 |
FAMSI © 2005: Carlos Rudy Larios Villalta |
|
Architectural Restoration Criteria in the Maya Area Definitions and General Conservation Criteria It seems bold to refer to the theoretical principles of conservation and to the conceptual theoretical principles regarding restoration of prehispanic monuments within the Maya area, because actually, even now at the dawning of the XXIth century, we lack any coordinated and firm doctrine for archaeological monuments. I feel, however, that we now have a firm foundation on which to discuss some essential aspects of the existing regulations and some major criteria set forth by experts. The truth is that the norms for restoration and the fundamental concepts thereof are of an overall nature, and they depend upon conditions that vary greatly from those we customarily encounter in the archaeological sites of our Maya world. It is undoubtedly true that the theoretical principles remain the same as to the reason why cultural values should be preserved; however, we must define the scope of archaeological restoration without escaping from such foundation, but instead, adjusting it to our reality in the field of Maya archaeology. Some notions from the XXth century have tried to establish a balance between the antagonistic positions of the XIXth century, in an attempt to establish criteria that would allow us to work in harmony. Thus, to this date, the existing documents are abundant; some of them are international, others are regional or national, but they are all based on international documents like the Letter of Athens, Venice, Australia or Burra; the European Convention of Protection, the Norms of Quito in the Pan American case, and many others. The abundance of documents and the proliferation of workshops, seminars, conferences, etc., have made several contemporary scholars feel rather skeptical about the use of concepts contained in less modern letters, like Venice’s, or the criteria set forth by Ruskin and Viollet-le-Duc for considering them old fashioned. I personally believe that the fundamental concepts displayed in such documents are still in force and may be used with absolute propriety, as long as they are applied with the necessary adjustments to the reality of the Maya world, taking into consideration that most times such concepts were originated in the Classic architecture of the Old World. In the first place and as an ethical foundation, we should not disregard Ruskin’s words, when he said "…do it with honesty, do not replace it with a lie…" In other words, the most important thing in any restoration work, no matter the monument, must be honesty, authenticity, and truth. Because as we shall see, our responsibility is to make cultural values last, so that they may still be there for the generations to come, as true witnesses of a culture from the past. For the time being, it is necessary to express ourselves clearly on the different actions concerning restoration of Maya architecture: therefore, we shall begin to set forth a number of definitions which also involve fundamental theoretical concepts focused on the healthy development of restoration of prehispanic monuments in the Maya area. (Note: All references to the Letter of Venice have been taken from Díaz Berrio, 1968.) Norms of Quito, Numeral 3 and 4. General Considerations: 3. Disregarding the intrinsical value of an asset or the circumstances concurring to realize its historical or artistic importance and significance, this will not constitute a monument unless a specific declaration by the State is made in such sense. The declaration of National Monument implies the identification and official record thereof. As of that moment, the asset in question shall be subjected to the régime of exception according to the law. 4. Every cultural asset is implicitly destined to fulfill a social function. It is the State’s responsibility to make it prevail and to determine in the different cases, to what degree such social function is compatible with private property and the interest of private individuals. Consequently, a monument is a category based on the cultural meaning or special value of a particular object or place. Such category is established by the State, in accordance with such attributes, and it is not a synonymous of large size, as it is frequently considered. Some people say: "this site is not quite so monumental as that one," meaning that the first is smaller or of a lesser importance than the latter, but this is not correct. This is what the dictionary says:
MONUMENT. (Lat. Tu-moneo, to remember) m. Public work of architecture or engraving accomplished to perpetuate the memory of a person or memorable deed. In short, it means "remembrance", in such a way that anything at all, disregarding its size, may be a memento, whenever it involves a historic meaning. Therefore, it will be unable to fulfill such purpose within a society that is unaware of its past; it is a testimony, it is unique and unrepeatable. A monument, as a part of history, fulfills its social function whenever the nearby communities and the nation as a whole are aware of the characteristics that made it memorable. It is indispensable to know its past to grant it the right value and interpretation. The social function that renders a remembrance memorable is the original function; nowadays, however, it will also have a contemporary function, or destiny. This is the starting point to define the scope of restoration, one which will help us discern between monuments that will continue with their original use like religious temples and public palaces within societies still active, and those that for different circumstances have interrupted their original function, and are therefore destined to contemplation. I mean, to be visited by tourists, with no intervention of religious or political activities within the component buildings. In other words: if society and the original use are still in force, the scope of a restoration in the framework of Viollet-le-Duc’s proposals may be acceptable; that is, its full restoration would be valid and necessary, as was the case with the Notre Dame Cathedral. But in the case of ancient Maya cities, if the social group that created the monument is no longer present and the monument has become a ruin, our intervention must be in accord with such reality. The original function cannot be reintegrated. Nevertheless, if the ancient society is also ignored, the monument will be deprived of any major meaning, because we shall be unable to understand its history, original function, and transformation. If restoration is accomplished for touristic purposes only, without a research, as was and still is the case in many sites within the area, we would be weakening its cultural value, and the modern social function would remain incomplete. Archaeology is essential for the execution of projects that attempt to preserve and exhibit a monument; likewise, archaeology without conservation destroys, even though great knowledge may be achieved in the process. In any case, be it to reintegrate the original social use and rebuild according to Viollet-le-Duc’s terms, or to modify the monument according to what is needed, or merely for contemplation as a remembrance of a past we must bring to the present for the generations to come, the major foundation will still remain the same: to do it with honesty and never replace it with a lie, according to the sayings of Ruskin, the critic. The term "conservation" is frequently replaced with the term "restoration", but as we shall see, these two actions are quite different from one another. The dictionary, the Letter of Venice and the Burra Charter define it as follows:
CONSERVE: (From Latin Conservare; de cum, with, and servare, keep.) To maintain something, to attend to its permanency. // In regard to habits, virtues and similar things, to continue the practice thereof. // To keep, to carefully keep something… The Burra Charter: Article 1.4.: Conservation stands for all those processes and cares aimed at retaining the cultural meaning of a place. This includes maintenance, and according to the circumstances, it may include preservation, restoration, rebuilding, adaptation, and in most cases it will be a combination of more than one of them. Letter of Venice: Article 2. The restoration and conservation of monuments is a discipline which requires the collaboration of every science and every technique that may contribute to the study and safeguard of the monumental patrimony. Article 4. Monument conservation in the first place demands that permanent care is provided to them. In short: to preserve is to take all the necessary steps to secure the permanency of the monument. The following should also be included: specific legislation at a national and international level; effective policies at the same level, and actions such as vigilance, maintenance, monitoring, environmental control, landscape control, the site’s capacity to support itself, deterioration, etc. etc.; all this demands permanent attention. This cannot be a casual undertaking, but on the contrary, it must be formal and designed to work interruptedly. This is why the responsibility of conservation cannot fall on any archaeologist or foreign institution, but on the State. Letter of Venice: Article 9. Restoration is an operation which must be considered as an exceptional one. Its goal lies in keeping the esthetic and historic values of the monument and is founded on the respect granted to the ancient substance and the authentic documents. It stops there where hypothesis begin, and beyond, all complementary works deemed as indispensable for esthetic or technical reasons, will depend on the architectural composition and will bear the mark of our age. Restoration will always be preceded and accompanied by the archaeological and historical study of the monument.
Article 15. Measures will be taken to facilitate the understanding of the monument exposed, without ever denaturalizing its meaning. However, all reconstruction work will be excluded a priori: only anastylosis, or the recomposing of the existing but dismembered parts, may be considered. Restoration, differently than conservation, is an exceptional, not permanent process; its objective is to preserve esthetic and historical values. In a literal sense, to restore is to recover, to recuperate, to repair, to put back in its primitive state, But as far as archaeological assets are concerned, we cannot take this meaning literally and apply it indiscriminately. It is necessary to consider the reality of the ruined monuments. This is what César Brandi states:
"…In general terms, restoration is understood as an intervention that pursues to put back in efficiency a product of human activity…" Architecture, disregarding its magnificence or simplicity, is created with a specific purpose. A post-office building, for instance, is useful and efficient for such a purpose, but when it deteriorates, for some reason, so does its efficiency; it is changed or disappears. This is also true for a warehouse, a temple, or a residence, but as we said in regard to Maya monuments, there’s no way to recuperate the society that created them and its institutions and consequently, we are forced to analyze the restoration issues from this reality. It would seem that Brandi’s definition does not fit in with our present and future finality, and therefore, it must be adapted to the new social objective, which in our case is rendering permanent the remembrance so that it continues to a testimony of the past. The problem is to define to what extent can we or must we restore a monument destined to be visited by tourists. I shall quote Hiroshi Daifuku’s, when he says:
"Whenever an object is not in good shape, the problem consists in assessing the extent of the treatment to be applied. The minimum would be to do only what is necessary for its survival, but if the object risks to remain unrecognizable, we should ask ourselves whether such restoration is to be undertaken at all." If the reintegration of the original social function is not possible, whenever we talk about giving back its efficiency to a ruined monument or a ruined city, we would have but one possibility: to restore its structural efficiency. That is, to render efficient the existing parts that because of the ruin have lost their capacity. To extremist, it would suffice to do the absolute minimum to stop deterioration by stabilizing its formal elements. In this respect we agree with Daifuku: if the object is unrecognizable… what would be the point in restoring it? The Letter of Venice, a priori, forbids any reconstruction except when anastylosis is feasible. However, it seems to contradict itself by authorizing complements in missing areas when these are considered indispensable for technical or esthetical reasons. With these concepts, our criteria would be unimportant: we have here the base to complement as much as we want, or either to limit ourselves to the very indispensable actions to stabilize, avoiding any complementation. Obviously, of course, if we have established honesty and truthfulness as a fundamental, ethical principle, we should discern what is convenient according to the present social function and the existing evidence. Complements are added "with the purpose of facilitating the understanding of the monument exposed, without ever denaturalizing its meaning". In simple words, we restore so that visitors may understand what they see, without substituting it with a lie, or changing its ruined nature and remembrance with something new and hypothetical. Considering the hypothesis, maybe this is the right time to repeat Arch. Molina Montes’ words, when he adds that Viollet-le-Duc went ahead of the Letter of Venice when he stated:
"To decide a disposition a priori, without being compenetrated of all the data that should rule it, is to fall in hypothesis, and there is nothing so dangerous as hypothesis in restoration works." (Viollet-le-Duc, op cit; 33) Consequently, based on what has been said and in general terms, we may define the restoration of archaeological monuments as follows:
Finally, we must say that the responsibility for restoration must be shared both by the archaeologists and the state, in a way that damages caused by the archaeologist are to be be assumed by him, while damages caused by ten or fifteen years of abandonment ought to be repaired under the state’s responsibility, as the starting point of a conservation process that implies permanent care. A ruin is the result of abandonment and time; it is a state provoked by certain lateral pressures that show up whenever the damage of the superficial and horizontal layers of mortar appears, and cracks, allowing penetration by foreign agents. The excess water modifies the volumes of interior refills, and clays in particularly increase their volume pushing laterally; tree roots push laterally as well, as they thicken. This is manifested by a slight deviation of lines, collapses, heavy sinkings, cracks, landslides, and total destruction. |
||
|
Text links to all pages at this site are available at the FAMSI INDEX |
||