In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

158 / Hernández Mora was based on typological conventionalisms and the above-cited valuations, Ramos (1988) detected changes for which no written references existed. Ramos’s discoveries were incorporated into the restoration with the objective of recuperating the primary architectural image of the structure at the start of the eighteenth century. If he had instead merely executed a morphological/descriptive study, the primary architectural image surely would have been different than the one reproduced in this restoration on the basis of his detailed archaeological data. In the above-mentioned archaeological project executed by Angela Peña in 1974 and 1983, subordinate to the restoration of the birthplace of General Calixto Garcia in Holguín, archaeology and restoration were carried out as parallel practices . This house dates to the second half of the nineteenth century. Test pits were opened in the walls and floors, and the plaster finish was removed, respecting those elements identified as originals according to the proposed chronological horizon (Peña 1987:60). In this case the objective was not the construction of historical knowledge, per se, but the identification of architectural elements in the service of authenticity. The archaeologically discovered relationships between the outer masonry walls and the rest of the components in the ground and in the vertical plane allowed the reproduction of the building’s partially lost appearance. The importance of this example rests on the fact that the restoration plan began with archaeology , which made it possible to create a representation of the past at the home in which the distinguished Cuban was born. The principal contrast between this paradigm and some of the current restorations going on in Old Havana is manifest in the decentralized position that archaeology is given with respect to making decisions in the historic center of the island’s capital. The directions for rehabilitation often are made by investors and planners who work at the margins of archaeological knowledge. The reason can be found in the lack of concrete regulations at the local level, though the issue is further complicated by the fact that the economic object of the businesses in charge of these restorations is not patrimonial conservation. Builders are investing in the substitution of historical, sometimes useable elements, for the new—that is, the replacement of the authentic by more modern solutions. In this context archaeology does not bear full responsibility for aggressive actions against the patrimony; instead, the practice of archaeology is directed by requirements alien to the discipline. The studies carried out over five years ago at the old Palacio de los Condes de Cañongo, Calle San Ignacio Nos. 350 and 356, in Plaza Vieja, demonstrate the destructive nature of both the archaeological investigations and the actions of the restorers. Excavations in this mansion began in the central patio, with the goal of finding a reservoir, an objective solicited by the investors. Twenty-nine units were excavated in the subsurface and countless exploratory test pits were cut into in the walls; in some places these were totally stripped of their plaster finish, destroying murals and other evidence in the process. Built Patrimony and Historical Archaeology / 159 The difficulty in analyses like these begins with the master plans for rehabilitation . Such plans exist everywhere in the country, in historical centers decreed world patrimony sites like Trinidad, Old Havana, and, most recently, the old city of Camagüey. These plans are not based on fundamentals revealed through basic archaeological investigations; instead, archaeological studies continue to be ruled by the traditional norms of the discipline—typology and description—which yield results that have little to do with reaching the full potential of this type of research . Final Considerations The characteristics of archaeological practice in historical centers can bring about confrontations with other disciplines involved in the conservation of the built patrimony that do not share archaeology’s updated procedures and cognitive objectives . In today’s Old Havana, many restoration projects still rely on surveys of artistic styles or comparative typologies, in line with the most traditional historiography of architecture or art. Nevertheless, we have known for a long time that styles and architectural types do not overlap in time and that this disjunction cannot be taken lightly (Ramos 1988:16–17), given that change has complex causes linked to both objective conditions and cultural subjectivity. In too many cases the monument is sanctified as a fetish that embodies a style physically frozen in time. But the complexities and responsibilities involved in restoring the...

Share