صورت‌بندی انتقادی مسئلۀ حفاظت از میراث مذهبی در پرتو اسناد بین‌المللی و رویکردهای معاصر

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار، گروه معماری، دانشکدۀ هنر و معماری، دانشگاه علم و فرهنگ، تهران، ایران.

چکیده
میراث مذهبی در گفتمان معاصر، مفهومی با حدود ثابت و تعریفی یکدست به شمار نمی‌آید؛ زیرا در پیوند میان دین، فرهنگ، سیاست و میراث‌سازی شکل می‌گیرد و معنای آن با گزینش، بازنمایی و رسمیت‌بخشی نهادهای میراثی دگرگون می‌شود. مسئله اصلی از فاصله میان برداشتی پدید می‌آید که گروه‌های دینی از مکان دارند و صورتی که نظام‌های حقوقی و اداری برای شناسایی، ارزیابی و مدیریت آن پدید می‌آورند. بدین سبب، حفاظت از این میراث تنها با تشخیص ویژگی‌های تاریخی و معماری تحقق نمی‌یابد و به شناخت منطق‌هایی نیاز دارد که ارزش مذهبی را به موضوعی عمومی و قابل سیاست‌گذاری تبدیل می‌کند. هدف نوشتار، تبیین تحول مبانی، گسترش قلمرو مداخله و بازشناسی چالش‌های حفاظت از میراث مذهبی در اسناد بین‌المللی است. مطالعه با رویکردی کیفی، ماهیتی توصیفی ـ تحلیلی و روش اسنادی صورت گرفت. پیکره تحلیل را کنوانسیون‌ها، منشورها، بیانیه‌ها، توصیه‌نامه‌ها و متون حقوقی، نظری و مدیریتی تشکیل داد. اسناد با نمونه‌گیری هدفمند برگزیده شد و پس از سنجش اصالت، اعتبار، نمایایی و معناداری، گزاره‌های مرتبط استخراج و در دسته‌های زمانی و موضوعی سامان یافت. سپس روابط درونی، گسست‌ها و مسیرهای تحول با استدلال منطقی و تفسیر تطبیقی واکاوی شد. یافته‌ها نشان می‌دهد حمایت از مکان‌های مذهبی از مصونیت در مخاصمه و تضمین آزادی عبادت آغاز شد و به‌تدریج ارزش‌های تاریخی، معماری، فرهنگی و معنوی، همراه با بستر، منظر، مشارکت و مدیریت پایدار را دربرگرفت. با وجود این گسترش، ارزش قدسی هنوز با معیارهای عمومی میراث شناخته می‌شود، تفکیک امر ملموس و ناملموس پیوند زنده عناصر مکان را مختل می‌سازد و جایگاه گروه متولی نیز از سطح مشورت فراتر نمی‌رود. بر این پایه، موضوع حفاظت را باید رابطه‌ای تاریخی و پویا میان معنای مذهبی، صورت مادی، کاربرد و تداوم اجتماعی مکان دانست. در پایان، اعتبار هر مداخله به میزان پاسداشت دلالت قدسی مکان، نظم حضور و نقش مؤثر گروه متولی وابسته است.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

A Critical Framing of Religious Heritage Conservation Based on International Instruments and Contemporary Approaches

نویسنده English

Nasim Asgari
Assistant Professor, Faculty of Art and Architecture, University of Science and Culture, Tehran, Iran.
چکیده English

Religious heritage in contemporary discourse cannot be regarded as a concept with fixed boundaries or a uniform definition, as it is shaped through the intersections of religion, culture, politics, and heritage-making. Its meaning is consequently transformed through the processes of selection, representation, and official recognition undertaken by heritage institutions. The central problem arises from the disparity between religious communities’ understanding of place and the forms constructed by legal and administrative systems for its identification, assessment, and management. Accordingly, the conservation of religious heritage cannot be achieved solely through the recognition of its historical and architectural attributes; it also requires an understanding of the mechanisms through which religious value is transformed into a matter of public concern and policy. This study aims to explain the evolution of underlying principles, the expansion of the scope of intervention, and the challenges associated with the conservation of religious heritage in international instruments. The research adopted a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach and employed documentary analysis. The analytical corpus comprised conventions, charters, declarations, recommendations, and legal, theoretical, and managerial texts. The documents were selected through purposive sampling and assessed in terms of authenticity, credibility, representativeness, and meaning. Relevant statements were subsequently extracted and organized into chronological and thematic categories. Their internal relationships, discontinuities, and trajectories of development were then examined through logical reasoning and comparative interpretation. The findings indicate that the protection of religious places initially emerged through guarantees of immunity during armed conflict and the protection of freedom of worship. It gradually expanded to encompass historical, architectural, cultural, and spiritual values, together with setting, landscape, participation, and sustainable management. Despite this expansion, sacred value continues to be recognized through general heritage criteria; the separation of tangible and intangible dimensions disrupts the living interrelationships among the constituent elements of place; and the position of the custodian community rarely extends beyond consultation. On this basis, conservation should be understood as a historical and dynamic relationship among the religious meaning, material form, use, and social continuity of place. Ultimately, the legitimacy of any intervention depends on the extent to which it safeguards the sacred significance of the place, the patterns governing presence and use, and the effective role of the custodian community.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Religious Heritage
Sacred Value
International Instruments
Conservation Challenges
Tangible and Intangible Dimensions
1-      Alexander, C. (2016). A pattern language: Part one, cities (R. Karbalaei Nouri & H. Khademi, Trans.). Center for Urban Planning and Architecture Studies. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/4454023
2-      Baumgartner, C. (2023). Mobilizing religious heritage in politics: Inclusivity in a pluralistic society. In T. Weir & L. Wijnia (Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of religion and heritage in contemporary Europe (pp. 163–170). Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350251410.ch-018
3-      Breger, M. J., Reiter, Y., & Hammer, L. (Eds.). (2017). Holy places in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: A historical perspective (M. Y. Farahzadi, Trans.). Aria Thinkers Studies Group. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/3844434
4-      Bremer, T. S. (2013). Sacred spaces and tourist places (M. Gholipour & E. Majidifard, Trans.). In D. J. Timothy & D. H. Olsen (Eds.), Tourism, religion and spiritual journeys (pp. 31–43). Jame'eh-Shenasan. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/2405247
5-      Brereton, J. P. (1998). Sacred space (M. Mohammadi, Trans.). Nameh-ye Farhang, (29), 128–145. (In Persian). http://noo.rs/XnvDO
6-      Burchardt, M., & Ural, N. Y. (2024). The future of religious pasts: Religion and cultural heritage-making in a secular age—Introduction. Cultural Studies, 38(5), 717–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09502386.2024.2363200
7-      Chae, K. (2026). Religious heritage and the governance of living sacred space: A multi-religious perspective. Religions, 17(4), Article 466. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel17040466
8-      Coleman, S. (2025). On the entanglements of heritage—Afterword to the special issue “Sacred heritage: Religions and material culture.” Religions, 16(2), Article 207. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel16020207
9-      Council of Europe. (1985). Convention for the protection of the architectural heritage of Europe (Granada Convention). https://rm.coe.int/168007a087
10-   Council of Europe. (1987). Santiago de Compostela declaration. https://rm.coe.int/16806f57d6
11-   Council of Europe. (2005). Council of Europe framework convention on the value of cultural heritage for society (Faro Convention) (CETS No. 199). https://rm.coe.int/1680083746
12-   Cresswell, T. (2019). Introduction to place (H. Hataminejad & B. Habibiyan, Trans.). University of Tehran Press. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/5803415
13-   De Jong, F. (2023). Introduction: Temporalities of renewal in religious heritage. In F. De Jong & J. Mapril (Eds.), The future of religious heritage: Entangled temporalities of the sacred and the secular (pp. 1–22). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003182719-1
14-   Eliade, M. (2014). The sacred and the profane (N. Ganji, Trans.). Sorush (Seda va Sima Publications). (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/3579317
15-   Farasatkhah, M. (2017). Qualitative research method in social sciences with emphasis on grounded theory. Agah. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/4354910
16-   Fernández-Álvarez, Ó., González-González, M., & Ouali-Fernández, S. (2022). Religious heritage: Reconciliation between spirituality and cultural concerns. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 14(4), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.21659/rupkatha.v14n4.29
17-   Ferrari, S. (2014). Introduction: The legal protection of the sacred places of the Mediterranean. In S. Ferrari & A. Benzo (Eds.), Between cultural diversity and common heritage: Legal and religious perspectives on the sacred places of the Mediterranean (pp. 1–16). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315569109-1
18-   Franceschini, C. (2023). Intangible religious heritage: UNESCO’s nomination processes, uncharted sides and legal issues. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 92–126. https://doi.org/10.54103/1971-8543/19836
19-   Franceschini, C. (2024a). The values of tangible religious heritage through the lens of UNESCO. In UNESCO, religious cultural heritage and political contestation: Conflict of values or values in conflict? (pp. 21–49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74572-0_2
20- Franceschini, C. (2024b). The values of intangible religious heritage through the lens of UNESCO. In UNESCO, religious cultural heritage and political contestation: Conflict of values or values in conflict? (pp. 51–71). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-74572-0_3
21-   Hashemi, S. M. (2015). Holy places of Islamic teachings and international law. Miqat Hajj, 24(93), 21–43. (In Persian). https://www.magiran.com/p1585144
23-   ICOMOS. (2004). The World Heritage List: Filling the gaps—An action plan for the future (analysis). http://whc.unesco.org/document/102409
24-   ICOMOS. (2005). Xi’an declaration on the conservation of the setting of heritage structures, sites and areas. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/xian-declaration.pdf
25-   ICOMOS. (2008a). Québec declaration on the preservation of the spirit of place. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Charters/GA16_Quebec_Declaration_Final_EN.pdf
26-   ICOMOS. (2008b). ICOMOS charter on cultural routes. https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/3140/
27-   ICOMOS. (2011a). Resolution 17GA 2011/35: Protection and enhancement of sacred heritage sites, buildings and landscapes. https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/activities/documents/activity-646-1.pdf
28-   ICOMOS. (2011b). The Valletta principles for the safeguarding and management of historic cities, towns and urban areas. https://civvih.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/CIVVIH-Valletta-Principles_0.pdf
29-   ICOMOS. (2013). The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS charter for places of cultural significance. https://australia.icomos.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Burra-Charter-2013-Adopted-31.10.2013.pdf
30-   ICOMOS. (2024). Charter on sites with intangible cultural heritage. https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/3367/
31-   Isnart, C., & Cerezales, N. (Eds.). (2020). The religious heritage complex: Legacy, conservation, and Christianity. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350072541
32-   Jokilehto, J. (2015). A history of architectural conservation (M. H. Talebian & K. Bahari, Trans.). Rozaneh Publications. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/3951153
33-   Levi, D., & Kocher, S. (2013). Perception of sacredness at heritage religious sites. Environment and Behavior, 45(7), 912–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916512448203
34- Lindblad, H. (2022). Europe’s living religious heritage: The process leading to FRH’s biennial conference 2021 and its statement on living religious heritage and continuous use. In O. Niglio (Ed.), Regenerating cultural religious heritage: Intercultural dialogue on places of religion and rituals (pp. 27–41). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3470-4_3
35-   Lixinski, L. (2020). Religious heritage in international law: Nationalism, culture, and rights. Pravovedenie, 64(1), 138–155. https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu25.2020.111
36-   Longhi, A. (2022). Calling ‘values’ by ‘name’: Historical analysis and critical discernment for the interpretation and regeneration of underused religious heritage. In M. A. Di Giovine & E. M. Bruner (Eds.), Regenerating cultural religious heritage: Intercultural dialogue on places of religion and rituals (pp. 9–25). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3470-4_2
37-   Mirjani, H. (2011). Logical argumentation as a research method. Soffeh, 20(1), 35–50. (In Persian). DOR: https://dor.isc.ac/dor/20.1001.1.1683870.1389.20.2.3.6
38-   Niedźwiedź, A. (2024). Introduction to the special issue “Sacred heritage: Religions and material culture.” Religions, 15(12), Article 1520. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15121520
39-   Pusalkar, S. M. (2022). Need of ethical guidelines in community-based conservation consultations of living religious heritage: An Indian perspective. In M. A. Di Giovine & E. M. Bruner (Eds.), Regenerating cultural religious heritage: Intercultural dialogue on places of religion and rituals (pp. 81–95). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-3470-4_6
40-   Riazi, S. A. (2012). Spatial analysis of Grand Mosque (Masjed ol Haram): An interdisciplinary approach. Interdisciplinary Studies in the Humanities, 4(3), 61–87. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.7508/isih.2012.15.004
41-   Rudolff, B. (2015). The universals of religious heritage or how places of religion and ritual gain World Heritage recognition [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Religious Heritage: Toward Understanding the Outstanding Universal Value of Religious Heritage, Gongju City, Korea.
42-   Sabri, R., & Sakallı, B. (2024). The living religious heritage of displaced communities: Conservation problematics and use-related challenges. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 16(1), 229–251. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCHMSD-07-2023-0102   
43-   Sadeqi Fasai, S., & Erfanmanesh, I. (2015). Methodological principles of documentary research in social sciences; case of study: Impacts of modernization on Iranian family. Strategy for Culture, 8(29), 61–91. (In Persian). https://www.jsfc.ir/article_15066.html
44-   Salemink, O. (2022). Afterword: Heritage as management of sacralities. In E. van den Hemel, O. Salemink, & I. Stengs (Eds.), Managing sacralities: Competing and converging claims of religious heritage (Vol. 6, pp. 249–259). Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781800738225-014
45-   Sansot, P. (2020). Poetics of the city (N. Fakouhi & Z. Dudangeh, Trans.). Kasra Bookhouse. (In Persian). http://opac.nlai.ir/opac-prod/bibliographic/6098552
46-   Stovel, H., Stanley-Price, N., & Killick, R. (Eds.). (2005). Conservation of living religious heritage: Papers of the ICCROM 2003 Forum on living religious heritage: Conserving the sacred. ICCROM. https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/publications/2019-11/iccrom_ics03_religiousheritage_en.pdf
47-   Thouki, A. (2022). Heritagization of religious sites: In search of visitor agency and the dialectics underlying heritage planning assemblages. International Journal of Heritage Studies, 28(9), 1036–1065. https://doi.org/10.1080/13527258.2022.2122535
48-   Tight, M. (2019). Documentary research in the social sciences. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716559
49-   Tsivolas, T. (2014). Defining religious cultural heritage in Europe. In Law and religious cultural heritage in Europe (pp. 39–65). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-07932-5_4
50-   Tsivolas, T. (2019). The legal foundations of religious cultural heritage protection. Religions, 10(4), Article 283. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel10040283
51-   Aulet, S., & Vidal, D. (2018). Tourism and religion: Sacred spaces as transmitters of heritage values. Church, Communication and Culture, 3(3), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/23753234.2018.1542280
52-   UNESCO. (1954). Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict and its two protocols. https://www.unesco.org/en/heritage-armed-conflicts/1954-convention
53-   UNESCO. (1968). Recommendation concerning the preservation of cultural property endangered by public or private works. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/recommendation-concerning-preservation-cultural-property-endangered-public-or-private-works
54-   UNESCO. (1972). Recommendation concerning the protection, at national level, of the cultural and natural heritage. https://whc.unesco.org/en/faq/173
55-   UNESCO. (1989). Recommendation on the safeguarding of traditional culture and folklore. https://ich.unesco.org/en/events/unesco-general-conference-25th-session-1989-00313
56-   UNESCO. (1994). Global strategy for a representative, balanced and credible World Heritage List. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/globalstrategy/
57-   UNESCO. (2003). Convention for the safeguarding of the intangible cultural heritage. https://www.unesco.org/en/legal-affairs/convention-safeguarding-intangible-cultural-heritage
58-   UNESCO. (2010). Statement on the protection of religious properties within the framework of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/religious-sacred-heritage
59-   UNESCO. (2011). Recommendation on the historic urban landscape. https://whc.unesco.org/en/documents/160163
60-   UNESCO. (2018). Gran Canaria recommendation on astronomical heritage and sacred places. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/document/168092
61-   United Nations General Assembly. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights (A/RES/217(III)). (Corrected year from source 1949) https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_217(III).pdf
62-   United Nations General Assembly. (1966). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (A/RES/2200A(XXI)). https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_2200A%28XXI%29_civil.pdf
63-   United Nations General Assembly. (1981). Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (A/RES/36/55). https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/27624
64-   United Nations Human Rights Committee. (1993). General comment No. 22: Article 18 (Freedom of thought, conscience or religion). https://docs.un.org/CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4
65-   UNWTO. (2015). Bethlehem declaration on religious tourism as a means of fostering socio-economic development of host communities. World Tourism Organization. https://doi.org/10.18111/unwtodeclarations.2015.24.04
66-    van den Hemel, E., Salemink, O., & Stengs, I. (2022). Introduction: Management of religion, sacralization of heritage. In E. van den Hemel, O. Salemink, & I. Stengs (Eds.), Managing sacralities: Competing and converging claims of religious heritage (pp. 1–18). Berghahn Books. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781800738225-003
67-   WHC. (2015). Policy for the integration of a sustainable development perspective into the processes of the World Heritage Convention. UNESCO World Heritage Centre. https://whc.unesco.org/en/sustainabledevelopment
68-   Wijesuriya, G. (2005). The past is in the present: Perspectives in caring for Buddhist heritage sites in Sri Lanka. In H. Stovel, N. Stanley-Price, & R. Killick (Eds.), Conservation of living religious heritage: Papers from the ICCROM 2003 Forum on living religious heritage: Conserving the sacred (pp. 31–43). ICCROM. https://www.iccrom.org/sites/default/files/publications/2019-11/iccrom_ics03_religiousheritage_en.pdf

  • تاریخ دریافت 09 خرداد 1405
  • تاریخ بازنگری 02 مرداد 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش 04 مرداد 1405
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 16 مرداد 1405
  • تاریخ انتشار 01 شهریور 1405