Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview

RESTAURO E PATRIMONIO ARCHITETTONICO VOCI DAL MONDO Conservation and Architectural Heritage Voices from the World a cura di Simona University Press Salvo Restauro e patrimonio architettonico Voci dal mondo Conservation and architectural heritage Voices from the world a cura di Simona Salvo 2024 Questo volume è pubblicato con i fondi accordati alla curatrice con il Bando di Ricerca di Ateneo di “Sapienza” Università di Roma del 2018 Le immagini a pagina 8, 164, 302 e 331 sono di Simona Salvo; l’immagine a pagina 44 è della SPAB; l’immagine a p. 98 ha licenza Creative Commons; l’immagine a p. 124 è di Valerie Magar; l’immagine a pagina 194 è di Iñaki Bergera; l’immagine a p. 232 è tratta da Poblado Dirigido de Caño Roto en Madrid, in “Nueva Forma”, 1969, n. 37, p. 10; l’immagine a p. 264 è di Pietro Vecchi. Copyright © 2024 Sapienza Università Editrice Piazzale Aldo Moro 5 – 00185 Roma www.editricesapienza.it editrice.sapienza@uniroma1.it Iscrizione Registro Operatori Comunicazione n. 11420 Registry of Communication Workers registration n. 11420 ISBN 978-88-9377-319-5 DOI 10.13133/9788893773195 Pubblicato nel mese di luglio 2024 | Published in July 2024 Opera distribuita con licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione – Non commerciale – Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia e diffusa in modalità open access (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IT) Work published in open access form and licensed under Creative Commons Attribution – NonCommercial – NoDerivatives 3.0 Italy (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 IT) In copertina | Cover image: designed by rawpixel.com / Freepik Indice Presentazione Foreword Alessandro Viscogliosi 5 Restauro e patrimonio architettonico. Contributi degli autori Conservation and architectural heritage. Authors’ contributions Voci dal mondo della conservazione Voices from the world of conservation Simona Salvo SPAB. The role in the conservation of historical buildings in the United Kingdom SPAB. Il ruolo nella programmazione e nella tutela degli edifici storici del Regno Unito Laura Morgante 9 47 A autenticidade e a integridade no sistema do Patrimônio Mundial 75 Authenticity and integrity in the World Heritage system Rosane Piccolo Loretto The troubled heritage of historic preservation in the United States 101 L’eredità difficile della historic preservation negli Stati Uniti Jessica Ellen Sewell, Andrew Scott Johnston Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview La conservazione in Messico. Un panorama storico Valerie Magar 127 4 Restauro e patrimonio architettonico. Voci dal mondo Arquitetura moderna em São Paulo e sua preservação: alguns desafios atuais L’architettura moderna a San Paolo e la sua tutela: alcune sfide attuali Beatriz Mugayar Kühl Conservación y restauración del patrimonio arquitectónico en España, en la actualidad. Una aproximación crítica Conservation and restoration of architectural heritage in Spain, at present. A critical approach Ascensión Hernández Martínez Vivienda social y patrimonio urbano Low-income housing and urban heritage Noelia Cervero Sánchez The conservation of modern university architecture in Japan and the case of Nanzan University campus La conservazione dell’architettura universitaria moderna in Giappone e il caso del campus della Nazan University Pietro Vecchi, Ken-ichi Suzuki Heritage Conservation in China. A brief history and the contemporary practice La conservazione del patrimonio architettonico in Cina. Profilo storico e prassi contemporanea Yiping Dong Biografie degli autori Author’s profiles 167 197 235 267 305 333 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Valerie Magar Ancient Mexico and the early days of conservation What is nowadays Mexico was marked by major historic events, which have defined how and when conservation of heritage has taken shape. In the ancient pre-Columbian world, similar to what happened in many other parts of the world, there was an interest in the past, especially for dynastic and religious purposes. This led to the preservation of certain elements of the past, but it does not correspond to the current concept of conservation. Objects or elements of buildings would be preserved and reused, often not to be seen, but buried under new constructions or reburied in religious offerings1. With the arrival of Europeans in the New World and the establishment of a new colonial rule, entirely new structures and buildings were created2. The ancient cities were transformed, often reusing existing foundations and building materials for the construction of the new structures. These new constructions were often a mixture of European methods and techniques, and local traditional ones3. During that time, there was little need to consider conservation. The ancient remnants of past civilisations were in ruins, and new European-style buildings were being changed as cities grew and architectural styles evolved, particularly in religious heritage. A reassessment of the past was slow in the making. While there was an interest in studying the pre-Columbian civilisations, to better insert the Catholic religion and the new political and economic systems, early in1 2 3 Matos 2017, p. 22. Sánchez 1877, p. 2; Toussaint 1974, p. 1; Kubler 1990; Díaz Berrio 1990, p. 21; Tovar y de Teresa 1990. Chanfón 1997, pp. 169-270; Guerrero 2013, p. 58. 128 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 1. View by José María Velasco of the Pyramid of the Moon in Teotihuacan, 1778 / Veduta di José María Velasco della Piramide della Luna a Teotihuacan, 1778 (image of public domain) terests in the past were scarce in the 18th century, and they would slowly take a stronger shape from the 18th to the early 20th centuries centuries4. Heritage has always been deeply involved with both the way society uses and interprets it and how it is considered from the political point of view. With the independence movement in Mexico, at the beginning of the 19th century, there was a re-appraisal of the country’s ancient past, which would become an important symbol for the new country. Before the Independence, an Antiquity’s Board (Junta de Antigüedades) had been created in the premises of the National University, in order to gather diverse objects, mostly cultural, from the pre-Columbian past, but also natural specimens. This was the first official institution dedicated to their conservation5. It was transformed into an Antiquity’s Conservancy in 1822, and in 1825 the collection was used to create the National Mexican Museum6. While there is little information on how conservation was approached for these collected objects, there was a growing interest in them, partly created by publications in Mexico, and partly by the dis4 Chanfón 1988, p. 50; Matos 2010, p. 93. 5 Cottom 2008, pp. 71-72. 6 Castillo 1924, p. 10. Valerie Magar 129 semination made by foreign explorers. As a consequence of the latter, the government emitted a piece of legislation in 1827 to prohibit the export of Mexican antiquities7. Another relevant step towards the protection of heritage took place in 1833, with the creation of the Mexican Society of Geography and Statistics, which would play an important role in the proposal of new legislation. The Society also emitted recommendations for the protection of monuments which were under threat of destruction. A specific commission was created inside the Society for this purpose8. As part of the Reform laws to limit the power of the Catholic church, President Benito Juarez nationalised the Church properties. They were placed initially under the care of the Ministry of Finance9. A commission was formed with the mandate to establish an inventory of the possessions that were now part of the State10, but not all were considered to be of value. The following decades saw the destruction of numerous of those buildings. Many of the ancient convents and churches were sold, in their entirety or divided in smaller parts11. In 1865, during the short government of emperor Maximilian of Habsburg, the interest in the pre-Columbian past continued, and the National Museum was transferred to new premises, located in the ancient mint, on one side of the main government building, Palacio Nacional, at the heart of Mexico City. At the international level, Mexico as young nation was taking part in international meetings and events, including the World Fairs12, in which sessions devoted to monuments and their conservation often took place, and preliminary guidelines and legislation for the protection were discussed. During the government of President Porfirio Díaz, the growing interest for the monuments of the past led to the creation, in 1885, of the Inspection for the Conservation of Archaeological Monuments, copying the French and other European models. Leopoldo Batres, first to be named Inspector, held that position from 1885 7 Lombardo, Solís 1988, pp. 39-41. 8 Chanfón 1988, p. 51. 9 Guzmán, Rodríguez 2018, p. 7. 10 Velasco 2012, p. 88. 11 Lombardo 2004. 12 Tenorio 2009. 130 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview to 191113. Batres was also responsible for major archaeological excavations, which were taking place at two important archaeological sites, Xochicalco and Teotihuacan14. His excavation, conservation and reconstruction techniques have been largely discussed, considered excessive by many. But among his publications one can also find documents in which he expressed his concern to understand the materials he was digging, as well as the construction techniques that had been used in those ancient civilizations; he specifically mentioned his concern to maintain their authenticity15. A number of other explorers and researchers were publishing their ideas on the pre-Columbian cultures. Interestingly, during the Universal Exhibition in Paris in 1889, the Historic-America Exhibition in Madrid in 1892 and the Universal Exhibition in Chicago in 1893, there were debates on what was considered as Mexican, and how the country’s pavilions and exhibition should be represented16. In these events, it is possible to see a reappraisal of the colonial period, and the use of elements from the more recent past for the proposal of new constructive techniques17. However, the importance of archaeological heritage was still by large considered to be more important. The Federal law for archaeological monuments emitted in 1897 only focused on such heritage. This piece of legislation was the first to establish that all archaeological heritage belonged to the Nation, and its destruction was considered a federal crime18. An increasing number of architects also started promoting the importance of taking care of historic monuments. They published articles in newspapers, but also in the very interesting journal edited by architect Nicolás Mariscal, El Arte y la Ciencia, published from 1899 to 191119. This journal contained extremely rich content, both on conservation and restoration treatments undertaken in historic heritage, but also on traditional and new building materials, including mortars and different types of stone and masonry. Sadly, many of these articles are anonymous, and no references are quoted, 13 Lorenzo 1998, p. 137; Matos 1998, p. 53. 14 Matos 1998, p. 53. 15 Batres 1908. 16 Paz 2011. 17 Castillo op. cit., p. 25-26; Ramírez 2009, p. 277. 18 Ley Federal sobre Monumentos Arqueológicos 1897, article 1. 19 Paz op. cit. Valerie Magar 131 which makes it difficult to track where the knowledge and information was coming from. This journal also published the results of international meetings where conservation was discussed, and namely those of the International Congress of Architects in Madrid, held in 1904, which defined the different approaches towards what was considered living or dead monuments20. More importantly, it also published the recommendations derived from the debate of existing legislation for historic monuments in Europe, discussed in the International Congress of London in 1906 and Vienna in 190821. These included respect for all periods of a monument and avoiding stylistic restorations. This led to the drafting of a new piece of legislation in Mexico, which was not adopted at the time. In practical terms however, those recommendations would not necessarily be implemented in Mexico in subsequent years. The exploration, consolidation and reconstruction of archaeological monuments was a common practice for many years, often involving the use of cement and reinforced concrete in the following decades. The intervention treatments in historic monuments, and particularly modifications made to adapt them to new uses often involved stylistic shapes, which led to the creation of a neo-Colonial style22. Until the end of the 19th century, and the first decade of the 20th century, the emphasis was still placed on archaeological conservation. There were, however, emerging and increasing concerns for religious colonial architecture, which was still being sold and demolished, particularly in Mexico City, but also in other cities and more rural areas. One of the results of the International Congress of Americanists, held in 1910 in Mexico City, was the creation of an International School of American Archaeology and Ethnography, with joint efforts between the National Museum, and the Universities of Columbia, Harvard and Pennsylvania, and the support of the governments of Prussia, France, the United States of America and Mexico23. This school was fundamental for the development of Mexican anthropology, and the training of archaeologists24. 20 El Arte y la Ciencia 1904, p. 72. 21 El Arte y la Ciencia 1908, p. 86; Besnard 1908; Paz 2018, p. 69. 22 Paz 2011. 23 Gándara 2019. 24 Rutsch 2000. 132 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview A world in turmoil: the Mexican Revolution and World War I The second decade of the 20th century marked the beginning of a period of turmoil for many countries. Mexico entered into the long period of the Revolution, in which many historic buildings, particularly ancient convents, were used as barracks by the opposing armies. A strong anti-clerical movement also led to numerous destructions of monuments and religious objects. However, the ancient past was still seen as a means and inspiration to create and sustain national symbols and for the formulation of a Mexican architecture. This was actually a mixture of styles, often adapting new world trends with Mexican elements. These approaches included an eclectic mixture of architectural styles, in which Mexican – often pre-Columbian – elements were inserted. The inspiration of pre-Columbian designs was also used by architects in other countries, the most well-known being Frank Lloyd Wright’s textile-block houses built in California in the early 1920s25. In 1914, a new Law for the conservation of historic and artistic monuments and natural beauties was emitted. This act maintained that monuments were the property of the nation, and defined the obligation to conserve them, avoiding restorations that could affect their authenticity26. The responsibility for enforcing the law, and preserving the monuments was transferred at this time to the Ministry of Education and Fine Arts. This law was accompanied by the creation of two new inspections, one for the conservation of historic monuments, and one for artistic monuments, which marked a clear reassessment of the value of heritage produced during the colonial period. The term monument referred to both movable and immovable heritage, something that has continued in later pieces of legislation in Mexico. These new inspections aimed to produce a catalogue of historic and artistic monuments, and were supposed to verify intervention treatments, to avoid those that would deter their character. Stylistic conservation was preferred, to maintain the character of the period in which each building had been built27. Some architects, however, were critical of this approach, and of some intervention treatments. The Society of 25 Moyssen 1986. 26 Chanfón op. cit., 57. 27 Archivo General de la Nación, Instrucción Pública y Bellas Artes, caja 119, exp. 57, f. 1, quoted in Guzmán y Rodríguez op. cit., p. 18. Valerie Magar 133 Fig. 2. View of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, in 1917 / Vista del Tempio di Quetzalcoatl nel 1917 (© Roger Magar) Mexican Architects, which had been founded in 1905 but would only be legally recognized in 1919, played an important role in supporting the Inspection of Historic Monuments. They published critical articles in their journal, El Arquitecto, which contained a section dedicated to the conservation of monuments28. In 1916, a vast archaeological project was initiated in Teotihuacan, led by Manuel Gamio, with a broad approach that considered not only the archaeological heritage, but also anthropological research of the traditional communities living around the ancient city. In terms of conservation and restoration, this project comprised a vast reconstruction programme, including the one in the Ciudadela, and particularly the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, but also later works undertaken in the Pyramid of the Moon. These were severely criticized by the Society of Mexican Architects in the early 1920s; from their point of view, excessive reconstruction was being undertaken, and they recommended a much more cautious approach, only stabilising the ancient buildings, and using models for interpretation for the public29. However, this criticism did not alter the approaches. 28 Noelle 2009, p. 13; Guzmán y Rodríguez ibid. 29 MacGregor et al. 1923. 134 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 3. View of the Temple of Quetzalcoatl, in 2014 / Vista del Tempio di Quetzalcoatl nel 2014 (© María Mata Caravaca) The 1920s and 1930s During the 1920s and 1930s, there was also a much stronger debate, in Mexico and in other Latin American countries, on the notion and importance of colonial architecture. In 1923, during the second Panamerican Congress of Architects, held in Santiago de Chile, the conservation of monuments was debated, and the notions of historic, architectural and archaeological value were defined30. A new Law for the Protection and Conservation of Monuments and Natural Beauties was emitted in 1930. This new act considered the protection of archaeological, historic and artistic heritage, but also anthropological and ethnographic research as part of the tasks of the government. It emphasized the concept of public interest of cultural heritage, similar to what would be specified the following year in the conclusions of the International Meeting of Architects and Engineers of 1931, so called Athens Charter31. In order to implement 30 dipublico.org.2014. 31 Curiously, although Mexico had participated in numerous international meetings before, there is no reference to a Mexican delegation in the Athens meeting, and Valerie Magar 135 this new piece of legislation, a new Monuments Commission was created, with the mandate to conserve heritage32, including proposals for listing and cataloguing protected monuments, and reviewing any intervention treatment proposals in those buildings or in historic contexts33. In 1934, a new Law for the protection and conservation of archaeological and historic monuments, typical cities, and places of natural beauty was emitted. Interestingly, the protection of cities was included in this new legislation. In the mid-1930s, Manuel Toussaint founded an Art Laboratory within the National University, which would become the Institute of Aesthetic Research in 1937. On that same year, Toussaint participated in the Congress of American History in Buenos Aires, where he expressed his concerns for the state of decay of colonial monuments. Toussaint’s work would be extremely influential to promote their conservation. This decade of the 1930s also marked the beginning of a new series of archaeological excavation projects, of which those undertaken by Alfonso Caso in Monte Albán, in Oaxaca, are particularly relevant. Consolidation and systematic reconstruction of monumental structures was increasingly made with the use of Portland cement and reinforced concrete, as can be seen in Chichen Itzá, Uxmal, Tulum and Teotihuacan, to name a few sites. At the end of the decade, President Lázaro Cárdenas created the National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), regrouping all the departments that had existed until that moment. This institute had a broad mandate, to care for the conservation, research and dissemination of the Pre-Columbian and Colonial past. In this context, cultural heritage was seen to play a fundamental role in education, but it also had an important element in politics, and its visibility. Another institution, the Instituto Nacional de Bellas Artes (INBA) would be created in 1946, for the care of artistic heritage of the 20th century. The old International School of Anthropology had slowly become inoperative and was replaced by a new School created within the Nathe Charter is not directly referred to, although its recommendations were widely applied, particularly in archaeological conservation, through a broad interpretation of anastylosis. 32 Guzmán 2018, pp. 33-34. 33 Guzmán 2018, p. 54. 136 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 4. El Castillo, Chichén Itzá / El Castillo, Chichén Itzá (© ICCROM, Jukka Jokilehto, 1996) tional Polytechnic University. It would then be taken under the auspices of INAH in 1942, which would later become the National School of Anthropology and History (ENAH), still existing today34. Post-war world and international collaboration As World War II was ending, Mexico was active in the definition of policies and in the creation of new international institutions, including UNESCO. Its second Director-General was the Mexican politician and writer Jaime Torres Bodet35 (1948-1953), who promoted the conservation of heritage and the active participation of Mexico in many of UNESCO’s initiatives36. In 1948, UNESCO created an International Committee for Monuments, to be capable of offering advice on the conservation of monuments and sites worldwide. The following year, an international expert meeting took place in Paris to discuss the conservation of monuments and of archaeological excavations. This gave rise to a series of missions at the request of State Parties of UNESCO, to provide specific advice. 34 Gándara 2019. 35 Torres Bodet 1971; Díaz Berrio 1990; Magar 2019. 36 Pane 1953. Valerie Magar 137 The first one was to Cusco, following the devastating earthquake of 1950. The mission was led by George Kubler, and with the participation of Mexican architect Luis MacGregor37. In 1947, during the second General Assembly of UNESCO, held in Mexico City, one of the recommendations was the need to create a technical organization, to promote the conservation of heritage worldwide. The International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (later known as ICCROM) would be created in 1956, based in Rome. This International Centre, led by its first Director-General Harold P. Plenderleith and by the Assistant Director-General Paul Philippot, supported UNESCO’s initiatives in providing technical assistance to countries, but it also promoted the development of conservation centres in different countries, as well as the creation of regional centres for training in different continents38. Several of the missions to provide assistance took place in Mexico at the end of the 1950s and early 1960s, to assess the state of conservation of Mayan mural paintings at the archaeological site of Bonampak and propose conservation alternatives39. Training and specialisation in conservation The next two decades, 1960s and 1970s, would be very rich in the development of training courses and specialisation of conservation in Mexico, and in other countries as well. In 1961, two parallel initiatives for the conservation of cultural heritage in Mexico were launched within INAH. One was the creation of a Section for the Restoration of Archaeological Materials within the Prehistory Department, proposed by José Luis Lorenzo. The other was the creation of the Department of Catalogue and Restoration of Artistic Heritage, promoted by Manuel del Castillo Negrete. Strong collaboration with UNESCO and existing conservation laboratories in Europe, particularly Italy through the Istituto Central del Restauro and Belgium through the Institut Royal du Patrimoine Artistique (KIK-IRPA). The early 1960s were also the scenario for a vast project to create four national museums with new premises in Mexico City. These led to an in- 37 Kubler 1952. 38 Pérez 2021. 39 Those missions included the participation of Harold Plenderleith, Paul Coremans, and Leonetto Tintori, among others. 138 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 5. Visit to Tlaxcala, with Salvador Díaz-Berrio and Paul Philippot / Visita a Tlaxcala con Salvador Díaz-Berrio e Paul Philippot (© ICCROM, Giorgio Torraca, 1973) tense campaign for conservation treatments for different types of objects that would be exhibited in those museums, as well as the conservation of the colonial building that would house the Museo Nacional del Virreinato, in Tepotzotlán, at the outskirts of Mexico City40. The promotion of archaeological conservation projects also continued in this period. In 1964, new premises for the department of catalogue and restoration were adapted in the ancient convent of Churubusco, which 40 Flores Marini 1964. Valerie Magar 139 would become a major conservation centre over the years. Short courses had been initiated for staff of the centre. The landmark meeting of architects in Venice that same year was attended by a Mexican delegation, including Salvador Aceves, Carlos Flores Marini and Ruth Rivera41. One of the main results of the meeting was the drafting of the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, so called Venice Charter, in 196442, which was immediately translated into Spanish by M. del Castillo Negrete and published by INAH. Two years later, training in conservation was formalised in Mexico, with an undergraduate degree in conservation of movable heritage at Churubusco, as part of INAH, and a master’s degree in conservation of monuments at the National University (UNAM). As part of this programme, a series of lectures by José Villagrán were published in 1966, on the conservation and restoration of monuments, and on the values he considered to be associated with architecture and architectural heritage (use, logic, aesthetic and social values)43. These values were the basis for how he considered heritage, and hence the role of conservation of historic buildings as well. In 1967, the Regional Latin-American Study Centre for the Conservation and Restoration of Cultural Heritage (CERLACOR) was founded at Churubusco, created with the support of UNESCO and in close relation with the International Centre in Rome (now ICCROM). Numerous conservation professionals from Europe and the US travelled to Mexico, in order to teach in the courses on conservation of movable heritage. In terms of theoretical approaches, a major influence was Brandi’s theory, in lectures initially taught by Paul Philippot44. Once the 10-year agreement with UNESCO came to an end, international collaboration continued with the Organization of America States (OAS) through education grants for Latin American students. The regional centre was then merged with INAH’s National School of Conservation, which had been created in parallel at the same premises. 41 42 Flores Marini 2004. Among the group who drafted and signed the Venice Charter there were two architects from Latin America: Carlos Flores Marini from Mexico and Víctor Pimentel from Peru. 43 Villagrán García 1967. 44 Alcántara 2000; Arroyo Lemus 2008; Peñuelas 2015; Madrid 2019. 140 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 6. Detail of the reconstruction of one of the pillars of the Quetzalpapalotl Palace, in Teotihuacan, in 1963-1964 / Particolare della ricostruzione di uno dei pilastri del Palazzo di Quetzalpapalotl a Teotihuacan, nel 1963-1964 (© Coordinación Nacional de Conservación del Patrimonio Cultural, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia) That same year, a meeting organised by the OAS led to the drafting of the Norms of Quito. This meeting was also attended by a Mexican delegation, including Manuel del Castillo Negrete and Carlos Flores Marini. The Norms of Quito are particularly interesting, because they emphasise the need to consider the conservation of urban and monumental heritage in the light of rapid urban growth, considering social, economic, and environmental aspects. The 1970s were the scenario for legislative changes, and active debate on approaches to heritage conservation in Mexico. In 1970, there was a proposal for a new piece of federal legislation for the conservation of heritage; this law however was not approved, due to a strong Valerie Magar 141 Fig. 7. View of the reconstructed Quetzalpapalotl Palace in the present / Il Palazzo di Quetzalpapalotl oggi (© Valerie Magar) opposition from antiquarians and art sellers45. A revised Federal law on archaeological, artistic and historic monuments and sites was approved in 1972 and is still valid today. At the international level, UNESCO adopted two conventions related to cultural heritage; the Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transport of Ownership of Cultural Property (1970) and the Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), both ratified by Mexico. On that same year, a new master’s degree in restoration of immovable heritage was also launched at Churubusco, at INAH’s National School for Conservation. An important number of Latin American architects and archaeologists would be trained in this programme over the next decades. This, coupled with the courses launched by ICCROM, helped in the creation of a strong group of conservation professionals. In that same year and the following one, two important congresses took place in Mexico City. ICOMOS Mexico organized a meeting whose results emphasised the need to include cultural elements in development plans. In 1973, the Latin America Centre (CERLACOR) organized an international seminar, the Regional Latin American Seminar for Conservation and Restoration (SERLACOR), which gathered topics of legislation and conservation of both movable and immovable heritage in Mexico and in Latin America. There was a particularly 45 Cottom 2008. 142 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 8. Postcard of the historic centre of Morelia, with the towers of the cathedral visible to the left / Cartolina del centro storico di Morelia con, a sinistra, le torri della cattedrale (image of public domain) strong debate on intervention treatments undertaken in Mexico: there was major criticism of the over-restoration and recreations undertaken at numerous archaeological sites (of which the Quetzalpapalotl in Teotihuacan was considered a particularly questionable example). There were also calls to avoid the systematic removal of plasters and renders from colonial buildings, which left the stone and masonry unprotected and exposed to the elements46 and also altered the perception of the buildings. Another criticism was made on the use of white renders in some historic cities or ensembles (called “blanco colonial”), where such practices had not necessarily been traditionally used47. As a result of the ongoing debates on the limits of conservation, a new meeting was held in Mexico City in 1974 to discuss the conservation of monuments and archaeological sites, co-organised by INAH, the Institute of Anthropological Research from the National University and the Mexican Society of Anthropology. The meeting’s recommen- 46 Such was the case of the historic centre of Morelia. 47 Serlacor 1973. Valerie Magar 143 Fig. 9. Current view of the cathedral in Morelia, with the square created around it / La cattedrale di Morelia oggi, con la piazza antistante (image of public domain) dations included the need to consolidate buildings, the prohibition to reconstruct ancient buildings, and the need to consider the broader natural environment of the sites48. A particularly relevant publication came to light the following year, by Augusto Molina, focusing on the architectural restoration of archaeological buildings. Molina made a strong criticism on the reconstruction of buildings, coupled with proposals for more moderated and interdisciplinary approaches, respecting the guidelines proposed by the Venice Charter49. In 1976, at a meeting organized in Mexico City, conservation professionals drafted and adopted the Charter of Mexico in defence of cultural heritage which again placed the emphasis on the importance of economic and social aspects when dealing with the conservation of heritage. The 1970s were in sum a rich moment of debate and reflections on how to perceive the past, and how to best preserve it. There was a growing conscience of the need to refrain from archaeological recon- 48 Díaz Berrio 1990. 49 Molina 1975. 144 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview structions, and there was also a movement to consider conservation of historic heritage beyond the single monument, taking into account historic centres and the natural environment. However, moving away from reconstruction and from the fascination exerted on politicians by the pre-Columbian past was not always easy. At the end of the decade, a finding in downtown Mexico City led to the location of the main temple of the Mexica capital. A major project to excavate the ancient Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan was initiated, leading to the destruction of a vast area of later buildings, including some that were catalogued. While much debate took place at the time, the political pressure was also considerable, and the marvel of the findings that have derived from the long-term interdisciplinary and high-quality project has captivated all audiences. Reflecting on lessons learnt The next decades were strongly dedicated to undertaking reflections and learning lessons from the previous years. Numerous conservation treatments undertaken with imported materials turned out to be ineffective, or sometimes detrimental in in situ conditions. This was the case for decorative elements, particularly mural paintings and stucco Fig. 10. View of the excavated area of the Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan / L’area archeologica del Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan (© Valerie Magar) Valerie Magar 145 reliefs in archaeological sites, but also the effect of the indiscriminate use of cement for the consolidation of walls and structures, also at archaeological sites. In the early 1980s archaeologists were admitted to the Master’s programme on architectural conservation at INAH’s School of conservation. This led to a gradual change towards more cautious approaches to conservation, but the fine line between consolidation and reconstruction was not always clearly respected. Both in archaeological and architectural conservation, and in spite of the recommendations of the Venice Charter to use traditional, compatible materials, there was a generalised use of cement, and sometimes reinforced concrete for intervention treatments. The inadequacy of these materials with traditional masonry would become apparent after major earthquakes in the following decades, particularly in 1985, 2009 and more recently in 2017, where a vast majority of the damages were caused by inadequate conservation treatments. At the international level, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, UNESCO undertook a series of consultations and organised meetings to review existing policies for the protection and conservation of cultural heritage. These meetings ended with a World conference on cultural policies, held in Mexico City in 1982, and known as Mondiacult. The main aim, in addition to understanding the state of the art in conservation, was also to define specific research needs and to promote cultural development within broader development projects. Emphasis was placed on the need to protect intangible heritage. At the end of the 1980s, the structural instability of Mexico City’s Cathedral led the beginning of a major conservation project, which would lead to innovative solutions, by working on the soil stabilisation and infill, under the foundations of the building50. The lessons learnt in this major project would be useful for heritage sites in other countries. The 1990s and early years of the 21st century were marked by a revision of criteria and materials used in conservation, particularly for in situ treatments of decorative elements51. This led to the understanding the importance of continuity in the behaviour of materials and building techniques for both movable and immovable heritage. This led to an ongoing exploring of traditional materials, particularly lime-based mortars and organic additives for the conservation 50 Aguilera 2013. 51 Cedillo 1991; Castro y Tapia 1993. 146 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Fig. 11. Temple of Huaquechula, damaged during the earthquake in 2017 / Il Tempio di Huaquechula, danneggiato dal terremoto del 2017 (© Valerie Magar) of extremely friable limestone in some parts of the country, or for the protection of decorative elements (plasters, renders and floors)52. Other alternative treatments were also explored for very fragile elements in situ, particularly new types of shelters and enclosures, and reburial techniques. There were also increasing concerns and initiatives to enhance community participation and involvement for an improved conservation and management of sites, particularly for historic heritage, with the development of extremely interesting approaches53. New challenges The evolution of conservation in Mexico has not been linear. There has been progress and setbacks, both in terms of legislation and in its implementation and in the practice of conservation of heritage. Since Mexico’s independence, legislation and protection of cultural heritage has included, on one hand, a mixture of aspects that looked into existing practices in other countries, particularly Europe, and sometimes 52 Magar, et al. (in print). 53 Schneider 2018. Valerie Magar 147 the US, and on the other, the development of local thinking and solutions that were more adapted to the type of heritage and its wider setting, including social, economic, and environmental aspects. One of the constant elements in policies during the 19th and through most of the 20th centuries was the close link between culture and education, which always made it play a relevant role for society. In the 21st century, this changed with the creation of a new Ministry of Culture, which disassociated cultural heritage from the Ministry of Education, and has left it in a vulnerable position, much more subject to political interests. Since this change at the end of 2015, there has been a constant and significant reduction in the budget allocated to heritage conservation institutions, which is a matter of concern. This has been further increased by the economic impact of the Covid pandemic. In view of increasing challenges to the conservation of heritage, due to numerous pressures, including climate change, urban growth and development projects, there is more than ever the need to have conservation professionals, adequately trained and recognised, to undertake the necessary conservation and management actions. There are also growing social claims, which are forcing a review of how certain heritage is perceived and ultimately conserved, which require serious reflections of what role heritage can play to both make sure social inequalities, conflicts and crimes are addressed, while also securing how our stratified and diverse heritage can/may be used and serve as lessons for the present, and for future generations. Protecting our planet includes both our culture and our nature, environment, settlements, and the people with their traditions. These challenges, and how we respond to them, will mark our generation. Bibliographical References Aguilera, P. (2013), Catedral Metropolitana. Hundimiento y rescate, UNAM-Instituto de Ingeniería, México. Alcántara, R. (2000), Un análisis crítico de la teoría de la restauración de Cesare Brandi, INAH, México. Arroyo, E. M. (2008), Pintura novohispana. Conservación y restauración en el INAH: 1961-2004, INAH, México. Batres, L. (1908), Exploraciones y consolidación de los monumentos arqueológicos de Teotihuacan, Imprenta de Bugneno y León, México. 148 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview Besnard, A. (1908), “De la responsabilité des gouvernements dans la conservation des monuments nationaux”, in International Congress of Architects, Seventh Session, Transactions, London 16-21 July 1906, The Royal Institute of British Architects, London, pp. 458-460. Castillo, L. (1924), El Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía. 18251925. Reseña histórica escrita para la celebración de su Primer Centenario, Talleres Gráficos del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía, México. Castro, M.C., Tapia M. (1993), Palenque. Intervenciones anteriores en conservación: seguimiento y evaluación. Tesis de licenciatura en restauración, Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía, México. Cedillo, L. (1991), La conservación en zonas arqueológicas. Tres décadas de trabajo. Tesis de licenciatura en restauración, Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía, México. Chanfón, C. (1988), Fundamentos teóricos de la restauración, UNAM, México. Chanfón, C. (coord.) (1997), Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos. Vol. 2, t. I, FCE, México. Cottom, B. (2008), Nación, patrimonio cultural y legislación: los debates parlamentarios y la construcción del marco jurídico federal sobre monumentos en México, siglo XX, Porrúa, México. Díaz Berrio, S. (1990), Conservación del patrimonio cultural en México, INAH, México. dipublico.org. 2014, “Segundo Congreso Panamericano de Arquitectos. Santiago de Chile 10-20 de Septiembre 1923”, 17 de enero, [https://www.dipublico.org/100973/segundo-congreso-panamericano-de-arquitectos-santiago-de-chile-10-20-de-septiembre-1923/]. Flores Marini, C. (1964), Colegios de Tepotzotlán. Restauraciones y museología, INAH, México. Flores Marini, C. (2004), “Reflexiones en torno a la carta de Venecia 19642004-2014”. Ponencia. Conferencia Científica Internacional, Budapest, 22 a 28 de Mayo. Gándara, M. (2019), “Las escuelas del INAH”, in J. Bali, A. Konzevik (coords.), Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 80 años, INAH, México, pp. 77-96. Guerrero, L. (2013), “La cal y los sistemas constructivos”, in L. Barba e I. Villaseñor (eds.), La cal. Historia, propiedades y usos, UNAM, México, pp. 49-72. Guzmán, V. (2018), “La comisión de monumentos”, in Boletín de Monumentos Históricos, 44, pp. 32-54. Guzmán, V., Rodríguez, L. (2018), “Inspección general de monumentos históricos y artísticos y de bellezas naturales, 1914-1930”, in Boletín de Monumentos Históricos, 44, pp. 6-31. INBA E INAH (1972), Considerandos y recomendaciones, Coloquicomos, octubre de 1972, INBA/INAH, México. Valerie Magar 149 Kubler, G. (1952), Cuzco: Reconstruction of the town and restoration of its monuments. Report of the UNESCO Mission, UNESCO, Paris. Kubler, G. (1990) [1982], Arquitectura mexicana del siglo XVI, Fondo de Cultura Económica, México. Lombardo, S. (2004) [1997], “El patrimonio cultural arquitectónico y urbano (de 1521 a 1900)”, in E. Florescano (coord.), El patrimonio cultural de México, t. II, Fondo de Cultura Económica/Centro Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, México, pp. 198-240. Lombardo S., Solís, R. (1988), Antecedentes de las leyes sobre Monumentos Históricos (1536-1910), INAH, México. Lorenzo, J.L. (1998), “Salvar el arte”, in L. Mirambell, J. Litvak (coords.), La arqueología y México, INAH, México, pp. 125-132. Macgregor, L., Orvañanos B., Muñoz A. (1923), “La reconstrucción de los monumentos arqueológicos en nuestro país”, in Anuario SAM 1922-1923, Sociedad de Arquitectos Mexicanos, México, pp. 38-49. Madrid, Y. (2019), Testimonio: el uso de la teoría de la restauración en el Seminario Taller de Restauración de Pintura de Caballete (STRPC) de la Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía (ENCRyM) 1984-2015. Tesis de Maestría en Estudios Críticos. México: 17, Instituto de Estudios Críticos. Magar, V. (2019), “Conservación de los bienes culturales en el INAH”, in J. Bali, A. Konzevik (coords.), Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 80 años, INAH, México, pp. 213-228. Magar, V., Jaidar, Y., Ruiz, C. (in press), “La conservación de piedra en México: una visión histórica”, in V. Magar, Y. Jáidar, C. Ruiz (coords.), Criterios de conservación de patrimonio en piedra, UNAM/INAH/ICCROM, México. Mariscal, N. (1904), “VI Congreso Internacional de Arquitectos”, in El Arte y la Ciencia, 6 (5), pp. 65-88. Mariscal, F. (1908), “El Congreso Internacional de Arquitectos celebrado en Viena”, in El Arte y la Ciencia 10 (04), pp. 85-91. Matos, E. (1998), Las piedras negadas. De la Coatlicue al Templo Mayor, INAH, México. Matos, E. (2017), Historia de la arqueología del México antiguo, 2 t., El Colegio Nacional, México. Molina, A. (1975), La restauración arquitectónica de edificios arqueológicos, INAH, México. Moyssen, X. (1986), “El nacionalismo y la arquitectura”, in Anales del IIE XIV (55), pp. 111-131. Noelle, L. (2009), “La arquitectura mexicana en las publicaciones periódicas del siglo XX”, Bitácora Arquitectura, 19, pp. 12-17. Pane, R. (1953), “Considérations sur la réunion d’experts tenue au siège de l’UNESCO du 17 au 21 octobre 1949. Première réunion d’experts sur les sites et monuments historiques. Paris, 17-21 octobre 1949”, in Monuments 150 Conservation in Mexico. A historical overview et sites d’art et d’histoire et fouilles archéologiques: problèmes actuels, UNESCO, Paris, pp. 8-48; 49-100. Paz, P. (2011), “Origen del discurso sobre la conservación de monumentos históricos y artísticos de México”, in Boletín de Monumentos Históricos, 21, pp. 158-176. Paz, P. (2018), “Significación espacial de los monumentos históricos de interés nacional”, in Boletín de Monumentos Históricos, 44, pp. 55-74. Peñuelas, G. (2015), La valoración del patrimonio cultural en el campo de la restauración mexicana: estudio del caso ENCRyM-INAH. Tesis de maestría en Comunicación y Estudio de la Cultura, Instituto de Investigación en Comunicación y Cultura, México. Perez, A. (2021), Los Centros Regionales UNESCO especializados en la conservación del patrimonio cultural (1962-1976): origen, trayectoria e implicaciones a nivel nacional e internacional en la Conservación. Tesis de Licenciatura en Restauración, ENCRyM, México. Ramírez, D. (2009), “La Exposición histórico-americana de Madrid de 1892 y la ¿ausencia? de México”, in Revista de Indias, 69, 246, pp. 273-306. Rutsch, M. (2000), “Enlazando al pasado con el presente: reflexiones en torno a los inicios de la enseñanza de la antropología en México (primera de dos partes)”, in Ciencia Ergo Sum, 7, 3, pp. 308-317. Sánchez, J. (1877), “Reseña histórica del Museo Nacional”, in Anales del Museo Nacional de México, 1, pp. 1-2. Schneider, R. (2018), “Función, diferencia cultural y vida comunitaria: proyectos de conservación y restauración en localidades indígenas de México”, in Conversaciones… con Ananda Coomaraswamy, 6, pp. 301-322. Serlacor (1973), “Conclusiones del Primer Seminario regional latinoamericano de conservación y restauración”, in: 1er. Seminario regional latinoamericano de conservación y restauración. Documentos de trabajo, Cerlacor, Mexico. Tenorio, M. (2009), Historia y celebración. América y sus centenarios, Tusquets, México. Torres Bodet, J. (1971), Memorias. El desierto internacional, Porrúa, México. Toussaint, M. (1974), Arte colonial en México, UNAM-IIE, México. Tovar, G. (1990), La Ciudad de los Palacios: crónica de un patrimonio perdido, 2 t., Vuelta, México. Velasco, T.E. (2012), La construcción y el valor del patrimonio documental en el marco legislativo e institucional mexicano (1914-2012). Tesis de maestría en historia aplicada, Universidad Nacional, Heredia. Villagrán García, J. (1967), “Arquitectura y restauración de monumentos”, in Memoria del Colegio Nacional, El Colegio Nacional, México, pp. 87-126. www.editricesapienza.it Opera diffusa in modalità open access e sottoposta a licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione – Non commerciale Non opere derivate (CC BY-NC-ND), 3.0 Italia