نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکترای مرمت بنا، گروه مرمت و احیای بناها و بافت‌های تاریخی، دانشکده حفاظت و مرمت، دانشگاه هنر، اصفهان، ایران.

2 دانشیار، گروه مرمت و احیای بناها و بافت‌های تاریخی، دانشکده حفاظت و مرمت، دانشگاه هنر، اصفهان، ایران.

3 دانشیار، گروه مرمت و احیای بناها و بافت‌های تاریخی، دانشکده حفاظت و مرمت، دانشگاه هنر، تهران، ایران.

چکیده

اندیشه حفاظت معماری در سده‌های 17 و 18 در اروپا شکل گرفت و در سده بیستم در قالب منشورهای آتن و ونیز به جهان عرضه گردید. برخی کشورهای شرقی اصول این منشورها را تا اندازه‌ای مغایر با برخی سنت‌های حفاظت معماری خود می‌دیدند و همین امر موجب به چالش کشیده شدن اندیشه مرسوم در زمینه حفاظت و شکل‌گیری سند اصالت نارا گردید که به احترام بر تنوع فرهنگی و زمینه فرهنگی تأکید می‌کرد. حال پرسش اینجاست که رویکرد سنتی حفاظت معماری در کشورهای شرقی دارای چه ویژگی‌ها و مغایرت‌هایی است؟ از آنجایی که توجه به زمینه فرهنگی بسیار مورد تأکید است، لذا شناخت ویژگی‌های رویکرد شرقی و شیوه‌های سنتی حفاظت معماری در شرق برای شناخت زمینه فرهنگی کشورهای شرقی ضرورت دارد. از این‌رو هدف این مطالعه شناخت ویژگی‌های رویکرد سنتی برخی کشورهای شرقی از جمله ایران و مغایرت‌های آنها با اصول مدرن حفاظت است تا بتوان تا اندازه‌ای به شناخت زمینه فرهنگی مشرق زمین در حفاظت معماری دست یافت. این پژوهش از نوع بنیادی و به صورت  کیفی و استقرایی انجام می‌شود که بخشی از آن مطالعه مروری است و از آنجایی که در رابطه با ایران در این زمینه مطالعه‌ای انجام نگرفته، بخش مربوط به ایران با کدگزاری و مقوله‌بندی روش نظریه زمینه‌ای انجام می‌شود. در پایان جمع‌بندی مطالعه نشان‌دهنده آن است که وجه تمایز شرق در حوزه حفاظت میراث، در توجه بیشتر به ناملموس‌ها و معنویات است که مغایرت‌هایی با برخی اصول مدرن حفاظت معماری مانند منشور ونیز که دربردارنده گرایش ماده‌گرایانه‌ست دارد. مفاهیم و باورهایی چون فناپذیری در شرق نقشی کلیدی در نگاه به میراث مادی گذشته داشته است. ایران نیز به عنوان یک کشور شرقی جنبه‌هایی از رویکرد شرقی را در سنت‌های حفاظت خود داشته و با ویژگی‌هایی چون تزئین بنای تاریخی از منحصربه‌فردی خاص خود نیز برخوردار است.

چکیده تصویری

رویکرد سنتی حفاظت معماری در مشرق زمین

تازه های تحقیق

- رویکرد حفاظت معماری در غرب بیشتر بر اصالت ماده تأکید داشته، حال آن‌که در شرق مفاهیم فلسفی و دینی و ناملموس‌ها نقشی کلیدی داشتند.
- برخی اصول جهانی حفاظت مانند مداخله حداقلی، خوانایی مرمت و نشان معاصر در شرق و از جمله در مرمت‌های سنتی ایران نادیده گرفته می‌شدند.
- نمونه‌های سنتی مرمت ایران بر تکمیل بودن کالبد و تزئینات با توجه به اصالت مهارت و هنر سنتی مورد نظر بوده است و نه اصالت ماده.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

The traditional approach to architectural conservation in the orient

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Mehdi Hooshyari 1
  • Behnam Pedram 2
  • Ali Zamanifard 3

1 Ph.D. Candidate in Architectural Conservation, Department of Architectural Conservation, Art University, Isfahan, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Conservation, Faculty of Conservation, Art University, Isfahan, Iran.

3 Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Conservation, Faculty of Conservation, Art University, Tehran, Iran.

چکیده [English]

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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Architectural Conservation Traditional Approach
  • Cultural Context
  • Orient
  • Modern Conservation Principles

این مقاله برگرفته از رساله دکتری نویسنده نخست با عنوان «سنت تعمیرات معماری در دوره معاصر ایران از منظر تطابق با اصول جهانی حفاظت» می‌باشد که به راهنمایی نویسنده دوم و سوم در دانشگاه هنر اصفهان، انجام گرفته است.

This article is derived from the first author`s Doctoral thesis entitled “Architectural Repairs Tradition in Contemporary Iran in terms of Interacting with International Principles of Architectural Conservation”, supervised by the second and third author, at Art University of Isfahan.

  1. Abbasi Harofte, Mohsen (2013). Tabyine Sonnate Hefazat dar Masjid Jame Isfahan. Enshae Osule Modakhelat Hefazati ba Tekye bar Shavahede Sonnate Modakhele dar in Masjid (PhD Thesis). Art University of Isfahan.
  2. Abbasi Harofte, Mohsen (2015). Sharhi bar Sonnate Hefazat Memari dar Iran, ba Tekye bar Shavahede Tarikhie Hefazat dar Masjid Jame Isfahan. Yazd: Yazd University Publication.
  3. Abdi Ardakani, Hodjatollah (2015). Tahlile Enteghadi Tarikh Hefazat Memari dar Iran (PhD Thesis).  Elm va Sanat University.
  4. Ashuri, Dariush (1974). Sharq va Gharb, Farhang va Zendegi. 15: 20-27.
  5. Behruzi, Ali Naqi (1975). Banahaye Tarikhi va Asar Honari Jolge Shiraz. Shiraz: Publication of Edare kol Farhang va Honar Fars
  6. Bowdler, S. (1988). Repainting Australian rock art. Antiquity 62: 517-523.
  7. Byrne, D. (1991). Western Hegemony in Archaeological Heritage Management. History and Anthropology, 5, 269-276.
  8. Byron, Robert. (1934). Byron's Iran and Afghanistan Collection. Conway Library, Courtauld Institute of Art, London.
  9. Chung, Seung-jin & Chang-sung Kim (2010). The Development of Attitudes to Historic Conservation- From Eurocentrism to Cultural Diversity. Architectural Research. 12(10): 25-32.
  10. Cooke, L. (2008). Approaches to the Conservation and Management of Earthen Architecture in Archeological Contexts. PhD Thesis. London University College.
  11. Forster, Alan Mark; Thomson, Derek; Richards, Kendal; Pilcher, Nick & Samantha Vettese (2018). Western and Eastern Building Conservation Philosophies: Perspectives on Permanence and Impermanence. International Journal of Architectural Heritage. 13(6):
  12. Glendinning, Miles (2013). The Conservation Movement: A History of Architectural Preservation: Antiquity to Modernity. Routledge.
  13. Golombek, Lisa. (1976). Isfahan Urban History Project, Aga Khan Documentation Center at MIT. In https://archnet.org/sites/16396/media_contents/106152
  14. Hojat, Mehdi (2001). Miras Farhangi dar Iran, Siasatha baraye yek Keshyar-e-Eslami. Tehran: Cultural Heritage Organization.
  15. Hoi An Protocols for Best Conservation Practice in Asia: Professional Guidelines for Assuring and Preserving the Authenticity of Heritage Sites in the Context of the Cultures of Asia (2005). Adopted by the Asia-Oceania Region at the ICOMOS General Assembly in Xi’an, China
  16. Hoeltzer, Ernst (1976). Iran dar Yeksado Sizdah Sal pish. Translator: Mohammad Asemi. Tehran: Anthropology Center of Iran.
  17. Honarfar, Lotfollah (1955). Yadi az Gozashte bazi Abniye Bashokooh Ahd Safavi dar Isfahan. Gozareshhaye Bastanshenasi 3: 191- 222.
  18. Honarfar, Lotfollah (1971). Ganjine Asar Tarikhi Isfahan, Asar Bastani va Alvah va Katibehaye Tarikhi dar Ostan Isfahan
  19. Huntington, Samuel. P. (1993). The Clash of Civilizations? Foreign Affairs. 72(3): 22-49.
  20. Huntington, Samuel. P. (2007). The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. Simon and Schuster.
  21. INTACH (Indian National Trust for Art and Cultural Heritage) Charter for the Conservation of Unprotected Architectural Heritage and Sites in India (2004).
  22. Jaberi Ansari, Mirza Hasan (1998). Tarikhe Isfahan. Edit by Jamshid Mazaheri. Mashal Publication.
  23. Jokilehto, Jukka (2008). Tarikh Hefazat Memari. Translator: Mohammad Hasan Talebian & Khashayar Bahari. Tehran: Qoqnoos Publication.
  24. Keene, Donald (1971). Landscapes and portraits, appreciations of Japanese culture. Kodansha International Ltd.
  25. Khan Mohammadi, Ali Akbar (1992). Fotovvat Name Bannayan. Soffe 2(1): 10-15.
  26. Khodaverdi, Hasan. (2008). Methodology of Qualitative Research. Rahavard Siasi. 21: 41-62.
  27. Koren, Leonard (2008). Wabi-sabi for Artists, Designers, Poets & Philosophers. Imperfect Publishing.
  28. Kurth, James (2003/2004). Western CivilizationOur Tradition. The Intercollegiate Review. 39(1-2): 5-13
  29. Kwanda, Timoticin (2009). Western conservation theory and the Asian Context: The Different Roots of Conservation. In: International Conference on Heritage in Asia: Converging Forces and Conflicting Values, 8-10 January 2009, the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore.
  30. Kwanda, Timoticin (2010). Tradition of Conservation: Redefining Authenticity in Javanese Architectural Conservation. In: Heritage 2010 – International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development, 22-26 June 2010, Evora, Portugal.
  31. Lowenthal, D. (1985). The Past is a Foreign Country. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  32. Mestrovic, Stejpan (2004). The Balkanization of the West: The Confluence of Postmodernism and Postcommunism. Routledge.
  33. Mionel, Viorel (2017). Orient and Occident – Perceptual and Complementary Macro-Regions. The Market for Ideas. http://www.themarketforideas.com/orient-and-occident-perceptual-and-complementary-macro-regions-a331/
  34. Mostafavi, Mohammad Taghi (1955). Talash dar Rahe Khedmat be Asar Melli va Omid ba Ayande. Gozareshhaye Bastanshenasi. 3: 365- 513
  35. Price, C. (2000). Following Fashion: the ethics of archaeological conservation, in F McMannon and A Hatton (eds). Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society, 213-230. London: Routledge.
  36. Qoreyshi, Seyyed Zia (1995). Simaye Fazilat, Namvare Hojjatoleslam Seyyed Ali Mohammad Vaziri. Yazdshenasi Center Publication.
  37. Sadeghian, Maryam (2017). Zibayi Shekast; Tarifi Dobare az Virani dar Mojassamehaye Bouke de Vries. Tandis 363: 18
  38. Said, Edward (2007). Sharghshenasi. Translator: Lotfali Khenji. Tehran: AmirKabir Publication.
  39. Sami, Ali (1984). Shiraz Shar Javidan. Shiraz: Lux publication.
  40. Sarre, Friedrich. (1901). Denkmäler Persischer Baukunst. Berlin.
  41. Sarukhani, Bagher (1991). Daeratolmaaref Olum Ejtemaei. Tehran: Keyhan.
  42. Stubbs, H. John & Robert G. Thomson (2016). Architectural Conservation in Asia. Taylor & Francis.
  43. Tomaszewski, A. (2005). Tangible and intangible values of cultural property in Western tradition and science. In Proc. the 15th General Assembly and Scientific Symposium of ICOMOS, Xi’an, 17-21 October.
  44. Vahhabzade, Abdolrahman (2005). Masjid Kabood, Dirooz- Emrooz. Majmooe Maghalat Sevvomin Kongere Tarikh Memari va Shahrsazi Iran. Editor: Bagher AyatollahZade Shirazi. Cultural Heritage and Tourism Organization.
  45. Vahidzade, Reza (2013). Bazshenasi Farhang Boomi Afarinesh Honari dar Baster Hefazat Asar Tarikhi; Emkansanji Tosee Hamahang Asar Tarikhi va Tavanbakhshi dar Miras Memari Maktab Isfahan (PhD Thesis). Art University of Isfahan.
  46. Varjavand, Parviz (1977). Negahi be Pishine Tamir barkhiaz Banahaye Tarikhi Isfahan. Honar va Mardom 175: 2- 18.
  47. Wei, Chen & Andreas Aass (1989). Heritage conservation: East and West. Icomos Information 1989/3.
  48. Wilber, Donald (2008). Masjid Atiq Shiraz. Translator: Afra Bank. Tehran: Farhangestan Honar Publication.
  49. Yadegari, Zohre (2015). Hefazat Farakalbadi, Bazandishi dar Mabani Hefazat Asar Memari Iran ba Takid bar Vojoh Farakalbadi az Manzar Eslami (PhD Thesis). Art University of Isfahan.
  50. Zamanifard, Ali (2002). Negahi be Maremmat Gonbad dar Iran. Asar 33, 34: 227- 277
  51. Zander, Giuseppe (2017) Gozaresh Maremmat Banahaye Tarikhi Iran, Gozareshha va resalehaye ISMEO. Translator: Asghar Karimi. Tehran: Pajooheshgah Miras Farhangi va Gardeshgari.