Material Authenticity in Tradition of Conservation in Nepal

Sudarshan Raj Tiwari

Professor, Institute of Engineering

Introduction:
In discussing history, change and continuity of culture, particularly of the built heritage ,
as well as the formulation of conservation action, the case of Nepali tiered temples can
be educating for two reasons; firstly, because it has passed through many cycles of loss
and recovery as a result of (a) it being constructed and styled out of semi-perishable
materials such as wood and brick and exposed to a harsh monsoon environment as if
designed to inflict maximum deterioration, (2) the siting of the Kathmandu Valley in
one of the most active faults, thereby being subject to large earthquakes periodically and
(3) occasional fire happening out of ritual offer of lights during worship and secondly,
because the practice and tradition of conservation as particular mix of preservation,
restoration and reconstruction seems to have begun along with the construction of
Nepal’s earliest images and buildings housing them and developed and continued over
centuries right down to present times. These cycles of recovery, restoration , and
reconstruction have not only led to overlapping of many layers of history, meaning and
materials in the heritage but also established its own standards of understanding,
knowing and safeguarding it for presentation, preservation and enhancement, thereby
informing us how the following societies have taken action to conserve the heritage
passed on by the preceding ones in history. While these deteriorating and endangering
conditions have influenced the approaches and methods of conservation and the
evolution of the architectural heritage itself, the conservation approach and its demands
have also extensively acted on the historical development of the heritage itself. The
practice of regular conservation and the culture of reconstruction through replacement
of deteriorated components followed over such long period and regularly has also meant
that very few or none of the architectural heritage that we have are ‘original’, as a whole
or even as part, if we restrict definition of material authenticity to its initial construction.
It becomes clear from some inscriptional sources that Nepali tradition of conservation
itself has built on some sense of authenticity through design and construction skill
practiced as family trade and the experience passed on from the older generation to the
new at each stage of generation.

Thus, even as practice of replacing old with a new (for example, the weathered windows
with new freshly carved ones) may appear to go against the current conservation
principle, which largely based on the romantic historicism and scientific dating of
historical time and which emphasize datedness of material as the key criteria of
authenticity, the practice being a defining character of Nepali building construction
tradition should not be discarded and dismissed. Other ways of representing time or
fixing datedness may also need to be formulated; design and style as a basis of dating
could well convey historicity as well in cultures with very long period of development.
Architectural traditions and characters deriving out of use of perishable materials and
that respect their perishability (natural disposal) should be judged differently from
traditions using seeking perm anency (those on the path of stones to concrete to
reinforced concrete and plastics?) and their material authenticity needs to be defined in
some other ways. In these days of climate change, we much recognize the ecological
sense of cultures that have respectfully developed recognizing and accepting the
perishability of all things material and establish compatible principles and practice of
preservation of materials in conservation.

Therefore, as assuring authenticity is possibly the most important requirement of any

conservation action, it becomes necessary for us to understand how authenticity and
conservation standards may have to be redefined based on conservation as practiced by
our ancestors. Such new norms should be of use for practice of conservation in Nepal
and in all cultures based on perishable materials.

Materials in Nepali Architecture:

It is most likely that use of stone in buildings started in the Kathmandu valley with the
coming of the Lichchhavi in the first century CE. Prior to that the Kirat buildings were
constructed in brick (and possibly wood) – the Kirat use of stone being limited to some
images of worship carved out of soft stones (sand stone of the so-called Sank h u variety)
towards the end of their rule. That not just the materials but also the form of Kirat
temple was much different from that of the Lichchhavi can be inferred from the
inscriptions of the latter, which names them as devak u la as distinct from the
Lichchhavi’s bh avan a, prasada, etc. That the brick and wood architecture had reached a
well developed stage in the Kirat period and was certainly flourishing in the Lichchhavi
period can be understood from the archeological finds as well as description of the
Chinese diplomats. The Lichchhavi period saw experimentations in building stone
temples, possibly starting with the Avarana type of small temples. With the Lichchhavi
had also came the script, inscriptions, Sanskrit language and the society informed by the
classical Hindu/Buddhist sciences in oral traditions (sru tish astra).

By fifth century, they developed the technology of stone burnishing and polishing
(tam ralep ) and applied it to the hard stone (granite of so-called Kodk h u variety) images,
lin ga, ch aitya and carved architectural elements like columns to give it a characteristic
sheen and protection from weathering. Although the ritual bathing, cleansing and
worship of lin ga and ch aitya using different auspicious liquids, and use of vermilion and
other colored powders and their corrosive property and the deterioration these caused on
the unpolished and soft stone, may have inspired them to use tam ralep on stone, this set
them firmly on the path of conservation of both the ritual object and associated rituals.
The applied technology saved the edifice, the stone stele on which the inscriptions were
written and consequently the edict itself to tell the story of the edifice too. Without the
tam ralep , the reading of Lichchhavi history would indeed have been arduous.

Lichchhavi architectural developments show that their experiment with architecture of

stone did not go much beyond the miniature Chaitya and the small Avarana temples;
any tall and larger temple structure possibly quickly lost to earthquake and not

2
reerected. It should be for such happenings in history that we find fallen architraves and
carved stones not easily salvaged for use in other constructions, strewn around known
Lichchhavi sites. So we see am alak a and other intricately carved large stone pieces
looking like those belonging to Nagara tem ples traditions around Changu, Sankhu,
Pashupatinath, etc. In this manner, it appears that the architecture based on wood and
brick that developed over the Kirat tradition became the major architectural style of the
later Lichchhhavi as well as the Malla period. Wood, brick and mud had again come to
be the key materials for construction and definition of most Nepali architecture and
town. Single or multiple roofs with deep overhangs crowned the brick and wood body to
make the Nepali style and came to be called Varata (which refers to its Kirat base)or
Besara (literally meaning mixed and possibly hinting at the assimilation of the Kirat and
the Lichchhavi )in classical texts.

Craftsmen, Skills, jaat and the guthi:

The Kirat society was apparently divided into astadash aprak ritin or, the eighteen crafts,
as one Lichchhavi inscription puts it. This is very similar to the Sakya society in the
period of the birth of Buddha and suggests that the building crafts were quite well
developed. It has been inferred from literary sources that of the eighteen crafts, only one,
the potter, did not cut (but molded) the material; all other crafts cut the material as they
worked on them. In this social set up, a differently divided and stratified society of the
four castes (vern a) came with the Lichchhavi and a mixed society of four castes and
eighteen jaat was formed.

The craft skills were transferred to future generations as a family tradition; from father
to son through apprenticeship practiced as daily working life. The initial craft based
division of society of the Kirat was further consolidated in the Malla period by King
Jayasthitimalla (1380-1396); many more specializations were institutionalized as family
trades as the Newar society was reformed into sixty four jaat1. Quite a few of the jaat
supported the growing specialization in building crafts.

Over the centuries, Nepali society appears to have developed standard methods and
norms for construction as well as conservation that were implemented through the
family tradition (jaat ) of construction professionals. The general management and
financing of it was kept outside of the caste or jaat defined professional responsibility
through the setting up of the institution of the Gu th i, a trust funded through land grants
run by a wider representative management committee. The primary objective of the
Gu thi was to ensure continuity of cultural/social practice and of urban public facility
buildings (such as temples, monasteries, sattal, ch apa, pati, etc.) and services (such as
streets, street-side drinking fountains, wells, water conduits, ponds, street lighting, etc.)
through a seasonally programmed activities and initiatives of maintenance, restoration,
operation). In respect of assuring continuity of socio-cultural as well as economic
traditions transmitted through the mediation of the urban buildings and supporting

1
Some documents suggest that the reorganization had 80 jaat.

3
infra-structures, the conservation of buildings and other physical infrastructures
themselves formed a key activity.

Inscriptions from as early as fifth century CE tell of conservation of images, monuments

and urban utilities and setting up of institutions with endowments for restoration of
object and continuity of social, religious and economic practice. The Nepali cultural
journey of the discovery of conservation, its objectives, principles, and standards and
institutionalization of the process along with funding seems to have begun simply with
pious objective of assuring continuous ritual worship of images set up by individuals.
First, we find Jayalambha donating land in perpetuity (dattam ak sh yayaniyam bh u m i) for
ritual worship of Jayasvora lin ga in an inscription dated 491 CE. Shortly thereafter, in
another inscription dated 513 CE, we find King Basantadev granting use of state tax at
local level for repair of a water conduit set up by his sister Jayasundari to enhance merit
of their father through her pious act. In an inscription dated 533 CE, we find
Dhrubasangha donating land and its proceeds for ritual worship and occasional repair of
several lin ga set up by himself and placing the grant in care of Svajan a Gosthi (a charity
board composed of own relations/members of own community). The objectives in
maintenance, care and conservation of public utilities, images and monuments that had
started basically with the urge to take one’s acts of piety into future had been developed
and elaborated into care for one’s roots from the past, place, people and practice and to
carry those into the future as the history progressed. The practice had expanded greatly
over the Lichchhavi period itself and the Malla period saw its widespread application at
national, town and neighborhood levels. The tradition of civic participation funded
through agricultural land resources continued with excellent results and full force until
the unmanaged urbanization of agricultural land, new land reforms management and
shift of urban services as public administration responsibility of municipalities followed
in modern Nepal drove the Guthi arrangements defunct.

Conservation from Pratisam skar to Jirnoddhar :

The Lichchhavi inscriptions distinguish new construction (sth apan a, sam sth apan a) from
restitution or repair with specific terminologies. The key term used to describe
‘conservation’ by the early Lichchhavi in those pioneering days and throughout that
period is pratisam sk ara, a Sanskrit compound word, formed with prefix ‘prati’ (meaning
‘near to’ or making it close to) on root word ‘sam sk ara’ (meaning what has been ‘handed
down from respected tradition’ or ‘put together, refined or made perfect or as per sacred
precept’), which would mean (k eepin g) n ear to (perfect) as created, i.e. lik e th e origin al in
the context. This compares well with modern day understanding of conservation action
as a 'tru th -en forcem en t ' operation, ‘truth’ denoting the 'original condition' (Salvador
Muñoz Viñas in Contemporary Theory of Conservation). However, use of term
pratisam sk ara seems to be authorizing/accepting additions and embellishments as
integral to conservation of buildings also. Additionally, other inscriptions detail the
term; (a) k h an dafutta pratisam sk ara or repair of partial deterioration or chipping of
stone and loss of polish back to original (b) pratisam sk ara of k alak ram en a vish irn a,
bh agn a or restoration of natural wear and damage through passage of time and (c)

4
pratisam sk arasch a k alan atik ram en aiva k arya or restoration of works deteriorated by
aggressive action of time – explaining the varying grades of deterioration and
commensurate conservation action.

Two inscriptions of Amshuverma are instructive on authenticity and other objective

principles followed by the Lichchhavi in conservation works. In his inscription dated 607
CE, Amshuverma records that ‘having observed that the coat of arms was worn out from
the top (to bottom) by time, he restored it taking cue from the outline then existing’
(h aim am … k avach am … k alen asirn am abalok ya… tasm an n idarsh an am vapya … k ritavan
… pun a). This clarifies that restoration work is, in principle, guided by the original; the
remaining faint outline of this heavily deteriorated golden coat of arms has been cited
here as the reference for making a new one. Clearly, this was not patching up worn
sections and did not involve salvage; only the original design was followed and done
using the same material, gold. The tradition of continuing design, style and material as
per the original in any reconstruction action appears to have been set in place. In another
inscription recording the restoration of a brick and wood devaku la temple in the year 610
CE, Amshuverma inscribes ‘having repaired carefully so as to keep it in good condition
for longer into future’ (yatn ata pratisam sk arya… dirgh atara pasch atk ala sau sth itya
n im ittam ) and thus states the long term objective outcome of conservation action. The
aim of conservation appears to have been two fold: assuring continuity of cultural
activity and longevity of the artifacts or edifices used in the activity.

Different terminologies for conservation, seen in Malla inscription, indicate a changed

situation or approach. A 1359 CE inscription, which records the reconstruction of
Pimbahal following the destruction of all the towns of Nepal by the king of Yaban Sultan
Samasuddin2 states that the dilapidated chaitya fallen at that time3 was given a new cover
(‘k aroti n avak am varayah ah ’) or its renovation completed (jirn oddh ara pratipaditam ). In
an inscription recording conservation of Jayabaghesori water conduit done by
Jayasthitimalla (dated 1388 CE) to augment religious merit of his late queen Rajalladevi,
the existing situation is described as ‘jirn am bh agn am divam svarn ash odhita
pu rbajairayam ’ (worn out, dilapidated and fallen albeit with the conduit shining with the
golden plate cover put by the ancestors) and his own action is characterized as ‘pun ah
sam sth apya vidhivata’ (reconstructed according to ordained rules). The term leaves little
doubt that what he did amounted to sam sth apan a (new construction) of the structure and
the pit possibly retaining the golden spout from the earlier restorations as the original
component. In an inscription recording a major restoration action undertaken by
Jagatpalvarma in 1414 CE on Baghbhairav temple of Kirtipur, we find the description of
existing condition as ‘bh agn avesm ash irah su ’ (dilapidated and fallen temple including its
top roof) and the work ‘jirn oddar’ completed with the instruction of three specialists e.g.
‘jirn oddaravidh an esm im ’ (expert in the rules of renovation), ‘daivagn ya’ (astrologer
priest) and ‘jajam an a’ (family priest).

2
The wordings are ‘srutansamsadino yabanadhirajah nepalsarbba nagaram bhasmikaro ’
3
The wordings are ‘tasmin chhyane patita chaityamidam dristwa jirnam’. Sultan Samsuddin of West
Bengal had caused large destruction in Kathmandu Valley in the year 1326 CE.

5
The three examples are drawn to represent the three major building type of the Malla
period and using different building materials and technology e.g. Chaitya (solid brick in
mud mortar and plaster), Water Conduit Pit (brick) and Tiered Temple (brick and wood).
Comparatively, the Lichchhavi inscriptions selected in this article were referring to stone
lin ga, golden coat of arms and a wood and brick temple. All the examples except the
Pimbahal Chaitya, which was damaged by vandalism in a war action, are of buildings
deteriorated by the wear and tear of normal exigencies of nature and man.

From these three selected inscriptions of the Malla period we find discontinuation of the
term pratisam sk ar, used by the Lichchhavi, in favor of jirn oddh ar (in Sanskrit and
lh on gn in Newar), n avak am vara (new cover), pun ah sam sth apan a (reconstruction), and
other phrases with similar meaning. One of the key reason for the shift from
pratisam sk ar to jirn oddh ar may be the fact that the later conservation involved less of
repair and reconsecration of images and more of restoration, repair and reconstruction of
buildings and building parts. This also substantiates that the material nature of the
ensemble of architecture had changed with development of comparatively tall temples
in brick and wood and construction and reconstruction methods informed with a greater
empirical understanding of the action of deteriorating agents of climate, earthquake and
fire.

Monsoon, Earthquake and Fire:

Nepali architectural stylistic as well as construction tradition is based on and derives out
of use of very weather sensitive materials such as wood, brick and mud. The intense and
speedy deteriorating actions set in these materials by the summer monsoon, its element
of pouring rain, wetness, humidity and heat and efforts to deal with and retard the
consequences of these, appear to have greatly influenced the technique and technicalities
of construction, development of materials and conservation practice itself. Although all
cultures and their artifacts are subject to the ‘continuous and ineluctible attrition’ (James
Marston Fitch) of the environment and their physical integrity affected, particularly in
extreme situations (strong agent – weak material) the development of the artifact itself
reads like a record of technical efforts made by the culture to deal with it.

The large overhanging roofs with characteristic slope of the Nepali temple can be
attributed as a response to the pouring monsoons and the need to protect the brick walls
with carved woodwork of windows and doors on the wall surface. The struts that support
the large overhangs, its structural function cloaked in by the elaborate carvings, act in
visual unison with the roofs and walls to further define the Nepali architectural style.
The characteristic red sheen of the brick is itself a result of the glazing material and
technology developed to protect brick and brick-wall from the ingress of moisture. The
development of the brick itself records several steps taken to protect it from moisture
and its action; first development input seems to have been made in the traditional brick
making process when the ruffian brick faces are tamped and beaten and solidified and
compressed using mallets so that the porosity of the brick and thereby, its absorptivity,

6
itself was greatly reduced. The glazing material itself is prepared by growing and
maturing moss formed on vegetable matter through the action of monsoon rain itself!
But as the brick-wall itself was constructed in mud mortar and the action of rain and
moisture on the mortar was as critical, wedge-sectioned bricks were developed. The
application of such wedged and glazed (dach i-appa) bricks stopped the ingress of
moisture by simply hiding it from exposure to the outside. This three pronged response
of brick and brick wall to moisture complimented the protection designed in the roof
overhang.

The linkage of detailed architectural design and climate is well told by the carved
window; these faced such threat from rain grazing on the wall surface that the window
lintel had to be lined with m ikh afu shi eye-brow-bricks designed to maximize dripping. As
such design and detailing of the wall could only reduce but not stop the loss of the fine
carvings, the Nepali architect detailed the window with double frames so that the outer
decorative window could be replaced without opening the brick wall (which lasted much
longer with its dach iappa bricks). The inner frame which was encased in brick and
remained dry, lasted as long as or even longer than the brick wall. It was ironical that
aesthetic definition that the carved wooden elements gave to Nepali architecture also
brought effects of exposure, ‘loss of cohesive and adhesive strength, and embrittlement’
to consequent disintegration and loss. The finer the carving the deeper and more
extensive would be the weathering through sequences of wettings and dryings, moisture
and sun and a demand of a quicker replacement.

Since material conservation is primarily “physical intervention in the fabric of the

building to ensure its continued integrity”, Nepali building culture appears well oriented
to conservation from very early history as it sought to minimize the consequences of the
weathering action of nature. It should be clear from the example of the carved window
that replacement of a part that has outlived its natural life is a natural conservation
response.

Although the action of nature in weathering of both wood and brick was quite severe, it
was still not as radically destructive as the earthquake or fire. And a greater scope for
bettering performance against weathering than against earthquake could be concluded.
It is in this context that we find the use of the phrase ‘dirgh atara pasch atk ala’ (longer into
future) by Amshuverma in his inscription recording repair of Matin devak u la assuming
significance. The Lichchhavi had already noticed how limited was the life span of wood
and brick architecture when compared to that of stone subject to the wear and tear leased
by weathering agents. Despite of this, it must have been the frequent earthquakes and
their failure to make the stone temple stand up to shake of the bigger quakes that made
the Malla builders go more with wood and brick than stone for tall temples.

Although inscriptional records of reconstruction after the action of earthquakes directly

referring to it as the agent of destruction are rare (and this may have been a blackout
inspired by religious beliefs), there would have to have been many reconstructions

7
following huge earthquakes. Kathmandu valley is an earthquake field that is massively
shaken and most tall buildings leveled at least every hundred years; and ‘reconstructing
foundation up’ has been the only option for conservation after every great earthquake,
such as those of 1255, …1833, 1934. The post-1934 restoration of 55 Windowed Palace
illustrates how conservation norms come to be socially and technically set in post-
earthquake real time.

The action of 1934 earthquake on the 55 Windowed Palace of Bhaktapur brought its
second storey, a virtual timber frame with its 55 bayed projected window to collapse but
left the bottom two floors with heavy brick wall standing saving its famous murals. The
restoration of the palace was done salvaging as much wood and window works as
possible, maybe primarily due to lack of supplies and funds for new woodworks and not
so much with the aim to retain as much of the original as possible. But apparently with
quite a few of the window lattices as well as strut and rafter timber broken from the fall,
they were trimmed for reuse consequently the reconstruction had the window projection
itself reduced by a third. We also find that although the ground floor does not appear
affected by earthquake, the double columns in the dalan towards the courtyard were
replaced with single columns and with lesser number of open bays too. For some reason,
all the th am were also newly carved with simpler design4. Such actions show that the
traditional conservation practice went for replacement of structural elements too when
required. Some design changes also appear to have been made in the location of doors
and windows on the outside as well as inside of the east wing.

Nepali history is also witness to the fact its religious built heritage has literally risen out
of the ashes several times after radical destruction by fire ignited by wick light offered in
worship. How did our ancestors reconstruct their heritage in the absence of photographic
and artistic records and the physical evidence of a heap of charcoal? The experience of
‘restoring’ the gutted temple of Pratappur after the fire of August 2003, particularly
establishing some semblance of truth in the ‘replacement’ of the totally charred internal
partitions for which no ‘visual or descriptive’ records were available was a contemporary
reality-check on us, the professionals5. Although there are very few direct inscriptional
record of fire and reconstructions, there have been several reconstructions after fire. All
inscriptions of such works use terms for new construction to describe the reconstruction6.
The need to wholly replace the building following destruction by a huge earthquake or
fire is reflected in the use of most of such terms as pu n ah sam sth apan a.

4
Written records of the works were not kept but the earlier posts had somehow remained stored for more
than a century and we found several of them during the 2003 conservation. Some of the older thams,
possibly the originals from 18 th century, are now put back as double columns.
5
The replacement for the carved window used in the sanctum to screen off sacred secret images from view
was best ‘authenticated’ through use of the knowledge and experience of traditional wood worker.
6
One such inscription, dated 1708, issued by Bhuvanlaxmi and King Bhupalendramalla is at Changu and
records reconstruction after the fire of 1702.

8
Beginnings of Modern Conservation in Nepal:
Ancient Monuments Act of Nepal promulgated in 1955 was largely aimed at protection
and moves to conserve built heritage (in the traditional core of the towns of Kathmandu
valley) began with the setting up of its Planning Office with United Nations assistance in
1962. One of its first recommendations was to impose a ‘building code’ for its ‘monument
zones’ to direct its ‘development as well as heritage preservation’ but it went
unimplemented. In 1974 in the town of Bhaktapur, a German government supported
‘Bhaktapur Development Project’ was instituted with a clear emphasis on the restoration
of historical buildings and temples. By 1978, it had added a new focus of infrastructure
conservation, rehabilitation and development and thus had gained a turn into spatial
conservation. But it still did not follow the building codes approach and instead went for
direct conservation action through use of public funds in private buildings also. Only a
few years before, an UNESCO sponsored conservation project had been proposed and
undertaken at the Hanumandhoka Durbar, the key monument of the Durbar square at
the heart of the traditional monumental core of Kathmandu town. The project developed
and followed its own approaches to monument conservation. It also took some very
heavy handed approach to building strengthening such as introducing concealed
concrete ring beams into the medieval structure. Both the projects defined conservation
in their own ways as UNESCO and its technical expert groups had not as yet come up
with standard norms and approaches for conservation or for interventions with
conservation objectives7. Both the project learnt a lot from the traditional crafts and
craftsmen and it was from such learnings that the ‘experts’ themselves developed their
expertise, particularly in the techniques of restoration and reconstruction. Such
experience also informed the professional engineers, architects and archeologists as well
as the government Department of Archeology which had the legal responsibility for the
heritage conservation under the Ancient Monuments Act. Up till then, the Department
of Archeology was largely following a reconstruction mode in its restoration projects of
temples and other public heritage buildings. When seven monument zones of
Kathmandu valley’s built heritage was listed as Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site
in 1979, it included the three Durbar squares, the central palace and monuments zone of
the towns of Kathmandu, Patan and Bhaktapur. It is notable that the Building Code
approach was chosen by the Department of Archeology to affect conservation at the
territorial and private building level, while it continued the reconstruction mode with the
conservation of public monuments in Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site. UNESCO
and its missions appear to have styled as arbiters in conservation after the inscription of
KV in WHS list in 1979. An under-funded and under-staffed Department of Archeology
reeled as KV was put on the list of WHS in Danger. The restoration of Keshavnarayan
Chowk of Patan Durbar MZ, the first ‘conservation’ project undertaken after KVWHS’s
inscription, did not take much note of UNESCO guidelines. The failure to affect
conservation of the historic fabric in the monument zones and uncontrolled urbanization
led UNESCO to list Kathmandu Valley as World Heritage Site in danger in 2003!

7
The first set of guidelines was only issued by UNESCO in 1977.

9
Conservation and Authenticity:
In modern times, broad globally generalized basis of conservation has evolved out of the
1972 UNESCO Convention Covering the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural
Sites. The first stage conclusion of ensuing debates on conservation and authenticity
were made by the 1994 Nara Convention. Nara Document on Authenticity defines
conservation quite widely as “all efforts designed to understand cultural heritage, know
its history and meaning, ensure its material safeguard and, as required, its presentation,
restoration and enhancement.” The doctrinal position on conservation has thus been
largely developed on these three defining criteria of u nderstan din g, kn owin g and
safegu ardin g of heritage in the three aspects, h istory, m ean in g an d m aterial and the
three objective stances of presentation, restoration and enhancement. The triple tripartite
discrete points of consideration in conservation design shows how complex conservation
practice has become to professionals at present.

However, Authenticity is spelled in detail considering history and material and applied
for purpose of restoration only. In practice, the application of material authenticity is
often limited to its initial construction, the first phase of the historical time line of the
resource. The manner of breaking down history of a heritage resource into three phases,
the one at the creation of the object, the past and the perceptual present8 condenses the
long past period and its many points of recreation/reconstruction or renovation of the
object into one hazy aggregate reducing the detailed sequential imprint of history into
something of a challenge to authenticity. If ‘a heritage that is substantially reconstructed
today would become a product of the present’ and would loose its significance/value as
heritage, then the several substantial reconstructions in the past would also appear as
amounting to progressive loss of authenticity rather than its enrichment, which is what
our ancestors were aiming at when the interventions were made at many points of time
in the past. As assuring authenticity is possibly the most important requirement of any
conservation action, it becomes necessary for us to understand how authenticity may be
redefined based on conservation as practiced by our ancestors. Should we need to make
so much of the fixed spot in a linear reconing of time in defining historicity of heritage
and its authenticity with respect to time? For cultures with a long conservation tradition
like Nepali architecture, authenticity defined with value only for original integrity
cannot be just – it has to put as much value to the authenticity of evolutionary integrity
(particularly in design and workmanship) or traces and layers of past conservation as
points of (re-)creation. It should be patently wrong if Nepali conservation practice at
present sees the actions of Amshuverma (as described in the inscription quoted above on
the renovation of the coat of arms of Changunarayan) of ‘reproducing based on original
outline’ as a loss of material authenticity at that time itself!

For cultures, whose historical development is predominantly steered by religions that

had and have a cyclical and seasonal notion of time, history becomes diachronic and the
layers seasonal. When such accumulated seasonal layers span centuries of active socio-

8
Feilden, Bernard M. and Jokilehto, J, Management Guidelines for World Cultural Heritage Site, 1993
ICCROM; p 16

10
cultural and material action, conservation becomes a practitioner’s nightmare
particularly if we take the definition of authenticity at layers of the seasonally renewed
originals. Similar complexities will surface in the area of material, as acts of
‘conservation’ of the past society gets piled up. Similar multiple diachronic layering of
meaning is also a factor to recon with as the religious practice itself has undergone
layered changes over the past and several sites may have reflections of the changing
Hindu (Vaisnav-Saiva-Shakta-tantrik-etc) or Buddhist (Hinayana-Mantrayana-Bajrayana-
etc) cult(?) associations. Also, the valley heritage’s pluralism (resulting out of the social
mix of the Kirat, Hindu and Buddhist in living neighborhoods) makes for many
‘meanings’ at the ‘community’ levels. Kathmandu valley.

The need to understand cultural heritage from the perspective of the living primary
inheritor community, to look at the layers of history and meaning from the eyes of that
community and to base activities designed for material safeguard on their practices of
presentation, restoration and enhancement become paramount while defining
authenticity and discussing the norms and standards for architectural conservation
particularly for WHS inscribed on the criteria of living heritage such as KVWHS.

Some of these considerations of meaning and values from the perspective of the living
community can be interpreted within the reformulations of Authenticity as made in
2005. These reformulations extend the definition of authenticity from the material
aspects like form and design, materials and substance, location and setting, to more
intangible aspects, such as use, traditions, techniques and management systems, etc. This
will not only usher in new tests of authenticity beyond the physical fabric to associative
values but also lend priority to history, meaning and material to those accrued after the
initial creation. Such an approach will be of particular importance to the conservation of
heritage that has a very long history of development. The importance of any heritage
could not be based just on its ancientness, not also on the width of history it is able to tell.
We can learn from Lichchhavi inscriptions that assuring aesthetic and material integrity
is as noble a requirement of conservation as maintaining historical integrity of the
original.

As Nepal is a signatory to these conventions and as the high peaks of built heritage have
been largely included in the seven monument zones inscribed by UNESCO as
Kathmandu Valley World Heritage Site, current conservation practice and the Nepali
professionals are subject to global conventions and experts, whereas the foremen and
skilled workers and craftsmen are instructed by the practice coming down as a family
tradition. Experience and assessment of actual conservation works done in Nepal shows
that the traditional knowledge and practice triumphs at the detailing and execution of
conservation action on built heritage, whereas the global knowledge of experts and
conventions has been of greater consequence in planning and addressing issues broadly.
However, there has been little assimilation of the global into the local and the global
theory tends to remain aloof of the practice.

11