مجله هنر و تمدن شرق
پیاپی 4 (تابستان 1393)

If we accept natural landscape the result of the first interaction of human and nature, cultural landscape is natural selecting for interaction during the time, which may have different causes in different periods. Ritual landscape as an important part of the cultural landscape is the community reaction to the spiritual needs. In ancient times, people lived in a directly deep link with nature. The biological landscape and the ritual landscape from ancient time was influenced by the natural landscape. This becomes important when we know natural elements of landscape in ancient time had spiritual concepts in addition to its function. So there has been direct and inseparable link between religion and nature. Due to dominant mountain landscapes in Georgian, the mountains always have had a fundamental role to the structure of public life as a landscape element, it has been three aspects of functional, meaning and the aesthetic. The importance of these three aspects from the ritual landscape view is different due to the time and place of ritual and cultural landscape formation. In this paper, by choosing three sets of ritual in Mestia, Uplistisikhe and Mtskheta in Georgia, first the ritual landscape of mountain formation is discussed in each of these three categories, due to the mountain association with the cultural community, the cultural landscape is formed differently. So that in Mestia the functional aspects was the dominant for creating meaning role and shaping the landscape of the mountain, In Uplistisikhe the aesthetic and meaning aspects of the mountain was overcome and in Mtskhetalocation of mountain is importantas the strategically region. After comparing these three aspects of ritual landscape, the relation between natural and cultural landscape will be discussed.

Armenian consider Mount Ararat mother of Armenia. The Armenian history has had deep links with this mountain from the beginning. All of Armenian myths somehow link to the mountain, and Armenian ethnic identity is defined by Ararat. Ararat is considered as symbol of two foldness of Great Armenia and pattern of reattachment of the nation's pieces.
In Armenians opinion, Ararat has passed a trade from nature to t myth, from myth to culture, and from culture to landscape. Its status as Armenian's most distinctive element of the natural landscape is the result of Armenians subjective selection of nature, which has been promoted to a cultural element by the association with Armenian culture and mythology. Plus Ararat has had a unique role in formation of Armenian landscape fabric, as the most important ritual (churches in slopes of Ararat) and residential landscapes (Yerevan city) were established directly by the identified impact of Mount Ararat.
In the urban landscape, Mount Ararat appears frequently in the viewpoint, urban graphic and street art; this repeated apparent which is more obvious about Ararat than any other element in the environment, suggests that the mountain has still a centralized role in cultural landscape, as it has retained its unifying role in natural landscape as well.

Human being is selecting a place to settle, first of all could detoxify his physical needs. Also he has attention to the secondary needs (concinnity) in this selection. Safety, food and clothing are the most important human needs in order to select the place of residence. Republic of Georgia had been considered by too many people over time because of the natural fertility to reside on Caucasus Mountains and its specific cultural landscape. Formation of settlements on the riverbanks and hillsides is due to the appropriate climatic conditions for farming, animal husbandry and sedentarization. Safety, the other human needs, is considered to choose the place of residence. If the selected place can`t provide significant safety for humans and he don`t be safe from the enemy`s infestation, he will inevitably think to arrangements to compensate for shortages of security by architecture. Formation of the defensive landscape of settlements is the interaction between cultural landscape, natural landscape and historical landscape -as a result of cultural landscape and natural landscape- which has formed various types in different place of residence, according to variety of natural landscapes and historical events. Defensive landscape is inevitable part of cultural landscape of historical residential complexes and also is part of an evolution process of cultural landscape. Residential architecture with approach of defense has two distinctive types in Georgian cities. Defensive landscape is defined by the battlements in Tbilisi and Gori like several cities in Iran; coarse-grained, centralized and introverted. Against, it is defined by high stone defensive towers in Mestia and Ushguli cities; fine-grained and extroverted.

Justice demonstrates in behavior of any person with another person and in government behavior with the people of the society. Social justice is a kind of justice that expresses this concept in society. Selecting the slogan of justice from modernity1 by Marxism caused the social justice be the main idea in the governance of communist cities. The idea that it is different concept based of Marxist thought, made distinctive socialist cities. Following this differentiation, the research question posed: What is the Marxist notion of social justice? How have the examples and solutions derived from this interpretation influenced in the creation of socialist cities? The purpose of social justice in Marxist culture is equaling between cities and achieving to economic equality. The aim of this approach is providing the need of people and distributing goods between them and this concept is destroyed after equating and eliminating capitalism. Based on this kind of thinking, we are seeing strategies that are raised from the idea of social justice in leadership and construction of socialist cities in all it’s Layers that these strategies are described in four templates based on the samples of the cities of Georgia and Armenia. The paper also discusses the manner and extent of involvement of the government and people in achieve of the idea of social justice in the city that this intervention is shaping the perspective of the socialist cities.

Understanding the urban landscape requires familiarity with the past stories and history of the city. Cities and also urban landscape formation is affected by various factors, including environmental, historical, social, cultural, political factors. These factors may not have the same effect, and one of them may have more strong and prominent role in shaping the landscape of the city than any other factor. There are three visible historical periods (tradition, socialism and independence) in the Caucasian cities (Armenia and Georgia), which were play a more prominent role in the construction of urban landscape. The Soviet government has more effective role in changing the urban landscape of the region throughout a special look at the philosophy of socialism. Socialist governments have been planning and designing a special framework in order to establishing equality among people, which caused major changes in the landscape of the cities and its components. In this era, communal spaces as interactive space of a city had turned into a turning point with anthropocentric scale, which were only used for political gatherings. This paper emphasized that the success of urban communal spaces rooted in behavior patterns and needs of their citizens, and must be founded based on a human-centered and community-centered approach, something that has not happened in the Caucasian cities. Today, citie’s authorities trying to organized urban places of the region with a similar approach and goal of globalization with imitation of European cities, regardless of the customs and traditions of the people of this country. Although, cities that traditional behavior patterns has been flowed in the people lifes, just have a expository and propagandistic look without any common and shared soul, and there aren’t any community-centered thought and design in their construction.

After the communist states, took Sovereignty the Caucasus cities, urban spaces were a lot of changes. Street as one of the components of the urban landscape that much of perception is dependent on it that in strategy of Sovereign states such as the Soviet was used; so that producing streets came out the main principle to introduce a new face in town to show power. Order and geometry in a direct structure with Governmental landuse such as office buildings, religious and government of the obvious physical characteristics of this streets. Considerable point is Presence of such streets in the cities of the Caucasus today's perspective that only flavor of Interest globalization and modernization have been added. It seems urban management of Caucasus adopted the same approach to organizing a street perspective, with a different purpose from the socialist era, that achieving the government's goals has priority over urban life. This article is a comparative view of the streets of the Caucasus in the socialist period and thereafter, provides the phenomenological analysis of urban management approaches towards designing street.