Vahid Zatakram; Ali Zamanifard
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 ...
Read More
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.
