Problems of preservation of archaeological monuments

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

31

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

VOLUME

Vol.05 Issue02 2025

PAGE NO.

31-38

DOI

10.37547/ajsshr/Volume05Issue02-07

Problems of preservation of archaeological monuments

Darmanjan Kuryazova

Docent Doctor of Sciences on Histor, Ulugbek, Uzbekistan

Received:

09 December 2024;

Accepted:

11 January 2025;

Published:

13 February 2025

Abstract:

In this article, the little-studied problem such as the preservation of cultural heritage of archeological

monuments through various methods of museumifaction is focused on.

The scientific activity of scientists from different countries on the museumization of real archeological
monuments, the history of the problem is covered in detail. The author provides a comparative analysis of the
work done on the museumization of real estate in different countries around the world and in Uzbekistan.

The research work also considers the main aspects of the study of archaeological sites and identifies its place and
role in modern practice. The need for a set of measures for the preservation and museuming of archaeological
monuments of the region is theoretically justified.

Keywords:

Archeological objects, material cultural heritage, monument, museumification, preservation,

conservation, restoration, study, resolution.

Introduction:

The principle of preservation of material

and cultural heritage in the world, which corresponds
to the scope of foreign experience, is the
museumification of archeological monuments in
natural landscapes. Among the problems associated
with real monuments, the focus is on their
conservation and museumification. The issues of long-
term use and preservation of monuments in the open
field leads to a very complex, interrelated problems
having scientific, engineering, technical and legal
character. The optimal way to find its modern solution
is to create archeological museums

–

reserves [1. - p.

115].

Literature review

A number of scientists are conducting research on the
museumification, conservation and restoration of real
historical and cultural heritage properties. In particular,
M. Garber, A. Medved and M. Caulen studied the work
of preservation, museumification and restoration of
archeological monuments in Russia and abroad. Ya.
Gulamov worked on the preservation of material and
cultural monuments in Uzbekistan, A. Abdurazakov
worked on the preservation and museumification of
murals in Afrosiyab. M. Filanovich and A. Terenojkin

studied the archeological monuments in the city of
Tashkent and its surrounding, and conducted
investigations on their protection and preservation
from various natural and human factors.

In these works, which were studied on the basis of a
new methodology and axiological approach, material
and cultural monuments were studied as a priority area
of national value. In the course of the study the
textbooks, manuals and monographs, focusing on the
protection and repair of monuments, innovations and
innovative forms in the practice of world museology,
museumification and protection of real estates, were
also used.

METHODOLOGY

Modern

theoretical

and

methodological,

interdisciplinary

approaches,

principles

of

systematization, as well as methods of comparative,
systematic analysis were used in this research.

Analysis and results

. Preservation of immovable (real)

cultural monuments through restoration, conservation
and museumification is one of the actual issues today.
Depending on the above ideas, we will consider the
works designed and implemented in foreign countries.
For example, in the practice of museumification in

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

32

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

Slovakia, in the country of Herculata, located in the
Rusovitsa region, experts note that the developers
have had undoubted success in preserving historical
and cultural monuments [2.p.23-25]. During the
excavations, here by archaeologists in 1965-70s, the
remains of majestic architectural structures belonged
to the period of the Roman Empire in the I-IV centuries
AD and the stone foundations of Slavic houses were
found. In the reports of Slovak scientists on
archeological finds, it is noted that Herculata was the
only surviving monument of the Roman Empire.
Considering the unique value of the archeological
monument, it was decided to museumificate it and
establish a tourist complex [3. - p. 17].

The authors of the museumification project included
the followings for the on-site exposition: a part of the
defensive walls; stone foundations of residential
buildings of I-II centuries AD; majestic architectural
object - forum of III-IV centuries; podium remains etc.
The authors of the project worked long on how to
impress the ruins of the citadel. Porches of steel
construction, 1.5 meters wide corridors for spectators
were built around the monument. Much of the city was
re- buried with soil, treated with herbicides, and its
surroundings were bordered so that it would not be
ruined under the influence of climate. The traditional
archeological artifacts found here are placed in the
museum built at the entrance.

In 1954, in the village of Mikulchitsa on the Morava
River in the Czech Republic, a Slavic citadel dating back
to the VII century AD, which occupied 200 hectares
area, was discovered. The 5 of the 12 Christian
buildings were located on the territory of the prince's
palace, and the rest were on the outskirts. Tourist
information corridors have been built around the
temples. The roofs of the buildings there were covered
with light structures and then museumificated. The
exhibits found here are on display in showcases. The
district of the citadel is surrounded by concrete walls
[4. - p. 612- 615].

During the archaeological excavations on the outskirts
of Kent city in England, the remains of Roman villas
were discovered. After a series of scientific studies, a
museumification project of this find was developed. A
wooden pavilion with a low roof was built on the site,
covering the boundaries of the excavation areas. In
order to provide maximum natural light, the roof and
walls are covered with transparent glass-like sheet
materials combined with aspoblites.

Structurally, the pavilion has three dissimilar portal
spaces, the longest of which is in the center and the
ones on the sides are shorter but of different lengths
[5. - p. 192-194.].

The next monument, which belongs to Ancient
Northern Ireland, is a New Grange monument of the
Stone Age. It is located in Mit County in the Boyne
Valley. It was built before the Pyramids of Giza and
Stonehenge, about 5,200 years ago. New Grange
formed an 85-meter circular hill, 13.5 meters in
diameter and 19 meters in height. The castle is
surrounded by 97 large curbstones, some of which are
engraved with symbols called megalithic art. This
monument is today's open-air museum and is included
in the World Heritage List of UNESCO.

Another type of museumification can be seen in the
Archaeological Crypt of Notre Dame de Pari, opened in
1980 in Paris. This monument was found underground
when construction began on the Site Island.
Archaeological excavations were carried out in 1965-
72s, where slabs of ancient buildings were found.
Scholars have determined that the oldest of them
belong to the Ancient period. The remains of the
building are illuminated with artificial lighting,
showcases are placed around it, and the exhibits found
here are on display. There are exhibits that testify to
the centuries- old cultural heritage of the country and
the city. Its multifaceted collection is unique and
versatile, with no value or analogue. When the
spectator enters the underground museum, he or she
feels the atmosphere of that period. This is facilitated
by informational slide shows, audio commentaries,
interactive programs [6. https: // commons.
wikimedia.org/wiki].

If such experiments are seen in the example of Greece,
they radically differ from those of the above-
mentioned museumifacated monuments. The Akrotiri
archeological site on the island of Santorini Tera was
left under a volcano in 1450 BC. In the 1860s, when
workers were trying to get volcanic ash to build the
Suez Canal, they came across the remains of this
ancient citadel. The excavations began in 1967 under
the direction of Spyros Marinatos, a professor at the
University of Athens. According to the scientists, the
remains of 40 buildings discovered in Akrotiri cover
only 1/30 of the area. Materials such as iron, wood, and
glass were used to cover the roof of this monument. In
order not to damage the monuments, special walkways
were built around it. Most importantly, special
attention is paid to maintain the environment of that
period here as much as possible.

In all of the above objects, the monuments were
museumificated in accordance with the requirements
of museum work. But the methods used in them do not
repeat each other, because archeological objects have
come down to us in different states. For example, the
building materials of monuments in European
countries were mainly marble, stone and brick, and in

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

33

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

many cases, most of them were on the ground. In the
ancient monuments in Central Asian, countries mainly
mud walls, and later bricks were used, most of them
remained underground and the upper parts became
hills. Therefore, it is very difficult to museumificate
them, because the monuments, which occupy several
hectares, will have to be covered with domes or arches,
using light constructions in a modern style. This
requires very experienced constructors, architects, and
it requires a lot of money as well. Because the material
used to cover, the surface is first tested in a laboratory
and then selected. The materials used in European
countries do not correspond to the climatic conditions
of Uzbekistan. The most powerful of them can
withstand from

–

60о to +50 о degrees.

The most important feature of an archeological object
for the problem under consideration is that
museumification is the best way to use the monument.
However, the scientific method in this field has not
been fully developed yet, and the accumulated
experience needs to be seriously generalized from the
position of museum work.

Registration of monuments, creating their funds,
archeological maps represents preventive measures
aimed at preventing them from destruction. However,
these measures cannot provide the information
potential

of

the

monuments.

Accordingly,

museumification is the only way to incorporate such a
monument into the cultural environment. At the same
time, it allows to solve the problem of protection,
because

after

archeological

excavations

the

archeological object is destroyed, usually eroded,
covered with grass and buried. When it finally reaches
an irreversible state, the object is removed from the
protection lists. Another peculiarity of museumificating
most archeological objects is that it is not possible to
move them to another area. Usually, an archeological
monument can only be museumificated at the site of
its discovery. The stages of museumification of real
archeological

objects

include

excavations,

conservation, beautification of access roads, and other
types of exposition interpretation. When selecting
archeological monuments for museum exhibits, several
types of objects are distinguished.

Archaeological monuments: ancient cities and villages,
settlements, old cemeteries, irrigation systems,
manufactures

–

a complex of crafts, that is, complexes

that allow to provide comprehensive coverage of all
major moments of life and activity of ancient people.
Archaeological objects: individual structures, including
archeological monuments too. Archaeological finds: all
portable parts of an archeological monument and
object. Among the monuments of the ancient past,
rock carvings have a special place. Although these

monuments belong to archeological monuments,
however, they are not associated with excavations.
Petroglyphs

have

a

unique

attraction

and

expressiveness, and strongly impact on the viewer.
Experience

has

shown

that

sometimes

museumificating the images painted on rock or building
walls can damage them. Negative changes have taken
place in the rock paintings painted in the caves of Lasco
located in southwestern France, with a history of
17,000 years as a result of a large number of visitors
entering and the change of temperature-humidity
regime. That is, they were covered with mold fungi and
began to get wet. Visitors to the Lasko monument have
been banned since 2001. With the special permission,
five scientists are allowed to enter per day. The same
can be seen in the murals of Afrosiab citadel in
Samarkand. Considering these problems, it is necessary
to think carefully about the ways to show the
monument to the visitors of the museum.

Nowadays, in the museumification of archeological
monuments a method of reconstruction based on the
complete construction of the structure based on the
involvement of more preserved parts, excavations and
etc, is mostly used. This method, which is considered to
be effective from the museum point of view, has been
criticized by many experts. Proponents of such an
approach emphasize that making the archeological
monument interesting and understandable to a wide
range of visitors, which is one of the most important
tasks of the archeological museum and the most
practical way to solve this problem, is the use of
restoration.

There are various ways to incorporate the monument
into the urban organism. While some objects are
museumificated, others are kept in the basements of
buildings, city parks, subway stations, underground
passages. Complex museumification of archeological
monuments is the most advanced form of
museumification today, with the organization of open-
air archeological reserves- museums, which allow to
study the whole set of representatives of the life and
activity of ancient people.

However, still, the archaeological expedition usually
fulfills the simple work and leaves the excavations
open, leaving the museum itself to deal with the issues
of museumification. The museum, on the other hand,
often lacks properly trained specialists. The
organization of teams of archaeologists, restoration
workshops and museum specialists is becoming
important as a perspective way. Special methods for
the excavation of monuments that need to be
museumificated are being developed.

They include the methods such as removing soil from

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

34

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

excavations, fixing the excavation walls, or replacing
vertical walls with sloping walls to eliminate the risk of
collapse, giving the excavation a more natural look and
improving its appearance. Excavations are protected
from rain and melt water by constructing wells and
water return canals.

If a monument contains a number of objects belonging
to different periods that overlap each other, they try to
exhibit them in such a way that within a single
excavation boundary the picture of the historical
development of the monument should be clear and
vivid by showing a system of objects belonging to
different periods. Another way that is simple but
effective is to show objects that belong to only one
period in separate excavations. In the last decades of
the XX century, the concept of "living archeology" has
emerged, which means bringing a game moment to a
memorial show, introducing the visitor to the cultural
paradigm, adding a game to it through action, creating
a model of ancient human lifestyle. Abroad, far away
from civilization with children and young people, in the
restored conditions of the primitive community, such
trips as finding a fire, building a shelter, and living for a
few days while cooking are practiced.

The complexity of the problems standing before
developer specialists: the problems from the security of
existing models of other similar monuments to the
collection of materials - are obvious and clear.

However, it is early and professional to put forward the
problem, it gives the opportunity of trusting primarily,
the desire to settle social project issues, the
preparation of public opinion in the city, the history of
science and technology, as well as the success of this
initiative. Unfortunately, even when comparing with
the problems of identification and preservation, the
problems of expositional interpretation of industrial
heritage are still poorly developed. Although the
methods of displaying, interpreting, and preserving
production processes in an artificially created museum
setting are the most complex, they are still extremely
interesting.

In nature reserves-museums, we accept the traditional
culture as close as possible to the natural environment,
in harmony with the surrounding conditions. Finally,
the museum tries to recreate the tradition more
precisely in its historical forms.

In the course of the study, it was found that many
scientists are in favor of not museumification
archeological sites. In their opinion, the underground
monuments should not be discovered and should be
left for future generations to study [7.- p.37.]. They
believe that their life will be shorter if they are cleaned
from soil and covered with various structures. In 1987,

a collection of scientific works on the methodological
basis of the preservation and use of monuments was
published in Moscow [8. - p.105.]. Almost all the

scholars’ opinions in it confirm the above.

It is advisable to solve such problems with the help of
innovative projects. For example, the history of
historical buildings, which are historical, architectural
and cultural monuments, famous people who lived or
worked in it, and the main historical events related to
this building can also be museumificated by creating
museum exhibition installations. The implementation
of such projects will allow making full use of the
potential of archeological monuments, historical
buildings and palaces. Exhibition installations in
historical buildings, palaces and palaces represent
objects, documents, photographs and other exhibits
that reveal certain historical themes related to this
building. Design and artistic decoration are the most
important prerequisites for such installations. Thus,
with the help of modern technologies, visitors have the
opportunity to get acquainted with the history of
tangible

cultural

heritage

monuments. These

installations remind us of the historical foundations of
our ancestors and can bring back historical memory to
humanity. This situation creates a modern intellectual
and cultural environment that gives new life to the
historical monuments of the city. In the last two
decades of the XX century, new promising approaches
to the exhibition of architectural monuments using
technical means have emerged. One of the new
approaches to solving the problem of exhibiting
interiors associated with real monuments is the
"audiovisual demonstration". Although there are not
many examples of such expositional solutions,
however, this experience is promising and worth
exploring.

It should be noted that real tangible cultural heritage
sites

can

be

preserved

not

only

through

museumification, but also through restoration and
conservation, slowing down the process of
obsolescence. The object to be museumificated always
has different aspects of historical significance, among
which the decisive one can be distinguished. The object
can be significant as a monument of material culture
history, art history monument, memorial object, life,
and ethnographic monuments. It is important to decide
which of these aspects will dominate and be
determined first while museumification. The choice of
restoration method depends on it. Reinforcement,
restoration and restoration of destroyed, damaged or
ruined

architectural

structures,

archeological

monuments and other types of objects in order to
preserve the historical and artistic significance of
material cultural heritage monuments or to restore

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

35

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

their previous appearance have a positive effect.
Restoration is an integral part of the protection of
historical and cultural monuments and plays an
important role. Often, research conducted during a
restoration radically changes the formed concepts of
historical development. In the XIX and XX centuries the
most advanced scientific theory of restoration in
relation to architectural monuments is formed.

Experts pay great attention to strictly follow the
ICOMOS international standards in the restoration and
repair of historical and cultural heritage sites [9. - p.
170-176.]. In accordance with these international
standards, only conservation, repair and restoration
works are allowed on historical and cultural
monuments. This includes conservation - measures
aimed at preserving the monument as it is. During the
repair, it is understood to use the usual construction
methods from time to time to maintain the monument
without making any changes to its original structure.
Restoration is the process of removing the factors that
have changed the appearance of a historical and
cultural heritage site over time on a scientific basis,
including repair and conservation work.

The basis of modern restoration theory consists of the
concept of stratification of restoration methods and
techniques, which are important for modern practice.
Modern methods of restoration allow the use of
construction techniques and all the physicochemical
innovations to strengthen the monument. Different
materials can be used for restoration, although it is not
allowed to falsify the real materials, but on the surface,
they should be close to the materials used in the
construction of the monument. Dividing the actual
parts of a monument into pieces or types is usually an
exception, as modern restoration techniques allow it to
be strengthened without damaging the damaged
structure.

Regardless of the style choice, the first stage of
museumification is restoration, which is done in order
to preserve the object [10. P.59-65.]. Now, instead of
the notion of restoration as a whole, a different
process, it is time to understand and comprehend
restoration as a complex, historically diverse process
divided into different forms of activity. According to it,
restorers have the right to use different methods. The
restoration method is a view of the actions of a restorer
who achieves a specific goal using different methods of
restoration. The conservation and analytical method,
with the exception of the synthetic method, are also
the main methods of restoration. Preservation is the
most serious method of restoration, the basis of which
is to confirm the importance of all the layers that
appeared during the existence of the monument.

Conservation is closely connected restoration. During
the conservation of the structures, the ground, walls
and domes are fixed, protective pavilions and sheds are
built in order to prevent the destruction of the
monuments in the pre-restoration period. One of the
main problems of modern restoration is the choice
between originality and authenticity. Originality and
authenticity are the main requirements for monuments
of material culture.

Preservation and museumification of the material and
cultural heritage of Uzbekistan can be considered to be
one of the most pressing issues of today. At present,
the processes of urbanization and innovation are
developing in the socio-cultural life of our country.
These processes, in turn, can lead to the gradual
disappearance

of

archaeological

monuments.

However, it is necessary to preserve the archeological
objects and monuments, which have wonderful
projects that are disappearing for the next generation.
To this end, it is important to develop measures for
their museumification based on world experience. The
problem of museumification remains an integral part of
modern museum practice and is in the focus of the
world community.

It should be noted that Uzbekistan is one of the leading
countries in the world in terms of the number of
archeological monuments. The abundance of
archeological monuments testifies that this highly
civilized peoples, whose ancient culture was at an
extremely high level inhabited in region. The number of
archeological monuments that have come down to us
is estimated by archaeologists at about 8.5 thousand.
In order to clarify these figures, monuments of this type
of material cultural heritage should be fully cadastred
[1.

–

p.232-234.]. Today, the total number of cultural

heritage sites is more than 10,000, of which 7,570 are
under state protection. They include ancient
architectural and archeological monuments, sculptures
and monumental works of art, sightseeing and portable
cultural heritage sites [2. - p. 206-208.]. As result of the
analysis, it has been known that only 25% of state-
protected objects have protection signs - labels. Most
cultural heritage sites do not have cadastral documents
and their boundaries are not defined. The resolution of
the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On
measures to radically improve the activities in the field
of protection of material cultural heritage" was
adopted. The "Roadmap" of this resolution for the
radical improvement of the protection, preservation,
research, promotion and rational use of tangible
cultural heritage in 2019-2021 sets the following tasks:
to create 3D model of 50 most important archeological
monuments in the country on the basis of innovative
technologies; Akshakhan Fortress in the Republic of

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

36

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

Karakalpakstan; Mingtepa and Kushtepa in Andijan
region, Poykent in Bukhara region; Kaliyatepa in the
Jizzakh region; Yerkurgan in Kashkadarya region,
Nurata fortress in Navoi region, Old Pop in Namangan
region, Afrosiyob in Samarkand city, Dalvarzintepa and
Kampirtepa in Surkhandarya region, Kanka in Tashkent
region, Chilanzar Oktepa in Tashkent region, Kuva
citadel Museum of Fergana region, Khumbuztepa
archeological monuments in Khorezm region are
among them to be preserved and museumificated.

Conclusions based on historical-comparative and
generalized analysis, objectivity, scientific, historical
approach, systematization are the methodological
basis of the research. Moreover, the theoretical basis
of the study is the decrees of the President of the
Republic of Uzbekistan and his works on spirituality,
culture, ideology of national independence, the laws of
the Republic of Uzbekistan, and the decrees of Cabinet
of Ministers of the Republic of Uzbekistan on museum
development.

RESULTS

The data presented in the research have a scientific
basis, the main conclusions of it can be used to improve
the activities of museums, the development of
measures aimed at increasing its efficiency, the
museumification of material cultural heritage. In
addition, the results of the research can be used in
museum affairs, lectures and seminars in the system of
higher and secondary special educational institutions.

Museumification of the monuments, objects, of
cultural heritage, works of art and artifacts of antiquity
enables to preserve them to the maximum extent and
reveals their historical, cultural, scientific and artistic
value. In our opinion, the museumification of
archeological monuments and objects is one of the
means of preserving them for the future generations
and has become an integral part of modern museum
practice.

The

museumificated

archeological

monuments under these conditions become an
important part of the material cultural heritage. The
solution to the problem of museumification of
archaeological heritage arises in the interdependence
of several knowledge systems and scientific disciplines,
with the help of specialists of different levels and
specialties, state and public organizations.

According to A.I.Martinov, the world experience in the
use of material cultural heritage is reflected not only in
its preservation, but also in its use by modern society.
On this basis, he emphasizes the need to create a single
new system: monuments of material cultural heritage

–

museums

–

information tourism

–

museum-tourist

service and museum-tourist business [3. - p. 13

–

22.].

As noted above, a significant part of the material and

cultural heritage of Uzbekistan is occupied by
archeological monuments. Today, the preservation of
their

most

remarkable

objects

through

museumification is one of the most actual issues. It
should be noted that no specific method has been
developed for the museumification of archeological
monuments. Because, they all have reached to us in
different situations and appearances. That is, some of
them occupy an area of several hectares and are
scattered, others have a holistic compositional
appearance, but several historical layers are observed
in them, and so on. Therefore, in the process of
developing the problem of museumification of
archeological monuments, a specific approach is
needed in the identification and classification of
archeological objects and monuments. N.M. Bulatov
suggests their separation and characterization as
follows: 1. Archaeological monuments include cities,
villages,

cemeteries,

irrigation

systems,

and

manufacture and handicraft complexes. In this case,
when we talk about the archeological monument, we
mean the complex structures associated with the place
of residence of ancient people, their creative and
industrial activities, burial places. 2. Archaeological
objects include separate constructions of archeological
monuments and all separate constructions except
archeological

monuments.

The

concept

of

archaeological object is included in this classification as
an auxiliary category, because some archaeological
monuments may fall into the category of
archaeological object or vice versa. Archaeological
objects are included in the part of an archeological
monument and can serve as an independent historical
source. 3. Archaeological finds

–

this category includes

all objects found in the territory of archeological
monuments and objects, as well as removable parts of
archeological monuments and objects [4. - p. 81].

Based on the above, it is possible to develop more
optimal methods of preservation, museumification and
use of archaeological heritage. For example, in one area
it is possible to organize various open-air museums and
museum-reserves. The application of such an approach
to the preservation of material cultural heritage can be
seen in a large number of practical works on the
preservation and use of archeological heritage abroad:
archeological parks are among them, more often the
surrounding natural environment is used in the
implementation of museum programs of historical and
cultural heritage [5. - p. 112]. According to its
methodological

solution,

the

problem

of

museumification of real material cultural heritage is
quite complex and diverse. This, in turn, is due to the
fact that the archaeological heritage has come down to
us, in many cases, in a state of disrepair. In this respect,

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

37

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

in practice, museumificated archeological monuments
are difficult to accept by an unprepared spectator. This
is often characteristic for the objects and territories
that are not associated with the development of large
urban centers and ancient civilization. In general, this
problem can be successfully solved once it is
determined what and how to museumificate. There are
two different solutions to the problem of what is
museumificated. The first is related to the suggestion
to museumificate almost all cultural monuments and
even material cultural landscapes that may disappear
as a result of the influence of human activity factor. In
this regard, researchers believe that museumificating is
the only way to preserve a monument that is in danger
of extinction. Scientists also note that the civilization of
a society is determined by the presence and number of
museumificated objects [6.

–

p.13]. The second solution

assumes the determination of the criteria to be
selected for the museumification of monuments.
Despite the diversity of approaches, researchers have
identified the following criteria of monuments and
come to a single conclusion: the importance of the area
for reconstruction, the relatively good preservation of
the

monument,

external

representativeness,

convenience for watching should be taken into
account. These criteria are quite general in nature, and,
of course, changes will be made when developing
projects for the museumification of monuments in
specific conditions. The methods of museumification of
archeological monuments should be divided into
several stages, based on world experience:
identification; research, analysis if necessary;
restoration or conservation work; organization of
exhibitions, that is, restoration of storage areas,
conservation, creation of expositions and organization
of excursion activities. It is also necessary to take into
account the differences in the approach of
archaeologists and museum staff to the archaeological
monument in the process of museumification.
Because, archaeologists are the most important thing
to identify and study the monument as much as
possible. In many cases, when excavations are carried
out, the monument suffers serious damage during the
research process. The task of the museum staff is to
additionally study, preserve and promote the identified
monuments in a comprehensive scientific way. The
interrelationship between the methodology of
archaeological

research

and

the

issues

of

museumification is a complex problem that, in our
opinion, can be solved in favor of museumification. It
should be noted that there is no single method and
approach to archaeological restoration, preservation
and exposition of archeological excavations. The choice
of methods in each case depends on how the
monuments will be presented to the audience and

what scientific information will be provided. Today, if it
is considered as worldwide, the following methods of
museumification of archeological monuments are used
in practice: The top of the archeological object is
completely covered. While the effect of this method on
the preservation of monuments is enormous, the
artificial structures covered over the ancient
settlements, citadels, and villages undermine their
overall appearance and interesting appearance in
relation to the environment. In the next method, as few
changes as possible are made to the archaeological,
stratigraphic, architectural conditions. In this case, the
object is fixed according to the physicochemical or
conservative methods of construction, ensuring long-
term storage and can be demonstrated. However, it
should be noted that one of the main problems of
modern museumification is the destruction of the
original appearance of the remains of rare
archeological monuments by strengthening them with
various building materials. The study revealed that
some of the objects of material cultural heritage are in
need of repair, preservation areas are not determined,
there

are

shortcomings

in

the

cadastral

documentation, engineering communication networks
are not provided. Among them there are those which
have reached the point of extinction today, and those
that have already disappeared too. For example, during
the studies in Mirzo Ulugbek district of Tashkent, only
the address, street names of the archeological
monuments of Oltintepa dated back to the IV-VIII
centuries and Shortepa of the X-XII centuries were
preserved. Roads and other structures were built in
their places. The Oktepa monument of VII-VIII
centuries,

located

in

Yunusabad

district,

is

distinguished by its antiquity. Today, it is a ruin covered
with weeds and turned into a garbage dump in the city.
Land has been allocated to private homeowners in the
hilly area with an ancient history, and a road and multi-
storey houses have been built. As a result, today there
are only the area of four hectares of the monument,
which once had an area of seventy hectares. Similar
cases were reported in Shoshtepa, Kuygaytepa in
Yunusabad and Sergeli districts, Foziltepa in Uchtepa
district, and Mingorik in Mirabad district. As a result of
inefficient use of the achievements of science and
innovative technologies in the organization of
fundamental and applied research in the field,
designing, restoration works have a negative impact on
the preservation of the uniqueness of material cultural
heritage.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the scientific study, preservation and
museumification of the material and cultural heritage
of Uzbekistan is one of the actual issues today. At

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research

38

https://theusajournals.com/index.php/ajsshr

American Journal Of Social Sciences And Humanity Research (ISSN: 2771-2141)

present, the processes of urbanization and innovation
are increasing in the socio-cultural life of our country.

These processes, in turn, can lead to the gradual
disappearance

of

archaeological

monuments.

However, it is necessary to preserve the archeological
objects and monuments, which have such wonderful
projects that are disappearing, for the next generation.
Thus, it is important to develop measures for their
museumification based on world experience.

REFERENCES

Garber M.I. From the experience of museification of
archeological monuments abroad. // Issues of
protection, restoration and propaganda of historical
and cultural monuments: [Sat. articles. / scientific
editor and compiler E.A. Shulepova] - M.: Research
Institute of Culture, 1982. - P. 115, 117.

Schwarczowa A. Gerulata. “Projekt”, 1975, 188 (6). 23

-

25.

Poulik J. Archaeological Discoveries and Great Moravia,

“CSSR Architecture”, 1963, №10,

- P. 612-615.

Bedford. Pavilion for Roman excavations, “Wood”,
1963, vol. 28, № 5. –

Р. 19

2 - 194.

Fleury M., Kruta V. The archaeological crypt of the
Notre Dame square. Paris, 1990; https: // https:
commons. wikimedia.org/wiki. /File:The archaeological
crypt of the Parvis de Notre-ame (Paris) (8274683584).
jpg).

Afanasyev G.E., Alexandrova M.V. Some questions of
the organization of protective archaeological research
in the zones of new buildings of the RSFSR//
Methodological bases for the protection and use of
archaeological monuments. M., 1987. - P. 37.

Methodological foundations for the protection and use
of archaeological monuments. - M., 1987. -S. 105.

Muxamedova M.S. The role of national and
international organizations in the development of
museology (XX-XXI centuries). -

T.: “Yosh kuch press

matbuoti” LLC, 2017.

-

Б. 170

-176. 9.

Yudin M.O. Methods of museumification of objects of
the architectural heritage of the Kemerovo region// in
the world of science and art: questions of philology, art
history and cultural studies: collection of articles. Art.
by mater. LXVII int. scientific-practical conf. No. 12 (67).
- Novosibirsk: SibAK, 2016. -S. 59-65.

Kuryazova D.T. Museums of Uzbekistan: the study and
preservation of material and cultural heritage.
Monograph. - Tashkent: San'at, 2018. 120 p.