Archaeological Investigations

fter gaining independence, the young Republic of Estonia faced a number of challenges, among them was the management of local architectural heritage. In the beginning years, there were few visible results because of limited funding, neither was there any common understanding which historic buildings were worthy of preservation. Traditionally, the arch-enemies of the Estonian people were the Teutonic knights and the manorial lords, for this reason the wish to preserve medieval or Baroque or Neoclassical buildings was not easily comprehensible. In the 1930s the opinions as well as the economic possibilities were slowly changing. The change was most clearly seen in the work done at the Bridgettine Convent in Pirita, which served as a model and inspiration for what was to be done at Padise.

 

The archaeological excavations and the conservation work conducted at the Bridgettine Convent in Pirita in 1934–1936 were a result of many happy coincidences. The excavations were coordinated by Sten Karling, Professor in Art History at the University of Tartu, a Swede by nationality, who sent Armin Tuulse, who had recently received his master’s degree, to supervise the excavations. In Sweden Bertil Bethelson had started research on Vadstena Abbey and was naturally interested in other Bridgettine monasteries so he joined the Pirita group. Other active participants in the group included the Swedish national antiquarian Sigurd Curman and the architect Erik Lundberg, who introduced the concept and methods of conservation successfully implemented in Sweden.

For a long time the idea of “restoring back”, i.e. the architects realising their vision of how a medieval building should look like, taking it back to its original state, was prevalent in Scandinavian countries, similarly to all Europe. The most important examples of this approach are the cathedrals of Uppsala, Lund and Trondheim. In the 1920s several monastic ensembles were repaired in Sweden and the methods applied differed radically from the traditional ones. There were attempts to preserve the ruined structure in an authentic state, keeping alterations to a minimum. The final aim was a well-maintained monastic site. The walls were cleaned and covered by two or three courses of stones, which helped protect the original walls from weather damage. The restorers aimed to achieve a visual whole in which the original structure would be legible, at least in the ground plan. For this reason, not only were the surviving sections protected, but, if necessary, the dilapidated walls were raised for about a metre. Sometimes new sections of the wall had to be constructed for structural purposes: for example, if there was a need to support or reinforce some part of the building. The repaired wall was capped with a coping, consisting either of densely laid slabs of natural stone or concrete or lead sheet. To make it blend into the natural environment soft capping of the walls (grass planted to cover the top of walls) was often used. The principles and methods used at Pirita were taken as guidelines by the Estonian restorers and served as models in the conservation of the Padise monastery ruins.