Journal of Iranian Architecture & Urbanism(JIAU)

Abstract Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: Fortifications such as city walls and citadels allowed people to settle in their land and protected their lives from natural and human threats. The history of sedentism in the central plateau of Iran dates back to 10,000 years ago. In addition to this historical context, there are still surviving vernacular urban and architectural spaces in Iran. Meybod is a desert city located in the central plateau of Iran, where human settlement might have begun during the Medain period. The city was fortified with a city wall and a citadel known as Narin Castle. The advent of modern streets and the loss of significant parts of the city walls in recent decades have endangered the integrity and values of these structures. Meybod city wall and Sharistan are also facing these challenges. To ensure effective conservation, a comprehensive understanding of the evolution of urban and architectural heritage is necessary, along with an explanation of the changes that have occurred over time. Therefore, the research focuses on the following problem: “How have the developments and transformations of Meybod Sharistan influenced the evolution and changes of Meybod city wall?” The following objectives are addressed:
• Understanding the transformations of Meybod city wall in interaction with the changes in Sharistan to form its current structure.
• Identifying the position of Meybod Sharistan and Meybod city wall in different historical periods.
Methods: This research employed a case study approach and a descriptive-analytical method. Bibliographic research was conducted by examining historical written sources, national and international documents and charters, as well as urban and regional development plans of Meybod. Other data sources, including aerial photographs, were also considered. The results of this research were presented through schematic illustrations and simulations of the current and initial conditions using 3D modeling software.
Findings: Meybod city wall is an integrated architectural complex within an enclosed environment. It is built from two main vernacular earthen materials: Khesht (adobe) and Chineh (mudbrick). Its form and layout follow the topography of the land, defining the boundaries of Sharistan between two elevated terraces to the south and north. 
Three of the four main gates, portions of the ditches, and 11 towers of the complex remain intact. In the south, the city wall merges with Narin Castle (the citadel) through a three-layered rampart. The city wall also features unique elements. One is Bagh Khandagh (ditch gardens), where the former ditches have been repurposed as gardens and farmland. Another distinctive feature is the Darbands, small gates that facilitate passage through the walls to the ditch gardens outside the city wall of Sharistan. The transformations of the city wall and Sharistan are categorized into distinct time periods. Based on the earliest reliable evidence of its foundation, the categorization begins with the Sassanian period:
1. Pre-Islamic Era to the 14th century (Sassanid Period): Sassanid cities were characterized by a citadel (Narin Castle) and city walls, which served as living areas for the ruler and high social classes, while lower classes lived outside the walls. The first foundation of the city wall was likely established during this period. The introduction of Islam to Iran led to the collapse of the Sassanid social hierarchy, and all social classes began living within the city walls of Sharistan, which included the citadel (Narin Castle), a Bazar (market), and the Jame Mosque. The city wall underwent significant restoration due to the Mongol invasion, and a northern gate was likely constructed during this time.
2. 14th century to the early 18th century (Muzaffarid Period to the Early Qajar Period): During the Muzaffarid period, the city’s importance increased due to its strategic location on the route from northern to southern Iran. As a result, it remained fortified, and the Kasnava gate was likely built. After the Muzaffarid period, the importance of the city wall gradually declined, although its conservation continued.
3. 18th century to 1925 (Qajar Period): During the Qajar period, modern concepts such as private property rights were introduced to Iran, which led to investment in real estate. Consequently, the city expanded northward, with ditch gardens and Darbands (small gates) created, along with the construction of private towers. The defensive role of the complex diminished, and the northern gate was replaced with a Sabat (an arched walkway or corridor).
4. 1925 to 1979 (Pahlavi Period): Urban planning concepts from the modern era were introduced to Iran. The first modern streets were built, disrupting the traditional urban fabric. City walls became obstacles to urban development, and the first street in Meybod was imposed, dividing the city into eastern and western sections.
5. Post-1979 (Islamic Republic of Iran): Modern construction and street development continued until the 1990s, during which the city walls were still regarded as an obstacle to development. The establishment of local NGOs, the inclusion of the historic city on heritage lists, and the development of urban plans that took heritage values into account led to restoration and conservation efforts. However, many of these activities were carried out with some errors.
Conclusion: The changes and transformations can be divided into three stages:
1. Formation and Expansion: This phase spans from the initial construction to the eve of the Qajar period, reflecting a close symbiosis between the city wall and the city itself. During this phase, the city wall served both as a protector and a boundary, while continuous expansion, repair, and construction took place.
2. Completion: The developments in this phase are attributed to the Qajar period, characterized by a situation in which the function of the complex was relatively preserved. As a result, the city wall continued to protect the city limits. Both the city and the city wall adapted to new needs and experienced internal growth.
3. Decline: This phase coincides with the arrival of modern urban development trends in the post-Qajar period. The original function of the city wall was lost, and it was no longer intertwined with the city. Consequently, it became an obstacle to urban growth. This paved the way for modern constructions and the demolition of parts of the city wall by the 1990s. Eventually, a shift in perspective occurred, and the city wall began to be recognized as a heritage site with historical and cultural significance.

Abstract Extended Abstract Background and Objectives: Due to the existence of diverse values in their original nature, historical monuments should be conserved for future generations. Preserving these structures against natural threats and preventing wear due to their extended lifespan represents a widespread approach to architectural heritage. This involves integrating them into the natural life cycle, where restorative interventions bring about necessary changes. Restorative interventions meet challenges in the conservation of monuments, given concerns about their impact on the monument’s survival, as well as the conservation of authenticity and heritage values. Consequently, restorers often tackle with difficulties in determining suitable restoration methods and techniques. Therefore, it seems that restorers need components to facilitate the evaluation and selection of appropriate restoration methods and techniques and reduce the problems they face. The best framework for attaining these components lies in the principles and guidelines outlined in international conservation documents, which have emerged from expert meetings in this field over the past decades. Unfortunately, these resources appear to be rather disregarded and overlooked, particularly beyond mere theoretical discussions. For this reason, and considering the importance of the subject, achieving the components of evaluation and choosing the appropriate method of restorative interventions in the architectural heritage based on the content of the international conservation documents has been chosen as the main goal of the research.
Methods: The research is considered an applied research since it aims to facilitate the application of theoretical foundations and the development of a conceptual framework related to restorative interventions in architectural heritage. Also, the research has a qualitative approach and benefits from the inductive strategy. The path of conducting research is determined by collecting partial data to achieve a general goal. In this regard, the necessary data for the research has been gathered through the bibliographic research method, and the analysis of the information involves content analysis, utilizing MAXQDA software. In other words, within the realm of international conservation documents, the ones specifically addressing the conservation of architectural heritage were initially selected. Subsequently, the content of these documents was examined, focusing on the methods employed for conservation and restoration in architectural heritage. Finally, pertinent provisions were systematically coded using content analysis software. After refining and categorizing the extracted codes, the components and sub-components related to the appropriate interventions in the restoration of architectural heritage in different collections were introduced.
Findings: The research outcomes encompass 39 components distributed across four groups: evaluation components for intervention goals with a focus on conserving heritage values, preserving originality and cultural significance of the site; evaluation components for logic, appropriateness, and the process of action; evaluation components for the level and type of intervention, particularly emphasizing reversibility and minimal intervention; and components for the final assessment of the chosen intervention. 
Conclusion: In establishing the objective of a restorative intervention in this domain, the goal may take diverse forms, such as preserving authenticity, maintaining quality and integrity in the work’s values, safeguarding the cultural significance of the site, ensuring overall integrity and stability, and meeting public needs or advancing knowledge. However, in line with continuing recommendations from the examined documents, an effective restorative intervention prioritizes the conservation of heritage values and tries to maintain maximum authenticity in architectural heritage. Therefore, choosing other goals, especially with economic motives, can divert the intervention from its desired direction and dimensions. In the context of the logic of intervention, the presence of convincing evidence of technical and financial justification and the possibility of any profit or loss resulting from the intervention seems necessary. The intervention should be in proportion to the status quo and the text and context of the work, the available facilities, the limits of the restorer’s competence, the level of risk threatening the work, and management policies. In terms of the process, the intervention should be based on detailed previous planning and have a multifaceted approach. Also, a balanced and unbiased attitude towards different parts of the work is recommended. Relying on theoretical foundations and incorporating a risk reduction process are additional facets within this domain. Finally, the intervention needs a cyclic process for the possibility of correction and recovery. In evaluating the required level of intervention, components such as the level of the cultural significance of the place, reversibility, minimal intervention, the existing condition of the work, the level of usable facilities, the value level of the work, and its use will be effective. It is important to emphasize that priority will be given to traditional techniques, favoring indigenous methods and the perpetuation of traditional approaches. Modern techniques should only be employed in restoration interventions when the inadequacy of traditional methods has been established and additional criteria, such as the presence of technical and scientific support, similar experiences in less critical structures, conservation and environmental benefits, sustainable material supply, and energy efficiency, can be met by these modern techniques. Finally, the ultimate assessment of the intervention involves evaluating the sensitivity and finesse of the measures taken, the existing capacity for implementation, maintenance, and future control, the level of knowledge available for the action, the extent of its impact on the elements and components of the effect, and its influence on the cultural significance. Additionally, a reassessment is conducted considering the long-term economic, social, cultural, and environmental consequences of the intervention.

Abstract Extended Abstract
Background and Objectives: Before the prevalence of the modern architectural conservation approach, undoubtedly, every region had its principles and characteristics in this field. Architectural conservation thought was developed in the 17th and 18th centuries in the West. It was represented to the world in the 20th century by the Athens and Venice charters and the UNESCO Convention of World Heritage. Still, Some eastern countries found the charters opposed to some of their architectural conservation traditions to some extent. In fact, the conservation thoughts in the early charters, such as the Athens and Venice charters and even the UNESCO World Heritage Convention of 1972, were based on a western approach. However, the concern about the eastern approach developed afterward in the 1980s. Therefore, it was a cause to challenge conventional thinking in the conservation field and the formation of the Nara authenticity document, which emphasized cultural diversity and cultural context. Now the question is: what are the characteristics and contradictions of conservation traditions in the eastern countries? And what aspects of the eastern approach are included in the traditional conservation of Iran as an eastern country? Since the cultural context concerns have been emphasized greatly, the acknowledgment of eastern approach characteristics would help recognize the Iranian cultural context as a component of the whole. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to recognize the traditional approach characteristics in eastern countries to recognize the Iranian cultural context as a component of the whole. This recognition is significant in the decision-making and preparation of national principles based on the cultural context of an eastern country.
Methods: This study is based on inductive reasoning and a qualitative approach. One part of the study is a review study, and the second part (concerning Iran) is carried out using the grounded theory method.
Findings: The restorations studied here for recognition of the Iranian approach are those executed before the Venice charter in 1962 and before the arrival of ISMEO in Iran; since it is believed that the restorations before the 1960s are regarded as “traditional restorations”. Consequently, the “scientific restoration” process started with the arrival of ISMEO and the establishment of the Iranian National Organization of Heritage Conservation. Sampling is also theoretical in this research and based on data related to the research question. Finally, the study concludes that the East compared to the West, in terms of conservation, is mostly based on intangibles and spiritualties, while the western architectural conservation thought is based on materialistic ideas. Concepts and beliefs such as impermanence had a key role in attitudes towards tangible heritage. Among eastern countries, the Indian charter of INTACH is so considerable. Despite the emphasis on its traditional and cultural context, it has presented some differences with principles such as patina preservation and restoration and considers them incompatible with Indian traditions. As an eastern country, Iran had some aspects of the eastern approach in its conservation traditions, focusing on traditional completing and aesthetic value as unique characteristics. Some codes and concepts were taken from the study of Iranian restoration cases in five groups of physical reconstruction, ornamentation, replacement, and inscription restorations, whose findings have been presented in four main categories as follows: ornamentation and aesthetical value of the work, the authenticity of traditional art rather than the physical substance, the necessity of completing a historical building traditionally, and also the emphasis on traditional proficiency.
Conclusion: Therefore, the four keywords of beauty, completeness, traditional art, and proficiency are the main emphasis of the traditional Iranian approach, based on the cases studied in this research. The two latter keywords, namely traditional art and proficiency, are regarded as the source of authenticity judgment. And also, it had some contradictions with some principles of the Venice charter 1964, so the readability of restoration and reconstruction, based on sufficient evidence, was not considerably emphasized. Also, some similarities with other eastern countries have been observed, mostly with some principles of the Indian INTACH charter rather than East Asia. Some characteristics of the Iranian approach also have been unique, such as ornamenting of a historic building or traditional completion of a historic building, emphasis on the rejection of such modern principles as the readability of restoration and the contemporary stamp.