Cambodia / Indonesia

26

2021

The Twenty-sixth Regular Report

Lao PDR / Malaysia

ACCU Nara International Correspondent
The ACCU correspondents periodically send reports on cultural heritage protection activities in which they have been
recently involved. This is a collection of eight reports submitted by international correspondents in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Twenty-sixth Regular Report
Contents
Cambodia

1

Indonesia

5

Sokonthea Sort
National Museum and Current Situation

Yosua Adrian Pasaribu
Designation of Lasem City as a National Cultural Heritage Landscape

Lao PDR

8

Sommay Singthong
The Conservation of Tomo Ancient Site, Tomotha Village, Pathoumphone District, Champasak Province

Malaysia

11

Mongolia

21

Sri Lanka

27

Uzbekistan

37

Viet Nam

41

A Ghafar Bin Ahmad
The Practice of Heritage Building Conservation in Malaysia

Munkhtulga Rinchinkhorol
Tsantyn Denj Memorial Complex

D.A. Rasika Dissanayaka
Restoration of Mirisaweti Stupa

Akmaljon Ulmasov
Attempted 3D Reconstruction of the Ayrtam Buddhist Stupa in Termez

Tran Thanh Hoang Phuc
The Important Role of the Local Community in Restoring Hoi An Communal HouseCambodia
Cambodia

National Museum and Current Situation
Sokonthea Sort, Officer
Project and Planning Office, Department of Museum, Ministry of Cultural and Fine Arts
Introduction
The collection of Khmer cultural heritage comprisingarchaeological and ethnographic objects (stone, wood,
metal, ceramic and textile) totals 17,763 objects frommany different time periods, including the prehistoric,
pre-Angkor (6th to 8th centuries), Angkor (9th to 15th
centuries) and post-Angkor (16th to 20th centuries)
periods. This treasure of the Khmer was collected andkept safe in one place, well known as the National
Museum. O ver more t han a hund red years, t h i s
exemplary building has carried out many functions, suchas conservation, exhibition, inventory and documentation
education and publication (Fig. 1). Recently, the wholebuilding has been facing serious dilapidation eventhough the building has been repaired many times. The
fulfilment of this building restoration project requires asignificant budget. Because of the limited capacity of thenational budget and the Covid-19 situation to support
museum building restoration work, the project has been
separated into parts. For example: roof repair: we havedivided this into four steps of restoration (1. northernroof, 2. southern roof, 3. eastern roof, 4. western roof)
and selected the most damaged one to restore as the firststep. Other restoration steps include wall repair (interior
and exterior), floor, foundation and storage. Last year we
accomplished part of the southern roof repair (southernroof block 1), and long-term prevention (pigeons: byusing mechanical and physical control; termites: by usingchemical control).
Projects Achieved 2020
Last year we accomplished t wo main projects of
prevention and museum building restoration suchas integrated pest management and southern roof
restoration. For pest management, we completed pigeon
prevention on the roof, the top of pillars and motif
pediment (we used metal netting to cover the joints of
the roof structure where the pigeons used to stand andnest. On the top of the pillars, we placed pieces of zinc.
For the motif pediment we used plastic netting to shieldit; we also painted the motif pediment with mrak (Khmer
traditional paint) and imported color paint (Fig. 2). As aresult, we noticed that the number of pigeons decreased
significantly, especially those that inhabited the space. In
addition, we are currently undertaking termite treatment
such as putting a chemical substance into the groundaround the building, under the floor and on the roof
structure; we need to check the effect of the chemical
substance on termites monthly for five years (Fig. 3). One
more point is that the successful southern roof restoration
required us to change and replace the roof structure,such as the timber, roof beams, and roof tiles. For thetimber roof structure, we were unable to recover most of
the wood. So, we needed to replace it with a new timber
structure. On the roof beam, we tried to keep the oldmodel by fixing the most damaged parts and removing

1

the decayed parts. We also tried to keep most of the oldroof tiles if there was less damage.
Project in progress
The museum building still needs more treatment activities
to conserve it over the long time because the risk ofdamage continues to exist. After finishing last year’s
project, at the beginning of 2021 we have three moreconservation and prevention activities in progress:
1. Long-term roof restoration project
2. Interior wall repair and repaint3. Surrounding fence repair
1. Long-term roof restoration project
It is planned that this project will run from 2021 to 2024,
comprising four steps of roof restoration projects (Fig. 4):- 	First step restoration start (beginning 2021); roof part
1 (northern roof)- 	Second step restoration start (2022); roof part 2(southern roof)- 	Third step restoration start (2023); roof part 3 (westernroof and fire protection equipment)- 	Fourth step restoration start (2024); roof part 4 (easternpart)
As the result of humidity, rain, and termites, most of
the roof structure of the museum building has decayed,
especially the northern roof part. This most seriously
damaged roof part was selected to be restored in the firststep of restoration work planned to protect the roof fromcollapsing.
Damage and Roof Repair Part 1 (Northern Roof)
Much damage to part of the roof structure was evident
upon dismantling work: Timber: most of the timber inthis part had decayed, moved and displayed cracks. RoofBeam: damaged beam, cracks, and serious decay. Rooftiles: missing and moved tiles due to birds and exposure
to the air. To start this project, the site was covered tofacilitate restoration work. The roof tiles were removed tocheck and treat the damaged structure. Some of timber
was removed and replaced. We will try to retain as muchas the old structure as we can (Fig. 5).
2. Interior Wall Repair and Repaint
Currently, there is interior wall damage to some parts
such as the mortar, and the paint is peeling and dirty
due to pigeon droppings and dust (Fig. 6). The bricksof the wall will suffer more decay from humidity if themortar receives no treatment. The wall damage must be
repaired to help preserve the building and to improve
its education and publication functions. The plan was toremove all the damaged mortar and replace it with new
mortar and then repaint it. This work has resulted insome changes to the gallery giving the exhibition a newlook of. For example: Special Buddha Exhibition gallery(Fig. 7).

Cambodia

Fig. 1: The Iibrary and the archive room

Fig. 2: Installation of pigeon bars under the pedimentFig. 3: Termite treatment

2Cambodia

3. Surrounding Museum Site
The plan is to repair the fence surrounding the museum
to improve security, because the fence is currently old
and damaged. We will fix the old and damaged columns
and strengthen them, and install steel timber between
the two columns of the fence. We will then replant thedamaged plants.

periods until the present and also a place to conserve,
educate, exhibit, and publish Cambodian culture andtradition, not only to the local community but also to
foreigners from around the world, to help them moreclearly understand Cambodia. So, it is our obligation as
Cambodian citizens to restore and improve our work toprotect this important building for the next generation.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the National Museum of Cambodia is aplace that stores our great artefacts since prehistoric

For the next project, the plan should be to repair andrepaint the exterior wall. In addition, we are preparing a
proposal for the repair of the foundation.

Western roof part

Southern roof part

Northern roof part

Eastern roof partFig. 4: Separating roof parts for restoration

3

Cambodia

Fig. 5: Damaged timber

Fig. 6: Dirty wall due to pigeon droppings and peeling mortar

Fig. 7: Buddha exhibition gallery before and after repair of interior walls

4

Indonesia
Indonesia

Designation of Lasem City as a National Cultural Heritage Landscape
Yosua Adrian Pasaribu, Junior Heritage Expert
Directorate General of Culture, Ministry of Education and Culture
Lasem is an old port city in Rembang, Central Java, which
has been written about in history from at least the 14th
century starting from the Majapahit manuscript called
Nāgarakrětāgama or Description of the Country (1365
CE). The city and its port have always been a placeof imperial interests since the days of the Majapahit
Empire, Demak and Islamic States in Java (16th century),
the Dutch East India Company (17th century), and theJapanese Occupation during World War II. The city has
been a melting pot of Javanese and Chinese culture dueto the ancient spice trade since at least the Majapahit
period (14th century). This melting pot city gave birth tounique architecture, a city plan, and intangible heritages,
most notably Batik Lasem (hand-dyed cotton and silk
garments).

Map of Lasem City

The city plan and architecture of ancient mosques,
Chinese temples, houses, roads, a railway station, andtombs in Lasem still show some unique features from the17th to 20th centuries. Urban development in Lasem sinceat least 50 years ago has changed some of its uniquefeatures as a heritage city. Since the late 1980s, thisheritage city has attracted Indonesian architects becauseof its significant heritage value.
The heritage city of Lasem, especially its Chinatown, hasbeen in the Indonesian media spotlight since ten years

ago. Indonesian heritage workers including architects,
archaeologists, historians, conservators, and others haveworked intensively in Lasem for at least the last ten years.
In 2019, I joined a team from the Directorate General of
Culture to document and map this heritage city to begin
its designation as a National Cultural Heritage Landscape.
The mapping of the heritage city of Lasem was carriedout using aerial photography using fixed-wing drones.
Aerial photos are used to make plans to designate aheritage landscape, which includes an urban heritage areain Lasem covering an area of 158.2 ha.

5Indonesia
Ground plan of Lasem City

Aerial photography as part of a geographic information
system (GIS) is a very useful method for making
documentation, especially for mapping the heritagecity. This method, combined with ground survey andphotography, has been carried out to create a databaseof cultural heritage in Lasem. The map and databasewere used to delineate the cultural heritage landscapeboundary and its management plan. The conservation
management of this old city will be based on its spatial
heritage including its old city plan, roads, religious
buildings, houses, tombs, etc.

Tomb of a late 16th century Muslim preacher in Lasem Mosque6abandoned since the 1950s. Since the media and heritage
workers have paid great attention to this city, many
descendants of the people of Old Lasem have returnedand continued their ancestors creative industries such as
Batik making, culinary arts, hospitality, etc.

Indonesia

The designation of a Cultural Heritage Landscape is thefirst step for Lasem City to be managed as a heritage city
according to the Law of Cultural Conservation. Urban
development in Lasem has threatened the heritage city
plan and buildings, and most of the old houses have been

The 18th century Chinese temple in Lasem

The designation of this city as a cultural heritage landscapeis also expected to restore the spirit of cultural heritage toLasem, especially for its people. Last year, this cultural
heritage city was designated as a Cultural Heritage Landscapeby the Regent of Rembang in accordance with the Law
of Cultural Conservation. Designation of the Old City ofLasem as a National Cultural Heritage Landscape is stillongoing and planned to be signed this year.

Batik maestro in Lasem

7

Lao PDR
Lao PDR

The Conservation of Tomo Ancient Site, Tomotha Village, Pathoumphone District,Champasak Province
Sommay Singthong, Lecturer
Department of History and Archaeology, Faculty of Social Sciences, National University of Laos
1. Introduction
Laos is a country located in Mainland Southeast Asia thatis enriched by cultural resources created by humans sincea thousand years ago, and as a result, there have beena variety of archaeological evidences and monuments
distributed around the country over a long period of time.
The archaeological remains are invaluable cultural resources.
However, the economic development of the country has
effected rapid change to the nation’s way of life, and thismay affect the cultural value of the past, while if the standardof management is insufficient and enforcement action also
not strongly taken, this will endanger archaeological andhistorical sites or put them at great risk in the future. Regardingthese significant cultural heritage issues, a decree of theLao president on the preservation of cultural, historicaland natural heritages was issued and enforced in 1997;
then, the Law on National Heritage was developedand enacted in 2005, after which it was continuously
improved and amended in 2014 to include all types ofproperties. Currently, the Lao government has also taken
cultural heritage protection and promotion into accountin terms of the country’s development as mentioned in
the 8th Five-Year National Socio-Economic Development
Plan (Ministry of Planning and Investment, 2016).
In this report, I would like to highlight some brief
information on a case study of cultural heritage management
at an ancient site of a monument which is part of Wat Phu
Champasack World Heritage Site in the southern part ofLaos, called “Tomo Ancient Site.”
The Tomo ancient monument site is one of the mostsignificant sites in Laos. The research on the conservationof Tomo Ancient Site in Tomotha Village, Pathoumphone
District, Champasak Province had two objectives:preservation of the condition of the ancient site andconservational orientation of the Tomo ancient sanctuary.
The qualitative research method and archaeologicalmethod were also applied. The population sample
targeted local authorities, related stakeholders and local
people, with observations, field in-depth interviews andgeneral interviews, and an archaeological survey being
conducted in order to obtain crucial information.
2. Site location
Tomo Ancient Site is located in Tomotha Village,
Pathoumphone District, Champasak Province. Thisancient site is close to the Mekong River to the south,
Tomo Ancient Site comes under the 3rd and 4th zones ofthe World Heritage Site of Wat Phu Champasack, which
covers 23.85 square kilometers.
The ancient site area is divided into three areas:- Landscape reserves and green areas- Bumper area
- Construction area

8

3. History of Tomo Ancient Site
The history of Tomo Ancient Site is not clear, due toinsufficient research investigations. However, someevidence has revealed that the ancient site of Tomo canbe dated to between the 9th and 11th centuries.
4. Tomo Ancient Site management
The research results revealed that the task of conservation
involves various stakeholders including government
offices (central and local levels) and the UNESCO World
Heritage Office. The ancient site management includes
various processes such as maintenance, registration,
monitoring activities, cleaning, location management anddissemination of information, as well as security, event
management, infrastructure, information promotion andmanagement evaluation. There still remain various issues
regarding the preservation of the ancient site involving
numerous factors such as the gap in cooperation among
stakeholders and the local community, environmental
change, socioeconomic development issues, the problem
of understanding and public awareness, and ultimately,
the challenge seems to be preserving the naturallandscape and environment surrounding the ancient site.
Local community awareness is one of the issues whichis urgently required to be solved, as well as the gap
between laws/regulations and practical application basedon the capacity of the staff who work directly in the field
and related stakeholders. Nevertheless, more experimental
research is also required to be carried out in order tocontribute more data and information on the ancient site.
The solution to the management of the ancient site canbe applying practical standard, increasing the number ofscholars and experts and capacity building for the local
community living nearby the ancient site, particularly on
the significance and values of the ancient site in the near
future. In addition, the developmental direction is aimed
to be the tourist destination, so infrastructure, facilities andservices are also required to be developed alongsidecultural heritage protection efforts.
5. Conclusion
Cultural heritage management in Laos is largely concernedwith the management of monumental archaeologicalsites, historical architecture, and more recent sites andobjects related to the communist regime. Lao heritage
management has its roots in the time when Laos
was part of French Indochina with additions from Buddhism,
communism, and a currently growing business of alternative
tourism. The Tomo ancient monument site is quite wellmanaged compared to many other ancient sites due tothis ancient site being managed under the regulations of
UNESCO. However, numerous issues are still required
to be solved and developed in the future, especially theprocess of management, human resources, local community
awareness, etc.

Lao PDR

Tomo monument

Platform hole of stela and water channel

Ancient road

References
Decree of President of the Lao PDR, 1997.Decree of
President of the Lao PDR, 2005.
Decree of President of the Lao PDR, 2014.
Department of Tourism Development, Ministry of Information,
Culture and Tourism (2012-2020) Strategic Plan for
Tourism Development and Promotion of the Lao
PDR, Government Policy on Tourism Promotion.
Document from the World Heritage Office, Vat PhouChampassak, 25 February 2019.
Documents from the Museum of Historical Heritage ofChampassak Province, 20 February 2019.

Government of the Lao PDR, Vientiane (1999) Champassak
Heritage Management Plan.
Khamsouk Thammavong (2013) Involvement of Muangsum
Villagers in the Protection of the Sikhottabong Monumentin Thakhek, Khammouane Province, Master of Arts
Thesis in Cultural Resource Management, Faculty ofSocial Sciences, National University of Laos.
Khemphone Sengpathoum (1991) Book of the Historyof That Sikhottabong and the First Printing Area:
Published by the Department of Literature and Mass
Culture, 1999. Deputy Director of Culture
Ministry of Information, Culture and Tourism Law on

9

Lao PDR
10Heritage Amendments to the State Policy on National
Heritage (2016).
Ministry of Planning and Investment, 2016. 8th Five-year
National Social-economic Development Plan (20162020): (Officially approved at the VIIIth National
Assembly’s inaugural session, 20-23 April 2016,
Vientiane).
National Assembly (2005) Law on National Heritage No.
08 / NA dated 9 November 2005.
National Tourism Organization (2005) Textbook for theDevelopment of Ecotourism.
National Tourism Organization, Vientiane (2010). Officeof the Prime Minister Decree No. 174 / PM on
National Cultural, Historical and Natural Heritage,
dated 13 November 1993).
P. Outhavong, 2014. MDGs localization in the Lao PDR.
Sub-regional Advocacy Workshop on MDGs forSouth-East Asia.

Salemsak Phabuddee (2013) Learning Materials - TeachingArcheology in Laos. Department of History andArcheology, Faculty of Social Sciences, National
University of Laos.
Suvannahong Rattanaphim (2016) Learning Materials Teaching Museum Management in Laos, Departmentof History and Archeology, Faculty of Social Sciences,
National University of Laos.
United Nations in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
2013. The Millennium Development Goals and Lessons
Learnt for the Post 2013 Period: A Summary Review.
United Nations in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,
2015. The Millennium Development Goals and Lessons
Learnt for the Post 2015 Period: A Summary Review.

Malaysia
A Ghafar Bin Ahmad, Professor Dr.
School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia
Introduction
Conservation refers to the process of maintaining andprotecting heritage assets from threats and risks of being
damaged, destroyed, changed, or even restored without
proper design, planning, and management in accordancewith approved standards and guidelines. Such practiceentails guardianship for maintenance, preservation, or
protection of what presently exists in both the natural
resources and built environment from being destroyed
or changed in an inappropriate manner. Although some
aspects of conservation may differ in terms of the design,
approach, and methodology, they nonetheless share thesame objective, which is to ensure that the maximum life
cycles of both the natural resources and built environment
are maintained. Heritage building conservation refers to
the practice of keeping intact all buildings and propertiesof immense historical, architectural, and cultural values. It
is implemented through various phases including listing
and grading of historic buildings, evaluating buildings to
be gazetted under the current laws, preparing proposals
for building conservation and renovation, and carryingout conservation projects under the auspices of a project
steering committee. Based on vast experience and thesuccess stories of heritage building conservation works
in the country, an effective operational frameworkhas been established for the practice of heritagebuilding conservation in Malaysia. This article outlines
key definitions and concepts of heritage building
conservation and presents an overview of the heritagebuilding conservation scenario in Malaysia. It highlights
the framework of heritage building conservation aspracticed in the country including the five most importantstages. It also discusses the challenges faced by building
conservators in safeguarding heritage buildings in
Malaysia for future generations.
Definitions and Concepts of Heritage Building Conservation
In Malaysia, heritage buildings are regarded as those
properties that relate directly or indirectly to important
events in the country’s cultural, political, economic, military,and social history. Such buildings range from traditional
Malay houses and Southern Chinese shophouses to colonial
government offices and railway stations. In section 2, Part
1 of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), heritage isdefined broadly as follows:i.
	Heritage imports the generic meaning of a National
Heritage, sites, objects and underwater cultural
heritage whether listed or not in the Register.
ii. 	National Heritage means any heritage site, heritage
objects, underwater cultural heritage or any living
person declared as a National Heritage under section
67.
iii. 	Cultural heritage includes tangible or intangible
form of cultural property, structure or artefact andmay include a heritage matter, object, item, artefact,
formation structure, performance, dance, song, music

Malaysia

The Practice of Heritage Building Conservation in Malaysia

that is pertinent to the historical or contemporary wayof life of Malaysians, on or in land or underwater
cultural heritage of tangible form but excluding
natural heritage.
iv. 	Underwater cultural heritage means all traces ofhuman existence having a cultural, historical, or
archaeological character which have been partially or
totally under water, periodically or continuously, forat least one hundred years such as:(a) 	sites, structures, buildings, artefacts, and humanremains, together with their archaeological andnatural context;(b) 	vessels, aircraft, other vehicles, or any part
thereof, their cargo or other contents, together
with their archaeological and natural context;
and(c) objects of prehistoric character.
v. 	Tangible cultural heritage includes area, monument,
and building.
vi. 	Intangible cultural heritage includes any form of
expressions, languages, lingual utterances, sayings,
musically produced tunes, notes, audible lyrics,
songs, folksongs, oral traditions, poetry, music,
dances as produced by the performing arts, theatricalplays, audible compositions of sounds and music,
martial arts, that may have existed or exist in relation
to the heritage of Malaysia or any part of Malaysia orin relation to the heritage of a Malaysian community.
vii. 	Cultural heritage significance means cultural heritage
having aesthetic, archaeological, architectural, cultural,
historical, scientific, social, spiritual, linguistic ortechnological value.
viii. 	Natural heritage includes natural features of any area
in Malaysia which may consist of earthly physical or
biological formations or group of such formations,geological or physiographical features, mountains,rivers, streams, rock formation, seashore or any naturalsites of outstanding value from the point of view ofnature, science, history conservation or natural beauty
including flora and fauna of Malaysia.
Conservation aims to recapture a sense of the past andto preserve, conserve and restore as much as possible ofthe existing fabric in its original condition or situation.
Heritage building conservation thus relates to theentire process of maintenance, repair, and restorationof heritage buildings that aims to prolong a building’s
lifecycle and practical function. It involves technicalactions to prevent building decay and to manage
building change in a systematic manner. The practice of
heritage building conservation has a long history, but
its popular application is relatively recent in Malaysia. A
heritage building with significant historical, architecturaland cultural values is often given due recognition andconserved for posterity. Other similar terminologies
associated with the practice of building conservation are

11Malaysia

described as follows:i. 	Preservation: keeping cultural property frombeing harmed or decayed.
ii. 	
Restoration: returning a place to a known earlier
state.
iii. 	Rehabilitation: returning a property to a state ofutility through repair or alteration which makes
possible an efficient contemporary use while
preserving those portions and features of theproperty which are significant to its historicarchitecture.
iv. Replication: imitating what previously existed.
v. 	
Relocation: moving the entire building or parts ofa building to be reassembled at other sites for
economic or geographical reasons.
vi. 	
Adaptive re-use: changing the main function of abuilding while maintaining its original form andcharacter.
vii. 	Maintenance: continuous care and protection ofa cultural heritage.
Despite natural ageing, the original function, and aesthetic
values, there is a case to be made for any building to beconserved by adapting appropriate technologies available
to suit contemporary needs. Providing that the buildings
are structurally in a reasonable physical state and do not
require excessive structural alterations, some buildings
can be conserved for the purpose of investment andfinancial gain. Rehabilitation or adaptive re-use of heritagebuildings into appropriate new uses such as shops,
museums, galleries, cafes, restaurants, and entertainment
centres can help promote tourism and boost local income
generation.
Conservation stakeholders involved in heritage building
conservation in Malaysia should make a point to adhere
to the following guiding principles to ensure a standard
conduct of practice and professional ethics:i. 	All conservation works should be based uponand preceded by sufficient historical research,site analysis, and documentation to identify
and safeguard fully the heritage values to beconserved.
ii. 	The evolution of the structures and sites overa time span should be well respected. The
contributions of all time periods are importantto the historical development and meritretention. Decisions about appropriate levels ofintervention shall be based upon the heritage
values of each contribution.
iii. 	Long-term protection of a historic resource
should be balanced with the user requirements
within a shorter time frame. All future resource
management goals should be identified clearlyprior to undertaking any work.
iv. 	The approach to all heritage conservation
projects should be one of minimal intervention
to ensure maximum preser vation of theexisting and authentic physical fabric as well as
maximum retention of the signs of age.
v. 	Ensure the building’s stability and public safety.
Professional inputs such as from structural
engineers and geologists may be sought to this

12

end.
vi. Conjecture	and falsification of building elements
should be avoided at all costs in all heritage
conservation projects.
vii. 	A well-defined maintenance plan should beclearly established in order to prepare for an
appropriate level of building maintenance andcare upon project completion.
Cultural Heritage of Malaysia
The histor y of Malaysia’s heritage buildings andmonuments can be traced back hundreds of years,
through the discovery of candi at Lembah Bujang, Kedahbuilt by Indian traders plying the Straits of Malacca. Early
historical records by Chinese traders had revealed theexistence of forts in Melaka in 1414. Nonetheless, thePortuguese invasion of the port city of Melaka during the
Melaka Sultanate in 1511 had marked a turn of eventsaffecting the history of heritage buildings and monuments
in Malaysia with the building of the A Famosa fort (nowin ruins) by the Portuguese. When the Dutch seized
Melaka from the Portuguese in 1641, they erected newbuildings, such as the Stadhuys, to mark their existenceon the Malay Peninsula. During the British colonisation of
the Malay Peninsula from the early 19th century, they also
built numerous buildings including government offices,
mosques, and schools throughout the country.
Malaysia is endowed with priceless heritage buildings,
both vernacular and those built during the colonial era.
However, heritage building conservation has received
lukewarm support from the local architectural community.
The underlying reasons for this situation are manifold andremain to be unraveled. Cost factors, misconceptions ofheritage values, and ineffective enforcement of heritageacts, enactments, and ordinances are partly to blame
for this debacle. It is imperative that all conservation
stakeholders recognise the need to strengthen thepractice of heritage building conservation in Malaysia.
At any rate, heritage building conservation requires not
only vast knowledge and expertise in the preservationand maintenance of buildings; it also commands insights
into the buildings’ historical, architectural, and cultural
significance. This important task should be performed
in a professional manner in accord with universal
conservation standards and building requirements.
Several heritage buildings in Malaysia have since beengazetted under the (now defunct) Antiquities Act 1976,
which provides due protection to those buildings
and encourages their conservation. The Malaysian
government has been actively involved in providing
financial support for heritage building conservation in
the country. Examples of heritage buildings which havebeen conserved under the supervision of the (then)Department of Museum and Antiquities Malaysia include
the Acheen Street Mosque and Kapitan Keling Mosquein George Town, Penang; the Ubudiah Mosque in Kuala
Kangsar, Perak; the Sultan Abu Bakar Mosque in Johor
Bahru, Johor; the Tengkera Mosque in Melaka; and the
Jamek Mosque in Kuala Lumpur.
In 2005, the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645)

Heritage building conservation initiatives at the local level
have so far made considerable progress. The City Councilof Penang Island, Taiping Municipal Council, Melaka
Historical City Council, and Kuala Lumpur City Hall haveestablished not only a heritage unit or department within
the council but have adopted conservation guidelines
on buildings and heritage sites in their respective areas.
Consequently, many heritage buildings in the urban
areas including shophouses, terrace houses, mosques,mansions, and government buildings have been conserved
and maintained according to appropriate conservation
guidelines. Streets flanked by rows of shophouses are acommon sight in Malaysian cities including the cities ofMelaka and George Town World Heritage Sites (WHS).
A shophouse is an urban building form with a mixeduse function, that of residential and commercial. A shop
or business premise is usually found on the lower floor;
while the living quarters are located on the upper floor,
thus providing convenience, shelter, security, and livability
for the inhabitants. Such a unique architectural ensemble
depicts one of the Outstanding Universal Values (OUV)of Melaka and George Town WHS, which should be wellpreserved in parallel with the UNESCO convention.
Under the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), morethan 700 heritage items are enlisted as the National
Heritage of Malaysia, including buildings, natural sites,
objects, cultural practices, traditional foods, performing
arts, poems, legend manuscripts, and traditional games.
Act 645 further underlines the process of identifying
tangible and intangible cultural heritage, as well as
outstanding cultural and natural objects and sites for theirdefinitive recognition as the National Heritage of Malaysia.
Article 67 of Act 645 provides nine criteria for an item tobe considered for the declaration of National Heritage asfollows:i. 	historical importance, association with or
relationship to Malaysian history.
ii. 	good design or aesthetic characteristics.
iii. 	scientific or technical innovations or achievements.
iv. social or cultural associations.
v. 	potential to educate, illustrate or provide further
scientific investigation in relation to Malaysian
cultural heritage.
vi. 	importance in exhibiting a richness, diversity or
unusual integration of features.
vii. 	rarity or uniqueness of the natural heritage,

tangible or intangible cultural heritage orunderwater cultural heritage.
viii. 	representative nature of a site or object as partof a class or type of a site or object.
ix. 	any other matter which is relevant to the determinationof cultural heritage significance.

Malaysia

superseded the Antiquities Act 1976 to enforce provisions
for the conservation and preservation of the National
Heritage, natural heritage, tangible and intangible cultural
heritage, underwater cultural heritage, treasure troves,and other related heritage matters. Presently, matterspertaining to both intangible and tangible heritage
properties in Malaysia are under the jurisdiction of
the Department of National Heritage ( Jabatan Warisan
Negara) in the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.
The Department of National Heritage is led by theCommissioner of Heritage, who has the legislative power
to designate, establish, and supervise the conservation,
preservation, restoration, maintenance, promotion,
exhibition, and accessibility of national heritage assets for
the National Registrar.

Similarly, other laws that encourage the conservationand preservation of cultural heritage in Malaysia include
the Sarawak Heritage Ordinance 2019 (Chapter 77),
Penang Heritage Enactment 2011 (Enactment 14), Malacca
Preservation and Conservation of Cultural Heritage
Enactment 1988, Town and Country Planning Act 1976 (Act172), Johor Enactment 1988, Local Government Act 1976
(Act 171), and Street Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act133). It is imperative that all conservation stakeholders,
including policy makers, professional bodies, andbuilding conservators comprehend the legal provisions
and requirements clearly to enable them to conduct theconservation works accordingly.
Framework of Heritage Building Conservation in Malaysia
In Malaysia, heritage building conservation works areusually awarded and carried out by experienced andknowledgeable building contractors. In accordance withthe guidelines on heritage building conservation in the
country, the conservation works should be carried out
based on the following principles:i. 	Building conservation tasks should be carriedout in a manner of “from top-to-bottom”. Thus,
installing a temporary roof to protect a heritagebuilding is very important as buildings are often
at their most vulnerable during the construction
period of conservation works.
ii. 	Conduct scientific studies and laboratory tests on
selected building conditions and materials.
iii. 	Apply only proven conservation methods andtechniques to tackle building problems ordefects.
iv. 	Document the building condition before, during
and after conservation through a Historical,
Architectural and Building Survey (HABS), digital
photographs and videos.
An operational framework has been developed anddocumented to guide the practice of heritage building
conservation in Malaysia. This framework is devised basedon many successful experiences of heritage building
conservation projects conducted by the Department of
National Heritage Malaysia in recent years. The framework
incorporates five critical stages of conservation projects,
namely i) preliminary investigations; ii) dilapidation
survey; iii) preparation of a tender document; iv)
conservation works; and v) heritage management. Detailsof each stage are elaborated as follows:i) Stage 1: Preliminary Investigations
Preliminary investigations are often carried out at theoutset once a building is designated for conservation
works. The preliminary investigations stage provides key
information pertaining to the building per se and theimmediate surroundings. Vital data are gathered during
preliminary investigations including site analysis, year

13

Malaysia

built, historical background, architectural style, building
status (national, state, district, or village), building
ownership, and details of previous maintenance works
undertaken. Information related to preliminary investigations
may be solicited from various sources, such as:i. 	face-to-face interviews with building stakeholders
including those individuals who can offer additional
knowledge and details about the building.
ii. 	existing documentation and records concerning
the building held by local agencies, institutions
and conservation bodies, museums, archives,
libraries, universities, or heritage organisations.
All related information gathered including old photographs,
paintings, or a building plan, if any, should be documented
in a technical report for future reference, especially for use
in Stages 2 and 3. Reports of the preliminary investigations
should be presented to the building owner and respective
clients who would then set up a project steering committee
to oversee the conservation project. The project steeringcommittee should be broadly representative in its membershipcircle, including representatives of the Department of
National Heritage, Department of Public Works, andthe local authority, a consultant architect, engineers(mechanical, electrical, civil and structural), a quantity
surveyor, a building conservator, an archaeologist, and ahistorian. This is to ensure that all conservation works run
efficiently as per schedule.
ii) Stage 2: Dilapidation Survey
Conducting a dilapidation survey during conservation
works is crucial in determining the nature and extent ofbuilding defects. Dilapidation surveys require detailed
analyses of building defects, probable causes, andproposed remedial measures, methods, and techniquesof bui l di ng conse r va tion. S uch sur vey s involve
comprehensive and meticulous identification, description,and systematic recording of building defects throughmanual photographic and digital documentation prior toconservation works. This important practice in building
conservation often requires multiple professional inputs
including from a historian, an architect, a building
conservator, engineers, and a quantity surveyor to advise
the building contractor on-site. At times, inputs fromother experts including from a microbiologist, chemist,
archaeologist, and geologist are also solicited to expedite
the conservation works.
Data and information obtained from dilapidation surveys
are often analysed and documented in a technicalreport. This key report provides a sound basis for
preparing related project briefs, building specifications,and the Bill of Quantities (BQ), as required in Stage 3.
Measured drawings including building plans, elevations,and sections are all included in the report with clear
indications of the defective areas for immediate repair.
A dilapidation survey report, prepared by the consultant
architect or building conservator, also makes clear
recommendations on the proposed scientific studies andlaboratory tests to be carried out during the conservation
works. Dilapidation surveys are instrumental in thepractice of heritage building conservation with regards tothe following aspects:

14

i. Understanding the state of the building defects.
ii. Determining the causes of the building defects.
iii. 	Identifying appropriate methods and techniquesof building conservation.
iv. 	Assisting quantity surveyors and other conservation-related professionals in making estimates forbuilding repair and maintenance costs.
v. 	Providing additional building information in thetender document.
vi. 	Providing reference materials to clients, consultants,
and building contractors.
vii. 	Providing a vital resource for conducting the HABS
procedures during the conservation works.
iii) Stage 3: Preparation of Tender Document
The final dilapidation survey report is forwarded to therespective project steering committee for their purview.
The consultant quantity surveyor would then checkthe report to review the building diagnoses, propose
appropriate methods and techniques of conservation,
make cost estimations, evaluate total project costs,
and prepare the BQ for the tender document. The BQ
shall include all the critical requirements of building
conservation works including recording the physicalcondition of the building before, during, and after
conservation through the HABS process, as well as
conducting scientific studies and laboratory tests as
explained in Stage 4. During the preparation of thetender document, it is advisable that the quantity
surveyor works closely with the consultant architect andbuilding conservator to determine the proper methods
and techniques to be applied during the conservation
works, and to ascertain the possible cost estimates.
Poor understanding and appreciation of the nature ofconservation works entail significant cost ramifications in
the conservation project, which may affect work progressin the long run.
iv) Stage 4: Conservation Works
Heritage building conservation requires in-depth
knowledge in building preservation and maintenance;
hence the building contractor appointed for suchworks should be well trained and experienced in theconservation field. A building conservator is often
engaged to monitor the works of the building contractor
on a regular basis and to offer technical advice onundertaking conservation works. Conducting weekly
technical meetings and monthly site meetings during the
project’s duration is vital to keep track of the progressof the work, and to resolve any technical issues on-site.
Close monitoring and effective networking among thebuilding contractor, building conservator, and consultants
during the course of the project can ensure a successful
completion of the conservation project. Good practice in
heritage building conservation also involves conducting
relevant scientific studies and laboratory tests to gauge thenature and extent of building defects and their probablecauses. Based on the building defect diagnoses discussed
in the dilapidation report in Stage 2, it is recommended
that the building contractor conduct several scientificstudies and laboratory tests during the construction
stage. Table 1 shows some common scientific studies andlaboratory tests that are often required during heritage

building conservation.

Scientific Studies

Laboratory Tests- Archaeology- Lime plaster- Microbiology- Paint colour scheme- Relative humidity & local
temperature- Roof tiles- Tessellated floor tiles- Brick compressive strength- Component elements ofbuilding materials (XRF)- Level of salt content- Petrography- Infrared thermography- Ground penetrating radar- Schmidt hammer rebound- Timber verification

Heritage building conservation involves a systematic
method of recording and documentation based on
HABS, a practice introduced by the (then) Department ofMuseums and Antiquities, Malaysia. HABS, which involves
three main stages, is carried out throughout the project
to record and document the detailed conditions of thebuilding before, during, and after conservation works.
The three stages of HABS are discussed as follows:i. Stage	I of HABS: requires the condition of
the entire building to be recorded before
any conservation work begins. All external
and internal wall surfaces are fixed withyellow strings to form grids of 1 m². Eachgrid is carefully labeled and photographedfor digital recording and documentation for
future reference and the final report. Standard
information is recorded for each grid including
type of building defect, proposed conservation
technique, grid location, and scaled photograph.
ii. Stage II of HABS: involves the documentationof the building condition during the ongoingconser vation works. This stage requires
inputs from various professionals including
a building conservator, structural engineer,quantity surveyor, archaeologist, microbiologist,
chemist, and geologist. The building contractor
is required to produce detailed work method
statements (Tatacara Kerja) for all major
conservation works undertaken, as well as toprepare reports for all scientific studies andlaboratory tests carried out during the project.
The documentation required include analysesof building materials; reports on the results ofscientific studies and laboratory tests; and theapplication of appropriate conservation methods
and techniques as recommended by relevant
consultants and professionals.
iii. 	Stage III of HABS: involves documentation of
the building condition after all conservation
works are completed. The building contractor
is required to produce a final documentation to
be submitted to the consultants and the client
including the three volumes of HABS: Stage I, II,
and III.
Apart from fulfilling the HABS requirements, the building

Malaysia

Table 1: Common scientific studies and laboratory tests
required in heritage building conservation in Malaysia

contractor should observe the following standards of
ethics throughout the duration of the project:i. 	Continuous inspection of building problems ordefects in the building.
ii. 	Establish systematic pic torial and video
documentation for future reference.
iii. 	Minimise disturbance to existing building
structures and fabric.
iv. 	Secure building stability throughout the conservation
project.
v. 	Ensure public safety in the vicinity especially inliving cultural properties.
vi. 	Provide sufficient security to safeguard thebuilding and its properties.
A work method statement is required from the building
contractor before each work is commenced on-site. A
work method statement is step-by-step detailed set ofprocedures for conservation works assigned, which
is presented to project consultants for comments andapproval. A technical report is also prepared by thebuilding contractor to document all scientific analyses
and laboratory tests conducted throughout the durationof the project. In addition to the HABS documentation,
work method statement and technical report, thebuilding contractor also produces a final project reportdetailing all the conservation works conducted. This
final report is presented in A3-size format, completewith all information related to the building conservation
project including pictorial documentation before,
during, and after conservation; methods and techniquesapplied; results of the scientific studies and laboratory
tests conducted; as well as building plans, elevations,and sections. The building contractor is also required
to record the conservation works with both digital
photography and videography. Upon completion of theconservation project, the building contractor shall submit
all reports, photographs, and video documentation to theclient as well as to related government agencies for futurereference, maintenance, and archival purposes.
v) Stage 5: Heritage Management
Heritage building management is all about managing
the distinctive architectural and cultural properties in an
effective manner at all times before, during, and after
conservation works. A cyclical maintenance programme
is often undertaken to ensure that heritage buildings
are kept structurally sound, habitable, and aestheticallypleasing over the years. Heritage buildings should
be managed accordingly to enhance both resource
conservation and visitor support services, including user
satisfaction and the quality of the visitor experience.
For instance, visits to Fort Cornwallis and the Jamek
Mosque in George Town, and Kuala Lumpur Heritage
Trails, respectively, are very popular among local andinternational tourists. The unique features of these
heritage buildings inspire a sense of pride and dignity
among the local community, and the emotions andsentiments resonate well with the visitors.
In 2013, the United Nations Educational, Scientificand Cultural Organisation underlined the need for aholistic framework to protect and manage property

15

Malaysia

and heritage sites especially at World Heritage Sites toensure that the Outstanding Universal Values of heritage
properties, including those within core and bufferzones, can be enhanced over time. This situation calls
for the preparation of a Conservation Management Plan
(CMP), a legally binding document which deals withthe management of heritage property. Thus, the CMP is
prepared with the aim of protecting the significant valuesof gazetted heritage buildings and sites and encouraging
their preservation and conservation. In this regard,
heritage organisations and consultants are encouraged to
employ the CMP as a tool for effective heritage management.
Since the inscription of Melaka and George Town as
UNESCO World Heritage Sites in 2008, conservation
stakeholders in Malaysia have been made aware of therequirements of the CMP. In Malaysia, the CMP is an
important legal document pertaining to the control,
appraisal, and maintenance of heritage sites as listed
or gazetted under Malaysian laws, namely the National
Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), State of Penang Heritage
Enactment 2011 (Enactment 14) and Sarawak Heritage
Ordinance 2019 (Chapter 77). Specifically, under section
46 of the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), the CMP isclarified as follows:(1) 	The Commissioner shall, in consultation with theCouncil, prepare a conservation management
plan for the purposes of:(a) 	promoting the conservation, preservation,
rehabilitation, restoration or reconstruction ofa heritage site,(b) 	ensuring the proper management of a heritagesite including the use and development of allbuildings and lands in the heritage site andthe preservation of the environment including
measures for the improvement of the physicalliving environment, communications, socioeconomic well-being, the management of traffic
and the promotion of economic growth; and(c) 	promoting schemes for the education of, orfor practical and financial assistance to,owners and occupiers, and for community
involvement in decision making.
(2) 	The Commissioner shall from time to time
submit such conservation management plan to
the State Authority or the relevant local planning
authority, as the case may be, and advise andco-ordinate with the State Authority or the local
planning authority for the implementation of theconservation management plan and its guidelines.
(3) 	The Commissioner shall from time to time revise
any conservation management plan.
The CMP is instrumental in protecting the significanceof heritage sites as it allows minimal interventions in thebuilding structure and fabric, and due respect for building
authenticity and integrity. The CMP also serves as avital guidance for future care and use of heritage sites,
especially in the review of planning permissions for any
proposed development of heritage property within thecore, buffer, and peripheral zones. Such provisions could
safeguard heritage sites against intense development
pressure and urban encroachment.

16

Since many stakeholders are involved in building
conservation, a working network is an appropriate
platform to bring together all these actors to resolve
contemporar y conser vation issues. Conser vation
stakeholders include the Department of National
Heritage, Department of Public Works, local authorities,
tourism professionals, NGOs, and the local community.
Public awareness campaigns, webinars, skills workshops,
and seminars are important avenues to help educate
the local community on heritage building appreciationand protection. It also equips them with the knowledge
and skills to participate effectively in cultural heritage
development. Good practice of heritage building
management satisfies not only the clients’ needs, but also
influences the local community’s perspectives and values
on heritage buildings as sustainable cultural properties tobe upheld for posterity.
Challenges Faced by Building Conservators
Building conservators play a major role in the practiceof heritage building conservation in Malaysia alongsideother professionals and experts such as architects,
structural engineers, quantity surveyors, and mechanicaland electrical engineers. A building conservator must
acquire sufficient knowledge and expertise not only inthe technical aspects of built environment per se, but
specifically in heritage building conservation. Having
adequate knowledge in various aspects of tangible
cultural heritage is an added advantage for building
conservators. This is because the building conservator
can relate particular aspects of historical background,building function, and existing building materials to theprocesses of maintenance, repair, and restoration ofheritage buildings. Today, there are 44 registered building
conservators in Malaysia appointed by the Commissioner
of Heritage under the Department of National Heritage
Malaysia. These registered building conservators act as
the ‘eyes and ears’ of the Department of National Heritage
in aspects related to the conservation of cultural heritageas listed under Act 645. They are given specific roles
and responsibilities in monitoring and giving advice on
heritage building conservation projects, and in ensuring
the rules and regulations as outlined by the Departmentof National Heritage are followed accordingly by all
stakeholders in the projects. The major challenges facedby building conservators in carrying out heritage building
conservation projects in Malaysia are discussed as follows:i) Conduct Research on Historical Background
Before a heritage building is set for conservation,
preliminary investigations should first be conducted. Thistask provides essential information on the building and its
vicinity, such as site analysis, construction year, historicalbackground, architectural style, building status (national,
state, district or village), building ownership, and priormaintenance works undertaken. At times, a building
conservator is sought to conduct the investigations.
Oftentimes, heritage buildings are severely lacking in key
documentation, written documents, or drawing plans.
Thus, a building conservator-cum-resourceful researcher
would seek other possible alternatives to obtain building
information including conducting oral interviews withii) Diagnose Building Defects and their Causes
Some of the most common building defects affecting
heritage buildings in Malaysia are termite attack,harmful or organic growth, crumbling or broken plaster,
erosion of mortar joints, poor rainwater goods, risingand falling damp, and salt contamination. An effective
building conservator is perceptive and capable ofdiagnosing such building defects comprehensively. Anybuilding defect diagnosed must be analysed carefully todetermine its causes and possible remedial treatments.
Sometimes, building defects may be caused by peculiar
human factors such as incorporating inappropriate or
incompatible building materials in the existing building
structure and fabric; heavy traffic vibrations, lack ofbuilding maintenance; or poor application of building
conservation methods and techniques. A good building
conservator can detect all the building defects and their
possible causes at a site in order to finalise the scope ofwork required.
iii) Prepare Work Method Statements
A work method statement, prepared by the building
conservator, is an important technical document requiredby the building contractor before any work is carried out
on-site. A work method statement describes the stepby-step procedure for any conservation work assigned.
It is presented to project consultants for comments
and final approval. A building conservator is expected
to understand not only the building defects and theirprobable causes but also to propose the proper treatments
to be implemented on-site as well as the estimated costs
for the proposed treatments. Related technical drawings
and building sketches may be necessary to support the
proposed treatments.
iv) Document the Process of Conservation Works
Building conservation involves three important processes:
before, during, and after construction. Each processneeds careful documentation. The building conservator
should prepare the relevant documentation for eachprocess in a proper format including a work description,
drawings, photographs, and a video presentation. Thistask is considered the most challenging since the building
conservator needs to closely monitor all changes affecting
the building structure, elements, materials, and conditions.
Upon completion of the conservation work, a final report
should be prepared by the building conservator for futurereference and archival purposes.
v) Analyse the Results of Scientific Studies and Laboratory
Tests
The building conservator is required to conduct specificscientific studies and laboratory tests during conservation
works. Conducting scientific studies and laboratory tests
is an essential aspect of building conservation since
it provides vital information in identifying building
defects and problems as highlighted in the dilapidation
survey. Results from the scientific studies and laboratory
tests, presented in technical reports and information
sheets, serve as key inputs in project decision-making,particularly in selecting building materials, identifying
appropriate methods and techniques of repair, and in
structural modifications. The building conservator mustpossess sufficient knowledge and experience to be able
to analyse and interpret the results of both scientificstudies and laboratory tests accurately.

Malaysia

relevant parties, and re-measuring the buildings for floor
plan and elevation drawings.

vi) Outsource Local Experts and Available Building Materials
Some elements of heritage buildings are adorned withintricate architectural features including timber carvings,
bamboo weavings, stained glass, floor and wall patterns,
and plastered renderings. Such architectural features
were designed by specialist and skilled local experts,
and craftsmen such as carpenters, timber carvers, glassmakers, plasterers, and artisans. Some of these craftsmen
are no longer available locally, partly due to age andhealth factors or low demand for their skills. A building
conservator must therefore outsource and engage experts
and craftsmen from other localities. This task entails
considerable cost, time, and effort. Moreover, some oldbuilding materials are no longer available on the market.
Hence, a building conservator should seek out the closest
possible building materials as a replacement.
vii) Determine Proven Methods and Techniques of Conservation
In building conservation projects, it is vital that replacedbuilding materials and repair methods are matched
as closely as possible to the existing materials andmethods of construction. This is essential to preserve
the authenticity of the building façade, appearance, andhistoric integrity, as well as to ensure that the materials
used are long lasting. The introduction of new methods
or techniques of building repair should be carried out
with much caution. Such methods and techniques canonly be carried out when they are proven effective
over time and that no similar traditional alternatives areavailable or identified. The extent of damage caused tothe building appearance, historic integrity, and fabricshould be considered carefully and rationally when
adopting new methods and techniques. The building
conservator should advise the building contractor
and the clients in determining appropriate methods
and techniques of conservation to be employed.
Technological advancements in the field of heritagebuilding conservation necessitate the building conservator
to be well versed and well equipped to handle related
equipment and requirements.
Concluding Remarks
Heritage building conservation in Malaysia has gained
considerable heights and momentum over the last few
years. The establishment of the Department of National
Heritage in 2006 and the introduction of the National
Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645) have made a significant
mark towards advocating the practice of heritagebuilding conservation in the country. Heritage building
conservation is increasingly perceived as an importantpractice to safeguard and retain the authenticity of
Malaysia’s historical and architectural assets. Those
involved in heritage building conservation projects in
Malaysia should make a conscious attempt to abide by
the principles, procedures, standards, guidelines, andregulations set by the local authorities and government

17

Malaysia

agencies including the Department of National Heritage,
Department of Public Works, and the Departmentof Fire and Rescue. Amidst a growing appreciationof heritage building conservation in Malaysia andelsewhere, the building conservator alongside otherbuilding professionals has a major role to play in building
conservation practices. He or she is required to have indepth knowledge and expertise in building pathology,
building defect diagnoses, and treatment of building
defects. He or she is also expected to conduct common
scientific studies and laboratory tests to better understandbuilding problems and to advise on remedial procedures.
Thus, the building conservator should enhance his or
her role and position in ensuring the authenticity andoriginality of heritage buildings, especially in Malaysia.
Acknowledgements:
The author wishes to thank the School of Housing,
Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM),
Department of National Heritage ( JWN), Sarawak
Museum Department ( JMS), Taiping Municipal Council(MPT), and Department of Public Works ( JKR) for making
this article possible.
References:
Ahmad, A. G., (2010), “Rangka Kerja Pemuliharaan
Bangunan Bersejarah Di Malaysia” in Harun, S. N. et.
al., Pemuliharaan Bangunan Bersejarah, Shah Alam:
University Publication Centre (UPENA), 21-40.
Australia ICOMOS Incorporated, (2013), The Burra
Charter: Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places ofCultural Significance 2013. Burwood: Australia
ICOMOS Incorporated.
Chen, V. F., (ed), (2001), Architecture: The Encyclopediaof Malaysia Volume 5, Singapore: Archipelago Press.
Government of Malaysia, National Heritage Act 2005 (Act645).
History of Malaysia. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/History_of_Malaysia (accessed on 25 July 2021).
Ibrahim, Z., (2016), “Sedekad Jabatan Warisan Negara
Mengorak Langkah Ke Arah Kecemerlangan Dalam
Pemuliharaan, Pemeliharaan dan Perlindungan
Warisan Negara”in Jurnal Warisan Vol.1 Bil. 1.

A traditional Malay house in Kampung Lonek, Batu Kikir, Negeri Sembilan

18

Jabatan Warisan Negara (2007), 50 Warisan Kebangsaan.
Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Warisan Negara.
(2009), Warisan Kebangsaan 2009. Kuala Lumpur:
Jabatan Warisan Negara.
(2012), Pengisytiharan Warisan Kebangsaan. Kuala
Lumpur: Jabatan Warisan Negara.
(2015), Warisan Kebangsaan 2015. Kuala Lumpur:
Jabatan Warisan Negara.
(2017), Guidelines on Heritage Building Conservation.
Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Warisan Negara.
(2018), National Heritage 2018. Kuala Lumpur:
Jabatan Warisan Negara.
Kerr, J. S., (2013), The Conservation Plan: a guide to
the preparation of conservation plans for places ofEuropean cultural significance, 7th edition, National
Trust (NSW) Australia. Available athttps://www.environment.act.gov.au/__data/assets/
pdf_file/0006/581046/ACT-Heritage-CMP-GuidingPrinciples-20150210.pdf (accessed on 29 July 2021).
Sulaiman, M. S., (2021), “Managing Building Conservation
Conflicts” in The Ingenieur, Vol. 85, January-March, p.
15-20.
Tan, Y. W., (2015), Penang Shophouses: A Handbook of
Features and Materials. George Town: Tan Yeow
Wooi Culture and Heritage Research Studio.
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organisation, (2013), Operational Guidelines for the
Implementation of the World Heritage Convention,
Paris: UNESCO World Heritage Centre, WHC. 13/01,
July.
Worthing, D. and Organ, S., (2019), Conservation
Management Plans: An Examination of Obstacles
to, and Opportunities for, Producing an Effective
Management Tool, International Journal of Building
Pathology and Adaptation, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 573588.

A row of shophouses in George Town, Penang

Malaysia

British colonial building in Kuala Lumpur (Selangor Club Building)

An example of an adaptive re-use building (from high court to art gallery) thatmaintains its original form and character (Kedah State Art Gallery, Alor Setar,
Kedah)

Heritage building conservation relates to the process of maintenance, repair,and restoration of a heritage building to prolong the building’s lifecycle andfunction (National Mosque, Kuala Lumpur).

Heritage buildings which have been restored and converted into new uses
such as a shop, museum, gallery, café, or restaurant can promote tourism
and boost local income generation (Kuala Lumpur City Gallery).

Dataran Merdeka or Independence Square in Kuala Lumpur is surrounded byheritage buildings and monuments including Sultan Abdul Samad Building(foreground), flag post (left), St. Mary’s Cathedral (right) and Selangor Clubbuilding (top). Photo courtesy of Ar. Junn Ng Hooi.

Heritage building conservation requires in-depth knowledge in building
preservation and maintenance; hence the building contractor appointed forsuch works should be well trained and experienced in the conservation field(Fort Emma, Kanowit, Sarawak).

19

Malaysia
A Historical, Architectural and Building Survey (HABS), which involves threemain stages, is carried out throughout the project to record and document
the conditions of the building before, during, and after conservation works (Themural of Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka Building, Kuala Lumpur).

In carrying out a heritage building conservation project, the building
conservator often faces challenges in outsourcing local experts, and in theavailability of similar building materials for replacement (City Hall Building,
George Town, Penang).

Diagnosing building defects and their causes in a heritage building poses a great challenge to the building conservator (Old Market, Taiping, Perak).

During the dilapidation survey, the building conservator advises theconsultants and client in determining appropriate methods and techniques ofconservation to be employed on-site (Rumah Sri Aman, Sri Aman, Sarawak).

20

During heritage building conservation, the building conservator needs
to monitor closely all changes affecting the building structure, elements,
materials, and conditions (Istana Kenangan, Kuala Kangsar, Perak). Photo
courtesy of Dr. Mohd Jaki Mamat.

Mongolia
Mongolia

Tsantyn Denj Memorial Complex
Munkhtulga Rinchinkhorol, Researcher
Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences
Between the end of June and the beginning of July, 2020,
an expedition of the Institute of Archaeology, Mongolian
Academy of Sciences, documented and rescued several
immovable ancient cultural heritages which had been
located along the main road construction area between
the centers of Ugiinuur and Battsengel soums in Arkhangai
aimag (Enkhtur et al. 2020). Within the scope of thisrescue archaeological project, which was led by Dr. A.
Enkhtur, an Ancient Turkic memorial complex was
excavated. Here, the preliminary results of the excavationthat was carried out only at this memorial complex arepresented.
The Tsantyn Denj memorial complex is located about 20 m
to the north of the main road, in Ugiinuur soum, Arkhangai(Fig. 1 and 2). To the northeast of the memorial complex,
behind a hill, there are ruins of a Xiongnu period walled
settlement called Talyn Gurvan Kherem (‘Three Walls of
the Steppe’). There is Tsantyn Denj—a hill with an ovoo,a sacral mound made of stones—to the southeast of thememorial complex.
The local people call the human figure stone statue of thecomplex “Khöshöö Chuluu” (“Stone Statue”) or “Orosyn
Khöshöö” (“Statue of a Russian”). The latter one is most
likely due to the characteristic depiction of the face of thestone statue, especially of its eyes and long nose, which
may look Caucasoid in appearance.
It is known that this monument was built purposely along
the main road, like most of the Ancient Turkic memorial
complexes in Mongolia (Ser-Odjav 1970: 12). The
enclosure of the complex, which consists of four stoneslabs, is located at the southern half of an artificial
earthen flat mound that is named by specialists as theplatform (Fig. 2).

Human figure stone statue
The human figure stone statue had been placed on the
inner side of the quadrangular enclosure and slanted tothe southwest corner of the enclosure (Figs. 6 and 7). This
statue is made of quite a large grey-blue stone and canbe described as a partially depicted one. In such partiallydepicted statues in Mongolia and adjacent countries, theeyes and nose of human figure stone statues have often
been engraved with single continuous strokes, but there
are no images of dress, decorations, weapons, or tools(Bayar 1997: 28).
The maximum width of the statue is 46 cm at the headand 58 cm at the chest. The length of the statue from the
top of the head to the ground surface was 171 cm before
the excavation. The perpendicular height from the headof the statue to the ground was 124 cm. The thickness ofthe statue is 28 cm.
The state of preservation is not so poor. After the
excavation inside the enclosure, it became clear that the
total length of the statue was 254 cm and the width of thebottom side was 55 cm (Fig. 5). When the inner side ofthe enclosure was reburied, the stone statue was erected
in its original position. It can be said that this prevented
the enclosure from being pressed and damaged by theheavy stone statue.
Enclosure
The outer surfaces of the slabs of the enclosure aredecorated with engraved rhombic patterns. The color of
the slabs is blue-grey, like the human figure stone statue.
The inner surfaces of the slabs are rough. In contrast, theouter surfaces of the slabs may have been intentionallysmoothed and polished. The state of preservation of theslabs is relatively good. There is a small fragment of aslab outside the southwest corner of the enclosure (Figs:
5-7).

Sizes of the slabs:
Eastern

Southern

Western

Northern

Length (cm)

118

123

113

121

Thickness (cm)

18

10

11

12

Height above the ground surface (cm)

27

26

34

21

The edges of the northern and eastern slabs meet. If
the outsides of the slabs were excavated and dirt andstones removed, there would be a risk of the slabs falling.
Therefore, only the outside part of the northern slab was
excavated. It gave us the opportunity to document theentire northern slab. Because the stone statue leaned on
the southern and western slabs, any attempt to remove
dirt and stones from their exterior would be extremely
risky.
Excavations inside and outside the enclosure revealed

that the slabs were much higher than we expected.
When the soil outside the northern slab was completely
removed and the bottom of the slab was exposed, its
height was 105 cm. It means that this is twice as high as
we presumed before the excavation. Moreover, throughthe excavation on the inner side of the enclosure, thebottom of the southern slab was also revealed. Its heightwas 98 cm. Thus, the difference in height between thenorthern and southern slabs is 7 cm and the height ofthe eastern and southern slabs should not differ muchfrom these two. Accordingly, it can be concluded that the21

approximate height of the enclosure is 100 cm.

Mongolia

During the excavation, many stones were found insideand outside the enclosure, which had been used tostrengthen the bottom of the slabs. The longest of thesestones is 41×21×4 cm, and the thickest one is 28×13×12.5
cm. No artifacts were found during the excavations, but
animal bones such as a small cattle leg bone and a horse
tooth were found on the eastern side of the enclosure, 56
cm below the ground surface. A cattle astragalus was also
revealed from this side.
Excavation trenches
According to the excavation plan, we followed the tacticof digging the enclosure last, by approaching it froma distance without disturbing the level gravel mound,i.e. the platform. A 1 m wide trench was dug in eachcardinal direction, and all of these four trenches joinedat the enclosure. The trench excavations began froma considerable distance from the center where theenclosure is located and it gradually rose along the slope.
During the excavation in the direction of the enclosure,the edges of all four sides of the platform were uncoveredin those trenches. Consequently, the excavation continued
without disturbing the surface of the platform as we hadplanned before. Another reason for planning such longtrenches was aerial photography. In the photographs
taken with the drone, some signs of possible traces of acanal and a ditch were seen around the platform (Fig. 2).
However, excavations did not reveal any evidence that
there is a canal and ditch at the site.
The features of the site that were only visible to thenaked eye were recorded in the drawing of the plan
before excavation. It should be noted that this is also
consistent with the excavation results. It shows that insome cases, drone imagery may provide false information
due to the vegetation of the area. On the other hand,the use of multiple methods and different techniques infield documentation proves that it is better not to rely ona single method or technique. The trenches on all foursides of the enclosure are marked as eastern, southern,western, and northern, depending on which side of theenclosure they were located (Fig. 3).
Eastern trench
The total length of the eastern trench is 17 m. This is
the longest of all the trenches dug at the site. At Layer 2,
traces of fire were found 12-13 m to the east from point
0, which was at the center of the enclosure. Traces of fire
were found in five places on the floor of Layer 2, 13-14 m
east of point 0. Other traces of fire were found in Layer4, 4-5 m east of point 0. A few centimeters southeast ofthese traces, gray clay, which is probably the remains ofa rammed earthen floor, was uncovered. Brown soil with
dense gravel in this part is an intentionally constructed
platform to place the enclosure on its top. As mentioned
above, the hard, thin gray clay on such brown earth
with dense gravel could have been a deliberately paved
clay floor over the platform. This was confirmed by the
excavations in the western trench (Fig. 3).

22

The stone statue at the center of the enclosure wasinitially thought to have been on the eastern side of theenclosure, so excavations in the eastern trench sought tofind traces of a man-made hole for erecting the statue.
However, the excavations in the eastern trench did notreveal any traces of such a hole (Figs. 4 and 5).
Southern trench
The total length of this trench is 9 m. Neither hard grayclay on the floor nor traces of fire were found. However,like the other trenches, stones used to strengthen theoutside bottom of the slab, and brown soil with gravel, i.e.,a part of the platform, were also found in this trench (Figs.
3 and 4).
Western trench
The total length of this trench is 9 m (Figs. 3 and 4).
Excavations in the western trench revealed a layer ofbrown earth with gravel, stones on the outside bottom of
the slab, hard grey clay on the platform floor, and tracesof fire. The hard gray clay was found in three places on
the floor of Layer 3, 5-6 m to the east of point 0. These
small parts of the floor are very hard and may have beenpreserved for this reason. The traces of fire were revealedat Layer 4, 4-5 m to the west of point 0, and in two places
at the same level, 1-2 m to the west of point 0.
Northern trench
The total length of the trench is 13 m. Gravelly brown soil
from the platform and stones from the slab bottom were
found from this trench (Figs. 3 and 4).
Conclusion
The excavations at the Tsantyn Denj complex provided us
with some data to determine the structure of this complex
and the condition of the soil layer of the site. The humanfigure stone statue and enclosure, which represent themain features of the complex, were documented during
this field research. The excavation made clear that first,
a multi-layered platform was built specially by earthramming. After that, the enclosure was placed nearly at
the center of the platform. However, there were no signsof a ditch and canal outside the platform.
It is clear that when the four slabs of the enclosure wereerected, the inner and outer bottoms of the slabs were
strengthened with stones. An important result of the
excavation was the discovery that the platform was not
only covered with gravel but also that the gravel floor
was paved with hard gray clay.
Moreover, early traces of fire and burnt animal bones
were revealed on the eastern and western sides ofthe enclosure. Unburnt animal bones were also foundaround the enclosure. These can be considered as tracesof sacrifice. The human figure stone statue might haveoriginally been inside the enclosure, as excavation in theeastern trench did not reveal any traces of a man-madehole for erecting the stone statue. In addition, the stone
statue was so large that it must have been difficult to
move, especially out of the enclosure.

References
Bayar 1997 – Д.Баяр. Монголын төв нутаг дахь Түрэгийнхүн чулуу. Уб.
Enkhtur et al. 2020 – А.Энхтөр, Р.Мөнхтулга, С.Хүрэлсүх,Л.Мөнхбаяр, Т.Батбаяр, Г.Батболд, Б.Эрдэнэ. Архангай
аймгийн Батцэнгэлээс Өгийнуур чиглэлийн автозамын
трассын дагуу явуулсан археологийн авран хамгаалах
малтлага судалгааны товч үр дүн. // Монголын археологи
- 2020. Уб., 2020: 15-23
Ser-Odjav 1970 – Н.Сэр-Оджав. Эртний түрэгүүд (VI-VIIIзуун). // Studia Archaeologica. Tom. V, fasc. 2. Уб.

Mongolia

The monument can be classified as an Ancient Turkic
aristocratic memorial complex due to the erection of ahuman figure stone statue and quadrangular enclosure on
the earthen platform. In terms of chronology, it is dated to
the late 7th and early 8th centuries, to the Second Turkic
Khaganate period.

Fig. 1: Tsantyn Denj memorial complex, before the excavation, from the east

Fig. 2: Tsantyn Denj memorial complex, before the excavation

23

Mongolia
Fig. 3: Tsantyn Denj memorial complex, during the excavation

Fig. 4: The memorial complex, after the excavation

24

Mongolia

Fig. 5: Excavation of the enclosure

Fig. 6: Enclosure and human figure stone statue, from the east

25

Mongolia
Fig. 7: Plan of the enclosure and stone statue

26

Sri Lanka
D.A. Rasika Dissanayaka, Civil Engineer / Assistant Director (Promotions)
Department of Archaeology
Introduction
Sri Lanka has a recorded history of more than 2500
years. Our cultural heritage grew and developed with theintroduction of Buddhism in the 3rd century BC.
Sri Lanka is endowed with gigantic monastic complexes,
administrative capitals created as a result of the arrival of
Buddhism to the country. These consist of architecture,
sculptures, and paintings. The most striking feature ofthese heritage items is their continued usage since theircreation, starting from the 3rd century BC to the present.
At present, there are six World Heritage Sites in the
country.
This stupa (stupas are hemispherical brick edifices forenshrinement of the corporal relics of the Buddha or ofsaints and sometimes to mark sacred spots), is situatedin the ancient city of Anuradhapura alongside the old
Puttalam – Anuradhapura Road. The GPS coordinates are
8° 20' 39.3" N, 80° 23' 20.67" E. After restoration of theancient stupa, a large number of devotees and visitors
arrived daily, not only to visit the stupa premises, butalso the entire monastic complex, which includes image
houses, chapter houses, bodhigara, preaching halls andrefectories, etc.
As the Salapathamaluwa (stone terrace around the stupa)
has been restored, devotees can use it for their ceremonial
functions. Later-built image houses and flower altars were
restored to match their ancient values. Pilgrim and visitor
facilities were upgraded, including the addition of parking
and other subsidiary facilities. A new residential building
for monks was built opposite the main road, although
this does not affect the architectural views of the ancient
stupa.
History
Mirisaweti Stupa was the first colossal stupa built by
King Dutugemunu in the 2nd century BC. Chronicles
stated that “Seven days after the royalty, the great kingDutugemunu, had gone to the bath, while his sceptre,
which had a sacred relic of Buddha inside, and otherbelongings had been placed in an intermediate location.
When he returned to the palace, it is said that the sceptre
could not be moved. The stupa was built in the place
where the sceptre stood, with the stupa covering theholy sceptre. It is also known that this dagaba was called‘Mirisavatiya’ as a punishment for himself because theking forgot to offer a food made out of chili (miris) to the
Buddhist priests before he consumed it.”This stupa was enlarged by King Gajabahu in the
2nd century AD. The final phase of the enlargement
took place during the 12th century AD by the King
Parakramabahu I. A stone slab found in a recent
excavation done in the terrace of the stupa, depicts a

Sri Lanka

Restoration of Mirisaweti Stupa

sketch of the stupa including three basal rings, dome,
square chamber and spire. According to the letters
appearing on the stone slab, it is revealed that thisinscription dates back to the 8th to 10th centuries, so
there was remarkable restoration done in this period.
Recent Restoration
In 1888, a prince from Thailand donated a sum of money
for the restoration of this stupa and then the colonial
government took over the restoration work with the helpof the provincial engineer. While the work could not becompleted at this time, an architect named Ditel fromthe Royal Asiatic Society in Great Britain was assigned toprepare a proper restoration plan in 1900. He indicatedthe importance and spiritual value of restoration of thiskind of stupa. The then King of Thailand, Rama V, agreed
to complete the restoration, but this was not fulfilled.
Yet another restoration effort that was made by arestoration society in 1979 was not successful either.
Unfortunately, during the later restoration, the partiallycompleted stupa collapsed only several hours before theenshrinement of relics in June 1987. Although ten verticalcracks had earlier appeared on the restored dome, actual
separation and movement of large segments of the newbrickwork now occurred. This destroyed one of the best
Vahalkada (ayaka) structures of the Anuradhapura Era.
Amid this tragic situation, several parties, i.e., archaeologists,
engineers, clergy, politicians and the general public had
discussions regarding the procedure of restoration of the
stupa. Therefore, the then president of Sri Lanka took overthis effort in March 1991 and it was completed in June
1993.
Restoration Procedure
There was a need for collaboration between engineers
and architects/archaeologists in the conservation/
restoration of ancient stupas, especially after thecatastrophic failure of the partly restored Mirisawetiya
Stupa on 10th June, 1987. As a result, several engineeringstudies were conducted to ascertain the reasons for the
failure.
The restoration procedure and plans were designed andprepared by the Department of Archaeology, which is the
apex institution and responsible for every archaeologicalactivity in Sri Lanka, with the guidance of engineeringexperts. It was based on the historical evidence.
The support of engineering experts familiar with therestoration of this kind of brick structure was used in thisattempt.
According to the proposal,
Diameter of the stupa – 145 ft
Diameter with basal rings – 174 ft

27

Sri Lanka

Height of 3 basal rings – 12 ft
Height of the dome – 81 ft
Square chamber – 48 × 48 × 18 ft
Spire height – 67 ft
Pinnacle height – 13 ft
Total height – 192 ft
The bore hole measurements were taken as geotechnicalinvestigations at five points; i.e., two in the terrace ofthe stupa, two on the basal rings and other inside thestupa. The Rotary Core Drilling Method was applied andan Acker Hillbilly-type drilling machine was used for
obtaining this reading. This investigation revealed that the
bedrock was a few feet below the center of the stupa andthe brickwork of the basal rings was constructed on asilty sand layer of 1 to 2 meters.
It was indicated that the force on new brickwork andthe foundation due to the square chamber and spire was
40,000 KN. In addition, new brickwork containing 287,000
KN force and total force transmitted to the foundation was
327,000 KN, assuming that much of the load transmitted
from the square chamber and the spire would take placethrough the arching action of the structure. A minimum
base width of 18 ft was required circumferentially to caterto this load with differential movement—elastic, thermal,
and shrinkage—and this space could be easily reservedby removing loose ancient brickwork from the base.
It was decided to use standard engineering bricks of aparticular strength (determined through finite element
analysis of the proposed model) and a very lean sand/lime/cement mortar (instead of butter clay), usedsuccessfully by the Department of Archaeology in thepast for conservation work on stupas. The engineers had
specified a minimum crushing strength of 400 psi for the
bricks.
In order to avoid horizontal thrust in the new brickwork
for the dome, 2 RCC ring beams spaced at 5 m wereintroduced horizontally and this set of ring beams was
repeated vertically every 2 m levels. Both the squarechamber and the spire were constructed in brickwork
with an RCC frame. This RCC beams placed during thebrickwork commenced, while maximum compressive
strength acted on the outer surface of the lower levelof the dome and maximum tensile strength acted in theradial and circumference directions. This compressive
strength could be carried by the bricks and the RCC
framework was introduced for tensile strength.
A steel truss template had been used to obtain thecurvature of the dome, which was driven on a rail track
fixed at the top of the basal ring, with the top end hinged
to the vertical steel rod. Three lifts carrying a load ofup to 1000 kg were used for taking material up to theelevated positions. Finally, a brass pinnacle weighing
2000 kg and with a height of 13 ft was fitted on top of
the spire.
Materials and Workforce
The Department of Archaeology itself undertook the
responsibility to handle the restoration project while28

expert conservation staff, strong leadership with pastexperience in doing such stupa projects, were employedin that period. Not only that, the then president of Sri
Lanka had keen interest in finishing this stupa, andhe appointed a committee to monitor the project andto also raise the funds. This project was funded with
contributions from the general public. A labor force of
100 skilled and 500 unskilled craftsman was utilized daily,
including 30 conservation staff, and devotees involved in
the restoration as a meritorious act.
According to the records, it was calculated that the major
materials utilized and total expenditure amounted to SLR
60 million in 1993. The total brickwork was calculated at
700 m³.
i. Cement (50 kg) – 20,000 units
ii. River sand
– 7,400 m³
iii. Lime– 120,000 kg
iv. Bricks– 11.5 million
v. ¾” metal– 600 m³
vi. Steel– 53 MT
Summaryi. 	A proposal arose from engineering experts that a RC
concrete shell should cover the ancient dome to carrythe load of the square chamber and spire. This was not
accepted by the archaeologists and conservators since
it contravened the ethics of architectural conservation.
ii. 	After considering the major demand, national importance,and value of this cultural property, the Departmentof Archaeology finally accepted the above proposal,
which includes the stipulation that the stupa has tobe restored as a solid brick structure including RCC
framework, with the restored dome on the ancient
brickwork, and introduce a new square chamber andspire.
iii. 	Mirisawetiya, along with other ancient stupas in Sri
Lanka, had used burnt bricks as the main building
material, which resulted different sizes of bricks usedin different places in the same stupa. These bricks
had been bound in a thin layer of clay mortar (called
butter clay) which enabled the internal movementof brickwork. As in modern construction, movement
joints cannot be formed in the construction of a stupa.
Therefore, as a remedy, a thin layer of sand/lime/
cement mortar was used as a binding.
iv. 	The main demand of this project was the supplyof the required quality of bricks. As an engineering
design, normal engineering bricks with characteristic
compressive strength of 400 psi. and Type 2, grade II
in the Sri Lanka Standards were used.
References
1. 	Wijesuriya, G., Wijetunga, S., (1993), Mirisaweti Udanaya,(Sinhala Medium), Publication of the Department ofArchaeology
2. 	Sirisoma, M.H. (1991), Mirisaweti Stupaya, (Sinhala
Medium), Publication of the Department of Archaeology
3. Parker, H (1909), Ancient Ceylon, pp 209-220
4. 	Sri Lanka Standards Institution, SLS 39 (1981), Specification
for common burnt clay building bricks. Sri Lanka Standards
Institution
5. 	Silva, W.N.G. (2007), Engineer – Journal of the Institute of

Vol. 2, No 01, ‘Bricks’ - A Unit of Construction in Ancient
Sri Lanka, pp. 21-42
7. Photo Credits: Vidyajothi Eng Gamunu Silva

Sri Lanka

Engineers, Sri Lanka, Vol.XXXX, No. 03, Conservationof Ancient Dagobas in Sri Lanka, pp 41-52
6. 	Silva, Roland (1990) ICTAD Journal – A Publication of
the Institute for Construction Training and Development

Mirisawetiya Stupa, before conservation in the colonial era

The proposed designs for reconstruction by the colonialadministration

Mirisawetiya during restoration work by the British in 1906

Mirisawetiya restoration work in the 1980s

29

Sri Lanka
Cracks that appeared on the dome of Mirisawetiya before the failure

Failure of the restored dome of Mirisawetiya Stupa – Second attempt in the eighties

30

Sri Lanka

Failure of the restored dome of Mirisawetiya Stupa – Second attempt in the eighties

The damaged western Ayakaya

31

Sri Lanka
New brickwork withcement/lime binder

Old brickwork withbutter clay binder
Proposal

All loose ancient brickwork was carefully removed.

32

Sri Lanka

Pesawa basal rings were restored first and the revolving template for the reconstruction of the dome was installed.

Prior to the casting of reinforced concrete rings

33

Sri Lanka
Prior to the casting of reinforced concrete rings

Dome construction

34

Sri Lanka

Dome completed—hatareskotuwa partially completed

Work commenced in 1990 and was completed with the pinnacle unveiling ceremony on the Poson Full Moon Day in 1992, about a month after the death of the
President, who had spearheaded this restoration work.

35

Sri Lanka
After the restoration of Wahalkada

The restored Mirisawetiya stupa being given new plaster36

Uzbekistan
Akmaljon Ulmasov, Head, Department of Unique Objects/ PhD in Architecture
Fine Arts Institute, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan
Introduction
There are about a dozen Buddhist sites in the southern
par t of Uzbekistan. These include the Buddhist
complexes of Karatepa and Fayaztepa, the Zurmala stupa
near the shakhristan (ancient town) in Old Termez,
Ayrtam, Zartepa, Dalvarzintepa and others. The revealed
Buddhist monuments belong to the Kushan period(the 1st to 3rd centuries AD) and consist of structures
such as monasteries, temples, and stupas. The stupa
is characterized by its volumetric-spatial composition,architectural and artistic ornaments, and philosophicalinterpretation. Unfortunately, most stupas have not been
fully preserved to the present time due to natural disasters
and other reasons. However, thanks to the study of thestructures of stupas, their individual decorative parts,and the analogies of neighboring historical and cultural
regions, their appearance can be restored graphicallyusing modern technologies.
Location
Ayrtam was located 18 km east of the modern city ofTermez, on the right bank of the Amu Darya River.
Unfortunately, in the 1980s, construction work was carriedout for a road and railway bridge across the Amu Darya(700 m), which passed through all the historical sites ofthe monument, and the foundation of the bridge was laidon the site of a Buddhist monastery (Fig. 1).
Historical background
The monument became known to science in 1932, whenborder guards discovered a magnificent sculptural blog
depicting three musicians under water (Masson, 1933).
A year later, the remains of the Buddhist stupa were
investigated by the Termez archaeological expedition
led by academician M.E. Masson, but no archaeologicalexcavations were carried out on the stupa at that time.
After some time, archaeological excavations at themonument continued (Vyazmitina, 1945).
In 1964-1967, the monument was investigated by the
Uzbekistan Art Expedition (abbr. in Russian: “UzIskE”)
headed by G.A. Pugachenkova. Then it turned out that the
stupa was preserved on the eastern side of the shakhristan
in the form of a remnant of a round tower. Archaeologicalexcavations have shown that the stupa was built on arectangular stylobate measuring 9.20×8.85 m on the sides
and 0.96 m high. The structure is oriented to the cardinalpoints, which is typical of Buddhist stupas. The stylobate
was built of rectangular raw bricks. Above the stylobate
rises the cylindrical body of the stupa, 5.12-5.40 m indiameter and preserved 1.20 m high. The cylindrical bodyof the stupa consisted of two rows of pakhsa (raw adobe
blocks) 0.50 m thick, and on top of these was a layer ofraw bricks. Only one layer of bricks has survived from thebrickwork. Apparently, the final part – a hemisphericaldome – was erected on several layers of bricks (Fig. 2a).

Uzbekistan

Attempted 3D Reconstruction of the Ayrtam Buddhist Stupa in Termez

The groin blocks were laid transversely (radially), andthe space formed in the middle was filled with lumpy
clay. According to G.A. Pugachenkova, there was a secretplace to store the “sacred box,” that is, the relict. On
visual inspection, no traces of plaster were preserved on
the stylobate. However, judging by the large number oflimestone fragments scattered over the stupa, it can beassumed that it was covered with stone slabs. On thebasis of the Kanishka coin found here, the researchersdetermined that the stupa in Ayrtam dates back to the 2nd
century AD (Pugachenkova, 1973).
In 1979, the construction of the bridge along the shortest
crossing over the Amu Darya coincided with the studyof the monument, and in a short time, archaeologicalexcavations were carried out by the staff of the UzIskE
expedition under the leadership of B.A. Turgunov. In
particular, when cleaning a stupa discovered during
previous excavations, it was found that inside thecylindrical body there was another smaller stupa, with abody diameter of 1.8 m and a height of 2.3 m. The small
stupa was walled up in rows of pakhsa and raw bricks(Fig. 2b). This stupa also consisted of a platform made of
mud and a cylindrical body, ending in a hemispherical
dome. On the outer side of the stupa, judging by theremains of the predominantly pink paint on the surfaceof the cylinder, in the middle there was a belt of two
rows of raw material protruding by 17 cm. It must be
assumed that it had been completely colored (Turgunov,1987). Due to the fact that the construction of the bridge
had begun at this site in those years, as mentioned above,
further research was possible only on the basis of ananalysis of archival data and drawings related to themonument, and scientific literature.
Reconstruction attempt
The reconstruction of the Ayrtam stupa allows us topresent its hypothetical appearance during construction,
as well as to identify common similarities and distinctive
features shared with other similar structures in thisregion. Now let's look at the sources available to create
a complete hypothetical reconstruction of the stupa.
There are practically no written sources about Buddhist
structures of the Kushan period: they all belong to amuch later period and are limited to general information.
For example, the Chinese pilgrim Xuanzang (602-664, a
Chinese Buddhist monk, scholar, traveler, and translator),
who is mentioned in several scientific publications, notesthat in Termez he saw dozens of Buddhist temples andstupas dedicated to thousands of monks (Pugachenkova
et.al.).
The following sources represent factual materials
obtained directly from the archaeological excavations of
the monument, by analyzing which we have an idea ofthe main components of the stupa – the stylobate, the37Uzbekistan

dimensions of the cylindrical body, and building materials.
In addition, for the reconstruction of the stupa, thearchitectural and artistic parts of it, carved from limestone,
are important. For example, stone decorative elements
such as corner pilasters, polished cornices, and rods. Suchart elements are used to restore the appearance of the
stupa (Fig. 4 a-b).
Studying and making comparisons with other monumentsof the same period around Termez, as well as similarbuildings in neighboring historical and cultural regions,provide a good opportunity for restoring the appearanceof the stupa close to its original form. For example,
stupas similar to Ayrtam can be compared with stupas
found at such archaeological sites as Zurmala, Karatepa,
Fayaztepa, and Zartepa. The large Zurmala stupa andthe main stupa on Karatepe differ sharply in size fromthe Ayrtom sample (Ulmasov, 2018). However, there
are similarities in individual architectural elements andcladding. In addition to the large stupa, several othersmall stupas were discovered on Karatepe. While mostof their platforms are square, there are also circular
platform models. In general, the study of stupas and theirarchitectural and artistic parts, which were identified asa result of archaeological excavations at Karatepe, is ofgreat importance in the restoration of the stupa in Ayrtam(Pidaev & Kato, 2007).
The stupa on Fayaztepa, which is located separately fromthe complex, is more suitable for the Ayrtam model, notonly in its appearance, but also in terms of size. Here theentire stupa has been preserved, with the exception of
the harmika 1 and chattra (honorary umbrella), whichwere to be installed on the top of the dome. On the
Fayaztepa stupa, despite the fact that it was made of clay,
the plinth of the cylindrical body and the thrust on thesurface of the drum at the transition to the dome are welltraced. However, the diameter of the cylindrical body ofthe Fayaztepa stupa is half that of the Ayrtam analogue.
Also, there are no stone decorations on the Fayaztepa
stupa (Asanov, 1976).
The Zartepa stupa, located far from Termez, is closein size and volume to the Ayrtam stupa. According toarchaeologist Sh. Pidaev, who investigated the monument,
the total height of the structure was 6-7 meters. On thenorthern side of the stupa, a shelter was found, similar tothat near the Ayrtam stupa. And in this secret place were
found fragments of pottery, jewelry, a piece of cotton
cloth, and more than 500 copper coins of Vasudeva, oneof the last rulers of the Kushan Empire. On the basis of
the artifacts found here, researchers date the Zartepa
stupa to the late Kushan period, that is, the 3rd to 4th
centuries (Pidaev, 1986).

1

Conclusion
In a word, the use of modern technology in the study andreconstruction of buildings that have not been handed tous, such as the Ayrtam stupa, has a positive effect. Most
importantly, there is an opportunity to imagine how thisor that structure was built and how it looked in volume
and space. Considering that the monument has alreadydisappeared from the face of the earth, the creation andinstallation of information boards and models of thestructure, reflecting the results of archaeological researchon site, will serve to increase its tourist potential.
References
Asanov (1976) – Асанов А.А. Архитектура Фаязтепа // Ж.
АиС. – Т., 1976. №6. – C. 32-34.
Vyazmitina (1945) – М.И. Вьязмитина. Раскопки нагородище Айртам. – ТАКЭ. Т.2. – Ташкент, 1945. – С. 2324.
Masson (1933) – Массон М.Е. Находка фрагмента
скульптурного карниза первых веков н.э. – Ташкент, 1933.
P i d a ev ( 1 9 8 6 ) – П и д а е в Ш . Р . А р хе ол о г и ч е с к и еисследования на Зартепа // ОНУ 1986 й. №4.
Pugachenkova (1973) – Пугаченкова Г.А. Новые данные охудожественной культуре Бактрии // Из истории античной
культуры Узбекистана. – Ташкент, 1973.
Turgunov (1987) – Тургунов Б.А. Новые находки изАйртама // Городская культура Бактри-Тохаристана иСогда. Античность, раннее средневековье. – Ташкент,1987. – С. 144, рис. 1.
Franz H.G. (1980) – Stupa and Stupa-temple in Gandhara
Regions and Central Asia // The Stupa. Its Religious,
Historical and Architectural Significance. – Weisbaden,
1980. – p. 40.
Paluch T. (2014) – Mes Aynak – an Ancient City at the
Meeting Point of Civilizations // Hungarian Archeology.
E-Journal. – 2014, Spring
Pidaev Sh., K. Kato (2007) – The Excavation on the Northand West (Central) Hills of Kara-tepa (1998-2007). –Kanagawa.: Ai-Khanum, 2007. – p. 40.
Ulmasov A. (2018) – Reconstruction of the Zurmala
Buddhist Stupa in Termez, Uzbekistan // International
Journal of Scientific & Technology Research. Vol. 8, Issue 4,
April 2018. – pp. 43-48.

The term harmika is used to describe a fence-like or cube-shaped structure on Buddhist stupas,

because small blind windows (chandrasalas) can still be recognized on some early harmikas, which

which later could also take on a closed box shape. The origin of the term harmika is ultimately

can be interpreted as being an abbreviation for 'house' (Source: https://second.wiki/wiki/harmika).

unclear. Most researchers bring the Sanskrit word hammiya (“house” or “pavilion”) into play,38

Buddhist stupas of the Kushan period are found not
only in the south of Uzbekistan, but also in Afghanistan,
Pakistan, and northern India (Franz, 1980). In particular,
in recent years, dozens of stupas have been discoveredin the city of Mes Ainak, 60 km from the Afghan capitalof Kabul. Like the stupas of Termez, they also havecommon features, but differ significantly in structure,size, building materials, and techniques, as well as in theexternal design of the devices. It can be seen here thatthe platforms are multi-story and decorated with pilasters,arched shelves around the perimeter, and between them,
Buddhist statues and paintings (Paluch, 2014).

Uzbekistan

R
R
D

Fig. 1. Buddhist stupas in the territory of southern Uzbekistan

Fig. 2 a-b. Plan and section of Ayrtam Buddhist stupa:a) According to G.A. Pugachenkova, 1967; b) According to B.A. Turgunov, 1987

39

Uzbekistan

R
R
D

Fig. 3. Architectural and decorative elements of the Ayrtam stupa

Fig. 4 a-b. Options for 3D reconstruction of the Ayrtam stupa

40Viet Nam
Tran Thanh Hoang Phuc, Conservation Architect
Department of Relics Management, Hoi An Centre for Cultural Heritage, Management and Preservation
I. Background of the relicThis relic is a complex of two main buildings: Hoi An
communal house and a temple. The communal house
was built by ancestors of Hoi An village’s clans to worshipthe tutelary god and protector of this village. Based on its
stone steles and other old documentation, the communal
house could have been built as late as the Lê dynasty (KingCảnh Hưng - 景 興 (1740 – 1786)), but the exact date ofconstruction has not yet been determined. The communal
house has been restored and renovated several times. The
first restoration was in 1818. In 1907, due to the openingof the new Rue Hoi An Street (today known as Le Loi
Street), the communal house had to be relocated andrenovated on its left side. Thus, the current architectureof the communal house is its architecture after being
relocated in 1907, not the original one. There is no
documentation to prove whether the architecture andscale of the communal house before and after relocation
resembled each other or not. In 1942, the communal
house was restored, and an additional vestibule wasbuilt. After this renovation, the layout and architecturalscale of the communal house was completed, including
the following construction items: gate and fences; front
yard with two stone flagpoles and two elephant statues;
vestibule, east wing, west wing, courtyard, main hall,and 2-storey altar, creating a square-shaped plan; a well,and a kitchen in the backyard. This is the one and only
religious building in Hoi An, and rare in Quang Nam
province which has a 2-storey altar, giving the communal
house its own unique architecture. The wooden elementsof the communal house are beautifully carved with many
traditional decorative patterns.
The temple was located in the left corner of the front
yard on high ground. It had two roofs and four altars
inside. There was a screenwall in front of the temple. The
construction date of the temple has not been determined.
However, based on descriptions in documents andexisting architecture, it is possible that the temple could
have existed before the relocation of the communal
house.
This relic had been affected by many impacts due to theimproper use of the monument not in keeping with its
inherent function. In the 1960s, because of the fierce war,
many displaced people came and built temporary homes
inside the relic precinct. Besides the religious function,
the communal house was used as a headquarters whereadministrative, military, and social activities of the local
government were carried out. In 1981, it was used asa kindergarten. In order to build facilities to serve theschool's activities, some of the construction items weredismantled, such as the temple and flagpoles; the gate
was blocked by a brick wall; a new gate and 2-storey
concrete classrooms were built in the front yard; andthe communal house’s interior was divided into small

Viet Nam

The Important Role of the Local Community in Restoring Hoi An Communal Houserooms by wooden partition walls, etc. Therefore, thearchitectural landscape of the relic has changed greatly.
The gods worshiped in the temple were brought to be
worshiped together with the gods in the communal
house. Many valuable decorative items have also been
lost or misplaced. Religious activities which were heldin the communal house were also interrupted. In 1996,
the east wing, west wing, main hall, and altar were
restored. In 2007, the vestibule was repaired. In 2019, thekindergarten was relocated to another site. This is a great
effort by the local government to return it to its originallandscape and functions. Until the time of restoration,
the roof of the communal house had degraded andwas leaking, and some wooden components had beendamaged.
II. Preparation of restoration project
The main content of the project is identified as follows:
restoration of the communal house and the gate;
reconstruction of dismantled items (the temple, flagpoles,
kitchen, the patios in front of the east wing and westwing); renovation of the site’s landscape; rearrangementof the items of worship in the communal house and thetemple as before. The main purpose is to restore thetraditional architectural space and religious activities of
the relic in order for it to become a community meeting
place according to its inherent function.
The survey and drawing of the current status of the relicstarted in 2014. The restoration plan for dismantled or lost
items faced many difficulties. Hoi An Center for Cultural
Heritage Management & Preservation has searched forsources of historical documents related to the relic.
Fortunately, documents on Quang Nam province (Hoi
An town included), which were created by The École
Française d'Extrême-Orient (French School of the Far East)
between 1941 and 1943, recorded quite specifically detailsof the history, worship, religious activities, and especiallythe architecture of this relic. In addition, the contentsof ornamental horizontal lacquered boards and parallel
sentences inside the relic were also recorded (which
unfortunately are now all lost).
Besides this, we organized three community consultations
on the history, culture and architecture of the relic, related
artifacts, worship and religious activities at the relic, andsome in-depth interviews. These consultations involved
the displaced people who used to live temporarily inside
the relic, as well as knowledgeable elderly people livingin the vicinity of the relic. We have thereby obtained
quite detailed and important information, especially forconstruction items that have been dismantled or have
had major architectural changes. Combining information
through documents and through community consultations
provides an important background to help us obtain afairly detailed visualization of each item of the relic. Due

41

Viet Namto that, we can propose a restoration plan with highaccuracy.

level lower than the existing pavement, so additional
drainage has been provided.

III. Restoration works
In October 2020, the handover of the site for the
restoration and renovation was carried out. Firstly, the2-storey concrete classrooms, the additional items forkindergarten teaching not related to the relic, and theextension items attached to the communal house weredismantled. Although those masonry works had no value,
the dismantling was done with great care to minimize
the impact on the original elements of the relic. The
foundations were also dismantled little by little, especiallyat the locations where there are believed to be originalarchitectural items that have been dismantled before.

2. Dismantled construction items (Lost construction items)
For this project, reconstructing the dismantled construction
items to ensure the scientific accuracy is the most difficult
thing. We conducted an archaeological excavation in
the area that was identified as the location of the former
temple. This location has been affected by the building’s
2-storey classrooms, so we found only traces of partof the temple’s foundation (the back half). Its locationand size almost completely matched the information we
had gathered through community consultations, thereby
showing the reliability of the information from the local
community. While dismantling the roof and removing
the plaster of the kindergarten's kitchen, based on somerevealed architectural traces, we determined that thesewalls had been renovated from the communal house’s
kitchen walls. We also found traces and the position of
the base stones where wooden pillars had been placed.
The foundation of the two stone flagpoles in the front
yard had left no trace. However, through community
consultations, we now know the relative position, size
and architectural form of these flagpoles.

1. The communal house
Degradation had occurred mainly in the roof andplastering on the walls. The yin-yang tiles were also
damp, mossy and had lost their adhesive. When restoring
the main items of the communal house, the authenticity
of each construction detail and the building as a wholeis strictly ensured, with only the parts that have beendamaged or changed compared to the original elements
being dismantled and replaced. Load-bearing wooden
frames and old ying yang tiles which are still in goodcondition have been reused. Only some rotted purlins,
rafters and tiles have been replaced. Dissection ofdegenerated and flaked walls which were no longer able
to be attached to the masonry blocks, have been renderedback with traditional lime mortar. In the process, we
discovered traces of arched walkways that were blocked
by brick walls in the east wing and west wing. Throughinspection, the structure above the walkway still retained
its bearing capacity, so the blocked walls were dismantled.
The vestibule’s floor had been paved with granite tiles
to make a classroom for children. We removed them andpaved back with hand-made hexagonal terracotta bricks(like the prototype at the relic). The patios in front of theeast wing and west wing (which were dismantled andrenovated into working rooms for kindergarten teachers)
have been reconstructed.
The current front yard level has been lowered about 0.3
m compared to its old level. While removing the earth,lower parts of the elephant statues which were buried in
the ground and some architectural traces of the vestibule
were revealed. Lowering the foundation makes the yard

42

Based on the results of the archaeological excavation andrevealed architectural traces, combined with informationfrom community consultations, we sketched architectural
drawings of dismantled construction items. Then, we
consulted with the community again before proposing thefinal restoration plans which include colors, decorative
patterns, and worship ornaments of the temple. During
the ongoing reconstruction process of these items, we
also need the supervision and support people who areknowledgeable about the relic. This will enable us tomake timely adjustments if any architectural details arebuilt incorrectly compared to the original ones. It can besaid that the local community plays an important role inthis project.
The project is expected to be completed in December
2021. In parallel with the restoration works, Hoi An
Center for Cultural Heritage Management & Preservation
is proposing a plan to manage and promote the value of
this relic. Because of its location in the core zone of Hoi
An Ancient town, hopefully it will become an interesting
place to visit and attract many tourists in the coming
years.

Viet Nam

Site master plan:A. Main gate; B: Flag poles; C: Elephant statues; D: Vestibule; E: Patios;
F: East wing; G: West wing; H: Courtyard; I: Main hall; J: 2-storey altar;
K: Kitchen; L: Temple

Blocked main gate and 2-storey classrooms

The communal house was used as a kindergarten.

43

Viet Nam
44

Dismantled 2-storey classrooms

Community consultation at the site

Traces of the temple’s foundation

Traces of the arched walkway in the east wing

Flaked mortar walls were removed.

Rendering the walls with lime mortar

Restoring the communal house’s roofs

The temple being reconstructedPublished by
Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU)
437-3, Somanouchi-cho, Tenri, 632-0032 Japan
E-mail: nara@accu.or.jp
URL: https://www.nara.accu.or.jp© Cultural Heritage Protection Cooperation Office,Asia-Pacific Cultural Centre for UNESCO (ACCU) 2022

Mongolia / Sri Lanka

Uzbekistan / Viet Nam