Conservation of Built Heritage on the Eastern Tibetan plateau:
Overview and Introduction

This is the first of a series of posts about repair and conservation in Kham.

Traditional Tibetan architecture is beautiful and impressive and adds immeasurably to Tibet’s landscape. Solidly built temples and their uniquely Tibetan embellishments express Tibetans’ enduring faith and rich culture.  Yet these structures are not as durable and timeless as they appear. Even before the Chinese Communist Party’s seizure of political power in 1949, Tibetan buildings were often lost in fires, earthquakes, and armed conflict. A perhaps extreme example is Lithang Monastery, which suffered severe damage to its temples at least three times before 1950 and twice more since.

Although accidental loss still happens today, the heaviest losses occurred during the indiscriminate destruction instigated by Communist Party leaders from 1957 to 1976. Some religious structures were intentionally destroyed; those left intact had their interiors looted and religious symbols defaced. Two decades of neglect followed, leaving surviving structures in a ruinous state from which many were irrecoverable. One famous example is Ganden Monastery, whose ruined buildings were often captured in tourist photos. Today, the number of near-original pre-1950 religious structures in Tibet Autonomous Region can probably be counted on one hand.

In 1978, Deng Xiaoping’s new policy of reform and opening led to gradual social liberalization and resumption of faith practices across China. The government subsequently allocated funding to repair temples, monasteries, and historic structures in the Tibetan ethnic region, especially those deemed of high significance such as the Potala Palace, although some little-known sites such as Mangyal Monastery in Dege County also received small amounts.¹ In Tibet Autonomous Region, repairs on major sites were organized by government agencies such as the Ancient Architecture Design and Research Institute. By the turn of the 21^st century, virtually all listed sites had received government attention. The Potala Palace is the centerpiece of Tibet tourism and Lhasa’s most outstanding monument, so it is well cared for.

Reform and opening also unleashed a wave of community-led building projects. Not only have Tibetan communities repaired or replaced religious structures, but they have also built new ones from scratch. Brand new temples, chanting halls, and stupas are now a ubiquitous sight at monasteries. Many are made of poured concrete and other nontraditional materials, further underlining the importance of conserving remaining originals.

The late 1980s also saw the Tibetan plateau opened to international tourism and cultural exchange, a liberal period that would last until unrest in 2008 brought a reversal. During these years, my American nonprofit, Kham Aid Foundation, and several other organizations outside China assembled the networks necessary to conduct heritage preservation on small number of sites that had not been previously repaired. These iNGOs and projects include:

• Tibet Heritage Fund, which performed conservation of Lhasa old town from 1996 to 2000 and additional projects in Beijing, India, and Mongolia;
• Shalu Association, which repaired structures and conserved of wall paintings at several sites in central Tibet from 1995 to 2007²;
• Association for International Solidarity in Asia, which conserved wall paintings in Galingteng Monastery in Dege County, Sichuan, from 2007 to 2010³; and
• Unicorn Foundation, which has extensively documented stone towers in Sichuan and Tibet Autonomous Region⁴.

Even before Hong Kong was handed over to China in 1997, China mostly tolerated Hong Kong organizations working on the Tibetan plateau. Among these, China Exploration & Research Society (CERS) has been active in heritage protection.  Two of the projects that I will discuss as part of this series began under CERS, later migrating to shared management with Kham Aid Foundation. CERS also performed repair of the assembly hall and conservation of wall paintings at Dongjulin Nunnery in Yunnan and organized an intervention to protect Lhumo (Ch: Tumu) Monastery in Sichuan from mudslides.

Most foreigner-led preservation of built heritage took place between 1991 and 2008, a period of relatively liberal Chinese policy toward foreign activities in Tibetan areas.  In many instances, the foreign experts used techniques not otherwise seen on the Tibetan plateau, permitting structure, fabric, and embellishments to be preserved that otherwise would have been lost.

Unfortunately, foreign NGO activities of all sorts were severely curtailed following unrest in 2008 and since 2010 have, with a few exceptions, virtually ceased. However, community-led repair and construction projects have continued. For example, Lithang Monastery rebuilt a large and lavish temple that had burnt down in a 2013 fire.  Moreover, China’s capacity for historic conservation has expanded significantly through collaborations with the Getty Conservation Institute, the Global Heritage Fund, and others.

Among the large number of organizations repairing and conserving Tibet’s built heritage, I have seen a variety of technical approaches. I have also used awitnessed a variety of ways to navigate Tibet’s complex social and political environment. To share what I’ve learned, I’ve put together a series of case studies that will form future posts.  Meanwhile, please read this related blog about the Sacred Art of the Derge Printing House.

1. Logan, Pamela. 2002, Tibetan Rescue. Appendix V.
2. Heller, Amy. 2007. “Mural conservation in Tibet 1995-2007: Grathang, Shalu and Lukhang conservation projects.” In Restoration and Protection of Cultural Heritage in Historic Cities of Asia, edited by F. De Filippi. Torino: Politecnico di Torino.
3. ASIA Onlus. 2011. The Mahakala Temple of Galingteng: The Restoration of Its Mural Paintings. Roma: ASIA Onlus.
4. Darragon, Frederique. “The Star-shaped Towers of the Tribal Corridor of Southwest China.” Journal of Cambridge Studies 4:2 (June 2009)