that the protection of monuments was not an individual concern but that the general public had a right to learn about their heritage and take an active part in its protection. Following the Charter, there were major upheavals in the world with the Depression and the World War that left much of Europe in ruins. Hundreds and thousands of historic buildings were razed to the ground. Warsaw was leveled to the ground, London struck with fires and much of the built heritage of many countries destroyed. After the war, the other problem, which much of these countries faced, was the rapid changes due to mechanization. There were serious concerns towards the approaches that the restoration of these cities and the route that architecture would take.
The World Wars and the interest towards preservation.
The First World War (1914-1918) upset the social balance. It took away many young men, servants became scarce, and the class structures eroded. The days of the serviced country estate were over. Much of the monuments came under the purview of the Office of Public Works, which also looked after archaeological sites, historic buildings, and medieval ruins during the interwar years. The task comprised mostly of maintenance and tidying up and it was not until 1932 that any protection was given to historic buildings in Britain through the first of its Town and Country Planning Acts. The cultural disasters of the war were not lost upon the authorities. The German armies deployed special officers to units in charge of protecting cultural objects. [14]
The debate on the various reconstructions that took place moved in three directions- those who wanted to keep the ruins as a memory of destruction, those in favor of creation of gardens and others who favored rebuilding it exactly as it had been before the war. In most cases the third solution was considered the most favorable.
The Second World War (1939-45) shattered the historic core of many cities—Warsaw, Berlin, Dresden, Coventry and Portsmouth. The Limited resources at the end of the war went to survival and economic recovery while restoration and conservation were low priorities. Mass housing and prefabrication were the prevailing themes in construction. The spirit of the age after the war was for a better future based on a need for space, health, and education, rather than on cultural heritage. The Second World War had more destructive effects than the first. In France itself almost 460,000 buildings were destroyed and 15% of the listed buildings were damaged.[15]
The city of Warsaw rose up from the ashes with a massive campaign of rebuilding which was based on a set of existing measured drawings, prints and paintings and other pre-war documentation. Buildings in new Warsaw corresponded to the old in its façade but changes were made internally to incorporate modern amenities and facilities. In 1978, this reconstructed center of Warsaw was inscribed into the World Heritage List for its outstanding universal value. [16]
The Venice Charter[17]
It is certain that among the Council of Europe’s achievements can be counted the consultative effective interest in conservation, stemming from the decision of the Consultative Assembly set up in 1963. The Council was formed in 1946 at a time when Europe was passing though a difficult economic phase and the various European states were resolved to ensure that this tragedy would not reoccur. In the years that followed, symposia held in varies European cities advanced not only the study and understanding of Europe’s heritage in monuments and sites but also the organization of a conservation apparatus. The delegates to those symposia were the constituent State’s outstanding experts; their contributions in papers and in discussion are impressive. The nature of the seven conferences contains essential information about the history of the conservation movement, the problems involved and the solutions proposed.
The movement was initiated with an appropriate formality and even stiffness in Venice in 1964 when a group from 17 countries assembled in Venice to discuss these issues. The Venice Charter- the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites was drafted. It was recognized that it was “essential that the principles guiding the preservation and restoration of ancient buildings should be agreed and be laid down on an international basis, with each country being responsible for applying the plan within the framework of its own culture and traditions.”[18]
The Venice Charter is used as the principal guiding in international preservation practice. The Charter defines the historic monument as embracing not only a single architectural work but also incorporating the urban or rural setting in which it is found and lays down the aim of conserving and restoring monuments primarily to safeguard them much in the manner of works of art. It specifies the processes of restoration and conservation.
The Venice Charter has defined the path of preservation since with countries adapting in various forms, partially or in entirety depending on its needs. The various charters since then build on the Venice Charter and it remain the “datum point” for nations to abide. [19]
The field of historic preservation has been greatly affected by developments and discoveries in its allied fields of architecture and archaeology. Though archaeology as a scientific study is only around 150 years old, interest in the past and excavations of artifacts is an age-old phenomenon. One of the earliest probes in the past was as early as 2650-2140 B.C. in Egypt when the pharaohs excavated and reconstructed the Sphinx. [20]
Preservation in the colonies.
Along with the allied field of archaeology, international research, documentation and concertino methods evolved in tandem with developments in international affairs from over the past two centuries. Early examples of the set up by foreigners of departments for cultural heritage management are the establishment of the Archaeological Survey of India by the British in 1814 and the establishment of the Ecole Francais Extreme Oriente in various locations in French Indochina. The set-up of government bureaucracies for monuments management by foreign powers has undeniably had lasting effect in places countries such as India, Pakistan, Cambodia, Viet Nam, and Laos. These have in turn often, either directly or indirectly, served as models for neighboring countries such as Nepal, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. Indeed the French model of their being separate branches of museums and monuments under one ministry of culture, is a model used in many countries throughout the world from their original creations to the present.
The efforts by these various agencies had a positive effect on the protection of many of the historic sites in the various countries where this concept was introduced by the colonizers. In India, the Archaeological Survey continues to carry on its work even after the departure of the British and has been responsible for the protection of over 5000 monuments directly or indirectly over the last century. The neighboring countries of Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka look up to its activities and much of the initial works and legislation in these countries have been affected and based on the working of the Indian model.
International assistance.
Similar efforts have been noticed in other countries. Russia sent architects to Demre to restore the St Nicholas Church. The Keats-Shelley House, the boarding house where Keats died in 1821, was bought in 1903 after years of fundraising on both sides of the Atlantic. The house was turned into a museum and is dedicated to memorabilia related to Shelley, Keats and Byron, the trio of young poets who symbolize the English Romantic movement. The interest and concern towards historic architecture and heritage has over the years extended to encompass a wide variety and range of people and nations. Relief efforts for Versailles after the First World War, which started as a single soldier’s rescue efforts, sparked off the interest of John D. Rockefeller who sponsored much of the restoration. After the Second World War, others such as the Kress Foundation joined in the fray to support the preservation works at Versailles. Since then they have been joined by many individuals and organizations, which include the World Monuments Fund, in efforts to preserve and to expand the collections of this world heritage site.
Emperor Alexander II of Russia called in Brussels the first international conference to discuss the international laws and customs of war. This declaration, which remained on paper, declared culture to be belonging to common heritage of mankind and artistic treasure which once destroyed was considered irreplaceable. [21]However the First World War, which followed this declaration, showed the complete failure of this declaration.
In November 1966, Venice was flooded with filthy, oily water as a result of high tides and other phenomenon combined. This left behind a trail of sticky blackness underneath. The Venice in Peril Fund was started by Sir Ashley Clarke, the former ambassador to Italy shortly after to bring help to Italy and Florence. The Fund started with the restoration of the late Gothic church of Madonna dell’Orto and various other churches, which were less famous to bring attention to the lesser-known monuments and also to aid churches, which would not likely get any aid.
Much of the works of the fund has been concentrated towards the religious and artistic works in the city and the work is carried out by the specialist of the superintendencies, the local part of the Italian Ministry of Culture and paid for by the Fund. In 1966, in response to the appeal by UNESCO, numerous groups were established in various countries to collect and channel contributions to the works at Venice and numerous buildings benefited from these contributions. An International Campaign for the Safeguarding of Venice was set up. The set-up under this campaign for a three- way co-operation between the locals- represented by the superintendencies, the private committees and UNESCO. This set-up has been responsible for the restoration of over 100 monuments and over 1000 pieces of art.
In his book Conservation of Buildings, John Harvey agues that “The honor of producing the first general decree dealing with the whole problem of architectural monuments seems to belong to Louis X, Grand Duke of Hesse-Darmstadt (1753-1830)”. Significantly, the Hessian movement followed the Napoleonic Wars with the German patriots reacting to the destruction of their cultural heritage by the troops of a revolutionary France. A century and a quarter later a greater war produced a greater reaction. The aftermath of the second world war saw the creation of UNESCO, which despite its need to appear impartial with its true effect being limited to the power of persuasion, more than actual execution, has nevertheless triggered a number of important rescue operations, which otherwise probably would not have taken place. The effort to rescue Abu Simbel is a case in point. While it was a spectacular feat that caught the world’s attention at the time, the second best technical solution was used since less than half of the sum needed to do the optimum approach could be raised. Nonetheless it did generate publicity for that particular cause and point the way for more international rescue operations of the sort.
Threats to the heritage of a place are not necessarily from natural forces alone. In 1960, the construction of the Aswan Dam threatened the obliteration of numerous historically and architecturally significant structures in Egypt and Sudanese Nubia. Traditional rulers of Egypt built their palaces and monuments, temples and shrines along the Nile, as they knew that the flooding and silting of river was the lifeline of the agriculture and subsequently the lifeline of the people. The damming of the river to allow for irrigation for a greater area of land was a conscious intervention on the part of the government to promote other interests over the protection of the numerous monuments, which lay scattered along the river. An international campaign to save the Nubian monuments was started simultaneously. A committee was set up to look into the effects of the dam, which recommended a survey, excavation and research of all the sites. A result of this campaign was the saving of over 20 monuments in Egypt and 4 monuments in Nubia. [22]
At the 9th Unesco general conference in New Delhi, the decision was made to found an international center for the study and the preservation and restoration of cultural properties. This inter-governmental organization, earlier known as the Rome Center or sometimes as the International Centre for Conservation has since been called ICCROM. It was established in 1959 in Rome. Its primary task since it’s founding has been in the identifying and creating a worldwide network of experts and specialized institutions in the conservation and restoration. ICCROM has since then focused its attention in the multidisciplinary collaboration in conservation with archaeologists, architects, planners, curators etc. It offered initial courses in the conservation of historic towns and buildings in the early 60s along with courses on material conservation.
International Agencies.
International Agencies had a major role to play in the conservation of cultural heritage globally with Unesco playing one of the key roles. Unesco was founded in 1945 by 37 countries and was ratified by 20 countries the next year when it came into force. The purpose of the Organization was defined as: "to contribute to peace and security by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, for the rule of law and for the human rights and fundamental freedoms which are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations".[23] Unesco was entrusted with the task of “ensuring the preservation and protection of the world heritage of works of arts and monuments of historic and scientific interest”. Simultaneously in 1946, the International Council of Museums was founded in November in Paris. The Documentation Centre is placed under the charge of ICOM, which becomes the resource center for museums all around the world.
These came at a time when much of Asia and Africa was getting de-colonized and there was a conscious effort of the national and cultural identities. Much of Unesco’s early work pertained to movable heritage and hence the co-operation between the two agencies was mutually beneficial. In 1949, Unesco called a meeting of experts to decide on the establishment of an International Committee on Monuments. This was approved in soon. In 1951, it was decided to send a team organized by Unesco to assist in the restoration of the city of Cuzco, which was heavily damaged by an earthquake. Thus began Unesco’s missions towards cultural heritage protection, which has over the year spread and continues to do so in every corner of the globe.
The International role of Unesco was first tested when the monuments of Nubia were being seriously damaged. Unesco’s first international campaign for saving these monuments was successful in the response that it received from every level, of all age groups and nationalities. This made it clear that these monuments belonged to everyone- to all humankind. Unesco’s role in cultural heritage has primarily been in the provision of preparation of various charters and guidelines, which could be used to guide international legislation regarding cultural heritage. One of the earliest such documents which Unesco was responsible for was the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict. This document, which was initiated early in 1899 and 1907, was updated in 1954 when it was finally adopted in Nederland by 102 countries in the wake of the Second World War. This document led to the development of the Unesco Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) and various other charters. Unesco collaborated with the French to organize an international meeting of various professionals responsible for cultural heritage to draft the Venice Charter in 1957. 600 participants from over 61 countries and representatives of Unesco, ICOM and ICCROM attended the meeting, which was held at Venice. The Charter was considered as a revision to the Athens Charter and in it, the concept of historic settings was included as being significant along with the buildings.
The ICOMOS – International Council on Monuments and Sites was formed the next year and till date uses the Venice Charter as a datum point in all their preservation practices. The ICOMOS is an international non-governmental organization of professionals, dedicated to the conservation of the world's historic monuments and sites providing a forum for professional dialogue and a vehicle for the collection, evaluation, and dissemination of information on conservation principles, techniques, and policies. ICOMOS is Unesco’s principal advisor on matters pertaining to cultural sites and also the World Heritage Committee. ICOMOS like Unesco is based in Paris and has local offices and national committees in various countries. Raymond Lemaire one of the founders of ICOMOS sums up the role of ICOMOS as an organization “promoting on an international level the conservation, protection, utilization and valorization of monuments, ensembles and sites.”
Other agencies such as the Getty, the World Monuments Fund, the Smithsonian Institute, the Aga Khan Trust, the World Bank and many other international bodies have played a big role in the development of the field as well as increasing international understanding and appreciation of both heritage and its protection. The Council of Europe was established in 1949, and aims to promote co-operation in heritage policies and technical assistance amongst its 47 States. The Amsterdam Declaration that was adopted as a part of the European Year of Architectural Heritage laid the basis for a series of principles to promote preservation of historic properties and led to the recognition that historic preservation was an integral part of urban planning and land development. It also laid down legal and administrative measures for the successful implementation of preservation initiatives. In 1977, the Granada Declaration was adopted which addressed issues pertaining specifically to the cultural heritage of rural environments of Europe. European institutions have been engaged in partial financing of pilot projects of historic preservation and restoration of European sites and monuments of exceptional quality. In recent years, the Council has been actively involved in developing an Action Plan for Bosnia and Herzegovina following the civic conflicts, which devastated the historic fabric.
The Getty Conservation institute was formed in 1982 when the Trust decided to establish a conservation center for scientific research, collection and dissemination of information, and training in conservation theory and practice. Since then, the Institute has developed both in size and expertise and conducted a number of projects in Asia, Africa, North and South America, and Europe. Some of the works include development of a Cultural Heritage site management plan for the Mayan region, repairs of damaged bas-relief at t Benin in West Africa, the stabilization of wall paintings of the tomb of Nefertari in Egypt, conservation and management of the Mogao Grottoes in China and the collaborative effort with the Chinese in the formulation of the China Principles for conservation works in China. The Institute provides internships for graduate students in conservation that vary from 8 to 12 months.
Colonel James Gray founded the World Monuments Fund in 1965 as a result of concern towards the imminent collapse of the Leaning Tower of Pisa. The initial projects of the Fund were focused on individual buildings, which were paired with donors for the period of the project. WMF’s art historian and Chair Dr. Marilyn Perry describes the transition of the Fund from “nice charity that cares about old buildings to an organization like the Red Cross that can go wherever necessary to help with emergencies or avert them”. The initial projects were concentrated in Western Europe. The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 revealed the amount of neglect and damage of aesthetically and historically important buildings in the former Communist countries. The World Heritage Fund with a $5 million from American Express launched a worldwide program to bring global attention to cultural heritage sites all around the world under a program called the World Monuments Watch. The first List of 100 Most Endangered Sites was issued in 1996 followed by subsequent lists every two years. The WMF focuses on going beyond the protection and preservation of aesthetics and encourages public participation in its activities
The Aga Khan Trust for Culture, with a primary purpose of improving built environment in societies where Muslims have a significant presence, has initiated, planned and promoted various projects such as the planning for the historic city of Samarkand, the master plan of Zanzibar and various other projects. One of the greatest developments in the field of Cultural Heritage towards the end of the last millennium was the interest of the World Bank in Cultural heritage and the recognition of the richness of the diversity of cultural diversity. The Bank funded and supported the urban projects of Lahore City in Pakistan and the historic district in Tunis where it realized that the Bank needed to be active in the following fields of conceptual analyses, financial and technical support and providing partnerships with other agencies. The bank intended to support financially, and technically in alliance with the other agencies, the protection of cultural heritage as well as the expression of the local culture.
Apart from the larger international agencies, there are numerous smaller agencies some of which have a more regional focus. The Katmandu Valley Preservation Trust founded by Americans, works in Nepal and looks at the monuments in the Katmandu Valley in Nepal. The Tibet Heritage Fund founded by Norwegians, looks after monuments that have Tibetan origins in the Tibetan Plateau and beyond. They have done extensive surveys of buildings in Lhasa in Tibet as well as Tibetan influenced architecture in Mongolia.
World Heritage Sites
Much of the charters and resolutions were paper documents and Unesco did not have much control over the actual sites and monuments. In 1972, at the 17th General Conference of Unesco held at Paris, the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage was adopted. This document provides precise definitions of world cultural and natural heritage, and at the same time stipulates the guiding principles for implementing the Convention. It is an international standard instrument with far-reaching influence worked out and executed by UNESCO on a global scale. This document has since then been ratified by 152 State parties.
One of its principal functions is to identify cultural sites and landscapes of outstanding significance and universal value all over the world to include in the World Heritage List and to place them under the general protection of the international community as the common heritage of mankind. The Convention aims to promote cooperation and mutual support among all peoples of the world for safeguarding mankind’s common heritage and to urge them to make active contributions to the cause.
To heighten the professional level of their protection, evaluation, monitoring and technical assistance work, UNESCO and the world heritage committee have invited the international council of monuments and sites (ICOMOS), the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN), and the International Center for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property (ICCROM), all international prestigious professional organizations, to act as advisory bodies and to offer expert help in the investigation, evaluation and monitoring of heritage sites and in the work concerning training, financial, and technical assistance. ICOMOS advises chiefly in the field of cultural heritage, IUCN in the field of natural heritage, and ICCROM in the work concerning technical training, research, and publicity and expert service in the field of cultural heritage. By the end of 2002, there were 730 sites included on the world heritage list, which are distributed in the territories of 125 States Parties. Of these 563 are cultural, 144 are natural, and 23 are mixed cultural and natural sites (including cultural landscapes). [24]
In addition to the List, the World Heritage Committee prepares and publishes a List of World Heritage in Danger, which includes world heritage properties, which are threatened by serious and specific danger owing to development, armed conflicts or natural disasters. A trust fund has been established under the convention to meet immediate conservation needs of the properties listed under the List of World Heritage in Danger. The World Heritage has been described as one of the most effective tools to protect heritage. However, the recognition of cultural heritage puts these sites under huge stresses owing to the interest generated to them by tourists, which without an adequate management and control has a detrimental effect.
Molding the various international charters
Though preservation as an interest is a phenomenon of the 19th Century, it blossomed into a profession only in the mid 20th Century. The comprehensive legal frameworks and the various other international guidelines, which framed the profession internationally, began with the Athens Charter. The Hague Convention of 1907as a result of the Russian War (an attempt to protect monuments in events of conflict) and the Madrid Conference of 1904 (which classified monuments as dead or living and the need to restore living monuments) were not successful documents. The Venice Charter of 1964 went beyond the Athens to incorporate the settings of the monuments. The successive charters have been addendums to the Venice.
There are numerous examples of the adoption of international conventions with flexibility and wisdom in order to incorporate the culture of various countries and regions. Two specific examples of the adaptation are the Burra Charter and the Declaration of Oaxaca. In Australia, the greatest challenge has been to make the Burra Charter applicable to Aboriginal places, and adapt its methodology for use by their Aboriginal custodians. The Charter’s strength lies in the assessment of cultural values and important role that it plays in the management of culturally significant values. The Burra Charter recommends that where possible all established cultural values of the place should be conserved. The Burra Charter was adopted in 1988 and has since been revised several times with the last revision in 1999.
Charter of Aotearoa- is being rewritten to include Maori views of significance and value, particularly the Maori belief that places imbued with the spirit of the ancestors should be allowed to decay. The Cultural Treaty of the Arab League, November 1946 is one where a group of countries came together to co-operate regionally on various which also included the revival and the safeguarding of intellectual and artistic legacy.
The Venice Charter has been argued as not being necessarily reflective of the global perspective of preservation. Experts in the United States have argued since its inception that the Document is a charter, which deals primarily with the conservation of stone monuments – a European phenomenon and does not cater to the preservation of monuments of wood and other materials as in the US. Similarly, Eastern preservationists think that the western preservation movement is very based on the preservation of the material while in the East; preservation is more of the spirit of the place.[25] While preservation of heritage is thought of as being a more universal and collaborative effort there are cases where this opinion is not shared and is surprisingly just the opposite. In the words of former ICOMOS Canada president, Francois Leblanc: 1990-1994.
“Internationally, sharing knowledge is even worse, it is very difficult and generally bad, although this is normal and understandable. Problems of communication are very great. There are tremendous cultural differences across the world including different concepts of culture and heritage, which often cannot translate, from one language to another. If it is an untranslatable spiritual concept and intrinsic to heritage value then communication becomes very difficult. Likewise issues differ enormously and the issues in one part of the world are completely irrelevant to another part. For example, in northern Mozambique one issue is what techniques to use to survey a site when the principle issue is that surveyors are eaten by lions at certain times of the year. The issues are very different for those in Paris or Tokyo.”[26]
The realization of Cultural Diversity
Culture diversity exists in two forms diversity within a culture in the form of beliefs, social forms and various components of culture and diversity among the various cultures, which exist. The concept of cultural diversity has moved from broad based ideas of western and eastern cultures or large geographic and ethnic units to recognize smaller units within these larger ethnic and geographic divisions. The earlier concept of western and non- western cultures has been described as over simplification that serve no purpose but rather an attempt to obscure the values held most deeply by each group. [27] Even within groups such as the Native Americans, there are considerable differences from one part of the continent to the other and the presence of a distinct character of each of the tribes.
The Venice Charter was drafted by a predominantly European group and called upon the various signatory countries to use the charter within its framework of culture and traditions. The Venice Charter was adopted by many nations from beyond the European realm in most cases in its entirety. Repercussions regarding this direct adoption were felt, first in the “non western” world and later within the western world within the world of material conservation.
The Nara Document of Authenticity [28]
Experts gathered in Nara, Japan as the criterion for heritage preservation laid down by the Venice Charter was found to be lacking in catering to the diverse cultures. The charter was generally thought of as being very Eurocentric with a focus towards the conservation of stone buildings.[29]
If we are to pin our conservation principles to the point of these being the forerunners in terms of present day practices, then a good starting point in modern times, is the "Venice Charter" of 1964. Many attempts have been made to revise the Venice Charter and even we, proposed such a course of action in 1983. But subsequently, the ICOMOS organization resolved in 1990 to enshrine the Venice Charter, like the old religious precepts of the “Ten Commandments”, or the “Eight Fold Noble Path” of the Buddhists, and treat it as a Monument. Thereafter, we permitted Nations and Regions to formulate their own practices in greater depth, while the “Venice Charter” remains the “datum point” or the “minimum provisions” for nations to abide.
Dr. Roland Silva, Honorary President, ICOMOS
The Nara Document was envisaged as an addendum to the Venice Charter and acknowledges that the diversity of cultures and heritage in our world is an irreplaceable source of spiritual and intellectual richness for all humankind calling for the active promotion of its protection and enhancement. It calls upon the protection and enhancement of cultural and heritage diversity in our world to be actively promoted as an essential aspect of human development and places the responsibility for cultural heritage and the management to the cultural community that has generated it, and subsequently to that, which cares for it.The Nara Document also recognized that values that are attributed to cultural properties differ between cultures and that value judgments should not be based within fixed criterion but rather with the context to which these properties belong. [30]
One reason for the importance of the Document of Nara is that, unlike the revisions in the Australian and New Zealand charters and unlike NAGPRA in the United States, the values of indigenous peoples are not identified as uniquely different; with, therefore, unique provisions for the treatment of their objects, structures and sites. In the Nara document, there is no mention of indigenous peoples or their values. Cultural diversity is valued worldwide, and preservation practices should take into account the varying traditions, varying types of monuments, and varying environments of all peoples. [31]
More recently the general conference of UNESCO in November 2001 adopted the Universal Declaration of Cultural Diversity. This declaration affirmed that “respect for the diversity of cultures, tolerance, dialogue and co-operation, in a climate of mutual trust and understanding was among the best guarantees of international peace and security.” It also recognized that culture took on diverse form across time and space and this was embodied in the uniqueness and plurality of the identities of the groups and societies making up mankind.
[1] Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, excerpts from “Why We Need Things” in History of Things: Essays on Material Culture, Lubar, Steven and W. David Kingery, eds. (Smithsonian Institution Press 1993) P. 20-28.
[2] Not much is known of the life of Pausanius (mid 2nd Century AD)- a Greek traveler and geographer. “Description of Greece” which was written by him runs in ten volumes and was meant to be a kind of a tourist guide to Greece with its historical and religious artifacts. Strabo (64 BC to 21 AD) a Greek historian and geographer’s “Geography” runs into 17 books and is a wealth of information on the historical geography of the area. Both of them have written vivid descriptions of the historical architecture, which no longer exists today such as the Statue of the Zeus in the Ancient Olympic Complex. These descriptions along with the other discoveries by archaeologists (in the case of the Statue of Zeus- excavations of terracotta molds) help in the visually reconstruction of these various sites.
[3] Daniel, Glyn. A Hundred and Fifty Years of Archaeology (London:Duckworth,1978), P. 17.
[4] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P1.
[5] Ibid. P.24
[6] Hellenic Ministry of Culture, A Review of Seizure. (Online) Rev. October 10, 2002. Available: http://www.culture.gr/6/68/682/e68201.html. [October 10, 2002]
[7] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P25.
It was events such as these that triggered the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property Paris, 14 November, 1970
This document is the first agreement of its kind to be accepted worldwide and seeks to protect cultural property against theft, illicit export and wrongful alienation. States which are party to the Convention are bound to return to other State Parties cultural property that has been stolen from a museum or similar institution and is inventoried, to take measures to control the acquisition of illicitly traded cultural objects by persons and institutions in their country, to co-operate with other States having severe problems of protection of their heritage by applying import controls based on the export controls of other States Parties, and to take steps to educate the public. The Parthenon marbles and the Elgin fiasco has been an international debate for a very long time. While England is party to the Charter, these marbles still remain in the British Museum.
[8] Rosenweig , Brahm. Napoleon’s Lost Fleet: Napoleon in Egypt. (Online) Rev. October 11, 2002. Available: http://exn.ca/napoleon/egypt.cfm. [October 11, 2002]
[9] Linstrum. Derek, “Giuseppe Valadier et l’Arc de Titus”. Monumentum (March 1982),p.51.
[10]“Anastylosis aims to make the spatial character of a ruined structure more comprehensible by reinstating its lost original form, using the original material which is located at the site and is in satisfactory condition. Anastylosis as an intervention refers in general to structures consisting of clearly identifiable components.”
Lagerqvist, Bosse . A System approach to Conservation and Cultural Resources : Management photogrammetry as a base for designing documentation models. (Online) Rev. October 11, 2002. Available: http://cipa.icomos.org/system.pdf. [October 11, 2002]
[11] Viollet-le-Duc, Eugene Emmanuel, Dictionaire Taisonne de l’Architecutre de Xle siecle, vol 8, (Paris : B.Bance, A. Morel, 1866), P14-34.
[12] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P74.
[13] Skarmeas, George Christos. “An Analysis of Architectural Preservation Theories: From 1790 to 1975”(Ph.D.diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1983), P 83.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Jukka Jokilehto, A history of architectural conservation (Oxford, England ; Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999),p.285
[16] Ibid.
[17] See Appendix for full document.
[18] The Venice Charter: International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monument and Sites. ( Online) Rev. October 18, 2002. Available: http://www.icomos.org/docs/venice_charter.html [ October 18, 2002]
[19]Silva, Roland. Problems, Aims and Future Directions to Conserving the Past: (Online) Rev. October 18, 2002. Available: http://www.unescobkk.org/culture/roland.htm [October 18, 2002]
[20]Hirst, K. Kirst. The History of Archaeology, Part I: The Treasure Hunters. ( Online) Rev. October 17, 2002. Available: http://archaeology.about.com/library/weekly/aa113097.htm [October 17, 2002]
[21] Jukka Jokilehto, A history of architectural conservation (Oxford, England ; Boston : Butterworth-Heinemann, 1999),p.282
[22] The Nubian Campaign saved a larger number of monuments along the Egyptian side while only four were saved in the Nubian region. This intervention though most noble is often used by the Nubians as an example of how their culture is passed over for the greater Egyptian culture.
[23] Unesco 1945-2000:A Fact Sheet : (Online).Rev ( October 22, 2002) Available: http://www.unesco.org/general/eng/about/history/back.shtml [October 22, 2002]
[24] The World Heritage List (Online). Rev (October 22, 2002). Available: http://whc.unesco.org/heritage.htm . [October 22, 2002]
[25] Chen Wei and Andreas Aas 1989Heritage Conservation: East and West. ICOMOS Information – July/ September n. 3/1989.
[26]Ward John, Sharing ICOMOS information (Online) Rev: October 24, 2002. Online: http://canada.icomos.org/bulletin/vol6_no2_ward_e.html [October 24, 2002]
[27]Charles S. Rhyne. “Cultural Diversity and Conservation,” keynote address given at a symposium at the J. Paul Getty Museum, Malibu, CA., June 1995.
[28] See Appendix for full document.
[29] Charles S. Rhyne. The First International Document for Diverse Cultural Values in Conservation: "The Document of Nara" a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works St. Paul, Minnesota 7th June 1995.
[30] The Nara Document of Authenticity
[31] Document of Nara" a paper presented at the Annual Meeting of American Institute for the Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works St. Paul, Minnesota 7th June 1995.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)