• ICOMOS SL’s Snr. VP Dr. Nilan Cooray highlights that SL has underestimated preventing damages caused to historic heritages by the lack of knowledge and uninformed acts   

As a country gifted with a large number of historical heritages, Sri Lanka should pay attention to raising awareness among the general public and those in charge of such heritages. While conservation is at the forefront of the objectives of raising awareness, preventing damages to such heritages, caused by the lack of knowledge and uninformed acts done with good intentions, is a bigger issue than Sri Lanka understands. 

This was one of the key points discussed by the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Sri Lanka’s (SL) Senior (Snr.) Vice President (VP) Dr. Nilan Cooray, who discussed the importance of conserving and managing historical heritages in the country. He emphasised that a country’s historical heritages are a part of that country’s identity.

Below are excerpts from his interview with The Daily Morning:

What is the current state of conserving historic heritages in Sri Lanka?

When it comes to the current state of conservation, we are on the right path. We have a great tradition of conserving our heritage. It is not limited to the recent past, because, there were historical periods where kings set apart funds for the maintenance of monuments. Conserving is kind of a tradition that existed even before the British came. However, modern day conservation, as a concept, started with  British rule and with the enactment of the Antiquities Ordinance. In fact, certain conservation projects that Sri Lanka has completed such as those relating to the Abhayagiri stupa, the Jetavanaramaya stupa, the Kuttam Pokuna, the Dambegoda Bodhisattva statue, are world class, although some of them were challenging.

However, there are certain disturbing things concerning conservation. One of them is that, in the name of development, certain Government agencies demolish heritages without consulting the Archaeological Department. It is a huge problem. There is a lack of understanding with regard to the preservation of heritage. Some of them demolish historic buildings and rebuild them without the consent of the Department. This issue needs to be resolved. While the Department has to be a little bit flexible, those agencies need to be more knowledgeable. They should not look at these buildings only as antiquities, but as monuments that can be used in the current context, in a sustainable way. When it comes to historical heritages, what Singapore did in the name of developing the country from a colonial city to a modern, international city was destroying all the colonial, historical buildings and constructing high rise buildings. Singapore did not realise that it had erased all the historical landmarks. Now, they are recreating historical buildings such as those in “Little India” and “Chinatown”.  It shows that a country needs not only new buildings, but also certain monuments of the past.

You mentioned that Sri Lanka’s status concerning conserving historic heritages is satisfactory. In what ways do you think that we can improve these conservation processes?

Generally, there has been a shift in the whole conservation approach. Earlier, we thought of conservation as a purely technical process, where we, for example, employed various scientific approaches to conserve buildings that were dilapidated. That is the technical approach. But now, the world is shifting from a mere technical approach to a value-based approach in conservation. That means that we think about the value of historic heritages. Not only professionals, but also the people and various stakeholders value certain monuments in their own way. For instance, the Temple of the Tooth Relic in Kandy has a certain value for Buddhists, and that is a spiritual and religious value. But, foreigners who visit the Temple do not have a spiritual or religious value. What they have is historical and cultural value. So, depending on such factors, the perception of historical heritages also differs. We have to understand all these perceptions by consulting all the relevant stakeholders, and take steps to design the kind of conservation approach that is acceptable to all stakeholders. That is something which to a certain extent is missing in the Sri Lankan context. That consultative approach is lacking. We need to shift our approach in everything including conservation.

What sort of internationally recognised standards or agreements should we be concerned about with regard to the conservation of historic heritages?

The Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites of 1964 is still considered the main internationally recognised document in conservation. It specifies through what means historical monuments should be conserved. That is an international doctrine used by all countries in their conservation work. In Sri Lanka too we have been using it from a very early date. But, there are certain limitations also in that document. One is that living heritage (values, beliefs, and ways of living inherited from past generations and are still used today) is not focused on in that document. There are several other charters with regard to archaeological conservation, historic urban landscapes, and timber-based buildings. There are several other charters which have been adopted internationally from time to time. As a conservator, one needs to consult all these documents before embarking on any conservation work. These charters are there to give professional guidelines as to how to conserve properly.

What is your opinion of the use of technology in conservation?

When we discuss technology in conservation, I identify two aspects of technology. One is the technology that has been used when historical buildings were built. If we take a timber building such as the Audience Hall (Magul Maduwa) in Kandy, in the name of conservation, we should not deviate from the original, old technology that has been used, which includes the use of certain timber-related specific technologies that help join pieces of timber. If we are conserving such a building, we have to respect the historical technology, because that is also a part of that building’s value. Modern technologies such as glueing timber together should not be allowed. Also, the “warichchi” technology (wattle and daub technology) has been used to erect the two storey “Weda Hitina Maligawa” of the Temple of the Tooth Relic. We should not demolish it and redo it with concrete, because then, you will lose its original technology. Secondly, we can pay attention to modern technology. Technology can be helpful in many areas including documentation. Earlier, we used methods that involved measuring and drawing manually. But now, we have laser technology which can be used to take a lot of measurements which cannot be taken manually. We can create three dimensional models of buildings. Digital technology is one technology that we can use and benefit from a lot. Modern technology should be a kind of a tool that we use in order to conserve the original technology.

Despite having a large number of historical heritages, in Sri Lanka, the conservation of such heritages seems to be a very specific, less spoken about subject. What is your opinion about the awareness aspect of conservation?

Yes, that is the situation. The awareness aspect has to be dealt with at different levels including the education level, i.e., the general public including students, and also custodians of historical heritages. First, we have to educate the general public of the importance of protecting our heritage, and in this process, students should also be made aware. At the same time, custodians of historical heritages, such as Buddhist monks or other religious leaders that are in charge of various places of historical value, need a certain level of awareness as to preserving these heritages. It is a problem that sometimes, these custodians change certain historical heritages without the necessary knowledge or consulting those with such knowledge. In addition, sometimes, these custodians receive various donations to modify these historical heritages, which may eventually destroy them, despite their intentions being good in most cases. We need to educate, especially religious leaders who serve as custodians of historical heritages and also politicians. I think that every level of society needs some kind of awareness in this regard. It is crucial because these heritages have a lot to do with a country’s unique identity.

Recently, it was reported that the Netherlands returned certain artefacts that were taken from Sri Lanka in colonial times, and it was national news. What is your opinion about the artefacts that Sri Lanka has in the past in this manner?

There is a lot of discussion about this development. We say that those artefacts were looted by the Dutch. We have to be careful when we use terms such as “looting”. The Dutch invaded the Kandyan kingdom, and then, have taken these artefacts as war trophies. When conventional armies fight, once one army defeats the other, they generally take back something as war trophies. These were war trophies at that time. They were on display in one of the best museums, and they have not been damaged and have been taken care of as artefacts. The Netherlands Government has taken a decision to give these artefacts back to Sri Lanka. That policy is not limited to Sri Lanka, but to other colonial countries as well, such as Indonesia. It is a good gesture. However, there are other considerations. They have taken care of all these artefacts in an internationally recognised manner, i.e. in a controlled environment with very high security. There is a question as to whether Sri Lanka is capable of providing that degree of care. Bringing them back is also quite a challenge, especially to the museum. We switch off the lights once we close the museum, because we cannot afford the electricity bill. When you switch off everything, then, the controlled environment is no more. That is the technological aspect of this discussion. Personally, I do not think that we need to insist that all such artefacts belonging to us be brought back, unless countries give. It is because, in a way, I think that when they are displayed in international museums, like the Amsterdam Historical Museum or even the British Museum in London, England, that itself gives a certain level of publicity to our country. In the British Museum, the Tara Devi statue, which was taken during the British period, was the centrepiece of the South Asian gallery. The gallery consisted of artefacts from India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Bangladesh. When such prominence is given to a Sri Lanka statue, it shows to the international community how rich our culture is. That is a kind of stimulation for them to visit Sri Lanka. There are those sorts of advantages in displaying these objects in such museums. However, we have to stop artefacts from being smuggled out of the country, because many of them are not going to be conserved. We need to pay more attention to the enforcement of our laws in this regard.