Mendeley  

Zotero  

Mehdiabadi M, Khadamlou S. (2025). The Footprint of World War I on the Old Bridge (Qarasoo Bridge) of Kermanshah. Athar. 46(110), 25-42. doi:10.61882/Athar.3401.2036
URL: http://athar.richt.ir/article-2-2036-en.html

Abstract
Despite its national registration as heritage No. 1388 (23 Azar 1355 SH), earlier restoration reports (1347–1383 SH) overlooked this explosive wartime damage, misattributing subsequent structural issues—such as cracks, subsidence, and arch instability—to natural factors like river sedimentation, vegetation growth, or heavy traffic wear, resulting in repeated and inefficient interventions. Objectives and necessity: This study aims to analyze the bridge’s World War I destruction based on eleven previously unpublished archival documents from Iran’s National Library (1296–1336 SH), evaluate the long-term impact on subsequent restorations, and underscore the critical role of exhaustive documentation in heritage conservation. The necessity stems from the need for accurate damage pathology to prevent misguided repairs, preserve historical authenticity, minimize unnecessary interventions, and support the potential expansion of protective boundaries. What novel historical and pathological insights do these overlooked documents provide regarding the bridge’s history? How can their publication contribute to enhanced protection measures and boundary delimitation? Hypothesis: Detailed recognition of the explosive origin of the damage enables more precise pathology assessment, targeted conservation strategies, and reduction in redundant, costly restorations. Descriptive-analytical approach combining critical analysis of eleven National Library archival documents, cross-verification with published library sources (memoirs by Qaim-Maqami, Dowlatabadi, etc.), and on-site field inspections conducted in 1403 SH. The documents unequivocally confirm the deliberate dynamiting of two spans (one fully destroyed, one partially); immediate temporary timber repairs; detailed cost estimates ranging from 1500 to 3000 toman; administrative debates, urgency warnings, and eventual Cabinet approval of 1500 toman in 1336 SH (recoverable via temporary tolls). Full reconstruction of the affected arch in 1354 SH ultimately stabilized the structure, though prior misdiagnoses persisted. Publishing these documents significantly enriches the bridge’s archival corpus, illuminates its strategic wartime role, and provides strong justification for extending protective boundaries to include adjacent historic brick kilns as sites of related conflict events.
Keywords: Old Qarasoo Bridge, World War I, Restoration Documents, Kermanshah, Destruction. 

Introduction
War constitutes one of the gravest human-induced crises, inflicting profound and often irreversible damage on both human lives and irreplaceable cultural heritage. According to Iran’s Crisis Management Organization Act, a crisis is defined as a sudden or uncontrollable condition—whether natural or anthropogenic—necessitating immediate and extraordinary interventions. Historical conflicts involving direct military presence have frequently targeted strategic infrastructure, such as bridges essential for military logistics, civilian mobility, and economic exchange. The Old Bridge (Qarasoo Bridge) in Kermanshah exemplifies this vulnerability. Positioned in the southeastern sector of the city along the Qarasoo River, it historically served as a primary east-west transit corridor. Its stone foundations are attributed to the Sasanian era, with visible traces of Seljuk restorations in surrounding brick fragments, yet the predominant surviving architecture reflects Safavid-era reconstruction, commonly ascribed to Sheikh Ali Khan Zangeneh, vizier under Shah Abbas I (also linked to the Bisotun Caravanserai). The bridge was inscribed as National Heritage No. 1388 on 23 Azar 1355 SH, measuring 78 meters in length and 9 meters in width, featuring six pointed brick arches, hexagonal piers with plaster mortar and rubble stone cores clad in rectangular stone blocks, triangular cutwaters opposing the current, and lateral flood barriers.
During World War I, Kermanshah’s border proximity rendered it a hotspot for intermittent clashes among Ottoman, Russian, and British forces. In late 1295 SH, Iranian national troops, in coordination with Ottoman allies, dynamited two spans to impede Russian eastward advance and facilitate the evacuation of state officials and residents. Temporary repairs using timber and beams permitted continued use, though full restoration was hampered by bureaucratic hurdles and seasonal flooding risks.
Problem statement: Preceding restoration documentation (1347–1354 SH) failed to acknowledge this explosive wartime origin, erroneously linking ongoing structural degradation to environmental factors alone, thereby perpetuating inefficient, repetitive interventions.
Objectives and necessity: The research seeks to rigorously examine the destruction through archival evidence, trace its cascading effects on later conservation efforts, and advocate adherence to international principles of comprehensive documentation (Venice Charter, Article 14; Athens Resolution, Article 19). This is essential for evidence-based pathology, authentic preservation, cost-effective management, and informed boundary expansion.

Main Text 
Located approximately 5 km east of Kermanshah near traditional brick kilns (locally termed “kureh-par-khaneh”), the bridge spans the Qarasoo River, a historically vital waterway. Its structural composition includes hexagonal piers constructed internally with plaster mortar and rubble stone, externally faced with precisely cut rectangular-cubic stone blocks. Triangular cutwaters deflect water flow upstream, while lateral flood barriers protect against seasonal surges. Each arch rises approximately 4.4 meters from riverbed to apex, formed with pointed brick vaults (Registration File, 1355 SH).
Archival documents from the National Library (1296–1336 SH) reveal that repair initiatives commenced merely four months after the incident. Documents 1 and 2 (1296 SH) describe Ottoman forces destroying two spans during retreat—one completely demolished, the other half-ruined—followed by hasty timber repairs for emergency passage. Architect Mohammad, a trusted state engineer, estimated reconstruction costs at 1700–2000 toman, stressing the bridge’s economic significance as a caravan route and toll collection point.
Subsequent correspondence (Documents 3–11) outlines administrative processes: detailed material breakdowns (bricks, gypsum, lime, timber, labor), estimate discrepancies among experts (1730, 1500, and 3000 toman), repeated urgency alerts warning of potential cost escalation to 30,000 toman if delayed beyond the dry season, and eventual deferral to spring. The Cabinet finally authorized 1500 toman in 1336 SH, stipulating recovery through temporary transit fees.
Later conservation efforts (1347–1383 SH) focused on crack repairs (1347 SH: attributed to sedimentation and tree roots) and complete rebuilding of the second western arch (1354 SH), which incorporated modern materials and techniques, yielding enduring stability—yet without knowledge of the explosive trauma, interventions exceeded the principle of minimal interference.

Discussion and Analysis 
Cross-verification of archival documents with contemporary library sources (Qaim-Maqami & Saadvandian, 1398; Dowlatabadi, 1387) confirms the intentional destruction by Iranian-Ottoman forces to obstruct Russian artillery-supported advance amid bombardment of nearby brick kilns. The explosions severely disrupted original material continuity, inducing long-term physical-chemical alterations, bond failures, and progressive subsidence that persisted despite multiple interventions.
Administrative bottlenecks—seasonal constraints, budgetary disputes, and inter-ministerial referrals—prolonged vulnerability and compounded deterioration. Subsequent pathology reports erroneously diagnosed symptoms as purely natural, prompting superficial consolidations that failed to address underlying explosive-induced weaknesses, necessitating further interventions.
The 1354 SH comprehensive rebuilding, replacing degraded elements with contemporary materials and reinforced foundations, finally stabilized the affected span. However, this approach sacrificed portions of historical authenticity. Had conservators been aware of the wartime explosive origin, they could have pursued targeted, less invasive techniques (e.g., structural consolidation rather than wholesale replacement), better aligning with minimal intervention principles and reducing long-term expenditure.
This case vividly illustrates war’s devastating legacy on cultural heritage: deliberate blasts cause degradation patterns distinct from gradual environmental wear, demanding specialized diagnostic and remedial methodologies. Publication of these documents complies with international charters, substantially enriching the bridge’s historical record, elucidating its pivotal strategic function during the conflict, and providing robust evidence to advocate boundary expansion to encompass adjacent brick kilns—recognized as contemporaneous event loci—potentially qualifying for additional national heritage designation.

Conclusion
Conclusion This investigation conclusively demonstrates, through eleven National Library documents (1296–1336 SH) corroborated by published memoirs, that two arches of the Qarasoo Bridge were deliberately dynamited in late 1295 SH (1917) by Iranian and Ottoman forces to delay Russian military advance and enable Kermanshah’s evacuation. Temporary timber repairs were implemented immediately, followed by protracted administrative deliberations culminating in a 1500-toman reconstruction budget approval in 1336 SH.
The explosive shock inflicted enduring structural instability, which was systematically misdiagnosed in subsequent conservation phases as natural deterioration. Awareness of this origin could have directed more nuanced, evidence-based interventions, averting redundant work and preserving greater material authenticity. The eventual full rebuilding in 1354 SH successfully stabilized the structure, albeit at the partial cost of original fabric integrity.
By disseminating these previously neglected records, the study adheres to foundational international heritage principles (Athens and Venice Charters), markedly augmenting the bridge’s archival heritage and highlighting its wartime strategic importance. It also furnishes compelling justification for broadening protective boundaries to incorporate neighboring historic brick kilns as integral components of the conflict landscape, potentially facilitating expanded national registration of the surrounding area.
The research ultimately reinforces the indispensable prerequisite of thorough archival scrutiny prior to any conservation action. Comprehensive documentation facilitates precise diagnosis, optimizes resource allocation, safeguards cultural significance, and enhances resilience against future threats. Future heritage practice should prioritize systematic digitization and public accessibility of such records, ensuring historical insights inform sustainable, conflict-resilient protection strategies in an era of persistent global instability.