RCCHD : Individual Protection Methods for Cultural Heritage Monuments

Architectural Heritage Conservation

Individual Protection Methods for Cultural Heritage Monuments

INTRODUCTION

Today, in times of an independent Ukraine, along with the processes of economic development, culture and education, there are many problems for which decision has not yet found the best ways. Specifically we talk about preservation of wooden churches, which are of a great historical, architectural and cultural value.

Fostered and built up over the centuries by talented folk Ukrainian artists these wooden churches reached holistic architectural and artistic perfection. The uniqueness, unbeatable, with no analogues in other nations set the Ukrainian church building at the highest level of artistic achievement worldwide.

However, the traditional architectural heritage is very vulnerable because of precarious financial basis on which it was created. This concerns primarily three-dimensional structure of a monument, changes in traditional materials and designs, disturbance of historical environment that lead to the loss of authenticity, historical and artistic value.

When you begin to be interested in the fate of wooden churches, it seems that you get acquainted with the war reports. Per month statistics of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of Ukraine and the Ministry of Internal Affairs in relation to the regions are full of numerous reports about the thefts in churches, fires and destructions of sacred buildings. It seems that today here is a front line of spirituality, our historical memory and cultural heritage defence. And unfortunately we still lose this battle.

The crime directed against the historic monuments has not a purely legal concept. This concept was introduced primarily for use in forensic science and criminology, as in these sciences it is necessary to operate with certain categories of generalizations. The category of crime which is directed against the historic monuments today can be attributed to different types of crimes (including: thefts, burglaries, buying stolen goods, smuggling, frauds, robberies, murders, profiteering, bribery, etc.). This list should be expanded adding offenses specified in the Act on the Protection of Monuments and Memorials and Supervision Antiques. They, along with others, are: removal of historical monuments without permission, destruction or damage of the monuments, obstruction or difficulty of access of relevant employees who act under the law authorities; maintaining without permission or contrary to the conditions permit the restoration and rehabilitation works, construction, restoration or architectural studies at the historic site inscribed in the register of monuments; or construction or archaeological research in the area adjacent to the facility, inadequate protection of architectural monuments either by the owner or the proprietor, against damage, destruction, loss or theft.

1. FIRE SAFETY OF SACRAL OBJECTS

The causes of fires can be different: natural and objective (from lightning or unattended candles) as well as dependent on human factors and subjective (neglect of power and compliance with the rules of fire safety, attempts to cover up theft, desire to build a new church).

According to the inspection results the most common deficiencies in fire protection of places of worship for their technical equipment is missing or malfunctioning of automatic fire alarm; discrepancy with existing electrical safety requirements: poor security objects with primary means of fire, lack of religious buildings for protection against lightning and water supplies for fire fighting. Maybe the main cause of the fires is the use of an open fire like a candle in indoor places of worship with a large number of wooden surfaces. The situation is not better with most wooden structures that are not treated with refractory mortar.

Typically, they are engaged instantly and burned to the ground. Unfortunately, responsible for fire condition worship appoint persons who cannot properly monitor the situation, and often themselves become perpetrators of fires.

According to official certificate of the Main Directorate of the MES of Ukraine, in Lviv region 69% fire prevention, public fire safety regulations, which are outdated, still remain unenforced.

Church committees are reluctant to spend money on their performance. Ordinary fire-fighters and fire inspectors complain that church leadership ignored their demands to equip churches with fire alarms and process tree refractory substances that slow down the combustion process.

In Ukraine there are about 14,000 religious institutions belonging to different religious denominations. Only 17% of them (2469) are equipped with the necessary means of fire alarms.

The state fire protection registers about one hundred cases of fires in historical monuments per year. The vast majority of episodes are about the most sacred objects. Each year the list of historical sacral building cross out regular objects. Not all people are aware that the wooden churches are the unique share of cultural heritage.

No doubt, the fire is the greatest threat to sacred objects. Unlike other specific threats (e.g., theft, vandalism, flood or storm) effects of fire are often irreversible (Table 1, a-b). If in case of theft you can count on the fact that at certain luck the lost items will be returned, the fire, in principle, deprives us of this chance. It appears that before such elements as fire, all objects are defenceless, regardless of the type of material from which they are made. The fire permanently destroys all equipment. Under the influence of high temperature, even those things that seemed to have a chance to survive (Table 1, c) collapse.

2. PROTECTION OF SACRAL OBJECT FROM CRIMINAL ATTACKS

One cannot avoid the problem of theft of art works that are sacred objects, which is one of the biggest problems of all crimes on cultural heritage monuments. Their number in the last several years has become just rampant. Analysis of statistical data relating to the crime against cultural heritage clearly shows that, together with the private collections, sacred objects viewed as attractions are exposed to the greatest danger.

Many churches possess unique and valuable icons, church bowls, crosses, ancient books in an expensive frame and other objects of worship that are simply invaluable in the interpretation of vintage collectors rarities which are ready to go for any crime to replenish their collections. Sometimes just do not know what kind of rarities the communities have to keep them. So for these collectors it is not difficult to hire one or two executors to steal the desired rarity. In this case a fire only helps to hide all traces of the theft. Because after the church burned down is quite difficult to identify things that could be stolen. Thefts from churches are 33% of the total number of thefts of cultural heritage objects. If we compare the data on the total number of property crimes the theft of historical and cultural values forms less than 2% of the total. Statistically, this is only a small proportion of offenses, but in terms of the preservation of cultural heritage it is the irreparable loss.

Unfortunately, many managers of sacred objects still underestimate the existing threat. Total cases of abductions that have occurred over the past 15 years have shown that, statistically, about 80% of sacral objects have suffered from criminal attacks or been vandalised.

The danger is not limited to theft. The predatory attacks on priests are also take place very often. This latter phenomenon is particularly dangerous in connection with both immediate threat to the health and lives of people.

2.1 THE MAIN CAUSES OF THEFT

There are many reasons for the high level of crime directed against sacred places. The main, however, is a discount by the clergymen of actual danger. For years among clergy a deep conviction have existed that the place of worship, is surrounded by special "guardianship", because these places are holy. Among us are still living people who remember the times when churches were open all day, and sometimes they are not even closed for the night, and ... never had anything wrong. Unfortunately, this is already the history. Today all the religious objects are under the threat regardless of whether they are in the city or in the countryside. Some churches were robed repeatedly.

The fact that among the stolen items the historical monuments are only a part of the lost property is not very comforting. It should be emphasized that criminals consider sacred objects like a potentially easy prey. One criminal group will content with stealing piggy banks and another will steal from the same object medieval sculptures, paintings or crayfish. The high level of total thefts means that despite the measures to improve the protection of temples their dynamics and their scale remain unsatisfactory.

The theft reasons can be divided into two main categories: objective and subjective. The objective factors should include, primarily, the following:

overall risk of crime in the country;
location of the object;
modern fashion for certain cultural values;
scale of the local criminal environment;
quotation of art works in antique and auction showrooms;
architectural system and construction of sacred objects.

As seen from the above list none of sacred objects governors have a significant influence on the formation of these factors.

In contrast to the above reasons, the subjective factors are individual in nature (at each facility they are different, and on their formation a person has a decisive influence). This group of factors are as follows:

no sense of threat from criminals to those responsible for the security of the facility;
mechanical and building protection (type of locking devices on external and internal doors, status of window and door joinery, framing of window openings, protection attic and basement hatches, etc.);
physical security of the facility; fencing and lighting surrounding area, protection of individual art works, the presence (or absence) of an alarm system against burglary and assault; the presence of documentation of the historical and artistic monuments located within the facility and other valuable items that might interest criminals.

Subjective factors can and should actively be shaped by people because the real danger to the object and its protection depend from all individual members of the community.

2.2 EXISTING STATE OF SACRAL OBJECTS PROTECTION

Diverse, sometimes non-standard solutions that were once used in the churches with rich architectural decoration cannot always be considered safe nowadays. The crime rise that, apart from breakups, is often characterize by actions causing devastation inside the churches, requires application of more reliable protective devices with much more complex structure. However, in order to begin repairs and modernization of the construction and mechanical protection systems actual situation should be assessed. Regretfully, in majority of cases, the situation is not good and their actual state is far from being even satisfactory. Mostly concerns are related to the state of window and door joinery, closures, window and door devices, grilles, fixtures and individual screeners of priceless movable monuments. The same negative evaluation is often due to the protection of lantern light (roof windows), hatches and hidden shelters.

To get the complete picture of the security object-risk criminal attacks it is necessary to analyse the status of its construction, mechanical and electronic security systems, and physical surveillance. And these factors are crucial, especially for the classification of the object as reliable or secure enough or badly protected, and their detailed evaluation requires the specialist`s control.

Some circumstances worsen the actual degree of safety and adversely affect the existing system of protection (Table 2). They certainly must include the repair of facades. An additional very serious risk is posed by the scaffolding, whose presence is certainly related to the implementation of facade works (Table 2, a), defects in wood and locksmiths performance (inexactly fit individual items, too large perimetric gaps) (Table 2, d), deformation of individual items, the corroded closures parts, use of low quality or "microscopic" size loops, staples and padlocks, which instead of hindering criminal intentions, encourage them to intrude (Table 2, b-c).

Apart from the defect of protection, the above items also distort the image of the sacred building. Scaffolding destroy street facade and destroys the urban situation; grille and inappropriate carpentry destroy the perception of details.

Among the many factors that distinguish sacred objects from the others, but are essential for the system alarm, special attention should paid to locations scattered throughout the complex of sacred art works to be protected, as well as the complex architecture and rich interior decoration, which allow attackers to discreetly stay in the church.

There are particularly dangerous places inside the church, which should be taken into consideration when designing alarm system:

side chapels;
chancel (chancel design, usually criminal assures easy to escape);
very large confessionals;
choirs and design of the old organs.

Round the clock security and alarm system equipment secluded side chapels is an effective form of protection (Table 3, a). The combination of mechanical devices with electronic protection, which work constantly, gives the best guarantee of safety, however, in this case, the aesthetic appearance and perception of integrity of an artwork is violated.

One of the most important elements in the overall protection against burglary and assault in sacred objects is a personal protection of extremely valuable art works. Individual protection is particularly important if there is a desire to limit access for tourists (Table 3, b).

Maximum protection can be achieved only by the coordination of all types of security – mechanical, alarm systems and physical protection, while not destroying the holistic perception attractions. Before installing security systems it is necessary to develop a conceptual design. It may seem that this is unnecessary expense, that is really a wrong idea; while designing attention should be paid not only to the type of protection but also to a way of placing protective agents (Table 4).

Of course, the cable guard system between bricks masonry is a hard work but it hides a system of protection (Table 5, a). Placing of fire sensors also requires a certain skill and lightness (Table 5, b). The lighting of sanctuary facade not only enhances its protective ability but also creates additional tourist attraction in the evening. A church in darkness gives the impression of defenceless and easily accessible to thief attacks (Table 5, c).

CONCLUSIONS

There are no ideal recommendations for personal protection of ancient monuments. The selected solution is largely dependent on the imagination of the designer or artist of the system, but even due to the cheapest and easiest way it is possible to achieve quite satisfactory results.

Clergy and religious communities engaged in the management of sacred art and culture would remember that they control not their property but the most sacred and national values, integrity and inviolability of which is necessary to protect with the greatest care and responsibility.

Dr. Liliya Gnatyuk
National Aviation University, Ukraine

REFERENCES

Sacra ci Restauratio, Association restorers and custodians of historic and artistic monuments, Warsaw 1992, p. 120-123
§ 1 "The rules according to which shall act for sacred art", issued Conference of the Episcopate of Poland. Effective from April 4, 1973.

1. Consequences of fire. a) The destructive effect of fire. b) remains. c) the destruction of religious objects.

2. Condition of building and mechanical protection systems. a) scaffolding facade. b) grille in front. c) locks. d) damaged woodwork

3. Forms of protection. a) separate side chapel guarded

3. Forms of protection. b) individual protection

4 Development Project. a) Faced fortified leaf doors. b) Protected bars top lantern light and door. c) Window latches

5. Installation of security tools. a) Laying of cable in an old masonry. b) Latent placing sensors. c) Lighting