Preserving a Monument: The Example of the Parthenon by Lena Lambrinou

8/10/2019 Preserving a Monument: The Example of the Parthenon by Lena Lambrinou

1/15

W. S. Maney & Son Ltd 2010 DOI 10.1179/175355210X12791900195142

conservation and mgmt of arch. sites, Vol. 12 No. 1, March, 2010, 6074

Preserving a Monument: The Example

of the Parthenon

Lena Lambrinou

Acropolis Restoration Service, Athens, Greece

The preservation of architectural relics of the past developed as a science

mainly in the last century. The more a ruin is preserved, the more informa-tion it may provide about the past. Structural interventions on relics aim toimprove their state of preservation for the future, as well as to render theirshape more complete, for the overall purpose of safeguarding their historicalinformation. Over the course of past decades interventions have undergonemany changes with respect to methodology, materials, and scope. Interven-tion in the name of preservation can be interpreted in various ways andquestions concerning the goals and nature of modern interventions havebecome particularly relevant. The current Parthenon Restoration Project,which differs in basic aspects from its predecessors, follows internationalguidelines for interventions, but remains distinctive for its extent as wellas its methods of execution. This paper discusses the theoretical approachunderlying the intervention and practical aspects of its methodology.

keywords Athens, Parthenon, authenticity, building conservation

Introduction

The Parthenons ingenious design and meticulous construction in the middle of

fifth century bcproduced a temple dedicated to Athena, patron goddess of Athens,possessing a complex use and symbolism that have long been subjects of scholarly

and public interest (Figure 1). This unique building withstood fluctuating historicaltides, but eventually suffered a disastrous fire in late antiquity, Roman repairs, and

conversion to a church and mosque before its final destruction in the late seventeenthcentury by a Venetian bombardment. A new era in the Parthenons existence began

in the early decades of the nineteenth century when a strong interest developed

in preserving the monument as a publicly exhibited ruin, a unique martyr ofGreek heritage, and a cherished national symbol for the newly founded Greek

state (Rangavis, 1837: 91). Intensive interventions subsequently undertaken on the

Parthenon were extensive and consequently led to the development of structuralproblems in the authentic material of the building. The renewed interventions of


2/15

61THE EXAMPLE OF THE PARTHENON

recent decades have aimed to prolong the life of the monument through updated, less

destructive methods and approaches.

The present-day aesthetic of Greco-Roman archaeological ruins is rooted within

the romantic perceptions of the European intelligentsia in the centuries after the

Renaissance. Sparked from philosophical beliefs in heritage and ancestral identity,

the notion of insuring the perdurability of an ancient structures original materials

eventually led to the rise of an entire science on the preservation of architectural

relics. Today, the central concern in interventions generally on ancient constructions

and particularly in anastylosis (the re-erection of ruins; the Athens Charter, 1931:art. 6) is how to deal with the discontinuity evident in their life-history and changing

physical condition. This paper attempts to provide perspective on imposed modern

interventions on the Parthenon, in light of their realization, and considers the princi-

ples and terminology behind the choices taken for the preservation of this significant

relic (Figure 2).

Buildings like the Parthenon have survived discontinuation of use, afterward

suffering multiple destructions and periods of abandonment at certain points in their

past. Ultimately, in their imperfect, ruined state they preserve a remote, tangible piece

of history. But an ancient structures past is like a series of separate snapshots, of

which today we see only the last image of the building in its final ruined state. Thento preserve a ruin in a state reflective of only one specific phase in its history amounts

figure 1 View of the Parthenon from the Propylaia.

Photograph: L. Lambrinou, 2008, ESMA Archive


3/15

62 LENA LAMBRINOU

to something between stage-craft and scholarly conservatism. In interventions, there-

fore, the question arises, which phase of an ancient buildings history are we going

to endorse and consolidate?

Further complicating efforts to preserve an important historic ruin is the

occasional inclination to refer back to some earlier phase when it existed in a more

complete form. Yet this earlier form perceived through the mists of time is not

necessarily an accurate reflection of an actual phase in the buildings appearance, even

though it is often presented in this way. Today, although reliance upon commonly

accepted regulations and procedures in anastylosis and other interventions leads toan a priori acceptance of methods or approaches concerning the extent and feasibility

of an intervention, they nevertheless remain under constant review and negotiation

between specialists who adhere to historical clarity and advocates of straightforward

comprehension of the buildings form.

Authenticity and respect for original materials

The principles of intervention for ancient monuments, recorded in international

agreements such as the Venice Charter (1964), are interpreted with relative flexibility

because of their formulation in generalities, an approach considered wise by some.As a result, their application on site is often shaped by particular cultural values and

figure 2 View of the Parthenon from the north-east.

Photograph: L. Lambrinou, 2007


4/15


constricted by practical possibilities. Beyond the relative freedom in the choices

granted to conservator-restorers, more recent conventions, such as the Nara Docu-

ment on Authenticity (1994), appear to give general approval to the significance of

authenticity, as perceived through collective cultural sentiment, and perhaps to

justify the taking of certain measures within specific cultural frameworks. The idea

of authenticity, or originalness (Petzet, 2004: 8), can span a multitude of meanings

and, as Lowenthal admits, [. . .] different criteria have been valued in different

epochs (1995: 124).

Authenticity traditionally conveys an absolute idea of the primordial material,

which represents the most valued quality of a tangible, genuine relic. Authenticity in

a ruin encourages the preservation of the ruins original fabric to the fullest extent

possible. In European culture, the insistence on material authenticity of the remains

of the past, according to Tomaszewski (2002: 215), can be traced back to a Christian

respect for saints remains. When an object or building is both materially authentic

and instilled with a cultural symbolism, it sustains its own retention. Therefore, in

the effort to save historically and culturally significant constructions by means of

conserving and exhibiting their remains, a convincing effort to preserve the authenti-

city of their materials is required. Retention of the authentic material is a principle

meant to insure that a ruin, such as the Parthenon, will continue into the future

to be a reliable historical source by allowing the reading of its history through the

traces left upon it by time.

Authenticity of the Ruins form

The incomplete form of the Parthenon and other ancient monuments becomesaccepted, despite any deficiency in their comprehensibility and lack of any practicaluse, through their promotion as exhibits. The philosophy behind this policy stemsfrom the idea that a ruin in its final state is also understood as a work of art tobe curated as something valuable unto itself (Bouras, 1996: 29). Ultimately, thisperception separates it from the basic value according to which it was originallyconstructed; that is, as an architectural design with a fully completed structure and apractical function. The attempt, then, to preserve the authenticity of the form of amonument is related less to its original design than to the form imposed on the build-ing through history (UNESCO, 1977: 9). What is authentic about old buildings, asLowenthal notes, can be construed as the whole sequence of changes endured over

time (Lowenthal, 1995: 129).The historically imposed form of a monument (Figure 4) is affected irreversibly by

any sort of reconstructive intervention that involves anastylosis and restoration afact that gives rise to scepticism concerning interventions (Orlandos, 1922: 97; Dima-kopoulos, 1994: 198). The filling in and resetting of sections of a building cannot helpbut subvert evidence for the process of its destruction and, consequently, distorts thearchaeological record. Yet the reversal of unfortunate historical developments, suchas the 1687 explosion that destroyed the Parthenon (Figure 3), has always been con-sidered a primary goal of interventions (Balanos, 1940: 10), one that places the valueof the historical evidence of the monument at a somewhat lower priority. This desire

is understandable since architectural relics become more immediately comprehensiblewhen they are more structurally complete. Filling in their form makes them function


5/15

64 LENA LAMBRINOU

positively in terms of being both more instructive and comprehensible to viewers

(Figure 5).

On the other hand, the restoration of only those parts of a monument that can be

reconstructed by locating and identifying the original ancient material yields a partialform that the monument very likely never had. Such partial restoration produces a

figure 4 The Parthenon in 1834 prior to any restoration, by C. Hansen.

Reproduced by kind permission of the Royal Library, Copenhagen

figure 3 The Parthenon in 1749 after the destruction of 1687 by a Venetian bombardment,

by R. Dalton.

Reproduced by kind permission of the Gennadius Library, American School of Classical

Studies at Athens


6/15


new construction within a subjective process of choosing what was the authentic form

of the monument. Thus, the idea to return a structure to an earlier condition, a

much promoted phrase found in the Burra Charter (1999: Definitions, arts 19, 20), is

not an accurate description of an intervention involving restoration and reconstruc-

tion of parts of the monument that depend on fortuitous survival of original mate-

rial. To return only portions of the building to an earlier morphological phase leads,

in fact, to a historically new form altogether. The artificial and accidental image

(Mallouchou, 1994: 191) which the ruin acquires as a result of the intervention does

not refer to any of the previous forms that the building had taken through its history,

but represents an historically and formally new image of questionable authenticity.

The irreversibility of reversibility

Another key term, reversibility, which we like to think defines our interventions,

appears to reinforce this contradictory approach to historical remains. A structural

intervention, like an archaeological excavation, cannot truly be reversed. An interven-

tion that proclaims its reversibility is using a term that probably understates the pro-

cedures being taken to reinforce the buildings structural elements. Such procedures

include those which intervene in the fabric of the ruins material in order to adapt

ancient fragments to a new construction required to meet the specifications of modernengineering. Perhaps this is why the term reversibility is not used in any of the

figure 5 The Parthenon after the early twentieth-centurys restorations of Balanos.

Photograph: E. Kolyvaki, 2000, ESMA Archive


7/15

66 LENA LAMBRINOU

older charters to describe structural interventions with the exception of the

Burra Charter even though it has always represented an important concern for

conservator-restorers.

A more realistic approach to the concept of reversibility exists in its alternative

interpretation as the possibility of renewed intervention (or repeated reparability;

Petzet, 2004). This interpretation, first offered by Otto Walter in 1922 (Walter, 1922

1923), championed the right to undo the intervention when it was found to have

omissions or errors. Interventions are then considered reversible since means are

chosen that will allow the buildings to be repaired in the future (Bouras, 1985a: 93).

In contemporary interventions, any perforation of original material, made to receive

thin, internal rod-reinforcements that connect ancient fragments, could be considered,

therefore although with understandable scepticism as a relatively reversible

procedure. The planting of metal reinforcements in the mass of an ancient fragment

(Figures 6, 7) can of course be undone by removing them in the future, but such an

intervention will have left its mark on the ancient material. Moreover, it will havedetermined to a great extent the way in which any future intervention can be made.

In the case of the Parthenon, then, even the intervention of Nikolaos Balanos1in the

first decades of the twentieth century, much criticized for its destructive procedures,

could be considered relatively reversible, since the monument is being repaired again

today (Figure 8).

Priorities in present interventions on the Parthenon

In the Parthenon, the policy for deciding on a course of intervention admits that

every action carried out to make the monument more easily understood is relativelydestructive much as in archaeological excavation. Priorities are reclassified

and comprehensibility of the whole is promoted over retaining intact the authentic

material of each structural member. Methods of intervention are chosen, however,

that will harm as little as possible the authentic material, in accordance with

todays criteria. This choice of least harmful methods is framed within the idea of

compatibility, as described in the Victoria Falls Charter (ICOMOS, 2003: art. 3.10).

Various degrees of compatibility exist, since, for example, each new material must be

assessed with regard to its suitability, based on its physical properties and potential

impact on the original material. An ideal new material is represented, then, by a

compatible, least-damaging substitute that serves to stabilize and supplement theoriginal material. For example, titanium, a stainless metal with properties similar to

marble under varying thermal conditions, is being used instead of iron for internal

reinforcements and clamps.

Decisions taken in approaching ancient monuments are indeed compromises made

in an effort to balance harm and benefit (ICOMOS, 2003: art. 1.7) with consideration

for both the essence and image of the buildings. It is often noted that such compro-

mises in the Parthenon were already made before the present-day intervention began

in the 1980s (Bouras, 1983: 708). The Parthenon with its reconstructed north colon-

nade and partly reconstructed cella represents a familiar image, thanks to previous

restorers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries especially Balanos. Themonument was significantly altered, as a result of their interventions, in an entirely


8/15


figures 6 and 7 Rod

reinforcements for the

connection of architrave

fragments from the north

colonnade of the Parthenon.

Photograph: L. Lambrinou,

2003, ESMA Archive


9/15

68 LENA LAMBRINOU

fortuitous form (Bouras, 1985b: 196). The primary criterion was aesthetic, to the

disadvantage of the historical and archaeological value of the building (Mallouchou,

1998: 230). The form of the building became more complete and aesthetically pleasing

(Figure 5), but at the cost of misplacement of architectural members and drastic,

ultimately destructive methods of restoration in contradiction with Balanosoriginally announced intensions (Balanos, 1940: 10).

Today, some might suggest that it would be more consistent with modern princi-

ples of conservation not to place the members restored by Balanos back on the

monument during the present structural intervention (even in their original positions)

so as to avoid further damage to the original material (Figure 9). Removal of internal

original material however minimal remains an unavoidable effect of any

contemporary intervention that employs reinforcement procedures. Yet, who would

have accepted so drastic a change or reversal in the universally known image of the

Parthenon (Figure 10)? The monument for the purpose of adhering literally topresent-day principles of anastylosis would have been deprived of a significant part

of its material being. Furthermore, its comprehensibility would have suffered greatly

in comparison with its previous form.

Planning of interventions through theoretical modellingProposals for contemporary interventions on ancient buildings that involve anastylo-

sis advocate adherence to the original construction as a basic argument for their

acceptance. Therefore, a highly detailed theoretical model of the ancient structures

original form must first be created, which 1) presupposes a complete understanding

of the structures shape; 2) clarifies the architectural canons; and 3) illuminatesconstructional solutions reached by the original architects and stonemasons. Only

figure 8 The present restoration of the north colonnade of the Parthenon.

Photograph: A. Kafourou, 2008, ESMA Archive


10/15


with this model in hand, which revives each of the steps by which the building wasoriginally created, can the structures believed original form be convincingly reconsti-

tuted and, most importantly, the nature and extent of partial deformations thataffected it through time be explained.

figure 9 Image of the Parthenon as it would look if Balanos restoration were not replaced

during the present intervention.

Digital representation by P. Kostantopoulos, 2009, ESMA Archive

figure 10 Image of the Parthenon as it will look after completion of the present restoration

of the north colonnade.

Digital representation by P. Kostantopoulos, 2007, ESMA Archive


11/15

70 LENA LAMBRINOU

Furthermore, a process of anastylosis on monuments such as the Parthenon, which

calls for architectural members to be placed again in their original positions, obliges

us also to consider the spatial nature of missing parts of the building. For restorers,

to deviate as little as possible from the originally conceived position of the architec-

tural members remains a constant challenge, whose outcome is difficult to monitor.

The ancient structure in question is not in its original condition, due to its distortion

and the disappearance of some of its parts. These changes the structure has undergone

during its history have left their mark in the greater or lesser metamorphosis of its

shape, and often in considerable displacement of its in situparts.

Displacement and weathering in the ParthenonDisplacement of architectural elements within ancient structures is caused by natural

actions, such as earthquakes, and man-made actions, especially warfare. The Parthe-

non has suffered from both these kinds of actions (Figure 11). On the Acropolis a

debate continues today concerning how much of the structures displacement is due

to ancient seismic activity and how much to the massive fire of the third century bc

or the 1687 Venetian bombardment which caused the buildings final destruction.

Whatever the causes of displacement might be, however, questions must be addressed

concerning how to deal with it while restoring the building. For example, in resetting

the architectural members, should corrections be made, or should the displacement

of the ancient structure be left intact during the intervention? The answer is not clear,

figure 11 Displacement of

drums of the south colonnade

of the Parthenon due to

seismic action.

Photograph: L. Lambrinou,2004


12/15


really. In the case of the Parthenon, the monument is extraordinarily well preserved

in its sections that remain in situ. Visible distortions, block-shifting, and opening of

the joints within these areas are in the order of only a few millimetres in some

cases a few centimetres, at the most. These disfigurations are often noted only because

of the buildings perceived perfection. The present intervention on the Parthenon

accepts the structures overall distortion and individual displacements, and interposes

the new form accordingly. This acceptance demonstrates a respect for the historical

course of the building, as well as a practicality from a constructional standpoint.

The intervention minimizes interference with original material that remains in situ.

Moreover, the aim of the present intervention is to repair and replace the damaging

restorations made by Balanos, and not to correct deformations of the ancient

construction that pose no danger to its collapse.

Replacement of original sculptures with copies

Todays intervention on the Parthenon addresses not only the buildings architecture,but also its sculptural decoration for which a decision was taken to replace the

monuments original sculptures with copies (Figure 12). This policy of removal was

based on the idea that the artistic value of the sculptural parts was more important

than the integrity of the monument. Despite strong, understandable disagreements

figure 12 The replacement of the west part of the frieze of the Parthenon with copies (2004)

the original is now exhibited in the New Acropolis Museum.Photograph: L. Lambrinou, 2009


13/15

72 LENA LAMBRINOU

from the beginning of this policy, the measure was considered an important, tempo-

rary means of rescuing the monuments most affected sculptural elements from severe

atmospheric pollution (Bouras, 1983: 700), in accordance with the Venice Charter

(1964: art. 8). The disagreements concerning the dismantling were related to the

reduction of the buildings artistic and cultural value (Dontas, 1996: 18), and to dis-

turbance of in situareas that had previously been left intact. This policy has recently

undergone renewed consideration, however, based on the argument that most of the

sculptural parts that still remain in undisturbed areas of the monument have suffered

irreparable damage and have lost nearly all their artistic value. For example, most of

the metopes of the west side, due either to ancient events or modern atmospheric

pollution, no longer exhibit any recognizable decoration. Their retention on the mon-

ument is therefore considered a preferable solution so as to avoid further disturbance

through their dismantling and removal (YSMA, 2008).

Conclusion

Much has been learned at the Parthenon since the present intervention began in the

1980s. However, by employing new methods to monitor the interventions structural

results through experimental testing and mathematical, computer-based simulations,

we strive today to formulate approaches that are even more compatible with the

ancient structure. Policies concerning interventions on ancient monuments like the

Parthenon clearly should be adjusted according to particular circumstances, even

within the same monument. Debates concerning the best form of intervention, which

arise from a sincere desire to preserve the ancient monument, reflect the diverse

approaches of the different specialists involved, including architects, engineers, histo-rians, and archaeologists. In Athens and elsewhere these debates produce a healthy

exchange of ideas that insures ancient ruins will continue to be both important

historical documents and cherished relics of the past.

iron bars, Balanos managed to solve the static prob-

lems of the re-erection of the buildings heavy, frag-

mentary marble members. The materials Balanos

chose betrayed him, however, since the industrial

iron reinforcements he used were easily corroded

and provoked serious cracking in the ancient mate-

rials and general decay of the buildings restored

areas.

Bibliography

Athens Charter. 1931. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome: ICOMOS, pp. 3132.

Balanos, . 1940. [The Anastylosis of the Acropolis Monuments].

Athens: . .

Bouras, Ch. 1983. The Aims and Principles of the Proposed Operation on the Parthenon.

[Study for the restoration of the Parthenon]. Athens: ,

pp. 690707.

Note1 Balanos, a civil engineer who undertook the restora-

tion of the Parthenon between 1898 and 1933, trans-

formed the ruins appearance by placing on the

monument much of its scattered material identifiedon the ground. Using innovative materials, such as

reinforced concrete, and extensive excision of origi-

nal material for the insertion of internal, connective


14/15


Bouras, Ch. 1985a. The Problems of Conserving the Parthenon and the Possibilities of Improving the Value of the

Monument. The Principles Which Will Guide the Operation. Proceedings of the Second International Meeting

for the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments, Parthenon, Athens 1214 September 1983. Athens: CCAM,

Ministry of Culture and Sciences, pp. 8695.

Bouras, Ch. 1985b. Discussion. Proceedings of the Second International Meeting for the Restoration of the

Acropolis Monuments, Parthenon, Athens 1214 September 1983. Athens: CCAM, Ministry of Culture andSciences, pp. 19597.

Bouras, Ch. 1996. . [The Monuments of the Antiquity. The

Limits of the Interventions]. 37, 1996, [The Greek Restorations]. Athens:

, pp. 2430.

Burra Charter. 19791999. Definitions. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome:

ICOMOS, pp. 6369.

Dimakopoulos, J. 1994. CCAM Questionnaire. Acropolis Restoration; The CCAM Interventions. London:

Academy Editions, pp. 19798.

Dontas, G. S. 1996. . 37, 1996, [The Greek

Restorations]. Athens: , pp. 519.

ICOMOS. 2003. Victoria Falls Charter. Principles for the analysis, conservation and structural restoration of

architectural heritage. Rome: ICOMOS. [accessed 20 June 2010] Available at:

ICOMOS. 2004. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome: Icomos.

Lowenthal, D. 1995. Changing Criteria of Authenticity. Proceedings of Nara Conference on Authenticity. Japan:

UNESCO-Agency for cultural Affairs Japan-ICCROM-ICOMOS, pp. 12135.

Mallouchou, F. T. 1994. The International Debate; The Current Interventions; Viewpoints and Opinions.

Acropolis Restoration; The CCAM Interventions. London: Academy Editions, p. 191.

Mallouchou, F. T. 1998. , [The Restoration of the Ancient

Monuments in Modern Greece]. Athens: .

Nara Document on Authenticity. 1994. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome:

ICOMOS, pp. 118119.

Orlandos, A. 1922. Pro Parthenone.37, 1996, [The Greek Restorations]. Athens:

, pp. 97102.

Petzet, M. 2004. Principles of Preservation International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Paris:

Icomos, pp. 729.

Rangavis, A. R. 1837. [Synopsis of the Proceedings of

the Archaeological Society of Athens]. 37, 1996, [The Greek Restorations].

Athens: , pp. 9193.

Tomaszewski, A. 2002. Towards a Pluralistic Philosophy of Conservation. 13th Icomos General Assembly.

Madrid: Icomos, pp. 21215.

UNESCO. 1977. Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the World Heritage Convention. Paris:

UNESCO.

Venice Charter. 1964. International Charters for Restoration and Conservation. Rome: ICOMOS, pp. 3738.

YS. 2008. [Proceedings of the Committee for

the Restoration of the Acropolis Monuments]. Athens: 2008.

Walter, O. 19221923. Zur Frage des teiweisen Wiederaufbaues des Parthenon

[Proceedings of the Archaeological Review]. Athens: ,

pp. 5055.

Notes on contributor

Lena Lambrinou gained a BS in Architecture at the National Technical University of

Athens in 1989, followed by a BA in Archaeology and Art History at the NationalCappodistrian University of Athens in 1994. She was awarded an MA in Building


15/15

74 LENA LAMBRINOU

Conservation by the University of York, Department of Archaeology, in 1998. She

has served as Team Architect on numerous excavations in Greece, and between 1995

and 1997 she also worked for the Athens Metro, for whom she supervised the

archaeological documentation of excavations in Central Athens. Presently she is

researching the future restoration of the West Wall of the Cella of the Parthenon and

overseeing the North Colonnade intervention on the Parthenon. She is writing her

doctoral dissertation on repairs made to the building during the third century bc.

Correspondence to: Lena Lambrinou, The Acropolis Restoration Service,

Polygnotou 10, 10555, Athens, Greece. Email: [email protected]

Preserving a Monument: The Example of the Parthenon by Lena Lambrinou

Documents

Transcript of Preserving a Monument: The Example of the Parthenon by Lena Lambrinou