Systematical Field Survey in Sherabad District, South Uzbekistan

Systematical Field Survey in Sherabad
District, South Uzbekistan

 

Petra Tušlová[1]

 

with pls. xxx

 

Abstract: The article discusses the results of a four weeks pilot project of systematic field survey in an area of Sherabad district, South Uzbekistan. Survey was conducted in order to detect new archaeological sites and to test the presence of flat scatters in the surroundings of the vertical settlement mounds visible in landscape relief. The project’s additional aim was to evaluate the suitability of systematic archaeological surface survey in the area of southern part of the province of Surkhan Darya.[2]

 

Key words: systematic field survey, satellite image analysis, ArcGIS, Central Asia

 

Introduction

 

In September 2010, new pilot project was conducted in Uzbekistan as an add-on initiative of four students of Classical Archaeology to the existing investigations of the Institute of Classical from the Charles University in Prague. The existing project in Sherabad District has since 2008 focused on the ground control of sites detected in aerial and satellite imagery and their reconnaissance (Stančo, 2009; Danielisová, Stančo, Shaydullaev, 2010).[3] The pilot project aimed to test the efficacy of the existing investigations through systematic field survey, and to assess the potential and suitability of field survey methodology for future investigations in the area. Several areas were targeted for research in advance on basis of Google Earth satellite images. The project was also made possible by the availability of Corona imagery and through the grant from the GeoEye Foundation. Investigations focused on the environs of the tepa - vertical deposits of ancient human habitation, rising distinctly in the landscape - and sought to document flat concentrations of archaeological material associated with them. During the investigation many of the fields surrounding the tepa turned out to be inappropriate for intensive survey due to dense vegetation cover, making the visibility null and passability difficult. Given these challenges and the limited time frame, we decided on nature-enforced sampling strategy of surveying only areas that offered easy passability and visibility not lower than 40 %.

 

Study Area

 

Sherabad oasis, located in the south-west of the Surkhan Darya province, consists of artificially irrigated lowlands, surrounded by semi-desert steppe and by mountain-range of Kugitangtau and Baysuntau on the northern and western part. Study area covers the irrigated lands under the mountains on both banks of the Sherabad Darya River. This landscape was dramatically changed during 1960’s and 1970’s when Soviet Land Development projects took place (Mantellini, Rondelli, Stride 2010, 3). Traditional landscape was heavily impacted by the introduction of mechanized agriculture, especially the levelling of the ground in order to create large and flat cotton fields. During these amelioration processes number of small archaeological sites were destroyed (Rondelli, Stride, 2011, 8). The amount of destroyed sites is hard to determine as the detailed Soviet topographic maps of the survey area - in resolution 1:10 00, 1: 25 000 - predating the massive amelioration, are not accessible. The results of The Middle Zeravshan project, operating in the area of Samarkand, shows that 40 % of local archaeological sites were destroyed in past 50 years (Rondelli, Tosi, 2006; Rondelli, Stride, 2011; Mantellini, Rondelli, Stride, 2009; Mantellini, Rondelli, Stride 2010; Stride, 2005).
Systematic field survey covered the area of five sq km in seventeen team-days of the project (figure 1). Surveyed area was in dependence on filed cover divided into two main regions and two smaller. The smaller ones were visited, surveyed, and according to number of overgrown fields evaluated as improper for further investigation. The two principal regions vice versa fulfilled the main requirements for the field survey since they were predominantly comprised of extensive fields with good surface visibility. First prime area of the interest consisted of circa three km radius around Kulug-Shakhtepa, a site located about six km south from the town of Sherabad. 1.5 sq km area was walked here, touching upon the sites of Khosiyattepa, Tigrmantepa, No-name tepa (listed under code 073; Stančo, 2009, 77) and Taushkantepa; first of the flat sites was discovered here (figure 2). The second extensively surveyed area started about six km east from Sherabad and continued in western and southern direction. It covered surroundings of Gorintepa, Gilyambobtepa, Shishtepa (so far marked under code 017; Stančo, 2009) and Ayritepa, overlaying 2.8 sq km in total. Three flat sites were identified in this area (figure 3). The remaining 0.3 sq km had been walked around Jandavlattepa, principal settlement of the Sherabad oasis from the Early Iron Age to the Late antiquity, investigated by the Czech expedition during years 2002 – 2006 (Abdullaev, Stančo 2003; Abdullaev, Stančo 2004; Abdullaev, Stančo 2005; Stančo 2006; Abdullaev, Stančo 2007).[4] Survey of its surroundings had been one of the main reasons for this field survey season. Unfortunately almost all of the adjacent fields were overgrown with mature cotton, allowing only a small area to be investigated. Very few pottery fragments were detected, containing no diagnostic pieces. No shards were visible in the circle of mudbrick walls, nor in the open pits at the edge of adjacent Saitabad village. Final 0.4 sq km were walked in the north-south direction from the sites of Boshtepa to Koshtepa I and II, partly covering the right bank of the River Sherabad Darya. In this area no pottery concentrations were recorded. 

 

Agricultural Conditions and Factors of Visibility

 

Study areas were chosen according to their proximity to tepa, their passability and visibility. First observations revealed that these conditions were best matched in the fields sown with grain. These were usually harvested during first summer months and lay waste during early autumn. Based on our observation, such fields comprised 30 to 40 % of all cultivated area. The second most common crop was cotton. The remaining fraction of fields was growing corn, sunflowers or rice, or was covered by dense pasture, or waterlogged due to ubiquitous water channels. 

In the suitable fields we distinguished several types of surface conditions: 1) Ploughed fields, with furrows up to 50 cm deep; 2) Harrowed fields, with dry lumps of clay spread on the surface; 3) “Gryadky” a description adopted from Russian, describes the following field conditions: earth is freshly piled up into parallel lines and separated by narrow channels, that are regularly irrigated; 4) the operational term “HDS” represents fallow gryadky, still keeping the form of furrows, but much flattened. It also describes the main characteristics based on very HARD and very DRY clay, with remains of STRAW on the surface; 5) Pasture with sparse vegetation.

In the first three cases the surface visibility was dominated by the range of 100 to 80 %, while in HDS surface conditions and in case of pasture usually it varied between 100 to 40 %, exceptionally falling down to 20 % due to straw or vegetation cover. The following table illustrates the extent of each land cover within the fields
walked in September.

 

SURFACE TYPE	HDS	Ploughed	Pasture	Harrowed	Gryadky
COVERED	47 %	23 %	20 %	7 %	3 %

 

Other factors affecting the surface visibility are aridity and soil moisture, which are particularly noticeable when the gryadky are irrigated.
Pottery fragments are easy to recognize on the ground when wet, while they “disappear” when coated with dust. Supposedly irrigation channels are also affecting pottery displacements, as we find many fragments cumulated at the final stage of the channels. Waterlogged condition of gryadky led frequently to their exclusion from the survey area, thus explaining small fraction of this land cover in the overall walked area.

Salt contained in the water of the Sherabad Darya, which was distributed during irrigation, presented an unexpected factor that affected ground visibility. When the water evaporated a thin layer of white soil crust covered the surface, obscuring both the soil and any potential artifacts. This effect was particularly noticeable in the area adjacent to Kulug-Shakhtepa.

Enclosures for domestic animals were another significant impediment to surface survey. Standing in the fields they often contained a layer of excrement and straw that was masking the ground, or there were guard dogs nearby not letting anybody to pass.

           

Satellite Imagery and Data Collecting

 

The project was not supplied by topographical maps; we were depended on satellite imagery only. For the orientation in terrain served archival high- resolution IKONOS imagery captured in year 2001, granted by The GeoEye Foundation in form of 500 sq km.[5] IKONOS, the world’s first high-resolution commercial satellite, was launched in 1999 providing the resolution of 0.82 m for panchromatic imagery and 3.2 m for multispectral imagery (blue, green, red, NIR = near-infrared).[6]

For a more recent aerial view of the study area Google Earth application was used. Satellite imagery available through this application dates to the end of 2007. The scenes provided by recent satellite imagery were contrasted with data captured by the Corona satellite, an American espionage tool operating in years 1960 – 1972.[7] Corona imagery is black and white only with a wide range of resolution varying between 140 m (the earliest imagery KH-1) and one to two meters (the latest KH-4A, KH-4B, KH-6). The use of Corona imagery for base map generation is limited due to significant shape distortion; it is nevertheless an excellent source for comparison of what landscape looked like 40 years ago (Parcak, 2009, 52-58).

During the field walking were data collected on a Trimble Juno SB device equipped with a GPS and running ArcPAD, mobile application of ArcGIS.[8] IKONOS satellite imagery served as base map, integrated GPS showed us constantly our position in terrain. Surveyed areas were entered into imagery in shape of polygon and numbered (see Methodology). For better orientation and additional back up tracklog and navigation points were kept by single GPS Garmin eTrex. Digital spatial records were accompanied by detailed paper forms containing information about each field. Both sources of data were further processed and combined in the project geodatabase back at the archaeological base.

 

Methodology

 

Field survey methodology and documentation is based on The Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project (TRAP) taking place in Bulgaria (Ross, Sobotková,Connor, Iliev, 2010; Sobotková, Ross, Nehrizov, Weissová, 2010; Ross, Sobotková, 2010; Ross, Sobotková, Burgers, 2009; Sobotková 2009).[9] 

In contrast with the TRAP project, we utilized only intensive field survey strategy, as the extensive or adverse terrain survey were not suited to the character of landscape and research aims of our pilot project (Sobotková, Ross, Nehrizov, Weissová, 2010, 58-61). Further, we changed percentage range for intensive survey from 50% (TRAP) to 40%. It enabled us to cover intensively more extensive area.  

The investigated fields were walked in regular intervals of 15 m between each participant; artifact densities were called out by the walkers also in 15 m intervals, forming record “cells” of 15 by 15 m. After five walked rows the walkers closed the “polygon” and bagged the finds. The polygons usually approximated a rectangle of 60 x 75 m (0.45 ha), i.e. four walkers by five rows. First we were waiting for one more local co-worker to join us, to create regular 75 x 75 m polygons in square shape, but we didn’t succeed in getting one. Despite lower number of participants we kept five straight rows to make faster progress on the field.

Amount of pottery fragments, rare architectural features, and a few pieces on non-contemporary glass find on the field within each polygon were marked into the paper forms. We also attempted to distinguished modern pottery scatter to determine the rate patterns of modern debris deposition and drift. Only diagnostic fragments, including bases, rims, and decorated pieces were marked by polygon of origin and collected for further investigation, the rest was just counted for statistics and left in place.

Collected pottery was processed at the base – drawn, photographed and analysed for fabric type, manufacture, proportions, etc. Classification and identification of the pottery was conducted by Dr Tokhtash Annaev from Termez University, who kindly went through the fragments and helped with their dating.

Further information collected about the investigated fields comprised degree of visibility, type of surface condition, supposed frequency of ploughing, waterlogging x dryness of the soil or the slope of the surveyed field. All the data referrers to the factors influencing amount of detected pottery fragments on the surface. We also attempted to mark quantity of stones presented on the fields. They are overall represented by very low number, which do not increase even in presence of the archaeological site.

 

 

 

 

Results of the field survey

 

Four new archaeological sites were discovered within surveyed area of 5 sq km. Their identification was simplified by very sparse background scatter on the fields. Actually, the study fields were mostly free of any material, both ancient (covering time line into 19^th century) and modern (20^th and 21^st century). The only exceptions were surroundings of tepa which contained light concentrations of shards, generally of various periods. Such very light concentrations reached up to maximum 350 m in surrounding of five investigated tepa. The number of fragments detected was getting lower as the distance from tepa increased.[10] In such cases we can classify the surface material as fallouts from tepa, and to connect its diffusion with agricultural activity.

Otherwise only outstanding pottery concentrations were detected. For the extraordinary amount of the material they are classified here as archaeological sites and closely describe in following summary. 

It is important to remember that the presented data refer to small investigated sample. The results can be different while applied to more extensive area.

 

ShFS10_01

Coordinates: latitude 37°37'34.63" N – longitude 67° 0'40.85" E[11]

Predominant period: 10^th – 12^th century.

The first registered pottery scatter starts about 200 meters NE/E from Kulug-Shakhtepa beyond dense cotton field (figure 2). The site is, except SE part, surrounded by modern village of Hurdzhak, which only encircled this area in last 50 years, as it is not present on Corona or IKONOS satellite imagery to such extent. The pottery scatter, which can be associated with the site, covers about 14 ha of open field. It supposedly continues under the recently built houses in the adjacent area, as local inhabitants told us of random finds in their gardens. One of the locals showed us almost intact vessel dated from 10^th to 13^th century and one clay whistle, which were find together in pit for water channel. Second information of a single pottery find came from over 500 m away from the first one, but no finds were available for consultation. 

Overall 513 ancient fragments and 107 modern ones were reported on surface of HDS field. Statistically it is represented by 44 pieces in one hectare. This is the site with the lowest amount of pottery fragments counted on the surface, but apparently modern houses cover part of the ancient settlement and do not enable drift of the pottery.

The area of this site featured a high amount of modern pottery, especially in the margins of the fields adjacent to the village. Fragmentation of the modern pottery was quite low, occasionally half or quart of the vessel was noted; dishes with typical cotton pattern or white porcelain were among the most frequent types. Ancient pottery was more fragmented. Both modern and ancient shards were very little worn. Architectural features were represented by 88 fragments, predominantly pieces of medieval flat bricks.

Majority of the dated material belongs to High Medieval Age (10^th – 13^th century AD), only a few date to Kushan period (1^st – 4^th century AD), Early Medieval Age (6^th – 7^th century AD) and to 17^th – 18^th century (see graph nr. 1). Similar chronology was noted in Kulug-Shakhtepa, which can be dated to Kushan period, High Medieval Age and to 17^th – 18^th century. Tigrmantepa, situated about 50 m NE from the surface scatter shows similar trend; it is dated to period from 5^th to 6^th century, and to High Medieval Age.[12]

This is only one “new” flat site, which shows chronological similarity with surrounding tepa. As a result is high probability of contemporaneity of the three sites, most likely in High Medieval Age.

Additional two test pits of dimensions 80 x 100 x 100 cm[13] were placed in two areas where the highest surface density was documented. Both showed high diversity of pottery types, which included mix of Kushan – High Middle Ages – 17^th and 18^th century fragments all the way through. 

 

ShFS10_02

Coordinates: latitude 37°41'57.18" N – longitude 67° 4'46.06" E

Predominant period: 17^th – 18^th century.

The site is located along southern part of the road leading from W to E in direction from Sherabad to Kumkurgan, about 120 m to the E after crossing the road in the way S from Gorintepa (figure 3, the NW concentration). After we walked the area we learned from locals that in a place of the highest concentration in time of their fathers and forefathers use to be low and wide tepa called “Pastaktepa” (in Uzbek meaning “wide tepa”). According to their description we hit the site marginally on its eastern part; residual western part was covered by cotton. Northern part of the site could be disturbed while building the road, as there were quite dense finds directly next to the road in the corn field. Area with dense pottery scatter covers about 9 ha, with core in SW corner witching the range of 2 ha. Surprisingly, no marks of existence of the tepa are visible on Corona satellite imagery. Nevertheless it seems that the area had been already cultivated by the time the image was captured, causing the early destruction of the tepa.

The surface was combination of ploughed field with 100 – 80 % visibility and pasture with 60 – 40 % visibility. Small stripe of corn filed (75 x 30 m) along the road had even worst visibility, sometimes little more than 20 %, but still we were able to note dense pottery scatter.

No modern pottery was recorded, but while considering that no modern buildings are in immediate area, it is not rare. The site is interesting for absence of any clear ancient architectural features, although bigger clay fragments in hand size were cumulated on the westernmost part of the surveyed filed along dirt road leading to S, separating ploughed and cotton filed from each other. Due to the thickness they could be associated with big storage jars or perhaps with architectural components.

Overall 500 pieces can be associated with the visible part of the site. It is slightly higher number than in the first site, substituted are by 56 pieces for one hectare.

Dated material is represented mostly by pottery from 17^th – 18^th century, further, by much smaller amount of early and late Kushan pottery, also by few pieces of Greco-Bactrian material (half of 3^rd century to the third quarter of 2^nd century BC) (See graph nr. 2). The closest archaeological site Gorintepa and Gilyambobtepa are occupied almost continually from 1^st to 7^th century AD and seems to be contemporary with each other. “Pastaktepa”, on the other hand, seems to be much younger, although its occupation during earlier period cannot be eliminated.

Two test pits were placed again in the polygons with the highest concentration of shards. The soil was extremely hard and dry, which made it very difficult to dig deep and the trenches were abandoned after digging of circa 50 cm. The material yield mixture of the pottery fragments represented on the surface. We moved north and extended the pits of two more placed into the corn filed – presumable original place of the tepa. The soil here proved to be much easier to excavate, and we were able to reach in one pit into depth of two meters. There was no visible stratigraphy apparent on the sides of the trench, and even the soil did not change its color or structure. We kept finding pottery into 1.8 m, with the highest amount of early Kushan (2^nd – 3^rd century AD) and late Kushan (5^th – 6^th century AD) pottery at a depth of 120 – 140 cm. We did not succeed with reaching the bedrock and for security quit the excavating work.

 

ShFS10_03

Coordinates: latitude 37°42'6.51"N – longitude 67° 6'45.05"E

Predominant period: 12^th - 13^th century.

The area of the third site starts about 2 km from the second one (ShFS10_2) while following the road to the east to Kumkurgan; it is also located on the south from the road (figure 3, the NE concentration; figure 4). In general, significant pottery concentration starts about 150 m east from Yange village, and continues in 700 m to 300 m radius in west – north – east direction from Shish Tepa (listed under code 17 as “No name tepa”, Stančo, 2009). The site is divided into two parts by the modern settlement leading in approximately 300 m wide stripe of buildings from Shish Tepa to the road. Dense pottery scatter covers about 11 ha on the NW part; another 10 ha on the NE part from Shish Tepa.

A distinct core of the site covers about 6 ha in total with major portion in NW part. The first impressions about the site is almost that the modern houses are situated on the core of the ancient settlement thus making continuity of the inhabitation, but while comparing the situation with Corona, we get impression of non settled area at all. Although, about 50 m south from the road we can recognize tepa like feature of size 20 x 20 m, which is not presented on Google Earth imagery and also it is not visible in situ. We cannot compare the situation with IKONOS, as the granted imagery ends in line of Shish Tepa and we had to prolong the surveyed area by georeferenced stripe of Google Earth imagery.

This is the biggest site we discovered with recorded 2175 ancient fragments, 10 architectural features and 20 modern fragments; also one piece of non contemporary glass was identified. Statistically, 104 fragments were counted in one hectare. Both fields were recently harrowed with 100 – 80 % visibility and easy passablity.

Absolute majority of pottery belongs into10^th  to 13^th century AD, with few exceptions from later period, reaching up to 18^th century AD (see graph nr. 3). The site is not contemporary with Shish Tepa, which was occupied from 2^nd half of the 3^rd century AD to 6^th century AD.

We learned from a local man, presently living on the edge of the field that during digging of water channel about three years ago was found human skeleton with white earrings in shape of half-moon. The find was placed at a depth of proximately 1.5 m. Estimate place of the burial should be about 200 m E from Shish Tepa. Similar discovery was supposed to be made by the local man himself, finding human skull placed in a big jar while he walked on freshly ploughed field. He located the find about 750 m SE from the skeleton. According to his words, both human reminds were reburied in different place. We walked the fields of supposed burials with no results. Very few pottery fragments were found on the surface, not confirming any previous human activity in the area. Although, if the burials ale placed in such a depth, it cannot be excluded that no reminds are left on the surface. Finding of burial place would be very important, as quite a little data is available about ancient burial places and rites in the area of South Uzbekistan, except for Bronze Age period.

The pottery scatter is visibly limited on eastern and western part by irrigation channels. The overall impression is that the current irrigation system locks pottery in the area of the original appearance, not enabling the fragments to get over these “borders”.

The two test pits placed in the area of the highest concentration revealed also Kushan pottery which was not recognized on the surface; otherwise it again contained mixture of surface material. We managed to reach a mudbrick wall at the first pit in the depth of 50 cm, which covered whole area of the trench. Second pit revealed groundwater, which did not allow us to get under 80 cm.

 

ShFS10_04

Coordinates: latitude 37°41'3.05"N – longitude 67° 6'16.38"E

Predominant period: 10^th – 13^th century?

The last detected site is located in close surroundings of Ayritepa, next to the village with the same name. In context with others, it is located about 2 km SE from Sish tepa (figure 3, the S concentration). Distinct pottery scatter of total size 12 ha continues in N, W and S direction, but could be examined only partly due to dense cotton fields covering about 50 % of surrounded area. Pronounced core of the site in size about 4 ha is adjacent to the Ayritepa on the NW direction. Despite of small surveyed area with HDS surface type, it was possible to define approximate borders in the three cardinal directions. Eastern fraction was either covered by vegetation or did not contain any artifacts on the field surface. Extend of the scatter reaches into distance about 700 m x 400 m x 400 m in SE x W x NW direction.

Over 960 pieces of pottery fragments were discovered in connection with the visible part of the site, statistically 80 fragments per hectare. Unfortunately very few are dated, although some material suggests period between 10^th and 13^th century. Resurvey and revision of the pottery is needed for confirmation of the data. Adjacent Ayritepa is dated into two main periods covering 1^st – 3^rd century and 5^th – 7^th century,
for that reason it is excluded that the material found on the field comes from the fallout from the tepa. 

No architectural features were recognized, but almost 60 pieces of recent pottery were marked. Again, their higher number is associated with inhabited area nearby.

On the Corona satellite imagery is clearly visible 30 m wide water channel cutting the area directly W from Ayritepa in NE-SW direction. No remains of the feature are left on IKONOS imagery, where are apparent new water channels placed in different directions, leaving open question of connection of the ancient water
construction with the newly discovered site and/or with Ayritepa (figure 5 and figure 6).

 

Conclusion

 

During September 2010 the systematic field survey project at Sherabad Disctrict has covered 5 sq km and discovered four archaeological sites. The field survey proved an effective method for detecting unknown archaeological sites, especially those invisible in satellite images or in the terrain. Identification of sites, which were specific for unusually high amount of pottery material on the surface, was quite easy due to low back-ground pottery scatter on the surveyed fields in general. Ubiquitous irrigation channels built during the Soviet Land Development projects and onwards delimited many sites, hindering pottery dispersal from the place of origin.

The newly found archaeological sites are interpreted as flat sites, with one predominant occupation period for each site. Other periods are also represented, but by much lower amount of pottery finds.  We do not have any comparable material of such sites in our region. According to the Middle Zeravshan project, Soviet topographical maps locate features of 30 cm high and 5 m in diameter (Mantellini, Roindelli, Stride 2010, 4). A comparison of our survey data with the topographical maps might show that our flat pottery scatters are in fact tepa ploughed away by machines in last decades of 20^th century. It would relate to probable smaller dimensions of the tepa, which were more likely to be destroyed during agricultural activity. The Corona satellite imagery also does not contain any unusual features in the area of the identified sites. Although the resolution of the imagery is not such high, the surrounded tepa are very good preserved on the picture. We may assume that the sites were already destroyed by the time the Corona imagery was captured, i.e. 40 – 50 years ago.   

This season we covered agriculturally suitable areas only. We familiarized ourselves with the agricultural system in Uzbekistan which is based on the rotation of principal crops, cotton and grain. We learned from local farmers that these crops are rotated annually. In year 2010 all grain growing and sown areas were surveyed,
leaving cotton fields unsearched. If the crop rotation is in place in 2011, the cotton fields will be sown with grain and ready for the field survey by the same time next year. The whole cultivated area, therefore, will offer suitable conditions of easy or medium difficult passability and high visibility at least once over the period of two years and should be amenable to full coverage survey in this time.

Depending on the information above it is also important to mention, that visibility of the surface does not play such vital role in site detection. In cases of site ShFS10_02 we were able to recognize increased number of pottery fragments even though the visibility in corn field was lower than our standard (<40%).  In such a case the passability is the main factor affecting the site discovery.

In last few days of the project small test pits were placed in area of site ShFS10_01, ShFS10 _02 and ShFS10_03. We did not manage to complete the evaluation of all the pottery during the 2010 season. Most of the material seemed to be a mixture of the periods identified on the surface, except the site ShFS10 _03 where Kushan pottery was found during excavation, but not detected on the surface. It can be caused by higher fragmentation, therefore lower quality and worse diagnosticity of the Kushan material. Total pickups, a strategy of collecting all artifacts in select areas at a detected site, will be applied during future expeditions in order to examine whether the Kushan pottery is present on the surface or not.

Furthermore, the material from the test pits was not sequentially superpositioned and there was no apparent stratigraphy on the profiles of the test pits. The whole finds looks like mixture of the diverse material until one meter deep. Complex processing of the test pits pottery is needed for further results.

 

  

 

1^st graph:

2^nd graph:

3^rd graph:

                                                               

Bibliography

Abdullaev, K., Stančo, L., (2003) „Djandavlattepa: Preliminary report of the 2002 excavation season“, in: Studia Hercynia VII, 165-168.

Abdullaev, K., Stančo, L., (2004) „Jandavlattepa: Preliminary report of the 2003 excavation season“, in: Studia Hercynia VIII, 156-160.

Abdullaev, K., Stančo,
L. (2005) „Jandavlattepa: Preliminary report of the 2004 excavation season“, in: Studia Hercynia IX, 273-275.

Abdullaev, K., Stančo, L. (2007) „Jandavlattepa 2006. Preliminary excavation report“, in: Studia Hercynia XI, 157-159.

Danielisová, A., Stančo, L., Shaydullaev, A. (2010) "Preliminary report of archaeological survey in Sherabad District, South Uzbekistan in 2009. Studia Hercynia XIV, 67-90.

Mantellini, S., Rondelli, B., Stride, S. (2010) Analytical Approach for Representing the
Water   Landscape Evolution in Samarkand Oasis (Uzbekistan), web page:           http://www.mendeley.com/research/analytical-approach-representing-water-landscape-evolution-samarkand-oasis-uzbekistan/, 1-11.

Parcak, S., H. (2009) Satellite Remote Sensing for Archaeology, Routledge, New York.

Rondelli, B., Stride, S., (2011) Soviet Military Maps and Archaeology in Central Asia, in print, 1-13.

Rondelli, B., Tosi, M. (2005) GIS and Silk Road Studies: Monitoring Landscape and Population Changes at Samarkand and in the Middle of Zeravshan Valley, International Symposium, Reading Historical Spatial Information from Around the World, Studies of Culture and Civilization Based on Geographic Information System Data, International Research Centre for Japanese Studies, 7-11 February 2005, 459-489.

Ross, S. A., Sobotková, A., Connor, S., Iliev, I. (2010) An Interdisciplinary Pilot Project in the Environs of Kabyle, Bulgaria. Archaeologica Bulgarica, 14, 69-85.

Ross, S. A., Sobotková, A. (2010) High-resolution, multi-spectral satellite imagery and extensive archaeological prospection: Case studies from Apulia, Italy, and Kazanluk, Bulgaria. Space, Time, Place. Tiruchirrappalli, India, Archaeopress, 25-28.

Ross, S. A., Sobotková, A., Burgers, G.-J. (2009) Remote sensing and archaeological prospection: A case study from Apulia, Italy, Journal of Field Archaeology, 34 (4), 423-437.

Sobotková, A. (2009) Remote Sensing and Extensive Archaeological Prospection Case Study from Kazanluk Region, Bulgaria. GeoEye Case studies. Web page: http://geoeye.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=57&item=58.

Sobotková, A., Ross, S., Nehrizov, G.,Weissová, B., (2010) „Tundzha Regional Archaeological Project Kazanluk Survey: Preliminary Report. Spring 2009 and 2010”, in: Studia Hercynia XIV, 56-66.

Stančo, L., et alii (2006), Jandavlattepa 2005. Preliminary excavation report“, in: Studia Hercynia X,167-172.

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, 115-122. Stride, S. (2005) La Géographie Archéologique de la Province du Surkhan Darya (Bactriane du Nord, Ouzbékistan du Sud). University of Paris. 5 vols. Retrieved March 9, 2008 from: http://www.silkrode.org/SilkRoDE/space/WikiPage.Thesis.Phd_Thesis.

Stride, S., Rondelli, B., Mantellini, S. (2009) Canals versus Horses: Political Power in the Oasis of Samarkand. World Archaeology 41 (1), 73-87.

Tušlová, P. (2011) Systematická povrchová prospekce v jižním Uzbekistánu, in: Orientalia Antiqua Nova, Plzeň, 1–8, in print.

Figure 1: IKONOS imagery - overview of the whole surveyed area marked by polygons

Figure 2: Overview of the area of the site ShFS10_01

Figure 3: An area of sites ShFS10_02, ShFS10_03 and ShFS10_04

Figure 4: IKONOS imagery, detailed image of the site ShFS10_03

Figure 5: IKONOS imagery, detailed view of the site ShFS10_04

Figure 6: CORONA imagery, detailed view of the site ShFS10_04