From: robert.heuman@rose.com (robert heuman)
Subject: Restoration of Mexica
Organization: Rose Media Inc, Toronto, Ontario.
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 15:23:31 GMT
X-Gated-By: Usenet <==> RoseMail Gateway (v1.70)


Date Entered: 01-09-93 10:20
rbkatz@cc.bellcore.com (Bob Katz) asks:

Re: Restoration of Mexican Ruins

R> I know that it's possible that the differences in restoration technique in
R> different parts of Monte Alban could reflect a change in the construction
R> of the original structures.  But it's also possible that the change was
R> done for engineering or monetary reasons.  Is their goal to restore 
R> structures to the original, or is it to assemble them so that they're
R> somewhat similar to the original but can stand up to thousands of tourists
R> climbing all over them for years to come?

Both are involved.
1. Most of the larger structures evolved over time, and include 
several periods of existence in different forms.  One of the decisions 
that has to be made is WHICH of the specific constructions (layers) 
will be reconstructed.  If enough of the last has been destroyed over 
time, it might be best to reconstruct to the one immediately 
underneath.  In any event, the structure then has to handle the 
current traffic, which might result in a need to use more modern 
techniques in the underpinnings, as it were.  This is particularly 
true in earthquake zones.
 
R> I'd originally thought that restoring structures would involve mainly
R> removing debris and plants from ruins, shoring up the original stonework,
R> and replacing missing stones.  But I saw men disassembling ruins. Is it
R> true that the restoration work involves disassembling then re-assembling
R> structures?

The archeologist does not simply concern himself with the lastest 
stage of a structure. Working into the centre of a structure is taking 
steps back through time. A structure might turn out to be hunderds of 
years older in the smaller, buried, earliest stage, than in the next 
buried stage.  Therefore restoration without this prior examination 
would lose all of the historially important data that can be accrued 
through proper excavation, and is almost never undertaken.  Clearing 
the surface debris, or trees and dirt might occur, but if so, the 
remaining structure would not be touched normally, but left exposed 
until such time as a proper archeological excavation can be 
undertaken.  The main exception to this is the need to rebury under 
dirt ancient artwork that would deteriorate from either sunlight or 
acidic air conditions.  That has occurred on occasion, as the 
alternative would be an immediate archeological excavation; impossible 
if the funds or knowledgable individuals are not available at the 
time.
 
R> In the restoration work, what steps are taken to ensure that the basic
R> architecture of the restored structures are like those of the original? 
R> From seeing unrestored structures, it seemed that it could be difficult to
R> tell the exact details of the original structures.  How much artistic
R> license is granted to the people who do the restoration work?

Usually as little license as possible is taken. The only question is 
which structure to restore, in a structure that might have had 10 
constructions, each on top of the prior one, and in some cases with 
blurring of the differences between two successive layers.

PS. There are several archeological tomes that touch on this topic 
fairly well, even if not specific to the Monte Alban, etc. sites you 
visited in Oxa, Mex.

R.S. (Bob) Heuman <robert.heuman@rose.com>

---
   RoseReader 1.70 P001886: This Canadian has an Opinion...His Own!
   RoseMail 2.00 : RoseNet<=>Usenet Gateway : Rose Media 416-733-2285