DELINEATION OF VALUES-BASED APPROACH – THE BURRA CHARTER

10.       The Burra Charter outlines the ‘ideals’ of the values-based approach and is considered to be the most definitive charter in conservation practice today. The Burra Charter was first adopted in 1979 in the historic mining town of Burra in Australia and substantial changes were made in 1999. The current version was adopted by Australia ICOMOS in October 2013. It consists of a Preamble, Articles, Explanatory Notes and a Flow Chart. The charter aims to provide guidance for the conservation and management of places of cultural significance (Australia ICOMOS Burra Charter 2013). It is self-contained, but aspects of its use and application are further explained, in a series of Australia ICOMOS Practice Notes (web site: australia.icomos.org). Currently, the Burra Charter is recognized as the most widely applied charter for its pragmatic approach and simple methodology. Here, it may be mentioned that the Nara document on Authenticity of 1994, through its seminal influence in highlighting the cultural diversity across the world and the importance of values attributed to heritage by the local community, had a significant impact in the amending and broadening of the Burra Charter in 1999.

11.       The Burra Charter provides a framework in which careful consideration and analysis of cultural and natural value defined as “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present and future generations” must be undertaken prior to any preservation action. The charter acknowledges that the values may change with time. Examination of relevant values by those who are culturally, spiritually, or socially responsible for the object or place, known as interested parties, must occur before ethical decision-making can occur. This process includes understanding cultural significance, developing policy, and finally managing the implementation of policies. The Burra Charter also appears to be an attempt to respect diverse traditions such as those of aboriginals in Australia and at the same time search for universals.

12.       A brief outline of the Charter is as follows:

• It built upon the fundamentals established by the Venice Charter of 1964, which has been a milestone of the modern conservation movement;
• Introduced and elaborated on the concept of ‘cultural significance’ of a ‘place’ or site;
• Clearly defined the conservation processes to be adopted for conservation work;
• Illustrated in simple terms the approach to planning and programming a conservation project; and
• For the first time, expressed a preference for the use of traditional materials and methods (Piplani 2018).

13.       The Charter clearly defines terms that are of relevance to the conservation of a place of cultural significance and these definitions have come to acquire widespread applicability for conservation projects. For example, Article 1.2 defines cultural significance as “aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations” (Burra Charter p. 2). It is seen as embodied in the place itself, its fabric (all physical material of the place including elements, fixtures, contents and objects), its setting, use, associations and meanings and may change over time and with use. While Article 1.4 defines conservation as “all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance” (p. 2). The first Article also provides clarity about commonly used conservation terms like maintenance (continuous protective care of a place/setting), which is distinguished from repair that “involves restoration or reconstruction”.

14.       The terms restoration and reconstruction are further differentiated. While restoration implies “returning a place to a known earlier state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing elements without the introduction of new material”, reconstruction means returning a place to a known earlier state, but it involves using “new material”. The Burra Charter also defines terms like “adaptation” (changing a place to suit the existing use or a proposed use) and “associations” pointing to the connections that exist between people and a place (P. 2).

15.       A cautious approach to conservation underpins the Burra Charter: “do as much as necessary to care for the place and to make it useable, but otherwise change it as little as possible so that its cultural significance is retained” (Burra Charter P. 3). Article 3.1 says conservation is based on respect for the existing fabric, use, associations and meanings. It requires a cautious approach changing as much as necessary but as little as possible. And, Article 3.2 elaborates: “changes to a place should not distort the physical or other evidence it provides, nor be based on conjecture” (P.3). Notably, the charter also advocates an integrative or assimilative approach. Article 4.1: “Conservation should make use of all the knowledge, skills and disciplines which can contribute to the study and care of the place” (P. 3); and Article 4.2 underlines the importance and significance of both traditional techniques and materials and in “some circumstances”, modern techniques and materials.

16.       Another critical and distinctive element of the charter is its functional aspect – a clear delineation of the conservation process and practice to be followed by conservation experts. Article 6 of the Charter summarizes the Burra Charter Process: Understand Cultural Significance -> Develop Policy -> Manage in Accordance with Policy (P. 4). Besides cultural significance, policy development should also include consideration of other factors affecting the future of a place such as the owner’s needs, resources, external constraints and its physical condition (Article 6.3). On ‘Use’, the Charter says that in case the use of a place is of cultural significance it should be retained. New use of a place should involve minimal change to “significant fabric” and “use”; should respect associations and meanings; and where appropriate should provide for continuation of activities and practices which contribute to the cultural significance of the place (Burra Charter, P. 4). 

17.       The Charter (Article 12) also emphasizes participation of people for whom the place has significant associations and meanings, or who have social, spiritual or other cultural responsibilities for the place (P. 5). It thus became a forbearer of the current advocacy of people’s participation during the process of conservation. On restoration, the Charter (Article 19) says that restoration is appropriate only if there is sufficient evidence of an earlier state of the fabric (P. 7). For example in the case of restoration of the World Heritage Site of Humayun’s Tomb, built in the 16^th century in Delhi, by the Aga Khan Trust for Culture (AKTC) that concluded in 2013, large quantities of cement applied in the course of conservation work carried out during the British period were removed from the roof-terrace and replaced with the original building material – lime mortar whose specificities were based on the original fabric of the monument. This material was prepared, in situ, with participation of the local people thereby also fulfilling the aspiration behind Article 12 mentioned above. The work carried out was also in line with Article 20 of the Charter, which is elaborated below.

18.       In keeping with its cautious approach, Article 20 of the charter states that reconstruction is appropriate only where a place is incomplete through damage or alteration, and only where there is sufficient evidence to reproduce an earlier state of the fabric. Further, any reconstruction work carried out should be identifiable on close inspection or through additional interpretation. The charter also goes on to elaborate that places with social or spiritual value may warrant reconstruction, even though very little may remain.

19.       Image-2 above illustrates the addition of a 24-carat gold finial above the restored dome in April 2016. The original finial was damaged in a thunderstorm in May 2014, and subsequently a copper replica was installed. The gold (5 kg) for the finial was provided by a private company. This significant restoration/addition was in consonance with Article 20 of the Burra Charter cited above. Similarly, Image-3 above shows the significant extent of work carried out to restore the water channels and pathways in the Humayun’s Tomb gardens based on meticulous analysis of the condition of the monument and its surroundings and examination of archival records. Further, the reconstruction work carried out at Humayun’s Tomb is identifiable on close inspection, especially in the case of decorative features such as Jaali work on windows; the tile work on the cupolas (Image-4 & Image-5 below illustrate); reviving the original rendering and incised patterns that existed on the half domes around the plinth and in the case of decorative motifs (Kalash) on pillars, as advised in the Burra Charter.

20.       On adaptation of a place/site, the charter says that adaptation is acceptable only where it has minimal impact on the cultural significance of the place. It may involve additions to the place, the introduction of new services, or a new use (adaptive re-use), or changes to safeguard the place but should be “compatible” with the setting and current use. Article 22.1 states: “New work such as additions or other changes to the place may be acceptable where it respects and does not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation” (Burra Charter P. 7). Also, “new work” should be readily identifiable. The restoration work carried out by INTACH in the Taj precincts such as reconstructing service areas including toilet facilities for visitors adheres to the charter by being compatible with the setting and current use given the large number of visitors. 

21.       The charter also details ‘Conservation Practices’ that continue to act as guidelines for conservation experts globally. Article 26 says: “Work on a place should be preceded by studies to understand the place which should include analysis of physical, documentary, oral and other evidence, drawing on appropriate knowledge, skills and disciplines” and a “written statement of cultural significance” be prepared (Burra Charter P. 8). These studies should be regularly reviewed and revised as necessary. Subsequently, policy addressing all relevant issues such as use, interpretation and management for the place should be prepared and justified. The statements of significance and policy should be incorporated into a management plan for the place. Here again the charter refers to groups and individuals with associations with the place as well as those involved in its management advising that they should be provided with opportunities to contribute to and participate in understanding the cultural significance of the place and where appropriate participate in its conservation and management.

22.       The conservation work carried out in the case of Humayun’s Tomb by the AKTC largely abides by the guidelines and processes detailed in the Burra Charter. Meticulous research was carried out to understand and thoroughly document the monument and its surroundings before formulating a conservation plan and the entire process was documented in detail covering its various stages. The Burra Charter (Articles 29 & 30) also underscores the importance of “competent direction and supervision” at all stages by people with appropriate knowledge and skills and the necessity to maintain records associated with the conservation of place. Article 32 says that these records should be placed in a permanent archive and made publicly available where culturally appropriate (P. 9). Here again, the work undertaken by AKTC to restore Humayun’s Tomb aligns with the charter. Details of different stages of restoration have been made publicly available in the form of an Exhibition and mounted photographs at the site itself and on AKTC and ASI websites.

23.       The Burra Charter concludes with a very useful Flow Chart outlining the Conservation Process: Understand the place (Define the place and its extent, investigate it: its history, use, associations, fabric; Articles 5-7, 12, 26) -> Assess cultural significance (Assess all values using relevant criteria, develop a statement of significance; Article 26) -> Identify all factors and issues (Identify obligations arising from significance, identify future needs, resources, opportunities and constraints, and condition; Articles 6, 12 ) -> Develop Policy (Articles 6-13, 26) ->  Prepare a management plan (Defines priorities, resources, responsibilities and timing, develop implementation actions; Articles 14-28) -> Implement the management plan (Articles 26-34) -> Monitor the results & review the plan (Article 26). The Flow Chart advocates an overarching community and stakeholder engagement throughout the process (Burra Charter, P. 10).

24.       A brief comparative analysis of the two most dominant charters in cultural conservation – the Burra and Venice Charters – to underline and encapsulate the evolution in conservation paradigm:

• The Venice Charter adopts a “monumental” approach to architectural conservation while the Burra Charter through its definition of “place”  and its explanatory notes (a geographically defined area that may include elements, objects, spaces, and views and may have tangible and intangible dimensions: for example, a memorial, a tree, an individual building or group of buildings, the location of an historical event, an urban area or town, a garden, an industrial plant, a site with in situ remains, a travel route, a site with spiritual or religious connections) expands the sphere of what could embody cultural significance and, therefore, needs to be conserved;
• The Venice Charter states that these monuments are “living witnesses to the age-old traditions”, thereby reinforcing the notion of “pastness” of time. The Burra Charter while acknowledging the historical value of a place/monument also underlines that cultural significance may change over time and with use;
• The Venice Charter maintains that restoration work should be undertaken only by specialists while the Burra Charter encourages participation of people and stakeholders in the conservation process;
• Both the Charters are of the view that conservation based on conjecture should be avoided though the Burra Charter allows for reconstruction in certain situations with the caveat that it should be based on sufficient evidence;
• The Burra Charter acknowledges the utility and significance of traditional materials and skills in conservation work, which was not the case with the Venice Charter; and
• The Burra Charter for the first time clearly defined the conservation processes to be adopted for conservation work and subsequent management (ICOMOS Charters, IKC).

… to be continued, Bibliography at the end