Kurgans of the Eastern Kugitang piedmonts. Preliminary report on an archaeological surface survey in the 2022 season

Kurgans of the Eastern Kugitang piedmonts. Preliminary report on an archaeological surface survey in the 2022 season Jakub Havlík– Vendula Dědková– Kahramon Toshaliyev ABSTRACT The eastern Kugitang piedmonts, southern Uzbekistan, have recently shown to be aparticularly rich region in terms of archaeology. Among awide range of archaeological sites spreading chronologically from the Neolithic to Pre -Modern period, kurgan mounds turned out to be aparticularly frequent feature characteristic for the areas surrounding the narrow river valleys. This report presents new data on the occurrence of kurgan mounds gathered by the Czech -Uzbekistani archaeological mission in the spring season 2022. By means of atargeted extensive surface survey, the Czech -Uzbekistani team focused on four principal areas: 1) north of the village of Karabag, 2) east of the village of Khojaulkan, 3) the valley of Alamlisay, and 4) the area between the villages of Khatak and Panjob. The survey yielded in total 188 kurgan mounds, not counting hundreds of other various archaeological features identified. The total number of kurgans recorded so far in the eastern Kugitang piedmonts exceeds four hundred, indicating an intensive past exploitation of the highland areas of the nowadays Surkhandarya province. This report focusses on the morphology and spatial distribution of newly detected kurgan mounds and attempts to put them in the context of previous research. KEYWORDS Central Asia; Northern Bactria; kurgans; cairns; landscape archaeology. INTRODUCTION Since 2014 the Czech -Uzbekistani archaeological mission has in various ways systematically focused on mapping and investigating the past cultural landscape of the eastern foothills of the Kugitang mountain range (Surkhandarya province, southern Uzbekistan). The primary impetus for the initiation of long -term activities in this area had been the discovery of two, so far unrecorded, kurgan fields near the villages of Karabag and Kayrit, respectively (Stančoetal. 2014, 31–32). Although the main interest quickly moved toward the investigation of settlement sites dated from the Late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age (Stančoetal. 2016; Kysela– Augustinová– Kinaston 2018), Antiquity (Stančoetal. 2020; Stančo 2021), and Middle Ages (Damašeketal. 2020), the study of kurgan mounds remained constant among the objectives of the expedition, either as apart of the general surface survey activities (Stančoetal. 2018), or as asole focus of aspecialised sub -project conducted between 2017 and 2018 (Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017; Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018; Havlíketal. 2018). Up to 2018 these efforts had resulted in more than five hundred stone and/or earthen -made structures being recorded. More than two hundred of them have been classified as kurgan mounds. In the spring of 2022, asmall team of the Czech -Uzbekistani mission focused on surveying the areas of the eastern Kugitang piedmonts, which had not been investigated in detail for various reasons in the course of preceding projects. Going from the west to the east, these STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1, 203–236 204 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 areas (Fig. 1) comprise: 1) the area to the north of Karabag village in the direction of Zarautsay and Kyzyl Alma village, 2) the area to the east of Karabag, between the village itself and the village of Khojaulkan, 3) the valley of Alamlisay and its surroundings, and 4) the area between the villages of Khatak and Panjob. Based on the study of satellite imagery and the field survey, the objective of the field season was to complete image of the distribution of kurgan mounds in the eastern Kugitang piedmonts, as well as to assess the archaeological potential of these areas. Although the investigation of kurgan mounds concentrates on asingle landscape feature category, in conjunction with other field projects, it attempts to contribute to the long -term goal of the Czech -Uzbekistani archaeological mission, i.e., abetter understanding of the past cultural landscape of the foothill steppe zone as awhole. This report outlines the preliminary results of the 2022 spring season and, having no intention of proposing its detailed analysis at this point, introduces the list of recorded kurgan mounds accompanied by field observations on their distribution and morphological characteristics. Following the local terminological practice, the term kurgan is throughout this text used for aregular, circularor oval -shaped mound (cairn, tumulus) of apparent anthropogenic origin made of stone or earth, regardless of its actual purpose (sepulchral, ritual, etc.). Fig. 1: Northern part of the eastern Kugitang piedmonts. Distribution of kurgans. Kurgans recor‑ ded in 2022 are marked white. Map by J. Havlík. Basemap: Esri. 205JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV RESEARCH AREA AND BACKGROUND The Kugitang mountain range with its highest peak at Airi Baba (3139 m.a.s.l.) is located on the borderlands of two Central Asian republics, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan. Its well -defined ridge top forms aconsiderable part of their southernmost borderline. The eastern foothills of Kugitang spread out towards the Surkhandarya depression in the territory of the Uzbekistani province of the same name, occupying aconsiderable part of the Sherabad and Baysun districts. At an altitude of ca. 1200 m.a.s.l., the sharp ridges are alternated with the dry rolling steppe. The distinctively hilly steppe environment is interspersed with river valleys formed by the right bank tributaries of Sherabad Darya and Amu Darya and adjacent flat river terraces and elevated plateaux. Even though they are not the only passable areas in the piedmonts, the predominantly northwest to southeast orientated river valleys represent important natural corridors used frequently by modern traffic, taking advantage of concrete roads. The local climate is semi -arid continental, characterised by drastic temperature variations between both day and night and summer and winter. While village microoases watered from numerous springs offer the opportunity for localised horticulture and small -scale agriculture, the vast steppe areas beyond the villages are for most of the year exploited for grazing, and only occasionally allow rain -fed agriculture in suitable locations. Even though the piedmont zone offers archaeologists amuch better preserved landscape than the lowland areas transformed beyond recognition by the Soviet -period collectivisation (Stride 2004, 132–133; Stančo 2019a, 14–15; Stančo 2019b, 380–383; Havlíketal. 2022; cf., Mantellini– Berdimuradov 2019), the degree of modern human impact on the older cultural landscape causes significant limitations for surface survey. The waterway network and general terrain relief are not affected there by modern agriculture, as in the case of lowlands, nevertheless, ploughing of flat plateaux and river terraces caused significant losses in microtopography, affecting many features of the cultural landscape, especially those of smaller size, kurgan mounds among them. Foothill dry farming has along tradition in Surkhandarya province (Maev 1879a, 304–305; Maev 1879b, 92–94), reaching its highest scale probably right before the initiation of large -scale lowland irrigation projects in the 1960s. If the moisture conditions allow, elevated fields are also being sown today. In addition to the damage caused by ploughing, the preservation of various stone structures in the foothill area suffers from the stone collection for building purposes, usually without any interest of locals in robbing the findings hidden potentially beneath the structure. Cairns and stone settings located near dwellings and roads are naturally most exposed to this threat, however, with population growth, the stone collection activity affects an increasingly larger area more intensively. During the last ten years, the team members of the Czech -Uzbekistani mission noticed arapid degree of disappearance of stone -made archaeological features, apressing impetus to intensify an attempt to map and document as large number of endangered objects as possible before it is too late. Because the importance of this area has been recognised relatively recently, the archaeological mapping of the eastern Kugitang piedmonts cannot profit extensively from previous research. Before launching several international research projects in the 2000s, the foothill valleys were subject to only cursory reconnaissance surveys or small -scale excavations (Rtveladze 1974; Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990) that had shown no great interest in minor archaeological features such as kurgans, which remained unnoticed (or unpublished) except for J. Duke’sbrief mention of his excavations of kurgan field of Loyalagan (Duke 1975). It is not without interest that, in contrast to neighbouring regions, where afrequent occurrence of various kurgan burial grounds has been recorded already during 206 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 the second half of the 20th century (Mendelshtam 1975; Litvinskiy– Sedov 1984, 104–120), the evidence for the occurrence of this peculiar burial form commonly associated with mobile pastoralists of the Eurasian steppe zone, is surprisingly scarce in the area of the nowadays Surkhandarya province as awhole (Litvinskiy– Sedov 1984; Pugachenkova– Rtveladze 1990, 44; Sverchkov 2007, 9–15). Consequently, the motivation of the Czech -Uzbekistani archaeological mission had become to shed more light on this phenomenon, especially in relation to aspatial correspondence between the kurgan concentrations discovered at the initial stage of the investigation and an exceptionally well preserved cluster of sites attributed to the Yaz Iculture (cf., Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017; Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018; Havlíketal. 2018). In some cases, the excavation of mounds confirmed that they are coeval with Yaz Iculture settlement, in the prevailing number of mounds the chronological clues are rather unclear. Surprisingly, the excavation has not proved the relationship between the kurgans of the Kugitang piedmonts with (at least primary) sepulchral function (Havlíketal. 2018; Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018, 156–157), leaving an area for future research. OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY Following up on the sub -project ‘Kurgans of the Eastern Kugitang Piedmonts’ that took place in 2017–2018, the research design of the 2022 investigation closely reflected its objectives and methodology (cf., Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017; Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018). To assess the characteristics of their occurrence and potential relation to the surrounding physical and cultural landscape, mapping kurgan mounds by means of extensive surface survey became the main focus of the 2022 season. Amajor difference from previous survey seasons was the employment of historical HEXAGON satellite imagery to identify locations for asubsequent field survey. While combination of the CORONA and modern freely available imagery (Google Earth, Esri) used by the Czech -Uzbekistani mission before 2022 has not proved to be particularly suitable for identification of rather small features like kurgans in the rugged piedmont steppe landscape, the high resolution HEXAGON imagery (cf., Hammer– Fitzpatrick– Ur 2022 for its employment in archaeology) depicting the research area in the early 1970s has shown itself to be well utilisable for this purpose, revealing aconsiderable number of so far unrecorded potential kurgan mounds and other terrain anomalies. However, certain bias must be expected in favour of identification of kurgan mounds in historically ploughed areas, where kurgans and other protruding anomalies are highlighted by plough marks avoiding the particular feature, and thus forming acharacteristic lenticular shape well visible on the satellite imagery (cf., Fig. 10). Other factors limiting the extent of the surveyed area were the borders of the Uzbekistani side of Kugitang nature reserve and the presence of guard dogs protecting sheepfolds, and also very effectively eliminating the passability in their surroundings. The field survey was conducted at pre -selected locations covering both areas emerging from remote sensing as promising in terms of the occurrence of terrain anomalies and those areas which did not yield such data, however, have not been surveyed in detail by the Czech- -Uzbekistani team yet. Given the character of the piedmont area and its expanse, the survey operated in an extensive way, focusing on verification in the field of the previously identified features in combination with reconnaissance -orientated field walking. Even though not described in detail in this report, the other archaeological features (stone settings, field terraces, abandoned corrals, collapsed walls, fences, water channels, etc.) and artefact scatters were recorded as well to be re -examined and published separately. The identified kurgan clusters 207JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV were surveyed in detail in order to map them optimally to their full extent and to collect any surface material that could give abetter idea of the dating of past human activities at aparticular location. The collection was conducted in anon -systematic way to take apreliminary grab sample as small as possible. Individual mounds were spatially recorded using ahandheld GPS device, measured, and described in terms of size, construction, state of preservation, orientation, and position within the cluster and surrounding terrain. Attention was regularly paid to the way of the kurgan clustering, possible structural and spatial patterns of the studied kurgans, and to the relations between the kurgans and various other features in the landscape, both natural (i.e., cardinal directions, terrain features, river beds, etc.) and anthropogenic (i.e., settlements, irrigation, petroglyphs, etc.) including their visual (inter)connectivity. SURFACE SURVEY AREA KARABAG ‑NORTH As the name given to this cluster suggests, the Karabag -North kurgan field is located north of the village of Karabag, which is commonly considered apart of the Pashkhurt valley. This concentration was discovered in 2011 by L. Stančo and Sh. Shaydullaev (Stančoetal. 2014, 31), and subsequently resurveyed in 2017 (Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017, 174–179). However, partly due to the border regime at that time, this area was not walked in its entirety in the northern direction, towards the village of Kyzylalma. The identified kurgans are situated on the right bank of the Kyzylalma river, on elevated terraces above the stream. The terraces show clear signs of mechanised agriculture. Isolated strips of land have apparently been ploughed recently. For practical reasons, the kurgan cluster Karabag -North has already been divided into two sub -clusters following the spatial grouping in 2017. The total of 21 features was known until 2017 while 16 more were recorded in 2022 (see Tab.1). The newly detected kurgans largely fit to the prevailing characteristics of the previously identified features in terms of both distribution and morphology: Except for several more tightly clustered lines consisting of three to five mounds, the kurgans are rather sparsely distributed over the terraces following roughly the orientation of the Kyzylalma river and its nameless tributary. Given the flat terrain, ahigh degree of intervisibility within the cluster may be observed, except for the northernmost identified sub -cluster KAN_03 (Fig. 2, inset left). Being asingle line of six mounds of various sizes, sub -cluster KAN_03 is located on the lower river terrace surrounded by slopes on most sides. All the newly detected mounds are of simple, rather low, predominantly stone construction (see Fig. 3). With only several exceptions (originating in ploughing damage?) all the features are of circular shape. No attached features or stone settings were recorded. To the north of KAN_03, acairn field was identified consisting of more than adozen small- -sized (d. up to 1.5 m) stone concentrations. Given the lichen coating and soil cover between individual stones, these features do not seem to be of modern date, and rather they are related to small -sized system of water channels and field(?) terraces, reflecting highly probably premodern agricultural activities of uncertain date. The area of sub -cluster KAN_01 yielded asmall assemblage of surface ceramic material: two pottery scatters of limited extent (cf., Fig.2) gave rather unconvincing evidence in terms of chronology pointing to (High?) Me - dieval period. Asingle sherd of blue glazed plate dated from the High (pre -Mongol) Middle Ages found in the vicinity of kurgan KAN_01_024 corresponds to the assemblage collected at the no -name tepa site (cf., Stančoetal. 2014, 31; Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017, 177), 208 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Fig. 2: Kurgan distribution within the Karabag ‑North area. Inset right: no name tepa mound. Map by J. Havlík. Basemap: Esri. 209JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV itself aligned with kurgan mounds. The association of the surface ceramic material with the kurgans may not be considered certain, rather it reflects activities coeval to the supposed medieval settlement. The inspection of the nameless tepa (Fig. 2, inset right) confirmed previous dating of its occupation (white, white and black, and white and green glazed pottery sherds are abundant in the surface material), and revealed that the eastern extension of the tepa, or akind of platform apparent on the satellite imagery, is covered by oval -shaped stone enclosures. Judging from their size and orientation these features may be preliminarily interpreted as an Islamic cemetery, likely chronologically corresponding with the occupation of the tepa. AREA KHOJAULKAN The area to the west of Khojaulkan (i.e., to the south -east of Karabag -North cluster), is characterised by asmall number of identified features distributed without aparticular spatial pattern over arelatively large area. All mounds are located on the northern edge of the elevated plateau, which is itself situated above intermittent streams that run down through the valley in the direction of the Khojaulkan village. This discontinuous concentration consists of ten mounds in total. Three of them– Khj_001, 002, and 004– differ significantly from the rest, being, however, almost identical to mounds already recorded in the valley of Loylagan (Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018, 160–161). These three earthen mounds are convex and almost perfectly circular in plan (their d. range from 5 to 6.3 m, h. 0.5 m) and delimited around the perimeter by ashallow ditch (w. 0.2 m; depth 5–10 cm). The rest of the kurgans significantly recall those of the Karabag cluster (circular shape, made of rather small stones, diameter ranges between 4.5 and 13(?) m); however, the state of preservation is much worse here. Khojaulkan kurgans are frequently damaged by ploughing, and recent activities are also evidenced by stones piled up on the top of the mounds, most likely to make way for tractors Fig. 3: Kurgan KAN_01_018, view from the south. Photo by V. Dědková. 210 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Tab.1: Kurgans of the Karabag ‑North area. Only kurgans recorded in 2022 are included. Code Longitude Latitude Width N‑S (m) Length E‑W (m) Height (m) Max. stones diameter (m) Note KAN_01_014 66.78563100 37.81904500 4.5 5.2 0.25 0.1 badly defined edges; circular shape; mostly earthen-made, stones only rarely on the surface KAN_01_015 66.78546800 37.81930900 5.3 5.3 0.25 0.15  KAN_01_016 66.78487900 37.81981900 5.4 1.2 0.2 0.35 disrupted on sides KAN_01_017 66.77716156 37.82157480 4.5 60.4 0.3 some stones piled up recently on the top of the older structure. KAN_01_018 66.77700855 37.82162532 5.5 60.2 0.4 a low mound; large gaps between stones KAN_01_019 66.77713000 37.82161267 10 9 0.1 0.3 a very low mound; depression in the central part KAN_01_020 66.77687000 37.82168600 1.2 1.2 0.2 0.3 a small circular-shaped mound; compact and low; made mostly of small stones KAN_01_021 66.77424800 37.82251300 7 7 0.3 0.2  KAN_01_022 66.77350249 37.82331140 4.5 50.3 0.3 some stones exceptionally large (d. up to 0.5 m) KAN_01_023 66.76655900 37.82555200 3 3 0.2 0.4 a small mound made of large stones KAN_01_024 66.75855017 37.83147517 6 8.5 0.5 0.15 relatively large mound made of small stones and earth; several large stones (d. around 0.5 m); a High Medieval sherd discovered in the vicinity KAN_03_001 66.74648300 37.83540300 6.45 6 0.4 0.3  KAN_03_002 66.74620000 37.83587200 10.5 11.1 0.5 0.3  KAN_03_003 66.74603000 37.83609700 2 2 0.2 0.3 a small circular-shaped kurgan; one larger stone (0.45×0.45 m) on E side KAN_03_004 66.74602400 37.83628800 2.5 20.2 0.2 a small irregular-shaped kurgan KAN_03_005 66.74586733 37.83635633 2 2 0.2 0.3 a small irregular-shaped kurgan KAN_03_006 66.74580667 37.83643383 7 9 0.45 0.25 one larger stone (0.5×0.5 m) located in the central part of the kurgan 211JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV Fig. 4: Kurgan distribution within the Khojaulkan area. Map by J. Havlík. Basemap: Esri. Fig. 5: Kurgan Khj_003, view from the east. Photo by J. Havlík. 218 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Fig. 10: Central part of the Khatak ‑Panjob area as captured by KH‑9 HEXAGON (1978/03/25). Black arrows indicate terrain anomalies identified as kurgan mounds during the field verification. Graph 1: Kurgan diameter frequency for the Khatak ‑Panjob cluster. The diameter corresponds to the average value of two (N–Sand E–W) measured values. 219JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV Soviet military maps as Kalakoydy ruins1 was also inspected (report in preparation). Being crossed by the dirt road leading up to the saddle, this site is located on the southern bank of the Gazak, just near the gorge mouth. This area (ca. 200 × 200 m) is marked by well -visible remains of thick stone walls forming large rectangular structures. Collected surface material indicates High Medieval (monochrome whiteor green -glazed plates) and Pre -Modern (thick sherds with plastic fishnet decoration and linear combed incisions) occupation of this location. Surveying this area in 2018, A. Augustinová collected ceramic assemblage dated preliminarily to the Early Middle Ages (5th–6th c. AD). Aminority of surface sherds was attributed to the Achaemenid period, however, evidence for this dating has been considered rather unconvincing (A. Augustinová, personal communication, July 17, 2023). Being the most numerous concentration of kurgans identified in the eastern Kugitang piedmonts so far, the Khatak -Panjob cluster consists of 146 kurgans. In contrast to the clusters mentioned above, kurgan mounds of the Khatak -Panjob are of amuch more heterogeneous nature in terms of the distribution of mounds in the landscape, as well as their size and morphology. Even though acertain tendency towards linear distribution may be observed, it seems that there is no determinative orientation among the kurgans of this group, and it is hard to find any (uniform) distributional pattern. There are several lines consisting of three or four kurgans of roughly NW–SE orientation, nevertheless, in the eastern part of the cluster, the SW–NE orientation prevails. In this part of the cluster, the kurgan distribution corresponds to the course of the dirt road depicted on the Soviet topographic maps from the 1980s, which is nowadays rather hard to recognise in the field. To some extent, the Khatak -Panjob cluster as awhole appears to be aligned with the two dirt roads that run through the saddle (cf., Figs.9–10), which could hypothetically suggest arelation to past communications. 1 ‘разв. Калакойды’, cf., topographic map sheet J-42-074-B; Fig. 9 below. Fig. 11: Kurgan KhP_103, view from the east. Atypical medium ‑sized stone ‑made kurgan. Photo by V. Dědková. 220 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Fig. 12: Kurgan KhP_105, view from the east. Photo by V. Dědková. Fig. 13: Kurgan KhP_130, view from the north ‑west. Note that only part of the original mound is preserved. Photo by V. Dědková. 221JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV In terms of morphology, regularly rounded concave kurgans made predominantly of stones of various sizes are the most characteristic (see Figs. 11–13). Their diameters range from 3 to 10 m, with some larger exceptions (KhP_087; 105; 145). These kurgans resemble those recorded by the Czech -Uzbekistani mission throughout the Kugitang piedmonts, particularly near Kayrit, Karabag, and Loylagan (Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017, Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018, 151–157), or near Khojaulkan and Alamli described above. Correspondingly to distributional preferences of the previously known clusters, there is acertain tendency towards linearity. This is the case of asub -cluster KhP_007–014; KhP_037–041, which seems to follow an abandoned dirt road in SW–NE direction, or NW–SE oriented KhP_143–145 situated on aslightly elevated prominence. The same orientation may be observed in the case of KhP_098–106, which also consists of smaller or badly preserved kurgans– mostly due to frequent ploughing, which causes the overall bad state of preservation of the mounds. Next to the ploughing marks and related to this activity modern field clearances located frequently on the top of kurgans, stoneless depressions in the mounds central parts represent another kind of damage, caused probably along time ago in an effort for robbing the kurgan mounds. Apeculiar type of kurgans is represented by regularly rounded mounds of large diameter (19–40 m). Two kurgans of similar dimensions had been detected before 2022 only in the valley of Gurjak (i.e., north of Khojaulkan), being considered exceptionally large in the measures of the eastern Kugitang piedmonts (Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018, 169). The seven detected mounds of this type (KhP_025; 036; 062; 083; 131; 132; 146) are distributed over the saddle without any clear pattern with relatively large distances between each other. Except for KhP_036 which shows no signs of stone construction, the remains of well -laid stone rings around the perimeter delimit each of them. In most cases, the stone ring is much better preserved on the western side of the mound (see Figs. 15, 17). Both the dimensions and construction (i.e., an earthen mound with astone ring) of these kurgans recall Wusun (or Saka -Wusun) burial mounds of the last centuries BC in southern Kazakhstan (cf., Akishev– Kushaev 1963, 235–245; Baipakov– Taimagambetov 2006, 156–160; cf., Chang 2018, 27–29). However, without proper excavation, no dating can be attributed to these kurgans at this point. In the cases of KhP_025 and KhP_146, there is aregularly circular stone -made mound located in the central part of the earthen structure. These stone kurgans on the top of the earthen ones are identical with the type common throughout the eastern Kugitang piedmonts (see above). It cannot be ruled out that, in the case of kurgans KhP_025 and KhP_146, we are dealing with two subsequent construction phases, perhaps areutilization of older mounds? The reutilization of the large mounds of Khatak -Panjob is also evidenced in other ways: Aroughly 440 m long linear structure (w. ca. 1 m; h. up to 0.3 m) is attached from the south- -west to the mound KhP_062. This structure (abaulk of uncertain date?), probably later than the construction of the mound itself, curves to the north -west, towards the nowadays dirt road. This linear structure divides field strips (the ploughing marks follow the course of the structure from both sides), presumably enhancing the potential of rain -fed agriculture by catching water coming during rains down from the rocky slopes and gullies in the northwest. Asimilar kind of what seems to be areutilization of alarge kurgan mound presents the KhP_025 and the area in its immediate proximity. There are two stone lines (w. ca. 1 m, h. up to 0.4 m) attached to the stone ring in the north -west direction (see Fig. 16). Going parallel to each other and keeping adistance of ca. 60 m, these two lines are discernible for almost 200 m leading towards the rocky mountain slopes. At two places at least, the area defined by the stone lines is perpendicularly divided by what appear to be field terraces of uncertain date, taking advantage of water coming from the rocky slopes. 222 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Fig. 14: Kurgans KhP_130–132 (from left to right), view from the north ‑east. Photo by V. Dědková. Fig. 15: Kurgan KhP_025 (d. of the stone ring: 24.3–26.6 m), view from the north ‑west. Photo by V. Dědková. Large circular kurgans, made either of stone or earth, are in the Khatak -Panjob saddle surrounded by numerous smaller (d. less than 3 m, usually around 2 m) or less regular kurgan mounds. Given the active modern agricultural use of this area, it is frequently hard to assess to what degree the observed morphological characteristics reflect adifferent construction type, or whether the present -day shape is the result of damage by ploughing. Except for the isolated features or mounds occurring within acluster of larger mounds, there are two distinguishable coherent sub -clusters of small kurgans in Khatak -Panjob: KhP_045–057 and KhP_064–082, consisting of 13 and 19 individual mounds, respectively. Both are located on agentle elevation. In the case of KhP_064–082, the crescent -shaped strip of land shows only minor or no signs of ploughing suggesting adifferent past treatment with this delimited area, 223JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV Fig. 16: One of the two stone lines leading to the kurgan KhP_025 from the north ‑western direction. Photo by V. Dědková. 224 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 just tens of meters to the north from the baulk(?) going from KhP_062 described above. On the other hand, right here, function of these mounds as field clearances may be suggested, leaving the interpretation of their original purpose rather uncertain. In addition to kurgans, anumber of other features have been recorded in the Khatak -Panjob area, which can be related either to the past ritual or economic land use with avery limited chance of its exact chronological attribution. Three stone circles were identified in the close vicinity of the kurgan mounds. Ca. 120 m from KhP_025, there is aslightly elevated, almost regular circle (15 × 14 m) made of large stones. Very similar, larger, circle (d. 23.5 m) is located in the close vicinity (ca. 20 m to the west) of KhP_132, and just around 80 m to the north -east, another small (d. 5 m) circle was detected. Other than the spatial relation of the stone circles to the largest category of kurgan mounds cannot be confirmed at this point.2 Next to apparently modern field clearances spread over the fields, the slopes bordering the saddle plain are frequently occupied with remains of abandoned field terraces, enclosures, and slope fields, which may reflect preindustrial, but also significantly older, agricultural activities there. Their frequent occurrence illustrates arelatively intensive past land use, opening space for future research of the midland (upper foothill) environment represented by the Khatak Panjob saddle. CONCLUSIONS By introducing new data on the occurrence of kurgan mounds and thus supplementing the predominantly settlement -orientated research activities, the 2022 surface survey season contributed significantly to along -term mapping programme of the eastern Kugitang pied2 Similar, though smaller, circles have been detected within kurgan clusters in Kayrit (Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017, 165, 168) and Loylagan (Havlík– Havlíková– Stančo 2018, 154, 161). Use of similar structures as aplace of (commemorative) offerings was not infrequent among Turkic peoples (cf., Okladnikova 1986, 81–88; Kubarev 2005, 16), however, they have been identified also as grave markers: For Kushan period in southern Tajikistan see Mendelshtam 1975, 64–109. Similar relation could confirm also newly excavated Yuezhi period burials in the valley of Loylagan (publication in preparation by L. Stančo) ca 12 km as the crow flies from Khatak -Panjob area. Fig. 17: Kurgan KhP_146 (d. of the stone ring 39–40 m), view from the north ‑west. Photo by V. Dědková. 225JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV monts. Based on the gathered evidence and its comparison with the previous state of research, several observations can be made. Although the piedmont area clearly does not represent alandscape untouched by modern activities, it still offers arelatively good opportunity to study various facets (economic, ritual, settlement) of the land use dated probably from long before the industrial period and complement the archaeological research of northern Bactrian lowlands. The 188 kurgan mounds identified in 2022 make atotal number of 4063 mounds recorded in the eastern Kugitang piedmonts so far, showing their distribution literally in every piedmont river valley. The newly mapped kurgans bear similarity to those previously known: The stone -made roughly circular mounds of medium size (most usually between 5 and 8 m in diameter), have already been well evidenced in the valleys of Kayrit, Karabag, Loylagan, and elsewhere, appearing to be the best defined and well represented type throughout the eastern Kugitang piedmonts as awhole (cf., Sverchkov 2007, 9–15 for similar, less regular kurgans recorded in the Baysun piedmonts). The locations favoured by the past mound -builders show certain regularities as well, either in the tendency towards the use of elevated plateaux and river terraces, or in the preference of linear clustering of kurgans, often along water streams and corridors through the landscape (cf. Havlík– Shaydullaev in preparation). While these common traits indicate acoherent and continuous past attitude towards the human exploitation of this area, the number and spread of mounds suggest arather long period of their formation. On the other hand, the occurrence of exceptionally large and morphologically distinct earthen mounds in Khatak -Panjob, evidenced so far only at one other location in the Kugitang piedmonts (i.e., near Gurjak), could suggest more complex dynamics of the kurgan landscape formation. The precise dating and purpose of the mounds remain unclear, and the surface survey offers only limited possibilities for abetter understanding of them. Given the relatively small sample size of the excavated features (cf., Havlíketal. 2018), the relation to sepulchral use must still be seriously considered, and the conducted survey needs to be completed by excavations in the future to bring more firm data. However, the kurgan mounds and dozens of other archaeological features recorded during asingle extensive surface survey season have underlined the unexploited potential of the area and the need for more detailed, systematic ways of its future investigation. As shown by the results of the survey in the valley of Alamlisay and the saddle between the villages of Khatak and Panjob, the remote valleys of minor water streams, as well as the areas between individual river valleys, deserve more attention to achieve amore complete and representative coverage of the foothill zone and eventually better understand the socioeconomic development of this area in along -term perspective. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund project ‘Creativity and Adaptability as Conditions of the Success of Europe in an Interrelated World’ (reg. no.: CZ. 02.1.01/0.0/0.0/16_019/0000734) and project no. PRIMUS/23/HUM/013 implemented at the Faculty of Arts, Charles University. 3 Note that French -Czech -Uzbekistani excavation of what appeared to be two separated features, Kayrit 01_003 and Kayrit 01_004 (cf. Havlík– Stančo– Havlíková 2017, 169) showed that these two features recorded by asurface survey were actually badly damaged remains of asingle structure consisting of acircular mound with awell -defined stone ring and apathway lined with large stones oriented to the East (report in preparation). 226 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Tab.4: Kurgans of the Khatak ‑Panjob area. Code Longitude Latitude Width N‑S (m) Length E‑W (m) Height (m) Max. stones diameter (m) Note KhP_001 66.87398100 37.98661900 4.5 5.6 0.4 0.4 one large stone (d. 0.5 m); unclear edges (maximum extent 6.1×6 m?), badly defined mound KhP_002 66.87448661 37.98076789 1.5 1.5 0.1 0.2 oval-shaped core, probably disrupted by farming; stones scattered around KhP_003 66.87443900 37.98075400 1.6 1.6 0.2 0.2 a small, low kurgan made of small stones KhP_006 66.87156317 37.98001367 1.6 1.6 0.2 0.4 a small, compact kurgan KhP_008 66.86807083 37.97867917 6.1 7.4 0.4 0.3 unclear edges KhP_009 66.86766050 37.97854167 4.6 4.6 0.4 0.3 a compact, medium-sized kurgan made of large stones KhP_010 66.86693500 37.97795900 6.6 6.6 0.4 0.5 some larger stones; signs of extension in E-W direction (d. 8.2 m?) KhP_011 66.86652400 37.97759500 4.1 3.6 0.4 0.2 very close to KhP_012, creating almost continuous oval-shaped platform KhP_012 66.86652400 37.97755300 3.2 3 0.4 0.2 very close to the KhP_011, forming almost continuous oval-shaped platform KhP_013 66.86652400 37.97765900 4.1 4.8 0.4 0.3 a compact kurgan made of large stones; well-visible circle of larger stones delimiting the edges KhP_014 66.86652400 37.97730300 2.9 3.5 0.3 0.4 disrupted on sides by ploughing; some stones piled up on the top recently KhP_015 66.86652400 37.97952400 2.6 30.5 0.4 an oval-shaped feature KhP_016 66.86652400 37.98700600 5.8 6.1 0.4 0.4 some larger stones KhP_017 66.86652400 37.98415979 6.8 80.4 0.3  KhP_018 66.86652400 37.98406000 6 5.3 0.7 0.5  KhP_019 66.86652400 37.98393300 9.1 10.6 10.2 mostly small stones (d: 0.1–0.15) KhP_020 66.86652400 37.98466404 17.5 9.1 0.7 0.3 a large oval-shaped object, unclear edges – uncertain; some larger stones 227JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV Code Longitude Latitude Width N‑S (m) Length E‑W (m) Height (m) Max. stones diameter (m) Note KhP_021 66.86652400 37.98207200 3 3.8 0.3 0.2 most of the stones seem to be piled up recently KhP_022 66.86652400 37.98057267 2.2 3 0.2 0.1 a small, badly defined feature KhP_023 66.86652400 37.97737500 1.9 2.1 0.2 0.3 a small cairn; uncertain, piled up recently? KhP_024 66.86652400 37.97740900 2.7 2.3 0.3 0.15 a small cairn; uncertain, piled up recently? KhP_025 66.86652400 37.97748700 26.6 24.3 2.5 0.3 a large kurgan constisting of two parts: soil-made mound with ring on the perimeter made of small stones (d. ca. 0.1 m) on S side; a stone-made mound (8.4×9.1 m) made of larger stones (d. up to 0.3 m) located on the top; wellpreserved; two lines of stones running from the feature in the NW direction KhP_026 66.86652400 37.97508400 3 3 0.3 0.1 disrupted by ploughing KhP_027 66.86652400 37.97442528 4.5 6.8 0.3 0.3 disrupted on sides by ploughing; ploughed out stones probably collected on the top of the remaining mound in the recent past; the terrain relief suggests originally larger extent othe (circular?) mound: 7 or even 13.7 m? KhP_028 66.86652400 37.97437000 3 1 0.2 0.2 badly preserved; close to KhP_029 – originally a single object? KhP_029 66.86652400 37.97432500 3 1 0.2 0.2 badly preserved; close to KhP_028 – originally a single object? KhP_030 66.86652400 37.97322700 4.5 3.8 0.2 0.4 ploughing disruptions KhP_031 66.86652400 37.97297300 6.8 9.9 0.4 0.2 irregular shape; partly destroyed on sides by ploughing KhP_032 66.86652400 37.97280800 8 8 0.2 0.2 a low mound; almost no stones in the central part KhP_033 66.86652400 37.97302583 9.9 10.6 1.7 0.25 a large kurgan with a stoneless depression in the central part; unclear edges (maximum dimensions: 15×14.4 m); remains of an associated feature – an oblong-shaped stone setting or a stone platform (d. 2.5 m) 234 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 Code Longitude Latitude Width N‑S (m) Length E‑W (m) Height (m) Max. stones diameter (m) Note KhP_132 66.86652400 37.97029368 29 31 1.3 0.25 Minor disruption caused by road coming through the western part of the kurgan; on the western side, clear signs of a stone ring/plinth consisting of several lines of stones. KhP_133 66.86652400 37.97026320 10 10 0.6 0.4 a significant depression in the central part KhP_134 66.86652400 37.97131917 4 6 0.45 0.5 disrupted by the dirt road on the side KhP_135 66.86652400 37.97117505 3 2 0.2 0.25 a small compact mound KhP_136 66.86652400 37.97105092 4.5 30.5 0.4 damaged by ploughing on both sides KhP_137 66.86652400 37.97099000 3.5 20.3 0.3 damaged on sides by ploughing KhP_138 66.86652400 37.97192900 4 4 0.2 0.2 a low, incompact stone mound KhP_139 66.86652400 37.97296667 5 4 0.2 0.2 a stone line attached to the western side KhP_140 66.86652400 37.97315197 6 4.4 0.4 0.3  KhP_141 66.86652400 37.97341486 5 6 0.3 0.2  KhP_142 66.86652400 37.97352502 6 3.8 0.4 0.3  KhP_143 66.86652400 37.97414600 8.5 7.5 0.4 0.25 some of stone around the perimeter are exceptionally large (d. 0.5–0.6 m) KhP_144 66.86652400 37.97418600 6 7.5 0.3 0.3 some of stone around the perimeter are exceptionally large (d. 0.5–0.6 m) KhP_145 66.86652400 37.97433500 17 17 0.5 0.2 some larger stones (d. 0.4–0.5 m) KhP_146 66.86652400 37.97470050 40 39 3 0.3 mostly earthen-made mound; a stone-made circular feature (d. 8 m) located on the top in the central part; remains of a perimeter stone ring on the NW side 235JAKUB HAVLÍK– VENDULA DĚDKOVÁ– KAHRAMON TOSHALIYEV BIBLIOGRAPHY Akishev– Kushaev 1963 = Акишев, К.А.– Кушаев, Г.А.: Древняя культура Саков иУсуней долины реки Или. Алма -Ата. Baipakov– Taimagambetov 2008 = Байпаков К.М.– Таймагамбетов Ж.К.: Археология Казахстана. Алматы. Bobokhojaev– Annaev– Rakhmanov 1990 = Бобоходжаев, А.– Аннаев, Т.– Рахманов, Ш.: Некоторые итоги изучения дрeвних исредневековых памятников предгорной игорной полосы Кугитанг– Байсунтау. История Материальной Кулътуры Узбекистана 23, 25–36. Chang, C. 2018: Rethinking prehistoric Central Asia. Shepherds, Farmers, and Nomads. New York. Damašeketal. 2020 = Damašek, L.– Kinaston, R.– Kramer, R.– Šmolková, M.– Pilař, D.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Stančo, L.: Archaeological excavations at Lungi Tepa, south Uzbekistan. Preliminary Report for Season 2019. Studia Hercynia 24/1, 159–178. Duke 1975 = Дуке, Х.: Новый могильник тюркского времени вЮжном Узбекистане. In: Успехи среднеазиатской археологии 3. Ленинград, 76. Hammer, E.– Fitzpatrick, M.– Ur, J. 2022: Succeeding CORONA. Declassified HEXAGON intelligence imagery for archaeological and historical research. Antiquity 96/37, 679–695. 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, 160–182. Havlíketal. 2018 = Havlík, J.– Stančo, L.– Kysela, J.– Cejnarová, P.– Havlíková, H.– Votroubeková, T.: Kurgans of the Eastern Kugitang Piedmonts. Preliminary Report on Excavations in Seasons 2015–2017. Studia Hercynia 22/1, 183–206. Havlíketal. 2022 = Havlík, J.– Bobik, J.– Dědková, V.– Dontová, K.– Krčál, J.– Matznerová, J.– Paralovo, E.– Taasob, R.– Toshaliyev, K.– Ždimera, J.– Shaydullaev, Sh.: Asystematic archaeological survey in the environs of Khaytabad Tepa (Southern Uzbekistan). Preliminary report on the 2021 pilot season. Studia Hercynia 24/2, 115–140. Kubarev 2005 = Кубарев Г.В.: Культура древних тюрок Алтая (по материалам погребальных памятников). Новосибирск. Kysela, J.– Augustinová, A.– Kinaston, R.2018: Preliminary Reports on the Excavations at Burgut Kurganand Bobolangar in 2017. Studia Hercynia 22/1, 158–182. Litvinskiy– Sedov 1984 = Литвинский, Б.А.– Седов, А.В.: Культы иритуалы Кушанской Бактрии. Погребальный обряд. Москва. Maev 1879a = Маев, А.Н.: Очерки горныхь бекствь Бухарскаго ханства. Материалы для статистики Туркестанскаго края 5, 280–328. Maev 1879b = Маев, А.Н.: Рекогносцировка горных путей вБухарком ханстве. Известия Императорского Русского географического общества 15/2, 87–99. Mantellini, S.– Berdimuradov, A.E. 2019: Evaluating the human impact on the archaeological landscape of Samarkand (Uzbekistan). Adiachronic assessment of the Taylak district by remote sensing, field survey, and local knowledge. Archaeological Research in Asia 20, 100–143. Mendelshtam 1975 = Мендельштам, А.М.: Памятники кочевников кушанского времени всеверной Бактрии. Ленинград. Okladnikova 1986 = Окладникова, Е.А.: Квопросу окаменных выкладках вдолине реки Елонгаш. In: К.М. Герасимова (ed.): Традиционная культура народов Централной Азии. Новосибирск, 74–89. Pugachenkova– Rtveladze 1990 = Пугаченкова, Г.А.– Ртвеладзе, Э.В.: Северная Бактрия ‑Тохаристан. Древность иАнтичность. Ташкент. 236 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXVII/1 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. Stančo, L. 2009: The activities in Uzbekistan in the 2008 season. Testing the Google Earth programme as atool for archaeological prospecting. Studia Hercynia 13, 115–122. Stančo, L. 2019a: Extensive archaeological survey. In: Stančo– Tušlová eds. 2019, 21–30. Stančo, L. 2019b: The oasis in time and space. Dynamics of the settlement pattern. In: Stančo– Tušlová eds. 2019, 353–386. Stančo, L. 2021: In the shadow of the Wall. Hellenistic settlement in the Baysun and Kugitang piedmonts. Studia Hercynia 25/2, 64–95. Stančoetal. 2014 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Bendezu -Sarmiento, J.– Pažout, A.– Vondrová, H.: Kayrit burial site (south Uzbekistan): preliminary report for season 2014. Studia Hercynia 18/1-2, 31–41. Stančoetal. 2016 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Bendezu -Sarmiento, J.– Lhuillier, J.– Kysela, J.– Shaydullaev, A.– Khamidov, O.– Havlík, J.– Tlustá, J.: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Burgut Kurgan in 2015. Studia Hercynia 20/2, 86–111. Stančoetal. 2018 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Augustinová, A.– Havlík, J.– Smělý, T.– Shaydullaev, A.– Khamidov, O.– Novák, V.: Preliminary Report for the Archaeological Survey in the Baysun District (South Uzbekistan), Season 2017. Studia Hercynia 22/1, 134–157. Stančoetal. 2019 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, S.– 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 23/1, 141–172. Stančoetal. 2020 = Stančo, L.– Khamidov, O.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Mrvová, P.– Votroubeková, T.– Bek, T.– Kmošek, M.: Iskandar Tepa. Preliminary report for archaeological excavation in season 2018 (south Uzbekistan). Studia Hercynia 24/1, 145–158. Stančo, L.– Tušlová, P.eds. 2019: Sherabad Oasis. Tracing Historical Landscape in Southern Uzbekistan. Praha. Stride, S. 2004: Géographie archéologique de la province du Surkhan Darya (Ouzbékistan du Sud / Bactriane du nord). Unpublished PhD thesis, Université Paris I– Pantheon -Sorbonne. Paris. Sverchkov 2007 = Сверчков, Л.М.: Археология Байсуна– 2004 г. In: Труды Байсунской научной экспедиции. Археология, история иэтнография 3. Ташкент, 9–19. Jakub Havlík Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University Celetná 20, Prague 1, CZ-110 00 [email protected] [email protected] Vendula Dědková The City of Prague Museum Kožná 1, Prague 1, CZ-110 00 [email protected] Kahramon Toshaliev Termez State University 190100, 42, Fayzulla Khojaev Termez, Uzbekistan [email protected]