Why should a specialized authority for artifact authentication—specifically in the fields of antiques, gemstones, and manuscript heritage—be established within the Official Experts Association of the Judiciary? And why should this authority, regardless of time or institutional fluctuations, most be reserved exclusively for certified experts with an academic degree in the conservation of historical, artistic, and cultural objects?
The Dezful historical bridge, a prominent example of Sassanid architecture in the city, is characterized by its stone foundations and unique structural features. This research explores the restoration and reconstruction methods applied to the spans of the Dezful historical bridge, with a focus on preserving the structural authenticity over time. The research method is historical-interpretive, with data collection through both library and field research. The findings indicate a wide variety of restoration and reconstruction techniques employed throughout history. The key research question is: What is the diversity of restoration methods for the foundations of the Dezful historical bridge, and how have these methods impacted the bridge's structural authenticity and historical value over time? Notable techniques include the use of simple cement coatings, brick patterns, plaster and lime coatings with brick patterns, and a combination of stone and brick materials. Additionally, the types of stones used in the reconstruction show variations in appearance, texture, dimensions, and arrangement. This diversity in reconstruction methods has resulted in an inappropriate visual appearance for the bridge's structure, negatively impacting its authenticity and historical value. The research concludes that the lack of a unified restoration approach may diminish its significance as a key symbol of the Sassanid period, emphasizing the need for greater attention to consistency in restoration practices and the preservation of the building’s original features.
Mehdi Razani, Zahre Shojai Maleki, Volume 6, Issue 1 (6-2023)
Abstract
the issue of forgery is of great importance in studying the authenticity of artistic and historical objects in the field of cultural artifacts. Ceramic, has been one of the most important human achievements that has subjected to various forms of forgery throughout history. Determining the authenticity of ceramic works requires understanding the multi-faceted nature of the material composition, construction methods, and decoration of the objects, as well as recognizing different types of forgery. Evaluating forgery in ceramic objects requires an assessment of the artistic-historical and aesthetic aspects of the crafted object, the authenticity of the manufacturing technology and production component, and the authenticity of subsequent interventions and additions. Therefore, determining authenticity in the face of forgery requires a specialized perspective and approach towards suspicious objects. This article aims to explore the various types of forgery in ceramics and examine the typology and methods of forgery in historical and cultural ceramics of Iran. The results, regardless of the historical context of forgery, indicate the development of forgery in ceramic objects during recent centuries and its presence in the antique market and the conservation of historical artifacts.
The present research investigates the authenticity and probable date of execution of the dated inscription in the central part of the mihrab of the Jameh Mosque of Urmia. At first glance, the date 676 AH inscribed on the inscription attributes its origin to this period. However, this research begins by posing the fundamental question of whether the current inscription is the same original inscription belonging to the 13th century CE (7th century AH) or whether it was reconstructed in later periods based on an older inscription that was likely damaged or destroyed. The main objective of this research is to determine or refute the authenticity of the dated inscription of the mihrab of the Jameh Mosque of Urmia. This article will analyze the mihrab inscription of the Jameh Mosque of Urmia using an analytical-historical approach and drawing upon fieldwork and artistic and historical analyses. The results of field investigations and observations of the stucco decorations in various parts of the dome chamber of the Jameh Mosque of Urmia indicate that the inscription in the central part of the mihrab, executed in 676 AH, was sketched and recorded during the Safavid period (likely). Subsequently, the inscription in question was completely destroyed (and possibly some reinforcement work was done on the underlying layer), and then the same original text that had been sketched was transferred onto a new stucco base and the stucco work was carried out. In fact, the construction date of the mihrab is indeed 676 AH, but the inscription under discussion was executed in the late Safavid period. The final section of the inscription, related to Surah Al-Fath, also dates from the restorations of this period. A noteworthy point in the intervention is that the text of the inscription was reconstructed exactly to ensure that the construction date of the mihrab and the artist who created it would not be forgotten. In essence, during a certain period (likely Safavid), a stucco master executed the dated inscription of the mihrab and the final section of the Al-Fath inscription using a specific type of stucco, a particular processing method, and a distinct cutting technique, which differ from the Ilkhanid and Qajar sections.
