Monument in its settings case study Akyrtas and Otrar archaeological projects

Voyakin, Dmitriy and Baipakov, Karl (2005) Monument in its settings case study Akyrtas and Otrar archaeological projects. In: 15th ICOMOS General Assembly and International Symposium: ‘Monuments and sites in their setting - conserving cultural heritage in changing townscapes and landscapes’, 17 – 21 oct 2005, Xi'an, China. [Conference or Workshop Item]

Preview

PDF 2-39.pdf Download (359kB)

Abstract (in English)

Monument is a drop of hoary antiquity. To lift the history veil only one possibility is exist – investigate, preserve and document. No any doubt that monument closely associate with its surroundings and one of the most important aspects is to preserve as much as possible in spatial mining. Several problems appear in the way of investigation of ancient monuments. These are sedimentation, erosion, layers sequence (issue of correct interpretation and presentation) and modern land developing. All these factors change picture very fast. But sedimentation in this case is positive element which preserves monument itself and original ground (surroundings/settings) while other processes are the causes of destruction. Land-reclamation in southern Kazakhstan became a big problem because of cotton crops which effuses very fast and demands developing of new lands. Most of the monuments are protected simply by marking protecting zones, but monuments settings/surroundings are in big danger and actually no other possibility to protect and save it except the way of documentation and 3D reconstruction. Thereupon old photos, sketches, plans, maps etc. are much more preferable and informative than modern aero/satellite images. So, reality was destroyed and exists only in photos, notes, sketches, graphical reconstructions etc. as virtuality. Idea to preserve monument and its surroundings issues from careful archaeological investigation, documentation, protection and 3D spatial landscape reconstruction which usually only chance to present monument in its settings “as it was”. From the other hand some installations within the so-called buffer zone of the archaeological complex could present settings belonging to different chronological frames. To preserve complex in continuity and show different monuments as a one picture of historical retrospective is paramount aim of any activity direct to monument preservation.

Item Type:	Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
Authors:	Authors Email Voyakin, Dmitriy UNSPECIFIED Baipakov, Karl UNSPECIFIED
Languages:	English
Keywords:	historic monuments; settings; protection; buffer zone; archaeological sites; 3D reconstruction
Subjects:	F.SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES AND METHODOLOGIES OF CONSERVATION > 61. Others E.CONSERVATION AND RESTORATION > 03. Monuments B. ARCHAEOLOGY > 02. Archaeological site and remains H.HERITAGE TYPOLOGIES > 09. Historic buildings
Name of monument, town, site, museum:	Akyrtas, Kazakhstan; Otrar, Kazakhstan
ICOMOS Special Collection:	Scientific Symposium (ICOMOS General Assemblies)
ICOMOS Special Collection Volume:	2005, 15th
Depositing User:	Jose Garcia
Date Deposited:	11 Nov 2010 19:36
Last Modified:	13 Jan 2011 19:14
References:	1.Baipakov K.M. Medieval Cities of Kazakhstan on the Great Silk Road. (rus.). Almaty, 1998. 2.Baipakov K.M.Medieval Urban Culture of Southern Kazakhstan and Semirechie (VI-VIII cc.). (rus.). Almaty, 1986. 3.Baipakov K.M., Voyakin D.A. Tendencies and Perspectives of Development of the Archaeology in Kazakhstan. (rus.)// Izvestiya MON RK, NAN RK. Almaty, 2005. 1. P.3-29 4.Barcelo A. Visualizing What Might Be: an Introduction to Virtual Reality Techniques in Archaeology// Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Oxford, 2000. 5.Barcelo A., Forte M., Sanders H. The Diversity of Archeological Virtual Worlds// Virtual Reality in Archaeology. Oxford, 2000. 6.Forte M., Fiorini A., Rondelli B. Virtual Archaeology or Time Machine: Scientific Paths for a Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscape//The Reconstruction of Archaeological Landscapes Through Digital Technologies. Italy-Unite States Workshop. Roma, 2003. 7.Renfrew C., Bahn P. Archaeology: Theories Methods and Practice, 2001. 8.Santana M.Q. The Use of Three-dimensional Techniques of Documentation and Dissemination in Studying Built Heritage. Leuven. 2003. 9.Voyakin D.A. Virtual Archaeology. (rus.)// Izvestiya MON RK, NAN RK. Almaty, 2004. № 1. P. 138-144. 10.Wheatly D., Gillings M. Spatial Technology and Archaeology. The Archaeological Applications of GIS. London-New-York, 2002.
URI:	https://openarchive.icomos.org/id/eprint/351

Actions (login required)

View Item

Metadata

• HTML Citation
• ASCII Citation
• Full
• OpenURL ContextObject
• EndNote
• BibTeX
• MODS
• MPEG-21 DIDL
• EP3 XML
• Dublin Core
• Reference Manager
• Eprints Application Profile
• Simple Metadata
• Refer
• METS

Downloads