recommendation: comprehensive conservation plan - … · archaeological management officially,...

Archaeological Management

CHAPTER 7: ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT

7.1 INTRODUCTION

The Outstanding Universal Value of Hampi World Heritage Site lies primarily with its

unique archaeological evidence as described in Chapter 2. The World Heritage Site of Hampi is

inscribed as a large archaeological area with exemplary architectural, archaeological and sculptural

evidence of the 16th century Vijayanagara metropolis that was well integrated with its natural

setting.

Therefore, this chapter endeavours to address all aspects related to protection,

maintenance and management of archaeological resources on site, including monuments, surface

archaeological remains and sub-surface archaeological evidence.

Taking from the management structure as described in Chapter 5, this is strictly a part of

Core Management and a sector of utmost priority. The scope of this sector encompasses both

the archaeological resources in a comprehensive way and then graduates onto to define a generic

model for conservation of other cultural resources on site as well.

7.2 NATURE OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL HERITAGE ON SITE

As discussed in Chapter 2, the archaeological evidence at Hampi WHS is very extensive

and ranges from grand monumental structures to partially ruined structures to surface

archaeological resources and fragments to buried archaeological evidence to sculptural heritage et

al. Refer IMP Volume III for details.

`It is evident that archaeological heritage at Hampi WHS is present in very large

numbers and is highly cohesive in character. Isolation of one resource entity from another and

from the natural setting make it next to impossible to comprehend the OUVs of the site.

Therefore, the proposed management system for this inscribed site has to be

appropriately developed to ensure that protection, maintenance, interpretation and management

of Hampi WHS is value based and effective.

By Prof. Nalini Thakur, Dept. of Architectural Conservation, School of Planning & Architecture, New Delhi 1

Integrated Management Plan for Hampi World Heritage Site July 2007

7.3 SITUATION ANALYSIS

7.3.1 Protection and regulation by statute

Of the available archaeological evidence on ground:

A. 56 ancient monuments1 deemed to be of national importance are protected by the

ASI under the provisions of the AMASR Act 1958. Refer Annexure 25 for the List of

ASI protected monuments.

B. Further, areas within 300 metres radius of these monuments fall under the regulatory

jurisdiction of ASI, with 100 metres as prohibited area and the next 200 metres as

regulated area for the purposes of mining and construction. Refer Map 5.

C. Around 1600 monuments and archaeological remains deemed to be of state

importance are protected by the DAM as per the provisions of the 1988 Gazette

Notification under the KAHMASR Act 1961.

D. Further, areas within 300 metres radius of these monuments fall under the regulatory

jurisdiction of DAM, with 100 metres as prohibited area and the next 200 metres as

regulated area for the purposes of mining and construction. Refer Map 5.

There is a very wide range of archaeological evidence including surface fragments,

sculptural heritage and sub-surface remains that is currently unprotected and is in a highly

vulnerable position.

7.3.2 Activities of Archaeological Survey of India, Government of India

7.3.2.1 Organizational structure

ASI has a centralized top-to-bottom organizational structure with the Office of the

Director General at the apex vested with all decision making powers. For administrative

convenience, there are 24 regional circles that take care of ASI mandated activities within their

jurisdictions under the supervision of DG’s office.

1 Important to note that what may be listed and counted as one ASI protected entity may include more than one structure. E.g. Two Pillars and Group of Mortar Wheels outside Zenana Enclosure in Kamalapuram are counted as one protected entity in ASI listings. Therefore, 56 ASI protected monuments at Hampi may comprise of many more individual structures.

Prepared for Archaeological Survey of India 2


Officially, Hampi World Heritage Site falls under the jurisdiction of two regional circles,

Dharwad (jurisdiction to the north of River Tungabhadra) and Bangalore (jurisdiction to the

south of River Tungabhadra) Circles. However, all the 56 ASI protected monuments and sites

are located to the south of the river; there are none to the north of the river. Therefore, the

Dharwad Circle does not play active role towards protection, maintenance or management on

ground as defined in the AMASR Act ’58.

7.3.2.2 ASI activities and works on site

For detailed roles and responsibilities of ASI as national level technical agency mandated

for heritage protection and management, refer Chapter 4.The present philosophical approach of

ASI towards the site governing its technical activities focuses on ‘Reconstruction’ and presenting

Hampi as it was for visitor interpretation. However, this has created serious conflicts with the

archaeological interests of the site. Primary activities observed to be undertaken by ASI on site

and some of the observations made are as follows:

A. Excavations and/ or Scientific Clearances : Excavations at protected sites is

defined and well regulated within the ASI with requests for excavations being reviewed

and approved annually by central technical committee, CABA. While the definition of

Scientific Clearance is unclear, it seems a process similar to excavations but is not as well

a regulated activity, and does not require the approval of CABA.

At present, there is a nationwide stay on undertaking excavation activities at

protected sites in the country. However, there is a lot of clearance activity occurring on

site as Scientific Clearance and debris removal to contribute towards the overall

reconstruction strategy and expose of original city layout. Refer plates 1 and 2.

The nature of such clearances is arbitrary, technically inaccurate and tampers with the

attributes of Authenticity of Materials and Substance of the inscribed site. Refer plate 3. It

is evident that such exposition activity should be undertaken only through proper

excavation, and that due importance should be attached to the construction information

embedded inside the structure and not just its façade.

B. Building Conservation and Reconstruction: There is a lot of building

conservation activity occurring on site that is in the nature of reconstruction. In such

reconstructions, the emphasis is laid upon recreating the overall look of the structure



while the original archaeological and construction information embedded within the

monument is deemed replaceable with new material, mostly cement concrete. This is

most inappropriate and grave loss of Authenticity of Material and Substance of the

inscribed site. Refer Plate 4, 5 and 6.

C. Environmental development and landscaping around monuments: There is a

great focus on environmental development and landscaping around monuments. While

landscaping around monuments provides a more presentable view of them, it makes

them distinct within a rugged landscape dotted with ruined structures and disturbs their

setting for interpretation purposes. Refer plate 7.

The layout patterns are distinct of English landscaping and not authentic recreation

of Vijayanagara setting. This practice needs to be reviewed to ascertain the continuation

of this practice or new alternatives developed.

There are also concerns of such actions tampering with the surrounding sub-surface

archaeological evidence of the city layout, which cannot be ascertained due to lack of

adequate documentation.

In many a cases, visitors are not allowed access to such landscaped areas; so the

precise purpose of such extensive landscaping measures is unclear.

D. Security, fencing and other protection measures: The most prevalent forms of

protection and security deal with:

I.Installation of gates at monument entrances Refer plate 8

II.Protection through acquisition and ownership – There is an impetus to acquire

land and land holdings surrounding protected heritage resources with a view

to curtail any potentially detrimental development activity from occurring in

the vicinity of the monuments.

Refer Chapter 3 for more details. Most of these measures isolate monuments

from their surroundings and in the case of gates, are ugly and interfere with the fabric of

historic structures.

E. Visitor management services like guides, ticketing booths et al.


Integrated management Plan for Hampi World Heritage Site

By Prof.. Nalini Thakur, School of Planning and Architecture for Archaeological Survey of India

Plate 1. Clearance along the approach to Zenana enclosure

Plate 2. Excavations in progress near Vitthalapura temple



Plate 3. Clearance of inside information of the fortification wall along the river in Vitthalapura

Plate 4. The original construction of fortification walls vis-à-vis new reconstruction of fortification wall along the river in Vitthalapura



Plate 5. Reconstruction of one of the ruined temples in Vitthalapura

Plate 6. A reconstructed wall in Krishnapura with introduction of new/ modified stone blocks



Plate 7. Landscaping around monuments

Plate 8. Gate installed at the temple at Ananthasayanagudi


7.3.2.2 Technical standards, specifications and procedures followed:

While references are available to assess standards, specifications and procedures followed

by the ASI for various on site works, there is an absence of any standardization or procedure for

pre-works such as research, documentation including photo-documentation et al that are very

essential to be carried out in a systematic manner as per international standards for informed

decision making. The various reports that have been prepared in the last few years towards site

documentation by outsourcing it to private professionals have different standards and formats,

and in many a cases are inadequate for decision making towards appropriate conservation action.

Refer Annexure 14 for list of ASI reports. E.g. reconstruction of this Mahadwara within Vitthalapura

would require a proper condition assessment and many more studies than simple architectural

documentation as plans, elevations and sections. Refer plates 9 and 10.

The various manuals and specifications followed by the ASI for various site works are as

follows:

A. Conservation Manual by Sir John Marshall: Colloquially termed as the Marshall’s

Manual, this document published in 1923 serves as the technical guide to ASI for

archaeological works at all protected sites. Refer Annexure 15 for detailed assessment of the

Marshall’s Manual.

Based on the older law, the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act 1904, the Manual

is representative of the colonial times it was prepared in. Operating within the PWD

system, this manual intended to distinguish archaeological works from other public

works of new nature.

It provides several guidelines for Conservation works; however, guidelines for

excavation works are few. It lays due emphasis on protecting Authenticity of historic

buildings; however, it does not elaborate upon the same and leaves scope for selective

interpretation on ground.

It is realized that the Manual was a commendable effort for the times it was prepared

in; however, it needs to be upgraded to meet the requirements set by the World Heritage

Convention ’72, the Operational Guidelines and the Nara Document on Authenticity, so

that the technical works on the site are as per modern day international standards. This is

very essential to maintain the OUVs, Authenticity and Integrity of the inscribed site.



B. Technical specifications: The present level of technical specifications largely

adheres to the Central Public Works Department standards that are relevant for general

public works but are inappropriate for archaeological purposes. This reflects in the use of

cement and cement concrete for conservation purposes on site.

C. Manual of Archaeological Survey of India, Vols I – II: Prepared in the post

independence scenario, this Manual lays down procedures for various works that are

more administrative and do not contribute towards overcoming the shortcomings of

various technical references used.

7.3.3 Activities of Department of Archaeology and Museums, Government of

Karnataka

7.3.3.2 Organizational structure

The Department of Archaeology and Museums follows the structure of the ASI at the

state level and falls under the Department of Kannada and Culture, Government of Karnataka.

It also has a centralised system with the Directorate office at Bangalore and regional circles for

subordination.

Unlike the ASI jurisdictions, the whole of Hampi World Heritage Site falls under the

regional jurisdiction of one division, the Gulbarga Division. Therefore, activities of the DAM on

both sides of the river are better coordinated.

7.3.3.3DAM activities and works on site

One of the oldest archaeology departments in the country, the DAM has a strong

tradition of carrying out technically sound excavations and conservation works. It has also

conducted several research works and published the same in the past. For detailed roles and

responsibilities of DAM, refer Chapter 4.

However, it is severely short of staff and adequate funding at present to be able to carry

out all its mandated activities in a proper manner and this reflects in its recent works, especially

building conservation works, undertaken on site. Some of the observations made are as follows:

A. Excavations: Some of the excavations observed on site seemed to be conducted in a




Plate 9. Mahadwara in Vitthalapua: was scheduled to be reconstructed in October 2005

Plate 10. Documentation undertaken for the Mahadwara



Plate 11. DAM excavations near the Zenana Enclosure



Plate 12. Reconstruction of fortification near the Water Gate, AnegundiThe new blocks do not follow dimensions of the original masonry but try to maintain some finesse in jointing. The original information embedded in the fortification is not disturbed, there is a distinction and is preferable to the total reconstruction. However, principles of the original stone construction and the technique are not fully understood and the materials used in the core of the reconstructed wall are not original, like the use of red sand



Plate 13. Reconstruction of the Uchhapaianna Mantapa, AnegundiWhile the emphasis has been to recreate the original form, the process has altered the original structural and constructional aspects significantly and need to be studied in greater detail. The jointing is very thick and filled with cement mortar. The finishing is also very coarse and uneven throughout. This has resulted in severe loss of Authenticity of Materials and Substance


scientific manner although conservation of exposed archaeological evidence was severely

hampered on account of inadequate staff and funding. Refer plate 11, 12 and 13. The

documentation by DAM for Hampi is undertaken in-house and as a part of the overall

process. The documentation undertaken during excavations includes:

I. Basic plan of excavated area and trenches

II. Photo documentation – before and after excavations

III. List of antiquities found during excavations

A. Building Conservation: DAM also follows the policy of reconstruction even

though the structures reconstructed are fewer on account of inadequate staff and

funding.

7.3.2.2 Technical standards, specifications and procedures followed

The DAM does not have any manual for technical guidance and follows the

specifications of the Public Works Department that are relevant for general works but highly

inappropriate for archaeological purposes. This reflects in the nature of conservation works

undertaken on site.

It was also difficult to assess the level of documentation undertaken by the DAM for

conservation purposes since none was available with the site staff or with the contractor

undertaking works on site. Refer plate 14.

7.4 SECTORAL ISSUES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MANAGEMENT

All issues discussed in Chapter 3 affect effective protection and management of the

archaeological heritage in one way or another. Following the logical order of the report, it is

understood that some aspects of inadequate site comprehension and protection have already

been addressed in the previous Chapters. However, references shall be made to the same as

required to present the sector in a holistic manner.

The aforementioned situation analysis depicts the present state of knowledge and

highlights the technical inadequacies in archaeological protection and management that may be

enumerated as follows:



7.4.1 Issues in Site Comprehension

All issues in site comprehension, including aspects of irrational boundaries as discussed

in Chapter 3 hold true for effective archaeological management and reference should be made to

the same. Other sectoral issues in site comprehension deal primarily with aspects of non-

recognition of non-monumental archaeological evidence, and lack of adequate information,

proper mapping and documentation that hampers comprehension of archaeological nature of

the site.

A. The foremost issue in archaeological management relates to the isolation of

archaeological entities for protection and management purposes that hampers proper

site comprehension. The fact Hampi is inscribed as a contiguous archaeological area

and the nature of archaeological evidence is highly cohesive, within itself and with the

natural setting, does not translate into actions on ground and affects proper

comprehension of the site for interpretation, protection and management purposes.

E.g. the ‘ghats’ of Vijayanagara period comprise of not just the river side mantapa but

also the river, the river banks, other riverside features and the interface of the

mantapa with these resources that contributes to the totality of this cultural system.

This as a whole needs to be understood and protected as heritage on ground. Refer

plate 15.

B. It is realised that the original extents of the 16th century Vijayanagara metropolis were

much larger than presently recognised and that there is a wide range of archaeological

resources outside the present limits that contribute towards total comprehension of

the OUVs, Authenticity and Integrity of the inscribed site and are presently

unprotected. Refer Chapter 3 and Chapter 6 for more details and proposed

recommendations.

C. Non-monumental resources such as fragments, sculptural heritage et al are not

recognised and protected officially as archaeological heritage. This is very critical

since Hampi is inscribed as the ruined metropolis of Vijayanagara and the non-

monumental ruined archaeological resources play the most crucial role towards

understanding various aspects of the 16th century capital city. Refer plate 16.




Plate 13. Reconstruction of the Uchhapaianna Mantapa, AnegundiWhile the emphasis has been to recreate the original form, the process has altered the original structural and constructional aspects significantly and need to be studied in greater detail. The jointing is very thick and filled with cement mortar. The finishing is also very coarse and uneven throughout. This has resulted in severe loss of Authenticity of Materials and Substance



Plate 16. Unprotected buried heritage in Hampi

Plate 15. The Ghats of Hampi


D. There is absence of vital information such precise limits and boundaries of ASI and

DAM protected structures and 300 metres regulatory jurisdictions that affect site

level decision making and actions towards protection and management.

E. There is no information on the sub-surface archaeological evidence, which seems

expansive from surface explorations and has the potential to contribute significantly

towards the OUVs of the inscribed site and the hitherto unknown aspects of

Vijayanagara metropolis. Such evidence occasionally crops up during excavations for

new developments and is currently in a vulnerable position.

F. It is important to realise that what may be listed and counted as one protected entity

may comprise more than one physical structure, thus affecting quantification and

qualitative understanding of protected resources on site. E.g. Two Pillars and Group

of Mortar Wheels outside Zenana Enclosure in Kamalapuram are counted as one

protected entity in ASI listings.

G. Integrated mapping of archaeological evidence is currently lacking that makes

comprehension of the archaeological nature of inscribed site very difficult. This holds

true especially for the 56 ASI protected and 1600 DAM protected structures on

ground.

H. Absence of an accurate Base Map further makes precise mapping and location

of archaeological resources difficult.

7.4.2 Philosophical issue

The primary philosophical issue in protection and management of Hampi WHS relates

with the policy of “Reconstruction” and exposing large chunks of buried archaeological evidence

to present the original city layout and architecture for site interpretation purposes that is also

deemed by some quarters to be the Indian “traditional” approach towards building conservation.

Notwithstanding the authenticity of such a claim, this philosophical approach comes

under scrutiny for it goes against the premise of Hampi’s inscription as World Heritage – as the

ruins of the 16th century Vijayanagara metropolis.



Besides, as per Article 86 of the Operational Guidelines, “…in relation to Authenticity,

the reconstruction of archaeological remains or historic buildings or districts is justifiable only in

exceptional circumstances.”

Hampi does not justify as an exceptional case for reconstruction even for interpretation

purposes as the surface archaeological evidence is exemplary, both in its numbers and in the

quality of its remains that enable a detailed comprehension of the Vijayanagara metropolis that

was.

There are other implications of such an approach that are much graver and severely

jeopardize the archaeological interests of the site, thus making it highly inappropriate for Hampi.

Refer Issues in Protection and Technical Issues for detailed discussion on the same.

7.4.3 Issues in Protection

All issues in site protection as discussed in Chapter 3 hold true for effective

archaeological management and reference should be made to the same. Sectoral issues in

protection emanate largely from sectoral issues in site comprehension and may be enumerated as

follows:

A. The present format of protecting archaeological resources relates with isolation of

archaeological entity of value and protecting it. There is no system to accord

protection to archaeological areas and cultural systems that views the resource in a

contiguous manner with its setting and other cultural resources that contribute

towards the totality of the system. This defeats the premise of inscription and makes

the site vulnerable in the absence of appropriate spatial mechanisms for protection.

E.g. protection to the ‘ghats’ of Hampi shall include protection to the whole cultural

system comprising the river, the river bank, mantapas, other riverside features and

the relationship among them.

B. There is inadequate protection by statute to non-monumental archaeological

evidence that contributes significantly to the OUVs, Authenticity and Integrity of the

inscribed site.



C. Archaeological resources, remnant of the Vijayanagara metropolis outside the present

official extents of the inscribed site that contribute to the OUVs, Authenticity and

Integrity of the inscribed site are unprotected. Refer Chapter 6 for further details.

D. There are some archaeological resources and cultural systems that fall under the

ownership and care of other departments and agencies. E.g. the Vijayanagara canals

fall under the Department of Irrigation, Government of Karnataka. Agencies other

than ASI and DAM are not mandated to recognize and treat these resources as

historic or attach any archaeological value to them. Therefore, these resources are

presently unprotected as heritage.

E. Inadequate information regarding precise extents of protected monuments and

regulatory jurisdictions of ASI and DAM makes site level protection and

management disorganised and inconsistent.

F. It is difficult to apply the 100 metres and further 200 metres of prohibitory and

regulatory jurisdictions at Hampi due to the intertwined nature of archaeological

heritage that leads of numerous overlapping jurisdictions of ASI and DAM.

G. Ownership and protection status of Virupaksha Temple and Hampi Bazaar is

unclear. Refer Chapter 3 for further details.

H. The philosophical approach towards Reconstruction and emphasis on recreating the

overall outer appearance of the structure compromises other aspects of the cultural

resource. The technical information embedded within the structure is not protected

in action and is highly vulnerable to damage/ loss. The subsequent execution of

works in a technically inappropriate manner leads to severe loss of Authenticity of

Materials and Substance and is irreversible a process in the absence of adequate

documentation. Refer aforementioned Situation Analysis. This is very critical

especially when the architectural value of Hampi is deemed unique towards its

inscription.



I. Ownership and protection status of newly excavated archaeological areas and

resources has not been clarified by concerned agencies that have brought such

resources to surface.

J. The nature of protection measures adopted hitherto are deemed philosophically and

technically inappropriate, that interfere with the historic fabric of resources and

isolate them from their surroundings, which is unsuitable keeping in mind the

contiguous and cohesive nature of the inscribed site. Refer Chapter 3 for detailed

discussion on the same. Refer Chapter 8 on Integrative Management for

recommended planning measures.

K. There is inadequate implementation and regulation of existing protection measures

on ground that result on account of several operational aspects such as insufficient

staffing, corruption et al.

L. Isolating nature of protection measures and land acquisition approach of concerned

agencies has created discord among local communities. This, when combined with

inadequate information on protected limits of monuments and surrounding

regulatory jurisdictions, results in access to protected monuments being denied to

concerned agencies that results in further neglect, poor protection and ill

maintenance of the concerned resources.

M. Archaeological resources are under threat from uncontrolled new developments in

close vicinity and encroachments in monuments. Refer Chapter 3 for detailed

discussion on related issues, and Chapters 6 and 8 for recommended solutions.

N. Conflicts arise with aspects of living heritage, religious beliefs, rituals and cultural

resources as seen in temples and other sacred places such as hills and caves, which

are still under active worship, and damage physical fabric of these cultural resources.

7.4.4 Technical issues

There are many technical issues hindering effective protection, maintenance and

management of archaeological heritage that reflects in the poor quality of technical works



undertaken on site such as excavations, clearances and building conservation projects. Refer

aforementioned Situation Analysis. Severely undermining the OUVs and attributes of

Authenticity and Integrity, these issues may be enumerated as follows:

A. There is disparity between international and national standards and guidelines for

conservation. The national guidelines for conservation are very outdated and lay

down technical standards that seem very nominal with respect to the provisions of

the World Heritage Convention ’72, its Operational Guidelines and the Nara

Document on Authenticity. This is unacceptable for any World Heritage Site.

B. It is all the more lamentable that even these minimal guidelines are not followed in

execution on ground.

C. The technical specifications used for conservation works are again outdated and

based on specifications for general public works. These are found to be highly

inappropriate for archaeological purposes that reflects in the poor quality of works

undertaken on site.

D. The quality of works actually undertaken on site is poor and does not follow any

prescribed standard, old or new. E.g. joints for new masonry are expected to be as

inconspicuous as possible, and this should extend to reconstruction. However, this is

not followed on site.

E. Reasons for poor quality of works are many, some of them linked with operational

incapacities and inadequacies of support systems. Refer Operational, monitoring and

other support issues.

F. Concerns also prevail over proper maintenance and repair of archaeological resources

and cultural systems that fall under the ownership and care of other departments and

agencies, such as Vijayanagara irrigation canals. Most of these resources are in state

of severe disrepair. Moreover, standards and specifications for works undertaken by

these departments are based on new works and not per conservation requirements.



G. Many definitions are vague and not lucid such as debris removal, site clearance,

rebuilding et al. This creates immense confusion and there is no homogeneity in the

operations of different agencies on ground. Usually, such actions are found to be not

as well regulated as other technical mandates such as excavations and are undertaken

as convenient side step towards reconstruction and exposition of more archaeological

resources to surface.

H. There is an absence of pre-works actions such as research, documentation and

inventorying, technical appraisal for detailed condition assessment et al, which are

integral part of any international conservation project. This is a lacuna in the system

itself and there are no standards prescribed for the same. Therefore, even when such

works are outsourced to professionals in private practice, the final outputs are of

varying degrees and details and highly insufficient to take the right decision towards

conservation.

I. Article 86 of the Operational Guidelines states that “…Reconstruction is acceptable

only on the basis of complete and detailed documentation and to no extent on

conjecture.” As observed, comprehensive documentation and research required for

reconstruction purposes is not undertaken at all. The existing practice is of standard

architectural documentation of the structure in its ruined state and is totally

inadequate for reconstruction purposes.

J. The aspect of landscaping around monuments is technically and philosophically

inappropriate as discussed above.

K. Restoration of ancient stone paving should be avoided and undertaken only if the

monument to which it belongs to, is in first-rate condition. This is ostensibly to

discourage visitors. However, new paving is being laid for visitors at Hampi, which is

primarily an archaeological area with many underground remains. Refer plate 17.

L. Greater emphasis on measures such as landscaping, fencing et al is reflective of

ambiguity in prioritization of works and utilization of available funds towards site

protection and management. Refer plate 18.




Plate 17. New paving and landscaping laid out around a protected well

Plate 18. Landscaping around monuments being used by picnickers



Plate 19.Dargah in Vitthalapura Only the mantapa and historic fortification in the background are historic and thus protected; although the board location implies as if the whole complex is historic and protected

Plate 20. Shrine enroute to BukkasagaraOnly the small mantapa to the left is historic and protected, and not the whole complex


A. Long term planning of works in a systematic and officially documented manner,

where exact areas are demarcated for future excavations and buildings identified for

conservation works as a part of overall strategy, is missing. Everything is very verbal

and actions arbitrary.

B. Non-strategic placement of DAM protection boards, which is in front of the entire

building complex even though only a small part of it is historic, and thus protected;

while the rest may be new construction. This creates confusion vis-à-vis the extents

and contents of protected entity, especially in the absence of required documentation,

and can lead to potential conflicts with vested interests especially in the case of

temples, shrines and other structures of religious importance. E.g. the Dargah near

Purandradasa Mantapa in Vitthalapura and small shrine enroute to Bukkasagara. Refer

plates 19 and 20.

7.4.2 Operational, monitoring and other support issues

All operational issues as discussed in Chapter 3 hold true for effective archaeological

management and reference should be made to the same. Operational issues relate with the

existing inadequacies within the concerned agencies to undertake their role effectively in

archaeological protection and management. While technical inadequacies have already been

discussed above, other aspects in operational issues may be enumerated as follows:

A. Persistence of the old paradigm and resistance to undertake changes required for

effective management of the inscribed site; it is realized that there is a wide gap

between intellectual, technical and financial capacities as required in protection and

management of any World Heritage Site as per international standards and the

existing national capacity for Hampi and other World Heritage Sites in the country.

While there are great opportunities available within the system to overcome the same,

there is intellectual resistance to change and appropriate systems as required to bring

national heritage management systems at par with international standards. The older

the system, the greater is the resistance offered. This intellectual incapacity is the

biggest operational issue in effective protection and management of Hampi WHS.



B. The problem of inadequate staff and other supports is common to almost all

agencies and holds true especially for DAM that has only 2 Conservation Engineers

and 4 Conservation Assistants to manage conservation activities . DAM protected

sites spread all over the state of Karnataka; and Hampi is only one such heritage site.

Thus, the responsible Conservation Assistant (not Engineer) is able to devote only

one week per month to look after more than 1600 DAM protected monuments at

this WHS! This is indicative of the acute shortage of technical staff to undertake

works on site and needs to be addressed immediately.

C. Inadequate technical capacity and skills within existing staff on ground is another

critical aspect that affects the quality of works on site. Most of them are either not

trained properly or they are trained in modern engineering and structural mechanics.

The capacity to undertake works on historic structures is found lacking that further

affects the quality of site level decision making.

D. Lack of adequate funding is another common concern and DAM again is more

affected by this. The agency is unable to undertake required excavations, building

conservation work and conservation of excavated areas. While the obvious

conclusion is absence of funds, other facets relate to inconsistent allocation and

injudicious utilization of funding towards non-priority tasks. This is a critical issue

and should be resolved on priority basis.

E. There is a severe lack of intra- and inter-departmental communication and

collaboration and aspect of centralised decision making that ignores ground situation,

which leads to fragmented focus, and uncoordinated execution and quality on site.

Refer Chapter 3 for more details.

F. ASI and DAM have different agendas for works. This causes disparity in protection,

maintenance and management measures undertaken at different parts of the same

site and results in uneven care of archaeological resources. It is crucial that the site

and its even care be considered first priority and not official procedures.

G. Centralised departments for documentation, both within ASI and DAM at national

and state levels respectively, and subsequent administrative procedures ensure that



minimal documentation is available on site for referencing and technical decision

making at the site level.

H. No technical directions or copies of documentation are availed to contractors

undertaking works on site and there is an overall PWD type of system in place for

execution purposes.

I. The present system of awarding work is based upon the tendering process and

selection of the lowest bid for undertaking works. Qualitative aspects and selection of

the best technical solution within a situation are never considered. Thus, the basic

system of awarding works for execution on site is faulty.

J. Most of the bidders sought through the tendering process are in the nature of

contractors who are only expected to execute works on site as per finalised bill of

quantities. Comprehensive services and direction offered by professionals such as

conservation architects are deemed expensive and not necessary. Thus, the whole

professional domain is left out of the process that is bound to affect the

comprehensiveness and quality of works undertaken on site.

K. Monitoring of works on ground is irregular, minimal and arbitrary. In the case of

DAM, it is on account of inadequate personnel to undertake

L. In the absence of relevant standards, specifications and directions, and the tendering

way of awarding works, there is no system to monitor and ensure that work is being

done as per international conservation ethics and specifications.

M. One of the critical aspects is the ability to differentiate between in-house

responsibilities and outsourcing of works to professionals in private practice. It is

observed that in the absence of adequate in-house technical capacity, several works

are awarded to outside consultants including Base Map preparation, documentation

projects and execution of conservation works as in the case of Manmatha Tank.

While it may be generally acceptable, such a trend becomes unhealthy since the client

is uninformed and does not have the capacity to demand exact standards of works as

required for informed decision making on site. Consultants try to do their best but in



the absence of laid down procedures that ensure quality. Consultants works are

rarely monitored or questioned.

It is crucial that government agencies and departments assume their full

responsibility and undertake relevant capacity building measures as required so that

they are in full command of any situation, are fully informed, are capable of asking

for exact outputs as per relevant standards and are able to monitor/ assess the works

undertaken by outside consultants. For responsible management it is essential that in

house capacity is well developed, and even if there is an external consultant, informed

coordination and dialogue happens.

It is crucial for government agencies to differentiate between what are in-house

responsibilities and what works can be awarded to outside consultants. Tasks such as

Base Map preparation cannot be outsourced completely. Responsible agencies have

to have a comprehension of what all information is required so, what all is to be

mapped and at what scale for standard application later. The outside consultant can

only provide the tool of technology for accurate mapping. But the content has to be

decided by the client.

It is also critical for such agencies to prepare relevant standards for various

works, including standards for documentation and ensure that these are followed in

in-house activities and in works outsourced to private consultants. This is very much

required since many outside consultants and community groups will be involved in

repair and maintenance measures in the near future because hitherto unprotected

resources are also being brought under the scope of comprehensive conservation,

maintenance and repair, and it is critical for the concerned agencies to be able to keep

a tab on all such activities.

N. In a system where finalization of any decision is based upon majority of votes, claims

have been made of instances where ASI and DAM voices of concern have been

sidelined during HWHAMA meetings. The Authority has representation of a range

of agencies and departments; ASI and DAM are only two such members. Every

agency has its own mandate and interests, and many are in conflict with

archaeological purposes. Therefore, if the majority votes against the latter, it increases

the pressure on archaeological interests of the site.



7.5 RECOMMENDATIONS

Keeping in view the range of issues affecting this sector, the recommendations made also

have a wide diversity. Recommendations are made towards philosophical approach to be

adopted, protection measures, information management, organisation and supports et al.

Eventually, a model plan is proposed for undertaking effective protection and conservation of

other cultural resources on site.

Other chapters in the IMP discuss some of these aspects in greater detail. Chapter 2

discusses various aspects of the inscribed site towards addressing issues in site comprehension,

Chapter 6 discusses Site Protection, Chapter 8 discusses Planning and Development, Chapter 10

discusses Visitor Management, Chapter 11 discusses Supports required for management

including Training and Capacity Building, and Chapter 13 discusses Monitoring system

recommended for Hampi World Heritage Site. Therefore, references should be made as

applicable.

Many aspects of inadequate site comprehension require paradigm shift in the official

thinking and perceptions of heritage. This can be addressed only through a will to change and

overcome existing inadequacies of the system at the highest levels.

Chapter 2 of the Final IMP provides a detailed account of the site, its cultural content

and how to view the same for management purposes. This should be officially adopted as the

definition of the inscribed site for al purposes.

IMP Volumes II and III identify the various cultural entities and systems comprising the

inscribed site. This information should be further expanded qualitatively and quantitatively for

site level execution of protection and management measures.

The present provisions of regulating areas within 300 metres of ASI and DAM protected

monuments as regulatory interface with the surroundings is in the nature of administrative order

and not technically sound. Therefore, the IMP recommends the GoI and GoK to review such a

provision and adopt other feasible solutions.

7.5.1 Some important tasks

A. Preparation of an accurate Base Map of the inscribed site. Refer Chapter 11 for

detailed recommendation.



B. ASI and DAM should immediately undertake the task of listing and inventorying of

all their protected sites, monument complexes, monuments and all ancilliary

structures within.

C. ASI and DAM should identify the precise limits of protected structures, and 100

metres and further 200 metres regulatory jurisdictions on the common Base Map.

D. ASI should immediately undertake geo-prospecting and mapping of the sub-surface

archaeological evidence for this is critical information not just for protecting this

archaeological resource but to also identify no-development and development zones

for community development on the common Base Map.

E. ASI and DAM should immediately clarify the protection and ownership status of the

newly excavated/ revealed areas and map them precisely as well.

F. If there is a need, ASI and DAM should re-notify all their protected monuments and

sites if significant differences are observed between original notifications and

information on ground.

Note: Until the accurate Base Map is finalised, the two agencies are advised to assemble all the aforementioned

information that is available for informed decision making in a format that can be easily transferred onto the

common Base Map later.

7.5.2 Philosophical approach for archaeological works at Hampi World Heritage Site

It is recommended that the present approach of Reconstruction for conservation purposes and

large scale exposing of archaeological evidence, especially when undertaken as clearances and not

as systematic excavations, be abandoned immediately for it is a grave threat to the Authenticity

of the inscribed site.

It is recommended to utilise the tool of surface archaeology and explorations to produce

information for interpretation purposes and leave the physical archaeological evidence

undisturbed until better standards of technical works are established. Documentation of ground

zero is a very viable option for a site such as Hampi.

E.g. the historic bridge in Vitthalapura to Virupapuragadda across the river is more

coherent in its present collapsed state than that it would be after reconstruction, as much of the

original information still remains.



7.5.3 Measures for Protection

7.5.3.1 Protection to entire archaeological evidence, surface and sub-surface

Refer Chapter 6 for detailed recommendations for protection by statute to hitherto

unprotected resources on site through Amendments to the HWHAMA 2002 Act.

7.5.3.2 Strategy for archaeological resources outside the present extents of the inscribed site

The IMP cannot make detailed recommendations regarding archaeological resources

outside the present official limits of the inscribed site. It is realised that until the site is

undertaken for Renomination, it is not possible to do the same. However, keeping in mind the

contribution of these resources towards the OUVs of the site, the IMP suggests that the

concerned agencies undertake any measure possible within their existing means towards

protection and management of these resources and systems.

7.5.3.3 Mechanism for regulation of surrounding development

The IMP envisages planning as per the KTCP Act ’61 and subsequent implementation as

the best solution for regulation of the surrounding development.

The Master Plan prepared so shall be the core document directing new development so

by processing the IMP directives; and the Landuse plan shall identify uses or no-uses to be in

consonance with the archaeological evidence on site. The latter is envisaged as an alternative to

the Land Acquisition process for curbing undesired activities in the vicinity of protected

monuments.

7.5.3.4 Mechanism for spatial protection – concept of an ‘Archaeological Park’

Refer Chapter 6 that discusses regulatory measures and guidelines for spatial protection

in detail.

Area identified as Protection Sub-Zone I is the one characterised with the highest

concentration of archaeological evidence, surface and sub-surface, is the original inscribed area,

and requires the highest level of protection. Refer Map 5 – protection zones map.



The IMP recommends the concept of ‘Archaeological Park’1 as the mechanism for

spatial protection, regulation and management of this special area. Refer Annexure 12 for details of

the same.

An Archaeological Park, within the Core Zone, may be termed as a definable area

distinguishable by heritage resources and land related to such resources, which has potential to

become an interpretative, educational and recreational resource for the public. Though the

priority is the built and archaeological heritage, ecological and landscape aspects are not

excluded.

The concept provides for a protective environment for archaeological heritage

irrespective of its physical status, ownership and jurisdictions on ground where the whole

area is bound and points of access are defined and few. All activities within these bounds are

highly regulated. Therefore, it allows for application of protection and regulatory to this area as a

whole and not as isolated monuments. This way ensures protection for the entire range of

archaeological evidence, including underground structures, leaving them undisturbed

until resources are found to excavate and conserve them.

One of the other advantages of such a mechanism is that it makes fencing around

monuments and the process of land acquisition for protection purposes preventable. Thus, land

use within the Park becomes ineffective. So agencies like ASI and DAM can concentrate on their

mandated technical activities.

Such a Park will not preclude recreational usage as long as the needs of heritage are not

compromised. It shall primarily serve conservation and educational needs, and shall educate the

people by introducing the past through innovative and enjoyable ways so that they perceive their

city as pluralistic and layered. As these layers are unfolded, one hopes that people will develop a

positive attitude towards the city itself and inspire them to become responsibly involved in the

heritage management process. This will serve the needs of heritage management in a truly

participatory manner.

This becomes a sector for joint action where collaboration is ordained among ASI,

DAM, HWHAMA and the concerned district administrations of Bellary and Koppal. Necessary

actions must to be taken by the ASI and the HWHAMA. The designation of the designated area

as an Archaeological Park must be done with due process. A task for the Joint Programme for

Heritage Management, the Central and State governments must prepare immediate notifications

to incorporate this.

1 Refer to the report “Integrated Conservation for Mehrauli Heritage Zone ” by the same author to understand the concept and application of an Archaeological Park in the Indian context.



7.5.3.5 IMP stand on fencing, gates and other security measures

It is recommended to not undertake any more fencing measures around protected

monuments. With respect to existing fences, it is recommended to eliminate them gradually until

the primary mechanisms proposed for archaeological protection and management get

operational on ground.

With reference to gates installed in protected monuments for security purposes, it is

recommended to eliminate them gradually until the primary mechanisms proposed for

archaeological protection and management get operational on ground.

In lieu of security guards, the IMP recommends ‘Communicators’ who act as rangers and

guide in one.

7.5.3.6 Encroachments in monuments

Refer the following chapter for details on the same.

7.5.3.7 Aspects of living religious associations

Any religious activity to have initiated after the year 2000 should be discontinued and

encroachments removed.

7.5.3.8 Access to Monuments on private land

It is recommended to initiate MoUs with concerned land owners towards access to

protected monuments. This shall highlight an inclination towards non-acquisition of the land and

lessen the antagonism.

The proposed planning measures should be allowed to run their course and regulate

surroundings of protected monuments as first measures in lieu of land acquisition. If the

regulation is found to be insufficient on ground, only then can acquisition be taken up but only

as the last resort.



7.5.4 IMP stand on landscaping around protected monuments

It is recommended to put a halt to any more landscaping measures around protected

monuments. Besides not being true to their context and interfering with surrounding

archaeological evidence, such actions divert attention and resources from other activities that

may be more essential for archaeological protection and management.

With respect to existing landscaping, it is recommended that it is recommended to

eliminate them gradually until the primary mechanisms proposed for archaeological protection

and management get operational on ground.

7.5.5 Recommendations towards pre-Works tasks

It is recommended to adopt pre-action tasks such as listing, inventorying,

documentation, structural appraisal and analyses, and other researches as required as integral to

the process of archaeological management towards informed decision making. This is a very

critical recommendation that should be processed and shall require agencies to make relevant

changes within their present systems of works.

7.5.6 Joint Programme for Heritage Management

Hampi is not a one-site-one-agency situation any longer. It is critical that there be a

common approach, standards and execution towards the site as a whole for the multitude of

agencies responsible for protection and management of various resources and cultural systems.

Therefore, the IMP recommends constitution of a ‘Joint Programme for Heritage Management’

for Hampi World Heritage Site.

Envisaged as a collaborative effort of the ASI, DAM and HWHAMA, the primary

objective of such a programme is to ensure uniform protection, maintenance and management

of the archaeological heritage of Hampi, whether protected under the ASI and DAM, or

maintained by any other department, or unprotected; where the GoI and GoK develop a single

programme and technical standards for the site. Implementation may be done by different

agencies as mandated but the philosophy, policy, standards, processes and specifications applied

shall be the same.



7.5.6.1 Primary features of the Programme

A. Primary emphasis shall be upon activities mandated under the AMASR Act, 1958 and

KAHMASR Act, 1961

B. It shall also contribute towards improving site comprehension and respects the

contiguous nature of the inscribed site.

C. It shall acts as the platform for better protection measures and implementation of

the Archaeological Park mechanism

D. This collaborative programme shall work towards formulating, adopting and

implementing:

I. Common acceptable philosophy towards the site

II. Common definitions of works

III. Coordinated agenda and prioritization of works as per structural

requirements; and preparation of annual plans for excavations and building

conservation works

IV. Common formats and coordination for tasks (pre-action, action and post-

action) as per acceptable international standards:

Pre-actions: For example, listing, inventorying, documentation, structural

appraisal and analyses, material appraisal and analyses, and other researches as

required

Actions: Excavation and Building Conservation

Post actions: monitoring and review

V. Common technical standards, specifications and procedures for

implementation: updating of existing norms as per acceptable international

standards

VI. Preparation of a Security Plan for protected monuments and sites

E. The agencies concerned may undertake further collaboration, and sharing of finances

and other resources as agreed upon.

F. The agencies concerned shall undertake coordinated action for other tasks that relate

directly with cultural resource entities such as site information, presentation,

communication and promotion

G. The guidelines, standards and specifications laid down by this collaboration shall be

adhered to by other agencies mandated for care of other archaeological resources;

e.g. the Department of Irrigation that undertakes maintenance of Vijayanagara canals.



H. The Programme shall discuss and recommend possible joint measures for capacity

building and in-house strength.

7.5.6.2 Some of the guidelines to be processed

A. A systematic approach towards the exploration of the city layout, its quarters and

neighbourhoods, needs to be worked out and thought through before exposing

underground resources. A comprehensive plan to consolidate, conserve and present

have to be in place before additional work starts.

B. A review of the last two decades of excavation experience needs to be undertaken to

inform future decisions. This is based on the observations of the Team that technical

standards and specifications, especially in reconstruction works have been

overlooked.

C. At a World Heritage Site, all the original aspects, including technical information

embedded in a ruin that gets destroyed during reconstruction, needs to be protected,

especially when an architectural value of Hampi is deemed unique towards its

inscription. Further, it must be understood that Hampi is also a living heritage site,

and adequate arrangements for rescue archaeology need to be planned.

D. Adherence to new provisions of international documents like the ‘Operational

Guidelines’ and the ‘Nara Document on Authenticity’ will upgrade the WHS to the

higher professional standards required for heritage protection and management, all

the more necessary for a World Heritage Site like Hampi.

E. Joints for new masonry are expected to be as inconspicuous as possible and should

follow the original coursing and construction system.

F. Restoration of ancient stone pavings have to be avoided and undertaken only if the

monument to which it belongs to, is in first-rate condition. This is ostensibly to

discourage visitors.

7.5.7 The entire inscribed site be brought under the jurisdiction of one regional circle

of the ASI

It is recommended that either Hampi WHS be declared a mini-circle with independent

office or that the entire inscribed site be brought under the jurisdiction of one regional circle, the

Bangalore Circle, of the ASI since Dharwad Circle is not active in protection and management



on site. This is recommended with the intention to bring the whole site under the jurisdiction of

one ASI division so that activities on site are better coordinated especially since ASI has many

new responsibilities to adhere to as the Nodal Agency for the State Party.

7.5.8 Office of the ASI Site Manager

The IMP recommends this new institutional support to strengthen technical aspects and

better coordination of technical activities towards archaeological management on site. The post

will be held by a technically qualified professional of Deputy SA level from the ASI. He will be

the representative of the Nodal Agency (ASI) and the Chief Technical Anchor for the site. The

office should be on site and the present ASI site office in Kamalapuram may be extended to

accommodate the same. His primary duty will be to take the leadership in implementing tasks

recommended by the IMP Team. Therefore, he heads the implementation of the Core

Management and Joint Programmes for Heritage Management on site. For Core Management,

he will supervise its activities and documents such as the CCP; Site Management aspects such as

the Visitors Plan; presentation of the site that interprets the WHC Convention and Operational

Guidelines, etc. He will also set technical standards for the site. The ASI Site Manager will be a

member of HWHAMA in lieu of SA, Bangalore and SA, Dharwad Circles.

7.5.9 Measures in Training, Capacity Building and other supports

Refer Chapter 11 for detailed recommendations made to the same. Training and capacity

building measures for effective archaeological management relate to:

A. Measures for intellectual capacity building within GoI, GoK, ASI, DAM, HWHAMA

and other agencies

B. Employment of more staff, especially technical staff, within DAM; Archaeologists

and Conservation Architects deputed only for Hampi on permanent basis.

C. Upgradation of the technical capacity within the ground staff of ASI and DAM

D. Increase in funding to DAM for undertaking its mandated activities

E. Technical training to other departments involved in care of other archaeological

resources.

F. Other measures as discussed in Chapter 11.



7.5.10 Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)

7.5.10.1 Objectives of the CCP

All the heritage resources that contribute to the OUV and integrity and authenticity of

the HWHS will be managed in a comprehensive manner. In this plan all recommendations

concerning protection and management of cultural resources will be consolidated to link up. It

will have a working group and will be under the ASI site manager.

7.5.10.2 The document

This is the central document that the core management will use, around which all

agencies involved will develop cultural resource management. This will be monitored and

reviewed and will act as a managing tool. It involves recording of various actions directly and

indirectly linked to the resources aimed at maintaining the significance of the cultural resources.

The CCP functions as a management of the overall site. This is a five-year period plan, which

will provide all the guidelines for maintenance and protection on a year by year sequenced plan,

with the roles, responsibilities, mechanisms, etc. to be followed. ASI, DAM and HWHAMA will

decide upon common techniques and standards; but only mandated agencies will undertake

physical maintenance, i.e. ASI and DAM. HWHAMA provides logistic support through updated

information and networking.

The basic principle to be followed is that all new developments need to be planned

before any activity is started. The CCP has many sub plans such as the Cultural Resource

Protection Plan, Maintenance Plan, etc. There are various support plans, like Cultural Resources

Information Management Support, Administrative Management Support, Visitor Management

Plan, Development Plan, Environment Plan, Finance and Phasing Support, Plan for Future

Research Areas and Risk Preparedness and Management that aid the former.

The CCP will be finalized after the information regarding the cultural resources is made

available, i.e. it is obtainable on the base map.

This encompasses the core area and the LPA in the first phase and in the second phase,

the entire NHR. It acts as a tool for a joint programme of the different agencies. The scope

extends beyond monuments and encompasses the requirements of all the stakeholders in the



area, giving a blue print of cultural resources of the site in a comprehensive way. The primary

facets of Core Management shall comprise aspects of this CCP as sub-plans, namely:

A. Information – In the absence of relevant information on other cultural resources,

information collection and its structuring becomes primary for informed decision

making. information needs to be updated both qualitatively and quantitatively, and

should utilise the tools of inventorying, mapping on common Base Map et al. Refer

Chapter 11 for details on information management.

B. Protection – Refer Chapter 6 for details of the same

C. Maintenance - A plan must be developed depending on the specific resources,

based on the Information Management data. It should specify the type of

maintenance activity for each specific resource, the frequency of the activity, and the

required staff with types of skill required for each activity. The protected and

unprotected heritage will be maintained according to the common techniques and

standards decided by the ASI, DAM and HWHAMA. The implementation of

maintenance lies, however, with the owners themselves. So, though the area will be

maintained by different sets of people, the principle followed will be the same.

Maintenance of unprotected heritage is to be regulated as per planning guidelines and

research supports like the technical research programme. There will be special

emphasis on incorporation of traditional building knowledge according to the

planning guidelines. HWHAMA will provide logistic and technical support through

updated information and networking.

D. Management Visitor management: Refer Chapter 10 for details of the same. The scope

of the Visitor Management Plan is to give quality access of the site to visitors in such

a manner that the site is not harmed in any way. The Visitor Management Plan is part

of the IMP. It includes site interpretation, site presentation, facilities and amenities

and has to be interfaced with the Tourism Sector.

I. Site interpretation and communication: Information and provision of essential visitor

facilities like drinking water, toilets etc

II. Site promotion: information brochures, campaigns ads

III. Site presentation : signage,



IV. Circulation - trails

V. Visitor related -infrastructure

VI. Dissemination of site information from IIMC to community and visitors.

7.5.10.3 Guidelines to be processed as part of CCP

A. The authenticity and the integrity of the resources must not be compromised.

B. This plan will deal with the type of interventions to be carried out for the use and

conservation requirements of the specific cultural resources.

C. Some guidelines have been given but more need to be developed for each resource as

per the typology and classification, which can be introduced gradually. The same is

scheduled to the Hampi Act 2002 and the Master Plan as guidelines again.

D. The Master Plan regulations cannot conflict with the above guidelines. An integrated

guideline for protection and management for all sectors will need be prepared.

E. The ground staff, the officials and the public have to follow the same guidelines for

all actions connected to the resource, for documentation, intervention, etc.

F. Through continuing research, detailed guidelines for specific cultural resources based

on findings will be interfaced with other guidelines like technical repairs, extension

measures and new buildings.

G. Guidelines for new constructions shall specifically be developed for every kind of

new construction within the LPA/ National Region, with the objective that the form,

material and volumes of the architecture is maintained.


recommendation: comprehensive conservation plan - … · archaeological management officially,...

Documents