هویت مکان‌های تاریخی در بستر تغییر؛ تحقیق در مبنای نظری مواجهه هویت مکان‌های تاریخی با تغییر

In the history of architectural conservation, conservators or conservation theorists’ viewpoint regarding the identity of historical places, particularly from the perspective of facing change, is one of the most significant bases of the conservation theories. However the Iranian society today, doesn’t have a clear view consistent with the cultural principles of the historical places identity as a subject of conservation. This is what causes to arise such questions as “what is the approach of Persian-Islamic culture toward the identity of historical places from the perspective of dealing with change and temporality? In the present study with the aim of understanding the historical places as a conservation subject, firstly an overview of related perceptions in conservation theories is represented. Existing approaches include three different approaches toward identity of the historical places with the titles of “Identity as a variable having a constant element”, “Identity as a process” and “Subjective identity”. What follows after a description and critique of these approaches, is an explanation of the Islamic wisdom approach as one of the most important thoughtful bases of the Iranian culture. Consequently, based on this approach, the identity of place is a variable having a constant subject. In this approach the constant subject involves some degrees of relative constant to absolute constant. Accordingly, the continuity of place identity in the process of change is rooted in some degrees of constant subject from traditions and patterns belonging to a specific region to higher degrees, divine constant traditions, substances and immutable archetypes of natural phenomena and their proportions and relationships. Thus, the relative degrees of constant subjects such as regional traditions and patterns, regardless of their relationship with higher levels of constant subject, can’t be considered as timelessness criteria for identity of historical places, unless it refers, in a non-repetitive manner, to higher degrees of constant subject as in the contemporary era that the manifestation of constant subject in the lives and creating of place-making humans has reached its lowest levels.