ICCROM_05_HistoryofConservation00_en

Contents

Abstract—4

Acknowledgements—4

Introduction—6

PART ONE: EARLY APPROACH TO

CONSERVATION—10

Chapter One: Beginnings in the

Renaissance —11

1.1Early Approach—11

1.2Filippo Brunelleschi—11

1.3Humanists—12

1.4Poets—12

1.5Painters—13

Notes to Chapter One—13

Chapter Two: Fifteenth-Century

Architectural Treatises—15

2.1Vitruvius Rediscovered—15

2.2L.B. Alberti—16

2.3Filarete—18

2.4Francesco di Giorgio Martini—19

2.5Leonardo da Vinci—20

Notes to Chapter Two—21

Chapter Three: Early Practice and Protection—24

3.1.Protective Measures before the Renaissance—24

3.2.Condition of Buildings in Rome at the End of the Middle Ages—25

3.3.Treatment of Buildings in the Fifteenth Century—

26

3.4.Collections and Restoration of Objects—34

3.5.Architectural Treatises in the 16th Century—37

3.6.Treatment of Buildings in the 16th Century—38 Notes to Chapter Three—47

Chapter Four: Seventeenth Century—55

4.1.Archaeological interest and collections—62

4.2.Giovan Pietro Bellori—63

4.3.Restoration of Classical Monuments—66 Notes to Chapter Four: —69

Chapter Five: Treatment of Mediaeval Buildings after the Reformation—75

5.1 The Reformation—75 Notes to Chapter Five—80

Chapter Six: Neoclassicism and the

Picturesque—82

6.1. Archaeological Interests in the Age of

Enlightenment—82

6.2 Archaeological Discoveries in Italy—83

6.3.J.J. Winckelmann—85

6.4.Publications about Antiquities—91 D. Le Roy, R. Wood, G. Vasi—93

6.5.English Aesthetic Theories—94

6.6Restoration of Paintings—98

6.7.Restoration of Classical Monuments in Italy—100 Notes to Chapter Six: —103

Chapter Seven: The French Revolution—

115

7.1Destruction—115

7.2Orders for Protection—115 Notes to Chapter Seven: —119

PART TWO: FIVE CASE STUDIES —122

Chapter Eight: Case Study Italy,

Restoration in Rome—123

8.1Conservation in the Papal States, 1800-1809—123

8.2The French Period in Rome, 1809-1814—130

8.3Conservation in the Papal States after 1814—134 Notes to Chapter Eight:—141

Chapter Nine: Case Study Greece,

Restoration in Athens—149

9.1Restoration in the Nineteenth Century—149

9.2Protection of Ancient Monuments—151 Notes to Chapter Nine—163

Chapter Ten: Case Study England,

Restoration of Durham Cathedral—168

10.1First Period of Restoration—169

10.2Wyatt – Morpeth—173

10.3John Carter—176

10.4Restoration after Wyatt—180

10.5G. Waddington and A. Salvin—182

10.6Sir George Gilbert Scott—185 Notes to Chapter Ten—186

Chapter Eleven: Case Study Germanic

Countries, Restoration of Magdeburg

Cathedral—192

11.1The Cathedral; Historical Background—193

11.2Restoration of the Cathedral—194

Notes to Chapter Eleven—203

Page 2

J. Jokilehto

Chapter Twelve: Case Study France, Restoration of la Madeleine, Vézelay—210

12.1French administration—211

12.2The Restoration of La Madeleine, Vézelay—211

12.3Eugène Viollet-le-Duc—213

Notes to Chapter Twelve—221

PART THREE: DEVELOPMENT OF

CONSERVATION THEORIES—230

Chapter Thirteen: Restoration of Classical

Monuments—231

13.1Principles during the French Revolution—231

13.2Restoration of Classical Mon. in Papal State—231

13.3Restoration of Classical Mon. in France—233

13.4Restoration of Classical Mon. in Greece—234 Notes to Chapter Thirteen—234

Chapter Fourteen: English

Antiquarianism—235

14.1English Connections with the Classicism—235

14.2James Essex and the Gothic—235

14.3Restorations by James Wyatt—236

14.4John Carter—237

Notes to Chapter Fourteen—239

Chapter Fifteen: Early Restoration in Germanic Countries—242

15.1. German Nationalism & Hist. Monuments—242

15.2K.F. Schinkel and State Care—248

15.3F. v. Quast, State Conservator—255 Notes to Chapter Fifteen—258

Chapter Sixteen: France, Stylistic

Restoration—266

16.1Early Efforts in Conservation—266

16.2Organization and Administration—267

16.3Discussion on Principles in France—272

16.4Viollet-le-Duc, ‘Stylistic Restoration’—277 Notes to Chapter Sixteen—284

Chapter Seventeen: England, Morality and

Restoration—291

17.1. The Gothic Revival and Restoration—291

17.2Sir George Gilbert Scott—298

17.3John Ruskin—304

17.4The Anti-Restoration Movement—314 Notes to Chapter Seventeen—321

Chapter Eighteen: Restoration Influences

in Italy—329

18.1Stylistic Restoration in Italy—329

18.2The Conservation Movement in Italy—332

18.3‘Restauro filologico’ in Italy—335

18.4‘Restauro Storico’ in Italy—343

18.5G. Giovannoni,‘Restauro Scientifico’—351 Notes to Chapter Eighteen—356

Chapter Nineteen: Germanic Countries, ‘Denkmalkultus—372

19.1Early Protection in Austrian Empire—372

19.2Conservation in Germanic Countries—372

19.3Die Denkmaltage—376

19.4Alois Riegl—378

Notes to Chapter Nineteen—383

Chapter Twenty: International Concern in Cultural Heritage—389

20.1Protection in Other Countries—389

20.2Conservation Movement in France—394

20.3International Developments—397

20.4International Meeting at Athens, 1931—399 Notes to Chapter Twenty—401

Chapter Twenty One: Towards

International Guidelines—409

21.1The Second World War—409

21.2‘Restauro Critico’ in Italy—412

21.3International Recommendations—419 Notes to Chapter Twenty One—423

Appendices

Libraries, Archives, Sources—430 Bibliography—431

List of Illustrations—453

Resolution of Congress in Rome, 1883—464 Italian Norms for Restoration, 1932—474

A History of Architectural Conservation

Page 3

Jukka Ilmari JOKILEHTO

A HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURAL CONSERVATION

D.Phil. Thesis, I.A.A.S., YORK 1986

	ABSTRACT	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
	The aim of the study has been to investigate the	This study was made possible due to the
	history and development of major national European	encouragement and generous support, in all phases of
	philosophies, i.e. those in Italy, England, France and	thework,bymytutorsDrDerekLinstrum,whohelped
	Germanic countries, in respect to historic buildings,	to define and develop the subject and the structure of
	monuments and sites, the cross fertilization of these	the thesis instructing in the methods of research and
	ideas and principles, and their contribution towards	in typographical and linguistic problems, and Sir
	an international approach in the treatment of historic	Bernard Feilden, Director Emeritus of ICCROM,
	structures. Five case studies have been examined	who had the study accepted as an official project at
	in depth for examples in the treatment of historic	ICCROM including a sabatical period of archival
	buildings; these are the Colosseum (Rome), the	study, and who continuously gave his warm support
	temple of Athena Nike (Athens), Durham Cathedral	and practical assistance to the work.
	(England), Magdeburg Cathedral (Prussia) and the	My work at ICCROM as the coordinator of training
	Madeleine in Vézelay (France). The study extends
		in architectural conservation and the personal contacts
	from the Italian Renaissance over to the period
	following the Second World War, and distinguishes	with the work of restoration and conservation in many
	between the traditional approach to the treatment	countries has been the main reason for my undertaking
	of historic monuments, the ‘romantic restoration’	the study. I am particularly grateful to Professor Paul
	established in the Italian Renaissance and developed	Philippot, Director Emeritus of ICCROM, for his
	particularly in the nineteenth century (Schinkel,	inspiring lectures and many interesting discussions
	Scott, Mérimée, Viollet-le-Duc), the ‘conservation	through which I was introduced to a critical
	movement’emphasizing the material authenticity and	appreciation of conservation theory and practice, as
	documentary value of the monument (Ruskin, Morris,	well as for his comments and advice on this study.
	Boito), and the modern conservation theory which is	I am thankful to the present Director of ICCROM
	based on a critical historical evaluation of the work	Professor Cevat Erder for his critical archaeological
	of art in its aesthetic, historical and use values (Riegl,	insight, his insistence on the correct interpretation of
	Argan, Brandi), and is reflected in the Venice Charter	conservation theory, as well as for his support to the
	(1964) and in the policy of ICCROM and ICOMOS.	work.
		The close collaboration with the Scuola di
		Perfezionamento per lo Studio ed il Restauro dei
		Monumenti of the University of Rome and its
		founding Director Professor Guglielmo De Angelis
		d’Ossat, under whose direction the programmes of
		the International Architectural Conservation Course
		were developed, has helped me to form a basis and a
		broad historical critical understanding of the subject.
		During the several years of study, there have been
		many who directly or indirectly have contributed
		toward the completion of the study. I want to take

Page 4

J. Jokilehto

	the opportunity to thank them all, and particularly						(Ministry of Culture and Sciences, Athens) ITALY:
	the following friends and colleagues: AUSTRIA: Dr						Mr Alejandro Alva (ICCROM), Professor Renato
	Hans Foramitti (+)(Former Chief, Photogrammetry						Bonelli (University of Rome), Professor Cesare
	Dpt, Bundesdenkmalamt, Vienna), Dr Manfred						Brandi (Former Director, Istituto Centrale del
	Koller	(Chief	Conservator,		Bundesdenkmalamt,		Restauro, Rome), Professor Andrea Bruno (Turin),
	Vienna) Dr Gertrude Tripp (Former Director,						Professor Giovanni Carbonara (University of Rome),
	Bundesdenkmalamt, Vienna), BELGIUM: Professor						Professor Maria-Grazia Cerri (Former Soprintendente
	André De Naeyer (Nationaal Hoger Instituut voor						of Piedmont), Mr Carlo Cesari (City Planner,
	Bouwkunst en Stedebouw, Antverp), Mr Jef Malliet						Ferrara), Professor Carlo Ceschi (+)(University of
	(Research Fellow, ICCROM), DDR: Professor Hans						Rome), Professor Piero Gazzola (+)(Former Chief
	Berger (Former Director, Institut für Denkmalpflege,						Inspector, Direzione Generale delle Belle Arti,
	Arbeitstelle Halle), Professor Ludwig Deiters (Gener						Rome),	Mr Francesco Giovanetti	(Municipality
	alkonservator,Institut für die Denkmalpflege, Berlin),						of Rome), Mrs Ornella Marta (+) and Mr Roberto
	Dr Peter Findeisen (Institut für Denkmalpflege,						Marta (Consultant to ICCROM), Mr Giangiacomo
	Arbeitstelle Halle), Professor Hans Nadler (Director,						Martines	(Soprintendenza archeologica, Rome),
	Institut für Denkmalpflege, Arbeitstelle Dresden),						Professor Laura Sbordoni-Mora and Professor Paolo
	Professor Wolf Schubert (+) (Former Surveyor of						Mora (Chief Conservators, Istituto Centrale del
	Naumburg Cathedral), Dr Helmut Stelzer (Director,						Restauro, Rome), Professor Gino Pavan (Former
	Institut für Denkmalpflege, Arbeitstelle Halle),						Soprintendente for Ravenna and Sorli), Mr Sergio
	DENMARK: Mr Bue Beck (Copenhagen), Professor						Pucci (Photograper, Rome), Mr Franco Rigamonti
	Steen Bjarnhof (Copenhagen), Dr Ida Haugstedt						(Photographer, Rome), Mrs Anne Tango (Interpreter,
	(Kunstakademiets Bibliotek, Copenhagen), Professor						Rome), Ms Jeanne-Marie Teutonico (Consultant to
	Michael Ottosen (School of Architecture, Aarhus),						ICCROM), Professor Giuseppe Zander (Fabbrica
	Professor Vilhelm Wohlert (Royal Academy,						di San Pietro, The Vatican). LUXEMBOURG: Dr
	Copenhagen), ENGLAND: Mr Ian Curry (Surveyor,						Blanche	Weicherding-Goergen	(Luxembourg),
	Durham Cathedral), Mr Patrick A. Faulkner (Former						YUGOSLAVIA: Professor Tomislav Marasovic (Co-
	Chief Architect, DoE), Mr John Franklin (Director,						Director, Centre for Urban and Conservation Studies,
	IBR, Rome), Mr R. Gilyard-Beer (+)(Former Chief						Split), Mrs Svetlana Marjanovic (+), Professor Anika
	Inspector, DoE), Mr Gordon Michell (London),						Skovran (Belgrade).
	Mrs Phyllis Richardson			(Durham),		Mrs Katherine	I would further like to express my appreciation for
	Venning	(Durham),		FINLAND:		Mrs Maija
							the assistance of the personnel of the libraries and
	Kairamo (Museovirasto, Helsinki), Mr Pekka Kärki
	(Museovirasto, Helsinki), Mrs Marja-Terttu Knapas						archives used for the study. Particularly I would like
	(Museovirasto, Helsinki), Professor Henrik Lilius						to remember Mr Keith Parker (Library of I.A.A.S.,
	(Former Director, Institutum Romanum Finlandiae,						York),MsMarie-ChristineUginet(ICCROMLibrary)
	Rome), Professor Veikko Litzen (Former Director,						and the personnel of the Biblioteca Hertziana, Rome,
	Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, Rome), Professor						where I have studied longest.
	Aarno Ruusuvuori (Helsinki), Professor Heikki Solin						At the end, I want to express special thanks to my
	(Former Director, Institutum Romanum Finlandiae,						parents for their moral support during the study, to
	Rome), Dr Margareta Steinby (Former Director,						my sons Darius (6) and Dara (4) for their patience in
	Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, Rome), Dr Leena						waiting for their father to liberate himself from the
	Talvio (Institutum Romanum Finlandiae, Rome),						studio, and particularly to my wife architect Mehr-
	Ms Eeva-Maija Viljo (Finnish Academy, Helsinki),						Azar Soheil, herself specialised in the conservation
	FRANCE: Professor Maurice Carbonnell (Institut						of cultural heritage, for her advice, her assistance and
	Géographique Nationale, Paris), Mrs Colette Di						her loving care during the many years of the work.
	Matteo (Chief Inspector, Ministère de la Culture), Mr
	Bruno Donzet (Centre d’Etudes, Palais de Chaillot,
	Paris) GERMANY, FED.REP.: Dr Werner Bornheim
	gen. Schilling (Rhineland), Ms Ingrid Brock (Rome),
	Professor Edgar Schultze (Aachen) GREECE: Mrs
	Fane Mallouchos (Office for the Conservation of
	the Acropolis, Athens), Dr Nicholas Th. Cholevas
	(University of		Athens),	Dr	Jordan	Dimacopoulos

A History of Architectural Conservation

Page 5

Introduction

In 1964 the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites was introduced in Venice with the following words:

“Imbued with a message from the past, the historic monuments of generations of people remain to the present day as living witnesses of their ageold traditions. People are becoming more and more conscious of the unity of human values and regard ancient monuments as a common heritage. The common responsibility to safeguard them for future generations is recognized. It is our duty to hand them on in the full richness of their authenticity.” (1)

The long development which has brought about this consciousness and the concepts of conservation and restoration, of which the Charter is a landmark, is the subject of this study. The aim has been to investigate the history and development of major national European philosophies in respect to historic buildings, monuments and sites, the cross fertilization of these ideas and principles, and their contribution towards an international approach in the treatment of historic structures.

The period of study has been defined as beginning with the Italian Renaissance, through the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, to the international policy guidelines after the Second World War, these marking three moments of particular significance in the development. Originally, the intention was to limit the study to the philosophies in three countries, i.e. England, France and Italy, and on their influence especially on Austria, Germany, Greece, Holland, and Scandinavia. During the study the importance of the contribution of Germanic countries to conservation theory has, however, turned out to be so significant that its treatment in more detail has been considered necessary. The work has been based on a critical selection of the most

significant aspects in the development of theories and the relationship with current practice in the relevant cultural context. The discussion of influences outside England, France, Italy, Prussia and Austria has been limited to examples mainly in Greece, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries. The general development of concepts is accompanied by five in-depth case studies, based on archival research, to show practical examples of the treatment of historic buildings in a period extending from the French Revolution approximately to the middle of the nineteenth century. These case studies consist of the restoration of the Colosseum in Rome, the Temple of Athena Nike in Athens, Durham Cathedral in England, Magdeburg Cathedral in Prussia, and the abbey church of the Madeleine at Vézelay in France.

The treatment of ancient monuments and works of art of the past can be seen to have evolved in three different directions, or approaches. One is the traditional approach that has probably existed as long as society, in which historic structures are preserved so long as they continue to have use values, or because there is no specific reason for their destruction; changes and new constructions in large buildings are slow and can take generations, showing in many cases a desire to continue the efforts of previous generations in a harmonious way, as was the case in mediaeval cathedrals. Particular monuments can, however, occupy a special position having, as Alois Riegl has said, ‘memorial’value. This was true in ancient Greece, where Pausanias mentioned many instances. In the ancient world a few objects even gained a symbolic universal value, and were regarded as ‘Wonders of the World’, such as the Pyramids of Egypt which alone of these remain standing today. Similarly, an image or a statue of a god or an important personality can itself assume some of the significance of the person or spirit and be respected and protected in its material authenticity, as was the case in Egypt. Conversely, because of this symbolic

Page 6

J. Jokilehto

value, objects could also be destroyed or carried away by an enemy. More commonly, however, the significance of a monument was linked with the purpose that the building served or the memory of its original builder. Consequently, the essence of ‘restoration’ was oriented towards keeping intact the function of the monument; this could be done through renovation and renewal, even by improvement, which rarely showed concern for the material substance.

The second type of approach to historic objects, which could be defined as ‘romantic restoration’, was established in the Italian Renaissance. Although destructionandabuseofancientmonumentscontinued, Petrarch and the Italian humanists and artists of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries recognized them as nostalgic remains of the past, material fragments which documented Roman greatness - not only as the capital of an empire and ancient civilization, but also as the capital of Christianity. This duality, which matured during the Middle Ages, formed the basis on which the political attitude of the Renaissance toward ancient monuments and their treatment was founded. Antique works of art and structural solutions became a model to be learnt from, to be imitated, but also to be surpassed. Ancient sculptures, triumphal arches, memorial columns and other monuments and works of art were preserved, protected, as well as restored and completed in order to give them new actuality, new function and new life as a part and reference of present society. This was also related to the Church’s desire to show its superiority over paganism, and restore ancient structures as monuments of Christianity.

Although the first reaction of the Italian Renaissance was to condemn mediaeval art and architecture, which appeared alien to the aims of the new artistic goals, there was at the same time a more general respect for the achievement of past generations, as reflected in the approach of Leon Battista Alberti, and seen in a certain reluctance to destroy even mediaeval structures. The Italian example was soon influential elsewhere; in England local antiquities such as Stonehenge became an object of interest and speculations, and in Sweden rune stones and mediaeval churches even of protective measures. Further developments in England, Germanic countries and Italy resulted in a maturing of historic consciousness, clearly expressed in the events of the French Revolution. With the evolution of nationalism and romanticism in European countries, the desire to protect and restore national monuments as concrete evidence of a nation’s history became a wide-spread

movement. Particularly with relation to mediaeval buildings, ‘restoration’ aimed at the completion and recreation of an architectural whole according to its original intentions or its most significant period, using historical research and analogy with other buildings of the same style as a reference - as is shown in the work of Sir George Gilbert Scott in England and Eugène Viollet-le-Duc in France. The ‘historical’ significance of a building was seen - not so much related to continuity and stratification in time - but rather to a particular moment or period in history, especially that of the first architectural concept. National monuments thus tended to become ‘frozen illustrations’ of particular moments in the history of the nation.

Along with this emphasis of aesthetic values, another approach developed. This was one that aimed at the conservation and re-evaluation of the authentic object, preserving its historic stratification and original material, and avoiding falsification. Although the aims of these two approaches in part coincide, both being directed toward the protection of historic buildings and works of art, their methods and objectives are often opposed, resulting at times in bitter conflicts. This approach was clearly present in the Renaissance, when orders were given for the protection of ancient monuments, and when Raphaël made efforts to preserve documents engraved in stone, conserved as ancient monuments with their message from the past, and dear to Renaissance humanists. This approach was present in the early debates on the restoration or conservation of antique sculptures such as Laocöon or the Torso of Belvedere, and a demonstration of it was given by Michelangelo in the Thermae of Diocletian, which were left in their ruined state although a part was transformed into a church and convent. These concepts, more concerned with the substance than the form, were further developed in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries by Giovan Battista Bellori, who emphasized the authenticity of paintings, and by Johann Joachim Winckelmann, who insisted on a distinction between the original and the restored parts in order not to falsify the intrinsic artistic values of antique works of art. Results of this theory were seen in practice particularly in the treatment of classical monuments in Rome and France, as well as in Greece, where the concept of ‘anastylosis’, reconstruction using existing original elements, was defined as acceptable.

Following the late eighteenth-century antiquarian criticism against the restoration of mediaeval churches in England, an anti-restoration movement

A History of Architectural Conservation

Page 7

gradually developed also in other countries; in France it was supported by Victor Hugo and A.N. Didron in the 1830s, in Prussia by Ferdinand von Quast. The penetrating mind of John Ruskin and the efforts of William Morris gave it a clear definition, emphasizing the question of historic time and authenticity in relation to the original object, and the impossibility to reproduce an object with the same significance in another historical-cultural context. Any reconstruction was refused, and additions were recommended in contemporary form. Since the 1870s the English influence was echoed in Italy particularly by Giacomo Boni and Camillo Boito, and later by Gustavo Giovannoni; by the end of the century it had an impact even in France. In Germany the subject was debated in regional meetings beginning in 1900, and one of the leading personalities in this regard was Georg Dehio. In Austria the theory of conservation was defined by Alois Riegl in 1903, and continued by Max Dvorak, who gave particular attention to environmental conservation policy.

These two approaches to the treatment of ancient monuments and works of art, ‘restoration’ and ‘conservation’, born in the modern sense with the new cultural attitude of the Italian Renaissance, had much in common although different in some fundamental aspects. A certain ambiguity that has accompanied the philosophy and practice of restoration may well be due to this. In England, where the treatment of mediaeval churches gradually developed from arbitrary treatment into ‘faithful restoration’ as defined by Scott, and was based on an apparent respect for all the historic stratification, the building in reality, in too many cases, was substantially changed according to the fashion of the time. This was pointed out strikingly by Ruskin, who emphasized the quality of workmanship in particular historic periods, the impossibility to reproduce this and the values connected with it at any other time, and the necessity to conserve the authentic object in its material consistency. Even ‘faithful restoration’, if it meant reproduction of original features, as it usually did, was ‘a lie’, a falsification, not the real thing any more. One can question how far Scott was really conscious of this conflict, although he did confess that all restorers were offenders!

In France, the example of English and German historians, the establishment of a State organization for the protection of national monuments and the criticism by writers such as Victor Hugo were the foundation for a systematic study of mediaeval art and architecture. With the development of this

into ‘science’ and the confidence gained through vast practice in restoration, ‘faithful’ as it may have been at the beginning, analogical reconstructions and ‘stylistic restorations’ became an officially accepted result. Leading personalities, such as Prosper Mérimée, who emphasized full respect for all historic periods, at the same time were responsible for directing ‘complete restorations’, which could mean purification from historic additions, as well as construction of parts that never had existed.

In Italy, the discussion on conservation and restorationwasaimedatasortofcompromise. Camillo Boito, who drafted the Italian charter of conservation in 1883, promoted strict conservation on similar lines to those of Ruskin and Morris, although critical about the English approach at the same time. In his writings he was equally critical about the French example in stylistic restoration, although his restorer colleagues, particularly his pupil Luca Beltrami, who were trained and practiced on this basis, generally seem to have had his approval for their work. In the twentieth century, the development has led after the ‘broadening touch’by Giovannoni, and particularly after the shock of the world wars, toward what could be seen as a modern synthesis of the two previous approaches, the so-called restauro critico. This was defined in Italy by Giulio Carlo Argan, Roberto Pane and Cesare Brandi. The theory is based on a historical-critical evaluation of the object; it is a strictly conservative approach considering all significant historic phases, but it takes into account both historic and aesthetic aspects, and allows for a reintegration of a work of art under specific conditions, if this can be achieved without committing an artistic or historic fake. In the case of a conflict regarding works of art that have preserved their potential unity, and particularly when certain additions are less significant, artistic values are given priority.

It is mainly on this basis that most of the existing international guidelines, have been drafted; these have developed after the second world war to guide and assist national efforts in the protection and conservation of cultural heritage. The universal value of this heritage depends on its authenticity; it is the test of authenticity which has to be passed in order to be eligible to be included in Unesco’s List of the World Cultural Heritage, and it is authenticity that forms the basic principle and guide-line of the Venice Charter, which also marks the conclusion of this study. This Charter, although still concentrated mainly on historic buildings and ancient monuments, shows concern also for historic sites, referring thus to

Page 8

J. Jokilehto

the development of the definition of cultural property from a single monument to entire historic areas. ‘Environmental conservation’, which had been given some attention since the early days of Romanticism, and had found support in Camillo Sitte at the end of the nineteenth century, had to wait until the Second World War for broader consciousness and a more active development. Concerning the dialectic of restoration and conservation of historic objects, although solved in principle and in official recommendations, the question still seems to remain open. This may be partly subject to the difficulty of technical application in various cases, but it is certainly due to the cultural character of the problem, the need for maturity and proper historic consciousness.

A History of Architectural Conservation

Page 9

J. Jokilehto, A History of Architectural Conservation

D. Phil Thesis, University of York, 1986

Part One:

Early Approach to Conservation

Page 10

J. Jokilehto