The traditional approach to architectural conservation in the orient

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.

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.

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.

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.