The Venice Charter under Review*

Cevat ErderAnkara, 1977

The explosion in the demands of contemporary society andtheir impingement on the historic environment have sparkedactivities, concem and controversy on the place of culturalheritage in the value systems of the twentieth century world.The Venice Charter was set forth as the comerstone ofinternational principles regarding the historic environmentbarely more than a decade ago. 11Iese very principles are nowunder vigorous criticism. The cause is clear; technologicalchange and concepts of the historic environment havemultiplied with such force that the Charter provides fewerand fewer answers to demands for guiding principles under

thesenewconditions.11Iesolution, however, isnotsoapparent.As camps form to press one view or another for inclusions,revisions and expansions 1 will make a radical proposai. Letus preserve the Venice Charter as an historic monument.

Abstract

The Venice Charter has provided a set of guiding principlesfor the protection of ,historic monuments and sites since itsadoption in 1964 at the Second International Congress ofArchitects and Technicians of Historic Monuments. Thatmeeting expanded and further advanced those concepts setforth in the Athens Charter of 1931 which had, in effect, 1edto the development of major institutions for internationalactivity in the cultural field.

ln recent years, increasing interest in the protection ofhistoric quarters and sites has led some experts to propose thatthe Venice Charter might weIl be expanded or changedfurther to :reflect the broader interests in historic conservationwhich have continued to emerge over the past decade.

The author discusses the pros and cons of this argumentby conducting a critical review of the Venice Charter in orderto point out why and in what respects the charter is noweffective and ineffective. After a general evaluation of thecharter, each article of the charter is exarnined through a set

of examples.ln conclusion the author states that the explosion in

contemporary activities and the growing interest inconservation make it difficult to write another charter whichwin be as comprehensive and effective as the Venice Charterhas been. Thus, he concludes that the Charter should bepreserved as it stands, as an historic monument itself. TheCharter' s approach in itself may represent a form of idealismwhichhas little place in a discipline.

The Background

When the International Congress of Architects andTechnicians ofHistoric Monuments met in Venice in 1964 to"review the Athens Charter, that Charter, accepted in 1931,was thirty-three years old. Only ten years have elapsed sincethe Venice Charter was prepared and proclaimed at themeeting but it is already under even more serious attack. lnfact, there are even proponents of changing the Charter

24

altogether. Consequently, a ne-w Charter was prepared on theoccasion of the. European Cultural heritage Year' which wasdirected to the members of the Council of Europe. Why is theVenice Charter considered inadequate? What factors haveproducedthis attaCk after such a short period of acceptance?This is the place to discuss them by reviewing the Charteritself.

The authors of the Venice Charter without a doubtperformed a tour de force at the time. Following the meetingmost countries incolporated its principles into their ownnationallaws and regulations: a significant indicator of wideapprobation. Recent reactions however show that the VeniceCharter does not completely meet the demands ofcontemporary society .

Proponents and critics ( opponents) of the Charter may begrouped in general into three separate camps. One defends theVenice Charter as it stands. ln this camp are also those whodefend the Charter with the condition that regional Chartersforman adjunctto the presentdocument. The second proposeschanging those articles which fail to meet current demandsand introducing supplementary articles to complete it. Thethird insists that a new charter be prepared to replace theVenice Charter altogether.

The Challenge to the Charter

What lies behind this controversy? Why does such a vocalmajority argue for change, favour updatingand want this tobe accomplished as speedily as possible? One reason may liein the Charter' s very success. The Venice Charter has beendisserninated and has become known on a scale that farsurpasses that experienced during the years following thepreparation of the Athens Charter.

International meetings bearwitness to the way the tendencyto conserve historic monuments has spread.

The Congress where the Venice Charter was developedrepresented only the second international meeting oftechnicians and architects concerned with historic monumentsfollowihg a flfSt meeting in Paris in 1957. After the Venicemeeting a series ofinternational andnational meetings focusedtheir attention on the historic environment and thus openedthe way to an increasingly rich, critical evaluation of theconcepts of the historic monument and their place incontemporary societies. One could compile a large cataloguelisting only those meetings organized by UNESCO, theresponsible organ of the U~ted Nations in this area, as wellasregional;national, local orprivate groups.ICOMOS formedas a result of the Venice meeting and encompassing 57member countries, has playeda particularly central role in allthese meetings. ICOMOS possesses virtually no budget of itsown, but nevertheless has performed a catalytic function. Itsgrowth and influence itself warrant close evaluation.

The compass, intensity of work, and diversity qf thesemeetings have already reached far beyond the principles ofthe Vellice Charter. It is probable that much of the insistenceon change has originated in these meetings. Earlier, Europeancountries formed the core of these activities but today in termsof the number of p'articipants, interest, and actual workundertaken the compass has spread fàr beyond Europe. Arange in natural and climatic condItions, CUlturâl, econornic

and social differences have provoked a variety of issues,applications, results and in short, a variety of views. Inaddition technical advances and the possibilities forwidespreadapplication have led to a new set of circumstances. This hasheightened concern. Concern about the destructive forces ofmodernization, and its accompanying industrial effluent andair pollution which even threaten human life, have combinedwith and intensified the concern about the protection ofmonuments and sites.

The geographical regionrepresented by a groupof scholarsand technicians who wrote the Venice Charter is a narrowlydefined one. A large majority of the participants at themeeting as weil as those who drafted the Charter representedEuropean countries.

Twenty three of the people who drafted the Charter, wererepresentatives of international organizations; seventeen ofthe twenty threeparticipants were Europeans. Of the remainingthree, one was Tunisian, one Peruvian and theother aMexican.It is natural that the Venice Meeting, which represents thebeginning of International Relations in this field, should havebeen heavily influenced by European attitudes and views. Itis natural ta accept this situation. When criticizing the VeniceCharter, however, one should keep this influence in mind.

It is now easier to criticize the Venice Charter because thesubjecthas spread and grown more diversified since 1964 andhas also reflected the viewpoint of only a specific group. Forthose outside attitudes and traditions accepted in Europe,evaluation is even easier. They can see the contradictions inthe basic principles of the Charter, (especially when thoseprinciples are examined not as a whole but as they have beenapplied in one case after another). Inadequacy is apparent notonly in compass but in concepts.

If the VeniceCharter'sinadequacy has becomestrikinglyapparent in only a brief ten years then we must be especiallycautious when directly addressing the question of how thesubjectis likelyto develop if ourcriticisms are to beconstructiveones. For ~f its principles are to be meaningful they mustincorporate not only the results of recent experiences but alsotake into account concepts and scope which are likely toemerge with new developments.

One of tbe necessary features for effective principles is,for them to be general guidelines rather than weighed downwith details and specifications. This forces principles toremain general and to avoid the cut arid dried expressions oflaws. Those who have wanted to use the Venice charter aslaws have been disillusioned.

The Venice Charter must be evaluated and understood asa whole. Instead each of its articles has often been taken andinterp~ted separately and this has led in many cases tocontiadictory applications. Unlike a law, each article cannotbe taken out of its context.

Another practical deficiency should be remembered. theoriginal French version when translated into English, Spanishand Russian produced differences in interpretation, deviationand deficiencies in the second languages. For example, wehaveidentified four or fivedifferent versions of the VeniceCharter in Turkish,each produced by a different translatorand each translatedfrom a different language; ~ll show cleardifferences in exp'anation andunderstanding. In fact, there

25

I-"c

Cevat Erder

lti

clearly felt primarily in the implementation of conservationprojects. It makes it manifest that assistance frorn branches ofscience and technologymust be actively soughtin the solutionof conservation problems. As such it cornes out squarelyagainst those who opposed the notion that the field could have

a scientific and technological dimension.

Aim:

Article 3 The intention in conserving and restoringmo7!uments is to safeguard them no less as worksof art than as historical evidence.

This article evolved after considerable debate andrepresents a major change in viewpoint. ln a sense it opposesgiving special weight in the evaluation and classification ofhistorical monuments to their artistic aspects, their beauty,uniqueness and aesthetic qualities. Art and history are givenequal weight in the evaluation and there is an effort to createa balance between the two. This is an effort to terminate thelong disagreement between those who value a structureprimarily for its aesthetic qualities, (architects, restorers,aestheticians, conservators, etc.). and those who value a

monument largely for its historical qualities (archaeologists,art historians and historians ). The incorporation of this articlein our opinion, has led to a new stage in conservation.

The articles handled below and divided in the Charter intothe subheadings 'Restoration' and 'Conservation' are in factdifficult to distinguish frorn each other. We shall handle thernas listed in the Charter. Under the heading 'Conservation'thereare fivearticles which give asetofconceptual principles,required features for decision-making and approaches. Thefive articles under 'Restoration' ad dresses principles forimplementation, general matters at a technical level and

methodology.

Conservation:

Article 4 It is essential to the conservation of monumentsthat they be maintained on a pennanent basis.

This article stresses a principle whose validity is definiteand here to stay. The only solution is the continued protectionof a monument and maintenance measures forits conservation.Conservation measUres following restoration must be a partof alI programs and projects. Those restoration projects whichdo not provide for maintenance frequently fail to conserve, or

worse, cause actual damage.Article 5 The conservation of monuments is always

facilitated by making use of them for some sociallyuseful purpose. Such use is therefore desirable butit must not change the lay-out or decoration of the

building.It is within these limits only that modificationsde1nQnded by a change of function should beenvisaged and may be pennitted.

It is clearthatfor amonulnent to survive it must take arolein the function of society .ln order to ensure their existencemonuments mu&t be assigned or provided with a function.The conservation projects thernselves determine the way inwhichthe monument win be used. When decisions on functionsare made, the conservator, technicianand administratorshouldseek assistance from other fields inorder to determiné the set

are observable differences between the original French andthe English version, and these are known to have increased

stiIl further in the Russian text.ln general we observe throughout the Charter an effort to

prevent general errors made in implementation prior to 1960,to make up for inadequacies, and to address current issues.This is noticeable in the main headings on definitions, aim,conservation, restoration, historic sites, archaeologicalexcavations and publications as weIl as in each one of the

individual articles.

De./initions :

Arlicle 1 The concept of an historic monument embracesnot only the sing le architectural work but also theurbanor rural setting in which isfound the evidenceof a parlicu~ar civilisation, a significantdevelopment or a historic event. This applies notonly to great works of arl but also to more modestworks of the past which have acquired culturalsignificance with the passing of time.

Arlicle 2 The conservation and restoration of monumentsmust have recourse to ali the sciences andtechniqueswhich can contribute to the study andsafeguarding of the architectural heritage.

These first two articles under the heading of 'Definitions ,

in the Venice Charter areexamples that stress the reparationof supposed inadequacies and the inclusion of new

characteristics.Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to calI the

section which includes these two articles not 'Definitions' but'Completions' or 'Prelirninary' Principles. ln fact, the f1fStarticle of the Charter rather than addressing the questions ofwhat constitutes a historic monument proceeds on theassumption that this definition is simply taken for granted andlists the features missing in this definition. The intention mayhave been to proceed from these separate characteristics to thewhole.1f this was the intention, no claim can be advanced for

its success.The definition develops a conceptual approach which is

believed either to exist or, if not, should exist. Themonumentality of a single structure is put down as a conceptand then visual extensions are added to the concept toencompass urban and rural settlements. Arnong the valuesintroduced to this more multifaceted definition of amonumentis the notion that ii should show evidence of a particularcivilisation, be part of a historical development or event. Itdoes not stop here, however. Aniong the deficiencies of theconcept of an historic monumenta new quality is stressed in

the second sentence of the definition.The former emphasis on the visual appearance of pomp

and splendour in a monument when assigning it value shouldbe put aside. Not just magnificent and clearly importantstructures, but modest buildings and clusters of buildings

have a place in this definition.Placing Article 2 in the section on 'Definitions', at the

head of the Charter was a sound rnove. The role of science andteChnology in the conservation of cultural property hadpreviously been neglected and relegatedto a corner pQsition.This definition ad dresses the deficiencies whicb bad been

26

The Venice Charter under Review

of functions which can take place and survive in the buildingas part of a larger societal set ting. This article is restricted toorienting some intervention and remains somewhat obscure.It is consequently limited and inadequate.

It is obvious in the article that the refunctioning of astructure must not affect its layout, plan or decoration. Ontheother hand, in order to avoid the dangers in wholesalerefunctioning it points out that changes maybe made inftmction and achieved with some ease as long as the structureis not put under necessary stress.

The article does not make it clear , however, that it appliesto cases where the structures themselves have already losttheir original function. ln the event that the monumentmaintains its original function, then it is assumed that it willcontinue to do so and thus this was not inserted in the article.One should recall that there are efforts, usually unrealistic, torestore the old functions to a lIÎonument. The contradictionbetween proposing a new function and forcing the resumptionof an old function weakens this article. This contradictionmay be witnessed frequently in Turkey when functions aredebated after the restoration of Ottoman baths (hamam) andcaravanarais (kervansaray) which had long ago fallen intodisuse.

Article 6 Theconse1Vationofamonumentimpliesprese1Vinga setting which is not out of scale. Wherever thetraditional setting exists, it must be kept. No newconstruction, demolition or modification whichwould alter the relation of mass and colour mustbe allowed.

This article reflects one of the features that has èmergedfrom the rejection of protecting monuments as separateentities and the acceptance that the monument must beevaluated as a part of a larger environment. But the articlecertainly does not offer a clear-cut solution. In fact the issueof protecting the monument with its environment was partlytransferred to the next article.

We have witnessed a variety of standards for the area tobe protected around a monument ranging from 10,50,500meters, etc. Just as each monument represents a separateproblem, so does the environment which surrounds it.lt soonbecame obvious thatto setlegal standards for acircumferencearound a historic area was not a solution because of the greatvariation between different historic settings. A generalapproach was thus deemed preferable and if there was ahistoric environment surrounding the moment it was to bekept as it stood. It opposes any destruction; new constructionor reorganization that would disturb the harmony of colou(sand the environment as an aggregate whole.

Here terms such as the 'breakdown ofharmony' and the'scaleofthestructure' are notresolvedand this naturally1eadsto contradictions in implementation.

Article 7 A monument is inseparable from the history towhich it bears witness and from the setting inwhich it occurs.

The moving ofall orpartofa monumentcannot beallowed ~xcept where the safeguarding of tharmonument dematids it or where it is jùstified bynational or international interests of paramount

importance.

A separate article was devoted to the monument in itssetting because of the recent importance of this issue. Therehad also been a rising number of examples of movingmonuments from one locatiofi to another. ln particular , theconstruction of the High A swan Dam and the internationalcampaign launched to save the monuments to be flooded byits waters had international reverberations. Efforts of this kindturned into an international competition and somewhatinfluenced the formulation of this article.

Criticism arose not only overthe relocation of monuments,such as those at Abu Simbel, which were removed from thelake area to other locations in Egypt but even more so overthose temples that were taken to other countries; the resultswere neither satisfyingnorencouraging. At the VeniceMeetingarguments over this project were intense and the situationgained such importance as to lead to the insertion of a specialarticle for such cases.

Article 8 Items of sculpture, painting or decoration whichform an integral part of a monument may only beremovedfrom itifthis is the sole means ofensuringtheir preservation.

Article 8 is difficult to consider separately from thepreceding article; the decorative pieces of a monument arehardly to be thought of as independent entities. Again we areconfronted with developments in the implementation ofconservation projects.

ln Europe, in particular , there had been a growing numberof cases where the statuary and decorative reliefs of churcheshad beco:me serious conservation questions because of theravages of time and air pollution. The decoration especiallyon the exterior of these structures had been subject todeterioration and, in the face of no other solution for theprotection of the stone in situ, many items had been removedand stored in depotsordisplayed in museums while the empt;yspaces they leit behind were filled by copies. There has beenvirtually a competition in the development and application oftechniques for this operation. As little progress was made ina scientific solution for halting the deterioration of stone insitu and as removal solutions grew increasingly numerousand widespread, the writers of the Charter felt they had todraw a hard line expeditiously. This strengthened the focus ofthe Charter on current issues but damaged its period ofvalidity as the fashion itself passed.

This article completed the listing of conceptual principlesfor the conservation of monuments and acceptable methodsfor their application. Methods for restoration are then listed infive articles. These may be viewed as the main lines to befollowed in conservation work: the bases for projects or their

implementation.

Restoration:

Article 9 The process ofrestoration is ahighly specializedoperation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal theaesthetic and historic value ofthe monument andis based on respect for original material andauthentic documents.

It must stop at the point where conjecture beginsand in this case mort:over any extra work which isindispensable must be distinct from the

27

l~

CevatErder

architectural composition and almost bear acontemporary stamp. The restoration in any casemust be preceded and followed by anarchaeological and historical study of themonument.

The first sentence proposes the acceptance of a principle.It insists that conservation requires knowledge of a specialquality , comprises a discipline and a separate profession.Those who lack this knowledge and experience, no matterhow weIl placed their intentions, are not in a position toundertake and succeed in a restoration project. This is stin anobject of contention. Individuals with different professionalpreparation and lacking any pmctical experiences in thediscipline continue to undertake the restomtion of historicmonuments in many countries. It is natural to find that thebitter results of such projects became the targets of specialemphasis in this first principle.

For some reason it was deemed necessary that a bmnch ofexpertise should be stressedonce again when it came to theobjectives of application. Highlighting historic and aestheticvalues together was to draw attention to the respect forconservation and the need to keep away from partial, amateursolutions. The basic objective here was to defend values as awhole and to press for projects based on realistic anddependable documentation of original material. The intentionwas to bring ahaltimmediately to additions during restorationsince the time of Vionet-le-Duc which were not based onexisting evidence.

While transfers by hypothesis, imputations, the probabilityof resemblance to other examples have been one of the mostinteresting aspects of actual projects, they have also proved tobe especially rnisleading and damaging. There is a patentdesire to avoid this. If additions and the completion ofstI;uctures cannot be prevented for technical and aestheticreasons, the article definitely prescribes the way these shouldbe handled. The features required are simple. Additions to thestructure should be easily visible and should bear the stamp ofthe period when they were made. The documentation of workshould be carried out before, during and afterrestomtionwitharchaeological and historical investigations. It is stressed thatrestoration is clearly a category distinct from the interventionsperformed on other structures.

Article 10 Where traditional techniques prove inadequate,the consolidation of a monument can be achievedby the use ofany modem technique for conservationand construction, the efficacy ofwhich has beenshown by scienti.fic data and proved by experience.

Technique referred to in the second Article of the Charteris repeated once again here. Definitions as they relate toimplementation are also repeated in the preceding article.Here, however, they focus on details. After priority has beengiven to traditional techniques and they have ,been foundunsatisfactory , then it is I>ermissible to turn to modemtechniques. It is expected, however, that the preference formOdern techniques of intervention win be backed up byscientific and experimental evidence. Damage by theapplication of modern techniques without a pretesting oftraditional ones bas been witnessedin one restoration projectafter another. The mostprominent examplë isthe Parthenon

on the Athenian Acropolis.

The application of a modem technique, a combination ofiron and cernent, for the protection of this structure led moreto its decomposition than its strengthening.

Article 11 Thevalidcontributionsofallperiodstothebuildingof a monument must be respected, since unity ofstyle is not the aim of a restoration. When abuilding includes the superimposed work ofdi.fferent periods, the revealing of the underlyingstate can only be justified in exceptionalcircumstances and when what is removed is oflittle interest and the material which is brought tolight is of great historical, archaeological oraesthetic value, and its state of preservation goodenough to justify the action. Evaluation of theimportance of the elements involved and thedecision as to what maybe de8troyed cannot restsolely on the individual in charge of the work.

The dominant desire, once again best advanced by Viollet -

le-Duc, to present an historic monument in its original formor in the form it took during its period of greatest contributionwithin a 'unity of style' takes its place here in the design andimplementation of restoration projects. This passion hasproduced innumerable examples in Europe. Innumerableunfortunateexamples in England atone time gave 'restoration ,

such a bad name that the term began to be used only in aderogatory fashion.

It is unnecessary to pause over the desire to envisagestructures as a wholein termsofthe findingsof archaeologistsand documents of historians and to make an effort to ensuretheir survival in these terms. It is impossible to suggest thatfinds from periods that do not interest the restorer should bediscarded in favour of the period or periods which can aloneconcem hi.m. When it cornes to application, however, thepractical means for ensuring the preservation and display ofthis evidence are hazy. An exaggerated example of thisproble~ might be the case where one historical section of thefortification walls of Istanbul would be painted white. Therestorer who undertOQk such a procedure would easily openhimself to criticism. Examples of such procedures arenumerous.

There are a large number of restorers who have sought toeffecta 'unity ofstyle'. Even today thereare those whoadhereto this approach. Although interesting and even necessary inthe design process, this approach must be given directionwhen it cornes to the actual implementation of a project.

The most current waming is to respect the traces ofadditions made to a monument in different periods. Asspecific examples corne to mind it grows more difficult topropose a more detailed and decisive principle. One shouldunderline that the ultimate objective is not to create a unity ofstyle. The most salient part of this article is contained in thefinal sentence. The ultimate decision does not rest with therestorer in charge of the work. Thus, the aim is to ensure acontrol mechanism. This is a waming that the subject ismultifaceted. ln spite of the fact that the restoration ofmonuments is asepaiate areaof expertise, itcomprises a largenumber of disciplines and thus necessitates team-work.

Article 12 Replacement of missing parts must integrate

28

The Venice Charter Wlder Review

I

hannoniously with the whole, but at the same timemust be distinguishable from the original so thatrestoration does not falsify the artistic or historicevidence.

This article repeats with some more specifications theprinciple set out in article 9 with regard to additions to theoriginal structure. This article,however, has been repeatedlyapplied and criticized ,5ince the Venice Charter was passed.

In centuries where pressures have been brought to bear byinvestments in the tourist industry aimed at econornicdevelopment we find hurried restoration projects undertakenon long-neglected bistoric monuments. These present a hostof examples where there is little or no consistency in theapproach to ensure harmony between the original structure asa whole and additions carried out during the process ofrestoration. It should not be difficult to consider what specificmeasures can be taken to ensure"harmony on the one hand andthe ability to distinguish additions if the general principles ofthe Charter as a whole are kept in mind.

Article 13 Additions cannot be allowed except in so far asthey do not detractfrom the interesting parts ofthebuilding, its traditional setting, the balance of itscomposition and its relation with its surroundings.

Comments made on the preceding article are especiallyapplicable to this one. The arcbitect has the power andresponsibility to restrict bis additions by respecting theinteresting parts of the l?uilding and its setting. He shouldrestrain bimself from damaging its surroundings by respectingthe structure at all times. The subject has sparked widespreaddiscussion and criticism wbich can be followed by reviewingthe debates held at recent meetings.

His'toric Sites:

Article 14 The sites of monuments must be the object ofspecial care in order to safeguard their integrityand ensure that they are cleared and presented ina seemly manner. The work of conservation andrestortition carried out in suchplaces should beinspired by the principles setforth in the foregoingarticles.

Criticism in recent years has centred primarily on thisarticle wbich treats the safeguarding of bistoric sites andmonument clusters. It was impossible to predict theconcentrated ~ffort that would be made after World War n torevive the value ofbistoric settlements destroyed during thewar .Ovef ten to fifteen years before the writing 9f the VeniceCharter the issues iilvolved in this massive reconstruction hadnot fully emerged. Monuments had been virtually abstractedfrom their settlements and restored according to the principlesapplicable to individual monuments. The inadequacy of thearticle reflects the state of affairs at the time,

These issues have now taken on totally new dimensionsas villages and whole towns have joined the class of aggregatestructùres which are considered as parts of settlements to be

protected.When not just bistoric centres or destroyed sections of a

city are cpnsidered for conservation. the number and scale ofsettlements forprotection haveexp~ded radically .In additionto technicalandeconornicissues, a whole setofpsychological

and social questions which had hardly been thought of haveentered the arena.

ln the case of the protection of extensive settlements, notonly monetary and investmeni issues became paramount butalso problems of examining in conjunction with them, theimplications for change in social structurés. One could not beabstracted from the others.

This article has lost its significance as these issues havebecome part of broader questions of urban and regionalplanning as weIl as environmental conservation, all of whichformparts of overall national planning policies. If protectionprocedures are restricted to the guidelines of this article,projects are doomed to avoid the real issues and would turninto a farce. Contradictions that are evident in individualmonuments and the difficulties that arise later when they areevaluated in an historic ensemble are bound to intensify stiIIfurther when projects become part of this mo~ complex scaleof operations. If one adheres to the article when dealing withindividual monuments within a settlement, onemust remainconstantly aware that the solution is not necessarily appropriatewhen viewed on the scale of the settlements as a whole. Theproblem ofhandling settlements as an aggregate unit has longbypassed the brief principles set out in this article.

ln our view an advance in methodology rather than achange in basic principles is now in order .

Excavations:

Article 15 Excavations should be carried out in accordancewith scientific standards and the recommendationdefining international principles to be applied inthe case of archaeological excavation adopted byUNESCO in 1956.

Ruins must be maintained and measures necessaryfor !he pennanent conservation and protection ofarchitecturalfeatures and objects discovered mustbe taken. Furthermore, every means must be taken,to facilitate the understanding of the monumentand to reveal itwithouteverdistorting its meaning.

AU reconstruction work should however be ruledout a priori. Only anastylosis, that is to say, thereassembling of existing but dismembered partscanbepennitted. The material usedforintegrationshould always be recognisable and its use shouldbe the least that will ensure the conservation of amonument and the reinstatement of its fonn:

Towards the end of the nineteenth century structureswithin archaeological sites were relegated to a separate,artificial category termed .dead monuments ' .Here, however ,

we want to address the case of monuments which have beenbroughtto light as a the result of archaeological excavationsand havethen taken ona particular appearance because oftheir conservatipn after exposure.

ln our opinion, archaeological research carried out overthe last century for scientific purposes has brought forwardand revealed the importance of this phenomenon. Thisconstitutes a special case because of the conservationteChniques applied both during the process of excavation andafter the work itself has been totaIly brought to light.

Otherwise the research and protection methods for works

29

Cevat Erder

era has passed for those who look upon the subject as a simpleone of 'repair' or for those who give no value or importanceto completed projects.

Just as aIl completed scientific studies are published sothat they may be used for educational and research purposes,so should conservation and restoration projects be presentedfor the criticism and evaluation of a wider audience. Thedocumentation ofhistoric monuments, conservation researchand study methodologies torm an integral part of cuITenteducation in conservation and without exception have a placein the programs of all such organizations.

Conclusion

The object of this review has been to examine the VeniceChartet article by article as it has been subject to increasinglyintense doubts and criticism. We have selected those aspectswhich we believe have deserved especial attention for theirnarrowness of vision and superficiality, in an effort, at least,to draw the attention of public opinion to these aspects. It isonly to be expected that certain important parts of the articlesof the Venice Charter, if not as a whole, have grown inadequateduring a period when the concept ofhistoric monuments andsites has been undergoing a highly radical process of changeand revision.

Throughout this examination it has become manifest thatthe list of principles found in the Charter do nat deserve to berelegated to the status of objects to be 'tossed aside or sold' .On the other hand, to correct their inadequacies and producea new Charter is a demanding and perhaps unnecessary task.U nder current circumstances it appears obvious that any newCharter will be even more rapidly outdated.

Although the field has not evolved the necessary qualitiesto constitute a branch of scientific inquiry (it is difficult toopposeca~egorically those whoclaim thatthere will eventuallybe a branch of science termed 'The Science of CulturalProperty'), we are confined to accepting it as an area ofexpe~se. One wonders how many such branches, if any,expect to have their fields defined and directed by a Chartersuch as the Venice Charter. If there are many then there isreason to make a concerted effort to draw up a new Charter.Otherwise the effort will have been in vain.

Our prescnt opinion is that the Venice Charter, with itsstated qualities, has performed a function since it was firstdrawn up and passed. As such, its influence is still prevalentand it should be reviewed as an historic docurrient. TheCharter is worthy of the respect devoted to an historicdocument and should be preserved according to the principlesproposed for the preservation of an historic monument. Whennecessary to resort to the Charter for implementation, itshould be (re) viewed as a reference point.

Among the current training programs for the protection ofhistoric monuments itmay beemployedas a basic educationaltool. Or if atext on concepts is to be written it would find itsplace amongthe listof 'Contents ' .Ifotherwise lefttopatching,

revision and repair it willeventually resemble little more thana sorely patched sack.

Ifwe are forced to proposeanother, definitive solution toreplace the patchwork approach, a more general review of theresponsibility of the professional in the field may be more in

that have remained standing since the Greek, Roman andByzantine periods as weIl as the Middle Ages would notnecessitate distinct protection and evaluation measures. Therehas been a concerted effort, however, to specify and applyfundarnental principles in archaeological methods and thishas played a leading role in these developments.

The series of proposals incorporated in this article wereactually specified by UNESCO in 1956 and are a set quiteapart from the other articles of the Charter. The secondparagraph, however, reveals an effort to summarize andreduce to a general principle the protection of archaeological

ruins.For superficial reasons there may be a rationale for

separating the use, ordering, upkeep and evaluation of ruinswhich are situated on an archaeological site. The distinctionwhich attracts particular attention here, however, is the passionto reconstruct archaeological sites. This devotion torevivification finds its principles set forth in Article Il wherethe question of principles related to the unity of style arehandled. But archaeological ruins have confronted us withcircumstances that go far beyond the provisions envisaged inthis article. The fashion for constructing antique buildingsvirtually from the ground level up has opened the way to acontinued debate. The general opinion is that restrictivemeasures must and can be taken. These restrictions wouldproduce scientific as weIl as aesthetic benefits.

Structures rev~ed by archaeological excavations arerare and unique. From a historical point of view they constituteimportant reference points for agencies and as such should behandled with the utmostcare. Consequently, the usual proposalis to conserve them as originaIly found. Only one principle isproposed for their reconstruction. If alI their component partsmay be found and reinstated with confidence then anastylosisis permitted. For anasty application that fall outside theserequirements we refer the reader to the section of article 9which deals with hypotheses and imputations.

Reconstruction on archaeological sites which has notconformed tci the principles of anastylosis has generallydamaged the balance of the site or in combination with theinadequacies of the environment as a whole has done littlemore than produce the appearancê of a disorganized open-airmuseum.

Publication:

Article 16 In ali works of preservation, restoration orexcavation, there should always be precisedocumentation in the form of analytical and criticalreports, iUustrated with drawings and

photographs.Every stage ofthe work ofclearing, consolidation,rearrangement and integration. aswellas technicalandfonnal features identified du ring the course ofthe work, should be included.

This record should be placed in the archives of apublic institution and made available to researchworkers. It is recommended that the report shouldbe pùblished.

If there js one principle to be singled out as not subject todebate it is the documentation and publication of studies. That

30

The Venice Charter under Review

judgement, and notfor their hurt orfor any wrong. I willgive no deadly treatment to any, though it be asked of me,nor will I counsel such, and especially I will not aid todemolish whatever monument I enter. There I will go forits benefit and the benefit of society, refraining from aliwrong doing and corruption, and especially from any actof seduction. And I will document and publish every stepthat I take "

order. ln medicine the professional's responsibility is theconservation and repair of individual human beings. lnarchitectural conservation there is a similar relationshipbetween the restorer and his monument or site. If one acceptsthis comparison, one might propose a Charter along the linesof the oath of Hippocrates, born on the island of Cos in 460B.C., for candidate doctors when tumed from students toprofession al doctors:

"The regimen J adopt shall be for the respect and thebenefit of my monuments according to my ability and

*Ankara, March 1977

Council of Europe and of the European Cultural Foundation, No.18,

1972, pp.14-19.

Lemaire, Raymond and Parent Michel "European Charter for thePreservation and Rehabilitation of the Architectural Heritage,CouncilofEurope, DELA/MS (73) 27, Strasbourg: 1974.Erder, Cevat Tarihi Cevre Bilinci, ODTÜ Mimarlik Facültesi, No.24, Ankara: 1975, pp. 277-289.

Schrnind, Alfred et al. "A vantProjet de Charte", Council of Europe,DELA/MSIlnf (75) 5, Strasbourg: 1975.

Council of Europe "Declaration of Amsterdam", Congress on theEuropean Architectural Heritage, Amsterdam: 21-25 October1975.

ICOMOS "Venice Charter under review by ICOMOS", lCOMOSNewsletter, No.8, Paris: 1976, p.2. ,

Cevat, Erder 'Training Personnel for Architectural Conservation",Journal of the Faculty of Architecture, Middle East TechnicalUniversity, Vol. 1, No.3, 1977, pp.63-83.

BibUography

Kuban, Dogan '.Restorsyon Kriterleri ve Calta del Restauro",Vakijlar Dergisi, vol.V, Ankara: 1962, pp.149-152

ICOMOS, .'International Charter for the Conservation andRestoration of Monuments and Sites", Decision and Resolutions,Venice 31.V.1964, ICOMOS, I, Paris: 1966.

Cevat, Erder .'Venedik Tüzügü -Uluslararasi Tahiri Anitlari OnarimKurallari", Vakijlar Dergisi, Vol. VII, Ankara: 1968, pp.111-115.

Dogan Kuban '.Modern Restorasyon Ilkeleri Üzerine Yorumlar,Vakijlar Dergisi, Ankara: 1969, pp.341-356.

Gazzo1a, Piero and Robeto Pane "Proposte peruna carta internazionaldel restauro", The Monumentforthe Man, Marsilio Editori, Padova:

1972, pp.14-19.Lemaire, Raymond "Rapport Général", The Monument of Man,Marsilio Editori,Padova: 1972, pp.147 -152.

Lemaire, Raymond "Irreplaceable Treasures", Education andCulture, Review of the Council of Cultural Cooperation of the

31