Preliminary report of archaeological survey in Sherabad District, South Uzbekistan in 2009
Preliminary report of archaeological survey in Sherabad District, South Uzbekistan in 2009
Alžběta Danielisová[1], Ladislav Stančo,[2] Alisher Shaydullaev[3]
Published in: Studia Hercynia XIV
with Pl. 28
Abstract: This report intends to describe briefly the archaeological survey conducted by Czech-Uzbek team in Sherabad District which was accomplished in season 2009. Besides description of methods and current state of research the substantial part of paper presents an overview of the results achieved and basic information on each surveyed site. Data from season 2008 are also included.
should be cited as follows:
Danielisová, A. - Stančo, L. -Shaydullaev, A. 2010: Preliminary report of archaeological survey in Sherabad District, South Uzbekistan in 2009. Studia Hercynia XIV, pp. 67-90, Pl. 28.
Key words: archaeological survey; Central Asia; Bactria; Google Earth; Corona; satellite imagery; photogrammetry
In season 2008 started a new project of the archaeological prospection in Sherabad District of Surkhandarya Province, South Uzbekistan. During the first year mainly a preparatory work was conducted; in following campaign the major part of data collection and methodology testing were undertaken. This contribution deals with a description of the theoretical basis and the methods employed together with a short report of the project progress and summary of its results, achieved in 2009.[4]
1. General description of the project: archaeological prospection of Sherabad district 2008 – 2010
The particular research goals aim to:
-
Create a map of the archaeological sites in Sherabad district of the province of Surkhan Darya, South Uzbekistan, basing on the preliminary analyses of the satellite imagery and already published data followed by the terrain campaign focused on the verification of the sites detected by satellite imagery, their dating by on-site archaeological material, detailed terrain documentation of the sites and evaluation of the historic occupation of the Sherabad river basin region and adjacent mountain areas (corresponding roughly with present-day Sherabad district).
This map intends to serve to several purposes, especially to: the evidence of sites for the heritage care (database of sites and their actual state of preservation), investigation of the settlement structure and its dynamics, and the basis for the development of the predictive settlement models.
-
Develop and test the methodology for investigating and documenting the archaeological sites in the remote areas with minimal requirements on the technical equipment (kinematic GPS and cameras). The intention here is to collect data for the detailed topographical plans and photographic plans using beside the kinematic GPSs especially the method of photogrammetry.
-
Progress the approach of the archaeological survey based on the satellite imagery analyses followed by the terrain campaigns and GIS complementation and analyses of the acquired data in relation to their landscape settings and history.
-
Analyse the archaeological sites according to their location in landscape and their chronology (connection to the irrigation network and the contemporary sites pattern, continuity of settlements and archaeological landscape) and create a competent model of the cultural and social interactions between archaeological sites and their environmental settings, the resource management and subsistence strategies in relation to the environmental conditions and political systems during particular historic periods.
-
Complementation of research by investigating the sites of the marginal research interest (so far), such as the nomadic camp sites and other structures in hilly areas (also burial sites).
2. The state of research
The Surkhan Darya province as a whole covers 20 800 sq km in total (with Sherabad district being the second largest district of the province after that of Baysun) and for almost 70 years the archaeological work was undertaken especially by Soviet teams focused also on the landscape archaeology. The relevant publications go back to 50s - 70s of 20th century and this province was thus one of the most thoroughly studied areas in Central Asia. One of the basic sources for dealing with landscape is the publication from S. Ergeshov (1976) dividing the province to 56 land units with the land use potential; and the ethnographic study from B. Ch. Karmysheva (1976), on the other hand, specifying the types of land use and various cultural and social interactions among individual ethnic groups. The major conceptions of the historic Bactria division are based on the supposed location of the ancient and medieval irrigation systems and adjacent oases. The sites themselves – situated within these given units – were classified mainly according to their size or presumed function (agricultural households, fortresses, political centres or urban sites). During 60s and 70s of 20th century several publications came up, dealing with the sites of the Kushan period in northern Bactria. First classification of sites was published by Jurkevich (1965). E. V. Rtveladze and Z.E. Khakimov (1973) and then Rtveladze alone (1974, 1976) based a new map on their own extensive survey (sites dated to the Kushan period are prevalent but not exclusive). Rtveladze divided the sites to hill forts, semi urban sites, agricultural sites and mountain sites. S. Pidaev (1978) was classifying archaeological localities of Kushan period to four types according to their size. Other relevant work comes from B. Stawiski (1986) which includes also the area of the Afghanistan. The most recent works include the studies of S. Shaydullaev (2002, 2009) and T. Annaev (1988) addressing both the prehistoric, antique and early medieval periods. Medieval period was less studied and work published by Z. A. Arshavskaja, Rtveladze and Khakimov (1982) is rather exceptional. Directly for our purposes an interesting research was recently undertaken by S. Stride (2005). He was dealing with the archaeological sites of the whole Surkhan Darya province and his results are based on so far published works. Besides he also focused on detailed archaeological survey of upper Surkhan Darya plain and piedmonts (region of Denau) and on analysis of this particular region. However, the area of Sherabad Darya valley and plains was not surveyed systematically. For our purpose is very important the way, how these scholars localize each site. Stride is the only one who provides with the exact coordinates, sometimes however with admitted inaccuracy, because the localisation was not verified in the field. The others (Rtveladze; Rtveladze-Khakimov; Pidaev) just describe a relationship of each site to its environs, which brings confusion in many cases (e.g. no. 054 in the table), whereas Annaev does not describe positions of the sites at all and presumes that everybody knows it!
Our Czech-Uzbek team investigates the region of historic Northern Bactria since 2002. To benefit of this project we conducted excavations on a principal site of the Sherabad oasis – Jandavlattepa (2002-2006).[5] During the process of the excavations and additional survey of the vicinity of the site we decided to research the historic environment of the Sherabad oasis more thoroughly and in 2007 and 2008 some preparatory and organization steps were carried out (agreement with Termez State University, bibliographic search, collecting of published data, necessary equipment acquisition). The project of archaeological mapping of the given area in its general outlines started successfully in season 2009.
The area in question – some 3000 sq km – is quite out of the research interest recently[6] as the international projects are either focused on the different regions[7] or investigated the other parts of the Surkhan Darya province.[8] But this area is particularly eminent for its distinct position in prehistory and history (especially Bronze Age, Early Iron Age and Kushan period), long distance contacts (connection to Bactra via Termez and to Sogdian centres via Iron Gate) and last but not least for its marginal position in research interests especially in recent times.
As part of this project a preliminary testing of satellite imagery of given region was undertaken[9] and substantial amount of spatial archaeological data was collected by both authors in September 2009 (see below).
3. Practical methodology comprises two parts:
1) Collection of data: a) from the satellite images (Google Earth, Corona)
and b) during the terrain campaigns (mapping of sites, their documentation, and collection of dating material).
2) Processing and evaluation: in Geographical Information Systems (GIS), (relationship of the sites to the landscape in order to detect especially the time-space dynamics, connections to the cardinal landscape features such as the irrigation systems, landmarks, communications etc.).
Before the terrain campaign there is a phase of GIS completing and integrating of the digital data concerning the sites locations obtained from satellite imagery, historic maps, previous campaigns and publications and plotting them against the digital elevation model (DEM) of the area.
Digital terrain models offer the insights to the topography and terrain characteristic of the investigated area and are crucial for the purposes of the landscape projects. At the meantime we use the freely distributed DEM created from the stereo pairs of ASTER satellite imagery (http://www.gdem.aster.ersdac.or.jp/).[10]
This working DEM is meant to be replaced in future by more detailed model created from CORONA satellite imagery. CORONA data can produce unbiased, high-resolution DEM data which may be valuable for researchers working in countries where topographic data is difficult to obtain. This source is particularly useful also because of its historic validity and
information potential of surveying the landscape without the substantial modifications. DEM from CORONA is also generated from a stereo-pair of images acquired with nadir and backwards angles over the same area only it has to be done by user himself as they are not produced commercially. For this purpose a set of tight points is acquired which is meant to be completed in following terrain campaign (2010).
As the former spy satellite imagery the CORONA images have substantial value especially for the sophisticated surface archaeological prospection with the high accuracy and historic validity. As
such it was referred to in many previous projects.[11] In combination of other satellite data[12]
it offers a powerful tool for investigation of the historic landscape in remote areas. Other satellite imagery media we are working with are especially Google Earth (with SRTM DEM) and Landsat 5 and 7.
The basic idea of the project’s terrain part is focused on the processing and evaluation of the data completed in the first phase and it intends to investigate the sites from their spatial and chronological aspect. The aim of the terrain survey is to complete the documentation of sites and to integrate the sites and knowledge about their chronology, structure and hierarchy and to integrate it to the database.
The documentation of sites aims to describe the sites in a detail and obtain their detailed topographical plans, not only for the project purposes but also for sake of the documentation of their state of preservation. By this enterprise an effort is made to obtain the plans with minimum requirements for the technical equipment, which is difficult to handle over long distances. Our only documentation tools were the kinematic GPS and cameras. With GPS, besides the recording of the site’s location (coordinates), programmes of continual point collections were run in order to obtain a cloud of point with x, y, z coordinates. They were subsequently processed in GIS and 3D plans of the sites were created which were then associated with DEM of the study area. Another option for the detailed documentation of sites is the method of photogrammetry. It comprises the series of images in even distances from the site; a set of at least four shots from each side. After a post processing (this is done in collaboration with GEO.cz company) an exact 3D model of a site is acquired which can be then draped over with the original photo. This method is particularly useful not only because it substantially saves time in terrain, but also because its flexibility in documentation the
terrain relicts, architectural monuments and also the sunken features (all in three dimensions).
The additional data about the site which were observed in terrain (including the information from the locals) were filed into the prepared forms and after they were integrated to the database. Also where possible a chronological material (especially the ceramics) was collected on a site and data of its chronology was filed as well.
4. Archaeological mapping of Sherabad district – season 2009
The substantial goals of the project in this season were as follows: (1) evaluation of CORONA imagery and Google Earth software as tools for archaeological survey and for creation of archaeological maps in the environs of semiarid steppe areas as well as in agriculturally intensively exploited lands. The data obtained from the imagery analyses were supposed to be used for (2) evaluation of human exploitation and population of the area during the Prehistory and Early Medieval period. We aimed to map the settlement zones and to get data for the reconstruction of the natural resources and subsistence strategies, related to the environment, political systems and centres of power in the individual periods.
In the intentions of the project we proceeded as follows:
4.1 Preparatory stage
From the online offered database of CORONA imagery were selected and obtained two sets of images, covering our area of interest (Sherabad oasis) and taken in different periods of time (60s and 70s of 20th c.). We analysed also other images freely available online (ASTER, LANDSAT 5 and 7 with low resolution and SRTM data sets for creation of simple DEM (digital elevation model). These data, together with information from preliminary survey in 2008, were integrated into a simple geodatabase, which was then filled in with the data gained by means of search in older (mostly Soviet) scientific literature. Many pieces of information were supposed to be verified, specified and supplemented during the field survey. In the middle of August L. Stančo and A. Danielisová attended to training of field photogrammetry carried out by geodetic company Geo.cz[13], which aimed its effort to cooperation with archaeologists. This progressive method of cocumentation of archaeological sites was then tested in Uzbekistan (see below).
4.2 Field survey
The expedition itself lasted form 26th of August to 10th of September. Originally planned time span (a week longer) was shortened due to the bureaucratic obstructions with our visa. The changes of flights results in higher expenses and reduction in number of participants of the expedition. The field survey was usually biphasic with morning and afternoon parts. A. Danielisová, L. Stančo, A. Shaydullaev and in single case also Sh. Shaydullaev, dean of the Historic Faculty of Termez State University, took part in the survey itself, while M. Odler and P. Belaňová, students of archaeology from Prague, were engaged in documentation of the collected material in the base and participated on the field work only
occasionally.
In the field we spent just eight days. While lacking a detailed map of the region (a map with a scale of 1:50.000 or less) we navigated ourselves to detected positions by use of printouts of the satellite imagery. During this short period of time we examined almost forty places, located predominantly in flat agricultural land, however partly also in piedmont dry steppe areas to the north of the town of Sherabad. More then 95% turned to be of the
anthropogenic origin. Such sites we documented both by drawing and GPS measurements.[14] Selected sites – suitable from the morphological point of view – we documented also photogrammetrically. This method proved to be most suitable, regarding its effectivity; it comprised mostly only taking pictures from four or six angles, and there was possible to create a 3D model of the majority of the surface without the top (aerial orthographic) view. We intend to pay attention to this issue in a special study.
All the sites were explored also visually and relevant archaeological material, (predominantly the pottery fragments), was collected form the surface and documented photographically and by drawings. Absolute dating of the ceramic material was assigned by Sh.
Shaydullaev. All the continuously collected data – topographical, morphological and other were filled into the database.
Besides the mapping of the previously detected sites during the field survey we examined a rare archaeological structure - a remains of vaulted water reservoir, so-called sardoba, as far as we know the first building of this type south of the Hissar mountains. Unfortunately we miss any well-datable material or other chronological indication from this exceptional building itself and we suppose its medieval origin only as an analogy to the
situation in Sogdiana. The ruin was not detected primarily in the satellite image, although it is possible to find it there as well, but we were told about it and shown by Sh. Shaydullaev, who found it earlier during his own survey. We would like to engage in the detail examination of the building in the next season.
Analogically to the season 2008 we paid selective attention to newly detected locations in the piedmont steppes, which we consider to be traces of temporary / seasonal nomad campsites with yurts. Even if we have considerable amount of ceramic material from these sites, lack of corresponding parallels prevents us from dating it precisely. Thus the dating to late medieval and early modern times is determined just by process of elimination and should become more precise in the future.
4.3 Further processing of the results
After comeback from the expedition we proceeded with the completion of the database and processed our spatial data with ArcGIS and further sorted documentation of ceramic material. Overview of a distribution of the sites is given below in map.
5. Overview of acquired data
The basic results of the survey in seasons 2008 and 2009 are summarized in the following table. Several sites are located outside of the present-day Sherabad district, most of those were not surveyed yet by our team but they form in any case integral components of historical landscape of Sherabad oasis in broader meaning (nos. 041, 042, 043, 044, 074, 075, 077, 078, 079, 080 located in Kizirik District). In similar way we plan to include sites in western part of Bandikhan district in the future. The table represents considerably shortened version of our catalogue and database of the sites, which will be published fully after the completion of the survey. Many important points are omitted here, such as exact size, exact coordinates, and discussion with the information published elsewhere, topographical plans, 3D models and above all ceramic material, which represents the basis for chronology. All this data will be included in a final publication along with a spatial analysis and a set of maps, showing different aspects of the issue. Bibliography is likewise far from to be complete and comprehensive in this table, we mention only the primary or otherwise more important literature; the complete bibliography we prepare for the final publication. Only those sites are mentioned in the table, which were detected from the satellite images by us and later verified (not yet in several cases) or being detected by the other way and surveyed by our team in the field. We do not include the sites published elsewhere and not verified by ourselves, which is the case especially of some settlements in the piedmont stream valleys. The field excavated indicates whether the site was a subject for the excavation or not. The field surveyed refers exclusively to our own (mostly non-destructive) work. The reason for the exact coordinates are omitted here is conditioned by danger of illicit activities. We prefer to publish this data only after an agreement with Uzbek authorities responsible for the conservation.
code |
Rtveladze Stride |
name of site |
localisation |
topography |
description |
preservation |
distortions |
excavated |
dating |
bibliography |
Surveyed |
|
001 |
B-33 Uz-SD-155 |
Jandavlattepa |
Western |
flat |
Large |
high |
Modern |
yes |
Early |
Preliminary
Excavation |
2002-2006 |
|
002 |
--- |
Boshtepa |
3.2 km SEE form the site of Jandavlattepa across the Sherabad river, 3.2 km southwards from the |
flat |
compact |
high |
concrete |
no |
3rd |
- |
02/09/2009 |
|
003 |
--- |
Koshtepa I |
4 km SEE from the site of Jandavlattepa across the Sherabad river |
flat |
compact |
high |
no |
no |
? |
- |
02/09/2009 |
|
004 |
B-15 Uz-SD-162 |
Kulug-Shakhtepa |
300 m south from the village |
flat |
Compact |
high |
no |
no |
Kushan |
Rtveladze |
17/09/2008 |
|
005 |
B-23 |
Aktepa |
2,5 km south from the village |
flat |
Rectangular |
high, |
two |
no |
3rd |
Rtveladze |
30/08/2009 |
|
006 |
--- |
no name (Aktepa south) |
30 m south from the site no. 005, 2.5 km south from the village of Navbog |
flat |
low |
poor |
used |
no |
Bronze |
--- |
30/08/2009 |
|
007 |
--- |
Koshtepa II |
4.4 km SEE from the site of Jandavlattepa across the Sherabad river, close |
flat |
compact |
high |
upper |
no |
4th |
--- |
02/09/2009 |
|
008 |
B-35 |
Batyrabadtepa |
1.2 km westwards from the village of Chukurkul |
flat |
upper |
high |
min. |
yes |
Kushan |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
30/08/2009 |
|
009 |
|
No name |
NE |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
no |
? |
Rtveladze |
Seen |
|
010 |
B-32 Uz-SD-150 |
Kattatepa, |
NE |
flat |
compact |
high |
ravine |
no |
3rd |
Rtveladze |
29/08/2009 |
|
011 |
B-35 |
Kattatepa, the |
NE |
flat |
Low |
moderate |
no |
no |
3rd |
Rtveladze |
29/08/2009 |
|
012 |
Uz-SD-159 |
? (Stride: Katta Tepe) |
2.8 km W from the village |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
Rtveladze –Khakimov 1973 pp.14-16; Rtveladze 1974, p.78. |
Not |
|
013 |
--- |
no |
1 km SE from the village |
flat |
Low |
Poor |
Devastated |
no |
Kushan |
--- |
18/09/2008 |
|
014[1] |
--- |
no |
750 m SE from the village |
flat |
Compact |
Low |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
18/09/2008 |
|
015 |
--- |
? |
300 m W from the village |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
016 |
B-37 Uz-SD-236 |
Shortepa ? |
close |
flat |
compact |
high |
recent |
no |
4th |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
04/09/2009 |
|
017 |
--- |
no name |
village of Yange, eastern separate part of the village of Gorin (Gurin) |
lowlands |
compact |
high |
no |
no |
2nd |
--- |
31/8/2009 |
|
018 |
Uz-SD-153 |
Gilyambobtepa |
350 m S from the village |
irrigated |
compact |
high |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
31/09/2009 |
|
019 |
B-31 Uz-SD-151 |
Gorintepa (Rtveladze; |
central |
flat |
compact |
moderate |
covered |
no |
End |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
31/08/2009 |
|
020 |
B-28 Uz-SD-156 |
Dombratepa |
central |
flat |
High |
high |
Several |
no |
Kushan |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
17/09/2008 |
|
021 |
B-29 Uz-SD-234 |
Koshtepa |
E |
flat |
Low |
moderate |
Ploughing |
yes |
Kushan |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
17/09/2008 |
|
022 |
--- |
Taushkantepa |
2 km S from the village |
lowlands |
relatively |
high |
no |
no |
Kushan |
--- |
01/09/2009 |
|
023 |
--- |
Tashlaktepa |
0.6 km S the village of Navbog, 1 k W from the village of Kulugsha |
flat |
High |
high |
no |
no |
4th |
Annaev |
16/09/2008 04/09/2009 |
|
024 |
B-20 Uz-SD-230 |
Mazarati baba tepa |
southern |
flat |
irregular |
moderate |
recent |
no |
Kushan, |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
01/09/2009 |
|
025 |
B-24 Uz-SD-167 |
Talagantepa |
SE |
flat |
relatively |
high |
no |
no |
1st |
Rtveladze |
03/09/2009 |
|
026 |
--- |
Yalangoyog ota tepa |
N |
lowlands |
low |
high |
tomb |
no |
Achaemenid |
Annaev |
01/09/2009 |
|
027 |
B-30 Uz-SD-149 |
Babatepa (the main tepa) |
In |
flat |
High |
high |
tomb |
no |
Kushan, |
Rtveladze-Khakimov |
17/09/2008 06/09/2009 |
|
028 |
B-30 Uz-SD-149a |
no name |
130 m W from the site of Babatepa |
flat |
High |
Moderate |
Fully excavated 1980-82, |
yes |
Late |
Nemtseva 1989 |
17/09/2008 06/09/2009 |
|
029 |
B-30 Uz-SD-149b |
Chopantepa |
150 m SW from the site of Babatepa |
flat |
Flat |
moderate |
Fully excavated 1980-82, |
yes |
Late |
Nemtseva 1989 |
17/09/2008 |
|
030 |
--- |
no name |
350 m SWW from the site of Babatepa |
flat |
High |
high |
No |
no |
Late |
Nemtseva 1989 |
17/09/2008 |
|
031 |
--- |
no name |
250 m W from the site of Babatepa |
flat |
Low |
poor |
Several |
no |
? |
Nemtseva 1989 |
17/09/2008 |
|
032 |
B-13 Uz-SD-228 |
Talashkantepa II (eastern |
600 m E from the village |
flat |
Almost |
high |
Small |
yes |
Greco-Bactrian, |
Rtveladze 1974, pp.74-75 |
16/10/2005 |
|
033 |
Uz-SD-148 |
no name |
in |
rectangular |
moderate |
modern |
no |
2nd
4th |
Rtveladze - Khakimov 1973, |
30/08/2009 |
|
|
034 |
B-25 Uz-SD-154 |
Dabilkurgan |
Western |
Deep |
Large |
high |
Modern |
yes |
Kushan, |
Rtveladze - Rtveladze 1974, pp.76-77 |
16/09/2008 |
|
035 |
B-17 Uz-SD-229 |
Cholpan Ata |
500 m SW from the village |
flat |
Compact |
poor |
All |
1973 |
Kushan |
Rtveladze 1973, pp.17-18;
Pidaev |
16/09/2009 |
|
036 |
B-18 Uz-SD-146 |
Anzhirtepa |
500 m SW from the village |
flat |
Small |
low |
Eroded |
no |
|
Rtveladze 1973, Rtveladze 1974, p.76 |
16/09/2009 |
|
037 |
B-36 Uz-SD-143 |
(Rtveladze; |
2.5 km E from the village |
flat |
|
|
|
|
|
Rtveladze 1974, p.78 |
Not |
|
038 |
--- |
? |
2 km W from the village |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
039 |
--- |
? |
1.7 km W from the village |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
040 |
B-39, Uz-SD-144 |
Shortepa |
N |
flat |
relatively |
high |
no |
no |
Kushan |
Rtveladze –Khakimov 1973 p.22; Rtveladze 1974, p.78 |
04/09/2009 |
|
041 |
--- |
? |
8.5 km SE from Jandavlattepa; 3.3 |
flat |
|
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
042 |
--- |
? |
8.8 km SE from Jandavlattepa; 3.3 |
flat |
|
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
043 |
--- |
? |
10.6 km SSE from Jandavlattepa; 3.8 km E from Karasu river bed |
flat |
|
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
044 |
--- |
? |
11 km SSE from Jandavlattepa; 3 |
flat |
|
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
045 |
B-19 Uz-SD-145 |
Akkurgan |
500 m S from the village |
irrigated |
Compact |
moderate |
|
1973 |
Kushan |
Nekrasova |
01/09/2009 |
|
048 |
--- |
? |
300 m N from the E part of the village |
flat |
Flat |
moderate |
Margins |
no |
? |
--- |
Seen |
|
049 |
(Rtveladze: part of Kattatepa, “zamok”[2] |
Olleyortepa |
SE |
flat |
Ruins |
high |
no |
no |
12th |
30/08/2009 |
|
|
050 |
--- |
no name (Aktepa east) |
east |
flat |
flat, |
poor |
ploughed |
no |
? |
--- |
30/08/2009 |
|
051 |
--- |
no |
1 km SSW from the village |
flat |
Small |
? |
? |
? |
? |
---- |
Seen |
|
052 |
Uz-SD-158 |
Khosiyattepa[3] |
Immediately |
flat |
long |
high |
large |
yes |
? |
Annaev |
01/09/2009 |
|
053 |
--- |
Tigrmantepa |
S |
lowlands |
Ruin; |
high |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
01/09/2009 |
|
054 |
B-21 Uz-SD-170 |
Anjirtepa ? (Rtveladze – Khakimov: No name; Pidaev; Annaev; Stride: Khodzha Kija[4]) |
Western |
flat |
relatively |
high |
no |
no |
4th |
Rtveladze |
01/09/2009 |
|
055 |
B-14 Uz-SD-171 |
Khalinchaktepa |
Eastern |
flat |
compact |
high |
concrete |
no |
3rd |
Rtveladze –Khakimov 1973, pp. 75-76; |
02/09/2009 |
|
056 |
B-27 Uz-SD-164 |
Maydankurgan |
E |
mountainous |
consists |
moderate |
recent |
no |
Late |
Rtveladze – Khakimov 1973, |
03/09/2009 |
|
057 |
B-26 Uz-SD-233 |
Khush-Vakttepa |
in |
hilly |
compact |
poor |
dug |
no |
Kushan, |
Rtveladze 1974, p.77 |
03/09/2009 |
|
058 |
B-22 Uz-SD-232 |
Anzhirtepa |
Central |
flat |
compact |
poor |
dug |
no |
3rd |
Rtveladze 1974, p.76 |
04/09/2009 |
|
060 |
--- |
No name |
100 m W from the site of Babatepa |
flat |
Low |
poor |
recently |
no |
Kushan |
--- |
06/09/2009 |
|
061 |
--- |
No name |
65 m W from the site of Babatepa across the water chanel |
flat |
Low |
poor |
recently |
no |
? |
--- |
17/09/2008 06/09/2009 |
|
062 |
--- |
No name |
5.3 km E from the village |
dry |
Camp |
moderate |
no |
no |
probably |
--- |
05/09/2009 |
|
063 |
B-16
Uz-SD-168
|
Chalakurgan (Stride: Tashlak Tepe) |
W |
square |
moderate |
recently |
yes |
Kushan |
Rtveladze – Khakimov 1973, |
06/09/2009 |
|
|
064 |
--- |
No name |
7.1 km NEE from the village |
dry |
small |
moderate |
three |
no |
medieval |
--- |
05/09/2009 |
|
065 |
B-12 Uz-SD-227 |
Talashkantepa I |
200 m E from the village |
flat |
Low |
moderate |
Fully |
yes |
Early |
Sagdullaev – Khakimov, 1976;
Shaydullaev |
16/10/2005 |
|
066 |
|
Tilla-Bulaq |
1 km E form the village |
dry |
|
high |
no |
Yes |
Bronze |
Kaniuth |
14/09/2008 03/09/2009 |
|
067 |
|
Ara-Bulaq |
750 |
dry |
|
high |
no |
yes |
Bronze |
Kaniuth |
03/09/2009 |
|
068 |
Uz-SD-628 |
Tavka |
On |
dry |
Small |
high |
ruined |
yes |
Early |
Rakhmanov |
02/10/2005 |
|
069 |
Uz-SD-366 |
Jarkutan |
1.7 km SW from the village |
Slightly |
Ca |
low |
Margins |
yes |
Late |
Askarov – Shirinov 1989; |
10/2002 |
|
070 |
Uz-SD-317 |
Bustan |
400 m E from the village |
Slightly |
Large |
Low |
Margins |
|
Late |
Avanessova – Lyonnet 1995 |
Not |
|
071 |
--- |
? |
2 km E from the village |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
072 |
B-13 |
Talashkantepa II (western mound) |
500 m E from the village |
flat |
High |
high |
no |
yes |
Kushan |
--- |
16/10/2005 |
|
073 |
--- |
No name |
500 m S from the village |
flat |
Low |
moderate |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
17/09/2008 |
|
074 |
--- |
? |
300 m S from the Zang channel, 2.3 km W from the Khaudag range |
flat |
Square |
high |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
075 |
--- |
? |
3.3 km N from the Zang channel, 1.5 km W from the Khaudag range |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
077 |
--- |
? |
3.2 km N from the Zang channel, 2.2 km W from the Khaudag range |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
078 |
--- |
? |
3 km N from the Zang channel, 2.2 km W from the Khaudag range |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
079 |
--- |
? |
W |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
080 |
--- |
? |
1 km NE from the village |
flat |
? |
? |
? |
? |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
081 |
--- |
No name |
In |
dry |
Camp site, number of |
High |
No |
No |
Early |
Stančo |
15/09/2008 |
|
082 |
--- |
No name |
Above |
dry |
Camp site,, number of |
high |
no |
no |
Early |
Stančo |
15/09/2008 |
|
083 |
--- |
No name |
5 km N from the vilage of Maydan |
dry |
Camp site,, number of |
? |
Partly |
no |
Early |
--- |
Not |
|
084 |
--- |
No name |
500 m W from the village |
flat |
Small compact mound |
poor |
Site |
yes |
Ancient |
Urbanová |
09/2006 |
|
085 |
--- |
Saitabad |
N |
flat |
No visible traces (pottery |
moderate |
Site |
yes |
Bronze |
--- |
09/2005 |
|
086 |
--- |
Saitabad |
E |
flat |
Remains of single medieval |
moderate |
Gradually |
no |
Medieval? |
--- |
10/2002 09/2006 |
|
087 |
--- |
Saitabad |
SE |
River |
Terrace high above the river |
moderate |
Gradually |
no |
Kushan |
--- |
10/2002 09/2006 |
|
088 |
--- |
? |
5.5 km SE from the site of Jandavlattepa |
flat |
Small compact mound |
high |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
089 |
--- |
? |
500 m NE from Taushkantepa |
flat |
Small oval mound |
? |
no |
no |
? |
--- |
Not |
|
090 |
Kainuth |
Khontepa |
2 km E from the village |
Small |
Natural oval mound |
high |
no |
no |
Ancient |
--- |
Not |
|
091 |
Uz-SD-020
Kainuth |
Qirk-qiz (Stride: X – Goz) |
SE |
hilly |
Natural rocky promontory and |
high |
no |
no |
Kushan, |
--- |
30/09/2003 16/09/2008 |
|
092 |
Kainuth |
Goz |
In |
hilly |
No visible traces, |
? |
? |
no |
Bronze |
Annaev |
30/09/2003 16/09/2008 |
|
093 |
--- |
No name |
150 m SE from the village |
dry |
Camp site, number of |
Moderate |
Dusty |
No |
Early |
--- |
18/09/2008 |
The table shows, even without thorough analysis, several interesting points. Pidaev (1978) enumerates in Sherabad oasis 23 sites, Rtveladze and Khakimov (1973) describe separately 24 and Rtveladze alone (1974) 28 sites (some other <i>tepas</i> mentions with this group), while Annaev (1988) refers to 32 archaeological sites. Stride's catalogue (2005) using GIS and all previous publications comprises 61 archaeological sites already, 18 of which is situated in piedmonts and 43 in the irrigated lowlands. In our preliminary list, given above in the table 93 archaeological sites is listed (13 in piedmonts, 80 in the lowlands). We did not include some 30 locations, which were detected but not surveyed yet. We hope to fill up this gap up this season. Besides it several confusions should by clarified, although the identification with the previous knowledge is for us secondary. We prefer to collect and to analyse a fresh data and to use the information from older publications (many times without any prove concerning absolute chronology) just in inevitable cases (good examples represent the sites, which are no longer existing / visible, such as Pachmaktepa).
6. Remarks to the data in GIS
GIS is a set of tools which enables the manipulation, selection or searching, transformation, displaying and analyses of the spatial (archaeological or environmental) data (distribution of sites, artefacts, landscape) with additional possibility of combination of the information, variables etc. and creation of various models (of settlement patterns, relation of historic populations to the landscape etc.).
The point map of sites collected in terrain is then processed in GIS in order to detect the landscape dynamics of settlements and their spatial patterning. This part of a project is still in progress as we are still waiting for the more detailed DEM. But in a meantime the preliminary results show, that the tepa sites from the lowlands as the only visual landmarks in a flat terrain are located in relation to the network of irrigation channels (which is logical), but also in order to maintain the visual connection with each other and in chain also with the main river stream of Sherabadarya and mountain crest in the north.
Nomadic camps at the other side (but we have the evidence of just a few at the moment) show the distinct linking to the larger water streams within the hilly area. As they were often salty, this linkage meant probably the major communication axis which tended to be maintained also by the visual control from the camp site. The drinkable water was being then acquired from the seasonal water streams, enclosing the site from the other side, forming thus a slightly elevated area with a good viewing potential and access to the communication route and water. This achievement can serve especially for the prediction of sites with similar terrain characteristic, because those, unlike the tepa sites, are not easily detectable from the satellite imagery analysis for their not distinct surface features. Terrain campaigns are also valuable for the identification of features which cannot be seen from the satellites. This includes, beside the temporary settlements, especially the water sources. By prospection in previous years (Stančo 2009) some of those structures were indentified and connected to the image about the landscape.
7. Future perspectives
For the season 2010 we plan to continue in collecting of spatial and chronological data in the field and to complete the geodatabase. As a next step we prepare a very detailed prospection of selected polygons within the Sherabad district by surface survey. Besides we intend to study the irrigation systems more thoroughly and to try to establish a basic map of the placement of water channels in the lowlands and of their relationship to the spatial distribution of the settlements.
Bibliography:
Altmaier, A. – Kany, Ch. 2002: Digital surface model generation from CORONA satellite images. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry & Remote Sensing 56, pp. 221–235.
Annaev, T. 1988: Rannesrednevekoviye poseleniya severnogo Tokharistana. Tashkent.
Arshavskaja, Z. A. – Rtveladze, E. V. – Khakimov, Z. A. 1982: Srednevekovye pamjatniki Surkhandari, Tashkent.
Askarov, A. – Shirinov, T. 1989: Drevnebaktriyskiy khram ognia v yuzhnom Uzbekistane. In: Gradostraitelstvo i architektura, Tashkent, pp. 7-24.
Avanessova, N. A. – Lyonnet, B. 1995: Bustan VI, une nécropole de l'âge du Bronze dans l'ancienne Bactriane (Ouzbékistan méridional): témoignages de cultes du feu. Arts asiatiques 50, pp. 31-46.
Casana, J. – Cothren, J. 2008: Stereo analysis, DEM extraction and orthorectification of CORONA satellite imagery: archaeological applications from the Near
East. Antiquity 82, pp. 732–749.
Ergeshov, Sh 1974: Landshafty Surkhandar’inskoy oblasti. Tashkent.
Gheyle, W. – Trommelmans, R. – Boureois, J. – Goossens, R. – Bourgeois, I. – De Wulf, A. – Willems, T. 2003: Evaluating CORONA : A case study in the Altai Republic (South
Siberia). Antiquity 77, pp. 391 – 403.
Goossens, R. – De Wulf, A. – Bourgeois, J. – Gheyle, W. – Willems, T. 2006: Satellite imagery and archaeology: the example of CORONA in the Altai Mountains. Journal of
Archaeological Science 33, pp. 745 – 755.
Huff, D. 1997: Deutsch-Uzbek Ausgrabungen auf dem Džandaulattepe und in Džarkutan, Süduzbekistan, 1993-1995. Mitteilungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie, Ethnologie und Urgeschichte, 18, pp. 83-95.
Huff, D. – Shaydullaev, Sh. 2000: Nekatoriye rezultaty rabot uzbecko-germanskoy ekspedicii na gorodishche Jarkutan. IMKU 30, pp. 19-26.
Jurkevich, E.A. 1965: Gorodishche kushanskogo vremeni na teritorii Severnoy Baktrii. SA 4.
Kaniuth, K., Tilla Bulak 2007 - Vorbericht zur ersten Kampagne, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 39, 2007, pp. 31-59.
Kaniuth, K. – Herles, M., und Shejko, K., Tilla Bulak 2008 - Vorbericht zur zweiten Kampagne. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 41, 2009
Kaniuth, K. 2010: Tilla Bulak 2009. Vorbericht über die dritte Kampagne. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 42, in print.
Karmysheva, B. Kh. 1976: Ocherki etnicheskoy istorii juzhnych rayonov Tadzhikistana i Uzbekistana. Moskva.
Koshelenko G., A. – Sarianidi, V. I. 1985: Srenyaya Aziya v rannem zheleznom veke. In: Drevneyshie gosudarstva Kavkaza i Sredney Azii. Ed. Koshelenko G., A. Moskva, pp 178-202.
Mantellini, S. – Rondelli, B. 2004: Methods and Perspectives for Ancient Settlement Studies in the Middle Zeravshan Valley. The Silk Road Newsletter 2(2). Retrieved March
20, 2009 from <http://www.silk-road.com/newsletter/vol2num2/Zeravshan.html
>
Mantellini, S. – Rondelli, B. – Stride, S. 2008: Analytical Approach for Representing the Water Landscape Evolution in Samarkand Oasis (Uzbekistan). Retrieved March 20, 2009 from <http://www.scribd.com/doc/7364675/Mantellini-Rondelli-Stride-CAA2008>
Masson, V. M. 1976: Kushanskie poseleniya i kushanskaya arkheologiya. In: Baktriyskiye drevnosti, pp. 3-17.
Nekrasova, E. G. 1976: Drevnjaja keramika Sherabadskogo oazisa (Po materialam shurfovok na melkikh poseleniyakh), In: Baktriyskie drevnosti, pp. 76-83.
Nemtseva, N. B. 1989: Rannesrednevekovaya usad’ba i zamok u gorodishcha Babatepe na yuge Uzbekistana, in: Antichnye i rannesrednevekovie drevnosti yuzhnogo Uzbekistana, pp. 132-162.
Pidaev, Sh. 1974: Materialy k izucheniyu drevnikh pamyatnikov Severnoy Baktrii. In: Drevnyaya Baktria, pp. 32-42.
Pidaev, Sh. 1978: Poseleniya kushanskogo vremeni severnoy Baktrii. Tashkent.
Pilipko, V.I. 1985: Poseleniya severo-zapadnoy Baktrii. Ashchabad.
Rakhmanov, Sh. A. 2001: Tavka. Tashkent.
Rtveladze, E.V. 1974: Razvyedochnoe izuchenie Baktriyskykh pamyatnikov na yuge Uzbekistana. In: Drevnyaya Baktriya, pp. 74-85.
Rtveladze, E.V. 1976: Novye drevnebaktriyskie pamyatniki na yuge Uzbekistana. In: Baktriyskiye drevnosti, pp. 93-103.
Rtveladze, E.V. – Khakimov, Z.E. 1973: Marshrutnye issledovaniya pamyatnikov severnoy Baktrii. In: Iz istorii antichnoy kul´tury Uzbekistana. Tashkent, pp. 10-34.
Sagdullaev, T. – Khakimov, Z. E. 1976: Raskopki drevnebaktriyskogo poseleniya Talashkan-Tepe I, In: Baktriyskiye drevnosti, pp. 13-24.
Sedov, A.V. 1987: Kobadian na paroge rannego srednevekovya. Moskva.
Stančo, L. 2009: The activities in Uzbekistan in the 2008 season: testing the Google Earth programme as a tool for archaeological prospecting. Studia Hercynia XIII, pp. 115-122, Pls. 60-62.
Stawiski, B.A. 1986: La Bactriane sous les Kushans. Paris.
Stride S. 2005: La Géographie Archéologique de la Province du Surkhan Darya (Bactriane du Nord, Ouzbékistan du Sud). University of Paris.
Shaydullaev, Sh. 2000: Severnaja Baktriya v epokhu rannego
zheleznogo veka. Tashkent.
Shaydullaev, Sh. 2002: Untersuchungen zur frühen Eisenzeit in Nordbaktrien. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 34, pp. 243-339.
Shaydullaev, Sh. 2009: Etapi vozniknoveniya i razvitiya gosudarstvennosti na territorii Uzbekistana (na primere Baktrii), avtoreferat dissertacii na soiskanie uchenoy stepeni doktore nauk. Samarkand.
Urbanová, K. 2010: Excavations in Sector 30: Preliminary research in the nearby environs of Jandavlattepa, In: Jandvattepa I. The Excavation Report for Seasons 2002-2006. In print.
[1] Surface search for the traces of human activities negative but they cannot be excluded.
[2] Rtveladze and Khakimov describe two similar mounds in this place, probably only one survived.
[3] Annaev speaks of several small tepas around Khosiattepa, which are very difficult to recognize or even to find: Nagaratepa and some no-name mounds, cf. Annaev 1988, pp. 13-14.
[4] Identification uncertain; Pidaev was probably right, when identified Khojakiya with Rtveladze's B-21, while Annaev speaks of B-19 by mistake.
[5] Map of K. Kaniuth's survey around Pashkhurt available online from URL:
<http://www.tilla-bulak.de/E_Ausgrabung_Survey.html> (15/07/2010). There are several other sites mentioned without any detail which we did not checked yet and therefore not included them in this table.
[1] Institute
of Archaeology, Czech Academy of Sciences in Prague.
[2] Institute for Classical Archaeology, Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague.
[3] Tashkent State University in Tashkent.
[4] The project was in 2009 kindly supported and fully financed by internal grant of the Faculty of Arts of the Charles University in Prague no. 224119 "Archaeological map of Sherabad river basin: development of a settlement structure in ancient Bactria".
[5] The research was carried out as a joint project of the Institute for Classical Archaeology, Charles
University in Prague and the Archaeological Institute of Academy of the Sciences, Samarqand. The project was supported by grants of the Grant Agency of Charles University in Prague Nos.
292/2001/A-HN/FF and 473/2004-2006. See preliminary excavation reports accessible online from http://arcis.ff.cuni.cz/jandavlattepa-2006-preliminary-excavation-report (change for 2005 or for the other season in URL or choose from the menu on the left). See also bibliography below.
[6] It means out of research from the point of view of mapping the Surkhandarya province as a whole or its particular districts at least. Despite this, several interesting projects concerning particular sites and their environs of the Sherabad district are currently in progress or have recently been finished, especially of the Bronze Age (Jarkutan, Tilla Bulak) cf. Huff 1997; Huff – Shaydullaev 2000; Kaniuth 2007; Kaniuth – Herles – Sejko 2008.
[7] E.g. Samarkand oasis, cf. Mantellini – Rondelli 2004; Mantellini – Rondelli – Stride 2008).
[8] The upper reaches of Surkhan river, cf. Stride 2005.
[9] See Stančo 2009.
[10] ASTER (Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection radiometer) is an optical sensor which has a broad spectral coverage and also a stereo capability which is essential for creating the digital terrain models (DEMs). Global DEMs derived from ASTER imagery (ASTER GDEM – Aster Global Digital Elevation Model) are produced by the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry in Japan together
with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The ASTER GDEM is generated from a stereo-pair of images acquired with nadir and backwards angles over the same area, covers land surfaces between 83°N and 83°S and is distributed in 1° by 1° tiles (app. 60 x 60 km). The spatial resolution of the data in GeoTIFF format is then 1 arc-second that means 30 m grid of elevation spots. It is geo referenced to the WGS84 geoid.
The elevation data were processed in pre-production, but at some places (especially in low altitudes or built up areas) the results vary and true accuracies are not entirely met. Therefore the producers refer to this project version 1 as to “experimental” or “research grade”.
However, such produced DEMs distributed free of charge provide a suitable basis for the investigation of the areas, where the usual cartographic products are not available or obtainable under substantial costs.
[11] Gheyle et al 2003; Goosens et al 2006; Altmaier – Kany 2002; Casana – Cothren 2008.
[12] In our case especially with imagery available recently from Google Earth, cf. Stančo 2009.
[13] We are very grateful to Mr. J. Šindelář for his helpful and constructive approach.
[14] The geodetic GPS device was provided by Termez State University.
- Pro psaní komentářů se musíte přihlásit
- 3789 x přečteno
- Verze pro tisk