Conservation of Living Religious Heritage

121 Pages·2005·5.052 MB·English

by  Stovel, Stanley-Price, Killick

ICCROM 3
COnseRvatIOn
studIes
Conservation Living
of
Religious Heritage
ICCROM
3
COnseRvatIOn
studIes
Conservation Living
of
Religious Heritage
Papers from the ICCRoM 2003 forum
on Living Religious Heritage: conserving the sacred
Editors
Herb Stovel, Nicholas Stanley-Price, Robert Killick
ISBN 92-9077-189-5
© 2005 ICCROM
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
Via di San Michele, 13
00153
Rome, Italy
www.iccrom.org
Designed by Maxtudio, Rome
Printed by Ugo Quintily S.p.A.
Contents
Preface v
NICHOLAS StANLey-PRICe
introduction 1
HeRB StOVeL
1
Conserving built heritage in Maori communities 12
DeAN WHItINg
2 Christiansfeld: a religious heritage alive and well.
TwenTy-firsT cenTury influences on a laTe eighTeenTh-
early nineTeenTh cenTury Moravian seTTleMenT in DenMark 19
JøRgeN BøytLeR
3
the past is in the present
perspecTives in caring for BuDDhisT heriTage siTes in sri lanka 31
gAMINI WIJeSURIyA
4
the ise shrine and the Gion Festival
case sTuDies on The values anD auThenTiciTy of Japanese
inTangiBle living religious heriTage 44
NOBUkO INABA
5 A living religious shrine under siege
The nJelele shrine/king Mzilikazi’s grave anD conflicTing
DeManDs on The MaTopo hills area of ziMBaBwe 58
PAtHISA NyAtHI AND CHIef BIDI NDIWeNI
6
ISBN 92-9077-189-5 the challenges in reconciling the requirements of faith and
© 2005 ICCROM conservation in Mount Athos 67
International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property
JANIS CHAtzIgOgAS
Via di San Michele, 13
7
00153 Popular worship of the Most Holy trinity of Vallepietra,
Rome, Italy central italy
The TransforMaTion of TraDiTion anD The safeguarDing
www.iccrom.org of iMMaTerial culTural heriTage 74
PAOLA eLISABettA SIMeONI
Designed by Maxtudio, Rome
8
Printed by Ugo Quintily S.p.A. Conserving religious heritage within communities in Mexico 86
VALeRIe MAgAR
9
Collection management of islamic heritage in accordance
with the worldview and shari’ah of islam 94
AMIR H. zekRgOO AND MANDANA BARkeSHLI
10
the conservation of sacred materials in the israel Museum 102
MICHAeL MAggeN
11
religious heritage as a meeting point for dialogue 107
The caTheDral workshops experience
CRIStINA CARLO-SteLLA
Contributors 113

iv conservaTion of living religious heriTage
nIChOlas stanley-PRICe
Director-General
ICCROM
Preface
T
He ICCROM fORUM IS DeSIgNeD to promote discussion of key contemporary
scientific, technical and ethical issues in heritage conservation. It brings together invited
speakers from different backgrounds to discuss a theme identified by ICCROM as being
both topical and important for the better understanding of heritage conservation.
the first ICCROM forum of a new series was held on 20-22 October 2003, on the theme of
‘Living Religious Heritage: conserving the sacred’. It was held at the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
in the Palazzo Corsini in Rome. We are grateful to the Academy and especially to its then President,
Professor edoardo Vesentini, for allowing us to use its beautiful premises for the meeting.
the invited participants were leading professionals, scholars and managers with experience of
managing ‘Living Religious Heritage’ in different regions of the world and with respect to many of
its major faiths and traditions. they were asked to prepare papers in case study form, which were
circulated to all participants in advance of the forum. M. Jean-Louis Luxen (Culture, Heritage and
Development International (CHeDI), Brussels, and former Secretary-general of ICOMOS) was invited
to give a keynote address on the theme.
the present publication consists of papers submitted to the forum, extensively edited and revised
by the authors and editors. Many of the points made by M. Luxen in his keynote address have been
incorporated in the Introduction written by Herb Stovel. In addition to the authors of papers published
here, two other speakers made valuable contributions to the forum as speakers, discussants and
authors of pre-circulated papers: Sami M. Angawi (Amar Centre for Architectural Heritage, Jeddah,
Saudi Arabia) on the theme ‘Concept of universal balance and order: an integrated approach to reha-
bilitate and maintain traditional architecture in Makka’; and Mons. Ruperto Cruz Santos (Philippine
Pontifical College, Rome) who presented a case study of ‘Manila Cathedral: preserving the past,
anticipating the future’. the paper on Christiansfeld published here by Jorgen Boytler was presented
at the forum by Jorgen from, Mayor of Christiansfeld, who has been an energetic supporter of the
Christiansfeld conservation programme.
I am indebted to Herb Stovel (now Carleton University, Ottawa) for agreeing to take on the
organization of the forum, ably assisted by Britta Rudolff (now University of Mainz), and to both of
them for their commitment to ensuring the diversity and challenging nature of the issues discussed at it.
Many other members of the ICCROM staff made important contributions in planning and organizing
the event, and in participating in its proceedings as chairpersons and discussants. to them and to all
contributing authors I am deeply grateful.
preface v
vi conservaTion of living religious heriTage
[ ]
heRb stOvel
Introduction
T
He tOPIC CHOSeN fOR tHe ICCROM fORUM IN 2003 was ‘Living Religious
Heritage’. Implicitly, this choice suggests that ‘living religious heritage’ may differ from
other forms of heritage in some way, and that therefore its conservation might also be
subject to different considerations. In what ways might living religious heritage differ
from cultural heritage in general?
Several of the papers published here address this question. gamini Wijesuriya suggests that what
distinguishes religious heritage from secular heritage is its inherent ‘livingness’, that the religious
values carried by a stupa embodying the living Buddha, for example, can only be sustained by ongoing
processes of physical renewal of the stupa. In ensuring continuity of forms, in effect, ‘living’ heritage
values are being elevated above the more familiar ‘documentary’ or ‘historical’ heritage values. the
primary goal of conservation becomes continuity itself, based on processes of renewal that continually
‘revive the cultural meaning, significance… and symbolism attached to heritage’.
In turn, Nobuko Inaba notes that, while ‘living’ may be understood as the opposite of ‘dead’ and
refer to a place still in use, alternatively, it may be used to denote the presence of residents in settle-
ments on or near the site. Like Wijesuriya, she suggests that attention to the ‘living’ aspects of religious
heritage reflects efforts to go beyond the ‘material-oriented conservation practice of monumental
heritage’ and to give attention to ‘human-related/non-material aspects of heritage value and trying to
link with the surrounding societies and environments’. She further suggests, more provocatively, that
‘fruit from living heritage can be thought of traditional life before modernization and globalization’.
In fact, all religions have regularly had to confront change and modernity; what is different now
is the increasing pace of change, fed by improvements in electronic communication which permit ideas
that challenge and undermine religious beliefs to be communicated more quickly, and more widely,
than ever before.
the pace of change has undermined the strength of traditional belief systems to maintain their
place in secular societies, and has also increased tensions between multicultural societies which may
previously have lived in relative harmony. these forces have exacerbated extreme nationalism, and
polarized relations between and among religious groups, with heritage authorities seeking - often with
insufficient understanding of them - to fossilize or freeze various aspects of heritage in the name of
conservation.
taken to an extreme, cultural heritage may be used as a weapon in furthering the competing
claims of various faiths. Places and objects of perceived heritage value to two different faiths may be
demolished by the adherents of one faith in order to give ascendancy to the other. Such efforts may
result in the preservation or reconstruction of buildings selected to reflect favoured versions of history.
Jean-Louis Luxen noted in his introductory remarks on the occasion of the forum that ‘religious
inTroducTion 1
conviction contributes to the social cohesion of a community, giving it landmarks and self-confidence…
but that…the risk of excessive and chauvinistic assertion of identity, fed by fundamentalism, may lead
to the destruction of religious symbols’.
If, as it seems, living religious heritage does have characteristics that distinguish it from other forms
of heritage, how might its conservation also differ?
the effectiveness of conservation treatments depends on our ability to define clearly heritage
values and to design treatments around respect for the values. gamini Wijesuriya stresses the differ-
ences between ‘religious heritage’ and ‘heritage’ by noting that religious heritage has been born with
its values in place, while with other forms of heritage, we need time and distance to be able to ascribe
values to heritage (p. 31). these differences will cause the conservator to ask different questions in
defining heritage values in the two different situations: for religious heritage, what values are already
recognized by the religious community? for secular heritage, what process (involving whom?) will be
needed to define these values?
Nobuko Inaba further reminds us to focus on more than typological differences among heritage
properties in trying to improve care for religious heritage. She argues that we ought to treat religious
properties in a holistic manner, recognizing them ‘as a total expression of their host culture, combining
tangible (both immovable and movable) and intangible expressions of heritage together with the
natural/cultural landscape’ (p. 44). She notes that in many cases, clear typological distinctions are
neither possible nor useful, recognizing that religious forces are based on belief systems which have
been at ‘the core of our life’, and noting that ‘any form of living heritage is inseparable from the
frameworks of the religion or belief system of its society’.
Other factors are important in trying to define appropriate care for heritage. As several authors
note, religious heritage is perhaps the largest single category of heritage property to be found in most
countries around the world. Paradoxically, though, it is difficult – in a conservation world where
charters are commonplace – to find the kinds of modern rules or doctrinal texts that have so frequently
been developed for other aspects of heritage. In fact, in several jurisdictions, religious property is spe-
cifically exempted from legislation concerning heritage. But why the relative lack of guidelines and
charters? this may be due to a perception in the conservation world that responsibility for religious
heritage rests with the religious community or that the religious context is too sensitive for conserva-
tion professionals to treat with objectivity and fairness; or it may be due simply to a lack of systematic
attention to this type of heritage.
Where there has arisen a proposal to prepare doctrinal texts, as Janis Chatzigogas notes with
respect to the monasteries of Mount Athos, this has hitherto consisted of efforts to encourage the
resident monks themselves to debate a possible conservation charter. Hence, a general caution is
strongly evident among conservation professionals with regard to efforts to define general rules or
prescriptions which would reconcile the demands of faith with conservation goals.
A different approach to defining a role for conservation professionals was suggested by Jean-
Louis Luxen in querying the tension between the singular and the universal. He noted that some
religious properties may have universal appeal or outlook and some a kind of singular appeal. He
was referring to those properties linked to single communities, or even those where particular taboos

2 conservaTion of living religious heriTage
inhibit the sharing of knowledge and understanding with those outside the faith. In Luxen’s view, that
tension is best addressed through following UNeSCO’s goal of instituting dialogues among cultures by
‘promoting shared knowledge and reciprocal esteem that contribute towards peace among peoples’.
In summary, it is clear that encouraging dialogue among those involved rather than following pre-
scriptive codes of practice offers a more positive role to conservation professionals to play with regard
to living religious heritage. By defining both the needs of the religious community and those of the
conservation world, conservation professionals can help to identify options for reconciling needs, to
define good practice, and ultimately to build confidence and trust among all partners. the goal of the
ICCROM forum has been to bring together cases where this has been achieved or where the potential
for it evidently exists.
issues in reconciling faith and conservation
the primary challenge addressed by the forum was the reconciliation of faith and conservation require-
ments. In introducing the forum theme, the author identified six different contexts of interaction
between the two:
dealing wiTh changing liTurgical and funcTional needs
Changes in liturgy or the practice of worship may result in the need to alter the layouts of religious
buildings, to move altars or to change the focus of symbolic ceremonies. equally, changing functional
needs (improving the comfort of worshippers in cold or hot climates, for example) can place daunting
demands on historic structures and spaces that have long enjoyed a climate equilibrium.
the question for the forum to address was: how to maintain heritage values in the face of changing
needs of religious practice?
dealing wiTh The compeTing requiremenTs of co-exisTing faiThs
Reconciling faith with conservation is difficult when there are two or more faiths which hold sacred
a particular property but which cannot reconcile their own beliefs. Perhaps the most dramatic recent
example is the destruction by the Muslim taliban of the two Buddha figures at Bamiyan in Afghanistan,
effected only two years after a decree for the protection of all cultural heritage (including Bamiyan) had
been published by the taliban. the destruction by Hindus of a sixteenth century mosque at Ayodhya in
India provides another dramatic example, with both religious groups making claims based on mutually
exclusive interpretations of the archaeological evidence from the site. the Haram al-Sharif (or temple
Mount) in Jerusalem remains a flashpoint for conflict among Jewish, Muslim and Christian communi-
ties, leading to periodic violent confrontations and loss of life.
the question for the forum was: how to encourage support for shared use of such sites, and to
promote mutual understanding?
dealing wiTh flucTuaTing inTeresT in religion
History shows that interest in religion ebbs and flows with time; how can we anticipate and deal with
the consequences of such changes? In eastern europe, the Orthodox Church is reclaiming its traditional
role in society, lost during the seventy years of Soviet dominion in the region. Many religious buildings
inTroducTion 3