Stages of restoration of medieval architectural monuments. Latvian experience
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22616/j.landarchart.2025.27.06Keywords:
restoration, conservation, architecture, the Middle Ages, cultural monumentAbstract
The purpose of the article is to provide a focused overview of the evolution of measures taken to protect Latvia’s medieval architectural heritage as a value of material culture, from the restoration of the functionality of utilitarian architectural objects to the complex implementation of scientific methodological and technological techniques for the preservation of the original substance through conservation, restoration and partial restoration. In European society, both approaches to the preservation of architecture have always coexisted: both practical and aesthetic, with the latter partially appraising the artistic value in addition to its utilitarian function. The scope and attitude of their application have been dictated by rational considerations. It was only the academically educated European society of the Age of Enlightenment and the 19th century came to understand the importance of historical, symbolic, emotional and aesthetic values of architecture, laying the foundations for the theory and practice of architectural heritage preservation. In the experience of preservation of medieval architecture in Latvia, there have been both ups and downs of a prudent attitude, caused by either political cataclysms or a revisionist attitude. Taking care of the preservation of their cultural heritage, since the second half of the 18th century, the Baltic German community in Latvia have been trying to discover and nurture the evidence related to their immigration to the Baltics. This was done with encyclopaedic historical research and also with early archaeological and architectural research methods. A hundred years ago, the protection of Latvia’s cultural heritage developed as a science-and-research-based system, but due to insufficient resources, it did not become comprehensive. After the Second World War, cultural heritage preservation was dictated by a politicized approach and ideological motives. The re-establishment of Latvia’s independence in 1991 could provide support for a modern scientific, methodological and theoretical basis as well as appropriate technical and professional realization of the conservation and restoration. of medieval architectural monuments.
References
1. Ārends, P. Melngalvju nams Rīgā. V. Tepfera izdevums. Rīgā, 1943.; Sv. Pētera baznīca Rīgā. V. Tepfera izdevums, 1944. 2. Behr, Ulrich Baron von., Senning, A. Edwahlen und die Behrsche Ecke in Kurland. Verlag Lührs und Röver, Verden-Aller, 1979, S. 67.-68.
3. Blūms, P., Caunīte, I. Laikmetīgie viduslaiki. // Latvijas Architektūra. Nr.2 (40), 2002, 6.-13. lpp.; Pabeigta Ventspils Livonijas ordeņa pils restaurācija. // Delfi Bizness, 28.12.2011.https://www.delfi.lv/bizness/37264250/biznesa_vide/42014774/pabeigta-ventspils-livonijas-ordena-pils-restauracija. Skatīts 20.01.2024.
4. Bockslaff, W. Schloss Gross-Roop in Livland. Jahrbuch für bildende Kunst in den Ostseeprovinzen. III Jhg., 1909, Hrsg. Von Architektenverein zu Riga, S. 136.
5. Bruģis, D. Cēsu Jaunā pils. //Izd. “Cēsu Kultūras un tūrisma centrs”, // Jelgava, 2016, 87.-108.; 256.-261. lpp.
6. Campe, P. Ein neuaufgefundenes Fragment der im Jahre 1786 zerstörten Umrahmung des Grabmals Bischof Meinhards im St. Marien-Dom zu Riga.- Acta Universitatis Latviensis, Architektūras fakultātes serija I, 5, Rīgā, Latvijas Universitāte, 1930/1934, 305-326. lpp.
7. Caune, A., Ose, I. Latvijas 12. gadsimta beigu – 17. gadsimta vācu piļu leksikons. Latvijas Vēstures institūta apgāds, Rīgā, 2004, 465. lpp.
8. Conservation and reconstruction of the tower at Bauska castle ruins. // Restored Cultural Monuments in Latvia 2020 – 2022. // The National Heritage Board, Riga, 2023, p.86.-87.
9. Czech activities in Latvia in the field of heritage care. 1996-2016. Published by Embassy of the Czech Republic, Riga, 2016, p. 32.-33.
10. Čoldere, D. Pārskats par 1991.-1999. gadu. // Restaurācija. Nacionālā Kultūras mantojuma pārvalde, Rīgā, 2019, 26. lpp.
11. Galviņš, J. Restaurācija Doma klostera krustejā. // Vēsturiskā celtniecība Latvijā. Pētniecība un projekti Restaurācijas institūtā. 1988. gada retrospekcija. Rīga, Restaurācijas institūts, 1991, 21.-22. lpp.
12. Grosmane, E. Rīgas Doms. Arhitektūras un mākslas vērtības. Rīga, 2013, 36.-44. lpp.
13. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_Pfeifer_(Architekt). Skatīts 11.01.2024.
14. https://www.vni.lv/projekti/rigas-pils-rekonstrukcija-unrestauracija. Skatīts 23.01.2024.
15. Jansons, G. Arhitektūras pieminekļi GNP. Rīga, Zinātne, 1987, 71. lpp.
16. Jansons, G. Pirmās mūra celtnes Latvijā. // Ikšķiles almanahs. Veltījums Ikšķiles 820. gadadienai. Ikšķile, “Apgāds Mantojums”, 2005, 60.-66. lpp.
17. Jurkāne, A. Turaidas pils – muzejrezervāta sastāvdaļa mūsdienās. // Latvijas viduslaiku pilis. Latvijas Vēstures institūta apgāds, Rīgā, 2001, 47.-58. lpp.
18. Katalog des Europäischen Hansemuseums. // Edition Expecto, Lübeck, 2016, S. 22.-23., 30.
19. Kelch, Chr. Liefländische Historia Oder Kurze Beschreibung der Denckwürdigsten Kriegs und Friedensgeschichte Esth-Lief-und Lettlandes. // Verlegts Johann Mehner, Revall, 1695, S. 383.
20. Kundziņš, P. Evanģēliski luterisko baznīcu celtniecība Latvijas valsts patstāvības laikā // Reliģija un dzīve. Reliģiski un filozofiski raksti. - I laidiens.-Stokholma, 1950, 167. lpp.
21. La conservation et la restauration des monuments et des bâtiments historiques. Paris, UNESCO, 1973, f. 30.
22. Likums par pieminekļu aizsardzību. Pieņemts 1923. gada 15. jūnijā. Skat.: Valdības vēstnesis Nr. 133, 1923. g. 26. jūnijā.
23. Löwis of Menar, K.von. Burgenlexikon für Alt-Livland. Riga, Verlag der Akt.-Ges. Walters & Rapa, Riga, 1922. u.c. publikācijas.
24. Lukšēvica, D. Krustpils pils. – Jēkabpils, Jēkabpils Vēstures muzejs, 2006, 20. lpp.
25. LVVA. – 1630.f. – 1.apr. – 176.l. – 67. lp.
26. LVVA. – 1630.f. – 1.apr. – 99. l. – 111.-113.lp.
27. Mašnovskis, V. Latvijas luterāņu baznīcas. Rīga, izdevniecība DUE, III sēj., 218. lpp.; II sēj., Rīga, 2006, 385. lpp.
28. Muñoz Viñas, S. Contemporary Theory of Conservation. // Elsevier, Ltd, 2005, p. 18-19. “Article 9. The process of restoration is a highly specialized operation. Its aim is to preserve and reveal the aesthetic and historic value of the monument and is based on respect for original material and authentic documents. It must stop at the point where conjecture begins, and in this case moreover any extra work which is indispensable must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp. The restoration in any case must be preceded and followed by an archaeological and historical study of the monument”.
29. Neumann, W. Denkmalschutz und Denkmalpflege in den baltischen Provinzen Liv-, Est- und Kurland. // Baltische studien zur Archäologie und geschichte. Arbeiten des Baltischen Vorbereitenden komitees für den XVI Archäologischen Kongress in Pleskau 1914. // Berlin, Georg Reimer Verlag, 1914, S. 285.
30. Neumann, W. Der Dom zu St. Marien in Riga. Baugeschichte und Baubeschreibung. G. Löffler, Riga, 1912, S. 88.
31. Neumann, W. Erster Bericht der Kommission für Denkmalpflege. In - Sitzungsberichte der Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Altertumskunde der Ostseeprovinzen Russlands. Riga, 1910, S. 304.
32. Rasiņa, M., Spārītis, O. e.o. The Recent Discovery, Research, and Restoration of Medieval and Renaissance Frescoes in Riga Castle—A Treasure to the Baltic Region. // Heritage 2023, 6, 2435–2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage6030128.
33. Redlich, C. 30 Jahre Denkmalpflege der Gesellschaft für Geschichte und Altertumskunde in Riga 1884-1914. Deutsch-Baltisches Jahrbuch. Bd. 29, Carl-Schirren-Gesellschaft e.V., Lüneburg, 1982, S. 41.-42.
34. Redlich, C. Denkmalpflege in Sowjet-Lettland. // Dokumentation Ostmitteleuropa. J.G.Herder Institut, Marburg, Jhg.14 (38), August 1988, Heft 3 / 4, S. 90.-92.
35. Saulītis, P. Arhitekta piezīmes par 16 darba gadiem. // Pētera baznīcas atdzimšana. Rīga, Avots, 1994, 33. lpp.
36. Sparitis, O. Die „ewige Debatte“ um Kompromiss und Sachzwänge: Revitalisierung von mittelalterlicher Architektur. // Restaurator im Handwerk. 2022, Nr. 4, S. 34.-39.
37. Stepiņš, P. Senā Aizkraukles baznīca // Senatne un Māksla. 1940.- Nr.2-30.-40. lpp.
38. Šīrants, R. Pētera baznīcas būvvēsture. // Pētera baznīcas atdzimšana. Rīga, Avots, 1994, 20. lpp. Tīlmanis, O. Ikšķiles baznīca sakarā ar izrakumiem 1927. gada vasarā. // Ilustrēts Žurnāls.-1927, Nr.10, 315.-320. lpp.
39. 1939. gada 18. jūlija valdes sēde. Pieminekļu valdes protokolu grāmata, 24. lp. o.p. Latvijas nacionālais vēstures muzejs, Inv. Nr. VN 9681.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Landscape Architecture and Art
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
