 |
FAMSI © 2005: Carlos Rudy Larios Villalta |
|
Architectural Restoration Criteria in the Maya Area Integration, or Complements We call integration the work intended to complete missing portions. Doing the absolute minimum to stabilize a ruined monument is not enough if it still remains unrecognizable, so, according to what has been previously said, it is indispensable to evaluate to what extent the integration of the missing portions would be convenient. The purpose is clear: it is about making the construction understandable, remembering that the Letter of Venice establishes that such complements will depend on the architectural composition and will bear the mark of our age by being called "complements". Whenever something that is missing is replaced, even partially, we are rebuilding, no matter the name this action is given. The Letter of Australia is much more honest regarding this point, and uses the word "reconstruction", but, as is the case with the Letter of Venice, its execution is conditioned to the reproduction of the original fabric, provided this may be identified through a close inspection: "ARTICLE 8. Conservation requires the maintenance of an appropriate visual setting: e.g. form, scale, color, texture and materials. No new construction, demolition, or modification which would adversely affect the setting should be allowed. Environmental intrusions which adversely affects appreciation or enjoyment of the place should be excluded."
"ARTICLE 19. Reconstruction is limited to the reproduction of fabric, the form of which is known by physical and/or documentary evidence. It should be identifiable on close inspection as being new work"… In virtue of this, any complement that needs to be placed for technical or esthetical reasons, is justified since it will make the monument understandable, but it will be limited to reproducing the fabric known through documents or evidence, and shall never represent the substitution of the original with a lie. Besides, it must be distinguishable under close inspection, but should not be a patch or a contrasting repair. In other words, we must try to harmonically integrate the complements, as stated in Art. 12 of the Letter of Venice; but through close inspection we should be able to acknowledge that they are complements put in place with total respect towards the basic components of shape, color, texture, and materials. Likewise, we must facilitate the comprehension of the monument exposed, by never denaturalizing its meaning. In other words, like the monument has deteriorated or become partially destroyed along the centuries, it has as well acquired a history of its own. Therefore, no one is entitled to change that history; no complement may reach the point of eliminating the traces of time, or substituting the missing parts with imagination or hypothesis.
In this sense, we shall refer to the very interesting case of Balam Ku in the structure denominated Of the Four Kings (see Photo 49 and Photo 50, above), because evidently, the intention to secure protection and conservation to the wonderful stucco frieze may be qualified as witty and effective. It serves its purpose by providing stuccoes with a quite stable climate and by protecting them from the wind, heat, cold, humidity, rain, etc. The photographs referred to, however, clearly show that much of that visible structure did not exist prior to 1993, as the stucco frieze was exposed for all to see, with a plated roof as a protecting means. I do not have an in-depth knowledge of the details of this work and I don’t feel like judging or criticizing, though the presence of some degree of imagination is evident. I insist, however, that it represents an adequate and excellent solution as far as a conservationist objective is concerned, because it stabilizes the microenvironment of the object to be preserved. Leaving a seal or mark of our age is a controversial issue. Numerous restoration works have not taken this into account, and in others, materials and non-esthetical, incompatible aspects such as mortars of Portland concrete, have been used in reassemblages, together with concrete and iron, to replace the fallen elements or to reinforce reconstructions. Other times, textures are changed using different materials. Also, little stones are put in place to mark the integrated parts, and there are also examples of unlimited reconstruction but insetting faces 5 to 20 cm from the original surface. This is done to distinguish the integrated parts. We shall now refer to the following particular examples: We should simply take a look at Photo 13, shown below, Photo 14, and Photo 15. The first corresponds to Uxmal, with its rusted iron and concrete fault. The second corresponds to the main entrance to Tikal’s Temple IV, with the concrete lintel that was placed during the National Tikal Project, one that now, less than 20 years later, has also failed. The third picture, taken personally by this author in Cahal Pech, Belize, 1992, shows the use of abundant iron bars in reconstruction works. Presently, the concrete and the iron are being removed from Uxmal to be replaced by wooden lintels similar to the original ones. I consider this an indispensable and appropriate initiative.
The system of inset faces consists in reconstructing as much as possible using the same original materials found during the excavations, but changing the position of the wall’s surface, by making a slight inset within the original, as may be observed in the pictures from Toniná, Palenque, and Ek Balam: (Photo 16, Photo 17, Photo 18, shown below, Photo 19 and Photo 20). Occasionally, the surface of ashlar stones is also changed. If they were rectangular in shape and thin, they are made irregular and coarse; if they were coarse, the new ones are thin and rectangular.
The main idea is to return or rebuild the lost volumes. This has been accomplished by reconstructing the missing parts with a changed texture and materials, to suggest the original shape, evident or by analogy. Occasionally, even the incline of the originals is modified, etc. A few examples may be observed in Calakmul, Campeche, México (Photo 21, below, and Photo 22), and particularly in Yaxhá, Petén, Guatemala.
The case of Yaxhá deserves our special attention: there, reconstruction was undertaken by using the earth of the ruin turned into mud with the addition of rustic stones. This material is placed to line damaged cores or refills by means of a small form, or board mould (Photo 23, Photo 24, and Photo 25), as if it were a melting. According to the statements by Oscar Quintana, Project Director (personal communication, December 2000), it is some sort of experimental sacrificial layer, which in spite of changing the color, the texture and the materials, and rebuilding the missing portions with a degree of imagination, may later be eliminated or changed at will. Small Stones and Thin Flagstones The small stones embedded in the ashlar stone joints of the restored walls, have been used in different ways. At some sites of the Mexican plateau, the mark has been common in the entire integrated part, and therefore, it makes it easy to distinguish the new work. In Photo 26, from Cholula, Puebla, México, it is possible to observe something of what we have said.
Elsewhere, in places like Balamkú and Kohunlich, thin flagstones have been used, a work consisting in putting in place small cracked and relatively polished stones, which as a thin serpent, draw the limit between what was found in situ and the integrated parts (Photo 27, above, and Photo 28). In ashlar stones with rectangular cuts and a carefully laid lining, the examples observed in Ek Balam are of interest. There, two different techniques were used to define the integrated parts: insets in the grand façade of the main palace with a full reconstruction, to which we have already referred to (Photo 18), and something very special: a line defined by means of partially empty joints that draw, without a doubt, the limit within the original and the integration (Photo 29, below). This final technique has also been used at Kohunlich.
As to myself, I have always believed that respect towards architectural composition is a must; consequently, restorations at Copán were made by using the stones of the monument itself, to avoid changing any of the characteristics of lining, shape, color or texture, but using galvanized metal clamps at a distance that would not exceed 20 cm between one another. These clamps, on closer examination, clearly delimit the integrated parts. Later, at the site of El Pilar, Belize, with the same idea we have used aluminum nails that are absolutely unrustable, and feature an unequivocal mark of our age. At Palenque, México, where I have been acting as an advisor for the restoration of Structure XIX (1999-2000), the idea of modifying the nails system or unrustable clamps and thin flagstones emerged, for considering that metals, notwithstanding they are a clear modern evidence, tend to contrast remarkably on close examination. For that reason, with a special machine, we cut rectangular fractions of a very dark-gray stone, with a cross section of approximately 1 cm × 2.5 cm and a length of 6-8 cm. In the same way than at Copán or El Pilar, these rectangular stones separate the integrated parts by forming a dotted line with a separation of 10 cm to 15 cm (Photo 30 and Photo 31). |
||
|
Text links to all pages at this site are available at the FAMSI INDEX |
||
