The Trajectories of Lime in Heritage Reconstruction | Vanicka Arora & Manas Murthy

In this paper, we trace the evolution of discourse, policy, and practice that have legitimized lime as a “traditional” building material in ongoing heritage reconstruction in Bhaktapur, Nepal, following the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake. While historically much of Bhaktapur’s architectural fabric has used brick and timber as structural systems along with clay-based mortars and finishes, lime-based mortars and plasters have become ubiquitous as a material for heritage reconstruction. The benefits of lime over clay in terms of material strength are cited as one reason. Diminishing sources for clay are attributed as another reason, even as lime is imported extensively from neighboring countries such as India. Local contractors, officials, and laborers describe lime as a traditional building material, even though it was introduced as mortar relatively recently by UNESCO consultants working in the Kathmandu Valley in the 1970s and 1980s. In this paper we examine the materialities of lime and the narratives around its strength and seismic performance that contribute to its popularity. We analyze the ways in which lime as a material for heritage reconstruction gets simultaneously classified as traditional and modern, local and global, through a brief historiography of its use in Kathmandu Valley and by engaging with specific case studies in the Bhaktapur Durbar Square, which is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Introduction

In the years that have followed the widespread devastation of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake, built heritage has emerged as a key sector in the post-disaster recovery landscape of Nepal, receiving funding and expertise through both national and international sources.[i] Most international attention has been directed toward reconstruction of built heritage in the Kathmandu Valley, which along with being the political and economic center of the country is also home to some of the most globally recognized heritage and tourism destinations in Nepal. In particular, the UNESCO World Heritage Site of the Kathmandu Valley, a series of seven monument zones, namely the Durbar Squares in the historic capital cities of Kathmandu, Patan (Lalitpur), and Bhaktapur, as well as the religious ensembles of Swayambhu, Bauddhanath, Pashupati, and Changu Narayan, has been at the center of debates over the post-disaster reconstruction of built heritage.[ii] Heritage conservation practitioners, both within Nepal and internationally have engaged in extensive debates surrounding issues of material and historic authenticity, as well as the appropriateness of materials, building technologies, and construction systems used in reconstruction. Considerable attention has also been paid to recurring practices of reconstruction (and other forms of heritage restoration and repair) that have led to substantial change in building form and style over time.[iii] Amid these ongoing debates, a recurring point of contention of practitioners working in Kathmandu Valley has been the use of lime mortars and plasters as a replacement for mud- (or clay-) based mortars.[iv] This paper traces the evolution of the discourse over the past several decades that has legitimized lime as a “traditional” building material in ongoing heritage reconstruction and the conflicts that have arisen surrounding its usage in the aftermath of the 2015 Gorkha Earthquake (Figure 1). We argue that the Department of Archaeology (DoA) narratives and associated local policies promoting lime for the conservation and reconstruction of built heritage in the Kathmandu Valley functions as an “invented tradition.”[v] We analyze how lime has been simultaneously classified as traditional and modern, vernacular and foreign by engaging with previous restoration projects as well as recent reconstruction of built heritage in the Bhaktapur Durbar Square.

[i] Christiane Brosius and Axel Michaels, “Vernacular Heritage as Urban Place-Making: Activities and Positions in the Reconstruction of Monuments after the Gorkha Earthquake in Nepal, 2015–2020; The Case of Patan,” Sustainability 12, no. 20 (2020): 8720.

[ii] For details, see also Dipendra Gautam, “Seismic Performance of World Heritage Sites in Kathmandu Valley during Gorkha Seismic Sequence of April–May 2015,” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities 31, no. 5 (2017): 601–703.

[iii] UNESCO World Heritage Centre, “Mission Report: Kathmandu Valley (Nepal),” in UNESCO World Heritage Committee 41st Session, Krakow, Poland (Paris: UNESCO, 2017).

[iv] Ibid.

[v] Hobsbawm and Ranger, The Invention of Tradition.

To read the FULL ARTICLE, purchase a physical copy at https://cot.pennpress.org/home/, or visit Project Muse for digital access https://muse.jhu.edu/article/927228. Thank you for your support!