PRESERVING TRANSCULTURAL HERITAGE
YOUR WAY OR MY WAY? Questions on Authenticity, Identity and Patrimonial Proceedings in the Safeguarding of Architectural Heritage Created in the Meeting of Cultures
TITLE Preserving Transcultural Heritage: Your Way or my Way? Questions on Authenticity, Identity and Patrimonial Proceedings in the Safeguarding of Architectural Heritage Created in the Meeting of Cultures EDITOR Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (ARTIS – Instituto de História da Arte, Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Lisboa)
SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE Vítor Serrão (president), Ana Tostões, Christopher Marrion, Francisco Lopez Morales, Gill Chitty, Giovanni Carbonara, Hélder Carita, Javier Rivera Blanco, Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos, Johannes Widodo, Jorge Correia, José Delgado Rodrigues, Kassim Omar, Khalid El Harrouni, Luís Urbano Afonso, Maria João Neto, Maria Lúcia Bressan Pinheiro, Nobuko Inaba, Olga Sevan, Paulo Peixoto, Rabindra Vasavada, Rosa Perez, Rui Fernandes Póvoas, Susan Jackson-Stepowski, Tamás Fejérdy, Virgolino Jorge, Webber Ndoro, Zhang Jie EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (president), Maria de Magalhães Ramalho, Inês Cristovão, Vera Mariz, Tiago Rodrigues, Cátia Reis, Luis Urbano Afonso, Margarida Donas Botto The authors are responsible for their texts and the images contained on them, including the correct reference of their sources and the permissions from the copyright owners. LAYOUT Fernanda Cavalheiro e Margarida de Almeida ISBN 978-989-658-467-2 DOI 10.19262/978-989-658-467-2 LEGAL DEPOSIT NUMBER 428851/17 ISSUE 07.2017 EDIÇÃO
CALEIDOSCÓPIO – EDIÇÃO E ARTES GRÁFICAS, SA Rua de Estrasburgo, 26 – r/c dto. 2605-756 Casal de Cambra. PORTUGAL Telef.: (+351) 21 981 79 60 | Fax: (+351) 21 981 79 55 caleidoscopio@caleidoscopio.pt | www.caleidoscopio.pt
ORGANIZATION
INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
CONTENTS
13 Foreword
Vitor Serrão; Maria Magalhães Ramalho
15
19
21 33
Why the Preservation of Transcultural Heritage?
Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos
SOME ISSUES ON THE PRESERVATION OF TRANSCULTURAL HERITAGE
Questions of authenticity concerning different cultures and preservation
Jukka Jokilehto
“The sea was yesterday what heritage can be today, we must only beat some Adamastores”: The Portugal ICOMOS and the World Heritage of Portuguese Origin program
Ana Paula Amendoeira
41
The Relevance of a Charter for Transcultural Heritage
Gustavo Araoz
49
HERITAGE VALUES AND MANAGEMENT OF AFRICAN AND AMERICAN HISTORIC CITIES AND SITES WITH EUROPEAN INFLUENCES
51
The 19th Century Architecture and Urban Planning in the Kasbah of Algiers: A Colonial Inheritance to be Protected
Asma Hadjilah
59
Preservation of Heritage and Professionalization of Culture in Belém do Pará: Theoretical Aspects and Ideological Divergences
Cybelle Salvador Miranda
75
Architecture Identity of the Old Town of Buenos Aires: Defense and Recovery of its Transcultural Heritage
Jesús Rojas-Marcos González
85
Authenticity and Identity Dilemma - The Case of Mombasa Old Town and Lamu World Heritage Site
Kassim M. Omar
93
Urban Conservation of Historical Areas: Come Back to Thirty-Five Years (1981-2016) of Observation in Fez Medina, Morocco
Khalid El Harrouni
105
The Preservation of Maputo’s Downtown Built Heritage: Issues, Practices and Challenges
Lisandra Mendonça
115 127
The Construction of Cultural Heritage in Brazil: Minas Gerais and Goiás
Margarida Valla
Preservation of Heritage and Urban Renovation: The New Meanings of City Landscapes
Tereza Duarte Paes
137
139 147 157
SAFEGUARDING OF ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE BELONGING TO ETHNIC AND RELIGIOUS MINORITIES INSIDE COUNTRIES WITH DOMINANT CULTURES
Universal Rules or Community Values? Negotiative Conservation of Minority Heritage in Turkey
Elif Keser-Kayaalp
Artistic Interventions as Guardians of Palestinian Minority’s Heritage
Irit Carmon Popper; Alona Nitzan-Shiftan
Built Together, Heritagised Together: Using Building Archaeology for Safeguarding Early Modern Churches in China
Thomas Coomans; Xu Yitao
167
Safeguarding of Abandoned Architectural Heritage in Poland Originally Belonging to Religious Minorities - Problems and Challenges
Tomasz Tomaszek
179
Minority Architecture as “Shared Built Heritage”: The Transylvanian Saxon’s Communal Buildings in Romania
Timo Hagen
189 199
The Xucuru-Kariri and Their Transcultural Heritage
Suzany Marihá Ferreira Feitoza; Maria Angélica da Silva; Alícia Alves Rocha
A Virtuous Itinerary Between Ghetto Synagogues and Emancipation Synagogues: The Rediscovery of North Italian Judaism
Valeria Rainoldi
211
213 225
THE “INDIAN MELTING POT” FOR RELIGIONS AND CULTURES: CHALLENGES CONCERNING TRANSCULTURAL HERITAGE PRESERVATION
The Politics of Renovation: The Disappearing Architecture of Goa’s Brahmanical Temples
Amita Kanekar
“Your Church is Older than the Taj Mahal!” - The Challenge of Preserving the Patrimony of the Archdiocese of Bombay
Fleur D’Souza
235
Challenges in Preserving and Presenting Colonial French Heritage in India: The Case of Puducherry
Helle Jørgensen
243
Cultural Idiosyncrasies and Preservation Challenges in the Indo-Portuguese Catholic Religious Architecture of Goa (India)
Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos
255
Preservation of the Historical and Artistic Heritage of the Archdiocese of Goa: Plan to Implementation - Early Outcome
Mónica Esteves Reis
265
Preserving the Exfoliated Weathered Fabric of Basilica of Bom Jesus, Old Goa Approach Approach Conflict
Nizamuddin Taher
277 283
A Garden Overgrown: Panjim’s Garcia da Orta Park and the Remaking of Eco-Cultural Legacies
R. Benedito Ferrão
The Ruination of the Inconvenient: Eroding Goa’s Intangible Heritage
Vishvesh Kandolkar; Pithamber Polsani
291
QUESTIONS, CONTROVERSIES AND IDIOSYNCRASIES ON AUTHETICITY BETWEEN DIFFERENT CULTURES, WHEN FOCUSING THE SAFEGUARDING OF TRANSCULTURAL HERITAGE
293
Preserving the Transcultural Identity of Local Shopping Streets: North Street and Castle Street, Belfast
Agustina Martire; Anna Skoura
307
Conservation of Transcultural Heritage: Cooperation Towards Correct Interpretation and Common Strategies - The Vice-Roys Portrait Gallery
Ana Teresa Teves Reis; António Candeias
317 327 335
The destruction of Cultural Heritage in the Middle East (1991-2016)
Barış Gür
“The Elephant in the Room”: A Nineteenth Century Well-House Preservation in South Tel-Aviv
Braha Kunda
“My Culture” as a Constantly Changing Perception: Vernacular Built Traditions in Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa
Deborah Whelan
345
Conservation, Safeguarding and Sustainability of Cultural Heritage of Galata, its Authenticity and Integrity
Demet Ulusoy Binan; Gülce Güleycan Okyay
359 369 379 395 405
Yin Yu Tang and the Effects of Re-Contextualization on Vernacular Architecture
Mariko Azuma
The Church of Atarfe (Spain): From the Continuity to the Break with the Islamic Past
Mario Mata González
(Re)Inventing the Indians: Native American Voices in Contemporary Museum Practice
Meghan Gilbride
Memory, Space & Transcultural Heritage in Puerto Rico
Nadya K. Nenadich Correa
The Artificial Cascade Fountain of Cyrillo Volkmar Machado in Quinta de Belas: Challenges to its Preservation
Sofia Braga
417
427
429 439 447 459
HUL: Shared Built Heritage in Wuhan for Sustainable Urban Development
Song Yi; Ding Yuan
CONTEXTUALIZING THE (UN)WANTED: TOURISM AND MANAGEMENT OF TOTALITARIAN REGIMES IN EUROPE
Contextualizing the Heritage of the Communist Regime in Poland: New Narratives
Elżbieta Błotnicka-Mazur
Sense and Sensitivity: Krakow’s Route of Memory as a Way of Collective Trauma Management
Łucja Piekarska - Duraj
(Un)Wanted Heritage? Socialist Realist Architecture in Gdynia and Gdansk
Magdalena Howorus-Czajka
Memory of Different People in One Territory: WW2 Cemeteries in Cassino & Montecassino
Michela Cigola; Arturo Gallozzi; Marcello Zordan
473
475 485 497 509
WEST VERSUS EAST: DIFFERENCES AND DIFFICULTIES TO THE CONSERVATION OF THEIR SHARED HERITAGE (EUROPEAN COLONIES IN FAR EAST / “ASIANTOWNS” IN THE WEST)
Pondicherry - A Model Heritage City for India
Ashok Panda; Shubham Biswas
Conserving Canada’s Chinatowns: An Overview and Consideration of late 20thC approaches
John Ward
Safeguarding Sino-Portuguese Heritage in Macau Between 1990 and 1999
Luis António Durão
Dalian’s “Russian-Style Street”: A “Facadist” Approach to the Preservation of Russian Heritage in China
Valentine Nebon-Carle
521
523 533 543
GREEKS, ROMAN AND BYZANTINES IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION AND NEAR EAST: GUARDING TRANSCULTURAL REMAINS CONTAINING ANCIENT CLASSICAL INFLUENCES
Multi-Cultural Perception of the Cult Site of Hacı Bayram in Historic Center of Ankara
Açalya Alpan; Ece Kumkale Açıkgöz
Preserving Roman Archaeology in Northern Africa: The House of Amphitrite Curculum (Algeria)
Alessandro Pierattini
The Via Antiqua from Braga to Astorga: Transformation, Disruption and Permanence of a Cultural Route
Daniel Vale
553 565 573
Viminacium: Research, Protection and Recognition
Emilija Nikolić; Jelena Anđelković Grašar; Dragana Rogić
Felix Romuliana as a Bird Phoenix
Ljudmila Djukic
Learning from the Past: The Case of Transcultural Heritage in Rural Ecclesiastical Monuments of Cyprus
Nasso Chrysochou
583
Empire on the Borders: Fragile Structures Along the Frontiers Between the Byzantine and Slavic Cultures
Nora Lombardini; Elena Fioretto
593 603
How to Plan an Ancient City Within Modern Settlement: The Case of Soli Pompeiopolis
Remzi Yağcı
Comparative Analysis of the Identity and Patrimonial Processes of Two Roman Archaeological Sites in Portugal: The Roman Temple of Évora and the Schrine of Panóias, Vila Real
Rute Teixeira
611
613 623
EUROPEAN HERITAGE AS IMPERIALIST STATEMENT IN COLONIES: (UN)DESIRABLE MEMORIES WHICH MUST BE PROTECTED OR TO BE FORGOTTEN?
The Architectural Conservation Movement in Colonial Egypt (1882-1956): A Methodology
Adham Fahmy
Colonial Heritage in Latin America: Damnatio Memoriæ or Transcultural Dialogue?
Amélia Polónia; Cátia Miriam Costa
631 639 649
Law, Religion, Heritage: Preservation in Late Colonial India - The Problem of the Thatta Mosque
Indra Sengupta
Producing Anglo-India: The Shaping of Meaning Under a British Paradigm
Javier Ors Ausin
A New New Delhi? Re-Examining Areas of Conflict Between Conservation and Redevelopment of Lutyen’s Delhi
Manas Murthy; Vanicka Arora
661
The Saint Sebastian Fortress on the Island of Mozambique: The Conservation of a Foreign Heritage
Maurizio Berti
673 687
The Attitudes Towards the Built Heritage of Lahore
Saba Samee
Luís Benavente: A Key Player in Portugal’s Strategy for the Safeguarding of Colonial Architectural Heritage
Vera Mariz
697
BETWEEN FAR EAST AND THE INDIAN SEA: INDOCHINESE AND INSULINDIAN CULTURES (INFLUENCES, FUSIONS AND HERITAGE SAFEGUARDING)
699
Inhabitants’ Awareness of Shared Architectural Heritage: A Case Study of the Darmo Conservation Area, Surabaya, Indonesia
Erika Yuni Astuti
709
World Heritage for Whom? - Sustainable Heritage Tourism and Community Development of Luang Prabang
Lui Tam
721
Saigon’s Colonial Architecture: Conservation in the Face of Rapid Development and New Identity Construction
Phi Nguyen
733
The Virgin Mary in the Meeting of Cultures: Safeguarding the Transcultural Heritage in the Immaculate Conception Community, Bangkok
Saraphun Wongngernyuang
743
745 755 765 775
GLOBALISATION AS GENERATOR OF NEW TRANSCULTURAL HERITAGES: PRESERVING MIGRANTS’ ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE
Questions About the Authenticity of the Brazilian World Heritage
Gabrielle Cifelli
Franciscan Friars in the Tropics: An Uneasy Cultural Meeting Between Brazil and Germany
Maria Angélica da Silva; Taciana Santiago de Melo; Ana Luiza Cavalcanti Mendonça
Australian Shared Built Heritage
Susan Jackson-Stepowski
Matter of Life and Death: Reasons to Remember in St. Mary’s Cemetery, Chennai
William Pettigrew; Emily Mann
787
PRESERVING SHARED HERITAGE ALONG THE SILK ROAD, A MAJOR CREATOR OF CULTURAL ENCOUNTERS
789
Some Remarks Regarding the Preservation of Ilkhanid Architectural Heritage in Iran: History, Challenges and Perspectives
Ana Marija Grbanovic
801 813
The Silk Road: How Maritime Routes can Promote Cultural Connections - Macau as Case-Study
Maria José do Carmo Freitas
Chinoiserie: An Exploration of Cultural Heritage Along the Maritime Silk Roads Empire on the Borders: Fragile Structures Along the Frontiers Between the Byzantine and Slavic Cultures
Mei Qing
823
A Century of Archaeological Research and Restorations at Ani: Preserving an Armenian-Orthodox vs. Turkish-Islamic Past
Zeynep Aktüre; Fahriye Bayram
835
MEMORIES TO REMEMBER AND (NOT) FORGET: SLAVES’ HERITAGE OUTSIDE THEIR HOMELANDS
837
Preserving Indonesia’s Slavery Inheritance Culture Through an Intuitive Approach in Creating Spatial Experience in a Slave Memorial
Doni Fireza
851
The Architecture of Creole Cosmopolitanism: Strategies for Preserving the Landscapes of Slavery in Mauritius
Dwight Carey
859
871
873 885 897 909
When Orishas Visit the Earth: Survivals at Terreiros of the Afro Matrix Religions in Alagoas, Brazil
Louise Maria Martins Cerqueira; Maria Angélica da Silva; Arlindo da Silva Cardoso; Karina Mendonça Tenório de Magalhães Oliveira; Lucas Cardoso Ramos; Paula Louise Fernandes Silva
THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE IN THE CROSSROAD BETWEEN EUROPE, ASIA AND AFRICA: FUSION OF CULTURES AND HERITAGES TO PRESERVE
Heritage or Property: Preserving the Churches of Aintab
Gül Cephanecigil
Visitor Management at Historical Monuments and Sites: A Proposal for Topkapi Palace Museum
H. İlke Tandoğdu; Gülsün Tanyeli
Highlights on the (1987-1989) Restoration of the Ottoman’s Al - Qushlah Building
Nawar Sami Mehdi Al-Ali
A Carmelite Father and an Ottoman Water Mill in Palestine: Cultural Interaction at the Monk’s Mill
Ruth Liberty-Shalev; Adi Har-Noy
919
921 931 943 953
SHOULD BE FOLLOWED OR IGNORED? RECEPTION OF EUROPEAN HERITAGE THEORIES WITHIN NON-WESTERN CULTURES
Jean-Philippe Lauer, Athens Conference and the Introduction of Anastylosis to Saqqara
Adham Fahmy
Transferring Urban Theories to Iranian Context
Azadeh Arjomand Kermani
The Role of European Professors in Historic Preservation in Turkey: The Case of Paolo Verzone
Mesut Dinler
Against the Reception of Eurocentric Heritage Theories on Non-Western Cultures: A Case of Pre/Post Colonisation in Nigeria
Olukoya Obafemi
965 POSTERS
966
Unwanted Heritage as Asset, Position of Memorial Architecture of Communist Yugoslavia in Contemporary Bosnia and Herzegovina
Aida Bičakčić
967 968
Enhancement and Digitization of Ecclesiastical Relics
Athanasios T. Stogiannos
Preserving Transcultural Heritage in a Unique Land Where the Continents & Cultures Meet: Istanbul Case
Ebru Yıldız; Elmas Erdoğan
969 970 971
Archeological Landscapes, it’s Survival and Sustainability: Antalya, Perge Case
Ebru Yıldız; Elmas Erdoğan
Preservation of the Basilica of Bom Jesus in Goa: An Illusion of Immanence
Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos
The Apprehended Rebellion Against Modern Catholic Church Architecture and Iconography in a Small Philippine City
Liliane Rejante Manahan
972 973
Portuguese-Brazilian Landscape: An Urban Heritage Network
Roseline Vanessa Oliveira Machado; Flávia Cerullo; Bianca Machado
Clerical House and Museum: Trajectories of Architectural Heritage in Brazil
Silveli Maria de Toledo Russo
PRODUCING ANGLO-INDIA: THE SHAPING OF MEANING UNDER A BRITISH PARADIGM
Javier Ors Ausin Harvard University
ABSTRACT This essay explores how power took on different shapes that bridged culture and design during the British Empire in India. The deployment of Britishness in India was represented in the establishment of new cultural values and Western taste that was ultimately adapted as India’s cultural standards. Colonial monuments, such as the Gateway of India in Mumbai represent this change that mixed “nativized” adaptations of Indian design with the forms of British “home” culture. These hybrid Mogul/Victorian monuments created a distorted idea of Indian “heritage” that became familiar to Mumbai residents as the landscape of their “home”, and at the same time was symbolic of their historical subjugation. KEYWORDS Colonialism; Power; India; British; Indo-Saracenic
639
The core of this essay studies the British Raj Empire in India investigating how power was expressed in design, with a focus on a hybrid architectural style called Indo-Saracenic used for the construction of the Gateway of India imperial memorial in Mumbai. This relationship between design and power indicates, first the greater significance of the European masters, and later on the power to create the institutions and regulations to perpetuate their image and power beyond India’s independence. This paper explores the apparatus of the British colonial project in India and the deployment of Britishness in India’s architecture, which was expressed in the many ways the colonizers indoctrinated the “uneducated” natives in their Western notions of culture and architectural pedagogy. The articulation of the European control was based on the desire to produce new social, economic, and political orders in the colonized South Asian territory. Like other colonial rules in history, as the British Empire unfolded, power took on different shapes that bridged culture and design. This binary relationship was one of the main anchors of colonialist discourse that allowed the rulers to maneuver the construction of the imperial project in a new geographical space and interact within an unknown culture. Michel Foucault makes an illuminating analysis of the entangled relationship between power and cultural knowledge, explaining how knowledge is always an exercise of power and how power with its different mechanisms produces many forms of knowledge.1 The apparatus of power is not only exercised by the control of some hegemonic groups, but also by the interpenetrations of their power into more simple and daily processes that make their influence seem natural and legitimate. This interaction between power and knowledge during the colonial rule in India took shape in different spheres that included new modes of social organization under the justification of modernity.2 The British colonial project in India was a producer of new knowledge that was delivered and consumed by individuals, transforming India and its culture. Despite the representations of the new knowledge, this relationship was made particularly visible through the architecture of the monuments and memorials that at heart celebrated the traditional narrative of English culture. Because of their date, much of British architecture in Indian took the form of Gothic monuments built in Victorian style. The British buildings of Victorian and Edwardian styles became cultural markers that demonstrated the architectural unity of the empire, in the same way that the railway infrastructure, built with British technology and systems, represented the expansion and industrial cohesion of the Indian subcontinent. These landmarks, at the same time, enforced an asymmetrical unity of the diverse cultures that were coexisting in the built environment. The architectural styles used for their construction merged British and Italianate Gothic details to create standard high Victorian, and they were placed in the imperial urban settings of grand avenues and axes. The historical events that these monuments commemorated, and the cultural and military festivities that took place around them, all identified the power of Great Britain that they exercised. The first phase of the Empire’s power to India began with the English East India Company, a corporation of British shareholders founded in 1600s, aiming to make money by extracting and exporting resources from South Asia to Great Britain. This beginning, however, also resulted in a metaphoric transportation of English culture to India. The monopoly exercised by the English East India Company ended up in a great transformation of India that began with a shift from a land based Mughal economy to a new economy
640
of maritime trade connected to Europe.3 The many paintings commissioned by the East India Company extol both the transfer of British culture and the superiority of European culture. This was particularly notable in paintings such as the 1754 painting Bombay on the Malabar Coast belonging to the East India Company of England by Jan Van Ryne, which shows a neo-classical building of the East India Company overlooking the harbor. India’s architecture, on the other hand, was often represented in decay, following Picturesque exotic aesthetic ideals to make it more readable to the foreign gaze of the British people, as well as to contribute to the wider political intention of westernization of India.4 Indian architecture was usually presented in some sort of ruined state, even when that architecture was not a ruin. This was the case in the many drawings produced by scientific explorer James Fergusson for all his books, such as ‘History of Indian and Eastern Architecture’ or ‘Ancient Architecture in Hindoostan’. The 1847 drawing of the Temple of Kanarug, by Thomas Dibdin, visualizes this nostalgic idea of an Indian architecture in a ruined state. The historical narrative now was in British hands, and the political message was clear: India’s architecture belonged to the past in this new Colonial present. Therefore, the past had a nostalgic aura of failure that needed to be reinforced, particularly in the context of the British Industrial Revolution happening back home.
Image 1 – ‘Bombay on the Malabar Coast belonging to the East India Company of England’ by Jan Van Ryne (171260). (British Library); Image 2 – ‘Temple of Kanarug’ by Thomas Dibdin from ‘Ancient Architecture in Hindoostan’. (British Library).
The last phase of the colonial rule began in 1857 with the “Indian Mutiny” that blew up along the northern border. The Indian rebellion was against the corporate power exercised by the Company over India and its resources. This “Mutiny” resulted in the end of the East India Company and the shift to a direct control by the British Crown. At this point the cultural footprint produced by the British was minimal and came and went with trade of goods and services. This event, however, led to the last period of the Empire that shaped a more permanent state that was embodied in the various institutions, architecture, and town planning that were implemented by the British Raj. All this scientific and industrial knowledge was in the base of the new colonial cities that would be erected following European canons of architecture and urban planning. These new urban contexts were subject to British notions of modernity and were to be filled with Neoclassical, Neo-Gothic and other Western ‘historicist’ styles.5 Colonial cities, like all cities, were undergoing a process
641
of continual evolution. The major difference in colonial urban contexts was the lack of interest in and understanding of local culture by the foreign rulers, resulting in superficial readings of it with significant exclusionary consequences. The unfolding of the British framework lead to a phase of domestication of India under a British paradigm that began with the European exploration of ‘wild’ India to process and categorize its culture, under the new British social domain. These activities produced an extensive literature and other modes of cultural classification and in turn led to the transformation of India’s architecture into ancient “monuments of the past.” As a consequence, India turned into a new set of British values that determined what was worth preserving as monuments, and what was worth being shipped to Britain as objects of desire for museums.6 British scientific explorers led first by Scottish architectural historian James Fergusson (1808-1886) and later on by English engineer and archaeologist Alexander Cunningham (1814-1893) undertook many trips across the Indian subcontinent. Their aim was to absorb as much as possible of the past in order to re-construct the historical narrative and shape the beginning of a new present under European rule. Since India was subject to British power, the rulers looked for ways to incorporate India’s past into the new British domain. Their goal was not the reification of India but rather the justification of absorbing India within the construction of the Empire’s colonial project. Among the institutions that were established to address India’s culture, in 1861 the colonial government founded the most important one, the Archeological Survey of India. Cunningham was appointed as the Archeological Surveyor to the Government of India first, and in 1870 as the Director-General of the Archeological Survey of India. Under his mandate many architectural and preservation surveys were produced in the last decades of the nineteenth century. They aimed to re-classify Indian architecture as “monuments of the past”, and to delineate how they might be restored, according to their Western guidelines, since India was a “British possession”.7 Fergusson wrote his survey book, The History of India and Eastern Architecture (1876) without really explaining the cultural meaning that linked architecture with India’s diverse cultures.8 Working from European systems based in the historical orders, he categorized Indian architecture based on their forms and aesthetics. Fergusson even wrote that “the Hindus had first learned the art of building in stone from their Greek conquerors.”9 The preservation surveys became the basis for pattern books and ornament prints that reduced Indian culture to mere ornaments that could be consumed as furniture, wallpaper and other decorative arts by westerners looking for the exotic. A secondary aim of these books was to use them as a source for architects to create buildings in India without even having to be in India or having any knowledge about it. Owen Jones’ Grammar of Ornament published in 1856 represented the India that was exhibited in the Crystal Palace exhibition just before the Sepoy Rebellion. Half a century later, Alexander Speltz’s Styles of Ornament, published in 1910, marked Indian architecture as another architectural style in the canon of Beaux Arts training. Confirmed Gothicist John Ruskin (1819-1900) recognized that European power in the architectural field in India destroyed native craft, causing it to decline. Nonetheless, he proposed to re-educate Indian craftsmen in European aesthetics while keeping their crafts traditions and knowledge.10 Along these lines, Ernest Binfield Havell (1861-1934),
642
a British art historian, delivered a strong critique of the decline of native craftsmanship in his 1913 book Indian Architecture. Following William Morris’ position that hand crafts were innate to creativity, Havell argued that Indian craftsmen were demoralized because of the diminishment of their deep cultural value and understanding of Indian identity through construction and crafts. Havell was quoted in the British journal Building News of 1913: “The official architect sits in his office at Simla, Calcutta, or Bombay, surrounded by pattern-books of styles— Renaissance, Gothic, Indo-Saracenic, and the like— and, having calculated precisely the dimensions and arrangement of a building suited to departmental requirements, offers for approval a choice of the “styles” which please him or his superiors for clothing the structure with architectural garments in varying degrees of smartness, according to the purpose for which it is intended, at so much per square foot.”11
Havell advocated for a stronger understanding of the important role of the craftsmen not only in the construction, but also in the design process of buildings and monuments beyond the ornamentation. Havell believed that British architects often ignored cultural and climatic issues, designing the new architecture for the colonial cities from their offices in Britain. Moreover, he thought that requesting the local Indian craftsmen to dress that architecture with their British design details, was transforming Indian craftsmen in mere decorators, a situation which had never been before. This is a very relevant issue for this thesis, because the Gateway of India monument in Mumbai followed this systematic way of producing architecture to create a British building wearing an Indian dress. These operations and disputes over architectural styles used in India, ultimately culminated in a two-way transformation process that not only changed India’s architecture and its society at-large, but also changed the British people though to a lesser extent by the interplay of new exotic forms, as it is shown in sites such as Nash’s Royal Pavilion in Brighton. This hybrid architecture was the consequence of years of colonial rule in India and many conflicts between European culture and its imposition to native Indians. The construction of new architecture and the question of how the Empire was represented in it, ties to the question of colonial power and representation. Every new meaning was shaped by the colonial power through the display of new knowledge and new physical forms in the built environment. This socio-cultural transformation was represented in the built environment through the architectural hybridization that resulted in a new Anglo-invented style that British name Indo-Saracenic, which illustrates a false fusion of Indo-Islamic and British Gothic Revival architecture. This did not meet the standard definition of hybridity – a merging of equals because British rulers, architects and engineers reduced the architecture of India, both Mughal and Hindu, to nothing more than exotic aesthetic details that dressed Western buildings. The structures that resulted from the longstanding interaction between India and England are today considered transcultural/hybrid ‘heritage’ of India’s colonial past. Beyond the aesthetics of these Mughal/Victorian structures that insinuated a false cultural porosity, the cultural meaning in these buildings traced the same ideological patterns that were in the base of colonial power. This revealed the same elements of colonialist discourse, which were justified by modernity and based on the Western view of the advanced ideals of Enlightenment12 notions of progress and political modernization, but masked economic exploitation, imposition and cultural differentiation.
643
Architectural hybridization happened mainly in the last phase of the British Crown rule, from 1857 to 1947. When the British Raj moved from an earlier position of mere conquerors, who had no interest to incorporate Indian architecture in their cities, to a new strategy, particularly after the 1857 mutiny, where they sought to incorporate Indian styles into their buildings.13 This change of style had as its goal a more harmonious relationship with the Indian subjects, by better reflecting their culture. As a result, the colonial government gradually incorporated cultural hybridization, from the inclusion of the Anglo-Indian population in the social life and administration, all the way to the creation of this new hybrid architectural style, incorporating bits of native detail on generally European forms and plans. The new hybrid architecture appeared after centuries of colonial rule in India and many conflicts between European culture and its imposition to the native Indians. This new architectural time, with an increased porosity between both cultures, was by no means representative of a reconciliation, rather it was conceived as a propagandistic strategy to show a false sympathy and in turn exercise a closer control over the Indian populace. After all, “How could the ruler be simultaneously indigenous and yet remain ‘British to the backbone’?”14 British rulers and architects believed that the best way to create hybrid architecture was by incorporating particular features of the architecture of the great Mughal Empire. This idea was based on the fact that most British rulers, drawing on the interpretations of Fergusson, saw Hindu architecture as too weighted in material and ornamentation, which made it inferior .15 At the same time, British wanted to present themselves as the “new Mughals”, which they intended to achieve by adopting features from their architecture. Historian Thomas Metcalf argues that another fact that made the European rulers to incorporate Mughal architecture into Indo-Saracenic was the association between the Islamic domes and arches with the architecture of the Roman and Byzantine empires, and with Renaissance notions of beauty.16 This is probably the reason why the new hybrid architecture incorporated the words “Indo” as a geographical association with the Indian, and “Saracenic” for its connection to the British interpretation of the Islamic ornamentation and architecture of the Mughals. Beyond the aesthetics of these new Mughal/Victorian structures that insinuated a false cultural porosity, the cultural meaning in these buildings traced the very ideological patterns of supremacy over India, that were in the base of colonial power. These attitudes of superiority persisted in British rulers, such as Governor of Madras Lord Napier, who considered Indian architecture “aesthetically and scientifically defective.”17 Napier argued that Hindu architectural style was mechanically deficient based on the “despotism of material” and overwhelmed by sculptural ornamentation.18 These positions proved two things— that hybridization proposed by the British was merely symbolic and a cosmetic intervention, and that there was an ongoing confrontation between the different styles. The compound style proposed was therefore illusory and was used to show the ‘benevolence’ of the Europeans, who continued to lord it, over the Indian people. The lack of agreement over the use of new stylistic forms for this “new time” created new binary power dynamics that persisted in the era. These dynamics are very well articulated in two buildings in particular, both in Mumbai—the Taj Mahal Hotel, built in 1903, and the Gateway of India monument, built between 1915 and 1924. The hotel name pastes the famous Taj onto a British railway hotel with Mogul domes. The Gateway of India monument at the steamship landing of
644
Mumbai on the other hand is a grand structure erected to memorialize the important visit on December 1911 of King George V and Queen Mary to Bombay. This visit was very critical as it meant a new reshaping of India by officially moving the capital from Calcutta to Delhi. The Gateway monument represents the royal stamp of this trip and important shift. The structure was designed by Scottish architect George Wittet (1878-1926), who was the consulting architect for the city of Bombay, and it was constructed between 1915 and 1924. The monument was built in reinforced concrete and covered with a layer of basalt stones carved by Indian craftsmen who followed the instructions of the British architect. What appears to be a hybrid structure is in fact a European triumphal arch covered with a different ornamental overlay that combines classical orders in a familiar Victorian mode with Indo-Islamic ornaments. Metaphorically, the Gateway of India could be read as an English body wearing an Indian dress. The surface of stones are also linked to the British persistence to keep Indian aesthetics unchanging, remaining in the past, while the technology, represented by the reinforced concrete was hidden underneath. These decisions on the construction of Gateway of India, made this 20th century British memorial to become the most anachronistic of all the colonial structures in Mumbai, being presented as an older monument, while it was one of the last, and major memorial constructions before the British left India. This was a faux rather than a true accommodation within the overall hierarchical English culture, which perpetuates and takes advantage of Indian cultural hierarchies. The structure not only memorializes the arrival of the royal visit, but also synthesizes the powerful and political position of Bombay as a threshold port of the imperial rule. Although a monument of imperialist remembrance, the Gateway has turned to be the most famous landmark in Mumbai, becoming one of the tourist magnets of the city and one of the most photographed structures, along with the Taj Mahal Hotel across the street from Gateway.
Image 3 - The Gateway of India, 1924. (Source: Wikipedia)
645
A key question is how Bombay citizens and the city itself adopted and reacted to architectural artifacts, like the Gateway of India monument, and to Indo-Saracenic more broadly. Historian of South Asia Thomas Metcalf states that Indo-Saracenic did not prosper in Bombay due to the economic influence of the Parsis, a prominent Indian elite who, due to their historical background, had traditionally considered themselves foreigners in India, even after centuries of living there.19. They built a strong relationship with the British, and to represent their elite status, they traditionally funded most of the British buildings in the city of Mumbai. They, sometimes, therefore, overlooked Indian culture, as they supported European influences. These minorities represented their elite status by advocating for stronger connections with Europe, through clothes, language, and architecture. As a result, Bombay’s built environment was mainly built following the canons of Gothic Revival architecture, with relatively few structures emerging in the Anglo-invented hybrid Indo-Saracenic. In conclusion, the colonial project meant a paradigmatic and unprecedented transformation to India. The footprint left by the British Empire in India was large. At the same time, the Europeans and their power were not able to avoid an expected influence that shaped new knowledge for the British as well. As a result of this interaction, an Anglo-Indian culture emerged, as a transcultural representation of the admixture. Hybridization, however, was neither accepted nor symmetrical in power and representation. Superiority attitudes towards India’s cultures derived in a continuous dismissing of Indians first and of Anglo-Indians later on. When the Empire ended in 1947, a new time in India began after centuries of Western control, where England had already changed the history of India. Today, memories of the common colonial history remain as markers of the British power. India and the previously subjugated culture now have the responsibility of maintaining this colonial heritage, despite its representation of years of cultural suppression. New memories will appear over time, as India is charged with maintaining these British objects in an era of an independent, autonomous national identity. The central conundrum today is that India with its many economic and environmental problems has to take care its heritage, including these Imperial monuments. The Indian people are the custodians of their own country and their heritage, and India has created governmental structures beginning with the Ancient Monuments Preservation Acts of 1904 that were incorporated into governmental regulations in post-independence India in 1948. “Ancient monument” means “any structure, erection or monument, or any tumulus or place of interment, or any cave, rock-sculpture, inscription or monolith, which is of historical, archaeological or artistic interest, or any remains thereof.” This means that every object of the past can be considered to be historic – and therefore to be preserved. Gateway of India is, in fact, a Grade 1 Heritage monument, the highest grade a structure can receive in Mumbai. This grade means “Richly deserves carefully preservation.” Thus the Indian people are now in the position of conserving the artifacts of the colonial power that subjugated the populace. The questions about conservation and re-appropriation needs to be addressed, and the challenge is how the they preserve and re-appropriate these sites in imaginative ways that avoid them from becoming victims of what could be metaphorically seen as a Stockholm syndrome. A condition where, ad Frantz Fanon stated, the previously subjugated people,
646
the “primitive” subject, have developed a “dependent behavior” toward the subjugators, the “civilized” men, and everything that represents them.20 Therefore, they now carefully take care and preserve the monuments of the rulers, as their own heritage. This paradoxical situation has to be resolved by embracing their past cultural meaning and re-signifying a new one that allows them to understand and tell the whole history that they symbolize. Conservation of transcultural heritage, like other kinds of heritage, is now in India’s hands and it needs to be a reflection of today’s local culture. International agencies have to abandoned the great control over the built environment, as this might create local distress and could interpreted as a new way of colonialism of external imposition. Furthermore, the ties that bridge conservation with tourism, as a form of modern entertainment, is transforming tangible cultural heritage into the new global transactional trade. The challenge is how to overcome the Eurocentric understanding of heritage and the imposition of Western canons of preservation. Rather, local governments and communities need to be empowered to re-define their own diverse conservation agenda that focuses on cultural identities and social responsibility. In my opinion, a set of hypothesis can be proposed, interrogated and implemented as a method to confront the shadows of the past, the feeling of inferiority, and address the meanings of social injustice. For instance, what if the municipal government of Mumbai proposes a strategy where the Gateway of India is labeled as a “ruin” and therefore conserve it as a way to let it die? This, as a socially just intervention, would let the pass of time, towards a visible ruin, visualize the decay of the empire. This would create what landscape designer John Brinckerhoff Jackson called a radically new concept of history, and specially the meaning of that history, representing a new concept of the monument.21 Therefore, the physical degradation of a monument that was designed to remember the power of the master rulers and the defeat of the ruled, would express the failure of the colonial venture, conceived as an exclusionary project. This hypothesis could turn into a nostalgic and romantic view of the ruins; nevertheless, the ruined monument might become a piece of art, but an art that represents decay and failure. Moreover, combining a more traditional preservation strategy for other colonial buildings nearby, and this new conservation strategy towards a visible ruin for an imperial monument, would seek to produce a new provocative dialectic between the past and the present daily life of Mumbai. Notes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
(Foucault 1980) (Giddens 1990) (Metcalf 2012) (Tillotson 1990, 369) (Mitter 1994 p.250) (Cole 1882, p.11) (Cole 1882, p.11) (Ching 2007, p.678) (Mitra 1881, pp. I-II) (Ching 2007, p.678) (Havell 1913, p.846) (Metcalf 2001, p.93) (Metcalf 1989, p.56) (Chopra 2011, p.33) (Metcalf 1989, p.57) (Metcalf 1989, p.58)
647
17 18 19 20 21
(Napier 1870, p.681) (Metcalf 1989, p.57) (Metcalf 1989, p.98) (Fanon 1967, p.74) (Jackson 1980, p.91)
References Brinckerhoff Jackson, John, The Necessity for Ruins. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1980 Ching, Francis D.K., Jarzombek, Mark, Vikramaditya, Prakash, A Global History of Architecture. Hoboken, N.J.: J. Wiley & Sons, 2007 Chopra, Preeti, A Joint Enterprise: Indian Elites and the Making of British Bombay. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2011 Cole, Henry Hardy, First Report of the Curator of Ancient Monuments in India for the year 1881-82. Simla: Government Central Branch Press, 1882 Fanon, Frantz, Black Skin, White Masks. New York: Grove Press, 1967 Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977, Colin Gordon (ed.), New York: Pantheon, 1980 Giddens, Anthony, The Consequences of Modernity. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1990 Gist, Noel P., “Anglo-Indians: An Urban Minority in India,” in Ferreira, J.V., Jha, S.S. (ed.), The Outlook Tower. Essays on Urbanization in memory of Patrick Geddes. Bombay: Popular Prakashan, 1976 Havell, Ernest Binfield, “Indian Architecture,” Building News Journal (1913), pp.845-7 Havell, Ernest Binfield, “The Building of the New Delhi,” Building News Journal (1912), p.570 Hysler-Rubin, Noah, Patrick Geddes and Town Planning: A Critical View. New York: Routledge, 2011 Kenny, J.T., “Colonial Geographies: Accommodation and Resistance – An Introduction,” Historical Geography (1999) Metcalf, Thomas R., Metcalf, Barbara D., A Concise History of Modern India Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001 Metcalf, Thomas R., An Imperial Vision: Indian Architecture and Britain’s Raj. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989 Mitter, Pratha, Art and Nationalism in Colonial India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994 Munshi, Indra. “Patrick Geddes: Sociologist, Environmentalist and Town Planner,” Economic and Political Weekly Journal (2000) Napier, “Modern Architecture in India,” Builder, 27 August 1870, p.681. Phrase taken from Smith, “Architectural Art in India,” Society of Arts, Bombay, 1873 Tillotson, G. H. R., “The Indian Picturesque: Images of India in British Landscape Painting, 1780-1880”, in Bayly, C.A. (ed.), The Raj: India and the British, 1600-1947. London: National Portrait Gallery Publications, 1990
648