Conservation Turn - Return to Conservation.

Paradigm Shift in Heritage

Conservation?
Published by Polistampa, 2012
ISBN 10: 8859610796 / ISBN 13: 9788859610793
Amra Hadimuhamedovi, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Commission to Preserve National Monuments,
International University of Sarajevo

The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage in view of our under-

standing of its permanence and mutability

If every second of our lives recurs and infinite number of times,

we are nailed to eternity as Jesus Christ was nailed to the cross.
It is a terrifying prospect. In the world of eternal return the
weight of unbearable responsibility lies heavy on every move we
make. That is why Nietzsche called the idea of eternal return the
heaviest of burdens (das schwerste Gewicht). []
But is heaviness truly deplorable and lightness splendid?1

1. Introduction

The question of the idea of eternal return which is crystallized in the process of recon-
struction of cultural heritage is alive again. The questions of both destruction and recon-
struction challenge the cultural heritage paradigm all over the world again imposing the
knowledge of symbolism against the language of existentialism. The understanding of the
heritage as a product of relations expressed by formula such as: Intellectus stabilizes
Natura, Natura vivifies Intellectus. Spiritus informs Materia, Materia captures Spiritus2
forms the new principles based upon indestructible bonds of visible and invisible, tangible
and intangible. These bonds might be a new challenge to the existentialistic label to the
foundation of the modern concept of heritage in Europe authenticity.
Though this paper does not aspire to resolve this puzzling question, which is raised on
a regular basis, it may not come amiss to note that, in the overall reception of the heritage,
there are two processes constituting extremely powerful tools for exercising Orwellian
control over the past from the present. These two processes, which are interconnected,
chronologically determined and opposite, are the destruction and the reconstruction of
the heritage. The ideological charge given to the heritage through the initiation of these
processes, and the frequent victory of collective emotion over rational justification, make
both destruction and reconstruction equally drastic in their entirely different ways. Yet
such drastic steps are wholly contrary to the very nature of the cultural heritage, which is
characterized by the passage of time, permanence and gradual accumulation.
While destruction sits straightforwardly in the context of the history of heritage pro-
tection as the rationale for establishing the discipline, reconstruction is a complex phe-

1 Kundera, Milan. The unbearable lightness of being, translated by Michael Henry Heim. New York:

Harper & Row Publishers, 1984, pp. 4-5.

2 Stoddart, William. Remembering in a World of Forgetting: Thoughts on Tradition and Postmodernism.

Bloomington, Usa: World Wisdom, 2008, p. 70.

226 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

nomenon, its significance becoming problematic, in particular as regards the key cate-
gories fundamental to heritage science: authenticity and identity, which compose the the-
oretical stronghold reinforced by European twentieth century existentialism and phe-
nomenology. One possible definition of the ideal of reconstruction is to preserve authen-
ticity and identity through identicalness.
However, the many expressions of reconstruction and the way it has been intro-
duced into the field of heritage interpretation make reconstruction both complex and pol-
ysemic; there are times when it is a desirable and justifiable method of preserving cultural
memory, in particular of historical and documentary values, but in some instances it is a
way of distorting or reshaping memory. In her writings on reconstruction in Russia,
Natalia Dushkina even documents cases where reconstruction is a direct means of
destroying heritage.3

2. Contemporary relevance: Reconstruction of Architectural Heritage in View of its Perma-

nence and Mutability

The wider view of the on-going reconstruction of the heritage around the world, whether
by social change, natural disasters or war, and also by a shift away from a Eurocentric view
of heritage, led to the reconstruction of architectural heritage becoming the focus of much
theoretical debate and doctrinal determination at the turn of the 20th century, and in par-
ticular following the adoption of the Nara Document in 1994. Reconstruction has
become one of the issues shaping the new concept of conservation, which Andrzej
Tomaszewski calls pluralist-universal conservation philosophy in his paper Towards a
Pluralistic Philosophy of Conservation.4
Though many theoreticians are preoccupied by the issue of reconstruction, the man-
ner in which the current reconstruction boom is addressed by Natalia Dushkina,5 Roman
Andras6 and Michael Petzet7 is not to be missed. Even more authors are dealing with post-
war reconstruction, given the political and social importance accorded to the heritage in

3 Dushkina, Natalia. Reconstruction and its interpretation in Russia - 2. In: 15th ICOMOS General Assem-

bly and International Symposium Monuments and sites in their setting - conserving cultural heritage in
changing townscapes and landscapes, 17-21 Oct. 2005, Xian, China. In: <http://www.international.icomos.
org/xian2005/papers/2-12.pdf>, date accessed 19/02/2011.
4 Tomaszewski, Andrzej. Towards a Pluralistic Philosophy of Conservation. In: Strategies for the Worlds Cul-

tural Heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices and perspectives. Proceedings of Interna-
tional Scientific Symposium, Madrid, 2009. In: <http://www.international.icomos.org/madrid2002/act-
as/index.html>, date accessed 19/02/2011.
5 Dushkina, Natalia. Historical Authenticity. In: Harris, Edmund, ed. Moscow Heritage at Crisis Point.

MAPS and Save Europes Heritage. Moscow: 2009; Dushkina, Natalia. Historic Reconstruction prospects for
heritage preservation or metamorphosis of theory. In: Nicholas Stanley Price and Joseph King, eds. Conserving
the Authentic: essays in honour of Jukka Jokilehto. Roma: ICCROM, 2009.
6 Andras, Roman. Reconstruction - from the Venice Charter to the Charter of Krakow 2000. In: Strategies for

the Worlds Cultural Heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices and perspectives, Proceed-
ings of International Scientific Symposium, Madrid, 2009. In: <http://www.international.icomos.org/
madrid2002/actas/index.html>, date accessed 19/02/2011.
7 Petzet, Michael. Principles of Monument Conservation / Principes de la Conservation des Monuments

Historiques. In: ICOMOS-Hefte des Deutschen Nationalkomitees, vol. XXX. Munich: 1999, pp. 43-44.
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 227

the international peace treaties following the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo and, later, in
Iraq, Afghanistan, Cambodia and elsewhere.
The most stable credos in academic architectural conservation such as monument is the
embodiment of a linear conception of time that is based on the uniqueness of form and
substance8 that are deeply rooted in the existentialism as a philosophical context of
Venice Charter have become questionable in modern times. Existentialism says existence
precedes essence. [] which, from Platos time on, has said that essentia precedes existentia.9
In the world of today, the complexity of every issue is greatly exacerbated by the pre-
vailing fear of terrorist attacks. As has already been amply demonstrated, heritage is
invariably a symbol of pride in the supreme achievements of a given community, and its
destruction is therefore the most effective means of disrupting, denigrating or destroying
that community. It is important, therefore, to be prepared for possible terrorist action
designed to destroy monuments, and even for the possibility that the worlds most impor-
tant built heritage may be destroyed. There are many and complex institutions engaged in
preventing terrorist attacks or mitigating their consequences when they occur. One
response to the question of how to protect the heritage from destruction by terrorists is
proposed in a working paper by the Institute for Empirical Research in Economics of the
University of Zurich:

Despite huge military and police outlays, terrorist attacks on important monuments can
hardly be avoided. We argue that an effective strategy to discourage terrorist attacks on iconic
monuments is for a government to show a firm commitment to swift reconstruction.10

This possible role of reconstruction also requires that the limits be defined within
which the reconstruction of built heritage is possible.
International instruments provide many definitions of reconstruction, all of them
retaining the original meaning of the word re-construction, rebuilding. The authors of
the Riga Charter give the following definition: evocation, interpretation, restoration
or replication of a previous form.11 This definition may be taken equally to indicate four
possible technical methodological approaches or four possible goals of reconstruction
The Burra Charter (Burra, 1988 and 1999) defines reconstruction in these terms:
Reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state and is distinguished from
restoration by the introduction of new material into the fabric.
The Appleton Charter for the Protection and Enhancement of the Built Environ-
ment (Ottawa, 1983), describes reconstruction as recreation of vanished or irreversibly
deteriorated resources. The Krakow Charter (Kracow, 2000) also sets out the condi-

8 Dushkina, Natalia. Reconstruction and its interpretation in Russia, cit.

9 Heidegger, Martin. Letter on Humanism. In: Basic Writings: Nine Key Essays, plus the Introduction to
Being and Time, trans. David Farrell Krell. London: Routledge, 1978, p. 208.
10 Frey, Bruno S. and Rohner, Dominic. Protecting Cultural Monuments Against Terrorism. Working Paper

No. 257, Working Paper Series ISSN 1424-0459. Zurich: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics Uni-
versity of Zurich, 2005.
11 Stovel, Herb. Conference Report on the Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Reconstruction

in Relationship to Cultural Heritage. In: Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites, vol. 4,
2001, pp. 239-240.
228 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

Fig. 1. Remains of Ferhadija Mosque (1579) in Banja Luka excavated in 2006 at the local damping site, one
of the several locations where fragments had been discarded to after the destruction on May 6-7 1993 (Photo:
Commission to Preserve National Monuments).

tions for reconstruction, and reconstruction features as a term and a method of heritage
preservation in a number of Council of Europe resolutions.
These three definitions complement one another in the quest for a comprehensive def-
inition of reconstruction the Riga Charter gives a precise yet broad definition of
reconstruction as a general approach, covering a range of methods; the Burra Charter
excludes evocation and interpretation; and the Appleton Charters broad, even open-
ended or imprecise definition allows for further speculation The Riga Charter makes no
reference to the important technical method of reconstruction known as anastylosis or
recomposition (which is defined as reconstruction in the Venice Charter), but in the
wider sense this is a method that may be seen as restoration.
These definitions are further developed in an English national doctrinal document
entitled English Heritage Policy Statement on Restoration, Reconstruction, and Spec-
ulative Recreation of Archaeological Sites including Ruins.
Each of these documents gives a definition of reconstruction and provides guidelines
for its application, but ambiguities remain, such as: when is reconstruction necessary;
when is it unacceptable; what exactly does the introduction of new materials mean what
new materials are acceptable and to what extent; whether a reconstructed work constitutes
heritage; and how to categorize a reconstructed work that does not meet the criteria for
being treated as a monument.
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 229

3. Classification of the reconstruction of architectural heritage

Linking our understanding of reconstruction with the reception of the heritage is the
most challenging and most important theoretical method of evaluating reconstruction in
a methodological approach to heritage preservation. Without going in detail into the his-
tory of heritage reception, we suggest some of the epistemological bases for determining
when reconstruction may be acceptable.
The reconstruction of lost forms is a way of maintaining the heritage when, for
example, that heritage is based on an understanding of its religious significance. However,
reconstruction cannot be justified when heritage is interpreted purely as a work of art, for
neither artistic inspiration nor the unique nature of the creative moment can be repeated.
Heritage that is a social factor, seen by the community either as the expression of onto-
logical values or as a means of preserving social patterns, is recognized and affirmed as
such when at risk of loss or destruction. The need to restore the ontological values of cer-
tain places or to re-establish social patterns that have been destroyed so that they may be
perpetuated has been the most common occasion of reconstruction over the centuries. In
this sense, in its broadest definition, reconstruction is a method of preserving cultural
memory or human rights.
These days, reconstruction is also increasingly a means of ensuring market competi-
tiveness by enhancing the attractions of certain places so as to develop tourism. Recon-
struction that places heritage on the market, thereby making it a generator of market cap-
ital, adds new values to the heritage, values that are not inherent, on account of which
heritage preservation has often been contested as a brake on development. Heritage
reconstruction as part of according market value, particularly for the purpose of presen-
tation and interpretation, or by making replicas in so called open-air museums, carries the
risk of trivializing its other values and meanings. This type of simulation or replication of
the heritage cannot be regarded as heritage itself, but as a means of its interpretation.
Based on the principles of both the natural and the social order, reconstruction man-
ifests itself as a response to destruction in its various forms, it is the expression of the
urge to restore one or more destroyed symbolic or social values with the aim of preserv-
ing factors of identity under threat, townscapes or works of major artistic importance.
This kind of reconstruction may be seen as a means of preserving historic townscapes.
A classification of reconstruction may be proposed based on the social impulses dictat-
ing reconstruction and the reception of the heritage, thereby underlining its lack of homo-
geneity and showing that it cannot be isolated from its geographical and temporal context.
In full agreement with the assertion that this typological classification, like all typologies,
carries with it the risk of dehistoricization and may misdirect explanation by disregarding
context-related facts, the typology that follows is by way of guidelines designed to system-
atize the findings of research into reconstruction, and is not intended to provide rigid cat-
egories.
It will often be reiterated that not one of the typologies given here is a classification of
phenomena or subjects into a closed, strictly defined aggregate or cluster. This paper
proposes three typological series of reconstruction based on three criteria. The first is the
reception of the heritage a certain type of reconstruction reflects a certain reception of the
heritage; the second is the reason for the disappearance of the property that is the subject
of reconstruction; and the third covers the methods and techniques used in reconstruction.
230 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

1. The types of reconstruction that reflect the reception of the heritage are: reconstruc-
tion-ritual; traditional reconstruction-maintenance; the reconstruction of the spatial
context; the (re)construction of identity; reconstruction for the purpose of ideologi-
cal imposition; reconstruction for the purpose of political legitimization; experimen-
tal reconstruction; and interpretative reconstruction.
It is rare for only one of these impulses to be present as in every other classification,
a combination of types may be identified, either at the outset or in a later view of the
purpose of the reconstructed work. From the point of view of the definition of her-
itage, the following types of reconstruction may be regarded as acceptable: recon-
struction-ritual; traditional reconstruction performed through maintenance of intan-
gible values of the constructing skills and secrets; the reconstruction of the spatial con-
text; and the (re)construction of identity.
2. Reconstruction may also be classified on the basis of the reasons for the destruction of
the building or group of buildings that are the subject of reconstruction: dilapidation;
natural or other disaster (fire, earthquake, flood, explosion etc.); exclusivist political
programmes (terrorism, government decision, war); development, the construction of
new buildings; any of the above as the reason for the loss in the remote past of a build-
ing which, with the passage of time, becomes wholly or partly buried by soil, covered
by water, or the like. It is in no doubt that in addition to meeting other criteria, the
full documentation of the building to be reconstructed is a distinct criterion, and that
reconstruction is admissible when the causes of its destruction are natural or other dis-
aster (fire, earthquake, flood, explosion etc) or exclusivist political programmes (ter-
rorism, government decision, war).
3. A classification based on the application of technical solutions and methods would be:
recomposition (anastylosis); repristination; re-creation (simulation/simulacrum); re-
restoration (anapaleosis in Greek doctrine); replication; volumetric reconstruction; vir-
tual reconstruction. It is important to note that the elements from this classification
are the most often subject of discussion due to the fact that they are directly related to
the issue of material authenticity. The core significance of the authenticity of material
is however challenged in through numerous cases listed in the classifications based on
the reception of the monument as well as on the reason of its destruction.
It could also be said that some types from a certain typological series correspond to
types from another.
Since technical solutions are a direct professional response to the demands of recon-
struction, the selection of a technical solution should include a definition of the limits to
any changes to the authenticity and identity of the building that is the subject of recon-
struction. The conventional definition of each type of reconstruction within this typo-
logical series is a prerequisite for determining ones view of the acceptability of a techni-
cal solution from the perspective of heritage preservation. The definitions given in this
paper constitute one possible approach to conventionalization, and are based on the fol-
lowing key criteria: the material used in reconstruction; the site of the reconstructed
building; the form of the reconstructed building; the dimensions of the reconstructed
building; and the degree to which the reconstructed building is identical to the original.
Recomposition (anastylosis) entails using original material with a view to recon-
structing the building on the same site, in the same form and of the same size as the orig-
inal, to the extent that this is possible using the original material.
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 231

Fig. 2. Old Bridge in Mostar (1557-1566) destroyed on November 9th, 1993, reconstruction completed in
2004, inscribed in World Heritage List in 2005 (photo: Commission to Preserve National Monuments).

Fig. 3. The site of arijska Mosque (1519) in Stolac, destroyed in summer 1993; clearing the site, collect-
ing the fragments and reconstruction started in August 2001 (Photo: Amra Hadzimuhamedovic, 2001).
232 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

Repristination is the reconstruction of a destroyed building using materials identical

to the original, on the same site, in the same form and of the same size as the original
the Bridge in Mostar (Figure 2), the Ferhadija Mosque in Banja Luka and the like.
Anastylosis and repristination may be combined (the Frauenkirche in Dresden, the
arijska Mosque in Stolac, etc.).

Re-creation (simulacrum) entails the use of materials to create appearance, size and form
that may be assumed to be original. Simulacrum is not based on the full documentation of
the original building, but on research, allowing for assumptions concerning the original,
in whole or in part; a simulacrum may be, but is not necessarily, on the original site. Sim-
ulacrum is often used for the purpose of interpretation or experiment, but also increasingly
features as a means of ideological embellishment or of altering the actuality of an imagined
form from the past - the Church of Christ the Saviour in Banja Luka, the Church of St.
Panteleimon in Ohrid (Figure 4) for instance.

Re-restoration entails eliminating or disregarding the last known form of a building

and reconstructing an earlier known or assumed form through re-introduction of the
unity of style principles. Re-restoration may be simulacrum at the same time (the Church
of St. Panteleimon in Ohrid is an example).

Fig. 4. Church of St. Panteleimon (2000-2002), Ohrid, FYROM, constructed as a simulacrum in Byzantine style
of a church that is believed that had been constructed at the site of 16th century Imaret Mosque. Imaret Mosque
had been destroyed before the construction of simulacrum of the church started (Photo courtesy: Zoran Pavlov).
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 233

Replication entails the use of new material in imitation of the original, the re-cre-
ation of the original form of a building in its original or different dimensions (a
replica may be a miniature model of a building), usually on a new site. A replica may
include elements of simulacrum (the Getty Villa is both a replica and a simulacrum of
the Villa dei Papiri in Herculaneum, for example), but is usually derived from an exist-
ing building; a replica need not be based on a building that has been destroyed or lost
(examples of replicas include the Parthenon in Nashville, Nova Graanica in Trebinje,
Nova Graanica in Chicago, and the replica of the Bastille made from stone from the
destroyed fortress). Building replicas of existing buildings on other sites is a kind of
pseudosynonymy, a way of dismissing the uniqueness of every work of art.
Volumetric reconstruction is a method of restoring the urban morphology or phys-
ical structure of groups of buildings by constructing a contemporary suggestion of the
volumes of a destroyed building using entirely new material on the site of the original.
The choice of ways to suggest the volumes of the destroyed building the form of the
new structure depends on the designers grasp of the key features of the destroyed mon-
ument. New structures do not constitute built heritage, but serve to present and evoke
lost values and to preserve the historic townscape.
Virtual reconstruction is a graphic tool used to present a model of a destroyed
building. State-of-the-art technology makes it possible to use this method to reconstruct,
present and study the original forms of a lost building in a comprehensive, faithful and
reversible manner. Virtual reconstruction is an increasingly popular method of pre-
senting the original forms of an archaeological site (there are many examples, including
major projects involving the virtual reconstruction of Rome, Pompeii, and Second-Tem-
ple Jerusalem).
The list of methods given above with very sketchy and very risky definitions comes
here as a part of regular recollection on the issues that have been present for a long
period in the universal tradition of the humankind; sometimes we can testify that they
have been parallel with the events from the time immemorial. Why it is stressed by this
paper as a potential contribution to the clarification of the key question in the heritage
conservation doctrine the paradigm shift to remove the veil from myriads of faces of
heritage reconstruction? The question comes still in time when we are trying to find the
way out from the doctrine anchored by Venice Charter in all our theoretical and philo-
sophical safe havens.

4. Lessons on reconstruction from Bosnias experience at the end of the 20th century

The final section of this paper on reconstruction is derived from Bosnias experience
following the systematic destruction of the heritage in Bosnia during the 1992-1996 war.
The social significance of the heritage destroyed during the war in Bosnia is greater
than its physical manifestation. The notion of intangible heritage cultural memory is
more powerful than the material factors constituting the heritage. Establishing a frame-
work for the maintenance of both systematic and sustainable social development, based
on respect for human rights, can only be effected as part of a system for the preservation
of cultural memory. In societies exposed to such destruction, the reconstruction of the
heritage also constitutes the reconstruction of ones own identity and the restoration of the
234 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

context of cultural memory through which such a society may resist total destruction.
Heritage reconstruction ensures the survival of social patterns.
Reconstruct or forget that is the question that should be repeated in the case of
each and every destroyed property. The response to the question is invariably the prod-
uct of a study both of the monument and of the cultural, political and social circum-
stances in which reconstruction is being carried out. Reconstruction is one way of pre-
serving the heritage there is almost unanimous social and professional agreement on
this.
Reconstruction is in fact the interpretation of the significance of a building, designed
more to preserve its inner meaning, its intangible components, by recreating its physical
fabric. The choice of methods by which to recreate its material expression, and of the
extent and means by which the carcass will be re-imbued with intangible values, becomes
an extra layer of reading of the building, so that the reconstructed building reflects two
further stages in its overall existence destruction and reconstruction.
Reconstruction may be a way of preserving heritage, but it may also, simultane-
ously, be a way of falsifying history and of constructing a cultural memory dominated by
simple, elemental, desirable identities.
Bosnia and Herzegovinas experience of the reconstruction of destroyed heritage is
based on the following postulates:
Reconstruction is part of the relationship between the individual and his or her her-
itage;
Reconstruction is part of the relationship between the monument and the community;
Reconstruction contributes to the exercise of fundamental human rights;
Every fragment of a destroyed monument is itself a monument, for by surviving it
assumes the values of the destroyed property and the necessary degree of evidence of
its authenticity;
Reconstruction is a complex scientific and investigative procedure;
Transparent and legible methods of reconstruction make it possible to retain the
strata of destruction and restoration of the monument in the cultural memory,
thereby enabling one to recognize that the work has been reconstructed;
Reconstruction covers materials, techniques, forms, proportions, details and the
whole, but also the lost skills of building, of handling and finishing materials, as well
as relations within the community;
Reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina is of wide-ranging social and symbolic sig-
nificance from the perspective of human rights, the humanitarian response, and sus-
tainable development;
Reconstruction enables us to extend our knowledge of our own values and to restore
forgotten components of our identity, to raise awareness of a place and of the other
people and communities that occupy it, and to take responsibility for the heritage and
responsibility towards ourselves, as well as providing a sense of security and laying the
groundwork for an improved standard of living;
Reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina is part of the implementation of the
peace accord, and underpins the restoration of civic trust and social cohesion. Heritage
reconstruction attests to self-understanding and self-respect, since reconstruction
provides the material basis for preserving cultural memory. In Bosnia and Herzegov-
inas plural society, it also facilitates mutual trust and respect.
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 235

The restoration of the cultural heritage in Bosnia and Herzegovina is based on a response
to Agnes Hellers Whenever cultural memory enters into oblivion, a group of people dis-
appear.12
The reconstruction of the built heritage as a strategy of post-war reconstruction has
been established in Bosnia, with considerable collective intellectual effort being
opposed by strong advocates of the definition of the credo: We can only hand them on
in the full richness of their authenticity13, as it is stated in the preamble of the Venice
Charter.
Given that reconstruction is a key word in the post-war reconstruction of war-rav-
aged communities, shared criteria for the reconstruction of the architectural heritage
have been developed, with the awareness that the reconstruction of long-lost land-
marks of cultural memory is a global post-modern phenomenon, and bearing in mind
social needs, the value of the destroyed heritage system and the extent of destruction.
The eleven criteria that follow are a guide to preparatory work on the reconstruction for
each case and a tool for testing the integrity and validity of reconstruction. These
eleven criteria, though universally applicable and a potential instrument for determin-
ing whether reconstruction is acceptable, are just one contribution to the on-going
endeavour to ensure that reconstruction acquires its own normative definition in heritage
preservation theory, doctrine and practice or, in line with the title of this philosoph-
ical and theoretical re-examination of permanence and mutability within the disci-
pline of heritage preservation of legitimizing reconstruction as a method of heritage
protection, with precisely determined limits to the changes that make it possible to pre-
serve the meaning of the heritage.
Reconstruction that goes beyond these limits is not the concern of the discipline of
heritage preservation as long as it does not directly endanger the heritage, be it physically
or semantically.

5. Conclusion: Eleven criteria for the reconstruction of architectural heritage

5.1. Reconstruction of the value of heritage to society

This is a preliminary criterion, based on the requirement to determine whether recon-
struction is the product of the wishes and needs of the community; whether reconstruc-
tion is a response to issues of wider significance for the community, such as human rights,
identity, the preservation of cultural memory, the preservation of social patterns, a reflec-
tion of the ontological values of central homeland sites, the familiarity of the homeland,
etc. This criterion sets the context for the selection of the lost heritage that can be
reconstructed only heritage that has been destroyed by violence or suddenly lost may be
reconstructed.

12 Quoted verbatim from <http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/ipg/ipg-2001-2/artheller.pdf>, date accessed

21st February 2011.

13 Venice Charter, Preambule.
236 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

5.2. Reconstruction is permissible as the restoration of heritage destroyed by violence only when
it does not entail the violent destruction of existing values
A building may be reconstructed in its original form if it has been wholly or partly
destroyed and no building that has its own temporality has been erected on its site.

5.3. Integrated reconstruction the reconstruction of a building to preserve a group of buildings

The reconstruction of individual buildings or groups of buildings is justifiable when it
means the restoration of the urban fabric the recognizable spatial relations and seman-
tic and formal values that can be expressed only through the coherence of townscape,
structure and forms. In the wider context, therefore, every reconstruction of a given build-
ing means the restoration of the townscape. As part of an anthropological approach to our
understanding of space as a cultural setting or cultural landscape, the reconstruction of
components of the townscape that have been destroyed by war or natural disaster is essen-
tial if the town is to be preserved.

5.4. Reconstruction based on documentation

This criterion introduces a specific constraint only buildings for which thorough
research has been conducted and for which the materials of which they were built, their
structural solutions and details, architectural details and content have been accurately doc-
umented, can be reconstructed.

5.5. Complete reconstruction of the material expression and intangible meaning

This criterion requires a comprehensive knowledge of the building, its formal features and
inner meanings, including its symbolic meanings. The reconstruction of a building,
with the resulting re-establishment of the relationships of the living city, entails more than
just the reconstruction of the carcass, which can be described and justified on technical
grounds. Much more important, in fact, is the inner meaning to the community, retained
in memory even when the heritage no longer exists. The reconstruction of buildings thus
also entails the reconstruction of traditional skills and traditions associated with the
building and the establishment of a relationship between the community and the build-
ing even as it is being reconstructed. Incomplete reconstruction, or the omission of
decorations, murals or parts of the interior, may have a significant impact, altering the
entire meaning of the building. Reconstruction is thus a complex interaction between the
original builder and the renovators, in which the latter inscribe on the reconstructed
building their understanding of the values contained in the legacy of forms and meanings.

5.6. Presentation of the stratum of destruction

Reconstruction of war-damaged heritage should be recognizable as reconstruction as
form and content restored after the destruction of the building and not as some false or
unbroken continuity. The presentation of the event of destruction should be readable
both as an additional layer of meaning for the building, as historical and documentary tes-
timony, and as justification for its reconstruction. The presentation of its destruction may
include not only the reintegration of fragments of the original into the reconstructed
building but also the presentation of the original building and its destruction using var-
ious media in or alongside the reconstructed building, as well as the appropriate presen-
tation of fragments that were too badly damaged to be reused.
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 237

5.7. Use of traditional methods and techniques

This criterion resolves one of the most intractable dilemmas given the many advantages
provided by modern building methods and techniques, the conservator is invariably faced
with the question of whether to make use of these advantages or to study traditional
building methods and techniques for the purpose of reconstruction. In the light of the cri-
terion of complete reconstruction, it is important to reconstruct processes, skills and feel-
ings. A study of the techniques and methods employed when the monument was first
built is an essential part of the study of the building to be reconstructed. Meeting this cri-
terion sets clear limits to the extent of possible alterations to the buildings authenticity
in the reconstruction process. Authenticity may be altered only (1) if the original mate-
rials, details or method are unknown, in which case any changes must be readable and
documented; and (2) if it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the original construction
cannot ensure the buildings stability. In this latter case, the original design cannot be
altered, but can be reinforced or made safe by an additional, clearly identifiable and read-
able element, documented in detail.

5.8. Documented reconstruction

This is one of the most important criteria. Transparency, documentation and public access
to every stage of the research, design and construction during the process of reconstruc-
tion, every dilemma and the reasons for choosing the solutions to be applied are key to
understanding and according value to the reconstruction. Reconstruction is a research
project and a social enterprise, making it essential to publish all documents on the
reconstruction.

5.9. Reconstruction of a known form

Though heritage is essentially an expression of permanence, it also reflects the passage of
time, which gives rise to the mutability of parts of the building. Reconstruction entails
restoring a destroyed building to its complete state, with all its parts and details recon-
structed in known form to ensure the buildings readability, both in its permanence and
in its mutability. The reconstruction of the last known form is the safest way of ensuring
completeness, though this criterion does not strictly require the last known form to be
restored. When the reconstruction of an earlier known form would mean restoring a for-
gotten architectural element, or one that might be consigned to oblivion, which is
important for an understanding of its memory as a whole, it may be reconstructed, sub-
ject to an explanation of the choice of solution. This criterion makes it clear that the
reconstruction of assumed forms that might result in some imagined stylistic purity is
unacceptable.

5.10. Virtual reconstruction: a way of preserving cultural memory and the integrity of the
heritage
Whenever the criteria for documented or non-destructive reconstruction are not met, or
in the event of conflicting or overlapping identities, virtual reconstruction allows for a
hypothetical or factually-based representation of the different strata of the heritage. Vir-
tual reconstruction thus makes it possible to fill the gaps in the cultural memory of a
given community without damage to the visible strata of a given place.
238 PARADIGM SHIFT IN HERITAGE PROTECTION? - 2 Amra Hadimuhamedovic

5.11. Living heritage

The complexity of the reconstruction process means involving the criterion of the living
heritage in the solution of technical and substantive matters. Though all these criteria
make clear the requirement for reconstruction to be complete and based on solid docu-
mentation, it is also necessary to keep in mind the inevitable needs of our time for the
introduction of such services as electric lighting, fire prevention, climate control, toilet
blocks, ramps and lifts, audio and visual aids, in order to remove the obstacles to access-
ing the heritage by people with physical disabilities. Reconstruction as a method of her-
itage preservation may be carried out by applying a combination of methodological
procedures. Anastylosis is the preferred method, but wherever there are no surviving frag-
ments, or where fragments are too badly damaged to be reused, replication may be
resorted to. Whenever the original state of the building is not known, interpolation
becomes acceptable. The readability of these various procedures is important if recon-
struction is to be complete. Reconstruction must ensure not only that lost architectural
values of the destroyed monument are presented, but also that its essential permanence
in the community that is heir to the monument is secured. This means that the recon-
structed monument must bear the intangible meanings of the original building so as to
fulfil the criterion of complete reconstruction. Readability of the structure of the build-
ing is therefore subordinate to meeting the criterion of complete reconstruction.

Bibliography

Andras, Roman. Reconstruction - from the Venice Charter to the Charter of Krakow 2000. In:
Strategies for the Worlds Cultural Heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices
and perspectives, Proceedings of International Scientific Symposium, Madrid, 2009. In:
<http://www.international.icomos.org/madrid2002/actas/index.html>, date accessed
19/02/2011.
Dushkina, Natalia. Reconstruction and its interpretation in Russia - 2. In: 15th ICOMOS General
Assembly and International Symposium Monuments and sites in their setting - conserving
cultural heritage in changing townscapes and landscapes, 17th-21st Oct. 2005, Xian, China.
In: <http://www.international.icomos.org/xian2005/papers/2-12.pdf>, date accessed
19/02/2011.
Dushkina, Natalia. Historical Authenticity. In: Harris, Edmund, ed. Moscow Heritage at Crisis Point.
MAPS and Save Europes Heritage. Moscow: 2009.
Dushkina, Natalia. Historic Reconstruction prospects for heritage preservation or metamorphosis of
theory. In: Nicholas Stanley Price and Joseph King, eds. Conserving the Authentic: essays in hon-
our of Jukka Jokilehto. Roma: ICCROM, 2009.
Frey, Bruno S. and Rohner, Dominic. Protecting Cultural Monuments Against Terrorism. Working
Paper No. 257, Working Paper Series ISSN 1424-0459. Zurich: Institute for Empirical
Research in Economics University of Zurich, 2005.
Heidegger, Martin. Letter on Humanism. In: Basic Writings: Nine Key Essays, plus the Introduction
to Being and Time, trans. David Farrell Krell. London: Routledge, 1978.
Kundera, Milan. The unbearable lightness of being, translated by Michael Henry Heim. New
York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1984.
Petzet, Michael. Principles of Monument Conservation / Principes de la Conservation des Mon-
uments Historiques. In: ICOMOS-Hefte des Deutschen Nationalkomitees, vol. XXX. Munich:
1999, pp. 43-44.
The reconstruction of destroyed built heritage 239

Stoddart, William. Remembering in a World of Forgetting: Thoughts on Tradition and Postmodernism.

Bloomington, Usa: World Wisdom, 2008.
Stovel, Herb. Conference Report on the Riga Charter on Authenticity and Historical Recon-
struction in Relationship to Cultural Heritage. In: Conservation and Management of Archae-
ological Sites, vol. 4, 2001
Tomaszewski, Andrzej. Towards a Pluralistic Philosophy of Conservation. In: Strategies for the Worlds
Cultural Heritage. Preservation in a globalised world: principles, practices and perspectives. Pro-
ceedings of International Scientific Symposium, Madrid, 2009. In: <http://www.international.
icomos.org/madrid2002/actas/index.html>, date accessed 19/02/2011.