THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION) / Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2016. – 23 p.
It is the first of eleven brochures of the Thematic series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s Architecture" – on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY (Development of architectural-artistic forms)”, 2004. The Brochure includes 102 images of 86 buildings, constructed in Ancient and Medieval times. The set of objects is structured as an aspect of forms style classification.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
This presentation is intended to be a tool for art educators to use when presenting the purposes of visual art. The presentation requires the instructor to explain each purpose then manage discussion after each image.
Geoglyphs in the Kostanay region were opened in 2007 by Dmitriy Dey. Currently it is (supposedly) the oldest architectural monuments on the territory of Kazakhstan. Objects have different shapes and sizes. The greatest attention is attracted to the five objects: the “Turgay triradial fylfot” Hill and other hills Complex near Urpek village (50°06'09.82"N, 65°21'40.90"E) - Overall dimensions: 95m x 95m; the “Ushtogay's Square” hills complex (50°49'58.48"N, 65°19'34.70"E) - Overall dimensions: 387m x 394m; the “Ashtasti's Large cross” hills complex (50°13'39.62"N, 66°17'31.15"E) - Overall dimensions: 431m x 386m; the “Ekedyn's cross” hills complex (49°30'44.68"N, 65°51'44.09"E) - Overall dimensions: 249m x 229m; the “Kogai’s cross” hills complex (50°22'31.96"N, 65°27'43.98"E) - Overall dimensions: 280m x 212m. The Graphical representation of these objects allows to analyze the geometry and the orientation. The most famous Kazakh geoglyphs have interesting geometric features.
It is the second of eleven brochures of the Thematic series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s Architecture" – on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY (Development of architectural-artistic forms)”, 2004. The Brochure includes 213 images of 179 buildings, constructed in the Nineteenth century. The set of objects is structured as an aspect of forms style classification.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
This presentation is intended to be a tool for art educators to use when presenting the purposes of visual art. The presentation requires the instructor to explain each purpose then manage discussion after each image.
Geoglyphs in the Kostanay region were opened in 2007 by Dmitriy Dey. Currently it is (supposedly) the oldest architectural monuments on the territory of Kazakhstan. Objects have different shapes and sizes. The greatest attention is attracted to the five objects: the “Turgay triradial fylfot” Hill and other hills Complex near Urpek village (50°06'09.82"N, 65°21'40.90"E) - Overall dimensions: 95m x 95m; the “Ushtogay's Square” hills complex (50°49'58.48"N, 65°19'34.70"E) - Overall dimensions: 387m x 394m; the “Ashtasti's Large cross” hills complex (50°13'39.62"N, 66°17'31.15"E) - Overall dimensions: 431m x 386m; the “Ekedyn's cross” hills complex (49°30'44.68"N, 65°51'44.09"E) - Overall dimensions: 249m x 229m; the “Kogai’s cross” hills complex (50°22'31.96"N, 65°27'43.98"E) - Overall dimensions: 280m x 212m. The Graphical representation of these objects allows to analyze the geometry and the orientation. The most famous Kazakh geoglyphs have interesting geometric features.
It is the second of eleven brochures of the Thematic series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s Architecture" – on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY (Development of architectural-artistic forms)”, 2004. The Brochure includes 213 images of 179 buildings, constructed in the Nineteenth century. The set of objects is structured as an aspect of forms style classification.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
The needs of users, refracted through the personal perception of the world, form a set of individual or mass preferences. These preferences are largely chaotic temporal variability, reflecting the process of adaptation of certain manifested spontaneously or purposefully formed trend. For the study, three of the gadget have been chosen, with more than a century (HEADPHONES that appeared in the late XIX century), half a century (COMPUTER MOUSE, which appeared at the beginning of the second half of the XX century) and half a decade (USB Flash Drive, which appeared at the beginning of the XXI century) history improving the shaping, reflecting the uniqueness of consumer preferences and author's interpretations. The subject of study is the external form of these gadgets. It is regarded as examples of the upswing form formed from the standpoint of a utilitarian, tuning and styling approaches.
For the first time analyzed the process of development and peculiarity of architectural-artistic forms in the Kazakhstan architecture of the 20-century. Concentrate of the attention on various lines of this development. Regarded in that light consider series ancient and medieval architectural works, architecture of the 19-certury and of the first years of the 21-century.
The most valuable illustrations displaying about 2700 architectural works and vast bibliographical list make the monograph a unique encyclopedic edition.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
UDC 72.036 (574)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2017. – 53 p.
It is the third of eleven brochures of the Thematic series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s Architecture" – on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY (Development of architectural-artistic forms)”, 2004. The Brochure includes 251 images of 193 buildings, constructed in the Twentieth century beginning. The set of objects is structured as an aspect of forms style classification.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
It is a development in POST-MODERNISM that started in late 1980s.
It views architecture in bits and pieces.
It has no visual logic.
Buildings may appear to be made of abstract forms.
The idea was to develop buildings which show how differently from traditional architectural conventions buildings can be built without loosing their utility and still complying with the fundamental laws of physics.
The ideas were borrowed from the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida.
Architects involved –
Zaha Hadid
Bernhard Tschumi
Rem Koolhaas
The term ‘Critical Regionalism’ was first coined by Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre and later more famously and pretentiously by Kenneth Frampton in “Towards a Critical Regionalism : Six points of an architecture of resistance”
According to Frampton, critical regionalism should adopt modern architecture critically for its universal progressive qualities but at the same time should value responses particular to the context. Emphasis should be on topography, climate, light, tectonic form rather than scenography and the tactile sense rather than the visual.
According to Tzonis and Lefaivre, critical regionalism need not directly draw from the context, rather elements can be stripped of their context and used in strange rather than familiar ways.
Critical regionalism is different from Regionalism which tries to achieve a one-to-one correspondence with vernacular architecture in a conscious way without consciously partaking in the universal.
It is considered a particular form of post-modern response in developing countries, not to be confused with postmodernism as architectural style.
this is ppt about architecture during stone era to new generation
of architecture
it also has the famous architecture from all over the word and also its architects this ppt is focused on the architecture in philippines
Terms and definitions
THE INTRODUCTION
Part 1. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN
AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE SPREAD OF ORNAMENTAL COMPOSITIONS
IN THE URBAN ARCHITECTURE OF THE XX CENTURY
1.1 Historiographical aspects of the Kazakh architectural ornament Evolution
1.2 An Ornament in the Medieval and the XIX century Architecture as a source of motifs and themes for the Urban architecture of the XX century the ornamentation
1.3 The Yurt ornamentation, an ornament for clothes, utensils and household items as a source of motifs and themes for the Urban architecture of the XX century ornamentation
Part 2. AN ORNAMENT IN THE LATE XIX – THE FIRST HALF OF THE XX CENTURIES
URBAN ARCHITECTURE
2.1 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1880’s-1920’s
2.2 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1930’s-1940’s
2.3 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1950’s
Part 3. AN ORNAMENT IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX – EARLY XXI CENTURIES
URBAN ARCHITECTURE
3.1 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1960’s
3.2 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1970’s-1980’s
3.3 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1990’s-2010’s
CONCLUSIONS
The Main Reading
The needs of users, refracted through the personal perception of the world, form a set of individual or mass preferences. These preferences are largely chaotic temporal variability, reflecting the process of adaptation of certain manifested spontaneously or purposefully formed trend. For the study, three of the gadget have been chosen, with more than a century (HEADPHONES that appeared in the late XIX century), half a century (COMPUTER MOUSE, which appeared at the beginning of the second half of the XX century) and half a decade (USB Flash Drive, which appeared at the beginning of the XXI century) history improving the shaping, reflecting the uniqueness of consumer preferences and author's interpretations. The subject of study is the external form of these gadgets. It is regarded as examples of the upswing form formed from the standpoint of a utilitarian, tuning and styling approaches.
For the first time analyzed the process of development and peculiarity of architectural-artistic forms in the Kazakhstan architecture of the 20-century. Concentrate of the attention on various lines of this development. Regarded in that light consider series ancient and medieval architectural works, architecture of the 19-certury and of the first years of the 21-century.
The most valuable illustrations displaying about 2700 architectural works and vast bibliographical list make the monograph a unique encyclopedic edition.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
Similar to THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION) / Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2016. – 23 p.
UDC 72.036 (574)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2017. – 53 p.
It is the third of eleven brochures of the Thematic series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s Architecture" – on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY (Development of architectural-artistic forms)”, 2004. The Brochure includes 251 images of 193 buildings, constructed in the Twentieth century beginning. The set of objects is structured as an aspect of forms style classification.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
It is a development in POST-MODERNISM that started in late 1980s.
It views architecture in bits and pieces.
It has no visual logic.
Buildings may appear to be made of abstract forms.
The idea was to develop buildings which show how differently from traditional architectural conventions buildings can be built without loosing their utility and still complying with the fundamental laws of physics.
The ideas were borrowed from the French philosopher, Jacques Derrida.
Architects involved –
Zaha Hadid
Bernhard Tschumi
Rem Koolhaas
The term ‘Critical Regionalism’ was first coined by Alexander Tzonis and Liane Lefaivre and later more famously and pretentiously by Kenneth Frampton in “Towards a Critical Regionalism : Six points of an architecture of resistance”
According to Frampton, critical regionalism should adopt modern architecture critically for its universal progressive qualities but at the same time should value responses particular to the context. Emphasis should be on topography, climate, light, tectonic form rather than scenography and the tactile sense rather than the visual.
According to Tzonis and Lefaivre, critical regionalism need not directly draw from the context, rather elements can be stripped of their context and used in strange rather than familiar ways.
Critical regionalism is different from Regionalism which tries to achieve a one-to-one correspondence with vernacular architecture in a conscious way without consciously partaking in the universal.
It is considered a particular form of post-modern response in developing countries, not to be confused with postmodernism as architectural style.
this is ppt about architecture during stone era to new generation
of architecture
it also has the famous architecture from all over the word and also its architects this ppt is focused on the architecture in philippines
Terms and definitions
THE INTRODUCTION
Part 1. HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN
AS A PREREQUISITE FOR THE SPREAD OF ORNAMENTAL COMPOSITIONS
IN THE URBAN ARCHITECTURE OF THE XX CENTURY
1.1 Historiographical aspects of the Kazakh architectural ornament Evolution
1.2 An Ornament in the Medieval and the XIX century Architecture as a source of motifs and themes for the Urban architecture of the XX century the ornamentation
1.3 The Yurt ornamentation, an ornament for clothes, utensils and household items as a source of motifs and themes for the Urban architecture of the XX century ornamentation
Part 2. AN ORNAMENT IN THE LATE XIX – THE FIRST HALF OF THE XX CENTURIES
URBAN ARCHITECTURE
2.1 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1880’s-1920’s
2.2 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1930’s-1940’s
2.3 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1950’s
Part 3. AN ORNAMENT IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX – EARLY XXI CENTURIES
URBAN ARCHITECTURE
3.1 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1960’s
3.2 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1970’s-1980’s
3.3 An Ornament in the Urban Architecture of 1990’s-2010’s
CONCLUSIONS
The Main Reading
Renaissance
“ Rebirth”
Revival of artistic achievements based on classical world.
‘Rebirth’ of classical Greek and Roman. The movement started in Italy.
During this era, people began to research the culture of the antique world.
The period was triggered by the increasing sophistication of the society, where economic growth, educational pursuits and political stability were key factors.
The limits of renaissance architecture was pushed by wealthy patrons such as Medic family of Florence, Pope Leo X and Pope Julius II
Characteristics
Building was looked upon as works of art. It followed traditions of middle ages that did not separate the structure from the decoration.
In situ construction hence harmony was given between the jointing and the architectural features.
Standardization of classic roman orders- Tuscan, Doric, Ionic, Corinthian & Composite and its reintroduction both structurally and decoratively.
An art of free expression : Architecture became to a great extent a personal art due to the fancy of individual architects, many of whom founded schools of design.
A building was regarded rather as a picture with pleasing combinations of lines and masses
Symmetry and proportion
Appearance of building less in size than in reality due to the largeness and fewness of the parts used.
Towers used sparsely, if used occur symmetrically located.
Interiors planed on roman principles.
Ashlar masonry construction
Materials are large, and carry out the Classic idea of fewness of parts .
Gable end , formed as pediments either pitched or semicircular
Vaults are of simple Roman form
The Classic columns and orders were revived and used decoratively .
The principal cornice plays an important part in the style.
Mouldings produced an effect of horizontality.
Stained glass was little used
Sgraffito – coloured plaster was applied.
Efficiency in the crafts.
Italian Renaissance - Palazzo Ricardi, St. Peters Basilica, Rome, Villa Capra, Vicenza
⦁ Italian Renaissance is divided into three periods
Early Renaissance (Early 15th century)
Includes the works of Brunelleschi & Michelozzo. The concepts of architectural orders were explored, rules were formulated & classical detail & ornamentation was adopted. Space was organized by proportional logic & its form was subject to geometry. Ex. Basilica Santa Maria del Fiore, Florence by Brunelleschi.
II. High Renaissance (Late 15th to Early 16th century)
Renaissance became an individual style in its own right
Purist or Palladian, where Roman tradition was held in high respect (represented by Andrea Palladio)
Proto-Baroque, where there was more confidence in using the acquired vocabulary freely (represented by Michelangelo)
Mannerist, where practices which had no Roman precedent were interspersed with the usual buildings. Eg: Bramante
III. Baroque Period (17th century)
Architects worked with freedom and firmly-acquired knowledge.
Style and ornamentation in ArchitectureAnupama holla
Brief Introduction to style and Ornamentation
Similar to THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION) / Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2016. – 23 p. (20)
The aim of the studyis to identify and structure the characteristic features of the formation of a kind of "corporate identity" of individual design and construction groups as features of the current stage of development of domestic architecture. As an example, selected: «Skidmore, Owings & Merrill» (the United States of America), «MVRDV» (the Netherlands), «Basis-A» (the Kazakhstan) and «Europolis» (the Kazakhstan).
Keywords:architectural style, corporate identity, international style, neo-Palladianism, historicism, romanticism.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
The Competitive designing is a specific area of the creativity.
It differs from a strictly regulated design process for subsequent implementation.
The specificity of the tasks is combined with extensive interpretation possibilities.
Short deadlines exclude detailing all parts of the project.
The main thing is the formulation of an interesting concept and the demonstration of its main parameters by a complex of interconnected images. An important aspect is the uniformity of the image style.
An Achievement of the parameters specified in the competition task must be confirmed by appropriate calculations.
The implementation of these tasks is shown by the example of the authors' participation in the International Two-Stage Student Competition "Multicomfort from Saint-Gobain 2019. The Development and the restoration of the Crescenzago microdistrict territory, Milan, Italy".
The Project carried out by authors was awarded the “Unique Project” diploma at the First stage of the Competition.
This allows you to show stages of its implementation as an example of the implementation of methods of competitive design at the level of a student work.
The purpose of the study: Identify the characteristics of the development process ornamented architectural and artistic forms in architecture Kazakhstan late XIX - early XXI century for the Almaty architecture example. Scientific- theoretical and practical importance of: Based on research performed by authorы developed the theoretical position , the totality of which solves a significant and important in socio- cultural terms, the scientific problem of identifying trends in the architecture of ornamental compositions of Kazakhstan with the last decades of the XIX century to the beginning of the second decade of the XXI century; For the first time grouped by type of ornamentation various parts of facades that make up the totality ornamented architectural and artistic forms of different periods of the late XIX - early XXI centuries; The first time a sort of “degree of saturation” ornamented facade elements, depending on the overall architecture style orientation of a given period; For the first time can be traced for over a century stages of evolution of the main directions of development of ornamented architecture and art forms in the Almaty architecture; Examines the important aspects of the interaction architecture and art forms with different interpreted ornamental motifs, allowing, going to a new level, to a certain extent predict the future development trend of ornamented architecture and art forms; Number of buildings is first examined from the standpoint of examples of ornamented architecture and art forms of different periods of the evolution of the Almaty architecture. For architects, art-critics and historians.
The Kazakhstan's architecture of this Century is a peculiar phenomenon. The trend of active involvement in the World architectural process for Kazakhstan architecture emerged in the last quarter of the 20th century. Now the Kazakhstan architecture – an integral part of this process. Many foreign architects involved in the design of objects on the Kazakhstan territory; Kazakhstan's architects work in different countries. This promotes deep interpenetration of creative concepts. This formed the phenomenon of Kazakh architecture of the 21st century. It is organically connected to the cultural and historical identity of the Region and global processes of creative interpretation of forms, which are characteristic of World architectural process in general. This Album is a continuation of the Theme “THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE OF THE 21st CENTURY IN THE WORLD ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXT”. To illustrate this interesting phenomenon allocated 115 (39 + 76) typical examples of buildings. Images sources are indicated directly near with illustrations on each page. Architects and companies listed on the basis of aggregate data from different sources (for some objects from various sources indicate different authors). About some buildings listed authors in the available sources has not yet been found. This Album generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The Modern architecture (21st century)".
This series of albums generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The General History of Architecture": 2 credits / 30 hours of lectures. Until the mid-19th century, examples are grouped by region. In this period, the phenomenon of a single world architectural process begins to manifest itself. Since the last third of the 19th century, examples have been grouped by decades. Purpose of the 10th Lecture: To study the basic features of the Medieval Central Asian architecture. Tasks of the 10th Lecture: To consider characteristic examples of specifically organized spaces and buildings; To accentuate the features of construction depending on the availability of building materials; To emphasize the difference between cult and dwelling buildings. Examples for the 10th Lecture: The Ancient and Medieval Central Azia: the Map; The Great Stupa, Sanchi Town, Madhya Pradesh, India, 3rd - 2nd century BC; The Karla Caves temple complex, Karli / Karla, Maharashtra, 1st-century BC; The Ismail Samani's mausoleum, Bukhara, Uzbekistan, 907 or 943; The Kandariya Mahadeva Temple / the Great God of the Cave, Khajuraho, Madhya Pradesh, India, 1030; The Qutb Minar, Delhi, India, 1368; The Registan square, Samarkand, Uzbekistan: Ulugh Beg's Madrasah (1420), the Tilya-Kori Madrasah (1660), the Sher-Dor Madrasah (1636, arch. Abdul-Jabbar); The Taj Mahal mausoleum, Agra, Uttar Pradesh, India, 1653 (Arch. Ustad Ahmad Lahauri); The Imam Square / Shah Square, Isfahan city, Iran: the Sheikh Lotfollah Mosque (1619, arch. Ustad Mohammad Reza Isfahani), the Shah Mosque (1629, arch. Shaykh-i Baha-i); The Mohammed Adil Shah's mausoleum / "Gol Gumbaz", Bijapur, India, 1656 (Arch. Yaqut of Dabul)
This series of albums generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The General History of Architecture": 2 credits / 30 hours of lectures. Until the mid-19th century, examples are grouped by region. In this period, the phenomenon of a single world architectural process begins to manifest itself. Since the last third of the 19th century, examples have been grouped by decades. Purpose of the 6th Lecture: To study the basic features of the Roman Architecture in the Ancient period.
Tasks of the 6th Lecture: To consider characteristic examples of specifically organized spaces and buildings; To accentuate the features of construction depending on the availability of building materials; To emphasize the difference between cult and dwelling buildings.
This series of albums generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The General History of Architecture": 2 credits / 30 hours of lectures. Until the mid-19th century, examples are grouped by region. In this period, the phenomenon of a single world architectural process begins to manifest itself. Since the last third of the 19th century, examples have been grouped by decades. Purpose of the 5th Lecture:
To study the basic features of the Greek Architecture in the Ancient period. Tasks of the 5th Lecture:To consider characteristic examples of specifically organized spaces and buildings; To accentuate the features of construction depending on the availability of building materials; To emphasize the difference between cult and dwelling buildings.
This series of albums generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The General History of Architecture": 2 credits / 30 hours of lectures.
Until the mid-19th century, examples are grouped by region. In this period, the phenomenon of a single world architectural process begins to manifest itself. Since the last third of the 19th century, examples have been grouped by decades.
Purpose of the 4th Lecture:
To study the basic features of the Mesopotamian Architecture in the Ancient period.
Tasks of the 4th Lecture:
- To consider characteristic examples of specifically organized spaces and buildings;
- To accentuate the features of construction depending on the availability of building materials;
- To emphasize the difference between cult and dwelling buildings.
This series of albums generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The General History of Architecture": 2 credits / 30 hours of lectures. Until the mid-19th century, examples are grouped by region. In this period, the phenomenon of a single world architectural process begins to manifest itself. Since the last third of the 19th century, examples have been grouped by decades.
Purpose of the 1st Lecture:To study the history of understanding the phenomenon of architecture.
Tasks of the 1st Lecture: Consider characteristic examples of studies of different periods;Consider the features of changing the evaluation of the development of architecture in different periods;To consider the specifics of the problems' accents in the studies of various authors.
Architectural history books totality of the late 19th - early 20th century. Architectural history books totality of the mid-20th century. Architectural history books totality of the late 20th - early 21st century.
The main number of geoglyphs in the Kostanay region of the Kazakhstan were opened in 2007. Objects are located in 370 km to the west of the capital of the Kazakhstan. Objects have different shapes and sizes. Kazakhstan geoglyphs are different from most of the world famous geoglyphs. Firstly, different an execution technique: hills groups in the Kazakhstan, trenches in the UK and the Peru, stone laying in the Russia; Secondly, themes of forms: World’s famous geoglyphs have zoomorphic and anthropomorphic forms, Kazakhstan’s geoglyphs have abstract geometric forms; Thirdly, about functionality: the world famous geoglyphs - they are signs, Kazakhstan geoglyphs - they are buildings; Fourthly, sizes: Kazakhstan geoglyphs are somewhat larger. Calculation of excavation shows the fundamental possibility of the implementation figures in one season. Currently there are (supposedly) oldest architectural monuments on the Kazakhstan’s territory. Data for the Album prepared by the researcher group of the Architectural Department of the Kazakh Leading Academy of Architecture and Civil Engineering. This Album generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The Ancient architecture of the Kazakhstan" and a base for further researches.
Almaty architecture of the past decade (2005-2015) originally reflected the process of self-determination of the Kazakh architecture in general. The aggressive Polystylizm of the century turn crystallized two trends: the Rationalism with large forms, on the basis of Deconstructivist compositions and the Mannerism with small shapes on the basis of classical-style compositions. Rare examples demonstrate the synthesis of trends: the classical solution with Orders completed asymmetric break forms or dissonance among the chaos of blocks supplemented by strict classical colonnade. Examples of the natural Utilitarianism (ordinary mass buildings) and the conceptual Primitivism or Minimalism (exclusive buildings) completed this strange Architectural picture. Gone the Contextualism, which take into account compositional and stylistic features of the surrounding buildings. Each new object is conceptually opposed to figurative context. To illustrate this interesting phenomenon allocated 186 typical examples of buildings. Examples are distributed in chronological order of the construct completion. Images sources listed in the special part of the Album. Architects and companies listed on the basis of aggregate data from different sources (for some objects from various sources indicate different authors). About some buildings listed authors in the available sources has not yet been found. This Album generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The Modern architecture (21st century)".
The Lawn-and-park ensemble "Promenade" is projected on a plot which located on the Zh.Omarva Street in the Medeu district of Almaty, Kazakhstan. The Northern boundary of the site is adjacent to the ending bus stop and cars parking for the "Koktobe moutain" complex. On the South side it is adjacent to the "Europolis" complex. The site stretches from north to south. The Eastern boundary of the site is fixed local travel, Western boundary of the site – plots for individual residential building development. The Art concept (the wish of the Customer) – an Ethnographic park (a Kazakh traditions theme) with a garden ensemble. On the basis of the interpretation of the traditional forms of Nomadic and Settled cultures synthesis shaped image of buildings, constructions, small architectural forms and elements of improvement.
Key points: the Main Entrance (the area at the City wall Gate), the Oriental Bazaar (pavilions, tents, trays, shelves, carts), the Aul – nomadic settlement (yurts), Workshops of craftsmen (a blacksmith, a carpenter, a tinsmith, a shoemaker, a tailor, a jeweler), Pavilions and yurts of the Kazakh national kitchen, the Amphitheatre, the Area for traditional Kazakh national games and attractions, the Khan headquarter (tents), the Ritual space, the Fortress. The Special space – "The Gourmet's Avenue" – a set of themed restaurants, cafes, bars, pubs, eateries, coffee shops. Architectural and artistic design of two dozen blocked modular pavilions demonstrates the cultural diversity of different nations and ethnic groups. The bases of images are stereotypes of the Mass culture, which ensures a simple recognition of the Theme. Alternating of restaurants have a casual character, reflecting the ethnic conglomerate of modern Society. The Album includes of 79 illustrations: 3 photos and 76 drawings.
The “Europolis” residential complex Art concept (the wish of the Customer) – the Classicism on the Strong version (the faithful reproduction of Greece and Rome Ancient forms: the Erechtheion – Acropolis of Athens; the Tower of Winds – Athens, the Pantheon – Rome; etc.).
Author's interpretation of the customer requirements – a fantasy in the Palladian manner. Ascending to the creativity of Andrea Palladio approach associated with the identity of all the facades of buildings, found through reflection in the architectural composition of residential houses, Restaurant, Office building, the Portico of the Main entrance, attendants pavilions). A characteristic feature of the architectural solution of façades is the use of the same elements that provide a visual unity of different size buildings.
Compositions exhibit various combinations of the Doric, Ionic, Corinthian, Composite, Tuscan and Palm-deciduous orders. The basis of facades composite solutions - the Colossal version of an Ionic colonnade. Despite the difficult terrain with significant height differences in the linear composition, visual alignment of four-story buildings facades achieved as result of sizes uniformity of Ionic order Colonnade. Differences of landscape positions offset by different height of entablatures and pedestals, as well arcades and pilasters, which forming of first floors.
The Artistic innovation – one-volute twin capitals of the columns at blocks junction (four-storey houses). Facade decorations of identical buildings have differences in nuances. It provides a variety of views. Multi-storey buildings crowned by Belvedere domed pavilions, provides excellent panoramic views of the foothills and the city stretching from the foot of the Trans-Ili Alatau.
Four-storey buildings with mansards – reinforced concrete (walls, floors – 4 floors), steel (frames, claddings – mansard). Six-storey buildings with the mansard, a multi-level parking – steel (frames), reinforced concrete (floors, walls), foam block (walls). Residential buildings include two-, three-, four-, five-room apartments and penthouses.
The Residential complex is in an isolated area (a feature of the landscape). The developed system of services and infrastructure. Autonomous systems of engineering support. Useful road connections to the City center. Prospects of development – apartment buildings, a complex of world cuisine restaurants, an ethnographic park, garden-park ensemble, the entertainment and shopping Center.
This is the first example of Neoclassical forms massive use in the Kazakhstan's architecture of the 21st century (now – a popular stylistic direction in Kazakhstan's architecture).
The Album includes of 134 illustrations: 92 photos and 42 drawings.
The Stylistic decision to art-works of the European garden-park architecture is traditionally based on two trends: the Classicism and the Baroque. The Classicism is typical for buildings located in open areas that provide panoramic views. This corresponds to the strict symmetry of the composition and the large molds and details. As Classicism options for sites without panoramic views is characteristic the Romanticism. This trend is mainly based on the "Aesthetics of ruins". Imitation dilapidated, overgrown trees and shrubs of antique buildings gives to the space a property of the "Historical depth". For buildings and structures located on the grounds among the densely growing trees, adequate stylistic solution is the Baroque. Lack of panoramic views allows the use of asymmetrical composition. Small Plastic of architectural and sculptural details is in harmony with foliage and tree branches. The interpretation of this style – neo-Baroque – used for an architectural-artistic design of the "Amure" Triumph Palace in the Almaty city. 63 images show the Build Complex and themes of architectural-spatial and artistic solutions.
The Kazakhstan's architecture of this Century is a peculiar phenomenon. The trend of active involvement in the World architectural process for Kazakhstan architecture emerged in the last quarter of the 20th century. Now the Kazakhstan architecture – an integral part of this process.
Many foreign architects involved in the design of objects on the Kazakhstan territory; Kazakhstan's architects work in different countries. This promotes deep interpenetration of creative concepts.
This formed the phenomenon of Kazakh architecture of the 21st century. It is organically connected to the cultural and historical identity of the Region and global processes of creative interpretation of forms, which are characteristic of World architectural process in general.
To illustrate this interesting phenomenon allocated 144 (72 + 72) typical examples of 2000-2015's buildings.
Examples are distributed in chronological order of the construct completion.
Images sources are indicated directly near with illustrations on each page.
Architects and companies listed on the basis of aggregate data from different sources (for some objects from various sources indicate different authors). About some buildings listed authors in the available sources has not yet been found.
The Author expresses his gratitude to Internet resources – https://www.google.com ; https://www.wikipedia.org – which to provide the ability to collect an information.
This Album generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The Modern architecture (21st century)".
The front cover:
The Acqualina Sunny Isles Condos., Sunny Isles, Florida, USA, 2006 (Arch. Robert M.Swedroe – Robert M.Swedroe Architects & Planners) – Photo by K.I.Samoilov, 2014.
The Six-storey house, Europolis complex, Kazakhstan, 2008 (Arch. Konstantin I.Samoilov – BC Europolis) – Photo by K.I.Samoilov, 2015.
The Kazakhstan's architecture of this Century is a peculiar phenomenon. The trend of active involvement in the World architectural process for Kazakhstan architecture emerged in the last quarter of the 20th century. Now the Kazakhstan architecture – an integral part of this process.
Many foreign architects involved in the design of objects on the Kazakhstan territory; Kazakhstan's architects work in different countries. This promotes deep interpenetration of creative concepts.
This formed the phenomenon of Kazakh architecture of the 21st century. It is organically connected to the cultural and historical identity of the Region and global processes of creative interpretation of forms, which are characteristic of World architectural process in general.
TRENDS OF FORMS EVOLUTION: The Neo-EXPRESSIONISM (The Romanticism version and The Deconstructivism version); The Neo-SYMBOLISM (The Signedness version and The Synthetical version); The Neo-CLASSICISM (The Strict version and The Simplistic version).
To illustrate this interesting phenomenon allocated 72 typical examples of buildings. Examples are distributed in chronological order of the construct completion. Images sources are indicated directly near with illustrations on each page.
Architects and companies listed on the basis of aggregate data from different sources (for some objects from various sources indicate different authors). About some buildings listed authors in the available sources has not yet been found.
The Author expresses his gratitude to Internet resources – https://www.google.com ; https://www.wikipedia.org – which to provide the ability to collect an information.
This Album generated for information purposes of the Educational course "The Modern architecture (21st century)".
The front cover:
The Office Building «K-CELL» – reconstruction, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2013 – Photo by K.I.Samoilov, 2013.
The Four-storey house, Europolis complex, Almaty, Kazakhstan, 2005 (Arch. Konstantin I.Samoilov – Urbostyle, BC Europolis) – Photo by K.I.Samoilov, 2015.
Biological screening of herbal drugs: Introduction and Need for
Phyto-Pharmacological Screening, New Strategies for evaluating
Natural Products, In vitro evaluation techniques for Antioxidants, Antimicrobial and Anticancer drugs. In vivo evaluation techniques
for Anti-inflammatory, Antiulcer, Anticancer, Wound healing, Antidiabetic, Hepatoprotective, Cardio protective, Diuretics and
Antifertility, Toxicity studies as per OECD guidelines
Unit 8 - Information and Communication Technology (Paper I).pdfThiyagu K
This slides describes the basic concepts of ICT, basics of Email, Emerging Technology and Digital Initiatives in Education. This presentations aligns with the UGC Paper I syllabus.
Macroeconomics- Movie Location
This will be used as part of your Personal Professional Portfolio once graded.
Objective:
Prepare a presentation or a paper using research, basic comparative analysis, data organization and application of economic information. You will make an informed assessment of an economic climate outside of the United States to accomplish an entertainment industry objective.
Safalta Digital marketing institute in Noida, provide complete applications that encompass a huge range of virtual advertising and marketing additives, which includes search engine optimization, virtual communication advertising, pay-per-click on marketing, content material advertising, internet analytics, and greater. These university courses are designed for students who possess a comprehensive understanding of virtual marketing strategies and attributes.Safalta Digital Marketing Institute in Noida is a first choice for young individuals or students who are looking to start their careers in the field of digital advertising. The institute gives specialized courses designed and certification.
for beginners, providing thorough training in areas such as SEO, digital communication marketing, and PPC training in Noida. After finishing the program, students receive the certifications recognised by top different universitie, setting a strong foundation for a successful career in digital marketing.
Introduction to AI for Nonprofits with Tapp NetworkTechSoup
Dive into the world of AI! Experts Jon Hill and Tareq Monaur will guide you through AI's role in enhancing nonprofit websites and basic marketing strategies, making it easy to understand and apply.
Executive Directors Chat Leveraging AI for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionTechSoup
Let’s explore the intersection of technology and equity in the final session of our DEI series. Discover how AI tools, like ChatGPT, can be used to support and enhance your nonprofit's DEI initiatives. Participants will gain insights into practical AI applications and get tips for leveraging technology to advance their DEI goals.
How to Make a Field invisible in Odoo 17Celine George
It is possible to hide or invisible some fields in odoo. Commonly using “invisible” attribute in the field definition to invisible the fields. This slide will show how to make a field invisible in odoo 17.
June 3, 2024 Anti-Semitism Letter Sent to MIT President Kornbluth and MIT Cor...Levi Shapiro
Letter from the Congress of the United States regarding Anti-Semitism sent June 3rd to MIT President Sally Kornbluth, MIT Corp Chair, Mark Gorenberg
Dear Dr. Kornbluth and Mr. Gorenberg,
The US House of Representatives is deeply concerned by ongoing and pervasive acts of antisemitic
harassment and intimidation at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Failing to act decisively to ensure a safe learning environment for all students would be a grave dereliction of your responsibilities as President of MIT and Chair of the MIT Corporation.
This Congress will not stand idly by and allow an environment hostile to Jewish students to persist. The House believes that your institution is in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the inability or
unwillingness to rectify this violation through action requires accountability.
Postsecondary education is a unique opportunity for students to learn and have their ideas and beliefs challenged. However, universities receiving hundreds of millions of federal funds annually have denied
students that opportunity and have been hijacked to become venues for the promotion of terrorism, antisemitic harassment and intimidation, unlawful encampments, and in some cases, assaults and riots.
The House of Representatives will not countenance the use of federal funds to indoctrinate students into hateful, antisemitic, anti-American supporters of terrorism. Investigations into campus antisemitism by the Committee on Education and the Workforce and the Committee on Ways and Means have been expanded into a Congress-wide probe across all relevant jurisdictions to address this national crisis. The undersigned Committees will conduct oversight into the use of federal funds at MIT and its learning environment under authorities granted to each Committee.
• The Committee on Education and the Workforce has been investigating your institution since December 7, 2023. The Committee has broad jurisdiction over postsecondary education, including its compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, campus safety concerns over disruptions to the learning environment, and the awarding of federal student aid under the Higher Education Act.
• The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is investigating the sources of funding and other support flowing to groups espousing pro-Hamas propaganda and engaged in antisemitic harassment and intimidation of students. The Committee on Oversight and Accountability is the principal oversight committee of the US House of Representatives and has broad authority to investigate “any matter” at “any time” under House Rule X.
• The Committee on Ways and Means has been investigating several universities since November 15, 2023, when the Committee held a hearing entitled From Ivory Towers to Dark Corners: Investigating the Nexus Between Antisemitism, Tax-Exempt Universities, and Terror Financing. The Committee followed the hearing with letters to those institutions on January 10, 202
Synthetic Fiber Construction in lab .pptxPavel ( NSTU)
Synthetic fiber production is a fascinating and complex field that blends chemistry, engineering, and environmental science. By understanding these aspects, students can gain a comprehensive view of synthetic fiber production, its impact on society and the environment, and the potential for future innovations. Synthetic fibers play a crucial role in modern society, impacting various aspects of daily life, industry, and the environment. ynthetic fibers are integral to modern life, offering a range of benefits from cost-effectiveness and versatility to innovative applications and performance characteristics. While they pose environmental challenges, ongoing research and development aim to create more sustainable and eco-friendly alternatives. Understanding the importance of synthetic fibers helps in appreciating their role in the economy, industry, and daily life, while also emphasizing the need for sustainable practices and innovation.
Digital Artifact 2 - Investigating Pavilion Designs
THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION) / Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2016. – 23 p.
1. *****
THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE
of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages
(THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV
STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE
the Series of thematic brochures
Almaty, 2016
***
2. UDC 72.03 (574/575)
THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages
(THE FORMS SUMMATION) / Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. – The
Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE. –
Almaty, 2016. – 23 p.
It is the first of eleven brochures of the Thematic series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s Architecture" –
on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY
(Development of architectural-artistic forms)”, 2004. The Brochure includes 102 images of 86 buildings,
constructed in Ancient and Medieval times. The set of objects is structured as an aspect of forms style
classification.
For architects, art-critics and historians.
Keywords:
History of the Architecture, Architecture of the Ancientry, Architecture of the Middle Ages, Architectural styles,
Kazakhstan
The front cover:
The Karakhan mausoleum (Satuq-Bugra Khan), Taraz (X c.)
C Samoilov K.I., 2016
3. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
3
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 4
ARCHITECTURAL FORMS OF THE ANCIENTRY AND THE MIDDLE AGES ……………………….. 6
Set of objects on figures .....………………………………………………………………………………….. 18
BIBLIOGRAPHY ………………………………………………………………………………………………. 21
Briefly about the Author ………………………………………………………………………………………. 22
4. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
4
INTRODUCTION
Architecture of Kazakhstan is represented by specific phenomenon. The republic is situated in the
center of Euro-Asian continent and its territory and poli-ethnic population was multiply involved in major
political and economic cataclysms within centuries-old history, alternating by periods of relatively even
development. It was naturally reflected on the environment formation. Moreover, every time this process
was corrected considering different levels stability of natural-climate and engineering-geological conditions
of different areas, availability of local and delivered construction materials, production resources
development levels, economics specifics, morals and manner of people, period of residence in the present
area and administrative-territorial divisions formed and dissolved public authorities.
Large territory of Kazakhstan comprises parts of number of natural-climate regions with multi-
national population living in different level of compactness, including local people and migrants issues who
were resettled different period on these lands. Since antiquity and in Middle Ages poli-atnic culture
assimilation was developed due to natural and climate factors, controlled corresponding types of
management, morals and manners and architectural forms.
Architectural-cultural forms depending on factors are used in different compositions with each
others. Their variety considering not only peculiarity of separate components but also new inter-forming
deference, comprises collection, which can be structured by any way with definite level of conditional
character. Grouping of architectural-artistic forms, which existed different periods of architecture
development in Kazakhstan are dominated in plastic construction of theme forms deferential variety, which
allows to review evolution of its continents.
This Brochure is part of the Thematic brochures series "Styles of the Kazakhstan’s
Architecture" – on based the Author’s monograph “ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE
20-CENTURY (Development of architectural-artistic forms)” [7]:
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS
SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Nineteenth century (THE FORMS SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Beginning of the Twentieth century (THE FORMS
SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of 1920’s – the First half of 1930’s (THE FORMS
SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Second half of 1930’s – the Beginning of 1940’s
(THE FORMS SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Mid-1940's – the Mid-1950's (THE FORMS
SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ending of 1950's – 1960's (THE FORMS
SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of 1970's – 1980's (THE FORMS SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of 1990's (THE FORMS SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Early of the Twenty First century (THE FORMS
SUMMATION);
- THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE from the Ancientry to the Twenty First century Early (THE
FORMS EVOLUTION).
The Brochure includes 102 images of 86 buildings, constructed in Ancient and Medieval times (12
figures: 1 map, 87 photos, 15 drawings, 1 table of the Forms Summation with 35 images). The set of
objects is structured as an aspect of forms style classification.
5. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
5
Figure 1. THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF THE KAZAKHSTAN
1. Asia (the Physical map)
6. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
6
ARCHITECTURAL FORMS OF THE ANCIENTRY AND THE MIDDLE AGES
The basic architectural forms reached our eyes more or less safe from ancient and Middle Ages
are chronologically fixed from the time of architecture origin to the end of XVIII century which form the
following ensemble.
Ancient period is indicative by architectural forms designed by natural forms and structures made
from crude or particular treated different sized stones. Large stones are basically located vertically single
situated or by groups. Their forms and location is defined by different associative rows. Square, accurate
and round laying are made from fine and middle size stones singly and in combination with timbered – pole
structures, ramble, turf and skinning layers. Land and clay embankment created solid and coreless,
covered, semi-covered and open structures. Semi-processed and unprocessed surfaces are particularly
covered by colored, low-relief and color-relief. An accent of architectural decision with basically lack of
significant plastic details is evident in volumetric – planning decisions.
VI-X centuries period is characterized by architectural forms connected with development of
different types bricklaying. The walls of the structures have different forms and have tired articulation,
embrasures are crowned by arks, semi-spherical and spherical-conical domes have small raise. There are
truncated coned and hip crowns, thus, basically in tower. There is combination of plastered and
unplastered surfaces and separate details used. By the end of the present period there are structures, in
which different figured brickwork is accompanied by mountings from glassing and terracotta tiles.
Undeveloped ports are crowned by small turrets with close lamps.
XI century architecture is characterized by use of multi-absorbed bays, round rosettes, frames,
notched sashes, half and three-quartered columns with cubic – spherical caps in building elevation, which
are used in combination with simple terracotta fancy and shaped tiles in form of fragment and complete
lining. There are ribbed coned domes on simple and multi-angled bowls. Facades are flanked by three-
quartered towers with tiered detailing. Portal-domical structures are formed by the end of XII – XIII
centuries. The walls are divided by scoops and settings, free or filled by glazing tiles. The plane of work is
carried out particular or complete by different manner of figured works and by multicolored bricks. There is
domes lining over the main structure by glazing tiles. Arched cover of bays and embrasures have lancet
and rear semi-circular form. Three-quartered columns are constructed by figured bases. There are
structures from large processed stones with simple plastics of facades. By the end of XIV century there are
single large structures with fine-detailed plastics accompanied by complete poli-chromic lining with subject
to epigraphy reflection. Domes lined by glazing tiles or bricks with enamel have smooth and sometimes
crimped surface. Combination of glazing bricks and multi-colored mosaic in lining is evident in XV century.
In combination with portal decisions cone formed domes start being used. By beginning of XVIII there are
structures with high elliptic and spherical – coned domes appeared on four – eight angled and round basis
of different height. Domes lining by ceramic tiles includes medallions and plastered drawings. For XVIII
century structures from processed (sometimes bright) and rear unprocessed are indicative. Different sized
bays, pylons, scoops, ledges and different forms of figured works are used. Sharing and figured works from
ordinary and shaped brick with application of archivolts, stages, settings, pylons and scoops.
After number of evolution stages among various types of mobile houses the dominating place was
occupied by yurta, which architectural decision was made by XIX and was developed from monochromic
basic bearing walls roofs structure, relief – painted door, mono – poli-chromic banded or patterned fixing
elements and wall barriers as well as monochromic external cover with patterned applicative settings and
poli-chromic fancy floor.
7. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
7
Figure 2. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANCIENTRY
1.Atasuyskoesettlement,Kostanayregion(XII-XIc.BC.);2.CaveTesik-Tas,Karagandaregion;3.Cystitis,Karagandaregion;4.TombBuguly,Karagandaregion(X-VIIIc.BC.);5.
Dolmen,Synguyr1,Kostanayregion(X-VIIIc.BC.);6.Walkwayofmenhirs(kanat-tas),Kostanayregion;7.Tumulussubstructions,Atyrauregion;8.Walkwayofmenhirs(kanat-tas),
Karagandaregion;9.Stoneconstruction–Dyng;10.Menhir(Sym-tas),Kostanayregion;11.Menhir(Sym-tas)–statueoftheBear,Kostanayregion.
8. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
8
Figure 3. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANCIENTRY
1.Tumulus-fence#1,BurialTeke-Bulak,Semipalatinskregion(XII-VIIIc.BC.);2.Babish-Mullah-2mausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(mid-ImillenniumBC);3.Karaultobetumulus,s.Karaspan,
SouthKazakhstanregion(Vc.BC-.Ic.AD.);4.FuneralComplexNorthTagisken,Kyzylordaregion(IX-VIIIc.BC);5.Tumulus18(afterexcavation),s.Berel,East-Kazakhstanregion(I
millenniumBC);6.5aMausoleum,FunerarycomplexNorthTagisken,Kyzylordaregion(IX-VIIIc.BC.);7.Menhirs,complexBesshatyr(VI-IIIc.BC.);8.Ordabasytumulus,s.Badam,
SouthKazakhstanregion(VcenturyBC-.IcenturyAD.);9.SettlmentAltyn-Asar,Kyzylordaregion(IVc.BC-.VIc.AD.);10.Tumulus,s.Mihaylovka,SouthKazakhstanregion(Vc.BC-.
Ic.AD.);11.Balandy-2mausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(IV-IIc.BC);12.Shirik-rabadmausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(IV-IIc.BC.)
9. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
9
Figure 4. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1.SardobaYucca,GolodnaiaSteppe(VI-IXc.);2,6.TowerBegimAna,Kyzylordaregion(IX-XIc.);3.SardobaMurza-Rabad,GolodnaiaSteppe(VI-IXc.);4.TempleoftheFire,s.
Kostobe,SouthKazakhstanregion(VII-IXc.);5.Akyr-tashComplex(wallunit),Zhambylregion(VIII-IXc.);7.TowerSarahAmand-Xhosa,Kyzylordaregion(IX-XIc.,build.Jabaand
Aidos);8,9.Karakhanmausoleum(Satuq-BugraKhan),Taraz(Xc.);10,11.BabajiKhatunMausoleum,p.Aisha-Bibi,Zhambylregion(XIc.).
10. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
10
Figure 5. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1,2,3,4,5,6,7.Aisha-Bibimausoleum,s.Aisha-Bibi,Zhambylregion(XIc.).
11. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
11
Figure 6. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1,3.AlashaKhanMausoleum,Karagandaregion(XIIIc.);2.AyakhamyrMausoleum,Zhezkazganregion(XIIc.);4.Sarly-Tam"InkarDarya"Mausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(build.Jamal
Hayat,1279);5,6.KerderyMausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(endoftheXIII-XIVc.);7.JochiKhanMausoleum,Zhezkazganregion(1228-1230);8.Sarly-Tam"Jeana-Darya"Mausoleum-
restoration,Kyzylordaregion(XIVc.);9,12,13.Shamansur(Davudbek)Mausoleum-reconstruction,Taraz(XIIIc.);10.BeleuliCaravan-sarai,Atyrau(XIVc.);11.AksumbeWatchTower,
s.Aksumbe,SouthKazakhstanregion(XII-XIVcenturies.).
12. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
12
Figure 7. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1,2,3,4,5.KhojaAhmedYasawiMausoleum-khanakaYasawi,Turkestan(1389-1399).
13. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
13
Figure 8. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1.Northernwall,s.Sauran,SouthKazakhstanregion(XIII-XVIIIc.);2.TheToweroftheEasternwall,s.Sauran,SouthKazakhstanregion(XIII-XVIIIc.);3.Ismail-ataComplex,s.Turbat,
SouthKazakhstanregion(XI-XIXc.);4.Wall,s.Sauran,SouthKazakhstanregion(XIII-XVIIIc.);5.Buddhistsanctuary,Almatyregion(LateMiddleAges);6.Ishak-ataComplex,s.Turbat,
SouthKazakhstanregion(theMiddleAges);7.Koshkar-ataMausoleum,s.Turbat,SouthKazakhstanregion(theMiddleAges);8.Mosque,s.Turbat,SouthKazakhstanregion(late
MiddleAges);9.Chillyahana,s.Turbat,SouthKazakhstanregion(theMiddleAges);10.Ismail-ataMausoleum,s.Turbat,SouthKazakhstanregion(XI-XIXc.).
14. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
14
Figure 9. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1.Kulak-ataMausoleum,s.Suzak,SouthKazakhstanregion(XIVc.);2.Abat-BaytakMausoleum,Aktoberegion(XVc.);3.KokKeseneMausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(XVc.);4.Asan-ata
Mausoleum,Kyzylordaregion(XVIc.);5.KosmolaMausoleum,WestKazakhstan(XVIc.);6.Kosmola#1Mausoleum,Semipalatinskregion(XVIIc.);7.Shic-NiyazMausoleum,Kyzylorda
region(XVIIc.);8.Kosmola#2Mausoleum,Semipalatinskregion(XVIIc.);9.Karmakchi-ataMausoleum(XVIIc.);10.Bath,Turkestan(XVI-XVIIIc.);11.YesimKhanMausoleum,
Turkestan(XVIIc.).
15. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
15
Figure 10. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1.Karashash-anaMausoleum,s.Sairam,SouthKazakhstanregion(XVIIIc.);2.Zhunus-ataMausoleum,s.Icahn,SouthKazakhstanregion(XVIIIc.);3.TheMausoleum,anecropolis
Kamyspay(XVIIIc.);4.Ak-ShuraMausoleum(XVIIIc.);5.TortkulakBaysultan,Semipalatinskregion(XVIIIc.);6.TortkulakTogul-bytyr,Semipalatinskregion(XVIIIc.);7.TheGateofthe
Citadel,Turkestan(XVIII-XIXc.);8.Doly-apaMausoleum(XVIIIc.).
16. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
16
Figure 11. NOMAD MOBILE BUILDINGS AND COLLAPSIBLE BUILDINGS
1.Mobileandcollapsibletent(theFigurebyRubruk),2.Mobileandcollapsibletent(theFigurebyMarcoPolo–XIIIc.),3.Yurt(theIranianminiature)–fromfiguresbyK.Ibraeva;4.
AncientTurkicyurt(thebeginningXIII–theXIVc.),5.EdzhenhoreyyurtandHazareyyurty,6.YurtofMongoliannobility(themiddleoftheXVc.),7.YurtofMongoliannobility(theendof
theXVofthefirsthalfoftheXVIc.),8.Mongolianyurt(XV–thesecondhalfoftheXVIc.),9.Kazakhyurt(XIX–beginningoftheXXc.)–fromfiguresbyB.Glaudinov;10.TheMongolian
yurt,11.Kalmykyurt(Torgoutyurt)–fromfiguresbyD.Pyurveev;12.Turkiccampingtents(medievalminiature),13.Thenomadicaul(XIX–beginningoftheXXc.),14.Kazakhyurt(XIX
–beginningoftheXXc.)–fromfiguresbyK.Ibraeva;Kazakhyurt–fromthefigurebyA.Nurdubaeva
17. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
17
Figure 12. ARCHITECTURAL FORMS OF THE ANCIENTRY AND THE MIDDLE AGES
Ancient
period
VI-Xc.
period
XIc.
period
XV-XVIIc.~XIII-XIVc.
period
XVIIIc.
period
Mobile
buildings
Collapsible
buildings
18. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
18
Set of objects on figures
Figure 1. THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF THE KAZAKHSTAN
1.Asia (the Physical map)
Figure 2. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANCIENTRY
1. Atasuyskoe settlement, Kostanay region (XII-XI centuries BC.);
2. Cave Tesik-Tas, Karaganda region;
3. Cystitis, Karaganda region;
4. Tomb Buguly, Karaganda region (X-VIII centuries BC.);
5. Dolmen, Synguyr 1, Kostanay region (X-VIII centuries BC.);
6. Walkway of menhirs (kanat-tas), Kostanay region;
7. Tumulus substructions, Atyrau region;
8. Walkway of menhirs (kanat-tas), Karaganda region;
9. Stone construction – Dyng;
10. Menhir (Sym-tas), Kostanay region;
11. Menhir (Sym-tas) – statue of the Bear, Kostanay region.
Figure 3. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ANCIENTRY
1. Tumulus-fence #1, Burial Teke-Bulak, Semipalatinsk region (XII-VIII c. BC.);
2. Babish-Mullah-2 mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (mid-I millennium BC);
3. Karaultobe tumulus, s.Karaspan, South Kazakhstan region (V c. BC -. I c. AD.);
4. Funeral Complex North Tagisken, Kyzylorda region (IX- VIII c. BC);
5. Tumulus 18 (after excavation), s.Berel, East-Kazakhstan region (I millennium BC);
6. V-a Mausoleum, Funerary complex North Tagisken, Kyzylorda region (IX-VIII c. BC.);
7. Menhirs, complex Besshatyr (VI - III c. BC.);
8. Ordabasy tumulus, s.Badam, South Kazakhstan region (V century BC -. I century AD.);
9. Settlment Altyn-Asar, Kyzylorda region (IV c. BC -. VI c. AD.);
10. Tumulus, s.Mihaylovka, South Kazakhstan region (V c. BC -. I c. AD.);
11. Balandy-2 mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (IV- II c. BC);
12. Shirik-rabad mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (IV - II c. BC.)
Figure 4. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1. Sardoba Yucca, Golodnaia Steppe (VI-IX c.);
2, 6. Tower Begim Ana, Kyzylorda region (IX-XI c.);
3. Sardoba Murza-Rabad, Golodnaia Steppe (VI-IX c.);
4. Temple of the Fire, s. Kostobe, South Kazakhstan region (VII - IX c.);
5. Akyr-tash Complex (wall unit), Zhambyl region (VIII - IX c.);
7. Tower Sarah Amand-Xhosa, Kyzylorda region (IX-XI c., build. Jaba and Aidos);
8, 9. Karakhan mausoleum (Satuq-Bugra Khan), Taraz (X c.);
10, 11. Babaji Khatun Mausoleum, s. Aisha-Bibi, Zhambyl region (XI c.).
Figure 5. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 , 6, 7. Aisha-Bibi mausoleum, s. Aisha-Bibi, Zhambyl region (XI c.).
Figure 6. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1, 3. Alasha Khan Mausoleum, Karaganda region (XIII c.);
2. Ayakhamyr Mausoleum, Zhezkazgan region (XII c.);
4. Sarly-Tam "Inkar Darya" Mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (build. Jamal Hayat, 1279);
5, 6. Kerdery Mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (end of the XIII- XIV c.);
7. Jochi Khan Mausoleum, Zhezkazgan region (1228-1230);
19. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
19
8. Sarly-Tam "Jeana-Darya" Mausoleum - restoration, Kyzylorda region (XIV c.);
9, 12, 13. Shamansur (Davudbek) Mausoleum - reconstruction, Taraz (XIII c.);
10. Beleuli Caravan-sarai, Atyrau (XIV c.);
11. Aksumbe Watch Tower, s. Aksumbe, South Kazakhstan region (XII-XIV centuries.).
Figure 7. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Khoja Ahmed Yasawi Mausoleum-khanaka Yasawi, Turkestan (1389-1399).
Figure 8. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1. Northern wall, s. Sauran, South Kazakhstan region (XIII-XVIII c.);
2. The Tower of the Eastern wall, s. Sauran, South Kazakhstan region (XIII-XVIII c.);
3. Ismail-ata Complex, s. Turbat, South Kazakhstan region (XI-XIX c.);
4. Wall, s. Sauran, South Kazakhstan region (XIII-XVIII c.);
5. Buddhist sanctuary, Almaty region (Late Middle Ages);
6. Ishak-ata Complex, s. Turbat, South Kazakhstan region (the Middle Ages);
7. Koshkar-ata Mausoleum, s. Turbat, South Kazakhstan region (the Middle Ages);
8. Mosque, s. Turbat, South Kazakhstan region (late Middle Ages);
9. Chillyahana, s. Turbat, South Kazakhstan region (the Middle Ages);
10. Ismail-ata Mausoleum, s. Turbat, South Kazakhstan region (XI-XIX c.).
Figure 9. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1. Kulak-ata Mausoleum, s. Suzak, South Kazakhstan region (XIV c.);
2. Abat-Baytak Mausoleum, Aktobe region (XV c.);
3. Kok Kesene Mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (XV c.);
4. Asan-ata Mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (XVI c.);
5. Kosmola Mausoleum, West Kazakhstan (XVI c.);
6. Kosmola #1 Mausoleum, Semipalatinsk region (XVII c.);
7. Shic-Niyaz Mausoleum, Kyzylorda region (XVII c.);
8. Kosmola #2 Mausoleum, Semipalatinsk region (XVII c.);
9. Karmakchi-ata Mausoleum (XVII c.);
10. Bath, Turkestan (XVI-XVIII c.);
11. Yesim Khan Mausoleum, Turkestan (XVII c.).
Figure 10. THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES
1. Karashash-ana Mausoleum, s. Sairam, South Kazakhstan region (XVIII c.);
2. Zhunus-ata Mausoleum, s. Icahn, South Kazakhstan region (XVIII c.);
3. The Mausoleum, a necropolis Kamyspay (XVIII c.);
4. Ak-Shura Mausoleum (XVIII c.);
5. Tortkulak Baysultan, Semipalatinsk region (XVIII c.);
6. Tortkulak Togul-bytyr, Semipalatinsk region (XVIII c.);
7. The Gate of the Citadel, Turkestan (XVIII-XIX c.);
8. Doly-apa Mausoleum (XVIII c.).
Figure 11. NOMAD MOBILE AND COLLAPSIBLE BUILDING
1. Mobile and collapsible tent (the Drawing by Rubruk) – from the drawing by K.Ibraeva,
2. Mobile and collapsible tent (the Drawing by Marco Polo – XIII c.) – from the drawing by K.Ibraeva,
3. Yurt (the Iranian miniature) – from the drawing by K.Ibraeva;
4. Ancient Turkic yurt (the beginning XIII – the XIV c.) – from the drawing by B.Glaudinov,
5. Edzhenhorey yurt and Hazarey yurty– from the drawing by B.Glaudinov,
6. Yurt of Mongolian nobility (the middle of the XV c.) – from the drawing by B.Glaudinov,
7. Yurt of Mongolian nobility (the end of the XV of the first half of the XVI c.) – from the drawing by
B.Glaudinov,
20. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
20
8. Mongolian yurt (XV – the second half of the XVI c.) – from the drawing by B.Glaudinov,
9. Kazakh yurt (XIX – beginning of the XX c.) – from the drawing by B.Glaudinov;
10. The Mongolian yurt– from the drawing by D.Pyurveev,
11. Kalmyk yurt (Torgout yurt) – from the drawing by D.Pyurveev;
12. Turkic camping tents (medieval miniature) – from the drawing by K.Ibraeva,
13. The nomadic aul (XIX – beginning of the XX c.) – from the drawing by K.Ibraeva,
14. Kazakh yurt (XIX – beginning of the XX c.) – from the drawing by K.Ibraeva;
15. Kazakh yurt – from the drawing by A.Nurdubaeva.
Figure 12. ARCHITECTURAL FORMS OF THE ANCIENTRY AND THE MIDDLE AGES
(Image combinations with figures 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11)
The Ancient period;
VI-X c. period;
XI c. period;
XIII-XIV c. period ~ XV-XVII c. period;
XVIII c. period;
Mobile buildings;
Collapsable buildings.
21. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
21
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Azhigali, S.E. 2002, ‘Architecture of nomads – the phenomenon of the history and culture of
Eurasia (monuments of the Aral-Caspian region)’, Almaty. = Ажигали С.Е. Архитектура
кочевников – феномен истории и культуры Евразии (памятники Арало-Каспийского региона).
– Алматы: Гылым, 2002. – 652 с.
2. Baipakov, K.M. 1986, ‘Medieval city culture of the South Kazakhstan and the Semirechie’, Alma-
Ata. = Байпаков К.М. Средневековая городская культура Южного Казахстана и Семиречья. -
Алма-Ата: Наука, 1986.- 256 с.
3. Baitenov, E.M. 2004, ‘Memorial architecture of Kazakhstan: the evolution and problems of
formation’, Almaty. = Байтенов Э.М. Мемориальное зодчество Казахстана: эволюция и
проблемы формообразования. – Алматы: КазГАСА, 2004. – 243с.
4. Glaudinov, B. 1999, ‘History of Kazakhstan architecture (from ancient times to the beginning of the
XX century)’, Almaty. = Глаудинов Б. История архитектуры Казахстана (с древних времен до
начала XX века). Т.1. – Алматы: КазГАСА, 1999. -295 с.
5. Maidar, D., Pyurveev D. 1980, ‘From Nomadic to Mobile architecture’, Moscow. = Майдар Д.,
Пюрвеев Д.Б. От кочевой до мобильной архитектуры. - М.: Стройиздат, 1980.- 216 с.
6. Margulan, A.H., Basenov, T.K., Mendikulov, M.M. 1959. ‘Kazakhstan architecture’, Alma-Ata. =
Маргулан А.Х., Басенов Т.К., Мендикулов М.М. Архитектура Казахстана. - Алма-Ата:
Казгосиздат, 1959.- 259 с.
7. Samoilov, K.I. 2004, ‘ARCHITECTURE OF THE KAZAKHSTAN OF THE 20-CENTURY
(Development of architectural-artistic forms)’, Moscow / Almaty. = Самойлов К.И. АРХИТЕКТУРА
КАЗАХСТАНА ХХ ВЕКА (Развитие архитектурно-художественных форм). – Москва-Алматы:
Издательство «М-АРи»дизайн, 2004. – 930 с.- ISBN 9965-576-17-3 <
http://aasa.ent.sirsidynix.net.uk/client/en_GB/default/search/detailnonmodal/ent:$002f$002fSD_ILS
$002f0$002fSD_ILS:38427/ada;jsessionid=004783532D228A19DC82BBA36E16562D.enterprise-
12800?qu=Artists+--+Twentieth+century.&ic=true&te=ILS&ps=300 > , <
https://openlibrary.org/books/OL25898218M/ARCHITECTURE_OF_THE_KAZAKHSTAN_OF_THE
_20-CENTURY_(Development_of_architectural-artistic_forms) >, <
https://ru.scribd.com/doc/305852987/ARCHITECTURE-OF-THE-KAZAKHSTAN-OF-THE-20-
CENTURY-Development-of-architectural-artistic-forms-by-Konstantin-I-Samoilov >, <
http://www.twirpx.com/file/1917292/ >.
8. Tasmagambetov, I. 2002, ‘Kulpytas’, Astana. = Тасмагамбетов И. Кулыптас. - Астана: ОФ
«Берел», 2002. - 392с.
22.
Brie
TH
fly about t
HE KAZAKHSTAN
the Author
N’S ARCHITECTUR
Research
r
Konst
DSc(Arc
- W
- D
S
T
- D
T
(
- C
A
a
- P
C
A
1
- A
C
K
w
- A
s
A
w
- W
K
e
o
- A
p
- M
K
- M
K
Associat
Kazakh L
www.kaz
Head of t
“Europoli
www.eur
E: samc
RE of the Ancient
h paper by Konsta
22
tantin I.S
ch), HD(Arc
Was born on
Doctor of Arc
Scientific-Res
Theory - ww
Doctor's degr
Theory of Arc
Moscow, 199
Candidate of
Architecture):
and Town Pla
Post-graduate
Civil Enginee
Architecture a
1983-1986);
Architectural
Civil Enginee
Kazakh Lead
www.kazgas
Architectural
school (Dipl. T
Almaty Colleg
www.aksim.k
Writer more t
Kazakhstan’s
educational m
of establishm
Author and co
public, transp
Member of th
Kazakhstan;
Member of th
Kazakhstan.
te Professor
Leading Acad
zgasa.kz
the Project D
s” LLP –
ropolis.kz
coniv@yah
ry and the Middle
antin I.SAMOILOV
2
SAMOIL
ch), PhD(A
January 7, 1
chitecture (Th
search Institu
ww.niitag.ru (
ree course –
chitecture and
99-2003);
Architecture
: The Scientif
anning Theor
e course – th
ring – now it
and Civil Eng
Faculty – the
ring (Dipl. Ar
ing Academy
sa.kz (Almaty
Division – th
Technician-a
ge of Constru
kz (Almaty, 1
han 150 artic
s architecture
materials for a
ments;
ollaborator a
port, industria
he Union of a
he Union of u
r of the Arch
demy of Arch
Department
hoo.com ,
Ages (THE FORM
V, 2016
OV
Arch), Dipl.A
958
heory and His
ute of Archite
(Moscow, 20
the Scientific
d Town Plan
/ eq. Ph.D. (
fic-Research
ry - www.niit
he Almaty Ins
is the Kazak
gineering - ww
e Almaty Inst
rchitect / eq.
y of Architect
y, 1977-1983
e Almaty Civ
architect / eq
uction and M
1973-1977);
cles on the T
e of 20th - 21s
architectural-
bout 200 des
al, religious a
rchitects of t
rban plannin
hitectural Fa
hitecture and
, Chief Arch
samconiv
MS SUMMATION)
Arch., Dipl.T
story of Arch
ecture and To
04);
c-research In
ning - www
(Theory and
h Institute of A
tag.ru (Mosc
stitute of Arch
kh Leading A
ww.kazgasa
titute of Archi
MArch.) – no
ture and Civi
3);
vil Engineerin
. BArch) – no
anagement -
Theory and H
st centuries a
-designable s
signs of dwel
and memorial
he Republic
gs of the Re
aculty –
Civil Engine
hitect of proj
v@mail.ru
Tech.Arch.
itecture): The
own Planning
nstitute of
.niitag.ru
History of
Architecture
cow, 1990);
hitecture and
Academy of
a.kz (Almaty,
itecture and
ow it is the
l Engineering
ng technical
ow it is the
-
History of the
and series
specialization
lling houses,
l buildings;
of the
public of the
ering –
jects –
e
g
d
g -
e
ns
23. THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages (THE FORMS SUMMATION)
Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV, 2016
23
The Scientific-methodological Edition
THE KAZAKHSTAN’S ARCHITECTURE of the Ancientry and the Middle Ages
(THE FORMS SUMMATION) / Research paper by Konstantin I.SAMOILOV. –
the Thematic brochures series: STYLES OF THE KAZAKHSTAN’S
ARCHITECTURE. – Almaty, 2016. – 23 p.
Signed in print – April 04, 2016.
The Format – 60 x 84 1/8.
The Font: Arial Narrow.
Conventional printed sheets – 1,37.
The Duplication – PDFversion.