 |
 |
Earthquake 1934
Damaged roof of Keshav Narayan Chowk;
|
Degutale Temple
completely destroyed |
The
conservation of the palace compound had three aims: to repair all
damage, while at the same time preserving the building from the future
hazards of decay and destruction; to restore its historic design as far
as possible; and to keep to a minimum all the changes and additions
which were necessary for the building's new function as a museum.
Earthquakes and
Water
On the technical side, most of the damage to historical buildings in
Nepal results from water and earthquakes. Frequent and often devastating
earthquakes have taken their toll here and this was also the case at
Patan Darbar in 1934. Since modern conservation techniques were
introduced in Nepal, it has become standard practice to reinforce
historic masonry buildings with the help of hidden ring beams or
concrete slabs, in order to protect them against seismic risks. This
established practice was also followed in Patan.
The damage caused by
water, whether in the form of rain seeping through leaking roofs and
terraces or ground moisture rising in the masonry walls, is less
catastrophic, but still constitutes a permanent risk of deterioration
for structural.materials like timber and brick. To safeguard against
this, appropriate modern techniques have been introduced, such as
damp-proof barriers between foundations and walls, or the introduction
of water repellent membranes under the traditional clay-and-tile roofs.
These technical aspects
aside, it proved to be more difficult to deal with some of the
theoretical aspects of conservation, particularly when it came down to
the question of how much can be done with an old building: how far can
one intervene without changing its historic fabric and so-called
authenticity?
Authenticies and
Conjecture
Since the palace's outward appearance had undergone considerable visual
changes in recent times, one of the project's aims was to restore the
principal elevation and the main courtyard to their original and
historic design of 1734.
Restoration proved
difficult in the case of the four facades of the main courtyard, because
no drawings or photographs existed; also because restoration
"should stop at the point where conjecture begins", which is
one of the tenets of the Charter of Venice that has determined
international conservation principles since 1964. However, the
Charter’s eurocentric position has since been challenged from the
Asian standpoint.
More than thirty years
ago, before there was a Department of Archaeology in Nepal, the
Department of Road Construction was entrusted with the task of repairing
the building and adapting it to function as a large school. It was at
that time that the open balcony running around the whole courtyard
received a vertical wooden safety grill from floor to roof height, the
exposed bricks of the walls were covered in cement plaster with a false
'brick' rendering and the roofs were laid with modern factory tiles. All
these changes had some practical value, yet were of little aesthetic or
historical value.
It was not a hard
decision to remove the layer of concrete plaster from the walls to
reveal the old brick face underneath, or to replace the large industrial
tiles with handmade traditional ones, which are easily available from
demolition sites in Patan. However, with regard to the design of the
balcony and to some of the more recently introduced doors and windows,
one had to find out what was 'historically correct', by comparing
similar structures from the same period–that is “by conjecture”.
Since master craftsmen, long trained in this and other conservation
projects, could reproduce the historical designs and adornments without
difficulty, the front portion and the main courtyard of the palace now
look very much like the way they did some 200 years ago, even if some of
the elements and materials are no longer old and authentic.
The “contemporary
stamp” of our time
It should be noted that no-one (whether locals or foreign experts)
ever took issue with this conjectural approach, or seriously criticized
it, even though international conservation guidelines (e.g. the Charter
of Venice), and their ideological foundation in the theories of modern
(i.e. western) architecture, unanimously condemn what is called
"the falsification of historic evidence": no traditional
design is allowed, if it cannot be proved to be authentic; each
indispensable new component "must be distinct from the
architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp".
Applied thirty years later and in view of contemporary building in
Nepal, this dogmatic rule may well have justified a balcony of aluminum
and glass panels, and a galvanized tin roof.
Ironically enough, when
this doctrine was actually complied with (in the case of the
historically less important rear elevation, which dates from the 1930s),
the intention was misunderstood by some, who considered it inappropriate
to introduce clearly visible steel beams or roof trusses into such a
historical setting. This proves that heritage conservation can become an
ideological battlefield of beliefs and doctrines even in Nepal and the
practitioners of this art are often attacked by the public and by other
experts for being either too radical or far too conservative.
Adaptive Changes
Physical changes were necessary inside the historical building in
order to adapt it to its new function as a museum. By changing and
adding staircases, a more efficient circulation of visitors was
achieved; non-bearing partition walls were removed, traditional mud
floors were replaced with handmade terracotta tiles, and lime plaster
was used on the walls instead of the old mud plaster, which is beautiful
but too soft for the wear and tear of a museum.
|
