Archaeological and Architectural Research
Since 1970, the Ministry of Culture of the Kyrgyz SSR has been conducting archaeological and architectural research aimed at restoring the monument by the Special Scientific Restoration Production Workshops (SSRPW) of the republic. The Uzgen team of the Kyrgyz Archaeological Expedition of the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz SSR, led by D. F. Vinnik, was involved in the excavation work (V. D. Goryacheva participated in field studies at Burana in 1970—1971, 1972, and 1974 as part of her graduate research).
The expedition worked in two directions: on one hand, the lower parts of the minaret were studied, and the structural connections with the non-surviving mosque were identified; on the other hand, the entire territory of the settlement was surveyed in archaeological and topographical terms, for which extensive excavations were carried out in various areas (mainly within the central ruins), leading to the discovery of three more monuments of monumental architecture at Burana.
As a result, new material was obtained that significantly expands the existing data on the history of the minaret's construction and the settlement as a whole. The material from the work has been partially published.
To clarify the structure of the underground part of the tower on the northern and southern sides of the minaret, two test pits were dug, which grew into excavations, and the upper part of the base was outlined with trenches. It was found that the foundation of the minaret consists of a massive quadrilateral foundation 5.6 m high, with each side measuring 12.3 m. It is laid with stone and layers of burnt brick, as noted by V. E. Nusov. To the south, a stone and brick buttress was added to the foundation, shaped like a truncated oval, measuring 1.7—2 m in length and 1.8—2.3 m in width. The three sides of the foundation—western, southern, and eastern—were laid flush against the walls of the pit, while the northern part, which likely served as a working area, was filled with gravel, clay, and stone. Several fragments of unremarkable ceramics and two coins were found in the backfill of the pit: one of them is from the Turkic period of the 8th century, the other is from the time of the Tai. These finds entered the pit along with the soil and have no dating significance.
The eastern and northern sides of the foundation are faced with carefully processed white tuff on a lime mortar in five rows of masonry, creating a bright contrast with the brickwork. The face surfaces of the stone are trimmed to a uniform size of 28—30X12—13 cm, and the joints are carefully smoothed. Thus, this part of the foundation was exposed and constituted a kind of stylobate (or the first step of the octagonal base). Two sides of the foundation were facade sides, while the other two were likely to adjoin the building, presumably the mosque.
The top layer of the stylobate has been partially preserved. On the southern side, there is a typical brickwork laid flat, with dimensions corresponding to the construction standard of 25X25X4—4.4 cm. The western surface is paved with smaller format bricks measuring 23.5—24 cm in length and 3.5 cm in thickness, arranged in a herringbone pattern on lime mortar. Apparently, these are traces of repairs to the minaret, also observed in the lining of the northwestern, western, and southwestern steps of the base. This same brick format was recorded in the masonry of the collapsed trunk of the minaret in the northwestern part of the excavation. It can therefore be assumed that small-format bricks were also used in the structural masonry, likely of a repair nature.
At the level of the first step of the base, two coins from the mid-11th century Karakhanids were recovered. It is difficult to say whether these coins date the period of repair work, but the principle of "herringbone" masonry, which became popular in Central Asian architecture from the 11th century, both as a constructive technique for creating curved vaulted shells and as decorative masonry, does not contradict this date.
The second step surrounds the octagonal base of the minaret. D. F. Vinnik considers it to be the base part; the width of the step is 40 cm, and the height is 70 cm. For the diameter of the octagonal base, he provides metric data: 10.4 m at the bottom and about 6 m at the top, with the height of the preserved trunk being 22 m.
The door opening is located at a height of 5 meters, and the height of the octagonal base is 4 m.
The fact that the minaret was destroyed by an earthquake, most likely due to numerous shocks, was confirmed during the excavations. Thus, monoliths of collapsed masonry with numerous small cracks in the bricks were cleared from the northern and northwestern sides of the minaret.
In Search of the Mosque Remains
The cultural layers around the minaret, as noted by M. E. Masson in 1927, consisted of loose clay with fragments of brick, ceramics from the 10th to 13th centuries, animal bones, ash, and charcoal. The layers are mixed up to a depth of two meters. Burials, which were very disturbed by later interments, were made in ground pits, partly in adobe boxes (also called cysts), and some in arched coffins according to Muslim rites.
An interesting discovery was made near the southern edge of the base at a depth of 2.5 m. Here, a stone statue, apparently brought from a Turkic burial ground, was found. It lay face down on a specially arranged pedestal made of stone and clay; around the statue, a powerful ash layer with animal bones was cleared. The sculpture was made of roughly processed stone, on one side of which the silhouette outlines of a head, face, and part of the torso were given, with traces of rough chips—intentional damage. This finding at the site of the minaret's base (and most likely the mosque) is likely related to a special ritual that marked the end of pagan cults and the acceptance of a new religion by the nomadic Turks. Written sources indicate facts of mass conversion to Islam, particularly among the Turks of Semirechye, who roamed around Balasagun.
At the very wall of the foundation, remnants of a hearth and fragments of earthenware were found, which cannot be dated, as well as powerful ash layers with animal bones. In the excavation around the minaret, several copper coins of Karakhanid minting were recovered at various depths. Near the southern step of the foundation, next to the presumed buttress, a hoard of copper coins was extracted at a depth of 2.1 m from the modern surface, laid in a clay pot. The hoard included 5 whole and 5 fragmentary coins from the mid-11th century minted by Shams ad-Dawla Arslan-Tegin. This hoard indicates that by the mid-11th century, when the hoard was buried, the minaret not only stood but also had already formed a significant cultural layer around it.
The question of the location of the mosque remains open. The assumption that it was located on the high hills 70 m northwest of the minaret was not confirmed by excavations. Work on one of them, located closer to the minaret, revealed a complex of residential premises from the 10th to 12th centuries. Based on stratigraphic observations and material evidence, D. F. Vinnik suggested that the cessation of life on the hill relates to the end of the 12th—beginning of the 13th centuries. However, there is no doubt that the underlying layers of this residential building belong to a monumental structure of palace type, as M. E. Masson and P. N. Kozhemyako had previously suggested. Most likely, the building was erected on a high platform, which is very characteristic of early medieval architecture in the Chuy Valley.
In search of the remains of the mosque, D. F. Vinnik began excavations at the site of a concentration of burnt bricks 70 m west of the minaret. Utility rooms belonging to a palace complex were revealed. The finds from the excavation date back to the 10th—12th centuries.
20 m south of the minaret, there was a sharp decline in cultural layers, and traces of construction were not observed. However, it was previously reported that here, at "the place where there were no traces or outlines of construction at all," F. V. Poyarkov discovered "a rather large building, buried under a mass of brick fragments." It is possible that the remains of this building belonged to the mosque. Unfortunately, we have no other data about the construction on the southern side of the settlement. As a result of archaeological research, it can be assumed that either the mosque was wooden, as there were wooden structures in Central Asia in the 9th—10th centuries according to written sources, or nothing remains of the mosque. The latter seems more likely since, firstly, the southwestern side of the minaret suggests the presence of an extension, and secondly, the Burana structures suffered much more from the predatory removal of bricks for construction needs than from natural disasters.
In the eastern sector of the central quadrangle of the settlement, remnants of a memorial complex consisting of several mausoleums were excavated, two of which were uncovered in 1970—1971. The first of them (excavation 5) is located 24 m southeast of the minaret, among Muslim graves of varying preservation and time. The second mausoleum (excavation 6) was situated on a fairly elevated site by the Burana River, 70 m northeast of the minaret. Unfortunately, as a result of economic activities, the building was cut by a trench from north to south, significantly damaging part of the architecture. Judging by the original relief, this mausoleum was not the only one here.
The First Uncovered Burana Mausoleum
The first uncovered Burana mausoleum, conditionally called the "octagonal," has been preserved in the base part to a height of 1.8 m. Its foundation has no base and rests on the mainland; the walls are made of burnt bricks measuring 23—26X23—26X4—5 cm on clay mortar. At a height of one meter from the base, the outer facing masonry begins with paired bricks on lime mortar. The wide joints, up to 3 cm, of alabaster plaster (this is also characteristic of the minaret) played a connecting anti-seismic role and were also an effective contrasting decorative element. In the internal masonry, alongside first-class bricks, defective ones—overburnt—were used, indicating local production of building material.
The external diameter of the octagon is 10.95—11.2 m, the internal diameter is 6.9—7.1 m, the length of the sides is 4—4.2 m, and the thickness of the walls is 1.55—1.7 m. Judging by numerous finds of decorative embellishments, the mausoleum was externally adorned with carved architectural terracotta and figurative bricks, and inside—with paintings and carved plaster. Since the decor has reached us in small pieces, scattered over a large area and mixed due to later burials, it is difficult to speak about its placement on the wall surfaces. Only a small piece of plaster with painting has been recorded in situ above the floor of the mausoleum, suggesting the presence of painted panels, a carved lime frieze, and colorful decoration of niches or panels. Many pieces of plaster bear traces of retouching and orange-red tones on a white and gray-ash base.
The ornamental motifs of the carved plaster are not very diverse. The repetition of motifs suggests the use and reading of a stencil by the master, alongside some quite numerous fragments, the patterns of which were cut by hand. The most common motif was that of pearls ("nipple-like") surrounding plant panels. Some samples allow for the reconstruction of plant patterns in the form of palmettes, rosettes, trefoils, spirals, and flowers in a network of geometric weavings. The carving on alabaster was done in different planes: the shallow relief of palmettes and medallions was combined with deep carving of frames.
The architectural terracotta of the mausoleum, in terms of execution technique, resembles plaster—equally rich relief is given in two or three planes—but differs in a greater variety of ornamental motifs. The majority of finds consist of fragments of border moldings with carving on a faceted or oval surface. Inside the polygonal geometric frames, small plant or mesh-like ornamentation was placed. Sometimes the relief of the moldings, clearly designed for visual effect from a distance, was cut with several horizontal lines of varying depth and width, creating a light-shadow play of lines with lace-like small patterns.
The decoration of the architectural surface of the mausoleum was enriched by the introduction of various figurative bricks. Most of them are construction tiles with an oval cut on one corner; their use in the masonry of columns and decorative bundles is indisputable. A square brick with a processed side on the end, a rectangular brick divided by a deep groove into two squares, and a triangle cut on a prismatic block are the forms of the carved brick of the octagonal mausoleum.
In reconstruction, the tomb represented a structure with a prismatic body and a tent or spherical-conical covering. This architectural type was one of the main volumetric-spatial forms in the monumental architecture of Central Asia in the 11th—12th centuries. The uncovered remains of the mausoleum suggest elongated tower-like (or close to tower-like) proportions. By analogy with known monuments of this type, the entrance to the Burana octagon was located in the center of an ornamental frame or pointed arch, equipped, judging by finds with patterned cuts of bricks, with three-quarter decorative columns. The entrance to the mausoleum was located above the base, which has been preserved to a height of 1.8 m from the ancient level, but the entrance on the base is not marked.
The Second Mausoleum by the Burana River
The second mausoleum represented a portal composition with a round plan room and a domed covering. The remains of the dome, which collapsed, presumably due to seismic shocks, were cleared in the western part of the excavation. The building, preserved in the lower part to a height of up to 1.2 m, was made of burnt bricks of the same format as those recorded in the masonry of the minaret and the first mausoleum. The thickness of the walls is 1.8 m, and the span of the tomb is 10 m. The portal supports have been preserved to a length of 12 m with a width of 2.2 m. Its corners were flanked by three-quarter columns (the dimensions cannot be established), the remains of one of which were recorded at the southern corner. The portal was pushed forward, forming a corridor 5 m long. Based on these remains, as well as by attracting the analogy of G. A. Pugachenkova, a graphic reconstruction was made.
This mausoleum also had no foundation, although, unlike the first mausoleum, it was built not on mainland loess but on the underlying cultural layer. A test pit dug in the passage between the supports showed that the tomb was built on the remains of a residential complex from the 10th—11th centuries.
It is impossible to reconstruct how the mausoleum was decorated inside. The portal, which collapsed to the east, had quite rich decoration, combining figurative brickwork, carved bricks, and plaster, including with Kufic inscriptions. Fragments of lime lattice—panjara (with wall thicknesses of 1.5 cm)—suggest intricately designed light openings arranged above the dome.
Unlike the first mausoleum, the decor (carved plaster and bricks) appears less elegant, and the motifs of the ornament in the lime (borders with round rosettes—"nipple-like," trefoils, and stems of shoots) are quite uniform. The plaster was applied to the black body of the wall, with a thickness of 3—6 cm. The carving was done in two planes, sometimes reaching a depth of 2.5—3 cm.
Carved figurative bricks (more than 30 types of carving) were also concentrated at the entrance along the entire length of the portal. The most common bricks had a patterned cut on one corner, and their use is undoubtedly in the flanking and decorative columns. The small-format brick, measuring 21—22 cm on each side and with a patterned cut on one corner, sometimes with a notch in the middle, was used in laying decorative frames, borders, and bundles.
The semi-format tiles had a simple edge treatment: a carefully smoothed rectangle, two squares formed by a deep transverse line. Countless small rectangular and square wedge tiles are represented. Among the ornamental motifs, four-petaled flowers and stars, rhombuses, triangles, L-, G-, S-shaped bricks in the form of question marks, commas; these same motifs in mirrored images, "birds in flight," as well as figurative brackets in various versions are more frequently encountered. The reverse side has a wedge-shaped trimming for binding with the wall masonry or layer of lime.
The diverse and very characteristic set of bricks suggests their initial use in Arabic inscriptions focused on the portal. Such inscriptions, indicating dates and names of builders, made from similar tiles, decorate, for example, the Seljuk mausoleums of Kharkana opened in 1963 from the second half of the 11th century.
The technique of decorating wall surfaces with "set in lime" (i.e., lime) carved bricks is similar. According to David Stronak, special recesses were left in the walls during construction for subsequent filling with brick patterns, executed by invited masters.
Ancient Burials
In both mausoleums, several dozen graves with burials according to Muslim rites— in adobe boxes, in wooden coffins, on bedding, in crevice graves (between adobe cysts)—were cleared. Children’s graves in adobe crypts were cleared on a floor paved with burnt bricks. Nearby were small hearths and ash pits, indicating temporary habitation by begging dervishes or the performance of memorial rituals.
Under the floor of the second mausoleum, 11 graves arranged in two tiers were uncovered. All of them are oriented along the north-south axis and were placed closely in the middle part of the tomb. Eight of them were adobe boxes covered on top with arched boards or beams. Boards were also placed under the deceased. Two burials were made in wooden coffins placed in the burial pit. Three burials were in crevices between the walls of the graves; they were also covered with planks and inclined bricks.
Thus, a unified burial rite is traced in both tombs. Such a grave construction was widespread in Central Asia and Southern Kazakhstan in the Middle Ages. Numerous analogies exist for both wooden coffins and bedding, the use of which in burials in Kyrgyzstan and other regions of Central Asia has been noted since ancient times.
This is the general characterization of the remains of the mausoleums uncovered at Burana. In terms of compositional-planning and decorative techniques, they stand apart among known monuments of Kyrgyzstan and adjacent regions of Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. The first mausoleum, in terms of architectural character, can be approximated to tower-type constructions of Khwarezm and the Caspian regions of the 11th—12th centuries. An analogy can be made with the aforementioned Seljuk mausoleums near Hisar-i Arman, dated to 460 AH (1067—68 AD) and 486 AH (1093 AD). They have a height of 13 m with an octagonal diameter of 10.4 m. A slightly smaller third Seljuk mausoleum located near the village of Dimavend is dated to the third quarter of the 11th century.
The second Burana mausoleum, with a portal and massive cylindrical body, finds analogies with monuments of medieval Mashhad. The decorative embellishment with patterned brickwork and carved tiles in combination with plaster is also very characteristic of the architecture of the western regions of Central Asia. Among the monuments of North Turkestan architecture of this time, such decoration is noted on the mausoleum of Karakhan from the 11th century. However, the decoration of the octagonal mausoleum of Burana, namely carved plaster and terracotta, has wide parallels in the architecture of the 11th—12th centuries both in Kyrgyzstan and in Central Asia as a whole.
In terms of execution techniques and ornament motifs, the terracotta is close to the carving on raw clay and lime from the residential complexes of the Krasnorechensk settlement, Afrasiab, Altyn-tepe in Kashkadarya, and other monuments. However, Burana's terracotta cannot be compared, for example, with the elegant carving of the Uzgen mausoleums of the 12th century or similar decoration from the palace complex in the village of Sretenka and the settlement of Kara-Dzhigach from the 12th—13th centuries, although they belong to the same region. In terms of stylistic features, the architectural terracotta and brick facings from the Tamgach Bogra-khan madrasa and buildings numbered 37 and 38 from the Shah-i-Zinda ensemble in Samarkand, dated to the second half of the 11th—beginning of the 12th centuries, are the closest. Here, in the mausoleums of the 11th—12th centuries, polychrome glue paintings on plaster are recorded, similar to the paintings of the Burana octagon, as well as paired masonry combined with carved bricks and plaster.
Thus, in terms of their architectural-spatial forms and decor, the Burana mausoleums can be dated to the second half of the 11th—beginning of the 12th centuries. It is possible that the portal mausoleum was built earlier than the octagon, as indicated by both the underlying layers and the less elegant architectural decor and the absence of carved terracotta.
In the first mausoleum, along with the burials, coins were found, which M. E. Masson attributed to the mid and second half of the 11th century. Apparently, they date the time of the mausoleum's construction. The architectural terracotta adorned the building later, possibly during repairs in the 12th century.
Discoveries at Burana Caused a Great Resonance Among Historians, Archaeologists, and Architects
The results of the 1970 field season allowed the head of the Kyrgyz archaeological expedition, P. N. Kozhemyako, to express a more confident assumption about the identity of Burana with the historical Balasagun, which was reported at the All-Union Conference on the Study of Medieval Cities of Central Asia and Kazakhstan in November 1970 (Frunze). This opinion was shared by the head of the Burana team, D. F. Vinnik. O. Karayev presented a report on the location of Balasagun. He summarized information from medieval Arabic and Persian sources, revising the previously expressed opinion that this city was located north of the trade route and was not identical to Ak-Beshim. Undoubtedly, this was influenced by the new discoveries at Burana. Like A. N. Bernsham, O. Karayev considers this settlement to be a suburb of the city located at the site of Ak-Beshim.
At the end of 1971, B. D. Kochnev published a short article in the pages of "Literary Kyrgyzstan" titled "Where Did Balasagun Stand?". It contains brief historical information about the city, translations, and comments on the epitaph found in 1965 at the settlement of Kayraku with Arabic text and a hoard of gold coins, now stored in the Kyrgyz State Historical Museum. The hoard contained coins of different times and mints: one coin belonged to the mint of the Seljuk Sultan Giyas ad-Din Muhammad (early 13th century); the majority of the hoard consisted of dinars of the Karakhanid ruler Ibrahim ibn Hussein (late 12th century) and coins of the Khwarezmshah Muhammad (1200—1220). The hoard was buried, according to the author, shortly before the Mongol invasion, in a city that played a significant economic and political role in the state of the Karakhanids, which could have been Balasagun. In favor of the hypothesis of the identity of Burana with Balasagun, B. D. Kochnev also cites the fact of the presence of a Nestorian cemetery from the 13th—14th centuries on its territory.
The discoveries at Burana were briefly reflected in the forthcoming monograph by V. E. Nusov on the architecture of Kyrgyzstan from ancient times to the present, although some information about Burana was duplicated by the author. In one of the issues of the weekly "Culture of Kyrgyzstan," based on the results of work in 1970—1971, material was published in which, taking into account the information from written sources and local numismatics, a scheme for the development of Balasagun was proposed, which received further development in the publications of V. D. Goryacheva. In particular, unlike the leaders of the Burana expedition, she allows for the possibility of the migration of the former capital of the Turks ("the city of the Turkic kaghan," also known as Ordu or Ordukent) from the Ak-Beshim area upstream the Burana River, closer to the mountains, where from the 10th century a new city was formed, which received the name Kuz-Ordu (Kara-Ordu, Kuz-Ulush) or Balasagun in sources. Its formation could have occurred around the khan's reserve—kuruq, where, with the acceptance of the new religion, a whole complex of Muslim buildings was constructed.
Another Mausoleum—The Third
In the following years, archaeological work at Burana continued, although the results have been partially published. In 1972, D. F. Vinnik, continuing research related to the restoration of monuments, uncovered another mausoleum—the third, located next to the second in the eastern part of the central ruins. Like the previously uncovered mausoleum, it consists of a round plan tomb and a portal facing east. The internal diameter of the room is 10.5 m, and the external diameter is 13.3 m. The walls have been preserved to a height of up to 2.2 m. On the northern and southern sides, according to D. F. Vinnik, there were narrow window openings. In the center, an entrance vestibule 2.4 m wide and 3.35 m long was arranged. The total length of the portal is 14.7 m, and the width is 2 m. On its southern side, the remains of a column have been preserved. At the junction of the portal with the round room is a quadrangular chamber measuring 2.28X2.3 m and 2.28X2 m (i.e., the remains of niches, as in the second mausoleum—V. G.).
The portal of the mausoleum was decorated with figurative bricks. At its base, a pavement of burnt bricks ran around the entire perimeter. Under the floor of the mausoleum, 28 graves arranged in three tiers were cleared. The graves are ground graves, their edges lined with adobe bricks and covered with arched planks. One burial was made in an arched coffin, the boards of which were fastened with iron brackets at the corners. D. F. Vinnik believes that, like the previous ones, this mausoleum was a family burial place and dates it to the 11th century. However, not all of D. F. Vinnik's definitions can be agreed upon.
The above-described third mausoleum is completely analogous to the second. It also represented a portal-cylindrical type building. Although the author of the excavations allows that the portal could have been flanked by one column on the southern side, this could not have been the case; not found does not mean not existing. The architecture of the remains of the mausoleums is so harmonious and proportional that the absence of one column while having another does not seem possible. Apparently, the light openings were also resolved differently. Narrow slit-like above-base windows were not typical for monumental memorial architecture of Central Asia at that time.
Constructive techniques in the architecture of Central Asia in the 11th—12th centuries were built on a geometric basis. "The development of architectural forms proceeded according to a single system, encompassing solutions to problems in both space and plane. The geometric nature of the constructions, excluding arbitrary inventions of architects—this was the main source of stylistic unity of all art in Central Asia during the considered epoch."
With the cylindrical body of the mausoleum, which was originally covered with a dome, the function of the portal increased, as it included the ceremonial decoration of the building's facade. The uncovered remains of the portal are quite massive and provide a solid foundation for the entrance arch. The span of the room at 10.5 m is large, and the transition to the dome could only have been achieved with the help of under-dome structures. With such an architectural composition, the height of the external dome was hardly less than 5 m; considering that the under-dome structures were about 1.5—2 m in height, with the overall height accepted by D. F. Vinnik being 8 m, about a meter remains for the walls. Meanwhile, they have even survived to a height of 2.2 m to this day. Initially, in relation to the diameter of the interior, they reached at least 5—7 m. Thus, the total height of the building reached at least 12 meters.
Minaret of the Second Half of the 10th Century
On the territory of the central ruins of the Burana settlement, D. F. Vinnik discovered traces of other monumental buildings, the purpose of which has not yet been clarified. In an area surrounded by a long wall, excavations uncovered buildings of a production and economic nature, the preserved walls of which reached a height of 2 m. Abundant material was collected from the uncovered objects, represented by glazed and unglazed ceramics, coins, and products made of glass, metal, and stone. The totality of all the data obtained from the excavations of the Burana settlement allowed the author to once again raise the question of its identity with Balasagun.
Alongside the group of archaeologists, restorers from the Ministry of Culture of the Kyrgyz SSR, led by B. V. Pomaskin, worked at Burana. They wrote a special article summarizing the experience of restoration work at Burana. The uncovered architectural objects were simultaneously prepared for conservation and partial restoration. Measures were taken to secure what has survived in its authentic form; the restoration project provided for the restoration of the ornamental compositions of the octagonal base and the upper part of the minaret's trunk, most of which were laid with smooth masonry during the repair of the monument in 1927—1928. The study of the features of the structural and ornamental masonry of the minaret allowed the project authors to develop a methodology, justify compositional solutions for the eight sides of the base, and restore the ornamentation of the four niches.
B. V. Pomaskin dates the minaret to the second half of the 10th century. He also believes that the lower part of the minaret was in the form of an octagonal base with sloping sides 5.4 m high, which was taken into account during the restoration, which was completed in 1974. Inside the minaret, the steps of the spiral staircase were restored, the base was raised, the decor and masonry of the tower's trunk were partially supplemented; waterproofing of the monument was carried out, and ancient parts of the masonry were reinforced with "modern, more rigid mortar"; a light spiral metal staircase was added to the minaret for ascent, and a concrete platform was poured around it. The remains of the uncovered mausoleums were conserved with partial documentation of the walls and portals to the maximum uncovered height of the monuments. Overall, however, it cannot be said that the work was carried out with full consideration of scientific data. For example, in the restoration of the second Burana mausoleum, the three-quarter columns flanking the portal, the bases of the niches, the structures of the graves, and a number of other details were not reflected.