Architectural Restoration Criteria in the Maya Area

Some Backgrounds

To achieve our objective there’s no need to account for one hundred years of restoration history in Mesoamerica; such a thing would be too long and unnecessary. On the contrary, I feel it would be important and useful to place ourselves within the overall perspective of what has been done in the past; in broad outlines, we shall also refer to a number of aspects of the methodology involved, to finally elaborate a bit on the results fo such interventions.

We also want to warn that even though a number of awful errors will be mentioned regarding the treatment some monuments were given, our intention is far from criticizing anyone, as methods have arrived tied to a number circumstances from the different times, and in a way, with the valuation process our countries, as political entities, have given to their cultural heritage.

During the first three quarters of the XXth century, and due to the increasing admiration raised by prehispanic cultures, several foreign institutions undertook archaeological investigations, some of which involved restoration works. The methodology set in motion to investigate, would generally include trenches, two, four and six meters wide, which occasionally cut complete buildings and acropolis; moreover, some architectural entities underwent systematic dismantling.

Uaxactún (1925-37) represents a very particular example of what we just said, as large trenches were excavated that completely cut architectural complexes in their four directions, from the very top of them down to the bedrock (Smith 1950, Fig. 7, 8, 9, etc.), thereafter the site was left abandoned. The excavations and trenches were not back filled, the forest grew once more, and the ruin of the ruin was ruined, again.

Like many other places within the Maya area, Tikal (1956-69) was not an exception; in this case, however, we should point out that very significant changes gradually began to take place, almost everywhere. They had to do with the value governments gave to touristic activities; therefore, excavations were back filled, major structures restored, and archaeological sites were duly prepared to receive visitors. Between 1970-1985, at least in Tikal, other archaeological projects were undertaken, which somehow modified previously employed methods.

The large trenches and the dismantling of buildings constituted a destructive method, we are aware of that, but the obverse of the coin should be considered as well: that timeframe has provided us with excellent documents and knowledge, of which we have all learned and which we still use as the basis of new and sophisticated investigations. The most destructive methods involved the use of dynamite by Leopoldo Batres in Teotihuacán, México (Cabrera Castro 1986:185), or the craters that are still visible at Xunantunich and Lubaantún, Belize, a result, according to the remembrances of local neighbors, of Thomas Gann’s use of dynamite during the 20’s.

Overall, and throughout one hundred years of adventures and research in prehispanic monuments, methodology has gradually changed, though we all agree these changes are insufficient, as far as monumental conservation is concerned. Likewise, architectural restoration was frequently undertaken as an independent activity, divorced from archaeology, even in projects that involved a restoration responsibility.

The architectural restoration of monuments, present in Mesoamerica since the early XXth century, did not emerge as a conscious conservation tool but rather –with few exceptions– as a method to take advantage of touristic attraction. Thus, many archaeological sites were restored by applying methods that ranged from the more simple, honest, and conservative ones, as is the case of Quiriguá (1910-1934) in Guatemala when anastylosis was first used (González 1977:7), and Palenque, whose initial restorations were undertaken out of the love for a great artwork in the process of deteriorating. Other restorations provided monuments with an all-brand-new splendor that reached beyond the limit of evidence and entered into the realm of imagination, scenography, and hypothesis.

Restoration has existed in the world since immemorial times, a result of the widespread yearn to preserve places with great cultural significance, connected with social and religious traditions. But it was only in the XIXth century when discussions began on why or how to accomplish this, which led to a controversy between two opposite criteria: one proposed not to intervene in the destruction process, or to intervene as slightly as possible and only for stabilization purposes, while the other one which pursued the full reconstruction of the ruin for the restitution of its former splendor.

The art critic John Ruskin (1819-1900) from England, who influenced the preferences of Victorian intellectuals, and Eugene Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc (1814-1879), a French architect, were the champions of apparently extreme and unreconcilable positions. Viollet-le-Duc had restored numerous monuments in France, the Cathedral of Notre Dame of Paris among them (Encarta 2000), and felt that based on documental analysis and existing evidences, monuments were to be totally rebuilt. The critic Ruskin, on the contrary, perhaps wrongly interpreted by many, considered the restitution of missing parts inappropriate, and coarse restorations with no respect for the original work and merely based on hypothesis, even more unacceptable. This is what he said:

"Restoration may eventually become a necessity, all right. Then, face such necessity and accept it, tear down the building, toss its stones to the farthest possible place, make rubble or mortar out of them… but do it with honesty, do not replace the building with a lie…"
(Ruskin 1963:199-200, quoted by Molina 1975:17).

The trend to rebuild and to restore the work of art back to its original form, and the obsession to prevent such a thing may be observed even nowadays. Some shared Viollet-le-Duc’s point of view, while Ruskin and his supporters would rather leave monuments as they were, or intervene as slightly as possible and only to allow for their survival.

In my view, and as we shall later see, both are partly right, but it is indispensable to take into account other essential factors and to understand them in their appropriate dimension. For now, and as a background information, it will suffice to say that the XIXth century thinking has not notably evolved as far as philosophical notions or techniques are concerned; and as mentioned earlier, we still lack an overall consensus in accord with the reality of the prehispanic cultural heritage.

In an opposite viewpoint, many archaeological projects failed to consider the need for conservation, the excavations were left with no back fill and the buildings abandoned. Such was the case with Lamanai, Al Tun Há and Lubaantun in Belize, though these are not the unique examples. This trend, in addition to the weakness of government institutions, derived from the understanding that conservation was an obligation of those countries that owned cultural goods, and not of the particular researcher involved.

In a way, this is true as far as conservation is concerned, but it is obvious that whoever digs a hole and causes damages, no matter the extent of such damage, should as well be responsible for repairing the damage caused as an integral part of his/her activities, inasmuch as conserving is an ongoing task, while restoring or repairing the damages associated with an investigation must be an issue inherent to whoever causes the damage. This is similar to a car crash: the person who hits is the person who pays; whoever destroys must pay for the damages.

My career in the field of archaeology, restoration and conservation of monuments, began at Mixco Viejo, Guatemala (1962), and later my work continued in Kaminaljuyú and Tikal (1956-69). Between 1970 and 1980, I was head of the Tikal National Park, and this experience gave me a clear awareness of the responsibility we embrace at the time of excavating and leaving monuments publicly exposed using inadequate methods. This also gave me the opportunity to test a few ways of complementary work between archaeology and conservation which could be of help at the time of undertaking that kind of responsibility.

Although the Project Copán Phase II (1980-85) had been initially planned so that archaeology would go first and the restorer would be incorporated later, as always, my presence there as restoration director (1981-85) helped to make evident the need to coordinate actions with a multidisciplinary sense. As a gift from God, I met there with William Fash and his wife Barbara, and together we were able to successfully coordinate a few experimental actions that provided shape and foundations to our future actions.

Such experience and the enthusiasm shown by both the Fash’s, led to the creation of the Copán Mosaic Project, followed by the most successful of all programs known as the "Copán Acrópolis Archaeological Project" (PAAC 1985-1996). Our objective was to analyze mosaic sculpture, trying to place it, whenever possible, in the original architectural, archaeological and temporal contexts. Unmodest as it may seem, I must say this proved a model of coordination worth imitating, while conservation works were never considered a separate thing.

Since 1992 and to this date, I have shared my time as a consultant in several projects and international institutions in Guatemala, Honduras, and also in El Salvador, Belize, and México. Consequently, this work is largely the result of 38 years of personal experience, and I am prepared to assume the responsibility of the successful actions I shall now describe, and needless to say, to also take responsibility for any errors that may have been made.

As for the remaining Maya area, things have not varied greatly. Most projects undertaken in the past, including contemporary endeavors, are still divorced from restorers, or either, archaeologists personally assume such responsibility. Architect Augusto Molina Montes, in his book La Restauración Arquitectónica de Edificios Arqueológicos, has stated:

"In the past decades, an exaggerated and in most cases improper primacy has been given to ’reconstruction’, as objective and goal of an important number of official projects of Mexican archaeology…  …in spite of the many reconstruction works completed in México, interest has been scarce regarding the theoretical and conceptual aspects of the archaeological, monumental restoration,…"
(Molina 1975:5)

For all of these things I am very grateful to FAMSI for the support received, one that allowed me to write this report while adding a number of personal experiences lived during my last extended tour along forty restored sites within the Maya world, where I was able to witness a part of the many things that have been done and are being done nowadays. This tour has helped me to weave a frame of reference for some later conclusions.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page