LA HOLGAZANERÍA DEL INDIO Y EL NEGRO

The FAD (Krom sinlapakorn), under the M inistry of Education, is the g o v ern m en t office en tru sted w ith "the responsibility of p ro tectin g and p reserv in g every type of art in Thai heritage to m aintain the n ational cultural identity" N ational M useum s Division 1991:47). First established in M arch 1911 by V ajiravudh, w ho ordered the transfer of the royal court craftsm en and the M useum D epartm ent from the M inistry of E ducation to the new body, the FAD was subsequently disbanded in 1926 w hen King Prajadhipok am algam ated it w ith the Royal M useum and the V achirayan Library, founded in 1905, into the Royal Institute (Silpakornstan). At the h ead of the new in stitu tio n Rama VII a p p o in te d P rince D am ro n g R ajanubhab, the fam ous b rother of C hulalongkorn, w ho, as M inister of Interior from 1892 to 1915, w as the architect of the centralisation of the provincial adm inistration. Dam rong, officially regarded as "the father of Thai history" (Breazeale 1971), had already been a p p o in ted , after his resignation from the M inistry, as the chairm an of the V achirayan Library, w hose epigraphic section had been directed since 1917 by George Coedes. In

his new office D am rong gave shape to the m ain cultural institutions of the kingdom that w ere to be inherited by the post-1932 governm ents.

In May 1933, after the establishm ent of the constitutional m onarchy, the FAD - including w h at became the N ational M useum and the N ational Library - w as reinstated u nder the direction of Wichit W atthakan (arguably the m ost influential Thai intellectual of this century),31 and finally began its activities in Jan u ary 1934. Barme (1993:114-115) argues th at b eh in d the reestablishm ent of the D epartm ent were not only political aims but hopes of comm ercial benefits related to tourism and the sale of crafts. After several revisions of stru c tu re , the FAD w as finally tran sferred in 1958 to the M inistry of Education. According to the 1991 Royal Decree, it is divided into 12 divisions: the office of the secretary, finance, personnel m anagem ent, m usic and dram a, the national archives, archaeology, national m useum s, literature and history, art education, architecture, the national library, and traditional arts.

The FAD's D ivision of N atio n al M useum s (Kong phiphithaphan sathan hsengchat) is articulated into nine sub-divisions.32 A m ongst these are the B angkok S ub-D ivision of N atio n al M useum s (in clu d in g the N ational Gallery, the Silpa Bhirasri M emorial, the Royal Barges, the Royal E lephant and Bencham abophit N ational M useum s), and the Sub-D ivision of the Regional N ational M useum s, w hich m anages thirty-one m useum s allocated to nine regions.33 Albeit definitely less num erous in the southern

31 W ichit w as acting D irector-G eneral d u rin g the period 1933-35, before his official appointm ent in 1935 (Apinan 1992:29).

32These are: G eneral A dm inistration; Export Perm it; C uratorial Staff; R egistration and Storage; C onservation; Exhbition Technique; E ducation and Public Relations; N ational M useum Bangkok; Regional National Museums.

3 4

p en in su la (five o u t of thirty-one), national m useum s are thus a com m on presence in m any provincial cities, w here they rem ind the population of the unitary, if not hom ogenous, cultural character of the nation. Thai national m useum s ow ned in 1991 a total of 100,711 artefacts and em ployed 873 people (including officers, perm anent and tem porary personnel); in the same year, there w ere 1,339,409 visitors, of w hich 289,928 w ere foreigners (N ational M useum s D ivision 1991: 35;22;34). N atio n al m u seu m s are open from W ednesday to Sunday (excluding national holidays), from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and their adm ission-fee is 5 Baht for nationals and 10 Baht for foreigners, w ith the exception of the Bangkok N ational M useum w hich charges double the am ount. Students and Buddhist m onks enter free of charge. The m ost recent m useum , the N ational M useum of Thai Rice Farm ers in Suphanburi province, has been inaugurated in 1993. But in spite of the great role that rice cultivation has played econom ically and socially in Thai history, this m u seu m is m erely a celebration of a p erio d sp en t by C row n Prince V ajiralongkorn in 1986 working in the p addy fields of the region.

From the legislative point of view, the Act on M onum ents, Antiques, O bjects of A rt and N ational M useum s, B.E. 2504 (1961) p ro v id es the guideline for the conservation of cultural resources through their listing on the N ational Register of Ancient Sites.34 Pisit (1988:5) rem arks that the list in fact "includes alm ost only sites relating to B uddhism ." In 1985 the sections 10 and 11 of the 1961 Act have been u p d ated in the 21 points of the R egulations for M onum ent C onservation, com m only referred to as the

33The regions and their respective num ber of m useum s as following: l)C entral region: 5 m useum s; 2) W estern region: 6 m useum s; 3) Lower N orthern region: 4 m useum s; 4) U pper N orthern: 4 m useum s; 5) Eastern: 1 m useum ; 6) Lower N ortheastern: 4 m useum s; 7) U pper Northeastern: 2 musuems; 8) Upper Southern: 3 museums; 9) Lower Southern: 2 museums. 34For the text of this act, cf. Government Gazette, 78:66, A ugust 9, B.E. 2054 (1961).

"Bangkok C harter" (text in Ishizaw a et al. 1988:120-22). A m ong them , articles 1,11,12 and 14 state:

I. "Conservation" refers to the act of keeping and m aintaining a m onum ent in order to retain its values. This comprises protection, m aintenance, preservation, restoration and re p a ir.

A. "Preservation" refers to the act of keeping the m onum ent in its original state and preventing it from further damage.

B. "Restoration" refers to the act of putting back to a former state.

C. "Repair" refers to the act of repairing and im proving a m onum ent to its original state. However, the original and the newly constructed part should be in harm ony w ith each other and be detectable from each other.

I I. The conservation of parts of the most valuable paintings, sculptures and antiquity w hich are attached to or placed w ithin a m onum ent should only be dealt w ith by m eans of preserv atio n or stabilisation to retain their original value as m u ch as possible. This is except consecrated objects which have been w orshipped continuously. It should be approved by the committee before the work is carried out.

12. The conservation of ruins sh o u ld be enhanced by collecting ancient objects and fragm ents for com plete or partial restoretion. It is possible to reconstruct the m issing parts necessary for such restoration.

14. A rchaeological bu ild in g s that are consecrated places w ell-know n to the local people m ust be restored w ithout any alteration in colour or style since it may dim inish their values or credibility of [sic] th e people.

The draw ing up of this code followed the criticism caused by the restorations carried out at Sukhothai since 1977, that Srisakara (1987:34) stigm atised as the '"legally authorised' process of destroying ancient and historical sites." The response of the FAD to the charge of altering archaeological evidence th ro u g h unjustified reconstructions has thus been the issuing of an ad hoc

set of regulations giving the FAD m ore freedom than the Venice C harter (ICOMOS's program m atic docum ent draw n up in 1964 at the very m om ent of the foundation of the council) in fact allows. Central to the concept of "mimetic" restoration underlined in the Bangkok C harter is that com m on people have a religious appreciation of archaeological rem ains w hich does not correspond to that of art historians. As N ikom M usigakam a, FA D’s d e p u ty director-general, p u t it d u rin g a sym posium on the S ukhothai experience held in 1987 at the end of the ten-year restoration project:

We tried to restore the head [of th e Buddha images] in ord er to satisfy the local people. In fact, if the local people are not satisfied w ith the cultural heritage, they will destroy it. This is a fact in the comm unities here. We tried to m ake the local and intellectual people satisfied and ap-preciative. But if we serve only the local people, the intellectual people may not appreciate. So w hat happened is that until now . . . we have not done anything because we don't know how to decide. (Ishizawa et al. 1988:27)

3 6

N ikom , p e rh a p s unintentionally, subscribes to one of the poin ts of the critique of C hapter 1. C ultural heritage, far from being an untouchable legacy of the past from w hich it derives its im portance, is a construct which can be m odified in o rd er to enhance its p resen t appreciation and social utility. It is not su rp risin g , then, th at "conservation" for the FAD can be extended as far as im proving the aspect of a m onum ent to m ake it look m ore "appropriate" to its context and function. This outlook explains the p resence of the several replicas of the B uddha th at today, ag ain st the precepts of m odern archaeology, populate the ruins of the historical parks of S ukhothai and A y u tth ay a, and th at n atu rally horrify the critics of the FAD.35 Still, the FAD has a point in arguing that, since in Thailand popular appreciation of an archaeological site comes prim arily from the religious respect it com m ands, the restoration of the stu p a of Sukhothai and, for instance, Borobodur - the w orld's biggest B uddhist architectural complex located in central Java, in a p red o m in an tly Islamic nation - has to fit different local realities. At the sam e time, this com parison show s how the im m ediate political utility of a restored Sukhothai for the Thai state is, in term s of national pride and patronage of religion, hardly paralleled by w hat the In d o n esian g o v ern m en t is gaining in tern ally by the resto ratio n of B orobodur.

35A m ongst the FAD’s advocates of this approach to archaeological restoration, there could be some rem inded of the following locus from Inscription No. 2 (m id-fourtheen century), referring to the reign of King Lithai of Sukhothai: "[The men] paved the floor of the great M ahabihara w ith bricks; w hen it was finished and perfected they w ent [...] to search for old broken stone statues of the Buddha to worship, bringing them from as far away as two or three days' travel, to set them in the M ahabihara. At some places they found a neck or a body, at some places they found the hair or an arm which had fallen away ... at some places they found a shin or a leg, at some places they found a hand or a foot... They brought them there to piece together and rep air w ith m ortar, to m ake them as beatiful and fine in form and appearance as if they had been created by Indra; they brought them there to m end and restore into large, fresh-looking, and exceedingly beautiful statues of the Buddha. They filled the M ahabihara w ith them , placing them in m any row s and niches" (Prasert and G risw old 1992:393). I thank Dr. Tony Diller for pointing out this passage, to me.

H ow ever, it w ould be rather naive to criticise the FAD for being solely responsible for the alteration of antiquities w hen th at process is in fact inherent in the very practice of heritage conservation, which alw ays m eans the preserv atio n of a particular in terp retatio n of the past. C ertainly, the FAD cannot avoid blam e for learning n o th in g from its ow n errors, in

I 0 o f i Ö

p articular letting out on contract large-budget projects to inadequate firms an d d is re g a rd in g the advice of local co m m u n ities and acad em ics.36 N evertheless, the fact that even local com m unities are now expressing their o p in io n s about, and criticism of, the FAD’s w ork on m atters such as c o n serv atio n of cu ltu ral artefacts, comes as the resu lt of a stro n g e r aw areness of the im portance of heritage that the FAD itself has considerably fostered in the last tw enty years. N otw ithstanding significant reservations, the FAD's decisive role in tran sfo rm in g the p reserv a tio n of c u ltu ral heritage into a major national issue should be acknowledged.