A systematic archaeological survey in the environs of Khaytabad Tepa (Southern Uzbekistan). Preliminary report on the 2021 pilot season
Abstract
115
Full text
Asystematic archaeological survey in the environs of Khaytabad Tepa (Southern Uzbekistan). Preliminary report on the 2021 pilot season Jakub Havlík– Ján Bobik– Vendula Dědková– Kateřina Dontová– Jan Krčál– Jana Matznerová– Elena Paralovo– Razieh Taasob– Kahramon Toshaliyev– Jan Ždimera– Shapulat Shaydullaev ABSTRACT Tepa sites have oÁen been the focus of archaeological investigations in the lowland areas of Soviet and post- -Soviet Central Asia. is bias frequently led to paying only alile aention to the surrounding landscape and its potential for the study of historical selement and land use. Moreover, in these environs archaeologists face particularly unfavourable conditions in the landscape, which has been radically transformed by decades of mechanised agriculture and selement growth. e newly launched project of the Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission aims to answer the challenges of research in the heavily exploited lowlands of southern Uzbekistan and explore the surroundings, supposedly an economic territory, of Khaytabad Tepa, awalled selement occupied between the Achaemenid period and the Middle Ages. For the investigation of various parts of aculturally and physically diverse landscape (village areas, fields, tepa mounds), aflexible methodology was developed, building on an intensive surface survey as the dominant research component to analyse the Khaytabad Tepa surroundings. Given the initial stage of the research, this report focuses on the background, objectives, and methodology of the project and evaluates the 2021 pilot season. e amount and chronological range of collected material point to the great potential of the adopted approach as well as the research area itself. e identified artefact scaers indicate asubstantially more complex selement development than has been acknowledged so far: e collected poery assemblages largely correspond to the occupation timespan of the central walled selement. e widespread distribution of Iron Age and Middle Ages material suggests an extensive exploitation of the area in these particular periods. KEYWORDS Surface survey; Ploughsoil assemblages; Central Asian Archaeology; Northern Bactria; Yaz culture. INTRODUCTION In the last three decades, the archaeology of Central Asia has witnessed arapid growth of interest in landscape studies. is growth builds on arich tradition of survey archaeology of the Soviet period and its aim of completing regional archaeological maps (for southern Uzbekistan, see Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973; Arshavskaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982; cf., Mokroborodovetal. 2017) and on the involvement of foreign expeditions in the initiation of various regional surveys (Gubaev– Koshelenko– Tosi eds. 1989; Mantellini– Berdimuradov 2016; Stančo– Tušlová eds. 2019; Rante– Mirzaakhmedov 2019). In combination with the development of GIS and the accessibility of high-definition satellite imagery (e.g., Cerasetti 2008; Thomas– Kidd 2017), landscape archaeology approaches became one of the crucial directions in the study of Central Asia’spast. STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2, 115–140
116 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 One of the traditional focuses of landscape archaeology, the study of surface artefact distribution, represents akey instrument in order to gain abeer understanding of past landscape use behaviour. is approach also became the key component of the newly launched project under the aegis of the Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission. During the one-month pilot season in October 2021, asmall team consisting of students of the Institute of Classical Archaeology, Charles University, with the support of colleagues from Termez State University conducted an archaeological survey in the surroundings of Khaytabad Tepa, 1 Jarkurgan district, Uzbekistan (37°33’50.69”N, 67°26’51.06”E). e project aims to investigate the site’scatchment area– asupposed economic territory. Being considered amicroregional centre of the middle Surkhan Darya basin (Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973, 33; Rtveladze 1978, 115–116; Rtveladze 1987, 66; Šajdullaev 2002, 272–273), this walled selement was to various degrees continuously occupied between the Achaemenid period and the High Middle Ages (Leriche– Annaev 1995, 11–13; Leriche– Annaev 1996a, 295–298; Šajdullaev 2002, 271–273, 323–327; Houal 2021, 22–25). e investigation of its surroundings offers the potential for adetailed evaluation of both spatial and temporal transformations of past selement paerns and land use in alongue durée perspective. e dominant research approach, asystematic intensive surface survey, puing emphasis on the analytical assessment of artefact distribution over the landscape, represents an opportunity to study the lowland area irreversibly damaged by decades of industrial agriculture. e terrain project had originally been planned for three seasons 2020–2022. Due to the 2020 pandemic, the pilot terrain season was postponed until 2021. Taking into account the character of the research and its initial stage, this report outlines the objectives and methodology of the project and focuses on its background and an evaluation of the first field season 2021. BACKGROUND Being well defined concrete remains of past human activities, tepa sites have oÁen become the principal focus of archaeological research in Central Asia. e tepa-oriented surveys have provided crucial data that represent an irreplaceable base for the study of past selement, nevertheless, their obvious bias has also oÁen led to underestimating awide range of activities that were taking place in the surrounding landscape. Relatively well-preserved mountainous and desert zones show the richness of archaeological phenomena associated with various subsistence strategies as well as other (ritual, funeral…) activities occurring beyond the area of selement sites (See e.g., Andrianov 1969; Starketal. 2010; Thomas– Kidd 2017; Rouse– Tabaldiev– Motuzaite Matuzeviciute 2022; see below for Czech-Uzbekistani activities in the Kugitang foothills). By contrast, in agriculturally exploited lowland areas characterised by the decreased chance of the survival of archaeological features caused by virtually continuous selement over more than three thousand years and by more than seventy years of mechanized agriculture, archaeologists face particularly unfavourable conditions for conducting off-site oriented research. Although intensive surface survey approaches (i.e., quantified observation and controlled artefact collection), traditionally widespread in the Mediterranean and Europe (Cf., Alcock– cherry– Davis 1994; Alcock– Chery eds. 2004; Attema etal. 2020), have already been adopted in Central Asia (Cattani 2008, 120–121; Tušlová 2011; 2012; 2019; 1 e transcription of the toponym (‘Khaytabad Tepa’, from the Uzbek Cyrillic transcription) used reflects the widespread form among the archaeological literature. e Latin Uzbek alphabet form of the toponym is ‘Hayitobodtepa’.
117HAVLÍK et al. Fig. 1: Intensive survey research area (irregular polygon) within the middle Surkhan Darya basin. Arectangle represents the area of the remote sensing survey. Map by J. Havlík.
118 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Markofsky– Bevan 2012; Cerasetti– Codini– Rouse 2014; Markofsky 2014; Augustinová– Mach– Mrvová 2018; Kidd– Stark 2019, 169–170),2 their systematic application still remains infrequent there. As part of its long-term goals, the Czech-Uzbekistani archaeological mission, co-directed by L. Stančo and Sh. Shaydullaev, has sought to map and investigate the past landscape of southern Uzbekistan in its complexity. Using various methods, specialised (sub-)projects focus on various components of the cultural landscape, including off-site archaeology, either artefact scaers in the Sherabad Darya oasis (Tušlová 2019) or, more recently, adiverse assemblage of archaeological features (petroglyphs, cairns, enclosures, yurt camps, etc.) in the Kugitang foothills steppe zone (Augustinováetal. 2015; Augustinová– Stančo 2016; Stančo 2016; Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017; Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018). In this maer, the newly initiated field project builds on the previous agendas of the Czech-Uzbekistani mission and expands on them in another kind of landscape, defined by anarrow valley formed by amajor river. RESEARCH AREA e middle Surkhan Darya basin (Fig. 1) is naturally defined by the narrow river depression between the mountain ridges of Haudag and Babatag, which ranges between 500 and 750 m.a.s.l. Flanked on both sides by sand dunes and piedmont steppes, this depression constitutes an important natural corridor connecting historically densely seled areas to the north and to the south. e topography of the river terraces (elevation of ca. 300 m.a.s.l.) is today predominantly flat, gently sloping towards the river and the floodplains formed by deposition on the inside of the river meanders. e limited width of the valley allows one to cross floodplains and river terraces very quickly, usually reaching sand dunes beyond the presently seled area of the right riverbank within an hour on foot from the river. Unlike floodplains, affected by riverine erosion and deposition, river terraces, nowadays mainly under cultivation, represent an area suitable for archaeological fieldwork. Irrigated agriculture is dominant in the middle Surkhan Darya valley, profiting from the dense water channel network and mild winters. Cereals (as summer crops) and coon (as awinter crop) clearly predominate, supplemented on asmaller scale by various other crops, including legumes and herbaceous and flowering plants. We encountered grown maize, peanuts, and carrots, harvested at the time of the survey in October, but also young or just seeded dill, garlic, parsley, etc. e tepa mounds, which show the araction of past populations to the abundance of water along the river, represent almost the only projections in the landscape. However, the current state is to acertain degree the product of many years of mechanized agricultural intensification, including the restructuring of fields and irrigation systems, the relocation of old selements, and the foundation of new ones as apart of the Soviet collectivization policy (for Surkhandarya province, see Stride 2004, 130–132; for Samarkand area, see Mantellini– Berdimuradov 2019; for southern Kathlon in Tajikistan, see Nebbia– Cilio– Bobomulloev 2021, 186–187). ese processes led to aradical disruption of the older cultural landscape and the destruction of many archaeological features, tepa mounds among them. e present-day landscape thus reflects the past one to only avery limited degree, which makes any effort to reconstruct the past environment extremely challenging. is can be seen in the relatively 2 It should be noted that the scope, objective, intensity, and particular method of individual projects differ significantly.
119HAVLÍK et al. early employment of mechanised agriculture practices (cf., Stride 2004, 36–38) which was faster in the middle Surkhan Darya basin than in comparison with, for example, the Sherabad oasis to the west (see Tušlová 2019, 43–78). e middle Surkhan Darya basin has been studied by archaeologists, however since the reconnaissance mission (see Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973; Rtveladze 1974) conducted at the end of the 1960s under the auspices of the Uzbekistan Art History Expedition (Узбекистанская искусствоведческая экспедиция), only one site has been studied there systematically 3 – Khaytabad Tepa. Astratigraphical trench– acut of afortification wall excavated in 1977 by K. Sabirov (Sabirov 1978) and in 1986 by T. Annaev (Annaev 1988; Shaydullaev 1990) was enlarged between 1993–1997 by the French-Uzbek expedition (Mission archéologique Franco- -Ouzbèque de Bactriane du Nord). e stratigraphical cut confirmed the presence of afortified selement occupied between the Yaz III/Kuchuk III–IV (Achaemenid?)4 period and the Middle Ages. Simultaneously, trenches were opened in the area of the Khaytabad Tepa citadel, reveal - 3 In the case of afew sites, asmall-scale trial excavation was conducted without proper publication of their results (for Barat Tepa, see Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973, 27). 4 J.B. Houal (2021, 35) agreed with the presence of apre-Hellenistic occupation of Khaytabad Tepa, however, he had doubts about the aribution of the fortification wall to such an early period. Fig. 2: Khaytabad Tepa and its surroundings (le¢), Bay Tepa II–IV group (right). e scale of landscape transformation illustrates the comparison of the present state with that captured during the 1960s and early 1970s by military reconnaissance satellite missions. Above: 1973 (Hexagon KH-9, property of USGS); below: 2021 (Esri).
120 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 ing predominantly High Medieval layers (Leriche 1993; 1994; Leriche– Annaev 1995; 1996a; 1996b; Leriche etal. 1997; Šajdullaev 2002). In the last 25 years, the middle Surkhan Darya basin has not received particular interest from the researchers working in the area, and the list of archaeological sites assembled by E.V. Rtveladze (Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973, 23–29; Rtveladze 1974, 79–82) corresponds largely also to the present state of research (cf., Stride 2004, 219–226 adding otherwise unpublished data and observations). OBJECTIVES e initiated project aims to analytically evaluate the character and intensity of the past human activities that were taking place in the area of the middle Surkhan Darya basin. e research is designed as acomplex systematic surface survey of the Khaytabad Tepa territory (its catchment area) focused on the clarification of landscape use transformations and abeer understanding of the general trends of selement development in alongue durée perspective. Following this goal, the project focuses on areas stretching between well-defined tepa mounds and seeks abeer understanding of the relationship between atepa and the surrounding landscape in general. In view of the severe damage of the past cultural landscape caused by industrial agriculture practices of over the past seventy years– in particular, oÁen by unscrupulous Soviet period collectivization – the project’sparallel objective is to develop and test amethodology for the systematic investigation of the characteristic rural lowlands of present-day Central Asia. e proposed methodology flexibly combines an intensive surface survey of the various components of the current landscape including built-up areas with an extensive survey, remote sensing, and the study of historical maps. METHODOLOGY GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEM To achieve its goals, the project integrates various mutually interconnected research components. e pilot terrain season was preceded by an exhaustive gathering of data of varied character to create complex data sets, both physical (elevation, waterway network, land cover) and cultural (known archaeological sites, communication network, landmarks, land use), integrated into the multifunctional geographical information system (GIS) which serves as both the database for data preparation and storage and an analytical tool. Satellite imagery and topographical maps of various ages (see below) became the key data sets not only for the identification of potential anthropogenic (archaeological) features (see below for abrief overview of the remote sensing application), but also for abeer understanding of the recent past changes in land use and the degree of modern anthropic influence on the landscape. e generated data sets were uploaded to ahandheld tablet allowing easy access right in the field. e relational database using MS Access was developed and linked with both the paper field forms and the GIS, forming thus acoherent and mutually interconnected research framework. Once incorporated in the GIS, the data are used to analyse and interpret paerns of artefact distribution across the survey area. e daily data upload enables the research team to reflect the field situation and react flexibly to the immediate field situation and conditions.
121HAVLÍK et al. Fig. 3: Isochrone map of the central part of the middle Surkhan Darya basin. Each isochrone represents 20 minutes walking (Tobler’shiking function, ALOS PALSAR DEM). In this calculation, the river is not considered to be abarrier. Map by J. Havlík.
122 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 DEFINING THE RESEARCH AREA In order to analyse the hypothetical economic territory– the catchment area– of Khaytabad Tepa, the research area was set up on the basis of an hour walking distance (cf. Bintliff 1999 with references) calculated using Tobler’shiking function and the digital elevation model (ALOS PALSAR) in the GIS (cf. Fig. 3). Because the location(s) of the ancient river crossing(s) in the vicinity of Khaytabad Tepa is/are not known with certainty, the current riverbed served as an insurmountable barrier in the calculation. e generated isochrone map will also serve for the subsequent spatial analysis of sites and artefact distribution over the research area. STUDY OF SOVIET MILITARY MAPS AND REMOTE SENSING Since 2020, the wider area of the middle Surkhan Darya basin (see Fig. 1) has been investigated by means of asystematic ‘remote survey’ employing the study of Soviet military maps and both modern and historical satellite imagery. e study of Soviet military maps represents arelatively reliable tool for the identification of terrain anomalies corresponding frequently to tepa mounds (cf., Rondelli– Stride– García-Granero 2013; Stančo– Tušlová eds. 2019, 25). In addition to that, awide range of features directly reflecting (past) human activities (such as yurt camps, burial mounds, ruins, corrals, cemeteries, etc.) occur on military maps, as well as many other features of indirect archaeological importance (springs, wells, paths, river crossings, etc.). Soviet military maps of differing ages and resolution5 were digitized and became abasis for the multifunctional GIS database comprising cultural and physical data sets that reflect the exploitation of the research area in awider spatial and temporal perspective. e logical next step at this stage of the project has been remote sensing in the form of the interpretation of historical (CORONA KH-4; HEXAGON KH-9) and modern (Esri, Bing, Google Earth) satellite imagery (cf. Hammer etal. 2018; Boak 2019; Stančo 2019a, 21–25; for the evaluation of HEXAGON imagery use, see Hammer– Fitzpatrick– Ur 2022). To systemize the investigation procedure, a1×1 km grid was laid over the wider area of the middle Surkhan Darya valley and the available imagery examined in each square (see Boak 2019 for this approach applied in the Kandahar region). is remote survey yielded more than 1200 different anthropogenic features that are currently going through the second phase of examination and assessment. Part of the identified features was subject to verification by means of both intensive and extensive surface survey during the first terrain season in 2021. SURFACE SURVEY Being the key element of the research project, the methodology of the surface survey builds on the experience of the Czech-Uzbekistani archaeological mission gathered over many years of research in the Sherabad district (Stančo– Tušlová eds. 2019). However, various 5 Our team employed three different series of military topographical maps published by the Soviet General Staff (Карты Генштаба СССР) at aresolution of 1:50,000 (depicting the state of 1985), 1:100,000, and 1:200,000 (both corresponding to the state of 1975–1985). In addition, United States military maps at aresolution of 1:250,000 were used. is map series was compiled in 1952 from Soviet military maps depicting the state of 1931–1939 and thus providing– despite their low resolution– an insight into the situation before the initiation of the Soviet collectivization policy in the region (cf. Stančo 2019b, 368–370).
123HAVLÍK et al. projects in Central Asia (Ceraseti– Codini– Rouse 2014; Tušlová 2019), the Mediterranean (e.g., Tartaronetal. 2006; Bintliff– Howard– Snodgrass 2007; Davis– Bennet eds. 2017; Akkeraz– Collins-Elliot 2017; cf. Mattingly 2000), as well as in the homeland of the research team (Kunaetal. 1993) provided valuable inspiration in designing the research framework to be used in the specific environment of the research area. e field surface survey operates in three modes that reflect different scales of investigation of aculturally and physically diverse landscape (cf., Tartaron etal. 2006): e systematic on-site mode directed at the investigation of tepa mounds and related features, the intensive (off-site) mode in fields and gardens, which predominantly employs grid walking, and the extensive mode. e unified intensity of the controlled artefact collection (20%– 10 m walker spacing) allows astatistical comparison of the collection units that cover various features of the present landscape, i.e., fields, pastures, orchards, gardens in the village, as well as specific features such as tepa sites or cemeteries, taking into account various post-depositional processes. For the intended beer understanding of the spatial distribution of past human activities in the research area and their mutual relationships, the survey aims to cover by fieldwalking alarge contiguous block(s) of landscape (cf. Bintliff 2000, 201–203, 213) instead of predefined narrow transects running through (such as in the case of Carreté– Keay– Millet etal. 1995 or Akkeraz– Collins-Elliot 2017). e choice of tracts to be surveyed was determined to alarge extent by concurrent surface cover (collection units with avisibility below 40% were excluded from the systematic collection) and general accessibility, factors that emerged to be particularly limiting in view of an intensively agriculturally exploited landscape. ese two limitations thus constitute arandomization factor for sampling the research area and substitute to acertain extent the aforementioned parallel transects or automatically generated randomized tract selection (cf., Kunaetal. 1993, 122–123). e basic unit of artefact collection– the collection unit (CU)– is ageophysical entity defined by the topography of the physical terrain. Most frequently, the collection unit corFig. 4: Systematic survey in the harvested coÇon field south of Khaytabad village. On the horizon: Khaytabad Tepa from the south. Photo by J. Krčál.
130 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 of regular square CSUs, alooser grid was employed to cover the hummocky terrain formed by old as well as very recent graves, abandoned enclosures, and building remains related to the religious rites. e high densities of the collected material (because of their abundance, brick fragments were only counted on the spot) clearly reflect the repeated disruption of the subsurface layers by digging the graves. Although the artefact distribution is largely impacted by post-depositional processes, the composition and general location of finds have great potential to reveal functional and chronological differences within the cemetery area (on the survey of the cemeteries in southern Uzbekistan, see Augustinováetal. 2015, 266–269; Stančo 2019a, 27–28). e large amount of ceramic material consisting of awide range of poery classes including glazed table ware, storage jars, or so-called ‘mercury jars’, as well as candlesticks with ornamental decoration, terracoa figurines and lamps, fired bricks of various formats, water pipes, and technical ceramics, points to the assumption that the present-day cemetery overlays aselement which can be– based on the majority of diagnostic sherds– dated to the High (pre-Mongol) Middle Ages. Several sherds discovered in the southwestern part of the cemetery indicate even earlier– probably Late Antique6– activities in this area. e reuse of (an) older tepa mound(s) for burial purposes corresponds to the paern frequent in Central Asia (see Mantellini– Berdimuradov 2019, 10–11; Stančo 2019a, 27–28) making this hypothesis plausible. Z.A. Arshavskaya, E.V. Rtveladze, and Z.A. Khakimov (1982, 119) refer to traces of High Medieval selement identified roughly at this location on the bank of the Zang canal (see Stride 2004, Uz-SD-027 for amore recent evaluation). High and Late Medieval (Timurid period) poery and fired bricks are acommon chance find also in the surrounding part of the village, pointing to (selement) activities far outside the area of the present-day cemetery. Artefacts dated to the Middle Ages are also widespread in many other CUs surveyed in 2021 outside the present-day village (Pl. 2/2–3) reflecting the probable extensive exploitation of this area in the post-Antique periods. SURVEYING THE FIELDS e fields around Khaytabad village and in the area of sovkhoz Surkhan were being intensively exploited by farmers during the 2021 season. e easily irrigable fields close to the river or main water channels are usually ploughed, harrowed, sowed again, and watered in rapid sequence aÁer the harvest, leaving only asmall window of opportunity to conduct an artefact collection. Despite this fact, the systematic field survey succeeded in covering amuch larger area than the village survey. Except for the village itself, the systematic collection in 2021 was conducted in the four principal locations accessible during its course: 1) the area south of the present-day Khaytabad village on both sides of the Zang canal, in the direct vicinity of Khaytabad Tepa; 2) the area of sovkhoz Surkhan (N° 5), west of Khaytabad village and the Zang canal; 3) the area of sovkhoz Surkhan (N° 5) to the east of the village Kumli; and 4) the area of sovkhoz Surkhan (N° 4) around the site of Bay Tepa IV, known from previous research. By means of the intensive (off-site) survey, several relatively well-defined artefact scatters were identified, reflecting probable foci of localised past activities. In some cases, these locations of relatively higher artefact density correspond to terrain anomalies recognized on topographical maps or via remote sensing. is is the case of an anomaly near the village of 6 ere are only two diagnostic rim fragments dated to the Kushano-Sasanian period from this area. e rest, ten nondiagnostic fragments, were aributed by Sh. Shaydullaev to the (Late) Antique period based on the typical surface treatment.
131HAVLÍK et al. Kumli (37°34’51.54”N, 67°25’27.35”E), confirmed to reflect atepa mound destroyed during the second half of the twentieth century. e only site known for previous research investigated during the 2021 season is Bay Tepa IV (37°35’39.98”N, 67°26’9.13”E; Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973, 29– Безымянное тепа n° 4; Rtveladze 1974, 80– Б-53). Because the tepa had been levelled by modern cultivation, the survey was motivated by methodological issues. How does the destroyed tepa manifest itself in the surface assemblage? Among the large amount of poery sherds, including many storage jar fragments, awider range of finds emerged including saddle querns and several terracoa figurine fragments (Fig. 11). e limestone column base (Fig. 10) indicates the presence of monumental architecture. Based on the ceramic material, the dating of the site ranges from the Late(?) Iron Age to the High Middle Ages. e presence of artefact material in locations that do not show any signs of anthropogenic features (such as aterrain anomaly, acropmark, asoilmark, etc.) probably represents some kind of past human activity that took place in the Khaytabad Tepa environs and did not leave such traces in the landscape. It is also possible that if there was some kind of terrain relict, it was destroyed before the satellite imagery or topographical maps were acquired (cf. Tušlová 2019). e identified artefact scaers will be further investigated by means of both periodand function- -based analysis of the collected assemblage and subsequent resampling of the location using amore detailed grid and higher survey intensity. An important discovery of the pilot season, to be verified and further investigated, is awidespread distribution of Iron Age ceramic material in the surface assemblages (see Pl. 2/3). Previously, Iron Age material has been identified in the middle Surkhan Darya basin only in the deep stratigraphical trench of Khaytabad Tepa (Shaydullaev 1990; Šajdullaev 2002, 271–273, 323–327; Houal 2021, 22–25) and approximately 30 km to the north at the site of Bandykhan Say Tepa (Rtveladze 1987, 57). Preliminary analysis conducted by Sh. Shaydullaev indicates that among the diagnostic sherds identified as being from the Iron Age,7 the majority can generally be aributed to the Yaz II–III culture (Middle to Late Iron Age, ca. 1000–330 BC), or in particular cases to the Yaz III culture (cf. Fig. 9 for area of Bay Tepa IV).8 e following research and the detailed study of the collected assemblages will hopefully allow us to determine the character of the identified activity foci reflected by the recorded poery scaers. eir distribution recalls aselement dispersal that appears to be characteristic of the Yaz III (Achaemenid?) period in Northern Bactria: Acluster of farmsteads surrounding the fortified centre Kyzyl Tepa was recognised in the Shurchi district, approximately 50 km north of Khaytabad Tepa (Sagdullaev 1987; Wu 2018). Asimilar paern was also observed around Jandavlat Tepa in the Sherabad district, about 30 km to the west as the crow flies (Stančo 2018; Stančo– Tušlová eds. 2019, 357–362). e post-Achaemenid activities, simultaneous to the Hellenistic and Kushan period occupation of Khaytabad Tepa, appear to be rather sparsely distributed in the CUs surveyed in the 2021 season (Pl. 2/3–4). On the basis of the preliminary analysis by Sh. Shaydullaev, the limited number of diagnostic sherds collected around the fortified selement points to the Kushano-Sasanian period of the 3rd to 4th centuries AD. Material that can be convincingly aributed to the earlier period was collected only in the area of Bay Tepa IV, where surface finds indicate– in addition to the Late Antiquity– also the Hellenistic and/or Yuezhi period occupation phases of the site. is dating is also supported by metal detector finds: two vari7 Fabric and surface treatment analysis allowed us to aribute many non-diagnostic body sherds collected to the Iron Age in general. 8 On the absolute chronology of Yaz II and Yaz III cultures poery, see Lhuillier 2018, 258–259 with references.
132 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Fig. 9: Iron Age ceramic assemblage from the area of Bay Tepa IV (selection). Yaz II–III: 1–6 and 11–20; Yaz III: 7–10 and 21. Drawings by E. Paralovo, J. Ždimera, and J. Matznerová.
133HAVLÍK et al. ants of aHeliocles imitation type9 and one Vasudeva imitation (Fig. 12; see Addendum below). e fourth coin find, atwo-kopek coin from 1961, bears witness to activities of another crucial period of local landscape transformation. CONCLUSIONS In 2021, anew archaeological project was initiated in the middle Surkhan Darya basin, southern Uzbekistan, focusing on the past selement and land use transformations in the Khaytabad Tepa environs. In order to analyse the landscape as awhole, aflexible methodological framework based on systematic intensive survey approaches was developed, incorporating various research components. Besides an intensive (both on-site and off-site) survey, these components are: satellite remote sensing, the study of old topographic maps, and an extensive survey. Facing the present-day situation in the area– an intensively exploited agricultural land formed to alarge extent by unscrupulous collectivization of the Soviet period– the ongoing project aims to investigate various elements of the present cultural landscape, including those considered less promising for archaeological research: fields, pastures, village areas, tepa mounds, present-day cemeteries, etc. Besides the interest in the past selement paern transformations, one of the questions of the pilot season was: What can archaeology gain from an investigation of alandscape damaged by modern activities to such adegree as it is in the case of the middle Surkhan Darya basin? Testing the methodology against the model elements of the current landscape proved its validity and– taking into consideration various post-depositional processes– also its potential for an analytical evaluation of the imprints of the past landscape use in the area. e very presence of archaeological material in and around the village, as well as its amount and wide chronological range (Iron Age to Middle 9Heliocles imitation type coins have already been discovered at Khaytabad Tepa (Leriche– Annaev 1996, 298–299) and the surrounding sites (Barat Tepa and Sherali Tepa, see Rtveladze– Pidaev 1981, 25, 49–51) probably indicating an increased exploitation of the central part of the middle Surkhan Darya basin in the Yuezhi period. Fig. 10: Acolumn base (52×36×26 cm, torus diameter: 50 cm) discovered in the modern water channel, south of the supposed location of Bay TepaIV. Photo by V. Dědková.
134 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Ages, corresponding to the occupation time span of Khaytabad Tepa), point to the great archaeological potential of the research area itself. e preliminary results of the first survey season indicate much more complex selement dynamics than has been acknowledged until now. e widespread distribution of Iron Age and High Medieval ceramic material seems to be indicative, however, particular facets of selement paerns naturally deserve more aention. e following seasons of field surveys, including the resampling of identified areas of higher artefact density and further detailed analysis of the collected material, will hopefully give us amore reliable insight into the past selement and land use development. ADDENDUM: TERRACOTTA FIGURINES AND COINS FROM THE AREA OF BAY TEPA IV In the 2021 season, among the other ‘small finds’, predominantly fragments of saddle querns and grinding stones, the survey of the area of the destroyed site of Bay Tepa IV brought to light asmall collection of anthropomorphic terracoa figurines and ancient coins. e three figurines were collected close to each other, in the fields adjacent to the modern water channel which runs south of the supposed location of Bay TepaIV. e three coins (two variants of aHeliocles imitation type and one Vasudeva imitation) were unearthed during an extensive metal detector survey in the freshly ploughed fields in this area. TERRACOTTA FIGURINES Torso of amale figurine is terracoa figurine (7.8×6.6×3.1 cm) of alight yellowish colour made of finely washed clay was modelled at least partially by hand. e figurine represents aseated male figure wearing caÁan-like clothes. e head, palm of the right hand, about half of the leÁ hand and most of the legs are missing. From the position of the legs, which spread wide enough to allow the figure to sit on ahorse’sback, it seems to represent arider. Figures of horses and riders were apopular subject of small-scale art in the Yuezhi and Kushan periods in Bactria and throughout Central Asia (Abdullev 2011, 163–164; Dvurechenskaya 2016, 144–148). Nevertheless, the rather rough modelling does not allow one to make achronological aribution of the figurine at this point. Headless standing female figurine e figurine (6.1×3.2×1.7 cm) was made in aone-piece form with its back sides smoothed flat. e clay is pinkish, well washed with small white inclusions (up to 0.25 mm). In the less worn parts of the figurine, the remains of adarker, reddish slip of poor quality are noticeable. e figurine, astanding female figure, is preserved almost entirely, missing only the head and apart of the right arm. e right hand is holding an object, perhaps abird or amusical instrument, and the leÁ hand is hanging freely along the body and is holding the end of the object from the other side. She is wearing along dress reminiscent of aGreek-style drapery, which is flowing in folds along the body and hiding the figure’slegs, with adecoration or probably anecklace on her chest similar to that depicted on female terracoa figurines found in Kampyr Tepa, Zar Tepa, and Kara Tepa (Dvurechenskaya 2016, 149, ris. 180). e figurine is close to aterracoa found by aFrench-Uzbek expedition in ancient Termez, identified as alute player (Leriche etal. 2005, 18–19, fig. 69). Based on the parallels and the presence of red slip, this figurine can be roughly dated to the Kushan and/or Kushano-Sasanian period.
135HAVLÍK et al. Fragment of the upper body of afemale figurine e last terracoa figurine (7.5×4.8×3 cm), made using the same technique as the preceding one, depicts afemale figure. e statuee is made of pinkish clay with relatively large (up to 1 mm) black and white inclusions and voids. e surface colour is light beige. e head and upper part of the torso are preserved. e figurine is wearing achiton and acloak (himation) wrapped over her leÁ shoulder. She has abroad rectangular face, large almond-shaped eyes, and full lips; her nose is broken off. She is wearing aheaddress, probably amodius, awig or hair combed back, and earrings or decorative wig ends. She appears to be wearing anecklace or an ornate dress hem. Close parallels are not known to the authors yet, however, this figurine could be preliminarily related to the group of small-scale depictions of asiing goddess typical for Kushan period Northern Bactria (cf. Ilyasov– Mkrtychev 1991; Abdullaev 2000). Fig. 11: TerracoÇa figurines discovered during asurface survey of the area of Bay Tepa IV, scale 2:3. Photo by V. Dědková. COINS 1: Heliocles imitation type (aÁer c. 130 BC) Diademed Heliocles and standing Zeus (Mitchiner 1975, type 502) Reduced Aic Standard copper tetradrachm Obverse: Diademed and debased copy of the king with curled hair, facing to the right, wears diadem and cloak around shoulders, surrounded by areel and pellet motif. Reverse: Acrude style of Zeus in afrontal standing position, holds multi-branch thunderbolt in right hand and long sceptre in leÁ hand, surrounded by the corrupted Greek legends: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ HΛIOKΛEOΥΣ (of King Heliocles, the just). AE. 15.07g. 30.10 mm 2: Heliocles imitation type (aÁer c. 130 BC) Diademed Heliocles and standing Zeus (Mitchiner 1975, type 504; Mitchiner 1978, 1875–1876; Jongeward– Cribb 2015, 31–35) Reduced Aic Standard copper tetradrachm Obverse: Diademed and debased copy of the king with curled hair, facing to the right, wears diadem and cloak around shoulders.
136 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Reverse: Acrude style of Zeus in afrontal standing position, holds multi-branch thunderbolt in right hand and long sceptre in leÁ hand, surrounded by the corrupted Greek legends: BAΣIΛEΩΣ ΔΙΚΑΙΟΥ HΛIOKΛEOΥΣ (of King Heliocles, the just). AE. 14.23g. 28.60 mm 3: Vasudeva imitation (Kushano-Sasanian period) Standing king at an altar with Oesho (Göbl 1984, 1008; cf. Jongeward– Cribb 2015, 1730) Copper units Obverse: Standing king at fire altar, head to leÁ, making an offering at asmall fire altar with extended right hand, armoured tunic, holds trident in raised leÁ hand. Reverse: Oesho stands leaning against abull facing leÁ, trident in extended leÁ hand, corrupted inscription. AE. 3.01g. 17.70 mm ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS is research was financially supported by the Charles University Grant Agency, project No. 412120, entitled ‘Transformations of Cultural Landscape of the Middle Surkhan Darya Basin (Southern Uzbekistan): Contribution to Knowledge of Selement Paerns of Ancient Bactria’, implemented at the Faculty of Arts of Charles University. BIBLIOGRAPHY Abdullaev 2000 = Абдуллаев, К.: Катрибуции тронных изображений вкушанской коропластике (По материалам крепости Паенкурган вСеверной Бактрии). Вестник древней истории 233/2, 18–29. Abdullaev, K. 2011: Terracoa figurines, appliques and gem imprints. In: K. Abdullaev– L. Stančo (eds.): Jandavlaepa 1. e Excavation Report for Seasons 2002–2006. Praha, 157–171. Akerraz, A.– Collins-Elliott, S.A. 2017: Gardens of the Hesperides. e Rural Archaeology of the Loukkos Valley. Interim Report on the 2016 Season. Fasti Online Documents & Research. e Journal of Fasti Online Archaeological Survey 5. Fig. 12: Coins discovered in the area of Bay Tepa IV by the metal detector survey. Scale 1:1. Photo by V. Dědková.
137HAVLÍK et al. Alcock, S.E.– Cherry, J.F. eds. 2004: Side-by-Side Survey. Comparative Regional Studies in the Mediterranean World. Oxford. Annaev 1988 = Аннаев Т.Д.: Раннесредневековые поселения северного Тохаристана. Ташкент. Andrianov 1969 = Андрианов, Б.В.: Древние оросительные системы Приаралья (всвязи систорией возникновения иразвития орошаемого земледелия). Москва. Arshavshkaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982 = Аршавская, З.А.– Ртвеладзе, Э.В.– Хакимов, З.А.: Средневековые памятники Сурхандары. Ташкент. Attemaetal. 2020 = Aema, P.– Bintliff, J.– Van Leusen, M.– Bes, P.– De Haas, T.– Donev, D.– Jongman, W.– Kaptijn, E.– Mayoral, V.– Menchelli, S.– Pasquinucci, M.– Rosen, S.– García Sánchez, J.– Gutierrez Soler, L.– Stone, D. – Tol, G.– Vermeulen, F.– Vionis, A.: Aguide to good practice in Mediterranean surface survey projects. Journal of Greek Archaeology 5, 1–62. Augustinováetal. 2015 = Augustinová, A.– Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Mrva, M.: Archaeological Survey in the Micro Oasis of Zarabag (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report for the Season 2015. Studia Hercynia 19/1-2, 262–281. Augustinováetal. 2017 = Augustinová, L.– Stančo, L.– Damašek, L.– Mrva, M. – Shaydullaev, Sh.: Archaeological Survey of the Oases of Zarabag, Karabag and Kampyrtepa in the Piedmont of Kugitang Mountains, South Uzbekistan– Preliminary Report for the Season 2016. Studia Hercynia 21/1, 104–148. Augustinová, A.– Mach, P.– Mrvová, P.2018: Kyzyl Gul. e relicts of an abandoned village in Kugitang Piedmont (South Uzbekistan). Studia Hercynia 22/2, 121–146. Augustinová, A.– Stančo, L. 2016: e Petroglyphs of Pashkhurt Valley in the Surkhan Darya Province (South Uzbekistan)– Preliminary Report. Studia Hercynia 20/2, 122–138. Bintliff, J. 1999: Selement and Territory. In: G. Barker (ed.): e Routledge Companion Encyclopedia of Archaeology. London– New York, 505–545. Bintliff, J. 2000: e concept of ‘site’ and ‘offsite’ archaeology in surface artefact survey. In: M. Pasquinucci– F. Trement (eds.): Non-Destructive Techniques Applied to Landscape Archaeology. Oxford, 200–215. Bintliff, J.– Howard, Ph.– Snodgrass, A. 2007: Testing the hinterland. e work of Boeotia Survey (1989–1991) in the southern approaches to the city of espiai. Cambridge. Boak, E. 2019: From conflict archaeology to archaeologies of conflict. Remote survey in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Journal of Conflict Archaeology 14/2-3, 143–162. Carreté, J.M.– Keay, S.– Millet, M. eds. 1995: ARoman provincial capital and its hinterland. e survey of the territory of Tarragona, Spain, 1985–1990. Portsmouth. Cattani, M. 2008: Excavations at Sites No. 1211 and No. 1219 (Final Bronze Age). In: Salvatori– Tosi eds. 2008, 119–132. Cerasetti, B. 2008: AGIS for the Archaeology of the Murghab Delta. In: Salvatori– Tosi eds. 2008, 29–37. Cerasetti, B.– Codini, G.B.– Rouse, L.M. 2014: Walking in the Murghab alluvial fan (Southern Turkmenistan). An integrated approach between old and new intepretations about the interaction between seled and nomadic people. In: C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky– B. Genito– B. Cerasei (eds.): ‘My Life is like the Summer Rose.’ Maurizio Tosi e l’Archeologie come modo di vivere. Papers in honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th birthday. Oxford, 105–114. Davisetal. 2017 = Davis, J.L.– Alcock, S.E.– Bennet, J.– Lolos, Y.G.– Shelmedine, C.W.: Overview and the Archaeological Survey. In: Davis– Bennet eds. 2017, 63–142. Davis, J.L.– Bennet, J. eds. 2017: Pylos Regional Archaeological Project. Aretrospective. Princeton. Dvurechenskaya 2016 = Двуреченская, Н.Д.: Терракотовая пластика древнейших государств Средней Азии IV в. до н. э.– IV в. н. э. (археологический аспект). Санкт-Петербург. Dvurechenskaya 2018 = Двуреченская Н.Д.: Кметодике полевых исследований вгорной местности (на примере эллинистической крепости Узундара). Краткие сообщения Института археологии 251, 168–180. Göbl, R.1984: System und Chronologie der Münzprägung des Kusanreiches. Wien.
138 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVI/2 Gubaev, A.– Koshelenko, G.– Tosi, M. eds. 1998: e Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta. Preliminary Reports 1990–95. Roma. Hammer, E.– Fitzpatrick, M.– Ur, J. 2022: Succeeding CORONA. Declassified HEXAGON intelligence imagery for archaeological and historical research. Antiquity 96/37, 679–695. Hammeretal. 2018 = Hammer, E.– Seifried, R.– Franklin, K.– Lauricella, A.: Remote assessments of the archaeological heritage situation in Afghanistan. Journal of Cultural Heritage 33, 125–144. Havlík, J.– Havlíková, H.– Stančo, L. 2018: Kurgans of the Eastern Kugitang Piedmonts. Preliminary Report for Season 2018. Studia Hercynia 22/2, 147–172. Havlík, J.– Stančo, L.– Havlíková, H. 2017: Kurgans of the Eastern Kugitang Piedmonts. Preliminary Report for Season 2017. Studia Hercynia 21/2, 161–182. Houal, J.-B. 2021: La céramique antique et médiévale de Termez et de Khaitabad (Ouzbékistan). Regards sur l’Asie centrale du IIIe siècle av. J.-C. au XVIIIe siècle. Paris. Ilyasov, D.– Mkrtychev, T. 1991: Bactrian Goddess from Dalverzin-tepe (Aempts at Typological Analysis). Silk Road Art and Archaeology 2, 107–127. Jongeward, D.– Cribb, J. 2015: Kushan, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite coins. Acatalogue of coins from the American Numismatic Society. New York. Kidd, F.– Stark, S. 2019: Urbanism in Antique Sogdiana? Aview from Bukhara oasis. In: Ch. Baumer– M. Novák (eds.): Urban Cultures of Central Asia from Bronze Age to the Karakhanids. Learning and conclusions from new archaeological investigations and discoveries. Wiesbaden, 169–170. Kunaetal.1993 = Kuna, M.– Zvelebil, M.– Foster, P.J.– Dreslerová, D.: Field survey and landscape archaeology research design: methodology of regional field survey in Bohemia. Památky archeologické 84/2, 110–130. Kuna, M. 2004: Povrchový sběr. In: Kuna etal. 2004, 305–352. Kuna, M.etal. 2004: Nedestruktivní archeologie. Teorie, metody acíle [Non-Destructive Archaeology. eory, Methods and Goals]. Praha. Leriche, P.1993: Mission archéologique Franco-Ouzbeque de Bactriane Septentrionale. Bilan de la campagne 1993. Programme de la campagne 1994. Paris. Leriche, P.1994: Mission archéologique Franco-Ouzbeque de Bactriane Septentrionale. Bilan de la campagne 1994. Programme de la campagne 1995. Paris. Leriche, P.– Annaev, T. 1995: Mission archéologique Franco-Ouzbeque de Bactriane Septentrionale. Bilan de la campagne 1995. Programme de la campagne 1996. Paris. Leriche, P.– Annaev, T. 1996a: Bilan des travaux de la MAFOUZ de Bactriane (Mission archéologique Franco- -Ouzbèque de Bactriane Septentrionale. In: La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo. Roma, 275–303. Leriche, P.– Annaev, T. 1996b: Mission archéologique Franco-Ouzbeque de Bactriane Septentrionale. Bilan de la campagne 1996. Programme de la campagne 1997. Paris. Leriche, P.– Pidaev, Sh.– Gentelle, P.1997: Mission archéologique Franco-Ouzbeque de Bactriane Septentrionale. Bilan de la campagne 1997. Programme de la campagne 1998. Paris. Leriche etal. 2005 = Leriche, P.– Pidaev, S.R.– Boniteau, J.– Fantin, R.– Houal, J.-B.– Juhel, K.– Moustafakoulov, S.– Mouradova, D.– Pérou, M.-O.– Pézier, A.: Mission archéologique Franco-Ouzbeque de Bactriane Septentrionale. Bilan de la campagne 2005. Rapport pour la Commission consultative des recherches archéologiques à l’etranger session de décembre 2005. s.l. Lhuillier, J. 2018: Central Asia during the Achaemenid Period in Archaeological Perspective. In: S. Gondet– E. Haerinck (eds.): L’Orient est son jardin. Hommage à Rémy Boucharlat. Leuven– Paris– Bristol, 257–271. Mantellini, S.– Berdimuradov, A.E. 2016: e archaeological and historical heritage of Samarkand. An overview from the Uzbek-Italian expedition 2001–2016. In: A.E. Berdimuradov (ed.): Archaeology of Uzbekistan during the Years of the Independence: Progress and Perspectives. Institute of Archaeology. Samarkand, 60–63.
139HAVLÍK et al. Mantellini, S.– Berdimuradov, A.E. 2019: Evaluating the human impact on the archaeological landscape of Samarkand (Uzbekistan). Adiachronic assessment of the Taylak district by remote sensing, field survey, and local knowledge. Archaeological Research in Asia 20, 100–143. Markofsky, S. 2014: When Survey Goes East. Field Survey Methodologies and Analytical Frameworks in aCentral Asian Context. Journal of Archaeological Method and eory 21, 697–723. Markofsky, S.– Bevan, A. 2012: Directional analysis of surface artefact distributions. Acase study from the Murghab Delta, Turkmenistan. Journal of Archaeological Science 39, 428–439. Mattingly, D. 2000: Methods of collection, recording and quantification. In: Alcock– Cherry eds. 2004, 5–15. Mitchiner, M. 1975: Indo-Greek and Indo-Scythian Coinage 4. Contemporaries of the Indo-Greeks. London. Mitchiner, M. 1978: Oriental coins and their Values 2. e Ancient and Classical World 600 B.C.– A.D. 650. London. Mokroborodovetal. 2017 = Мокробородов, В.В.– Страйд, С. – Максудов, Ф.– Ронделли, Б.– Мантеллини, С.: Последние работы по составлению археологических карт Средней Азии. Методы, результаты, перспективы. Археология игеоинформатика 8. Available online: hps://www.archaeolog.ru/media/ periodicals/agis/AGIS-8/Mokrobrod/page1.html Nebbia, M.– Cilio, F.– Bobomulloev, B. 2021: Spatial risk assessment and the protection of cultural heritage in southern Tajikistan. Journal of Cultural Heritage 49, 183–196. Rante, R.– Mirzaakhmedov, D. 2019: e Oasis of Bukhara 1. Population, Depopulation and Selement Evolution. Leiden– Boston. Rondelli, B.– Stride, S.– García-Granero, J.J. 2013: Soviet military maps and archaeological survey in Samarkand region. Journal of Cultural Heritage 14, 270–276. Rouse, L.M.– Tabaldiev, K.– Motuzaite Matuzeviciute, G. 2022: Exploring Landscape Archaeology and UAV-Based Survey in the Kochkor Valley, Kyrgyzstan. Journal of Field Archaeology 47/1, 32–53. Rtveladze 1974 = Ртвеладзе, Э.В.: Разведочное изучение бактрийских памятников на юге Узбекистана. In: В.М. Массон (ed.): Древняя Бактрия. Предварителние сообшения об археологических работах на Юуге Узбекистана. Ленинград, 74–85. Rtveladze 1978 = Ртвеладзе, Э.В.: Огенезисе кушанских поселений северной Бактрии. Вестник древней истории 146/4, 108–116. Rtveladze 1987 = Ртвеладзе, Э.В.: Новые бактрийские памятники на юге Уэбекистана. История материалной культуры Узбекистана 21, 56–66. Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973 = Ртвеладзе, Э.В.– Хакимов, З.А.: Маршрутные исследования северной Бакгрии. In: Из истории античной культуры Узбекистана. Ташкент, 10–34. Rtveladze– Pidaev 1981 = Ртвеладзе, Э.В.– Пидаев, Ш.Р.: Каталог древних монет южного Узбекистана. Ташкент. Sabirov 1978 = Сабиров, К.: Оборонительные сооружения древних поселений игородов Средней Азии: VI тыс. до н.э.– IV в. н.э. Unpublished dissertation. Институт Археологии АН РУз. Самарканд. Sagdullaev 1987 = Сагдуллаев А.С.: Усадьбы Древней Бактрии. Ташкент. Salvatori, S.– Tosi, M. eds. 2008: e Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana Lowlands. Facts and methodological proposals for aredefinition of the research strategies. Oxford. Shaydullaev 1990 = Шайдуллаев, Ш.Б.: Хайтабадтепа– древнебактрийский город. In: Археология Средней Азии. Тезисы докладов. Ташкент, 107–108. Stančo, L.– Tušlová, P.eds. 2019: Sherabad Oasis. Tracing Historical Landscape in Southern Uzbekistan. Praha. Stančo, L. 2016: Archaeological Survey in the Surroundings of Kayrit (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report for Season 2015. Studia Hercynia 20/2, 73–85. Stančo, L. 2018: New Data on the Iron Age in the Sherabad district, South Uzbekistan. In: J. Lhuillier– N. Boroffka (eds.): AMillennium of History. e Iron Age in southern Central Asia (2nd and 1st Millennia BC). Proceedings of the conference held in Berlin (June 23–25, 2014). Dedicated to the memory of Viktor Ivanovich Sarianidi. Berlin, 171–188.