BBhhuut at ann // KKaazzaakkhhsst a
t ann

21

The Twenty-first Regular Report

21

2018
2018

The
The Twenty-first
Twenty-first Regular
Regular Report
Report

公益財団法人 ユネスコ・アジア文化センター文化遺産保護協力事務所

t ann // MMaal al ayyssi ai a
KKyyr rggyyzzsst a

ACCU
ACCUNara
NaraInternational
InternationalCorrespondent
CorrespondentThe
TheACCU
ACCUcorrespondents
correspondentsperiodicallyperiodicallysend
sendreports
reportsononcultural
culturalheritage
heritageprotection
protectionactivities
activitiesininwhich
whichthey
theyhave
havebeen
been
recently
recentlyinvolved.
involved.This
Thisis isa acollection
collectionofofeight
eightreports
reportssubmitted
submittedbybyinternational
internationalcorrespondents
correspondentsininthe
theAsia-PacificAsia-Pacificregion.
region.

The
The Twenty-first
Twenty-first Regular
Regular Report
ReportContents
Contents
BhutanBhutan11

Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan

99

Kyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan

1212

Malaysia
Malaysia

1616

Karma
KarmaTenzin
TenzinArchaeological
ArchaeologicalStudy
StudyononDzongs
Dzongs- Comparative- ComparativeAnalysis
AnalysisofofPlan
PlanForm
FormTypologies
Typologiesofofa aDifferent
DifferentEra
Era

GulnazGulnazKulmaganbetova
Kulmaganbetova
On
Onthe
theIssue
Issueofofthe
theNomination
NominationofofCertain
CertainMonuments
Monumentstotothe
theUNESCOUNESCOWorld
WorldHeritage
HeritageList
List

Kunbolot
KunbolotAkmatov,
Akmatov,Kubatbek
KubatbekTabaldiev,
Tabaldiev,Alpaslan
AlpaslanAshyk
Ashykand
andKairat
KairatBelek
Belek
The
TheMausoleum
MausoleumKyok-Tash
Kyok-TashininKyrgyzstan
Kyrgyzstan

A AGhafar
GhafarBin
BinAhmad
Ahmad
Conservation
Conservationofofthe
theFlat
FlatRoofs
Roofsatatthe
theNational
NationalMosque,
Mosque,Kuala
KualaLumpur,
Lumpur,Malaysia
Malaysia

Nepal26

New Zealand

30

Solomon Islands

40

Uzbekistan

43

Sabina Tandukar
Saraswati Temple, Hanumandhoka Darbar Square

Matthew Schmidt
Larnach Castle Fernery: Restoration of an Early 20th Century Fernery

Grinta Ale’eke
Archaeological Excavation Site on Sikopo Island, Arnavon Islands, Solomon Islands

Akmaljon Ulmasov
The Experience of Conservation of a Fragment of Wall Painting from Balalyk-tepa

Bhutan
BhutanArchaeological Study on Dzongs - Comparative Analysis of Plan Form Typologies of a Different
Era
Karma Tenzin, Architect
Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites, Department of Culture, Ministry of Home and Cultural Affairs
Introduction
Fortresses in Bhutan are locally known as dzongs.
According to the history and era of the construction,
fortresses in Bhutan can be categorized according to threephases: (1) Pre-Zhabdrung dzongs (2) Zhabdrung-era
dzongs (3) Post-Zhabdrung dzongs. Most of the principal
surviving dzongs that are still in use are attributed to thegreat historical and religious ruler Zhabdrung Ngawang
Namgyel (1594-1651) and his successors (MoWHS 2014).
Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel is regarded as the unifier ofthe country as a nation state. In the process of unifying
and gaining control over the different regions, which wereat that time ruled by local chieftains and clerics of different
Buddhist sects, he had constructed chain of dzongs in the
country (Hasrat 1980, also see Fig. 1). He established adual system of governance in which the secular andspiritual affairs of the state functioned from the dzong(Phuntsho K 2011 p.232).
However, the practice of building dzongs in Bhutan predates the introduction of dzongs by Zhabdrung Ngawang
Namgyel in the 17th century, and can be traced back to as
early as the 12th century (Dept. of Works 1993, p.52).
Presently, very little is known about the form and functionof the pre-Zhabdrung dzongs. Therefore, this report aims
to compare and analyze the plan form typologies from theresults of the archaeological survey and documentation of
pre-Zhabdrung fortress ruins implemented under the
Bhutan-Swiss Archaeology Project with the Zhabdrung era
and contemporary dzongs to gain a better understandingof the dzongs of the country.
Comparison will be made with recent archaeologicalstudies by Meyer W. (2010) in “Bhutan-Swiss Archaeological
Project 2008-2010 Drapham Dzong, Bhutan 2010,
Excavation Result from Stage 3 (Autumn 2010)” on
Drapham Dzong ruin; and Bader et al. (2012) in The
Obtsho Dzong Ruin — Inventory and Documentation of a
Pre-Zhabdrung Dzong under Gasa Dzongkhag in Northern
Bhutan along with inventory and documentation; andBader C., Tobgay S., Kinga S. and Tenzin K. (2013) inChubjakha Dzong Ruin, Paro Dzongkhag, Kingdom of
Bhutan implemented under Phases I and II of the BhutanSwiss Archaeology Project. These sites are relevant for thepresent comparative analysis, not only because these twodzongs were built before the Zhabdrung-era dzongs, butalso because their ruined state has prevented them fromundergoing later interventions. Furthermore, comparison
will be carried out with the “Assessment Report,
Wangduephodrang Dzong Structures Post-June 24, 2012
Fire”, regarding a dzong built by Zhambdrung Ngawang
Namgyel. References to the available historical pictorialrecords and the present preserved state of other historicaldzongs of different eras will also be considered where
relevant, to further supplement understanding of thedzongs of different eras. Moreover, the sketches of Samuel

1

Davis drawn in 1783, photographs taken by John Claude
White in 1905, and the state of Wangduephodrang Dzong
before the fire in June 24, 2012 provide a general overview
of the state of the dzongs at different times to discern how
they have changed and evolved over time.
Basic information on the sitesa) Drapham Dzong ruins
The Drapham Dzong Archaeology Project was the firstever archaeology project executed in Bhutan under the
Bhutan-Swiss Archaeology Project, which spanned overthree years from 2008-2010. The Drapham Dzong (fortress)
ruins complex is situated in the Bumthang district inCentral Bhutan (Fig. 1). The scientific excavation of theruins resulted in a better understanding of the layout of themain fortress, which runs approximately 200 m long in anorth-south direction (Figs. 2 and 3). The main fortress is
supplemented with two fore fortresses built on lower
platforms. Oral accounts indicate that the fortress was thewinter residence of Choekhor Deb (leader of thecommunity) and is said to have been built in the 15th
century.
b) Chubjakha Dzong ruins
Chubjakha Dzong ruins are located on top of a hill
overlooking Paro Valley, a few kilometres above the Paro
National Museum (Figs. 1, 4, and 5). It falls within the
Hungrel gewog (block), Paro Dzongkhag district, Bhutan.
The site is at present connected with a farm road locatedsome 20 to 30 minutes’ drive from the Paro National
Museum.
Exact Location (Site Coordinates, Drukref 03)
E 194457.730
N 3034809.540
Altitude: 2878 m a.s.l.
According to “The Gem-Necklace of Short Biography of
Hungrel Dung Dung and His Descendants” by Sherab
Pelzang, the present Chubjakha site was earlier the seat of
Kunkhen Longchen Rabjampa, a Buddhist master of the
Nyingmapa sect or order of Tibetan Buddhism in the 14th
century, and the place was referred to as Chewakha,
meaning “area with a vast open sky” (Dargye 2013 p.10).
Furthermore, history reveals that Kunkhen Longchen
Rabjampa came to Bhutan in the 14th century to escapefrom the turmoil of Tibetan politics and established several
monastic seats across the country including Samtenling at
Paro (Phuntsho K. 2011 p.157; Penjore D. 2005 p.62). A
similar argument is made by Rinchen (2004), who suggeststhat Kunkhyen Longchen Rabjampa is said to have founded
Samtenling at the present Chubjakha site. These sources
confirm that the present Chubjakha Dzong ruins site was
the earlier seat of Kunkhen Longchen Rabjampa in the
14th century. The biography records that Kunkhen
Longchen Rabjampa’s seat (the present Chubjakha site)c) Obtsho Dzong ruins
The Obtsho Dzong ruins site under the Khatoed Gewog,
Gasa Dzongkhag is situated on the north-eastern flank ofa hill facing Gasa Dzong (Figs. 1 and 6). It is an hour’s
walk from the nearest road.
Site coordinates
E 219819.114
N 584527.893
The Obtsho Dzong ruins are said to have been the seat of
Obtsho Choeje offshoots. Even though not much is known
about Obtsho, history records that Obtsho Choeje was oneof the oldest choeje in Bhutan. The current Obtsho ruins
are believed to have been founded by DrupthobTerkhungpa
in the early 12th century AD. It was Obtsho Lama, adescendent of Obtsho Choeji, who invited Zhabdrungto
Bhutan in the 17th century. In Bhutan, the existing dzongs
were mostly built by Zhabdrung during his era (17thcentury) or built later. The pre-Zhabdrung dzongs aremostly in ruins and the Obtsho Dzong ruins are an example
of one of the pre-Zhadrung dzongs.
d) Wangduephodrang Dzong
Wangduephodrang Dzong is the third oldest dzong built
by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel in 1638. It is situated on
top of a hill overlooking the convergence of two rivers(Figs.1, 7 and 8)—the Punatsangchu flowing from the west
and the Dangchhu from the east.
The dzong is currently under reconstruction after a fire in2012. History records that the dzong was later extended by
the 4th temporal ruler (Desi) Gyalsay Tenzin Rabgye in
1683, and thereafter the dzong underwent several majorrenovations: in 1767 by Dzongzin Sonam Lhendrup, in
1837 after a fire, and in 1897 due to an earthquake. Several
minor renovations were carried out in 1952 during thereign of the second King Jigme Wangchuck and in 1983
during the reign of the fourth King Jigme Singye
Wangchuck.
Comparative analysis of plan form typologies of dzongs indifferent era
Wangduephodrang Dzong consisted of three distinct
courtyards arranged in a north to south orientation. Each
courtyard was enclosed by an elongated square andrectangular building built according to the profile of theterrain (Figs. 5 and 8). The first courtyard area housed
administrative offices, and the second and third courtyards
served as religious zones. Based on historical accounts andsite analysis, DCHS (2013, p.16) asserted that the third
courtyard area was the original fortress complex first built
by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel in 1638. Furthermore,
DCHS asserts that the first and second courtyard area wasbuilt by his successor Gyalsay Tenzin Rabgye in 1683, apost-Zhabdrung era development (Fig. 8). The original
fortress complex (third courtyard) built by Zhabdrung
Ngawang Namgyel consisted of the central rectangular
tower utse enclosed within a surrounding rectangularstructure known as the Shabkhor, with a congregation hall
known as the Kuenrey to the extreme south and a threestoreyed building that housed the shrines of the protective
deity known as Goenkhang to the north (Fig. 8). Thissurviving evidence suggests that the Zhabdrung-era
fortress complex was relatively small, and more importantly,
more or less equal to the scale of the main fortress complexof Chubjakha Dzong ruins (Fig. 5).

Bhutanwas later offered, at an unknown date (between 1400 and1503), to Drung Drung Gyalchog, who was at that time
residing at Yang-yen Dechenling just above the present
Chubjakha site. It is mentioned that once he took over thesite, Drung Drung Gyalchog renovated it and converted it
into his lower residence, with his earlier residence, Yangyen Dechenling, serving as his upper residence (Pelzang
2004).

The post-fire analysis of Wangduephodrang Dzong
suggests that most of the Shabkhor structures in the third
courtyard area were built at the same time as the utse, andthe rest of the complex was also completed in the
Zhabdrung era, with the exception of the eastern part of
the wall and two upper floors of the utse added during theextension work in 1683 (DCHS 2013 p.42). Examining thelayout of the third courtyard fortress complex indicatesthat it was a well-planned design, built according to the
profile of the terrain. This shows that the design of thefortress complex originally built by Zhabdrung included
the utse and the Shabkhor structures from the outset. In
contrast, at the Chubjakha Dzong ruins, the utse building
was built first and then the surrounding rectangularstructures and defence towers were added later to the utsebuilding since the walls of the surrounding structures are
not interconnected but rather about the walls of the utse
(Fig. 5). Drapham Dzong ruins provide a further example
of a two-phase complex. Meyer W (2010) argues that themain fortress complex was built in the first phase of
construction and the additional entrance side structures inthe second phase (Fig. 3). Furthermore, he asserts that thefirst structure to be built within the Phase 1 fortress was
the utse structure (Meyer 2010, p.163). The main fortresscomplex at the Drapham Dzong ruins is rectangular inplan, with an open courtyard at the centre enclosed by theutse building at the northern end of the fortress complex,
a watch tower at the southern end and two Shabkhor
wings on the eastern and western sides (ibid p.163). Thisevidence clearly shows that the courtyard concept for thebuilding of fortresses existed before the Zhabdrung-era
fortresses were built.
The courtyard concept plan is common in all the dzongs,
however, there are interesting differences between thelayouts of the Zhabdrung era fortress complexes comparedto the pre-Zhabdrung and some of the post Zhabdrungera
fortresses. In the fortress complex built by Zhabdrung in
Wangduephodrang (Fig. 7), and also in the present
preserved dzongs built during the Zhabdrung era (Figs. 10,
11 and 12), the utse structure is not only centrally locatedbut also isolated from the Shabkhor structures, leaving acircumambulatory space around it. This indicates thesignificance of the utse as a building that houses the main
temple in the dzong (MoWHS 2014, p.22). In contrast, inthe pre-Zhabdrung dzongs, such as in Chubjakha Dzong
ruins (Fig. 5), Drapham Dzong ruin (Fig. 2) and Obtsho
Dzong ruin (Fig. 6), the surrounding (Shabkhor) structures
built later were attached to the utse.

2

BhutanFurther contrasts are provided by some of the present
preserved post-Zhabdrung dzongs, where the utse
structures are located towards the edge of the fortresscomplex, and built attached to the surrounding structures.
For instance, at Lhuentse Dzong and Trashigang Dzong,both of which are said to have been built by the third
temporal ruler Minjur Tenpa in 1654 and 1659, respectively(Namgyel T et al. 2007), the utse are located at the edge ofthe fortress complex attached to the surrounding structures(Figs. 13 and 14). In case of the post-Zhabdrung dzongs, it
seems likely that the utse structure was built towards theedge of the fortress complex in order to form a hugecourtyard space for festivals and public gatherings. This is
one apparent reason why the Wangduephodrang Dzong
was later extended by Gyalsay Tenzin Rabgye in 1683 witha huge first courtyard space (Fig. 5), since the original
fortress complex built by Zhabdrung has very limited
space for public gatherings during festivals. The expansionof the space clearly indicates the rise in power andestablishment of the dual system of government thatfunctioned from the dzong.
Conclusion
Existing literature on dzongs in Bhutan largely relies andreflects on Zhabdrung-era dzongs as the model forunderstanding the architectural legacy today as a systemthat housed administrative and religious buildings.
However, the present study reveals that there is a level ofcontinuity and yet differences between the pre-Zhabdrung
dzongs and the Zhabdrung and post-Zhabdrung-era
dzongs. For instance, evidence related to the Chubjakha
Dzong ruins, Drapham Dzong ruins and Obtsho Dzong
ruins tells us that the pre-Zhabdrung dzongs had primarily
defensive and political functions, with the utse at thecentre of a defensive complex, accommodating theregional chieftains. Over time, additional defensive
structures were added, probably due to expansion of thelord’s household and increased control over the regions.
Gradually, this site, with the increase in the number ofpatrons and followers, became a regional centre forfestivals and other gatherings as social and religious
activities.
The arrival of Zhabdrung brought changes in the structureof the dzong system. He had appropriated and expanded
the already existing pre-Zhabdrung model of building
dzongs and had established an administrative and religious
centre, which is the legacy of these sites today. He hadretained the utse as a symbol of continuity and continued
to use similar architectural construction methods anddetails that already existed in the country. Later, Zhabdrung
and his successors expanded the administrative andreligious functions of these buildings, creating the typologythat endures to this day. This clearly shows us that thepresent surviving dzongs are a combination both of preZhabdrung era architecture and Zhabdrung’s vision of
their function from the 17th century onwards.
However, due to the absence of documentary evidence
and stratigraphic analysis on the development of thepresent surviving dzongs in Bhutan, the present study was
hugely constrained by the limited number of case studies

3

for comparative analysis. Therefore, there is still a gap in
our understanding of dzongs. However, on a positive note,
there is huge potential for research on the development ofdzongs in Bhutan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Published Works:
Bader, C., Tenzin K., Ishida, K., Wangda, P., Kinga S.,
Tenzin, S., Tsering, S., Dawa, Tashi, Wangchuuk, T.,
Tshering and Norbu, U. (2012) ‘The Obtsho Dzong Ruin Inventory and Documentation of a Pre-Zhabdrung Dzong
under Gasa Dzongkha in Northern Bhutan’ in DCHS (eds.)(2014), Heritage Sites Journal 3: Archaeology in Bhutan,
Bhutan, 243-286. Division for Conservation of Heritage
Sites.
Bader, C., Tobgay, S., Kinga, S., Tenzin, K. (2013)‘Chubjakha Dzong Ruin, Paro Dzongkhag, Kingdom of
Bhutan, The Investigations in 2013’ in DCHS (eds.) (2014),
Heritage Sites Journal 3: Archaeology in Bhutan, Bhutan,
303-324. Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites.
DCAH (Division for Conservation of Architectural Heritage)(2006a) ‘Architectural Heritage Journal 1’. Thimphu:
Kuensel Corporation Ltd.,DCAH (Division for Conservation of Architectural Heritage)(2006b). ‘Survey on Historical Monuments in
Wangduephodrang’, Royal Government of Bhutan.
Thimphu: Kuensel Corporation Ltd
DCHS (Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites) (2008).
‘Basic Guidelines for the Conservation of Heritage Sites in
Bhutan’, Bhutan, Division for Conservation of Heritage
Sites.
DCHS (Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites) (2013)‘Assessment Report, Wangduephodrang Dzong Structures
Post June 24, 2012 Fire’, Division for Conservation of
Heritage Sites
DCHS (Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites) (2014).
‘Heritage Sites Journal 3: Archaeology in Bhutan’, Bhutan,
Division for Conservation of Heritage sites.
Department of Works, Housing and Roads (1993). ‘An
Introduction to Traditional Architecture of Bhutan’,Thimphu: Royal Government of Bhutan. Dorji, S. (2004).
‘The short biography of Hungrel Drung Drung’. In theSpider and the Piglet. Thimphu: Centre for Bhutan Studies,2004. 21-50
Gedun, Rinchen. (2004). ‘Lhoi ‘Drung Chos ‘bung(Religious History of Bhutan)’, Thimphu, Kmt.
Hasrat, Bikrama Jit. History of Bhutan. Thimphu: Education
Dept., Bhutan, 1980. Print.
Meyer, W., Fischer, E. and Britschgi, J. (2007)’The BhutanSwiss Archaeological Project, The fortification Drapham
Dzong in Central Bhutan’ in DCHS (eds.) (2014), Heritage

Phuntsho, K. (2013). ‘The History of Bhutan’. India:
Random House. Print.

rin po che’i do shal (The Gem-Necklace of Short Biographyof Hungrel Dung Dung and His Descendants)’. Thimphu:
The Centre for Bhutan Studies.

BhutanSites Journal 3: Archaeology in Bhutan, Bhutan, 13-34.
Division for Conservation of Heritage Sites.

Dargye, Y. (2013). Chubjakha Dzong: A Forgotten Edifice.
Provisional draft. UnpublishedPrajna Shri Bhadra (Sherab Pelzang; 2004): ‘Hung ral
Drung-drung yab sras kyi rnam thar mdo tsam gleng bar

Fig. 1. Chronology of dzongs in Bhutan

Fig. 2. A plan of Drapham

Fig. 3. A view of Drapham Dzong ruins

4BhutanFig. 4. A Google Earth map showing the location of Chubjakha Dzong ruins

Fig. 5. A plan of Chubjakha Dzong ruins (Bader et al. 2013 p.307)

Fig. 6. A view and a plan of Obtsho Dzong ruins

5BhutanFig. 7. A location of Wangduephodrang Dzong

Fig. 8. Ground Plan of Wangduephodrang Dzong before the 2012 fire. The walls highlighted in pink are the walls preserved from 1638. Source: DCHS (2013 p.41)

Fig. 9. A view of Wangduephodrang Dzong before the 2012 fire. The walls highlighted in pink are the walls preserved from 1638. Source: DCHS (2016)

6

BhutanFig. 10. A view and a plan of Semtokha Dzong built by Zhabdrung Ngawang Namgyel in 1629. Source: MoWHS (2014)

Fig. 11. A view and a plan of Daga Trashi Yangtse Dzong built in 1651. Source: DCAH (2006)

Fig. 12. A view and a plan of Paro Dzong built in 1644. Source: DCAH (2006)

7

BhutanFig. 13. A view and a plan of Tashigang Dzong built in 1644. Source: DCAH (2006)

Fig. 14. A view of lhuentse Dzong. Source: DCAH (2006)

8

Kazakhstan
Kazakhstan

On the Issue of the Nomination of Certain Monuments to the UNESCO World Heritage List
Gulnaz Kulmaganbetova, Research AssistantKazarchaeology LLP
This year I will touch on one of the important topics —the nomination of the cultural heritage of our people
to the UNESCO Cultural Heritage List. Along with suchmajor steps of our state as the abandonment of nuclear
weapons and the closure of the landfills, Kazakhstan
seeks to integrate into the world structure as a country
with an ancient culture, and nominating the cultural
heritage of our people on the UNESCO List is one of thepriorities for the protection and promotion of antiquities.
Along with the monuments that are truly worthy of
nomination, there have been a number of hurriedly
included properties of historical and cultural heritage,requiring detailed study, interpretation and inclusion asproperties of serial nomination as part of the Silk Road.
In this year's report, I intend to describe the situation
with the Karamergen castle, which was nominated in2013 for the UNESCO World Heritage List. “The Silk
Road: the network of routes of the Chang'an-Tianshan
corridor” - among other Kazakhstani sites (the settlementsof Kayalyk, Talgar, Aktobe, Akyrtas, Kulan, Kostobe andOrnek). By itself, the nomination has many controversial
points.
First, the concept of the Silk Road is not a historicalconcept, but a term coined by Ferdinand von Richthofen
as a designation of trade routes between the East andthe West. This became possible after overcoming the
Takla Makan desert, which stretches from the east to thewest for a thousand kilometers, bounded on both sides
by impassable mountains, the ridges of the Pamirs andTanir-taga (Tien Shan). From the time of Alexander theGreat, the territory to the west of the Fergana Valley was
included in the territorial trade, and had cultural andpolitical relations with Persia and further to the West andancient contacts with India. The Silk Road originated after
Sogdian merchants were able to overcome the sands of
Takla Makan and discover the markets of ancient China.
Secondly, the northern and northwestern territories,
through the lands of nomadic peoples since ancient times,
were closed both by natural barriers and antagonistic
relations between sedentary and nomadic peoples. The
relationship between them was limited to mainly military
clashes. This is evidenced by the largest "artifact" —the Great Wall of China. It was built in the 3rd century
BC, long before the start of the Silk Road. This wall,stretching nearly nine thousand kilometers, built overcenturies, shows conclusively the relationship between
the two worlds — nomadic and settled. The way of life
and the image of the economy formed different worlds.
As with the invasion of Europe by the Huns, the nomads
gave rise to myths about cavalry warriors from Attila to
Genghis Khan.

9

The insufficiency of justification for the inclusion of
objects in the territory of Kazakhstan into the Silk Road
system will be considered using the example of one
object — the settlement of Karamergen, located in the
middle part of the territories of the nomadic peoples. Thisis, first of all, due to lack of knowledge of the monument— the monument cannot be dated or attributed to a
specific chronological period, let alone a full or partial
study to reveal its attribution to monuments on the routeof the Silk Road.
There are no references to the Karamergen in medieval
sources, while cities like Sairam (Ispijab) and Taraz (Talas)
were certainly included in the system of caravan roads,
and were described by ancient historians and travelers.
So medieval authors mention the existence of the Talasroad linking Ancient Taraz with the Fergana Valley andSamarkand. Geographical coordinates of the settlement of
Karamergen is N 46.254760, E 75.626026.
The facility is located in the delta of the river Ili, formedby three strategic channels. The settlement is located ina remote place, with the nearest small village Karaoy
located 107 km west of the monument. In the territory in
between there are no dwellings. The road is a dirt track,
often branching out due to natural barriers. This desert
territory is not even used for seasonal pastures, although
in antiquity it contained fertile places for winter campsof nomads with a developed nomadic economy. This isevidenced by the remains of settlements stretched along
the line of nomads from south to north and the remainsof extensive irrigation systems.
For inclusion in the World Heritage List, the object mustmeet one of the known criteria for determining thevalue of the monument. Our preliminary studies haveshown that the settlement represents the remains ofdestroyed fortress walls in the form of shafts of irregularquadrilateral shape with sides of about 120×110 m.
The inner part of the settlement is flat with no traces oflarge structures, which indicates the seasonal use of thesettlement.
In the corners and in the walls, there are elevations fromthe remains of the towers. Entrances to the settlement arearranged on the eastern and western sides in the form ofL-shaped structures. At one time, excavations were madeat the site from the inner side in the south-eastern part.
This is a very unclear small sub-rectangular excavation
with sides of about 6×4 m. Beside it, there are two small
pits in the territory (1×1 m). Another small excavation is
located on the outside of the south-west wall. Excavation
boundaries are heavily blurred and difficult to fix.
When inspecting the settlement, the impression wasthat the settlement was not inhabited, as there is noIt can be assumed that the settlement was of an earlier
time, and that the medieval pottery belongs to a latertime and is not connected with the settlement itself,
but to later buildings built on the outside of the shafts.
This is supported by the localization of fragments ofmedieval ceramics to the medieval buildings attached tothe southwestern and southeastern fortress walls. It ispremature to date the construction and existence of thesettlement. There are no traces of excavated structures atthe excavations. The excavations were not mothballed
and if there were remains of structures there, they were
not preserved.
As an example, one can cite a number of ancient sites
from ancient times located in the lower reaches of the
Syr Darya and Shu rivers, where medieval layers wereattached or layered to the ruins of early fortifications.
The monument is located on the southern shore of Lake
Balkhash, which stretches for hundreds of kilometersfrom east to west. The narrow isthmus in the central partof the lake is 28 km wide and I do not think it is possible
to assume that caravans crossed the lake by water sucha distance of the day path. A full assessment of themonument has not been carried out due to the small
excavations. Therefore, to talk about the time of existence
and its appointment as a city on the Silk Road has noscientific basis. The size of the fortification and the lackof cultural layers mean that it cannot be attributed to any
particular type of city or even caravanserai. The location,
absence of a significant cultural layer and structures inside
the fortress, is most likely evidence of its designation as a
winter post of the nomadic nobility.
The scientific side of the research in the dossier on
Karamergen is practically non-existent, and there are
no objects (except for the shafts of the settlement)
for research and subsequent preservation andmuseumfication. In general, the monument is located in aremote place and there is no infrastructure. The roads are
dangerous when driving unprepared off-road vehicles,
and other types of transport are not suitable here. In
addition to the inaccessibility, there is a health threat
because this territory belongs to the natural foci of theplague. The last epizootic of the plague took place herein 2009.
Of great importance is the fact that the creation of
infrastructure (in accordance with the requirements of
UNESCO and the tourism industry) in this hard-to-reachplace requires a large financial outlay (building a road inan empty desert, conducting research and conservation
and restoration works, building the necessary buildings,

carrying out anti-plague and anti-mosquito measures,
keeping staff in extreme conditions, etc.).
It should be noted that the weaknesses of this nomination
do not detract from the possibilities for our country in
nominating unique objects of history for inclusion on
the World Heritage List. In recent years, our country
has nominated the site of world-famous monuments,
museum-reserves in Turkestan, petroglyphs in Tamgaly,
the Necropolis Berel, the reserve-museum "Issyk" on thesite of the "Golden Warrior", Ulytau — an ancient reservezone where the monuments are located above the gravesof the eldest son of Genghis Khan, Dzhuchi, and thefounder of the Nogai Horde, Emir Edigei. Among theancient cities along with Turkestan, Taraz is a significant
monument of urban culture.

Kazakhstan

cultural layer inside the settlement. Fragments of pottery
were found along the southern and western walls of
the settlement from the outside. There are traces of later
constructions attached to the shafts (nomads' wintering),
and pottery fragments were also found at this place,while fragments of ceramics are practically absent in thearea of the settlement itself. The fragments of ceramics
are few in number and represented mainly by stucco"nomadic" early medieval ceramics.

Taraz is a city with two thousand years of history,
mentioned in many geographical and historical writingsof antiquity and the Middle Ages. Long-term studies of
the city showed that it had the correct, quarterly structure.
Among the finds there are unique jewelry and original
ceramics. Some finds have inscriptions in Turkic runics,
Arabic script, and Gupta and Sogdian letters. The traderelations of the city are illustrated by hundreds of coins,
including minted silver dirhems of Taraz, Tang coins,
Byzantine gold solids, gold dinars of the Samanids.
By nominating historical and cultural monuments for the
discovery of our country on a global scale, we should
not distort historical reality. It is necessary to present
authentic and unique objects and evidentiary facts about
them. We must strive to nominate objects that have beenstudied sufficiently and that are prepared for visitors. For
this, there must be the necessary infrastructure for thedevelopment of tourist routes.
The Silk Road, as a unique phenomenon in the historyof mankind, is relevant now. In 2013, PRC Chairman Xi
Jinping, speaking at Nazarbayev University in Astana, put
forward the concept of building the Silk Road Economic
Belt — a huge area of economic cooperation that would
extend from China to Europe. This modern concept aims
at economic, political and cultural cooperation, a revivalof the idea of the Silk Road.

The location of the settlement of Karamergen on the map

10Kazakhstan
The Karamergen aerial photo : the current state

11

Kyrgyzstan
Kunbolot Akmatov, Specialist / Museum Curator
Department of History, Archaeological-Ethnographical Museum-Laboratory, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University

Kyrgyzstan

The Mausoleum Kyok-Tash in Kyrgyzstan

Kubatbek Tabaldiev, Professor, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University
Alpaslan Ashyk, Associate Professor, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University
Kairat Belek, Assistant Professor, Kyrgyz-Turkish Manas University
In 2017-2018, an archaeological team of the KyrgyzTurkish Manas University (Bishkek) under the supervisionof Prof. Kubatbek Tabaldiev conducted excavations at the
Kyok-Tash site in the Kochkor region, Kyrgyzstan. The
excavations were carried out thanks to the financial
support of the Turkish Cooperation and Coordination
Agency (TIKA).
The Kyok-Tash site, which was later identified as amausoleum, is situated 3 km north-east from Kum-Dyobo
village, on the right bank of the irrigation canal built during
Soviet times. The exact geographical coordinates of thesite are N 42º14´22,7´´, E075º34´36.0´´. The mausoleum
was named after the location where it is situated, andwhere the blue-glazed ceramic fragments had been foundby local people.* The results of the excavations haveshown that the ceramic fragments are the remains of atable with short, triangular legs.
Originally, the Kyok-Tash mausoleum was accidentally
discovered by local residents in 1988, during theconstruction of the silage pit. Local officials and someacademicians were informed of the dis-covery, but due tothe lack of financial means, archaeological excavations
and conservation works have not been undertaken.

In 2010-2011, one of the residents of Ak-Zhar village,
situated about 3 km south-east of the site, car-ried out
illegal excavations in the precincts of the mausoleum.
Thanks to the media coverage, the looting sparked apublic outcry. However, as a result of the illegal
excavations, a big pile of earth mixed up with fired bricks
and two holes have appeared in the precincts of the site.
Moreover, parts of the dome and walls were apparently
destroyed during that illegal action (Fig. 1).
This fact prompted us to seek the necessary financial
resources to carry out rescue excavations and conservation.
In 2017, with support from the Turkish Cooperation and
Coordination Agency (TIKA) archaeological excavations at
the site were initiated. By September 2018, the works havepractically been completed. The Kyok-Tash mausoleum
was built with fired bricks using clay as mortar. The mainbuilding material comprised square bricks with sizes of
24.5×24.5×4.5 cm, 25×25×4-4.5 cm, 26.5×26.5×4.5 cm, and27×27×4.5 cm. Rectangular bricks with sizes of 13-14×2627×4-4.5 cm were also used to create bonds between the
brick rows.

Fig. 1. The location of the Kyok-Tash mausoleum. A view of the site before excavations.
―――――――――――――――――* The term Kyok-Tash (Кeк-Таш) is translated into English as “blue stone”.

12Kyrgyzstan

Several bricks were found with human and animal
footprints on their faces. Apparently, the foot-prints had
been made when the molded bricks were drying under thesun before firing them. These finds, along with overfired
bricks discovered at the site, indicate that the bricks weremade not far from the mausoleum’s location.

after the construction of the mausoleum. Only the upper
part of a human skeleton, probably female, was discoveredin the burial box. The skeleton had been moved from its
original interment location. The lower part of the skeleton
and a complete human skeleton, probably male, were
found outside the burial box, at the western wall of thesecond room.

The mausoleum consists of two rooms: one of them issmaller and rectangular shaped; the other one is larger andsquare shaped (Figs. 2 and 7). Its walls are oriented in the
cardinal directions. An arched entrance doorway is situatedin the center of the south wall of the first, rectangularroom. The rooms of the mausoleum are connected to eachother by an arched passage, which is partly preserved. The
second square room had apparently been covered with aspherical dome, of which only the bottom part is preserved.
The dome had rested on an octagon formed by the walls
and corner arches, i.e. squinches. The squinches wereformed by 16 arches, which were set one inside another,
gradually growing down into the corner (Fig. 3). The floorsof the rooms are paved with two layers of the fired bricks(Fig. 4). They are of the same sizes as those used in thewalls. However, in contrast with the wall bricks, the floor
bricks’ front faces and sides are polished smooth.

Shards of ceramic and glass vessels, animal bones,
fragments of the blue-glazed table, a silver coin,greenstones and plates made from these mineral and otherfinds were discovered in the course of ex-cavations at themausoleum. An in-depth study of the finds and thearchitecture of the mausoleum will be undertaken in thenear future, which should result in the presentation of amore precise date and other hypotheses. At this stage ofthe investigations, it is safe to say that the construction
date of the mausoleum fits in the chronological framework
between the 11th and 13th centuries AD. The monument
is the first known underground two-room mausoleum inthe territory of Kyrgyzstan. It is also unique for embodying
both archaic and novel architectural features, the in-depth
investigation of which will shed new light on the
beginnings and development of Islamic architecture in
medieval Kyrgyzstan.

The length of the mausoleum is 9.5 m. The interior of thefirst room measures 2.4×4 m. The exterior of the second
room is 6-6.3×6.3 m. The width of the walls is 50-55 cm.
The diameter of the dome (bottom part) is 5.2 m. In thenorthern half of the second room there is a burial box
elongated in an east-west direction. It was built byrectangular fired bricks using ganch (a mixture of gypsum
and clay) as a mortar and plastered inside and outside(Fig. 5). The burial box was partly destroyed too, apparently
as a result of looting, which probably happened not long

In accordance with the law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On theprotection and use of the historical-cultural heritage,”preventive conservation measures were implemented after
the conclusion of the 2017 excavations. A metallic shedwith side fences was constructed over the mausoleum toprotect it from the rain and to prevent illegal intrusions tothe site (Fig. 6). At the moment, discussions on conservation and museumification strategies are taking placein the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Kyrgyz
Republic.

Fig. 2. A view of the partly uncovered site. The upper part of the Kyok-Tash mausoleum.

13

Kyrgyzstan

Fig. 3. One of the squinches in the second room of the mausoleum.

Fig. 4. The floor of the first room of the Kyok-Tash mausoleum.

14

Kyrgyzstan
Fig. 5. The burial box of the Kyok-Tash mausoleum.

Fig. 6. The metallic shed over the Kyok-Tash mausoleum.

15

Fig. 7. A graphic plan of the Kyok-Tash mausoleum.

Malaysia
Malaysia

Conservation of the Flat Roofs at the National Mosque, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
A Ghafar Bin Ahmad, Professor
School of Housing, Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia

Regular inspections were carried out by all parties to ensure the quality of workmanship after the installation of glazed porcelain mosaics and the application ofwaterproofing coating on the flat roofs of the National Mosque.

Introduction
Built in 1965 at a cost of RM10 million (USD2.42 million),
the National Mosque (or Masjid Negara) is one ofSoutheast Asia’s largest mosques with a unique modern
design embodying contemporary expressions of traditional
Islamic art, calligraphy and orientation. Jointly designedby three architects of the Public Works Department (orJabatan Kerja Raya-JKR), namely Howard Ashley, Hisham
Albakri and Baharuddin Kassim, the National Mosquefeatures a 73-metre-high minaret and an 18-pointed starconcrete main roof reflecting an open umbrella, with thecap of the minaret resembling a folded one. The multifold umbrella-like roof symbolises a renewed awakening
and the aspirations of a newly-independent nation, as
Malaysia had gained her independence from the British
on 31st August 1957. Apart from the multi-fold umbrellalike roof, the National Mosque also has massive flat roofs
covering a total area of approximately 13,000m2. The
flat roofs accommodate many mosaic-finished domes,
mosaic-finished pyramid roofs, sunken roofs and skylightroofs. The differing designs of the roof types are rare andhardly found in any mosque design in the country.

The National Mosque boasts a large prayer hall that canaccommodate up to 15,000 worshipers at any one time,
especially for the Friday prayer. The main prayer hall issurrounded by a covered deep verandah which servesa dual function, that of an additional space for prayer
and also for cross-ventilation in response to the local
climatic conditions. The mosque complex also has amultipurpose hall, mausoleum, library and administration
office as well as open courtyards with reflecting pools
and water fountains. The mausoleum is reserved forthe tombs of national heroes of the country. Located on
a 13-acre landscaped garden near the Lake Garden in
the heart of Kuala Lumpur, the National Mosque is oneof the main tourist attractions in the capital city. Both
Muslims and non-Muslims alike are only allowed into themosque building wearing a modest attire of robes andheadscarves as a sense of submission, peace and respect.
The National Mosque underwent major renovation works
in 1987 including treatment of surface cracks and roof
leakage. However, the renovation works did not comply
with standard conservation principles and guidelines.

16Malaysia

Twenty years later in 2007, the National Mosque andits mausoleum were listed as a National Heritage under
the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645). Thirty years
after the last renovation works, the National Mosque is
now faced with several building defects and problems
including roof leakage, missing mosaics on domes andpyramid roofs, aging mechanical and electrical fittings,
and fading paint. The building also requires upgradingof the library, offices, floors, prayer halls, open courtyard
and toilets. In 2016-2017, a dilapidation survey report anda Conservation Management Plan (or Pelan Pengurusan
Pemuliharaan) were prepared by a local consultant
architect to determine and document the nature of
the building defects and conditions. The Conservation
Management Plan also identifies the heritage values ofthe building and outlines the proposed conservation
policies and strategies to protect its architectural andcultural significance. Both reports were submitted to the
Department of National Heritage (DNH), Malaysia forreview and endorsement.
In January 2016, the Government of Malaysia throughthe Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (orJabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia-JAKIM), Public Works
Department (JKR Malaysia and JKR Federal Territoryof Kuala Lumpur) and the Islamic Religious Councilof Federal Territory (or Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah
Persekutuan-MAIWP) had allocated an amount of
RM44,491,963 (USD10,678,071) to two local building
contractors to conserve the National Mosque in twoparcels. Parcel One, which was completed in July 2018,
involved treatment of the flat roofs including the mosaicfinished domes, mosaic-finished pyramid roofs, sunken
roofs and application of waterproofing coating at acontract value of RM9,299,963 (USD2,231,991). Parcel
Two involves upgrading and conservation works for the
library, administration office, prayer halls, floors, ceiling,
open courtyards, toilets, wiring, air-conditioning system,
and indoor and outdoor lighting. It also includes new
construction works such as covered walkways, a newelevator and an administration building. The contract
value of Parcel Two is RM35,192,000 (USD8,446,080) and
it is expected to be completed in July 2019. This article
focuses on the scope of works involved in Parcel One
which covers scientific tests on existing roof structures,
treatment of the flat roofs including the mosaic-finisheddomes, mosaic-finished pyramid roofs, sunken roofs andinstallation of waterproofing coating on the flat roofs.
Procedures and Principles of Roof Treatment
Similar to other National Heritage buildings listed under
the National Heritage Act 2005 (Act 645), conservationof the National Mosque is undertaken based on thebest practices of building conservation in the country
with regard to proper documentation and treatment inaccordance with the 2017 Guidelines on Heritage Building
Conservation published by the DNH. The Conservation
Management Plan prepared for the National Mosque in2017 is in accord with Section 46 of Act 645. A registeredbuilding conservator was engaged by the building
contractor in order to ensure that all conservation works
closely followed the said principles and guidelines as
outlined by the consultants and the DNH. All work

17

method statements and interventions including proposed
new mosaics, scientific studies, laboratory tests, roof
treatment and application of waterproofing coating wereprepared by the building conservator and duly approvedby the consultant architect and the DNH. Conservation of
the flat roofs at the National Mosque was based on thefollowing conservation principles;i.	To retain the authenticity and integrity of the domes,
pyramid roofs and sunken roofs.
ii.	To maintain the form and shape of the domes,
pyramid roofs and sunken roofs.
iii.	To minimise interventions to the building structuresand fabric.
iv.	To match the new mosaics with the existing mosaicfinished on the domes and pyramid roofs.
v.	To harmonise the new additions to the existingbuilding.
vi.	To conduct scientific studies and laboratory tests on
the roof structures and building materials.
vii.	To apply proven methods and techniques for theconservation of roofs.
viii.	To document and record the conditions of the roofs
before, during and after treatment.
Mosaic-finished Dome, Mosaic-finished Pyramid Roofs andSunken Roofs
As many as 95 mosaic-finished domes, 270 mosaicfinished pyramid roofs and 208 sunken roofs are erectedon the flat roofs of the National Mosque. Each roof
type measures 4 m×4 m at the base. The height of thedome is 1.8 m while the pyramid roof is 0.8 m from theflat roof level. The sunken roof is 1.3 m deep. These
domes, pyramid roofs and sunken roofs are made ofreinforced concrete with waterproofing, mosaics orprotective screed on the outer layers. Only the domes
and the pyramid roofs are finished with glazed porcelain
mosaics. Based on on-site structural investigation, thedomes consist of five layers while the pyramid roofs havethree layers including the reinforced concrete structureor substrate in the inner layer followed by waterproofing
coating, original glazed mosaics, tile adhesive and glazed
porcelain mosaics on the outer layers. During the earlier
renovation works carried out in 1987, the domes were
finished with new blue glazed porcelain mosaics and thepyramid roofs were finished with grey glazed porcelain
mosaics. Each glazed porcelain mosaic measures 19
mm×19 mm with a slightly convex-edged design. The
thickness of each glazed porcelain mosaic is 5 mm. Someof the ageing glazed porcelain mosaics on the domes
and pyramid roofs of the National Mosque were foundto be missing, detached, loosened or had fallen off. Thiscondition had caused water penetration, trapped moistureand roof leakage onto the prayer halls and other spaces
underneath the flat roofs. The existing waterproofing
coating had weathered away so much that it failed toprevent the roof leakage on the flat roofs. Thus, a newwaterproofing coating which has been proven to beefficient and long lasting was applied in the conservationof the flat roofs.
Scientific Studies and Laboratory Tests
It is essential to assess the nature and condition of thei.

Dilapidation Survey
The dilapidation survey was carried out to identify,
map out and outline the current condition, various
defects, distress, damage and deterioration of
the flat roof before the commencement of any
rectification work or development. The building
defects were recorded meticulously using detailed
photographic and digital documentation. It also
involved investigation of any modification works
carried out previously on the flat roofs. The
dilapidation survey report elaborated on the natureand extent of building defects, their causes andproposed conservation treatments. A thoroughinvestigation of the domes, pyramid roofs,
sunken roofs and flat roofs was carried out by theprofessional consultants and building conservator.
Non-destructive methods and equipment were used
to determine any defects, dampness or loose or
missing mosaics.

ii. Infrared Thermography
Infrared thermography (IRT) was used for the flat
roofs to investigate sub-surface anomalies andtrapped moisture. This non-destructive method isbased on the principle that any trapped moisture
below the wall surface finish can affect or change
the rate at which heat flows through the structure.
This is due to higher levels of thermal heat
capacity and thermal conductivity of moisture.
These changes in the heat flow can cause localised
differences in surface temperature. Thus, bymeasuring surface temperature under conditionsof heat flow, one can determine the location of
dampness and the likely path of water seepage. A
relatively high differential heat transfer between
the mediums (such as paint, moisture and trappedair) and the plaster must exist in order for the
anomalies to be detected by infrared thermography.
iii. Ground Penetrating Radar
Another non-destructive method used for the flat
roofs was ground penetrating radar (GPR). This

geophysical method uses radar pulses to produce
an image of the subsurface. It generally works on
the principle of reflective energy. A hand-held unit
consists of a transmitting antenna and a receiving
antenna for the energy. The transmitting antenna
sends out a diverging beam of electromagnetic
wave energy pulses in the range of 500 Mhz to
1 Ghz through a structure, while the receiving
antenna receives the reflected energy pulses frommaterials of different dielectric properties. The
received energy pulses are sent to a control unit,
where they will be processed and output on adisplay monitor in 2D or 3D mode. Such output candetermine the depth or pattern of reinforcement
and any embedment or possible moisture trapped
below any substrate.

Malaysia

roof structures and building materials as well as thecauses of the flat roof defects before determining thedesign and specifications of the roof treatments. Scientificstudies, laboratory tests and exploratory investigations
were all carried out meticulously and with great care inan effort to understand in detail the building condition,
defects and structural integrity. This stage of investigation,
testing and analysis is most important in order tominimise any intervention that could cause further
damage to the existing building structures. In this project,samples of building materials were taken on site and sent
to laboratories at Mapei Malaysia Sdn. Bhd. in Petaling
Jaya, Selangor; MAEK Consulting Pte. Ltd. in Singapore;and the Centre for Global Archaeological Research at
Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Penang. The results andfindings from the tests and investigations formed thebasis and justification for the conservation solutions andtreatments. Investigations of the flat roofs of the National
Mosque were carried out based on these non-destructive
approaches:

iv. Petrography
A petrographic test is a microscopic method
used to examine the mineralogical and chemical
characteristics of rocks or concrete samples.
These samples can be taken from lump samples
or cores. Samples of original mosaics and mortar
or plaster on the domes and pyramid roofs of the
National Mosque were extracted and subjected topetrographic testing to determine their compositionand condition such as type of binder, distributionof aggregates including shape and size distribution,pore characteristics, binder-aggregates interface orbond, secondary reaction, salt formation, cracks
and fissures. The petrographic testing was carriedout using a combination of different microscopy
from stereo zoom microscopes to digital
microscopes to a magnification of 500x on handand polished sections. Thin sections were preparedfor examination with a polarising and fluorescent
microscope (PFM) under transmitted and reflected
light.
v. X-Ray Florescence
X-ray florescence (XRF) testing is a non-destructive
analytical technique used to determine theelemental composition of building materials suchas concrete, plaster and mortar. It is a process
whereby electrons are displaced from their atomic
orbital position, releasing a burst of energy that ischaracteristic of a specific element. An XRF analyser
determines the chemistry of a sample by measuring
the fluorescent (or secondary) X-rays emitted froma sample when it is excited by a primary X-ray
source. Results from the XRF tests were very
important and useful to propose new building
materials on the flat roofs.
vi. Pull-off Adhesive Test on Mosaic Layer
In-situ pull-off adhesive tests were carried out on thedomes to determine the bond strength of "Kerapoxy"epoxy tile adhesive between the polyurea coating
surface and the existing mosaic layer. A pull-off
tester was used for the test and the bond value wasdetermined by taking the load at failure divided by
the dolly area which was adhered on the tile. The
average bond strength was 2.5 N/mm2 which was

18

Malaysia

acceptable. The failure mode was also observed
and it was found that all test specimens failed at theexisting substrate but not at the new epoxy adhesivebond interface. This indicated that the bonding
strength of the new epoxy adhesive was stronger
against the original substrate or structure.
Conservation Works
During the conservation of the flat roofs the National
Mosque, the building was divided into five zones. Zones
1 and 5 consisted of the covered verandah areas to thesouth and north. Zones 2, 3 and 4 comprised the main
prayer hall. The conservation of the flat roofs at the
National Mosque included the reinstallation of mosaics onthe domes and pyramid roofs, rehabilitation of substrate
and application of waterproofing coating on the flat
roofs. The National Mosque was open to the public,
including foreign tourists, throughout the construction
period. Religious activities and celebrations were held as
usual at the mosque including Friday prayer, breaking
fast and Tarawih prayer in the Muslim fasting month of
Ramadhan, as well as Eidul Fitri and Eidul Adha prayers.
The fact that the mosque remained open during theentire construction period posed a great challenge to thebuilding contractor and workers in terms of site security,
safety, cleanliness, noise pollution and site management.
Thus, on-site technical and site meetings among theconsultants, building contractors, government agencies
and the client were held regularly to ensure that the
project went smoothly and was completed as scheduled.
The conservation works of the flat roofs at the National
Mosque were carried out based on the following stages:
Stage 1: Preparation of Site
i. Provide temporary scaffold access to the rooftop
complete with security guardrail to avoid disturbing
the daily operation of the mosque and to disallow
access to unauthorised persons and the public.
ii. Provide temporary netting protection along theedge of the perimeter parapet wall against falling
objects during the surface preparation work.
iii. Provide temporary tents and canvas sheets toprotect the domes and pyramid roofs against direct
sunlight and heavy rain during the installation of
the new layer of glazed porcelain mosaics.
iv. Provide daily housekeeping to upkeep andmaintain the cleanliness and tidiness of themosque.
Stage 2: Reproduction of Glazed Porcelain Mosaics
i. Verify the quantity of new mosaics required.
ii. Determine the design and reproduce new glazed
porcelain mosaics based on the colour andcharacteristics of the original glazed porcelain
mosaics such as composition, shape, form, size,
thickness and type of surface.
iii. The new glazed porcelain mosaics were custommade to match the original as closely as possible,
and they were imported from Jingdezhen, the“Porcelain Capital”, in Jiangxi province, China.
iv. The new glazed porcelain mosaics were handledwith extra care. They were kept in a safe
warehouse in Kelang, Selangor upon arrival from19

China before being delivered on site in batches
during the installation stage.
Stage 3: Preparation of Mock-ups
i. Conduct mock-ups to verify the contractor’sability to install a given product in accordancewith the stated specifications. The mock-ups
could demonstrate the level of workmanship orconstructability of a component, and also form abenchmark for approval.
ii. The mock-ups on site provided the owner or
consultant with a means for comparison by which
to judge the acceptability of the installed work.
iii. The mock-ups also helped the owner or consultant
to determine the workability and acceptability ofthe proposed design.
Stage 4: Preparation of Surfaces
Preparation of surfaces was divided into two categories asfollows:
1. The mosaic-finished dome and pyramid roofs:
i. Entirely remove the outer-most or non-originallayer of glazed porcelain mosaics until the existingoriginal layer of waterproofing coating is foundby using an oscillating tool. The tool reduces thevibration and noise pollution to a minimum. It
provides the least level of disturbance or nuisanceto the public or the conduct of prayers inside themosque.
ii. Entirely remove the existing layer of waterproofing
coating until the original layer of glazed porcelain
mosaics is exposed by using an 11,000 psi highpressure hydro jet. Similar to an oscillating tool, thehydro jet provides the least degree of disturbanceor nuisance to the public or the conduct of prayers
inside the mosque.
iii. Any noticeable cracks in the dome or pyramidroofs to be grooved cut and sealed with epoxy
adhesive.
2. The flat roofs and sunken roofs with exposedwaterproofing coating layers:i. Entirely remove the existing waterproofing coating
layer from the top surface of the concrete until theconcrete is exposed by using an 11,000 psi highpressure hydro jet.
ii. Any noticeable cracks in the dome or pyramidroofs to be grooved cut and sealed with epoxy
adhesive.
Stage 5: Rehabilitation of Reinforced Concrete Structure or
Substratei. D e l a m i n a t e d c e m e n t i t i o u s b e d d i n g r e n d e r
underneath the mosaic finish for dome andpyramid roofs to be anchored mechanically into thereinforced concrete structure by using the “HelifixDryFix” stainless steel helical pinning system.
ii. Drill 6.5 mm-diameter pilot holes through thebedding render into the reinforced concrete
structure or substrate to a depth of 40 mm and at
450 mm intervals.
iii. Drive 8 mm-diameter “Helifix-Dryfix” stainless steel

Stage 6: Application of Waterproofing Coatingi. Apply a thin layer of “Primer SN” epoxy scratchcoat on the prepared surface in order to prepare
for the new waterproofing system.
ii. Spray 2 mm-thick “Purtop-1000” pure polyurea
waterproofing coating on the primed surface.
iii. The exposed pure polyurea coated area such as
the flat roofs and sunken roofs to be protected
and finished with “Mapecoat PU15” aliphatic UV
resistant polyurethane top coat.
Stage 7: Laying Glazed Porcelain Mosaics on Dome andPyramid Roofs
i. Ensure that the surface of domes and pyramid roofs
are clean, dry and free of any loose particles.
ii. Mix resin (Part A) and hardener (Part B) of“Kerapoxy” tile adhesive by using a drill mixer untila homogeneous and consistent colour is obtained.
iii. Spread the tile adhesive on the surfaces of domes
and pyramid roofs by using a notched trowel.
iv. Place the mosaic sheet firmly into the wet adhesive.
Push the mosaic back and forth to collapse themortar ridges in order to achieve maximum
coverage.
v. The arrangement and alignment of new mosaics
must follow or match the original ones.
vi. Remove excess mortar from the joint area andallow it to cure for at least one day.
vii. Mix “Keracolor FF” pointing or grouting mortar
with “Fugolastic” admixture.
viii. Fill the mosaic joints completely with the pointing
mortar by using a rubber float. Remove excess
grout from the surface while it is still fresh.
ix. While the grout loses its plasticity and becames
matt over a period of 10-20 minutes, clean theexcess grout with a damp sponge. Let it cure foranother 3 days.
x. A typical sequence for laying glazed porcelain
mosaics for domes and pyramid roofs is as follows:
1. Lay mosaics to form the ridge of the roof as control
lines (4 ridges).
2. Set the horizontal bottom line as a benchmark.
3. Set the vertical centre line and begin the first sheetof mosaics at the lowest centre point of the dome
or pyramid roof, working towards the left and right
until meeting the ridges at the ends.
4. Follow the sequence at the second tier of mosaics,
working upwards until reaching the top of the roof.
5. Trace and cut the mosaics to fill in the blank areas
along the vicinity of the ridges.
xi. A total of 13,482,953 new glazed porcelain mosaic

pieces were used to cover 5,302 m2 of
the surface areas of the domes and the pyramidroofs (2,553.6 m2 for the domes and 2,748.4 m2 forthe pyramid roofs).

Malaysia

helical pins through the pilot holes and into thereinforced concrete structure or substrate to secureand anchor the render mechanically.
iv. Any badly damaged or deteriorated render (onthe dome and pyramid roofs) or concrete topping(on the flat and sunken roofs) to be removed untilsound substrate is found.
v. Make good the render or concrete topping with
“Planitop G40SP” polymer modified cementitious
repair mortar, complete with “Planicrete SP” latex
bonding agent.

Conclusion
The conservation of the flat roofs at the National Mosquein Kuala Lumpur depicts an outstanding masterpieceof well-orchestrated efforts by all consultants, building
contractors and government agencies involved in the
project. The flat roof conservation project proved to bevery challenging because it involved different designs ofroof types, each requiring a different, specific approach.
The various stages of the roof conservation in Parcel One
and Parcel Two of the National Mosque also required
good coordination and communication among building
contractors, sub-contractors, building conservators andmaterial suppliers to ensure that the project logistics
and schedule were well-managed. It is crucial to engage
competent building conservators, consultants, local
experts and skilled workers to manage documentationand to undertake project execution efficiently since
the National Mosque is open to the public, religious
activities and tourists throughout the entire period of
the works for both Parcel One and Parcel Two. Detailed
research, scientific studies, laboratory tests and technicalmeetings were carried out at regular intervals to facilitate
coordination to ensure timely progress of the works. Nondestructive tests were adopted for the project in an effectto reduce the level of noise pollution, mainly to the usersof and visitors to the National Mosque. The tests would
also minimise any interventions to the building structureand fabric, hence retaining the authenticity and integrityof the domes, pyramid roofs and sunken roofs. Rainy
weather is a critical factor in the hot and humid climaticconditions in Malaysia. Therefore, temporary tents wereerected and canvas sheets were used to cover each dome
and pyramid roof during the mosaic installation stage
in order to protect them from direct sunlight and heavy
rain. The outsourcing of new glazed porcelain mosaics
from China also involved a meticulous technical process,particularly regarding the mosaic design, reproduction,
replication, delivery and coordination. Nonetheless,despite all these challenges, the flat roofs of the National
Mosque have been conserved and reinstated successfully.
It is hoped that the conservation of the flat roofs at
the National Mosque enhances public awareness insafeguarding the National Heritage buildings of Malaysia.
Acknowledgements
The author wishes to thank the Department of Islamic
Development Malaysia (JAKIM), Public Works Department(JKR Malaysia and JKR WPKL), Islamic Religious Councilof Federal Territory (MAIWP), Department of National
Heritage (JWN), Ir. Abdul Karim Mohammed, Noreza
Jusoh and Wan Jalaluddin Wan Mamat from MAIWP; Sr.
Dr. Robiah Abdul Rashid, Wan Norazimah Wan Kamal
and Nasarudin Sulaiman from JWN; Ar. Md Azahari Md
Atan, Arifanrahim Abdullah and Azmi Lop Ahmad from
Arkitek Md Azahari; Nurul Nadirah Ruslan from JY Cost
Plan Consultants; Dr. Hazman Hazumi and Norfaezah
Sanusi from Global Heritage Consultancy Sdn. Bhd., Ong
Siew Wei and Shahrullail Sulaiman from Fasa Struktur

20

Malaysia

Sdn Bhd.; D’Intan Trade Sdn. Bhd.; and the School of
Housing Building and Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia
for making this project and article possible.
References
Arkitek M. Azahari, (2017), Bangunan Masjid Negara:
Conservation Management Plan, Kuala Lumpur(unpublished).
Global Heritage Consultancy Sdn. Bhd, (2016), KerjaKerja Membaikpulih dan Menaiktaraf Masjid
Negara, Kuala Lumpur Fasa 2 (Reka dan Bina):
Penyediaan Conservation Management Plan Masjid
Negara (Powerpoint presentation) (unpublished).

Built in 1965, the National Mosque (or Masjid Negara ) features a 73 m-highminaret and an 18-pointed star concrete main roof reflecting an open
umbrella, while the cap of the minaret resembles a folded one.

Located on a 13-acre landscaped garden near the Lake Garden in theheart of Kuala Lumpur, the mosque complex has a massive flat roof areaof approximately 13,000 m2, prayer halls, a multipurpose hall, mausoleum,
library and administration office, as well as open courtyards with reflecting
pools and water fountains.

During the conservation of the flat roofs of the National Mosque, the building
was divided into five zones. Zones 1 and 5 consist of the covered verandah
areas in the south and north, whilst Zones 2, 3 and 4 comprise the main
prayer hall.

21

Global Heritage Consultancy Sdn. Bhd., (2017), Kerjakerja Membaikpulih dan Menaiktaraf Masjid
Negara: Heritage Impact Assessments, Kuala Lumpur(unpublished).
Hazman Hazumi, (2016), Baikpulih Bumbung Masjid
Negara: Laporan Kerosakan, Kuala Lumpur(unpublished).
Laman Web Rasmi Masjid Negara Malaysia, http://masjidnegara.gov.my/mn/, accessed on 20
September 2018.
National Mosque of Malaysia, https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/National_Mosque_of_Malaysia, accessed on 20
September 2018.

The flat roofs of the National Mosque accommodate mosaic-finished domes,
mosaic-finished pyramid roofs, sunken roofs and skylight roofs. Each roof
type measures 4 m×4 m at the base. The height of the dome is 1.8 m, thepyramid roof is 0.8 m and the sunken roof is 1.3 m deep.

The ageing top layer of glazed porcelain mosaics on the domes of the
National Mosque were found to be either missing, detached, loosened or
to have fallen off, exposing the old layer of waterproofing coating and theoriginal mosaics. This condition had caused water penetration, trappedmoisture and roof leakage onto the prayer halls and other spaces underneaththe flat roofs.

Similar to the domes, the glazed porcelain mosaics on the pyramid roofs were
found to be either missing, detached, loosened or to have fallen off, exposing
the old layer of waterproofing coating.

Malaysia

Results from the ground penetrating radar (GPR) scan on the domes revealed
that the thickness of concrete substrate or structure was 14 cm. The GPR
scanned image also showed the location of rebars and voids inside thedomes.
Based on on-site structural investigations, the domes consist of fivelayers while the sunken roofs have three layers including a reinforced
concrete structure or substrate in the inner layer. Each dome has layersof waterproofing coating, original glazed mosaics, tile adhesive and glazed
porcelain mosaics on the outer layers.

The pyramid roof has three layers including a reinforced concrete substrateor structure in the inner layer. Structural investigations showed that thepyramid roofs had building defects including cracks, damaged waterproofing
coating, and loosened or missing original glazed porcelain mosaics.

Infrared thermography (IRT) was used on the flat roofs to investigate subsurface anomalies and trapped moisture in the domes, pyramid roof andsunken roof. The cold spots in blue indicates trapped moisture, whilst the hot
spots in yellow are a sign of delamination or subsurface voids.

A ground penetrating radar (GPR) scanning device was placed on thedome surfaces to determine the depth or pattern of reinforcement andany embedment or possible moisture trapped underneath the substrate or
structure.

Samples of building materials from the domes including concrete substrateor structure were cored to examine the mineralogical and chemical
characteristics (petrography test); and also to determine the elemental
composition (X-ray florescence test).

In-situ pull-off adhesive tests were carried out on the dome to determine thebond strength of "Kerapoxy" epoxy tile adhesive between the polyurea coating
surface and the exisiting mosaic layer. The result showed that the averagebond strength was 2.5 N/mm2, which was acceptable.

An oscillating tool was used to carefully remove the outer-most or non-originallayer of glazed porcelain mosaics on the domes and pyramid roofs until theexisting original layer of waterproofing coating was found. The tool reduced
the vibration and noise pollution disturbing the public and the conduct ofprayers inside the mosque.

22Malaysia
Canvas sheets were used to cover the domes and pyramid roofs after theouter-most layer of glazed porcelain mosaics had been removed. This was toprotect the exposed surfaces from water penetration.

Equipment used to secure and anchor the reinforced concrete substrate or
structure of the domes and pyramid roofs, including a load tester, stainlesssteel DryFix tie-pins and pin drivers.

Temporary tents were erected to cover each dome and pyramid roof during
the mosaic installation stage in order to protect them from direct sunlight andheavy rain.
The dome after completion of work using the “Helifix-DryFix” stainless steel
helical pinning system.

Removal of the existing layer of waterproofing coating on domes by using an
11,000 psi high pressure hydro jet, revealing the original glazed porcelain
mosaic in blue.

Rehabilitation of the reinforced concrete structure or substrate of the domes
was carried out by driving 8 mm-diameter “Helifix-Dryfix” stainless steel
helical pins through the pilot holes and into the reinforced concrete structureor substrate.

23

The domes and pyramid roofs were primed with epoxy scratch coat after
application of the helical pinning system.

The spraying of 2 mm-thick polyurea waterproofing coating on the primed
surfaces of the domes and pyramid roofs.

Malaysia

The layering new glazed porcelain mosaics on domes begins with the firstsheet of mosaics at the lowest centre point of the dome or pyramid roof andworking towards the left and right until meeting the ridges at the ends.
The flat roofs of the National Mosque covered by polyurea waterproofing
coating.

New blue glazed porcelain mosaics for the domes and grey glazed porcelain
mosaics for the pyramid roofs that match the original mosaics. Each glazed
porcelain mosaic measures 19 mm×19 mm with a slightly convex-edged
design. The thickness of each glazed porcelain mosaic is 5 mm.

The domes and pyramid roofs of the National Mosque after the installation of
new glazed porcelain mosaics.

Spreading the tile adhesive on the surfaces of the dome by using a notchedtrowel before layering the sheet of glazed porcelain mosaics.
Upon completion, a total of 13,482,953 new glazed porcelain mosaic pieces
were used to cover 95 domes and 270 pyramid roofs on the flat roofs of the
National Mosque.

The installation of new glazed porcelain mosaics on the dome was carried out
from the bottom layer and working upwards.

An aerial view of the National Mosque with its newly conserved flat roofs.

24

Malaysia
The conservation of the flat roofs at the National Mosque represents an outstanding masterpiece of well-orchestrated efforts by all consultants, building
contractors and government agencies involved in the project.

25

NepalNepal

Saraswati Temple, Hanumandhoka Darbar Square
Sabina Tandukar, Architect
Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust
The temple of Saraswati, the goddess of knowledge andwisdom, is located adjacent to the octagonal Krishna
Temple of Hanumandhoka Darbar Square and dates
to approximately the 18th century CE. The temple isvenerated by people of all castes and sects (i.e., Shaiva,
Buddhist, Shakta and Vaishnava). The main festival isheld during Indrajatra while many devotees also throng
the temple during Saraswati puja for worship and prayer.
The single-story temple with a three-way sloped roof
stands on a double plinth. The main sanctum is a small
rectangular room accessed from the entry door in thefront. It is surrounded by a colonnaded ambulatory on
three sides. The centrally accessed sanctum has a carvedentry door. This is flanked by smaller doors with carved
architraves on either side, which leads to a small room
which might have been a storage space but remains
unused today. The sanctum has a stone idol of thegoddess Saraswati sitting on a stone jaladhara. There is a
total of eight carved timber posts in the outer ambulatory,
which, along with the sanctum walls, supports the upper
floor.
The temple, which was already in a bad condition due
to a long period of negligence and lack of maintenance,experienced major damage during the 2015 earthquake.
Although the temple did not collapse, a detailed
assessment of the temple was carried out to understandthe general condition of the various structural and nonstructural members of the temple. Due to the impact ofviolent shaking during the earthquake, the entire temple
was almost 100 mm out of plumb and tilting towards theeast.
The north-eastern corner of the lower plinth had
disintegrated and the brick wall together with the edge
stone had dislocated from its original position. The
ventilation provided between the plinth wall and thelakasi (lower timber tie beam) had been covered withbrick rubble in cement mortar. This had led to decay ofthe lakasi and possibly the sa (tenon) of the timber posts.
Such grave mistakes in the construction detail can have adamaging impact on the temple structure. All the timberposts needed preservation to make them suitable for
future reuse.
The upper floor joists spanning the outer ambulatory andsanctum rear wall had been damaged by wet rot due torising damp and the chukuls (wooden pegs) were absent
in most cases. The sanctum wall made of mud mortar had
been dislocated and was bulging out due to the impactof the violent shaking. Several diagonal cracks were seenin the sanctum wall. The main entry to the sanctum,
accessed from the front, was found to be slightly tilted
and several joinery connections had loosened and werealso decaying due to rising damp. The upper plinth floor,

most probably a raised timber floor, had been converted
into a herringbone pattern brick floor. The upper floor
as seen from below comprised random brick bat filling
and timber battens covered with a mud floor. The floor
seemed moist from below, which must have been due tothe rain water seepage coming in from the roof.
After accessing all the structural members, the technicalteam decided that it was necessary to rebuild the entire
temple rather than only going for partial restoration.
During the rebuilding and restoration of the temple, it
was ensured that the structural strength of the structure
was achieved without compromising the authenticity andembedded values of the temple.
The task of restoring the temple was carried out by
the Kathmandu Valley Preservation Trust (KVPT) in
collaboration with the Department of Archaeology. The
project was funded by the US Ambassador's Fund for
Cultural Preservation (AFCP). The restoration project
started in July 2017 and was completed in March 2018.
The demolition of the temple was carried out in a very
systematic way, by documenting all the elements thatwere being removed. Reusable materials like carved
timber, bricks, roof tiles, etc. were salvaged, cleaned
and stored properly for future reuse. After the complete
demolition, a 1m×1m control pit was excavated along thetemple plinth to check the condition of the foundation
wall. It revealed that the wall was in good condition andso no further interventions were carried out under the
ground. All the carved timber elements were cleaned with
soft brushes and clean water only and repaired by expert
craftsmen. The carved nina (upper timber tie beam), of
which only a few have been found in the valley was also
repaired and prepared for reuse.
The rebuilding saw the use of traditional techniques torebuild the temple. The plinth and sanctum walls wererebuilt in mud mortar using ma apa (traditional brick)and dachi apa (wedge-shaped traditional brick), andno brick bats were inserted inside the thick walls. The
timber posts and other timber elements were reinstalledin their original positions. The doors and windows werealso reinstalled in their original positions during therebuilding.
As for the roof, the old rafters were all damaged due towet rot and so all the members were replaced with new
ones. Timber planking covered the rafters, over whicha water proof layer was laid to minimize the impact
of water leakage through the roof. A thick mud bed
followed the waterproofing layer, over which roofing
mud tiles were laid. The three-way slope roof saw the
installation of a new copper pinnacle, as the original
pinnacle had been lost and during an earlier unscientific26Nepalrestoration, a brick pinnacle was created and plasteredwith lime only. After completion of the work, the site
fencing was removed, the site was cleaned, and all thedebris disposed of. The temple with its colonnaded
portico-like space is now being frequently used by the
locals.

Fig 1. A map of Kathmandu Darbar Square showing the position of Saraswati
Temple in red (The Physical Inventory of Kathmandu Valley).

Fig 4. A temple ground floor planFig 2. The east elevation of the temple. Raking shores are provided to support
the temple roof (2017-07-26).

Fig 3. The eastern view of the completed temple (2018-3-16).

27

Fig 5. The east-west section of the temple

NepalFig 9. A view of the temple after removal of the roof rafters. The inner
sanctum wall on the first-floor level can be seen (2017-08-27).

Fig 6. The principal elevation of the temple

Fig 10. Almost all of the floor joists on the first-floor level were decayed due towet rot (2017-08-29).

Fig 7. A view from north. The temple is attached to the boundary wall along
the western edge. The desolate rear garden and heavy vegetative growth andground moisture are taking its toll on the temple structure (2017-07-25).

Fig 8. Dhalin khva above the nina are in a critical state due to a long periodof exposure to wet rot. The faces carved in dhalin khva are not recognizable.
The corner post and meth are dislocated (2017-07-25).

Fig 11. Wet cleaning of the door frame using a soft brush and plain water(2017-10-11).

28

NepalFig 12. A new timber added to the lion base of the main door threshold being
carved. The details are as per the originals (2017-10-26).

Fig 15. Carpenters laying the roof rafters (2018-1-31).

Fig 13. Installing the main sanctum door in its proper position. Such carved
doors are assembled from many complex smaller carved members which arecorrectly put together by master carvers (2017-11-7).

Fig 14. The Saraswati Temple beam (Nina ) before and after cleaning on October 30, 2017 and November 5, 2017.

29

New Zealand
Matthew Schmidt, Senior Archaeologist Tuakana Poutairangahia Otago/Southland
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga
Introduction
Larnach Castle, named after its builder and owner
William Larnach, is located on a high point on the Otago
Peninsula and it is New Zealand’s only genuine castle(Figures 1 and 2). The castle was built between 1871 and1874 and its elevated location meant that Larnach and his
family had majestic views of Dunedin, its harbour and thePeninsula. The wider estate also provided an extensive
area to create gardens and plant trees to compliment the
castle. After Larnach’s death in 1898, the castle changed

New ZealandLarnach Castle Fernery: Restoration of an Early 20th Century Fernery

ownership a number of times with these changes also
reflecting the castles decline until it was purchased by
the Barker family in 1967 and brought back to its former
grandeur. This paper looks at just one small feature of the
Larnach Castle estate, this being the 1927-28 fernery built
by one of the castles previous owners and how with thehelp of the Director of the Castle, Norcombe Barker, andvolunteers including student archaeologists, this feature is
being brought back to life.

Figure 1. The location of Larnach Castle on the Otago Peninsula, Dunedin, New Zealand.

A brief history of William Larnach & his Castle – 1874 to
1898: From riches to ruin
William Larnach (b. 1833, d. 1898) was a wealthy andinfluential man and as a banker he invested in shipping,farming, and land on the Peninsula and in other areas of
Otago (Figures 3 & 4). His influence was not just limited
to his business interests as for 25 years he was a Memberof Parliament including becoming a Cabinet Minister.
To compliment the huge cost of building a very large
34 room stone castle in an isolated location (Figure 5),
Larnach spent lavishly on the interiors of his castle using
only the best materials to embellishment the rooms withexpensive furniture, wares, fixtures and fittings. The
gardens were also lavish and consisted of a kauri timber
entranceway, glass houses, a vinery, pergolas, a raised
Italian garden, fish pond and a wishing well (see Williams

2013:29). Larnach’s wider estate (913 acres) was farmland
where Larnach illustrated to all his love for horses whereby the 1880s he kept fifty-eight (Williams 2013:31).
Associated with the castle were other important buildings
required to run the estate such as a cow byre, forge
house, poultry, piggery and goat houses plus workers
cottages, a coachmen’s house, residential laundry etc(see Williams 2013:31). On 10 December 1874 Larnachand his family moved into the completed castle (referred
to by Larnach as ‘The Camp’), with much fanfare which
included monkeys and Llamas imported for children’s
entertainment.
The years that followed wavered from happy family life
to sadness and hard times with the family at times being
spilt up between England, Dunedin City and the castle,

30

New Zealandand Larnach’s business interests faltering. Tragedy struck
the family in 1898 when Larnach committed suicide in his
office at Parliament in Wellington. His suicide is believed
to have been driven by a failure of his speculative
investments but other factors such as the death of two of
his wives and a daughter may have become too much foreven this successful man bear.
The Castle after Larnach: From decay to restoration
Williams (2013:37-49) in his Conservation Plan for Larnach
Castle provides a detailed history of the castle and its land
after the death of Larnach. It is only summarised briefly
here. The castle estate was put up for sale soon after
Larnach’s death with the farm land associated subdivided
in 1900 into 18 Lots (Figures 6 & 7). Seventeen Lotsof land sold off quite easily as did the castle contents,
including some fixtures and fittings, but not Lot 18
consisting of the castle itself and its remaining 35 acres.
It was not until 1906 that the castle with remaining land
was purchased by the Crown for use as an asylum (Figure8). From 1907 to 1918 the castle was home to 40 ‘well
behaved’ lunatic asylum patients. From 1918 to 1927, theCrown installed a caretaker into the castle who reported
ongoing vandalism and theft at the castle but the building
was still used during this time as a tourist destination andfor social events such as cabarets.
In 1927, the Purdie’s purchased the castle and owned
it until 1940. It was during this ownership that new life
was breathed into the castle and its gardens. Various
buildings were repaired and made water tight, electricity
installed in the castle, a modern kitchen built and repairs
made to the ground veranda. Extensive work wasundertaken on reinstating the castle gardens in mostly
Victorian style. The works included building the biggest
rock garden in New Zealand at that time, installing amarble fountain as well as a cupola with the glass dome
taken from the saloon of the wreck of the Paloona in
1928 before it sunk. The castle was opened for social
events with Mrs Purdie displaying her antiques collectionin the rooms for sale. It was at this time that the Fernery
was built (see below). Mr Purdie wished to retain the

castle and continue to restore it, but for health reasons he
had to sell it. In 1940, AF Armstrong purchased the castle
and land and he quickly sold it on to a Mrs Stedman in
1941. Mrs Stedman retained ownership until 1959 andduring this time the castle was used for public visitation,
as a tourist venue and occasionally for conferences. From1941 to about 1945 the castle housed 80 US Army Signal
Corps servicemen. In 1959, Clarissa Empson purchased
the castle and opened the property infrequently for
public visits.
In 1967 the castle was sold to Margaret and Barry Barker
and the Barker family have been the owners ever since.
By this time the castle and the grounds were run down,
the castle was leaking and vegetation had taken holdof the property. Much of the work by the Purdie’s had
become undone. The success of the Barker family inrestoring the castle and its grounds to their former glory
was due to their vision for the castle when they brought
the property. Their vision was to create a home andtourist destination where the income from the tourists
and visitors would be funnelled straight back into therestoration and ongoing management of the castle andits gardens in a manner where these restoration works
would be undertaken to the highest quality and using
best practice heritage techniques. Visitors to the property
would therefore see over the preceding years tangible
changes to the castle and its grounds which would inturn make the castle a prime destination for tourists to
Dunedin and not a side-line visitor experience.
Williams (2013:45) notes that in 1967 the castle had about
10,000 visitors a year, by 1977 the Barkers had increased
this to 40,000 per year (Figure 10) and in 2017 visitor
numbers reached 135,000 (where the city of Dunedin has
a population of only 127,000). The restoration work wasundertaken and managed initially by the Margaret andBarry Barker and later involved their two children who
were born and lived in the castle during the challenging
early years. With more income, specialists were hired tocomplete the more specialist restoration works. Margaret
Barker also hunted for many years for original pieces of

Figure 2. Larnach Castle as it is today restored by the Barker family (Photo used with permission from Larnach Castle Ltd, Dunedin).

31

The Fernery: History and 2018 conservation works
Little is known about the Fernery other than it was built
by the Purdie’s possibly around 1927-28. It is believedthat the glass roof of the fernery was possibly from thewreck of the Paloona and was recovered at the same timeas the glass for the cupola. The original glass setting wasbarrel shaped and so the timber framing of the fernery
was long and curved to accommodate this (Margaret
Barker pers comm, 1 November 2018). Ferneries were
all the fashion during the Victorian period from about
the 1830s onwards and this continued into the 1930s.
Construction of a fernery was apt to the Victorian styleof garden which the Purdie’s established on the estate(Figures 11 & 12).
During a visit to the fernery by me and Norcombe Barker
in 2017, it was decided that as the fernery lay next toa main path to the castle, it should be made feature of
the path and managed as a hidden forest ruin with ferns
re-established and interpretation installed, rather thancompletely restored as a heritage building. People could
then ‘discover’ and explore the ruin and learn of its
history in a less formal manner.
In Figures 13 to 16 can be seen the fernery before the firststage of the conservation works to remove the extensive
vegetation commenced in April 2018. As can be seen,
the fernery had been engulfed by decades of vegetation
growth. In one location a tree had fallen through a walland no discernible interior features could be seen otherthan piles of rock in the corners. It was unknown if thefernery had a floor or not.

On 28 & 29 of April 2018, the first stage of vegetation
removal was intended to begin, but due to torrential
rain, the work was limited to only the 29th of April. By
the end of the day, the size of the structure and how thewalls and entranceway had been constructed could beseen (Figures 17 to 25). The fernery measured ca. 8m/5m
and had basalt stone walls about ca. 1m high sitting ona good quality strip concrete foundation (Figures 20 &21). The walls were built of basalt stone rubble using a
combination of dry-stacking with some sections of thewall also cement mortared. The stones used were dressed
resulting in nice and clean straight walls. Stone slabs
were used to create steps up to the fernery doorway,
and a small garden area could be seen on either side ofthe doorway (Figure 22). The surviving doorway pillars
were made of Oamaru stone possibly originating from ademolished building on the estate (Margaret Barker pers
comm, 29 April 2018).

New Zealandfurniture, fixtures and fittings from the castle which she
was very successful at recovering. Today the castle andgrounds are on the exclusive New Zealand Government
New Zealand Landmarks Whenua Tohunga list which
promotes and encourages people to visit New Zealand’s
historically and culturally important places.

Although the interior of the fernery was still covered
in soil and leaf litter, stonework relating to structures
could be seen which appeared to be central and corner
garden features, and water pipework could also be seen
leading from the outside of the fernery to inside thedoorway (Figures 23 & 24). On digging test pits in theinterior of the fernery, it was found that at about 30cm
beneath the topsoil, a floor was present. This floor was
yellow in colour and initially appeared to be made ofAustralian sandstone pavers (Figure 25). The 29 April
2018 vegetation clearance showed that the fernery had
clearly been planned and designed carefully with a great
investment of time and resources by the Purdie’s.
On the 26th of August 2018 a large team of volunteers
assembled at the fernery to continue to remove
vegetation from the inside and outside of the structureand excavate the soil fill from the interior (Figures 26
to 29). An extensive amount of smaller vegetation and

Figure 3. A photograph of William Larnach takenFigure 4. A photograph of William Larnach and family taken in 1878 by Bradley & Rulofson of San Francisco
in 1878 by Bradley & Rulofson of San Francisco(Source: Wikipedia commons).
(Source: Wikipedia commons).

32

New Zealandintrusive roots was removed from the stonework andthe excavation of the deep soil layer from the interior
uncovered the layout of the fernery in more detail (Figure
30 to 33). The work found that the fernery had at its
centre a stone structure, which would have originallybeen planted with ferns, with a pond located in the
middle. This pond had a cement lining which still had its
blue/green painted colouring. The pond had a runningwater supply originating from an inlet through the backwall which supplied water via a stone channel (Figure31). It was also found that the water pipe noted in April
led to the pond. This pipe may have supplied a fountainin the middle of the pond. More excavation of this central
area will confirm these observations.

the decorative nature of the fernery. This is a pair ofsmall boots made of cement (Figure 36). The boots wereclearly part of a small statuette to adorn the entranceway,
perhaps a gnome or other Victorian garden character.

At each corner of fernery was stonework which wasraised probably to provide a cascade of fern plantings
and along the back and side walls of the fernery wereraised stone lined growing areas (Figure 32). The collapseof the wall on the left side of the fernery was obscuring
the raised area on that side. The floor of the fernery was
intact and the bright sandstone path continued all theway around the interior. Currently, the floor is too stainedwith mud to confirm the use of pavers. Few artefacts
were found during the excavation and this consisted
mainly of mid to late 20th century pieces of wire andbeer bottles. A few fragments of plate window glass
were found but so little of it was present it is difficult
to ascertain if this came from the fernery roof structure.
Mr Purdie is believed to have shot the glass roof anddestroyed it (Margaret Barker pers comm, 1 November2018). A very small feature on top of the right Oamaru
stone pillar by the entranceway provided a clue as to

Acknowledgements
My thanks to Norcombe Barker, Director of Larnach
Castle Limited, for access to the fernery and partneringin the vegetation removal and excavation. This project
could not have been undertaken without the volunteers
consisting of castle staff, the Oskam-Schmidt and Barker
children, Denise & Keith Anderson, Shar Briden, theOtago University Anthropological Society, Athol Parks
and Janny Sjåholm. My thanks to Margaret Barker forher knowledge about the history of the castle estate andMargaret and the late Barry Barker for their vision to
restore this iconic heritage destination.

Conclusions
The next stage of works to be undertaken on the fernery
will involve completing the excavation of the interiorof the site plus remove fill which has built up aroundthe outside foundations. After this, the collapsed walls
will be rebuilt as will any interior stonework needing
repair. The stonework and the floor of the fernery willthen be cleaned. Finally, new ferns will be planted andinterpretation installed on the site.

References
Williams, Guy. 2013. Larnach Castle Conservation Plan,
August 2013. Prepared for Larnach Castle Limited.
Larnach Castle website: https://www.larnachcastle.co.nz/

Figure 5. Larnach Castle, also known as ‘The Camp’, photographed possibly in the 1880s by Frank Coxhead. (Source: mtg
Hawke’s Bay ref: 48/75, 1213, Album 7, 80067. Gifted to mtg by Mr McCormack).

33

New ZealandFigure 6. Subdivision plan from 1900 for the sale of Larnach’s Camp Estateshowing the 18 Lots.

Figure 7. Crop of 1900 subdivision plan of Larnach’s Camp Estate showing
Lot 18 – the Castle and 35 acres.

Figure 8. The Castle in 1906 when it was used as an asylum (Source: ref. MA_I024736_TePapa).

34

New ZealandFigure 9. 1947 aerial photograph of Larnach Castle taken by Whites Aviation(Source: Ref: WA-10670-F. Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New
Zealand. /records/22777584).
Figure 10. Larnach Castle in about 1972 (image courtesy of the Barker
family).

35

Figure 11. Dunedin Botanic Gardens Fernery in 1926 (Source: Alexander
Turnbull Library, by Albert Percy Godber APG-1935-12-G).

Figure 12. Fernery from an unknown location in Christchurch taken between
1880 & 1920 by Steffano Webb Photographic Studio, Christchurch (Source:
Alexander Turnbull Library ref 1-1-009689-G).

Figure 13. Fernery entranceway before vegetation clearance (Photo: Matthew
Schmidt).

Figure 14. View of an exterior stone wall of the fernery looking into its interior
before vegetation clearance (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

New ZealandFigure 15. Damage to a wall from a collapsed tree (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 16. The interior of the fernery with an overgrown corner stone feature(Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 17. Norcombe Barker chain sawing trees from the fernery interior,vegetation clearance on 29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 18. The outside wall as shown in figure 14 exposed after vegetation
removed on 29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 19. More of the fernery uncovered after initial vegetation removal on
29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 20. The nature and extent of the fernery revealed at the end ofvegetation clearance on 29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

36

New Zealand37

Figure 21. The strip concrete foundation onto which the stone rough stones
walls were built, 29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 22. The entranceway with its stone slab steps and side gardens, 29
April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 23. Interior features could be seen after the first stage of works on thefernery such as a stone piles used for growing cascading ferns built in theinside corners of the fernery, 29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 24. Water pipework coming into the fernery from an exterior water
source (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 25. A test pit dug in the interior of the fernery showing what maybe
sandstone paving, 29 April 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 26. Volunteers photographed before the second stage of works to
excavate the fernery 26 August 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

New ZealandFigure 27. Volunteers excavating the fernery, 26 August 2018 (Photo:
Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 28. Volunteers excavating the fernery – archaeologists Shar Briden(left) and Erica Oskam-Schmidt (right), 26 August 2018 (Photo: Matthew
Schmidt).

Figure 29. Volunteers excavating the fernery –Athol Parks of City Walks (aheritage guide) (left) and Norcombe Barker, Director of Larnach Castle Ltd(right), 26 August 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 30. The fernery after the 26 August 2018 excavation showing thelayout of the structure. The entranceway is in the background, the pond in thecentre and the path leading part way round the fernery interior, 26 August
2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 31. View from the back wall of the fernery where the water source
comes through the back wall, along a stone channel and into the central
pond. The source of the water has yet to be determined, 26 August 2018
(Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 32. The excavated path and the terraced growing areas on the left
side of the fernery looking towards the entrance. The path is muddy hence
hiding the bright yellow sandstone floor. The left and right corners of theinterior have piles of stones possibly used for cascading fern plantings, 26
August 2018 (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

38

New ZealandFigure 33. View of the fernery from the entranceway showing the layout andcollapsed back wall and left wall. The water pipe coming into the fernery
from outside and leading to the pond can be seen, 26 August 2018 (Photo:
Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 34. The water supply pipe seen in Figure 33, 26 August 2018 (Photo:
Matthew Schmidt).

Figure 35. The entranceway steps and side gardens cleaned up, 26 August
2018, (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

39

Figure 36. Small concrete boots from a missing statuette which used to be
on top of the Oamaru stone entranceway pillars (Photo: Matthew Schmidt).

Solomon Islands
Grinta Ale’eke, Field Archaeologist
Solomon Islands National Museum, Ministry of Culture and Tourism
Introduction
Sikopo Island is located in Manning Strait between the
two large islands that make up Choiseul and Isabel
Province in the Solomon Islands, as shown in Figure 1.
This island is part of a marine conservation area called
the Arnavon Community Marine Conservation Area
(ACMCA), which was established in 1993. It has importantarchaeological sites on it and three types were identified
during a 2014 survey by Richard Walter and Oswald
Alesasa in August 2014. The three types are the shrines

Solomon Islands

Archaeological Excavation Site on Sikopo Island, Arnavon Islands, Solomon Islands

for rituals or religious sites; the artefact zone which
has midden shells, pottery and worked Tridacna shells;
and the rock shelter comprising a cave that contains
evidence of human occupation. The archaeological work,
comprising a survey of the sites, continued in 2016, withcollaboration between the University of Otago, New
Zealand and the Solomon Islands National Museum. In
2017, archaeological excavation work was carried out by
the research team, the first time that an excavation had
been done in this cultural area.

SikopoFigure 1. The location of Sikopo Island and the Arnavon Island group. (Source: Richard Walter, 2014 )Figure 2. Preparing and cleaning the excavation site40

Solomon Islands

Figure 3 shows Layer 1, Spit 2. This contains dark, friablesoil and many Trochus middens are heaped in one place.
These Trochus middens were counted and recorded as
found in Layer 1, Spit 2 - 20 cm below the surface ofthe soil. There are about 275 Trochus shells and other
Tridacna shells of different species. They are foundfurther away from the coral outcrop and heaped in one
area. Large roots are seen as one of the disturbances inthis area in the upper level. Some trochuses are burnt,
which is evidence of the trochus shells being placed overa cooking fire.
Figure 4 shows Layer 1, Spit 3 - 30 cm. About 42 Trochus
shells have been counted in this level. There are about
15 Giant Clamshell Tridacna specimens among different
species. Some Trochus shells are burnt and others are
partially damaged
Figure 5 shows the Layers and Spits that have been
excavated about 90 cm. It shows the cross section of thestratigraphy of a wall. Layer 2 consists of light brown soiland Layer 3 is white sandy soil and is a natural layer. It
has no cultural material. The two mounds of soil shown
are mixed with ash and charcoal and are very compact.
Figure 4 indicates the Eastern Section of Sikopo. Someof the artefacts are disturbed by tree roots. From the
excavation shown in Figure 2-6, it is evident that this isa site that people used long ago as a cooking place near
the coral outcrop. This is shown by the burnt Trochus
and the charcoal that have been found.

Strait, the artefact types that were found on the surfaceof the excavated area are shell samples, armlet fragments
and pottery. The raw materials that were found are coral,shell and ceramics. Also, the depth of the excavated areafrom the upper layer to the bottom layer was about 90
cm. The raw materials that were found are faunal remains,stone and ceramics. The artefact/ecofact types are bird
and fish bones, shells, coral, pottery and charcoal. All theartefact/ecofact types indicate what people ate and thethings they did. These people ate a lot of Trochus as partof their main diet, which is shown in the excavated area.
These are the human activities they were engaged in andthe behaviour they displayed.
Conclusion
The archaeological excavation of Sikopo Island has
revealed many Trochus shells and other shells from thesea. It indicates what people ate and how they lived
long ago. The archaeological excavation site is near therock shelter and it is possible that this excavation area
is a place that people used as a kitchen because thereis evidence of charcoal mixed in with the soil. Thisarchaeological site is conserved and protected. There areno people living in this area, although those who visit
the place must be careful not to trample on the artefacts
scattered on the surface.
References
Radclyffe, C. Eastern Section—Sikopo, 2018.
Walter, R. Archaeological Vulnerability Assessment—
Sikopo Island, Arnavon Island Group, Solomon Islands,
8th December 2014.

On Sikopo Island, part of the Arnavon Islands in Manning

Figure 3. Layer 1, Spit 2-20cm

41

Solomon Islands

Figure 4. Layer 1, Spit 3 - 30 cm

Figure 5. Layer 1, Spit 5 - 50 cm; Layer 2, Spit 6 - 80 cm; Layer 3, Spit 6 - 90 cm

G

0
0
0.2
0.4

1

H

2

I

3m

1a
Shell 'Heap'

1b

1c
Possible Floor Surface

0.6
0.8
m

2

3

KEY
1 a. Brown-black topsoil, loose and friable in consistency.
b. Continuation of brown-black soil but more gravel-like in consistency due to a higher concentration of coraland shell fragments. Contained dense clusters of burnt Trochus shells and Tridacna valves that appeared
as discarded shell ‘heaps’.
c. Dark, almost charcoal black, soil intermixed with fragmented coral, shell and more abundant in charcoal
than the upper contexts. Contained possible floor surface and, at at the same depth, several clusters ofburnt shell and charcoal some of which appeared as fire scoops.

Coral

Pearl

Tree root

P. clathrata

Trochus

LambisTridacna

Pottery

Conus

Obsidian

Cowrie2. Thin layer of light brown, friable to loose soil containing mostly fragmented coral and shell.
3. Base layer of white, fine marine sand containing shell, fish, bird, turtle and crab remains which were bleachwhite in colour and predominantly undamaged.

Figure 6. Eastern Section - Sikopo (Source: Charles Radclyffe, 2017)42

Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan

The Experience of Conservation of a Fragment of Wall Painting from Balalyk-tepa
Akmaljon Ulmasov, Leader Specialist/ PhD on Architecture
Fine Arts Institute, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan
Introduction
The wall paintings of Balalyk-tepa (from Uzbek balalyk– childhood and tepa – hill) are collectively one of
the most magnificent examples of the monuments ofculture and art of the peoples of Central Asia in the early
middle ages. They were discovered in 1953-1955 during
the archaeological excavations at the archeological site
Balalyk-tepa by an expedition headed by L.I. Albaum.
The monument is located in the Angor district of the
Surkhandarya region, 2 km east of the road from Termez
to Angor (Fig. 1 a, b).
The plan site is square shaped and oriented over almost
all the countries of the world. On the monument there
used to be a castle, which was built in the 7th century
of mud brick on a clay earthen (pahsa) square platform(30×30 m). At the beginning of the 7th century, the castle
structures lined up around the courtyard. In the middleof the 7th century the courtyard was built up; in oneof the rooms there is a wall painting with a scene of afeast. In the second half of the 7th century, Balalyk-tepa
burned down. At the end of the 7th century the castle
was restored; after an unsuccessful attempt at restoration
the room with the painting was immured, and a staircase
leading to its roof was erected. From the beginning of
the 8th century, Balalyk-tepa came to desolation andcollapsed (Fig. 2 a, b).
Wall Paintings of Balalyk-tepa
The murals were found in one of the rooms (No. 14) of
the castle. After the completion of the excavation, it wasestablished that the room was square in plan and eachside was about 5 m in length. The entrance to the room
was in the southeast corner. The preserved height of thesouthern wall near the entrance was 2.5 m. A solid sufa1
was built along the inside of the walls, about 0.40 m highand from 0.90 m to 1.2 m wide. Above the surface of thesufa, 1.2-1.4 m high, the walls are plastered and covered
with paintings. The average preserved height of the wallsof all sides, except the western wall, was from 1.5 m
to more than 2 m. As archaeologists have determined,
during the discovery, the surface of the walls withpaintings was thickly covered with soot.
The murals were removed in time for seasonal
excavations by successively cutting them into pieces.
After they were cleaned, they were fixed with chemicals.
According to the authors of the reports on the excavation,
when the paintings were opened, they used a solution―――――――――――――――――
1
Sufa – a clay platform for rest (seat) located along the walls. Usually it was laid out with raw
bricks (or adobe pahsa), plastered and whitened.
2
BF – a phenol-formaldehyde resin and polyvinyl butyral, dissolved in ethanol, acetone
or chloroform. With an increase in the amount of vinyl additives, the elasticity of the seamincreases, but strength decreases.
3
This project was held on the initiative of the Termez Archaeological Museum (Director Z.
Alimardonova) and participated in by H. Furusho, the author of the project, as well as N.
Inutake, A. Ulmasov, and F. Sharipova – restorers and others from Termez ArchaeologicalMuseum.

43

of PBMA (poly butyl methacrylate) in xylene for fixing.
This decision increased the strength of the paint layerof the painting and at the same time strengthened the 3mm thickness of the cut clay base. Fixing the paint layer
made it possible for the drawings to stand out brightly,
and at the same time allowed the conservators to copy
the image from the wall.
One of the Balalyk-tepa fragments came to the Termez
Archaeological Museum. The fragment, designated as No.
14 (size 68×87.5 cm), belonged to the southern wall of
one of the rooms of the monumental monument building.
This part of the painting illustrates the feast scene: inthe foreground are well-dressed men and women in aseated pose and young servants in the background. Since
the fragment was in poorer condition than the others, in
1983, in cooperation with the Russians, it was studied andrestored in the State Hermitage Museum (Fig. 3).
According to an article devoted to practical work on the
fragment, one can observe the process of conservation.
First, the surface of the fragment was removed withpolymer glue, and with the opening of the painting, wasfound to be richly plastered. Purification was carriedout by dissolving it with steam using xylene. When thismethod did not produce the desired result (since there
were dark areas on the burn surface), several chemical
analyzes were performed. As it turned out, the surface ofthe painting was fixed with a solution of PVB (polyvinyl
butyral), BF 2 and other chemicals, which caused its
darkening and protected the paint layer. According to therecommendation, the surface of the painting was cleaned
with hot water, acetone and alcohol, which were used forthe first time in restoration practice.
Careful study of the painting allowed specialists todetermine the technical and technological methods of thewall painting of the early middle ages. In particular, bydefinition, the paint layer is smeared on a dense ganch (akind of local stucco) base. The traces of paint suggest that
it was painted with thick brushes in an exaggerated style.
The orientation of the movement of the brush in the formof the image led to the transformation of the pattern as inrelief. However, according to researchers, the gradationof light and shade is not traced in the paint layer.
Despite the quality of restoration, any work of art usuallyrequires preventive conservation after a long time.
This also applies to this fragment, on which, as statedabove, conservation work was carried out more than
three decades ago. Therefore, it was necessary to study
its condition and implement conservation measures atthis time. It should be noted that the project for theconservation of the fragment was initiated by the Termez
Archaeological Museum in collaboration with Japaneseexperts.3

Stage 1. A fragment of the wall painting was carefully
studied and photographed using a modern microscope.
The surface of the painting was cleaned with a spray.
According to the rule, in order to process the back sideof the painting, the front of the painting turned to theground. At the same time, in order not to damage thepaint layer and ensure that the surface did not crack,
Rayon cellulose paper was glued onto the front part
before it was turned over. Gluten glue made fromvegetable starch was used for bonding. This glue is easily
soluble in water and therefore easy to remove with water.
It does not have a negative impact on the exhibit (Fig. 4 a).
Stage 2. After the surface of the paper was covered, plastic
film and foam rubber were laid under it. A polycarbonate
Lexan board was inserted above the foam rubber, thenfrom four sides the outer edges of the film were folded
inside. After this, the fragment was carefully and slowly
turned. On the reverse side of the painting, a previously
inserted protective wooden board and two layers of thickfabric attached with buttons were removed. Also removed
were the two layers of gauze, which had been fixed on
the ground layer of the painting, by dissolving it withacetone (Fig. 4 b).
Stage 3. In previous conservation works, the base of thepainting was saturated with polymer glue. In order totransfer the fragment to another board, it was necessary
to get rid of excess glue from the base. Therefore, thebase was thoroughly soaked with acetone, as a result of
which excess polymer was removed. Then, a glass fiber
cloth was glued to the cleaned base with the help of a
10% solution of acrylic resin (Paraloid B72) in acetone(Fig. 5 a).
Stage 4. In the last stage, the board was attached to thebase, and the fragment was screwed back in the above
manner. After setting, all aspects were fixed. Additionalparts of the fabric were glued to the back of the board,and the edges were tightened and fixed twice with
a 20% solution of Paraloid B72 on acetate. After theadhesion was well drawn, a 2-point panel was placedon the exhibit, and the two boards were joined together.
Subsequently, the “district newspaper” at the top of thephotograph gradually shifted from the sample to thetissue paper and its subdivisions through the applicationof distilled water (Fig. 5 b).

Uzbekistan

Practical work
Below is a brief description of the main stages of thework regarding cleaning, fixing and dismantling theexhibit. These processes were gradually carried out inaccordance with a special plan.

Conclusion
Thus, this part of the wall of Balalyk-tepa was ready for
exposure. In practice the chemicals and raw materials
that were widely used during the restoration compliedwith modern requirements. As a result, a unique museum
object was restored. In addition, local specialists wereable to share their experience with their foreign partners.
Restoration of the paintings allowed local and foreign
tourists to come to the museum to view a good exampleof this medieval work of art (Fig. 6 a, b).
Note:
Conservation of this fragment of the Balalayk-tepa wall
painting inspired young specialist-students from the
Restoration Department of the National Institute of Art& Design, named after K. Bekhzad. Based on the studyof the conservation of these wall paintings, two of thesestudents worked on copying and reconstructing them.
Replicas of several parts of the wall painting were createdusing the same technique as per the original Balalyk-tepa
wall paintings (Fig. 7 a, b).

Literature
1. Albaum L.I. Balaliktepe. K istorii materialnoy kulturi
i iskusstva Tokharistana. "Academy of Sciences of
Uzbekistan". Tashkent, 1960. P. 254.
2. Axadova G. K voprosu o metodike obrabotki rospisey
Balaliktepe // IMKU, vol. 23. Tashkent, 1990. P. 190193.
3. Axadova G. Novie elementi v jivopisi Babaliktepe //IMKU, vol. 32. Tashkent, 2001. P. 239-241.
4. Ulmasov A.F., Sharipova F. Bolaliktepa devoriye surati
konservatsiyasiga doir. Ilmiy maqolalar to’plami. Vol. 9.
Tashkent, 2017. P. 238-242.

44

Uzbekistan
Fig. 1 a, b. A location and satellite map of the Balalyk-tepa site

Fig. 2 a, b. The general view and schematic plan of the Balalyk-tepa site (the photo by H. Furusho, the plan by L.I. Albaum)

Fig. 3. A fragment of the Balalyk-tepa wall painting before conservation45

Uzbekistan

Fig. 4 a, b. A process of the conservation: cleaning and removing the old polymer resin

Fig. 5 a, b. A process of the conservation: attaching glass fiber and removing old textile from the back side

Fig. 6 a, b. The wall painting before conservation and mounting

46

Uzbekistan
Fig. 7 a, b. The replica of the Balalyk-tepa wall painting by students

47

Publishedbyby
Published
CulturalCulturalHeritage
HeritageProtection
ProtectionCooperation
CooperationOffice,
Office,Asia-PacificAsia-PacificCultural
CulturalCentre
CentreforforUNESCO
UNESCO(ACCU)(ACCU)
757
757Horen-cho,Horen-cho,Nara
Nara630-8113
630-8113Japan
Japan
TelTel: +81-742-20-5001: +81-742-20-5001
Fax:
Fax:
+81-742-20-5701+81-742-20-5701
E-mail:E-mail:nara@accu.or.jp
nara@accu.or.jp
URL:
URL:http://www.nara.accu.or.jp
http://www.nara.accu.or.jp©©Cultural
CulturalHeritage
HeritageProtection
ProtectionCooperation
CooperationOffice,
Office,Asia-PacificAsia-PacificCultural
CulturalCentre
CentreforforUNESCO
UNESCO(ACCU)(ACCU)20182018

NNeeppaal l // NNeeww ZZeeaal al anndd

2018
21 2018 The Twenty-first Regular Report

公益財団法人 ユネスコ・アジア文化センター文化遺産保護協力事務所

SSool ol ommoonn I Issl al annddss // UUzzbbeekki si st at ann