On May 25-27, 2006, in accordance with the decree of the President of Turkmenistan Saparmurat Niyazov, an international scientific conference "Permanently neutral Turkmenistan-UNESCO: assessment of historical and cultural values and identification of ways to preserve World Heritage Sites"was held in Ashgabat and Kunya - Urgench. This was preceded by an important event-the inclusion in July 2005 of the ancient settlement of Urgench and its architectural and archaeological monuments, now the territory of the state historical and cultural reserve "Kunya-Urgench" ¹, in the" World Heritage List " of UNESCO (World Heritage List), which served as the main reason for the scientific forum. Its official organizers were the Ministry of Culture and Television and Radio Broadcasting of Turkmenistan, the National Center for Cultural Heritage of Turkmenistan "Miras", the Institute of History under the Cabinet of Ministers of Turkmenistan and the Hyakimlik of Dashoguz Velayat. The National Administration for the Protection, Study and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Turkmenistan (M. A. Mammadov, R. G. Muradov) has a great contribution to the direct preparation of the conference, including the invitation of foreign participants; K. Poladov, the Commissioner for UNESCO in Turkmenistan, played a certain role in its organization.

The conference program included two opening and closing plenary sessions, a one-day trip to Kunya Urgench, and working sessions divided into four sections: "World Heritage Sites: research and conservation experience", "The concept of the sacred Ruhnama on the cultural heritage of Turkmenistan", "Folk traditions and mutual influence of cultures", "Questions of the history of the state of Kunya-Urgench Turkmens".

At the first plenary session, the Minister of Culture and Broadcasting of Turkmenistan Enebay Atayeva outlined the main directions of the country's cultural policy over the past decade and a half. Among them, we note the development and adoption of a package of laws in the 1990s concerning cultural values; preservation and study of the historical and cultural heritage of Turkmenistan (one of the main areas of work of the Ministry, carried out through the National Administration for the Protection, Study and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Turkmenistan); creation of state historical and cultural reserves " Nisa", "Abiverd", "Ancient Serakhs", "Ancient Merv", "Kunya-Urgench", "Atamurat", "Ancient Dehistan"; expansion of the museum network. The diverse activities carried out on the territory of the above-mentioned nature reserves, which are carried out in cooperation with both international organizations: UNESCO, the World Monuments Fund, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the International Center for Earthworks - Ecole supérieure de l'Architecture de Grenoble, France (CRA Terre-EAG), TIKA (Turkish International Cooperation and Development Agency), as well as with foreign research centers. From the Russian Academy of Sciences it is the Institute of Archaeology, the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, the Institute of the History of Material Culture; from Italy-the Ligabue Research Center in Venice and the Center for Archaeological Research and Excavations in Turin; it is the French National Center for Scientific Research in Nanterre, the Universities of Warsaw and London, the Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology of the University of Pennsylvania, the National geographical Society of the USA.

In his speech, S. Morissette (architect, UNESCO expert on the conservation of mud structures, France) outlined a modern approach to historical and cultural heritage: the preference for conservation and preservation of monuments is their complete restoration and restoration (re-creation). According to the speaker, the second type of work dominated in Turkmenistan during the Soviet era, which led to a loss of authenticity of the monument. (It is difficult to fully agree with this if we turn to the architectural masterpieces of Kunya-Urgench. They were thoroughly and comprehensively studied by several generations of Soviet architects-restorers and restorers.-

¹ The article presents the traditional spelling of the city's name in Russian historiography, whereas in modern Turkmenistan it is written in Russian as "Keneurgench"or " Kunyaurgench". The name of Tashauz is given in the currently accepted version "Dashoguz".

page 154

They were carried out taking into account their results and with minimal interference in the structure and decor of buildings. The scientific level of the Soviet restoration school as a whole was quite high, in contrast to the material base of restoration work. - E. A.) From the point of view of S. Moriset, for Kunya-Urgench at present, positive factors are: the presence of permanent personnel for the protection and management of the reserve territory; the creation of a museum; the implementation of conservation and restoration of monuments, including the program 1999-2000 UNDP; exchange of specialists and techniques with the Ancient Merv Museum-Reserve, which has accumulated experience in both conservation and prevention of monuments, as well as in the field of modern management.

T. Williams, an archaeologist from Great Britain, pointed out the need to expand the experience and cooperation between experts and organizations of Central Asian countries in the field of monitoring and preserving their cultural heritage. Part of this activity was a training course held in 2005 at the Ancient Merv Museum-Reserve, dedicated to the sustainability of ancient buildings and the development of other ideas that could be implemented in the future by foreign experts together with Turkmen restorers.

M. Haidar (India) dedicated her speech to Kunya-Urgench, which in the descriptions of Arabic and Indo-Persian medieval sources appears in a romantic guise. This impression is created by their reports about the concentration not only of the scientific, intellectual, creative, ruling and commercial elite, but also of wealth, luxury and cultural values in the capital of the Great Khorezmshahs, as well as the special aura that Kunya-Urgench and other Central Asian cities acquired thanks to the stay of Muslim patrons, sages, theologians,etc. the founders of Sufi mystical orders (Abdulkhalik Hajwani, Najmeddin Kubra), which later spread widely in the East. According to the author of the review, the evidence that the spiritual aura of the ancient city is still alive today is the ritual worship of some Kunya-Urgench monuments, such as the Kyrk Molla and the Tyurabek Khanim mausoleum, and the prayer of believers in front of the tombstone of Najmeddin Kubr. Both of these phenomena were observed by the conference participants when visiting the reserve.

In the report of the famous archaeologist, Academician V. M. Masson (Russia), the centuries-old life of Kunya-Urgench was traced from a historical perspective, which fits only a few pages of written sources, but is embodied in a huge world of artifacts, architectural monuments and powerful cultural layers on the ancient settlement. According to V. M. Masson, in the future it is systematic archaeological excavations, combined with modern research methods and conservation of discovered objects, that will become a new source of information about the past of Kunya-Urgench.

The first section, "World Heritage Sites: research and experience in conservation", to which this review is devoted and in which the author participated, included 19 reports, which can mainly be divided into two blocks.

The first section covers issues related to Turkmen historical and cultural monuments of world significance-Ancient Merv, Kunya-Urgench, Old Nisa, etc.: their condition, operation, preservation and restoration. Ch. Adle (UNESCO expert, France) drew attention to the ancient settlement of the XI-XIII centuries Mashad - i Misrian ² in Southern Turkmenistan as a candidate for inclusion in the "World Heritage List". According to the speaker, despite the ruined architectural remains, the archaeological preservation of this ancient settlement, which was not affected by the onset of the modern cultural zone, distinguishes it favorably from other medieval Khorasan cities in the South-Eastern Caspian region, which subsequently experienced a negative demographic impact. Thus, Mashad - i Misrian is a unique complex frozen in time, in need of protection and worthy of the status of a historical and cultural object of world significance.

M. Balchik (UNESCO expert, Turkey) briefly reminded the audience about the XVI General Assembly of UNESCO in 1972, which marked the beginning of international cooperation in the field of preserving historical and cultural heritage. Thanks to the activities of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, by the end of 2005, the "World Heritage List" included 812 cultural and natural monuments. Among its cultural sites, many are located in Turkic-speaking countries, in particular in Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Turkey and Uzbekistan, as well as on the territory of Russia - in Tatarstan. Kunya-Urgench after the Ancient Merv (1999) is the most popular film in the world.

² In Russian historiography, Mashhad-i Misrian or Mestorian, also known as Dehistan.

page 155

the second monument of Turkmenistan included in this register. Architect-restorer A. I. Savash (Turkey) pointed out two aspects, in his opinion, related to the preservation and evaluation of historical and cultural heritage. The first aspect is the determination of the owner of the heritage object, inventory of the monument, planning of necessary measures for its preservation and training of appropriate personnel. The second is the study of archaeological materials and other sources related to the heritage of the past.

Architect-restorer S. Kale (Turkey) spoke about the process of restoration and full restoration of the mausoleum of Sultan Sanjar in Merv, carried out by the forces of the Republic of Turkey and Turkmenistan in consultation with international experts. They were preceded by a large preparatory stage: historical and bibliographic work in the archives, analysis of all the original building materials, creation of identical restoration tools, analysis of preserved structures, construction modeling, determination of strengthening zones. S. Kale admitted that the most difficult decision was to recreate the external dome, which was eventually built using the method of monolithic structures after reinforcement its load-bearing hoops.

Archaeologist K. Lippolis (Italy), who is leading the Italian expedition in Staraya Nisa, shared his experience of combining excavations with parallel conservation of exposed building remains and restoration of archaeological finds. These tasks are implemented in cooperation with the National Directorate for the Protection, Study and Restoration of Historical and Cultural Monuments of Turkmenistan; the Turin Center for Archaeological Research and Excavations (Centra Scavi di Torino) also participates in their financing. This method best meets modern requirements for the preservation of cultural heritage. The inclusion of the Old Nisa in the "World Heritage List", the nomination dossier of which has already been prepared, will facilitate further cooperation of archaeologists with experts in the conservation of objects and restorers.

In this section, the speech of J. R. R. Tolkien stands apart. Edwards (international tourism expert, Great Britain) on the problems of modern exploitation of "sacred" monuments that have arisen in connection with the growing interest of tourists and pilgrims to traditional religious sites. According to D. Edwards, the use of such objects should be based on a well-developed, well-thought-out and diverse (depending on the goals of visitors) infrastructure, necessarily coordinated with the tasks of conservation and preservation of monuments and the entire protected area.

The second block consists of scientific reports on the monuments of Kunya-Urgench. By subject, they are divided as follows: decoration of buildings and tombstones; architecture of Kunya-Urgench; historical topography of the city. E. A. Armarchuk (Institute of Archeology, Moscow) presented the classification of elements of irrigation decoration of all Kunya-Urgench buildings, including tombstones as small architectural forms (the first experience of this kind); traced the main theme of the project. I have outlined the trend of its development and outlined the ways of its comprehensive research.

J. Girlichs (a specialist in Islamic art from the Institute of Turkology at the Free University of Berlin) analyzed the faience decoration of the cenotaph of Najmeddin Kubr in comparison with the synchronous tombstones in Khiva and Mizdakhkan and in order to restore this unique object. S. Kuhn (Belgium) considered the tile decoration of four Kunya-Urgench mausoleums of the XII-XIV centuries, including the Tyurabek mausoleum- khanym is an early example of decoration in the mosaic facing technique. The researcher joins the popular opinion that after the conquest of Khorezm by Timur, this technique spread to Samarkand and Shakhrisabz, but did not surpass the mosaic tiles of the Tyurabek-Khanim mausoleum.

B. O'Kane (an architectural historian from the American University in Cairo) chose unusual decorative elements of two Kunya-Urgench buildings as the subject of his speech. This is a patterned facing made of carved bricks on the entrance facade of the 12th-century Il-Arslan mausoleum, imitating carved architectural terracotta. A similar technique of hewn bricks is used in the decoration of the famous arch in Busta, Ghurid and earlier buildings in India. (B. N. Zasypkin, N. S. Grazhdankina and A. M. Pribytkova once wrote about the peculiarity of the carved lining of the Il-Arslan mausoleum, believing that it has no analogues. - E. A.) The decor features of another building, the Tyurabek-Khanym mausoleum of the XIV century, are the use of red in the mosaic palette and the inclusion of a red color in the mosaic palette. in the lining, along with mosaics of majolica tiles with polychrome underglaze painting. (A. Y. Yakubovsky wrote earlier about the distinctive abundance of red mosaics of the Tyurabek-khanim mausoleum, and I. I. Notkin drew attention to the rare inclusions of painted majolica.

page 156

speech by Sh. S. Blair (a well-known specialist in Islamic and Asian art, Department of Fine Arts, Boston College, USA), who innovatively approached the analysis of Kunya-Urgench tombs of the XII-XIV centuries. First of all, she divided them into two groups by location, function (the status of the persons buried in them) and guardianship. The first group includes various types of "royal" tombs of the XII-XIV centuries - mausoleums of Il-Arslan, Tekesh and Tyurabek-khanim, built inside the outer (Golden Horde) walls of the settlement and generally designed in the Iranian-Central Asian traditions. The second category includes a 14th-century mausoleum attributed to the Sufi sheikh Najmeddin Kubra, built over the saint's grave outside the city walls, around which a sacred center and cemetery were later formed. At the same time, S. S. Blair, in view of the difficulty of attributing the Kunya-Urgench mausoleums and discrepancies in their dating, suggested naming them "Mausoleum No. 1", "mausoleum No. 2", etc., which would be more correct given our level of knowledge about these monuments. Then the speaker tried to imagine what the interior of these mausoleums was like, using information from Ibn Batutta and descriptions from the Great Mongol Shahnama (a Mongolian translation of the Shah-nama made in the 1330s) as sources.

L. Golombek (associate of the Royal Ontario Museum, Consultant on Islamic art at the University of Toronto, Canada), as if continuing a long-standing dispute about the age of the Tyurabek Khanim mausoleum (1321-1333 or 1360-1380), presented two mutually exclusive points of view on this issue. 1) If we accept early dating, we are forced to rethink the early stages of Timurid architecture. 2) It is possible to date the mausoleum to the Timurid period on the basis of the following arguments: the absence of faience mosaics in the architectural decor in Khorezm in the first third of the XIV century, which distinguish the mausoleum of Tyurabek-Khanim; the double design of the dome with ledges of walls, known in the Iranian architecture of the first half of the XIV century; finally, a complicated planning scheme, practiced in late Timurid buildings. Apparently, the listed features of the mausoleum were the result of acquaintance with Iranian architecture, i.e. they were borrowed by Timur (together with the masters?) during his campaign of 1386-1388 to Iran ³. These alien innovations were first realized in Khorezm, through which Timur's army made its way back from Iran to Transoxiana, and only then in Samarkand. (This hypothesis does not answer the question that follows from it: why did Timur need to build a magnificent tomb in the conquered city in passing? Samarkand mausoleums with mosaic decoration, comparable to the mausoleum of Tyurabek Khan, belonged to members of the ruling dynasty and notable persons.)

The idea of marking two other monuments, the so-called mausoleums of Fakhr ad-din Razi and Sultan Tekesh, is laid down in the report of T. H. Starodub (Institute of Art Studies, Moscow) on the role of Kunya-Urgench in the formation of the architectural type of turbe-small single - chamber tombs. She notes the proximity of these monuments to the Azerbaijani and Asian turbes of the XIII-XIV centuries, the so-called Seljuk mausoleums. Except for some architectural parallels of the XIII century. (for example, in the Iranian Natenz) in favor of a later date of the Tekesh mausoleum, usually attributed to the end of the XII - beginning of the XIII century, may be indicated by unusual dating elements of its irrigation decoration-the insertion of fragments of kashin vessels and painted tiles in the decorative seams of archivolts in the niches of the drum. (To model the monument on the basis of this collection of inserts, it is necessary to study them in their entirety. - E. A.) Another Kunya-Urgench turbe, the mausoleum of Il-Arslan of the XII century., chronologically stands at the origin of the formation of this type. The typological relationship of both mausoleums does not prevent them from remaining unique, without close analogies. (Let me remind you that earlier A. Y. Yakubovsky found the similarity of both mausoleums with tower tombs in the north in the Caucasus and in Asia Minor, and a special study on the genesis of tower mausoleums was devoted to G. A. Pugachenkova. It can be added that some modern researchers see the chartak, a centric domed kiosk with openings on four sides, which was formed in the East as an architectural type back in pre-Muslim times, as the basis for the layout of both mausoleums.)

In my opinion, the Muslim mausoleums of the 12th-13th centuries in Central Punjab - Muzaffargarh, Multan and Uch-are also very close to Chartak. They were demonstrated by the famous Pakistani archaeologist and cultural heritage specialist M. R. Mughal. (Boston University, MA, USA) as a proof of the influence of Kunya-Urgench architecture on the seemingly ancient world.-

³ of the so-called three-year Iranian campaign.

page 157

remote region. This is a group of single-chamber mausoleums on a square base, in the decoration of which carved, watered and patterned bricks and stones are used. According to the speaker, these buildings have prototypes and roots in the architecture of Central Asia, especially Kunya-Urgench.

Several reports were devoted to the minarets of Kunya-Urgench. J. Bloom (Boston College, USA) drew attention to the fact that the minaret that collapsed at the beginning of the XX century is still the first epigraphically confirmed (and not the first at all) Muslim construction of a minaret. The basis for this thesis is the embedded lead plate found on its ruins with a kufic text, which refers to the construction of Manar by Mamun II in 1010-1011. The building had a certain place among the minarets of the Near and Middle East erected simultaneously with it, which were demonstrated by the speaker. (Although the exact circumstances of the discovery of this slab are unknown, many scientists traditionally adhere to the same version of its origin as the speaker, and consider this construction to be the minaret of Mamun ⁴. - EA)

Architect-restorer A.M. Urmanova (Uzbekistan, Tashkent) presented the results of architectural (together with V. I. Artemyev) and archaeological (excavations of V. V. Zotov, X. Yusupov) studies of both Kunya-Urgench minarets in 1979-1999. She traced the genesis of minarets as a specific architectural form of the Muslim East, which went from a square in plan to a conical tower, most characteristic of Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia. Comprehensive research has confirmed the uniqueness and perfection of the construction of the Kutlug-Timur minaret, thanks to which it has survived to this day. A.M. Urmanova adheres to its dating to the end of the XII century.The foundation of the second monument, the so-called Mamun minaret, thanks to the mentioned plate refers to the beginning of the XI century, and its completion - renovation-to the Golden Horde time. (Thus, modern studies have confirmed the conclusions and dates that N. N. Vakturskaya - E. A. came to after the excavation of the Mamun Minaret in 1952) D. Imankulov, head of the Kyrgyzrestavratsiya Design Bureau (Bishkek), evaluated the Kutlug-Timur minaret from an engineering point of view. The phenomenon of stability of this structure (with its highest height among minarets) lies in the foundation, which gradually decreases downwards and has a greater depth of foundation, proportional to the height of the trunk. D. Imankulov identified a similar strict proportional ratio of the foundation and trunk for medieval Kyrgyz and some other Central Asian minarets. The researcher justified his proposed reconstruction of the lost lantern of the Kutlug-Timur minaret in the form of a wooden two-level balcony, similar to the existing Iranian samples.

I. N. Zubanov (Turkmenistan) delivered a speech in Kunya-Urgench right next to the monuments that he participated in the restoration of as part of the joint UNDP Project "Development of the cultural sphere of Kunya-Urgench" in 1998-2001. The project covered three monuments on the ancient settlement-the Tyurabek-khanym mausoleum and the minaret Kutlug-Timura and the Kyrk-molla fortress. At the preparatory stage, the 2000 Board with the participation of UNESCO representatives played an important role. The following decisions were made: conservation of the inner dome of the Tyurabek-Khanym mausoleum and the preserved section of the outer dome instead of the planned complete reconstruction (in my opinion, the refusal in this case to recreate the outer dome is a positive alternative compared to the mausoleum of Sultan Sanjar, whose restoration demonstrates a different approach); conservation of the upper emergency (leaning) site of the trunk of the Kutlug-Timur minaret with the technical and expert assistance of UNESCO; the use of urinary mortars for conservation instead of previously used cement mortars.

At the Tyurabek-Khanym mausoleum, the tasks set were completed in full: the inner dome was reinforced, the vestibule dome, the northern portal and then the covering flat roof above them were carefully restored. As for the northern portal, it was recreated on an ancient foundation and basement, but in general terms, since its original appearance is still not completely clear. In all these works, materials that are extremely close to the original ones were used.

The restoration of the top of the Kutlug Timur minaret involved extraordinary solutions and high-tech operations; an experienced expert from the UK, Roger Cape, took part in the work.

⁴ See about it: E. A. Armarchuk. Izuchenie pamyatnikov Kunya-Urgench: starye i novye hypothezy [Studying the monuments of Kunya-Urgench: old and new hypotheses].

page 158

A section of the fortress wall with three towers dating back to the first centuries AD, excavated by archaeologists in the 1990s, has been preserved at the Kyrk Mall.

Finally, another topic was discussed at the first section meeting in the joint report of V. I. Artemyev and A. M. Urmanova (Tashkent) " Evolution of the Kunya-Urgench city fortifications in the X-XVII centuries."In fact, the title of this very interesting report did not correspond to its content, since it was not about the development of the city's fortification (which is traditionally characterized by the type and structure of fortress walls, towers, ramparts, moats and other defensive structures and their layout), but about its historical topography. (This is the only topic that requires specific, clearly dated materials from archaeological excavations, as well as the involvement of geomorphologists, paleohydrographers, and soil scientists to substantiate its postulates, in addition to other sources, i.e. aerial and space photographs, plans and diagrams of the ancient settlement. However, Kunya-Urgench is still an extremely poorly studied archaeological site, and exploration and point-based reconnaissance pits are clearly insufficient in this regard.) The authors of the report have done a lot of work on visual inspection of the walls, entrances and gates of the settlement and analysis of the mentioned sources. The proposed variants of urban territory localization at different historical stages are far from indisputable; it is unclear how they relate to those published in 1930 and 1998. conclusions of A. Y. Yakubovsky and B. I. Vainberg on this issue. The modern method of computed tomography proposed by the speakers for archaeological and topographical purposes provides only a dry framework, which must be clothed in the flesh and blood of specific artifacts in order to judge changes in urban space over time.

In conclusion, I will sum up some results: all the speakers, despite the parallels to the types of Kunya-Urgench architectural monuments discovered long ago or recently in Central Asia, Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, recognize the originality of their forms, which are not repeated anywhere, and the uniqueness of their decor (mausoleums of Il-Arslan, Tekesh, Najmeddin Kubr and others). Turabek-khanym) and structures (Kutlug-Timur minaret). This is the leitmotif of the first section reports. The conclusions are obvious, and their quintessence is the universal recognition of the high historical and cultural status of the ancient city. At the same time, two facts drew attention to themselves. The first is the lack of historiographical information of foreign colleagues on the study of the Kunya-Urgench monuments and their ignorance of a number of Soviet and modern Russian scientific works (evidence of this is provided by my brief remarks to the reports). At the same time, our partners are distinguished by their excellent knowledge of the monuments of Muslim architecture of the East and Western and Eastern scientific literature devoted to them. The second fact is the lack of real, rather than virtual, familiarization of domestic researchers with the architecture of the Middle East, Iran, Afghanistan and other Eastern countries, as well as poor awareness of the research activities of Turkmen colleagues in the last decade and a half and the lack of their publications in Russian libraries. Therefore, the conference was certainly very useful in terms of mutually beneficial cooperation.⁵

With a wide thematic range of reports, almost all sections were dominated by those related to the Kunya-Urgench, and therefore the forum can be considered the first scientific conference in the history of studying this complex, complex monument. Unfortunately, many interesting and important questions, hypotheses and opinions remained stated in theses ⁶, but not reported. The Forum was so crowded and at the same time full of official and cultural events that not all participants were able to speak due to lack of time.

The conference demonstrated the persistent search by the modern community for optimal ways to preserve the historical and cultural heritage, gave experts the opportunity to exchange opinions and research results and see in person the successes and challenges of restoring and preserving historical and cultural monuments of Turkmenistan. It showed the need for further international cooperation both in this field and in the field of comprehensive study and use of monuments of the past.

⁵ The author is grateful to T. H. Starodub and R. Muradov for their advice in writing this review.

⁶ Permanently neutral Turkmenistan-UNESCO: assessment of historical and cultural values and identification of ways to preserve world Heritage sites. Permanent Neutral Turkmenistan UNESCO: Appraisal of the Historical-Cultural Values and Determination of the World Heritage Properties. Abstracts of the Reports of the International Scientific Conference 25 - 27 May 2006. Ashgabat-Kunja-Urgench. Ashgabat, 2006 (edition in three languages-Turkmen, English and Russian. - E. A.).

Permanent link to this publication: