Archaeological excavations at Lungi Tepa, south Uzbekistan. Preliminary Report for Season 2019

Archaeological excavations at Lungi Tepa, south Uzbekistan. Preliminary Report for Season 2019 Ladislav Damašek– Rebecca Kinaston– Robyn Kramer– Markéta Šmolková– Daniel Pilař– Shapulat Shaydullaev– Ladislav Stančo ABSTRACT This report summarises the preliminary results of the first season of excavations at the site of Lungi Tepa in the Kugitang Piedmonts, south Uzbekistan. The research was conducted by an international (Czech‑ ‑New Zealand ‑Uzbek) archaeological ‑bioanthropological team in autumn 2019. The excavations focused on obtaining stratigraphic data from the Medieval settlement of Lungi Tepa and uncovering an adjacent burial ground in order to get well ‑dated reference material for future in ‑depth study of the High Medieval chronology of the studied region. KEYWORDS Central Asia; Tokharistan; Lungi Tepa; High Medieval Period; Late Medieval Period; archaeology; excavation; bioanthropology; burials; settlement; stratigraphy. INTRODUCTION As recently attested, during the High Medieval Period there was unprecedented population growth and arapid increase in the number of settlements in some well ‑surveyed regions of southern Central Asia, such as the Pashkhurt Valley, Baysun District, and Denau Region (Stančo 2019; Augustinová 2016, 57; Stride 2004, I/344, tab.13). This was at least partially aresult of the exploitation of metal resources in the foothills and along the south ‑western spurs of the Hissar Mountains (Damašek 2019, 78), including metal processing at some of the sites attested by finds of metal ingots (Stančoetal. 2019, 145, 162). The High Medieval Period in south Central Asia demands acloser investigation of both historical and archae‑ ological sources in order to better understand the social and political processes that took place after the establishment of Islam in the 8th century AD. In previous field seasons, the Czech ‑Uzbek archaeological expeditions gathered data on the High Medieval Period as part of larger investigations (intensive and extensive archaeological surveys) focused on earlier periods (e.g. the Iron Age and Hellenistic Period). The data collected on the High Medieval Period led to the establishment of aresearch group with amain focus on this pivotal historical period. For the first time in the almost twenty ‑year history of the Czech ‑Uzbek archaeological ex‑ peditions in southern Uzbekistan, aseparate team (the Khojaunkan research group) formed to focus on asite dated to the Medieval period. This expanded the scope of the previous research that used surface survey and excavation to investigate prehistoric sites and Early Historic set‑ tlements in the Surkhan Darya Province. The team was composed of archaeologists from the Czech Republic led by L. Damašek (Charles University) and anthropologists from New Zealand and the United States led by R. Kinaston (University of Otago, NZ). The research was approved STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1, 159–178 160 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 by local Uzbek archaeologists and authorities. The project is part of alarger research group formed by L. Stančo (Charles University), who had been leading archaeological research in southern Uzbekistan for almost two decades under the auspices of Sh. Shaydullaev (Termez State University). The Khojaunkan research group was funded by aUniversity of Otago Research Grant (NZ) for the research project titled Human health and adaptation along Silk Roads which combined archaeological and bioanthropological research. The main bioanthropological goal of the project was to understand diet, heath, and migration patterns in aHigh Medieval population by studying their skeletal remains. The main aim of the archaeological research was to ob‑ tain well ‑stratified material culture that would allow us to create astratigraphic sequence of the High Medieval ceramics for the piedmont steppe region of Kugitang. The main focus of this report is on the archaeological part of the research. The bioanthropological results are addressed only briefly and will be fully reported in forthcoming publications. The excavations at Lungi Tepa, as well as the post ‑excavation processing of the material culture, were conducted by the students Daniel Pilař and Markéta Šmolková of the Faculty of Arts, Charles University under the supervision of Ladislav Damašek. The excavation of burials and analysis of the skeletal remains was carried out by Rebecca Kinaston and her PhD student Robyn Kramer (both University of Otago, NZ). Lungi Tepa had been chosen for the excavation for several reasons. First, the site is known from previous research which confirmed that the settlement was inhabited during the High Medieval Period (Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990) and, later, from abrief sur‑ vey that confirmed there was aburial ground near the tepa. Surface finds of material culture found at the site and around it appeared to belong exclusively to the Middle Ages. Thus, we did not expect earlier or later strata at the settlement on Lungi Tepa. Although the settlement is located close to the current village, the central mound appeared undisturbed by modern and present ‑day cemeteries and construction activities. The lack of modern disturbance on Lungi Tepa is unlike many other similar, but recently disturbed sites, surveyed by the Czech ‑Uzbek expedition in the broader region of the Kugitang piedmonts (Augustinováetal. 2016, 266; Augustinováetal. 2017, 112). Moreover, the size and height of Lungi Tepa was appropriate to expect sufficient stratigraphic sequence, but it did not seem too demanding in terms of workload. LOCATION The site of Lungi Tepa is situated on the outskirts of the present ‑day village of Khojaunkan in the region of the Kugitang foothills, Sherabad District, Surxondaryo Province (UZB admin‑ istrative units). Khojaunkan (37°53’48.549”N, 66°46’33.414”E) is situated around 30 km as the crow flies from Sherabad town. Within the village, Lungi Tepa (37°53’48.778”N, 66°47’0.682”E) lies on the eastern margin of the populated area (Fig. 1). It is situated at the end of amoun‑ tain valley at an altitude of 1322 m. The terrain is elevated so there is agood view east in the direction towards the Sherabad River Valley. Approximately 300 m to the south of the Lungi Tepa site there is ariverbed with aseasonal watercourse. Lungi Tepa is atell ‑type settlement (in local terminology, atepa). The tepa (tell mound) has aroughly oval shape with dimensions of 60 × 40 m and average height of 6.5 m. To the south and west of the site, present ‑day mud ‑brick houses have been constructed in the proximity of the central mound. On the eastern and northern sides, there is adirt road and the ruins of abandoned houses. As the local topography indicates, the Medieval settlement clearly extend‑ 161L. DAMAŠEK– R. KINASTON– R. KRAMER– M. ŠMOLKOVÁ– D. PILAŘ– S. SHAYDULLAEV– L. STANČO ed beyond the central mound, but the above ‑mentioned modern houses and various minor structures prevent the estimation of the general extent and form of the site. Nowadays, there is no water source in the vicinity of the tepa. PREVIOUS RESEARCH The site of Lungi Tepa has been known to archaeologists since the 1980s when it was first ex‑ cavated by A. Bobokhojaev, T. Annaev, and Sh. Rakhmanov from the Archaeological Institute of the Academy of Science, Uzbekistan. Ashort summary of the fieldwork was published along with some other data on various archaeological sites across the piedmonts of Kugitang and Baysun Tau (Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990). These archaeologists dug atrench on the northern slope of Lungi Tepa to determine the stratigraphy. Today, traces of the trench are still clearly visible due to adepression on the side of the tepa. During their excavation, they identified amud brick wall on aplatform in the lower part, and atamped clay wall in the upper part of the trench. With the exception of these features, the only oth‑ er layers were identified between, and on the outside of, these two walls. Aselection of the excavated ceramic fragments, including glazed ware, was published as part of their report (Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990, fig. 4, 5). In autumn 2017, members of aCzech ‑Uzbek expedition, along with R. Kinaston, observed Lungi Tepa. They were staying in Khojaunkan village while excavating the nearby Kaptar Kamar cave site, which was discovered in the previous year by L. Stančo (Stančoetal. 2017, 127–128). In 2017, L. Stančo’steam collected ceramic fragments from the surface of Lungi Tepa Fig. 1: Map of the village Khojaunkan with marked position of Lungi Tepa (map by L. Damašek; source: mapy.cz). 162 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 and amajority of the ceramic fragments were dated by Sh. Shaydullaev to the High Medieval Period. Fragments from the Early and Late Medieval Periods were found as well (Damašek 2019, 53–54). In 2017, alocal man asked the team excavating Kaptar Kamar to come and look at human bones emerging from his backyard. The orientation (north/south) and burial position (supine extended, head facing west) of the observable skeletons suggested that the area was aMuslim burial ground. The man insisted on the collection of the human remains on the surface and R. Kinaston analysed the fragments and took samples for Accelerator Mass Spec‑ trometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating, ancient DNA, and isotope analysis (with State approval). The radiocarbon dating of ahuman bone sample from one of the burials provided adate of cal AD 1009–1151 (MAMS 35089). Based on the pottery type found around the site and the human bone AMS date, it was obvious that Lungi Tepa and the nearby cemetery belonged to the Medieval Period. The lack of other material culture or structures from other periods suggests that there is ahigh prob‑ ability there are no settlements from earlier periods on Lungi Tepa or in the close vicinity. EXCAVATIONS IN 2019 In autumn 2019, the Khojaunkan team focused on four research areas on or nearby Lungi Tepa: Trench 1 (T1), Trench 2 (T2), Burial site 1 (B1) and Burial site 2 (B2) (Fig. 2). However, the main research area and largest excavation unit during the 2019 field season was T1, located on the southern slope of the tepa. The other three excavated areas were complementary to the excavation in T1. BURIAL SITE 1 (B1) B1 is the location of the human remains found in 2017 (mentioned above) and is located ap‑ proximately 130 m west of Lungi Tepa (Fig. 2). Based on the initial observation in 2017, more burials were expected to be found in this area. The original plan was to excavate this burial ground and T1 as the main objectives of the research. Unfortunately, the entire area with burials observed in 2017 was altered by the local inhabitants. This happened because the local landowner removed the eroding skeletal remains sometime between August 2017 and September 2019 and reburied the remains in two pits at the far west boundary of his prop‑ erty (labelled K1 and K2). Both units K1 and K2 (Fig 2) were excavated by R. Kinaston and R. Kramer and the skeletal remains were removed from the garden for analysis and curation (at the Termez Museum). Unit K2 provided the majority of the commingled skeletal remains, but together, the minimum number of individuals (MNI) from both units was determined to be six adults (over 18 years old) and three non ‑adults (aged 0–18 years old). Acomprehensive analysis of the commingled remains will be presented in aforthcoming publication. The discovery of the commingled remains (instead of the expected primary burials) in B1 shifted the plans of the Khojaunkan research group. Area B2 was then considered as the next place to excavate intact Medieval burials. BURIAL SITE 2 (B2) B2 is situated east of the tepa (Fig. 2). The area is defined by six circles of stones that surround small soil mounds. These surface features likely mark graves as this burial type is common for Medieval graves in the region. The six stone circles were mapped by total station and measured. 163L. DAMAŠEK– R. KINASTON– R. KRAMER– M. ŠMOLKOVÁ– D. PILAŘ– S. SHAYDULLAEV– L. STANČO One of them, H1E, was excavated, but before the work had reached the level of the skeleton, other burials were uncovered in T1. The bioarchaeology team moved to work on the T1 graves so excavations of the stratigraphic cut of the tepa could continue. As there were 8 graves in total in T1, there was no time to finish the excavation of H1E. Nevertheless, the bottom of the grave pit of H1E was reached. However, H1E was aspecific type of grave construction that involved alarger pit (this was the pit bottom that was uncovered) that had aniche cut into the side where the body would have been placed. In the case of H1E, the niche was covered by stones which were visible on the west side of the pit. As mentioned above, neither the body nor the niche was investigated due to time pressure and the larger excavated burial pit of H1E was backfilled. TRENCH 2 (T2) T2 was asmall 1 × 1 m test pit excavated between Burial site 1 (B1) and the tepa (Fig. 2). In the area of T2, there was alarge platform (area of elevated sediment) that was disturbed. The disturbance was caused by the local landowners who made an approximately 40 m long path (probably by bulldozer) which cut through the elevated platform sediment. Large quantities of pottery, especially glazed ware, were found emerging out of the walls on both sides of the path. Trench 2 was excavated to investigate if there were intact Medieval cultural layers in this area of the site and whether the platform was of anthropic origin. Asterile layer (hard soil, Fig. 2: Plan of Lungi tepa with its surroundings with the placement of T1, T2, B1 and B2 (map by L. Damašek; source: mapy.cz). 164 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 no ceramics) was reached at adepth of 60 cm in Trench 2. No layers could be distinguished during excavation so T2 was excavated in 20 cm spits. The sediment excavated from T2 was rich in pottery (203 fragments in total) and animal bones. There was ahigh proportion of glazed ware (18.5%) represented in the pottery fragments. Blue glaze or blue combined with other colours was the most represented glaze type found in T2 (75.5% of all glazed shards) (Pl. 5/1:8–12). The ceramics emerging from the walls of the path were also collected. No methodological approach was attempted for this collection except that the most diagnostic shards were se‑ lected. These pottery fragments included an almost complete lamp, alamp handle and beak and several glazed bases and rims (Pl. 5/1:1–7). Blue glaze was also dominant among these shards. One base had aspecific decoration that combined blue glaze with black geometric painting (Pl. 5/1:2). Based on the material culture collected from T2 and the modern path earthwork, we can conclude that the platform is of an anthropic origin. The ceramics found in T2 and collected from the wall of the modern earthwork belong to the Late Medieval Period (13th– beginning of the 16th century AD). Clearly some anthropogenic activity (most probably asettlement) in the Late Medieval Period took place in this area. The original dimension of the platform cannot be estimated because there are houses, outbuildings and fences built on and around what remains of the structure. In the southern part of the platform, it has been used as asource of clay (for mudbricks) for constructing buildings and fences. Without further investigation, our current analyses do not allow any other assumptions about the plat‑ form’sfunction, form and purpose. TRENCH 1 (T1) The main focus of the archaeological research in 2019 was Trench 1 (T1). T1 was placed on the southern side of Lungi Tepa (Fig. 2) opposite the previous stratigraphic trench made in the 1980s (Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990) to avoid interference with pre‑ viously excavated areas. Astratigraphic trench (anarrow cut of the mound) was chosen as the best method of excavation for the tepa. This method was chosen because it most suited the research goal of obtaining stratigraphic information and intact material. However, the downside of this method is that it does not provide much information about the settlement (i.e., types of buildings, the function and type of settlement, etc.). The stratigraphic trench was positioned on the slope and it spanned from the top edge of the tepa towards the base of the mound. The sides of the trench were oriented according to the cardinal directions. The final dimensions of T1 were 9 × 2 m with an extension (1.3 × 1.1 m) in the north ‑eastern corner to allow for the recovery of two burials (H4 and H5). Adepth of almost 2.6 m was reached in the northern part of T1 and in the southern part only the upper 20 cm of soil was removed (due to the location on the slope). The subsoil under the tepa was not reached and it is estimated that there is approximately 1 to 2 m of unexcavated cultural layers below the lowest level reached in 2019. In T1, horizontal and vertical units were distinguished in addition to eight graves. The whole trench was dug by hand and no machinery was used. All the ceramics and other artefacts, as well as ecofacts, were collected and recorded. Ametal detector was used throughout the excavation to search the excavated area and the spoil heap. All the ceramic shards were labelled, described and photographed. The characteristic shards (rims, bases, decoration, glaze etc.) were also drawn. 165L. DAMAŠEK– R. KINASTON– R. KRAMER– M. ŠMOLKOVÁ– D. PILAŘ– S. SHAYDULLAEV– L. STANČO Fig. 3: North profile T1 (drawing by L. Damašek). Distinguished phases Four main phases with one sub ‑phase were identified from the stratigraphy of T1– Phase I(PI), sub ‑phase IA (PIA), Phase II (PII), Phase III (PIII), and Phase IV (PIV). The divisions were made based on stratigraphy and artefact type. Phase I(PI) included the surface layers of Lungi Tepa marked V0, V1, V2, V8 and V9 (Fig. 3–5). Layers V0, V1 and V2 were excavated in arbitrary spits. Layers V0 and V1 were merged into one unit, V0_1, with atotal thickness of 30 cm. Layer V2 included all the sediment between V0_1 and the first distinguishable units and layers. Layers V8 and V9 were associated with graves H7 and H8. Except for the first few centimetres of sod, all these layers were soft and dusty, easily removed even by abrush. V0_1 and V2 contained stones with dimensions up to 30 cm. Both lay‑ ers V0_1 and V2 were rich in ceramics including glazed ware (70 fragments, 11% of all shards). Similar to V0_1 and V2, glazed ware comprised 10% (11 fragments) of the ceramics from layers V8 and V9. After removing V0_1 and V2, the first distinguishable features were identified. When the area was cleaned and layers V8 and V9 were removed, eight graves were identified (Fig. 6). 166 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 PI included the uppermost layers without any distinguishable features. Modern intrusion and disturbances, soil movement, and erosion may have impacted these units. Therefore, the pot‑ tery collected from these top layers is not ideal for establishing pottery chronology and typology. Subphase IA (PIA) includes just one unit called OBJ12 (Fig. 4). It is apit which inter‑ fered with grave H6. The borders of these two units were not clearly defined, but there were indications that OBJ12 cut into H6. That would make OBJ12 the youngest distinguishable unit in T1. All the other layers and units were cut by or found under the graves (H1–H8), Fig. 4: East profile T1 (drawing by L. Damašek). Fig. 5: West profile T1 (drawing by L. Damašek). 167L. DAMAŠEK– R. KINASTON– R. KRAMER– M. ŠMOLKOVÁ– D. PILAŘ– S. SHAYDULLAEV– L. STANČO which form phase II. The relationship between OBJ12 and V0_1 and V2 (PI), which lie above, is uncertain. The position of OBJ12 under V0_1 and V2 would suggest that it is older, but ceramic shards of one vessel were found in the filling of OBJ12 as well as in V2. The specific engraved decoration allowed these shards to be reconstructed into alarge part of the upper body of avessel (Fig.7). The ornate decoration is analogous to those found on ceramics in the Nishapur pottery assemblage, which is dated to the 11th and 12th century AD (Wilkinson 1973, 293, 305, fig. 43a). Subphase PIA may be important for understanding the stratigraphic relations of the upper layers of the site. If OBJ12 cut into the grave of H6, then all the graves from PII were prior to OBJ12 and OBJ12 would form another, later, phase. Subphase PIA was distinguished because the relationship was too uncertain to merit afull phase designation. Phase II (PII) is composed of eight graves marked H1–H8 (Fig. 6). A1.3 × 1.1 m extension was excavated in the northern part of T1 to uncover the full extent of graves H4 and H5. Seven graves were excavated completely. Only H2 was not fully excavated because two thirds of the grave extended into the western profile. Fig. 6: Graves in T1 before excavation (drawing by L. Damašek). Fig. 7: Reconstructed part of avessel with engraved decor found in OBJ12 and V2 (photo by M. Šmolková). 174 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Fig. 16: Ceramics from PIV dated to the Early Medieval Period. Pitchers (1, 2), handles (3–5) and double handle (6) (drawing by L. Damašek). 175L. DAMAŠEK– R. KINASTON– R. KRAMER– M. ŠMOLKOVÁ– D. PILAŘ– S. SHAYDULLAEV– L. STANČO Fig. 17: Ceramics from PIV dated to the Early Medieval Period. Simple rims (drawing by L. Damašek). DISCUSSION One of the questions which was raised during the excavation regarded the total absence of any metal artefacts. Even though ametal detector was used the entire time to check the excavated area and spoil heap, no metal artefacts belonging to any historical period were found. Some metal was found on surface layer V0_1 but this was all modern rubbish (e.g., pieces of iron 176 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 and aluminium wire, iron sheets, bolts, caps from bottles, etc.). The lack of metal artefacts in the historical layers was surprising. Members of the wider Czech ‑Uzbek expedition have been using metal detectors for both surface surveys and excavations for sites dating from Prehistory to the Middle Ages (e.g., Iskandar Tepa, Chilonzor Tepa, Kulal Tepa). Most recently, in 2019, the Czech ‑Uzbek team employed asurvey group of metal detectorists during the re‑ search of many sites around Darband. At all these sites, metal coins (mostly of copper alloys) were found and, in some cases, arrowheads and other metal artefacts were discovered in large numbers. After taking all the factors in consideration, it is possible that the relatively small deposit excavated at Lungi Tepa simply did not contain metal artefacts and that they might be located elsewhere at the tepa. The total excavated area is approximately 20 m 2 whereas the total area of Lungi Tepa covers approximately 2400 m2. The best way to settle this question is to use metal detectors to survey the entirety of Lungi Tepa in future field seasons. Another question, which can only be resolved by further research, is the nature of the settlement that stretched around the central mound of Lungi Tepa. Was this settlement parallel with the central mound or had the settlement shifted over time? This question was partly answered by excavating T2, which shows that in the Late Medieval Period the settle‑ ment probably shifted west of the tepa. We unfortunately do not have further data for the platform on the western side of the tepa because of the later human disturbance to the area. From the direct human bone dates of the skeletons in this western zone (Burial site 1), we know that this area was used as acemetery during the High Medieval Period. This cemetery could feasibly be the final resting place of the people who lived on Lungi Tepa during the High Medieval Period. Once AMS dates are conducted on the burials from PII that were in‑ terred on the tepa itself, we may be able to determine if there was ashift in site use, at least for cemeteries, between the High and Late Medieval Periods. CONCLUSIONS The stratigraphy of Lungi Tepa shows that the settlement lasted from the Early to High Medi‑ eval Periods (5 th –13 th century AD). The burial ground marked the final use period and terminus ante quem date of Lungi Tepa. We are awaiting AMS dates on the skeletal remains from T1 to determine when the burials were interred. Our excavation of T1 suggests that, after the site was used as acemetery, Lungi Tepa was not used again for settlement or burial purposes. Asecondary use or some minor activities cannot be ruled out, but almost certainly the tepa was not inhabited or otherwise used as awhole. In the Late Medieval Period (13th– beginning of the 16th century AD) the settlement was possibly moved west of the tepa, as attested in the garden, where trench T2 was excavated. The earliest settlement of Lungi Tepa is yet to be determined, since the lowest strata remain unexcavated, but there is ahigh probability that settlement began in the Early Medieval Period. It is possible that the burials dating to the High Medieval Period found in B1 (which was acemetery) may belong to the people who lived at Lungi Tepa during this time. Four main phases were distinguished at Lungi Tepa (PI– PIV). PIV clearly belongs to the Early Medieval Period (5th–8th century AD), while PIII belongs to the High Medieval Period (9 th –13 th century AD). Both were well preserved and provided aconsiderable amount of ceramics for further analyses. More detailed analysis of pottery along with other research (dating, archaeometry) will give abetter insight into the Early and High Medieval ceramics from Lungi Tepa and will allow for amore detailed division of the phases. Subsequently, this research will provide the basis for the chronology and typology of High Medieval unglazed 177L. DAMAŠEK– R. KINASTON– R. KRAMER– M. ŠMOLKOVÁ– D. PILAŘ– S. SHAYDULLAEV– L. STANČO ware in the Kugitang piedmonts. The excavations at Lungi Tepa remain to be finished in the near future to understand the full stratigraphy of the site and further investigate the graves in B2. Currently, more in ‑depth research of the material culture and skeletal assemblag‑ es are underway. This includes the dating of burials from PII and animal bones from PIII and PIV, the detailed analysis of ceramic forms from the site and the analysis (diet, health, migration, ancestry) of the commingled skeletal remains from B1 and the burials from PII (H1, H2, H4–H8). In the near future, archaeometry analysis of pottery and burials will also be conducted. BIBLIOGRAPHY Augustinová, A. 2016: Vývoj osídlení vmikroregionu Zarabag (jižní Uzbekistán) na základě archeologických pramenů. Unpublished MA thesis. Charles University. Praha. Augustinováetal. 2016 = Augustinová, A.– Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, S.– Mrva, M.: Archaeological Survey in the Zarabag Micro Oasis (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report on the Season 2015. Studia Hercinya XIX/1‑2, 262–281. Augustinováetal. 2017 = Augustinová, A.– Stančo, L.– Damašek, L.– Mrva, M.– Shaydullaev, S.: Archae‑ ological Survey of the Oases of Zarabag, Karabag and Kampyrtepa in the Piedmont of the Kugitang Mountains, South Uzbekistan– Preliminary Report for the Season 2016. Studia Hercynia XXI/1, 104–148. Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990 = А. Бобохаджаев– Т. Аннаев– Ш. Рахманов: Некоторые итоги изучения древних исредневековых памятников предгорной игорной полосы Кугитанг— Байсунтау. История материальной культуры Узбекистана 23, 25–36. Damašek, L. 2019: Dynamika osídlení Tocharistánu ve vrcholném středověku ajejí příčiny. Unpublished MA thesis, Charles University. Praha. Ferrerasetal. 2020 = V.M. Ferreras– A. Fusaro– J.M.G. Esparraguera– E.A. Gil– S.R. Pidaev– A. Angourakis: The Islamic Ancient Termez Through the Lens of Ceramics. ANew Archaeological and Archaeometric Study. Iran 58/2, 250–278. Houal, J.‑B. 2001: La céramique de la citadelle de l’ancienne Termez d’après les travaux de la MAFOuzb (Premières indications). In: P.Leriche– V. Fourniau (eds.): La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civi‑ lisations de l’Asie centrale. Termez et les villes de Bactriane ‑Tokharestan. 1. Actes du colloque de Termez 1997. Paris, 131–144. Stančo, L. 2019: Living at the Iron Gates. New research on the settlement pattern in the Bactria– Sogdiana borderlands. Unpublished talk delivered at the International Seminar on Archaeology of Central Asia, 14 January 2019, Vilnius. Stančoetal. 2017 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, S.– Shaydullaev, A.– Augustinová, A.– Havlík, J.– Cejnarová, P.: Archaeological Survey in the eastern Kugitang Piedmonts (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report for Seasons 2016 and 2017. Studia Hercynia XXI/2, 121–138. Stančoetal. 2019 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Khamidov, O.– Augustinová, A.– Damašek, L.– Bek, T.– Kmošek, M.: In the footsteps of Euthydemus. Preliminary report for archaeological survey in the Baysun District (South Uzbekistan), Season 2018. Studia Hercynia XXIII/1, 141–172. Stride, S. 2004: La Géographie Archéologique de la Province du Surkhan Darya (Bactriane du Nord, Ouzbékistan du Sud). Unpublished dissertation at the Université Panthéon ‑Sorbonne. Paris. Wilkinson, C.K. 1973: Nishapur. Pottery of the early Islamic period. New York. Vishnevskaja 2001 = Вишневская, Н.Ю. 2001: Ремесленные изделия Джигербента (IV в. до н. э.–XIII в. н. э.). Москва. 178 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Solovjov 2014 = Соловьёв, В.С. 2014: Керамика конца VIII–IX вв. из Северного Тохаристана. Проблемы истории, филологии, культуры 4, 41–56. Ladislav Damašek Ladislav Stančo Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, Prague 1, CZ‑110 00 [email protected] Markéta Šmolková Daniel Pilař Institute of archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, Prague 1, CZ‑110 00 [email protected] [email protected] Rebecca Kinaston Robyn Kramer Biological Anthropology Research Group Department of Anatomy Otago School of Medical Sciences University of Otago P.O. Box 913, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand [email protected] [email protected] Shapulat Shaydullaev Termez State University 190100, 42, Fayzulla Khojaev Termez, Uzbekistan [email protected] 210 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXIV/1 Pl. 5/1: 1–7– The ceramics collected from the walls of the path; 8–12– Ceramics from T2; 13–14– Ceramics with red or brown painting from T1– PIII. 211PLATES Pl. 5/2: Glazed ceramics from T1– PIII.