Archaeological Survey in the Surroundings of Kayrit (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report for Season 2015

Archaeological Survey in the Surroundings of Kayrit (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report for Season 2015 Ladislav Stančo ABSTRACT This text represents an overview of the results of the extensive surface survey, conducted in the hinterland of the site of Burgut Kurgan, south Uzbekistan, during its excavations in 2015. The basic data on the settlements, kurgans and related phenomena are presented here, as well as apreliminary interpretation of the whole as acomplex cultural landscape of the Late Bronze / Early Iron Age. KEYWORDS Pashkhurt Valley; Kayrit village; Burgut Kurgan; surface survey; kurgans; petroglyphs; Bactria; Yaz culture; Early Iron Age; Late Bronze Age; Middle Ages. INTRODUCTION Uzbekistan, along with the other Post -Soviet countries of Central Asia, ranks among the regions with along tradition of archaeological research including surface surveys and mapping of archaeological sites (cf. published or unpublished reports called Svod po pamyatnikam in the archives of the Archaeological Institutes in the given countries). Despite the impressive results of the field work during the previous few decades, every new scholarly generation possesses new tools and methods that allow for new types of analysis, but also for new approaches in the field work itself. There are still many blank places on the archaeological maps preventing aproper spatial understanding of the various archaeological cultures or particular aspects of these cultures (e.g. burial customs, religious beliefs, agricultural settlements and facilities). As archaeologists working in the region, we are obliged to use these new tools and approaches in order to broaden the amount of data with one key imperative: our work must be driven by an effort not to destroy more archaeological contexts than absolutely necessary and in this way to keep untouched as much data as possible for the future generations equipped with even better and more sophisticated scientific methods. Therefore, non -destructive methods should be preferred. After several years of both intensive and extensive surface survey in the lowlands of the Sherabad District, south Uzbekistan, that brought to light substantial new data on this particular region, but generally– and with some exceptions– rather confirmed what scholars knew about the region so far (Stančo– Tušlová in print), the Czech -Uzbekistani team decided from the year 2014 to intensify the prospecting activities in the piedmonts of Kugitang, situated to the north -west of the Sherabad lowlands. Before, we paid only several selective visits mostly to already known sites or verified features detected on satellite imagery. During this process, we, nevertheless, also discovered several previously unknown sites, some of them by mere chance. These particular results of our activities remained largely unpublished with the exception of brief reports at the very beginning of the survey (Stančo 2009; Danielisová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010; general remarks also in Stancho– Shaydullaev– Tushlova 2013). STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2, 73–85 74 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Anew phase of field work in the piedmont steppe belt, which had already been initiated in 2014, was resumed by L. Stančo and A. Augustinová on alarger scale in 2015 during the excavations of the Czech -Uzbekistani -French team at Burgut Kurgan (Stančoetal. 2016). Previous experience has shown that many settlements, but also small kurgans, may not be visible and detectable in satellite images, let alone on topographic maps. The extent of the territory on the one hand and the workload of the team -members during the excavations on the other, did not allow for an intensive surface survey, therefore, the survey was conducted in an extensive and selective way with an emphasis on places and areas with ahigh potential of detection of anthropogenic phenomena according to the previous experience (e.g. close to water sources and / or courses, on elevated places, etc.). This rather intuitive approach, though, has brought very interesting results, which are presented below. OBJECTIVES After its discovery in 2014, the site of Burgut Kurgan (“Mound of eagle”) has been selected as the principal object of our works in the piedmonts of Kugitang for at least two seasons. From the very beginning, however, we asked questions concerning the relation of the site to its hinterland: what was the temporal and spatial relationship between the site and the kurgan- -like features in its hinterland? What was the relation between the site and the water canals that appear to supply it with water brought from the Zarabag Oasis? Was this settlement an isolated phenomenon or did it make up part of amore complex pattern? If so, what was its role in such apattern? The working hypothesis we started the survey with presumed that asmall walled site could hardly have existed all alone and also given the pre -eminent state of preservation of Burgut Kurgan itself, we expected more settlements of asimilar nature to be found. Regardless of these specific objectives related to the Early Iron Age, the general goal was to collect spatially specific archaeological data on any historical period as acounterbalance and complement to information gained at the Zarabag micro -oasis (see below), since we supposed the interrelated functioning of both these landscape units: an oasis and surrounding steppe. RESEARCH AREA The research area is situated in the north -western part of the Sherabad District, Surkhandarya Province, south Uzbekistan, to the north of the village of Pashkhurt that is the natural centre of the basin. The main interest of our prospecting headed into an area between the present- -day villages of Maydan, Karabag and Zarabag (Pl. 2/1).1 The latter village and its vicinity had been subject to investigation by the other branch of our expedition headed by A. Augustinová (Augustinováetal. 2015). The results of both sub -projects, however, are closely linked to each other. The focus of the present survey was the territory of and the surroundings of asmall village, or hamlet, Kayrit. The area is generally bordered on and protected from the north -west 1 The southernmost point was situated at 66.7953 E, 37.744 N, the easternmost at 66.822 E, 37.751 N, the westernmost at 66.774 E, 37.762 N, and the northernmost point was at 66.7861 E, 37.7805 N. The northern limits are the only ones that correspond to anatural border formed by an elevated ridge with rocky outcrops clearly closing the basin and making anatural barrier. The research area had, however, neither aregular shape, nor was surveyed systematically and thoroughly. 75LADISLAV STANČO by the ridge of the Kugitang Mountains with the highest point at Airi Baba (3000 m.a.s.l.), while the altitude of the research area reaches 800–900 m.a.s.l. PREVIOUS RESEARCH The steppe belt of the Kugitang piedmonts had been subject to several extensive archaeological surveys undertaken by various teams under different circumstances. These previous research projects did not focus on aspecific micro -region in detail, but typically either conducted large -scale extensive surface surveys leading to the detection of isolated archaeological sites (Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973, 16–17; Rtveladze 1974, 66–67; Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990), or paid attention selectively to the direct vicinity of the site, which was excavated under the framework of along -term project, as was the case of Dabil Kurgan and Tilla Bullaq at Pashkhurt (Mkrtychev– Bolelov– Il’yasov 2005; Kaniuthetal. 2010, 154–155). Some of the published reports testify rather to randomly placed investigation targets with promising, but haphazard results (Dvurechenskayaetal. 2014). Nevertheless, among the well -watered micro -oases of the largest of the piedmont valleys– the Pashkhurt Valley including the semi -separated Maydan Valley– some were quite well surveyed by archaeologists, especially their central settlements (Pashkhurt itself, Karabag, Maydan and Goz),2 but the other oases in the valley remained surprisingly unexplored.3 The most striking example is represented by the village of Zarabag and its oasis that remained completely omitted until 2015 when it was surveyed by our expedition. The preliminary results of the new research of this particular landscape unit testifies to the high archaeological potential of these oases (Augustinováetal. 2015). It should be noted that among the mentioned surveys, only one has been partly conducted in our research area (Dvurechenskayaetal. 2014). Beside these broader projects, there were also efforts to study particular problems connected with the piedmont landscape. Some interesting results, unfortunately without any chronologically- -specific conclusions, were brought about by the research of the mining and metallurgy of the mountain valleys close to Kampyrtepa village undertaken in 1990 (Ruzanov– Buryakov 1997). This area is situated ca. 10 km from Burgut Kurgan. The above mentioned short research visits of our team in 2008–2011 and their results, including the detection of several previously unknown kurgan burial sites (Stančo 2009; Danielisová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010; Stancho– Shaydullaev– Tushlova 2013) stimulated and directed further Czech -Uzbekistani scientific cooperation. In the first step, our aim was to gain abetter idea of the kurgan burial sites, of their chronology and spatial distribution. During the short campaign in 2014 we excavated one of the larger kurgans near Kayrit village and started adetailed surface survey in its vicinity that led to the discovery of many other kurgans and several settlements of various periods, among them also the Early Iron Age walled site of Burgut Kurgan (Stančoetal. 2014). This site has been chosen as asuitable one for archaeological excavations to be started immediately next season (Stančoetal. 2016). 2 Despite these efforts, Rtveladze and his colleagues knew in the 1980s (Arshavskaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982) only one archaeological site of the medieval period in Maydan (Maydan Kurgan), one in Pashkhurt (Dabil Kurgan) and three in Karabag (Gilampushtepa, Mazaristantepa and Kurgantepa). Over the next thirty years, only asingle new site has been added to this short list. 3 Note that the access to the villages and adjacent valleys situated closest to the main ridge of Kugitang and at the same time to the Turkmen border is restricted by law especially for foreigners. Thus, special permission is required for visit of Kyzyl Alma, Shelkan, Vandob and other villages and hamlets. 76 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 KURGAN BURIALS By now, we have detected 34 kurgans or kurgan -like stone features near Kayrit village and around the road connecting the villages of Maydan and Zarabag. Thus, we have more than doubled the number of these features identified in the previous season. The newly detected mounds are in some cases isolated from each other, there are however also two clusters of ca. five mounds in one place (rather small ones with diameters less than 2 m). The following table (Tab.1) shows the basic characteristics of these burial mounds. The newly found kurgans have not been documented in full detail yet, with the exception of kurgan No. 16 situated between the Burgut Kurgan and the road connecting Maydan and Zarabag. Here we have conducted small -scale excavations in order to get more data on both the structure and chronology of the given features and thus to add some information to the data gained during the excavations of the kurgan Kayrit 1 in 2014 (Stančo et. al. 2014). The excavation of Kurgan 16 was carried out by Jakub Havlík. The small stone mound was removed (first one half of it, then the other), under which no burial pit was detected. Instead, we came across avery unusual feature: abroken, but archaeologically complete vessel placed next to aflat stone. The vessel was dated to the Yaz Iperiod by Sh. Shaydullaev and J. Lhuillier (Lhuillier 2016, 119). We preliminarily assume that we are dealing with evidence of aritual, which had not yet been attested by previous research. The situation will be further analysed and we plan to open one or two of the neighbouring “kurgans” to understand better, what funeral (or other?) rituals, and how, were performed here during the Yaz Iperiod. For the other kurgan -like features, there are no chronological indicators available at the moment. SETTLEMENTS Sixteen previously unknown archaeological sites that can be classified as settlements were detected in the surroundings of Kayrit in 2015 (following the seven discovered the year before). In most cases they were characterised not only by pottery scatters on the surface but also some significant morphological features (including stone architecture, as in the case of Kayrit VI and VII). In most cases, the preliminary dating is based on the surface finds of pottery fragments (Fig. 5 and 6), evaluated by Sh. Shaydullaev and J. Lhuillier (Lhuillier 2016, 119–120). In two cases, however, we conducted small -scale trial excavations in order to get more precise chronological and typological clues. As is seen from the table below (Tab.2), the predominant period of occupation in the research area was that of Yaz Iculture with nine sites. It should be noted, however, that in six cases a(proportionally smaller) part of the material from these Yaz Isites probably dates to the Late Bronze Age (Sapalli culture).4 Among these sites, at least two or three deserve closer attention and we aim to study their topography and material culture in detail in the near future. One is Kayrit VIII (Fig. 1), with an abundant Yaz Ipottery assemblage, but with no visible remains of stone architecture. It is situated on alow natural mound elevated above the flat bottom of the large basin overlooked by Burgut Kurgan (Pl. 2/1). This particular area, as we were told by locals, is being used for occasional agricultural activities even nowadays. These, however, depend on the intensity of precipitation in agiven season. This seemingly dry area is interwoven by anetwork of water canals, perhaps mostly dug only recently. 4 One more site with the same characteristics has been detected at the Zarabag village, see Augustinováetal. 2015, 265. Tab.1, POL_3. 77LADISLAV STANČO 1 2 5 Local numeration for the kurgans in the vicinity of Kayrit. 6 This structure was reinterpreted from kurgan to stone circle at last, Stančo et al. 2014, 35. Number 1Coordinates Diameter (m) Height (m) Elevation (m.a.s.l.) 1 66,798 37,752 9 0.5 838.8 2 66,797 37,752 11 0.7 834 3 66,797 37,751 9 0.8 833.5 4 66,798 37,751 10 1.2 834 5 266,797 37,755 3.4 0.1 833 6 66,794 37,750 13 1.5 835 7 66,790 37,750 12 1.4 843 8 66,788 37,757 11 1.4 856 9 66,801 37,756 5 < 0.5 859 10 66,801 37,751 < 2 0.7 829.5 11 66,801 37,751 < 2 < 0.5 823 12 66,802 37,751 < 2 < 0.5 821 13 66,802 37,751 < 2 < 0.5 821 14 66,786 37,757 6 0.5 853 15 66,778983 37,751019 8 903 (G.E.) 16 66,786 37,7548 857 17 66,778 37,761503 841 18 66,777191 37,761895 849 19 66,776792 37,761895 850 20 66,776901 37,761995 849.6 21 66,7861 37,7491 851.5 22 66,7868 37,7492 847.4 23 66,8209 37,7517 776 24 66,819696 37,7515 780 25 66,819397 37,7515 780 26 66,819 37,751399 782 27 66,818796 37,751602 781 28 66,8098 37,752401 778 29 66,8098 37,752299 777 30 6,809702 37,7523 777 31 66,8096 37,7524 778 32 66,8096 37,7523 779 33 66,8094 37,7523 779.6 34 66,779301 37,760904 841.7 Tab.1: List of kurgan burials (or kurgan -like features) in the area of Burgut Kurgan and Kayrittepa, eastern Pashkhurt Valley. 78 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Fig. 1: The settlement of Kayrit VIII (low mound on the left centre of foreground) with Burgut Kurgan as highest point in the background, view from N (photo by author). The second example is represented by Kayrit VI, called Norkhontepa75by some locals or (by our team) Kayrittepa (Fig. 2) that resembles Burgut Kurgan in its size, remains of stone walls / ramparts, and even in asurface find of an early type of quern stone. Burgut Kurgan and Kayrittepa are obviously very similar to each other, including the topography and strategic position high above aflat valley.86The only important difference is represented by the presence of plentiful water sources directly at the foot of Kayrittepa that supply the hamlet of Kayrit even nowadays. The third exceptional site (Kayrit VII or Burgutcha = “Small Eagle”) one find between Burgut Kurgan and Zarabag village. There are also remains of astone structure, but the site is much smaller then Burgut Kurgan or Kayrittepa (Fig. 3). There was probably just asingle stone building, circular in its ground plan (diameter ca. 12 m). Asingle circular tower -like structure does not look like an ordinary settlement and we may speculate on aritual function of the feature. One possible explanation, especially bearing in mind the hypothesis related to aritual function of the paved room of Burgut Kurgan as aspace for the temporary placement of corpses before moving them to dakhma itself (Stančoetal. 2016, 106), is that it could have been aproto ‑dakhma, atower of silence. This highly speculative preliminary interpretation will be verified in the near future. 7 We were told by alocal shepherd afantastic tale about this site, which was reportedly an ancient castle, while the site of Burgut Kurgan had served as its port. 8 By the time of the finalizing of this report (06/2016), Shapulat Shaydullaev, the co -director of the Czech- -Uzbekistani team, had already begun the trial excavations of Kayrittepa with promising results: besides the stone ramparts and the well -preserved pottery assemblage of the Yaz Iperiod, also abronze knife had been uncovered. 79LADISLAV STANČO Fig. 2: Walled settlement of Kayrittepa (Yaz Iperiod), view from W (photo by author). Fig. 3: Burgutcha, astone structure, circular in groundplan (photo by author). Yet another stone structure (Kayrit XXI) has been found close to the Burgutcha, but it was situated on the slope and what remained resembles agroup of orthostats forming an irregular oblong or oval structure (Fig. 4). The trial excavation conducted by Alisher Shaydullaev did not answer the questions of chronology and function of this specific structure. 80 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Fig. 4: Group of orthostats forming oval structure (photo by author). Fig. 5: Selected pottery fragments from the surface survey, sites of Kayrit IX, XIII, XVIII, XIX, XX (drawing by A. Pažout and V. Doležálková). Kayrit XIII d = 20 cm d = 28 cm Kayrit XVIII Kayrit XIX d = 41 cm Kayrit XX d = 29 cm Kayrit IX d >16 cm d >12 cm 1:2 cm 012345 81LADISLAV STANČO Fig. 6: Selected pottery fragments from the surface survey, sites of Kayrit VII, XI, XIV, XVI (drawing by A. Pažout and V. Doležálková). We do not know so far, what happened here in the eastern Pashkhurt Valley at the end of the Yaz Iperiod (around 1100 BC), when all of the sites with relevant archaeological material were abandoned. The earliest finds posterior to the end of Yaz I, belongs to Yaz III (or Kuchuk III/ IV) only (i.e. about four centuries later), and comes from agroup of terraces that were not inhabited in Yaz I, but corresponds very well with the High Medieval occupation of the same places. These locations were well -watered by abundant natural springs. This is the case of the sites Kayrit XVIII–XX located just above the right bank of the Maydan Say at Kayrit village. Asimilar situation, however, can be observed in the village of Zarabag (Augustinováetal. 2015, 274. Tab.4, O1). There is also Yaz II/III material in the same place where the medieval finds have been found. Altogether, there are six sites where High Medieval pottery occurs (outside of Zarabag itself). This period seems to be– after the turn of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age– the only historical period with ahigher density of occupation in the piedmont steppe. The Late Antiquity/Early Medieval period is only very scarcely represented. By now we have