Evolution of Heritage Conservation Theory

Introduction

The contemporary theory of heritage conservation and protection come from a historical awareness that emerged in the 18th century in Europe (Jokilehto, 1996). The concepts became systemised when European nations started identifying themselves with material heritage in the 19th century (Lowental, 1985). Conservation became considered in the 20th century as a different way of seeing cultural heritage and art (Melucco-Vaccaro, 1996). Architectural conservation increased post World War II due to the fear that people would lose their heritage identities (Gazzola, 1972). The right of communities was introduced for the first time through the Athens Chatter while the desire to apply restoration and conservation in the model of individual traditions and cultures came with the Venice Charter’s acknowledgement (ICOMOS, 1964). By recognising cultural diversity as well as preserving values of communities, the result was the reassessment of what heritage means and the types of policies that protect it. Conservation eventually transformed from dealing with artwork of the past and history, to including modest works as well as recognising the European heritage as a common heritage for its entire people (Jokilehto, 1999). The cultural heritage law and the cultural property law came into action to protect monuments from damage and for the future generation. For instance, the fundamental policy behind the cultural heritage law is to protect the heritage sites such as monuments for the benefit and enjoyment of the present as well as the future generations. This policy protects heritage sites from damage and destruction and planning regulations. Additionally, the cultural property law concentrates on protecting the possessors’ and owners’ rights. According to Prott and O’Keefe (1992), these laws help protect cultural heritage and cultural property such as real estates, personal property, and monuments

Understanding the attitude directed towards the start of the idea of monument conservation and their existing historic fabric woven over time is essential for the following reason; the focus given to the cultural, social and economic exchanges that have taken place for a long time characterises the traditional monument cultures and lends value to these historical sites (Blake, 2000). Therefore, the monuments’ history significantly contributes to the protection, restoration, and conservation policies as well as encourages the development and use or adaptation of these monuments to modern life (Blake, 2000). Analysis of the conservation of monuments by research reflects a wide range of situations and demonstrates the characteristics of the connection or relationship which monuments have with the communities where they are situated and integrated monument conservation as an aspect of sustainable growth and development. Moreover, the practises of monument conservation are the result of a sophisticated relationship between political decisions shaped by economic and cultural idiosyncrasies and ideological models created by architecture as well as urbanism (Sriramesh, K, 1992).

Although there are many pieces of research already done about heritage, where most scholars have given a lot of attention to the concept of monument rehabilitation, restoration and the research has extended mostly about historical sites, the approach used in most of these studies are based on individual-historical monuments. They are also based on historical studies conducted through political, religious and juridical institutions or social and economic structures. Meanwhile, monuments conservation practise, and ideology has been mainly ignored (Western, 2000).

As a result, this research will concentrate on the conservation of monuments as heritage treasures, by evaluating a broad spectrum of literature, starting with a thorough review of the literature, then outlining the aims, the research questions and the objectives of this study. Furthermore, the methodology that will be used in conducting this study will be outlined. Additionally, a justification of why this research is necessary, as well as the timeline which will be used to conduct this study, will be outlined.

The aim of the study

To research about the monument conservation practices and ideology

Research Questions

What are the main driving forces which dictate monument conservation?

Why is it necessary to define the standards and principles of monument conservation practises?

Which issues are linked to the making of decisions, planning, and implementation of monument conservation?

To what level are architectural conservation strategies developed and implemented as an essential part of monument management plans?

What is the appropriate conservation methodology of monuments?

What are the current management and restoration theories of monuments conservation?

Objectives of the study

To find the main driving forces which dictate monument conservation

To find out why it is essential to define the standards and principles of monument conservation practises

To find out the issues linked to decision making and planning as well as the implementation of monument conservation plans

To find out the extent to which architectural conservation strategies are developed and implemented as a crucial part of their management plans

To understand the appropriate conservation methodology for monuments

To understand the current management and restoration theories of monument conservation

Literature Review

According to Tyler, Tyler and Ligibel, (2018), in general, monument conservation practise is founded on principles that have little understanding of the beginning and reasoning of such principles or that some of the aspects of such principles could be obsolete and without considering that some issues that are have not been dealt with before could emerge regarding monument conservation principles. Therefore, it means that those involved in the conservation of monuments and urban cities are following the principles blindly without a comprehensive understanding of various underlying philosophies (Tyler, Tyler and Ligibel, 2018). They could, therefore, be faced with challenges in their approach when circumstances change concerning conservation. This problem has been demonstrated to allow an understanding of the manner in which cultural values can be identified and protected while maintaining their integration in the complex urban system (Tyler, Tyler and Ligibel, 2018). Fielden (2007) attempted for the first time to lay down several important principals concerning cultural property, urban and architectural conservation. This researcher synthesised unique forms of value which may be linked to cultural property.

His synthesis led to three distinct categories. The first category involved cultural values which include age value, archaeological, historical and documentary value, ecological, landscape, townscape and architectural value. The second category involves use value which entails political, social, economic and functional value. The last category includes an emotional value which is constituted by continuity, identity and wonder values. This way, Fielden (2007) provided us with a simple and efficient system that can be applied in evaluating the value of historic structures such as monuments.

According to Throsby (1939), it is crucial to acknowledge the unique ways that value can be developed from heritage as even though it is an intrinsic component of life; cultural values are now an essential part of sustainable development and political discourse. Throsby (1939) points out that through acknowledging the relationship between cultural capital and natural capital, the theory of sustainable development also becomes applied for our cultural values. Throsby (1939) says that cultural capital and natural capital are analogous. He argues for concepts of diversity, cultural ecosystems, intergenerational equity as well as quantifiable cultural models that are sustainable. This individual tested his proposed model against other strong and weak models of sustainability paradigms. His research found that the weak models he tested against assumed that human-made and natural capitals are substitutable. He concluded that this argument is unacceptable for many natural and cultural values. On the other hand, the strong models regarded human-made and natural capitals as not-substitutable and therefore acknowledged that certain values are un-replaceable.

According to Foucoult (1994), the real challenge in the conservation of monuments and cities is realizing the connection between various values and applying the sustainability concept. This individual says that understanding the relationship between different values and how decisions about a single value impact the rest is crucial to an efficient and comprehensive approach in the conservation of monuments and urban areas. Foucoult (1994) says that people’s understanding of the idea of value has shifted from that of a sign to one of a product. Therefore, the sociological view of cultural capital is becoming a reality with more fruitful results with regards to its appropriation in conservation. According to Bourdieu (1989), there are three capital forms including cultural, social and economic capital which are all convertible in some circumstances into one another. This individual also mentioned a fourth capital type known as symbolic capital used to distinguish the perceived social, cultural or economic capital, also considered legitimate. According to this person, cultural capital is presented as an extension of a community’s heritage. Bourdieu (1989) claims that the growth of cultural capital needs labour and time to be invested for it to assimilate. Therefore, there is no possibility of it being delegated to a different party.

This is particularly important for communities who occupy areas with historical value as these sites have already been recognised empirically that the achievement or success of conserving these places has a directly proportional connection with the level of identification and awareness of the community that built the heritage. Furthermore, the transmission logic of the embodied heritage capital works in the same way as the process of unconscious inheritance where the capital is passed down from one generation to the other including newcomers’ acculturation (Bourdieu, 1989). According to CoE (2000), cultural heritage is one major concern for the European Union (EU). The EU council views archaeological, historical and built sites as well as cultural landscapes as a witness of a sophisticated history of a given territory, its former and present inhabitants and its varied cultures. Therefore, the preservation of the archaeological remains in various places remains an essential component of policies of land-use. However, there are various legislations, among them the European legal laws, which are linked directly to heritage issues that are very limited in terms of influence and scope of heritage conservation. According to Silva (1983), the EU and UNESCO both focus majorly on certain heritage law strands including cultural identity, environmental impact assessment, and cultural diversity. Therefore, these organisations result in a general guideline that leaves the states most of the responsibility of implementing these guidelines and conserving heritage. The modern principles of conservation refer to history and art as an approach to choosing monuments that should be preserved (Silva, 1983). According to Brandi (1963), restoration is essential in the conservation of monuments, and it entails the methodological recognition of artworks in their physical durability and should follow the principles of not destroying traces of human intervention and time passage. Restoration should also follow aesthetic ones where inappropriate alterations and erroneous completions are to be removed (Cordaro, 1994).

According to Karadedos (1984), this definition of restoration led to the development of policies of conservation at international heights such as the Venice Charter that is to date a dominant guideline in training and delineating guidelines and policy statements of conservation. ICCOMOS (1990) demonstrate that the charter of archaeological heritage management and protection need to continue focusing on monument conservation where they are located and their future conservation. Moreover, the charter endorses the integration of legislation concerning land use, planning, and development. The charter stresses the relevance of efficient collaboration between many disciplines and their professionals as well as the contribution of the public.

Prott and O’Keefe (1992) say that despite the fact that states now represent the contemporary societies (as guardians and legislators of their archaeological heritage and acting in the interest of the public), and although many states have a consensus on the cultural heritage elements, there is still less consent concerning what or to what level preservation of monuments and heritage sites should be done.

According to Watt (1999), the charters say that there should be a partial or full reinstatement of a monument or an artefact as close to the original structure as possible through reconstruction. These individuals claim that the location and extent of the new work should be carefully thought-out by considering their objectives. Further, the scientific data and historical characters of a monument need to be safeguarded through respecting its nature as well as securing a life-long preservation. According to Warren (1996), this type of restoration is only possible through policies which require minimum interventions, minimum alterations, the smallest level of damage or risk of loss and the maintenance of its original structure.

Wider Intellectual Context

With these works of literature, there is a broad understanding of heritage and the way human activity can shape the conservation of monuments as a component of heritage management. However, various theoretical issues emerge. For instance, how do humans elicit cultural value to protect as well as apply these values? Therefore, this study will look at the idea of monument conservation (monument conservation practise ideologies). Additionally, there are continuous debates around the relevant level of intervention regarding reconstruction and restoration, especially where new materials are used. The restoration materials to be used are outlined in the charters, but the charters do not provide the level or extent of restoration and reconstruction of monuments or heritage materials.

Furthermore, the available legislations have been found to be limited in terms of their influence and scope of heritage conservation. These works of literature also show that international organisations such as the EU and UNESCO are at the forefront of restoration and preservation of the existing cultural heritage or property. These organisations have formulated preventative means of conserving monuments and movable heritage including those housed by the monuments or historic buildings. However, the biggest concerns in this area remain how the more extensive environmental context affects monuments or historic buildings. The effect from the environment makes studies on the role of environmental management in monuments as well as a study of their fabric necessary. Moreover, a philosophy on conservation for historic buildings and monuments is emerging. Furthermore, preventive conservation in monuments appears to be pre-empted by words like maintenance and its associated philosophy (Feilden, 1994). In this regard, this study will show that there are subtle differences between preventive conservation of monuments, which is more efficient as compared to other conventional philosophies as well as their associated conservation practises.

Research Methodology

A Literature Review

A review of monument conservation will be done for large heritage conservation practise and theory. The literature review will be mostly about the issues around monument conservation. The development of monument conservation will be provided, particularly its restoration philosophy and theories. An overview of monument conservation practise and theories will be used to provide an insight into the current debates as well as the practises and principles which influence monument conservation. The historical synopsis of monument conservation, an examination of the technical, philosophical, terminological and theoretical aspects related to the practise will be provided.

Case study analysis

A case study that outlines monuments conservation practises that have been implemented or are being implemented will be chosen examined and discussed analytically.

Inclusion criteria

This study intends to cover literatures that have contextual and comprehensive perspectives on monument conservation practise and ideology. Therefore, it will combine elements of heritage studies, archaeological theory, legal studies, and sociology. Some primary and secondary literature will thus be used as sources of data. The legal documents will be such as international policies and treaties that set out of Europe’s framework as well as some national regulations, statements, and decisions issued by heritage services and the public authorities, archaeological reports, some articles about archaeological, sociological, environmental and legal topics, and only those that are peer reviewed. The study will also use international journals on heritage studies, environmental politics, archaeological dialogues and journals on social and community psychology. The controversial views and emerging trends about the subject matter of this study will be acquired from internet portals and archaeological magazines which contain publicly-debated issues.

Omission Criteria

Due to the limited period of time to conduct this research, the survey will not provide an exhaustive assessment of the issue, but a particular focus on at least two case studies on monument conservation practises and ideology. Therefore, it is not a thorough evaluation of the conservation of all heritage sites or the regulations used by all states.

Ethical consideration

All the literature material that will be used in this study will be referenced appropriately thereby acknowledging the owners of the original documents as required both in the body of the dissertation and in the bibliography list. Any third party will not view any primary material that needs to be handled with the highest level of privacy except those involved in the study as required by my university ethical regulations. For data that requires a consent form and approval from the ethics review committee, the necessary procedure will be followed to acquire consent to use the information, as per the requirements or my university regulations as well as those of the ethics review committee (Thome, 1998).

References

Blake, J., 2000. On defining the cultural heritage. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 49(1), pp.61-85.

Bourdieu, P., 1989. The corporatism of the universal: the role of intellectuals in the modern world. Telos, 1989(81), pp.99-110.

Brandi C. 1963 Teoria del restauro. Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, Rome. (Translated in Stanley Price N., Kirby Talley M. Jr., Melucco Vaccaro A. (eds.). Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage. Readings in Conservation. The Getty Conservation Institute, Los Angeles, pp. 230-235, 339-342, 377-379).

Cordaro M. (ed.) 1994 Cesare Brandi. II Restauro. Teoria e Pratica. Editori Riuniti, Roma

Council of Europe. (2000). The European Landscape Convention . Council of Europe.

Foucault, M., 1994. Essential works of Foucault 1954–1984. Vol. 3. Power.

Gazzola, P., 1972. Restoring monuments: historical background. Preserving and Restoring Monuments and Historic Buildings, pp.15-30.

Greaves, R.W., 1939. The corporation of Leicester, 1689-1836(Vol. 10). Oxford University Press, H. Milford.

ICOMOS, V.C., 1964, May. International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites. In First developed at the 2nd International Congress of Architects and Technicians of Historic Monuments.

Jokilehto, J., 1996. International standards, principles and charters of conservation. Concerning Buildings, Studies in honour of Sir Bernard Feilden, Oxford: Butterworth− Heinemann, pp.55-81.

Jokilehto, J., 1999. Management of Sustainable Change in Historic Urban Areas. Conservation and Urban Sustainable Development, SM Zancheti, Ed. Recife, Brazil: Centro de Conservacao, pp.61-68.

Karadedos, G., 1984. Photogrammetry and Archaeology: A Case Study in the Archaeological Site of Philippoi in N. Greece.

Melucco Vaccaro, A., 1996. Introduction to Part III: The Emergence of Modern Conservation Theory. Historical and Philosophical Issues in the Conservation of Cultural Heritage, Los Ángeles, The Getty Conservation Institute, pp.202-211.

Silva, R., 1983, March. The significance of the Venice International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, with special reference to Eastern Countries. In International Congress on Architectural Conservation. First International Congress on Architectural Conservation. University of Baisle, Switzerland (pp. 10-13).

Sriramesh, K., 1992. Societal culture and public relations: Ethnographic evidence from India. Public Relations Review, 18(2), pp.201-211.

Thome, S., 1998. Ethical and representational issues in qualitative secondary analysis. Qualitative health research, 8(4), pp.547-555.

Warren J. 1996 Principles and Problems: Ethics and Aesthetics. In Marks St. (ed.) Concerning Buildings. Studies in Honour of Sir Bernard Feilden. Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 34-54.

Western, D., 2000. Conservation in a human-dominated world. Issues in Science and Technology, 16(3), pp.53-60.