Archaeological Survey of the Oases of Zarabag, Karabag and Kampyrtepa in the Piedmont of the Kugitang Mountains, South Uzbekistan – Preliminary Report for the Season 2016

Archaeological Survey of the Oases of Zarabag, Karabag and Kampyrtepa in the Piedmont of the Kugitang Mountains, South Uzbekistan– Preliminary Report for the Season 2016 Anna Augustinová– Ladislav Stančo– Ladislav Damašek– Michal Mrva– Shapulat Shaydullaev ABSTRACT This preliminary report summarizes the results of the archaeological research in the oases in the Kugitang Piedmont after the second season (summer 2016). The field survey in the Zarabag Oasis, which was the subject of our interest in the first season, was accomplished and the research continued in the oases where the villages of Karabag and Kampyrtepa are situated. The prospection led to the detection of new archaeological sites in both of them. Moreover, the examination of the sites previously known from earlier works was conducted. Besides this we focused on the the mapping of the water sources. The collected data have been processed in GIS and the finds were analysed and dated. Preliminarily, we observe basically asimilar dynamic in the settlement patterns of all the researched oases. KEYWORDS Central Asia; oasis; field survey; settlement dynamic; Bactria; Tokharistan; Sapalli Culture; Yaz Culture. INTRODUCTION Archaeological research of the oases situated in the piedmonts of the Kugitang Mountains continued from the previous season. The prospection conducted in the season 2015 in the oasis of Zarabag was preliminarily presented in Studia Hercynia XIX (Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281). In this second season, the archaeological survey in the Zarabag Oasis was successfully accomplished and the research continued in two neighbouring oases, corresponding to the modern villages of Karabag and Kampyrtepa. This report summarizes the newly gained data from the research area. RESEARCH BACKGROUND The long -term aim of the research of the Institute of Classical Archaeology at Charles University led by Ladislav Stančo is to study the settlement patterns both in the historical and prehistoric periods in the steppe belt of the Kugitang Piedmont (Danielisová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010, 67–90; Stančoetal. 2014, 31–41; Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281; Augustinová– Stančo 2016, 122–138; Stančo 2016, 73–85; Stančoetal. 2016, 86–111; Lhuillier 2016, 112–121). The combination of the data gained during the field survey in the oases (Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281; Augustinová 2016) with the data from the extensive prospection in the surrounding steppe landscape (Stančoetal. 2014, 31–41; Stančo 2016, 73–85), and STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1, 104–148 105A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV the data gained during the excavations of the Czech archaeological team in cooperation with Uzbek and French archaeologists (Stančoetal. 2014, 31–41; Stančoetal. 2016, 86–111; Lhuillier 2016, 112–121), as well as the information from excavations of the other archaeological teams in the given area (Mkrtychevetal. 2005; Gruberetal. 2012, 339–375; Kaniuthetal. 2010, 129–164) form the picture of the landscape during the various periods in the past. OASES RESEARCHED IN 2016 During two survey seasons (autumn 2015, summer 2016), prospection was conducted in three oases in the piedmonts of the Kugitang Mountains. The largest of them– the Zarabag Oasis– has been completely investigated and the research results have been analysed (Augustinová 2016). The data collected so far in two others oases (Karabag and Kampyrtepa) are summarized in this preliminary report. The second research season took four weeks at the turn of August and September 2016. As in the previous season, it consisted of afield survey in the oases and their vicinity and of the processing of the archaeological material. The survey and documentation of material were carried out by ateam of three students, A. Augustinová, L. Damašek and M. Mrva (Institute of Archaeology at Charles University) led by A. Augustinová. Throughout the survey, we were accompanied by two local teachers, who helped us to communicate with locals. Oromiddin Aminov accompanied us in the villages of Zarabag and Kampyrtepa and Aziza Khaydkulova helped us with the communication in the village of Karabag. Some of the data were collected during the field survey in the steppe belt by L. Stančo (Institute of Classical Archaeology at Charles University). Most of the finds were dated according to the expert examination of Sh. Shaydullaev. GOALS AND METHODS The natural conditions in all of the investigated oases are similar, thus we used basically the same or avery similar set of research methods (Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281). The archaeological research in the oases and their surroundings was conducted, generally speaking, by way of extensive prospection. Several different goals, however, demanded the use of various approaches. The purpose of the extensive survey is to cover (or more precisely– uncover) in an equal way as much of an area as possible. The fitness of the surveyed area for study depends on the character of the place; i.e., for instance, on the extent of utilized agricultural area and the density of the overgrowth, on the rate of ploughing, crop growing in the gardens, level of the built -up area, extent of the waste disposal areas, the way of use of the public places etc. We focused on the acquisition of surface archaeological material that could, in combination with the precise spatial data, help us to reconstruct the settlement dynamic during the past. The survey was complemented by use of ametal detector; the assemblage of archaeological material was augmented by an otherwise invisible important group of artefacts. As for the field work strategy, in the first step we focused on the apparently significant sites, i.e. those that were well -known to the local population and typically reported as being ‘old’ or ‘ancient’, whatever that means. Afterwards we paid special attention to the modern and pre -modern cemeteries, since it had been observed earlier that during the digging of graves, diggers occasionally disrupt earlier settlement or burial levels and bring to light artefacts deposited in them. These artefacts are usually placed on the new grave as decoration (Stančo– Tušlová 106 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 eds. in print, chapter 2.2.4.). In the next step we focused on the prominent topographic surface features, which are supposed to be of an anthropogenic origin. Last but not least we focused on the water sources in every oasis, and on their spatial relation to the settlement. Numerous springs were detected in each of them and in the Zarabag Oasis we even detected the karezes. The documentation base was the same in each of the above mentioned studied topics. The important points (corresponding with the artefacts’ findspots, significant topographic features, the space demarcation etc.) were located by aGPS Garmin eTrex. Afterwards the spatial data were processed by QGis and further analysed. An integral part of the field survey was the photographic documentation of the features, objects, and situations. The finds– mostly the ceramic fragments or vessels– were taken to the base and photographed and drawn. In several cases the vessels were given back to their finders, in most cases, however, they were subsequently deposited in the Termez Archaeological Museum. The only available topographic map for the research area that was created by the Soviet Military in 1983 (Pl. 4/1; at ascale 1:100 000) was not sufficient for our aims. Thus, as the underlay map for our work, we have used the satellite imagery provided by Google Earth. THE LOCATIONS AND NATURAL CONDITIONS All three oases are situated in the western part of the Sherabad District of the Surkhandarya Province (south Uzbekistan), forming the northern part of the Pashkhurt Basin. They lie approximately 6–11.5 km to the north of the centre of the village of Pashkhurt (Zarabag: 6.3 km; Karabag 7.5 km; Kampyrtepa 11.2 km). The border between Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan runs along the ridge of Kugitang 9.5 km to the west of the Kampyrtepa Oasis which is the westernmost of the three oases. They are located in the steppe belt of the piedmont of the Kugitang Mountains– Zarabag (985m.a.s.l.) E 66°44’ / N 37°45’; Karabag (860m.a.s.l.) E 66°48’ / N 37°46’; Kampyrtepa (1,206m.a.s.l.) E 66°41’ / N 37°46’. The steppe decreases here slightly from west to east. THE SURVEYED AREAS THE SURVEYED POLYGONS The prospection was conducted in the still intensely settled oases and their nearest surroundings. This fact is reflected in the types of the surveyed areas, types of finds, and their state of preservation. The plots of the local inhabitants became the most frequented survey areas. The prospection was conducted mostly in gardens, orchards, in small fields, or in terrain disrupted by construction activities. Another type of survey polygons represented public places, such as areas in the surroundings of springs, paths etc. Besides these, we focused also on the cemeteries (see above). It is important to note that in most cases the finds were not found in situ. They came from the places used for agriculture and pasture, from the waste disposal areas in the plots or areas used in another way, and some of the finds had been found by the local people before our ar- 107A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV rival,1 therefore, it is not possible to localize their exact findspots. The finds are localised with accuracy corresponding to the extent of the determined polygons / plots. Finds in an open landscape (for example the concentrations of the pottery fragments in the open terrain without clear limits) are localised in asquare that represents the possible dispersion of the finds. Based on the spatial data gained during the field survey, we created the polygons in the map using the QGis software. The polygons with the finds (POL_001–208), but also the polygons that lack them (negative results– NEG_001–064), are depicted in the map (Pls. 4/2–4). Adetailed characterization of the first category– polygons with finds (POL_XX)– is summarized in Table 1 in the appendix (Tab.1). The negative results represent the surveyed areas, where finds have been detected neither by the local people, nor by our field survey. Also places whose names refer to apossible anthropogenic origin, but where no finds have been found, were assigned to this category of negative results. We also noticed places, where asurvey could not be conducted for various reasons (e.g. the plot was overgrown with vegetation; we were not granted permission to gain access to the plot, etc.), but there may potentially be some archaeological evidence. Its information value is important only for future research, not for the interpretations of the surveyed area, that is why we do not lay out these areas here. Each of the three studied oases covers adifferent area, which also affects the number of the survey polygons. Here follows asummary of the surveyed areas, the important sites and find spots are closely characterized in the description of the respective oasis: In the Zarabag Oasis (approximately 425 ha), 135 polygons were surveyed with positive (POL_001–135), and 32 with negative results (NEG_001–023). In the Karabag Oasis (approximately 276 ha), 63 polygons were surveyed (POL_136–196, POL_208) while 26 gave negative results (NEG_024–057, NEG_064). In the oasis of Kampyrtepa (approximately 170 ha), 11 of the surveyed polygons produced positive (POL_197–207) and 6 negative results (NEG_058–063). THE MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES AND NOTICEABLE SPOTS The next phenomena that we focused on were the morphologically prominent features in the terrain, the places with toponyms associated with their possible anthropic origin, and other significant objects. They are summarized in Table 2 (Tab.2) and listed under the codes KuPi_001–060. The table contains their brief characteristic, coordinates, and finds. If some of these features extend in awider area and there are some finds, it is also included in the category of polygons with finds (POL_XX). In the Zarabag Oasis 44 such sites (KuPi_001–044) were recognized; in the Karabag Oasis there were 11 of them (KuPi_045–055); and in the oasis of Kampyrtepa five sites (KuPi_056–060). Their detailed descriptions are given in the respective subheads on specific oases below and their location is also depicted in the map (Figs. 1–3). 1 All of these facts we reflect in the evaluation of the results. 108 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Fig. 1: Noticeable spots with finds and morphological features (KuPi_xx) in the Zarabag Oasis (map by A. Augustinová). Fig. 2: Noticeable spots with finds and morphological features (KuPi_XX) in the Karabag Oasis (map by A. Augustinová). 109A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV Fig. 3: Noticeable spots with finds and morphological features (KuPi_XX) in the Kampyrtepa Oasis (map by A. Augustinová). WATER SOURCES The water sources are the main prerequisite for asettlement today as in the past and therefore one of the aims of the survey was the mapping of them. The water springs were detected in each of the three surveyed oases, moreover in the oasis of Zarabag, there were detected even remains of karezes.2 In the largest one– the oasis of Zarabag – 14 springs were detected (ZA_S01–ZA_S14) that had already been listed in the report from the previous season (Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281). In the village of Karabag seven springs were detected (KB_S01–KB_S07) and in the smallest oasis of Kampyrtepa we found only two springs (KT_S01–KT_S02). Again, they are closely characterised in the chapter on individual oases below. All of them are summarized in Table 3 (Tab.3) and depicted on the map (Figs. 4–6). 2 Karezes are the underground tunnels that collect the underground water and bring it to the places where it is needed (see Chelebi 1983, 234). For more information, see Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281 and Augustinová 2016. 110 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Fig. 4: Water sources– springs and karezes– in the Zarabag Oasis (map by A. Augustinová). KARABAG PRESENT STATE OF THE VILLAGE AND THE NARRATIVE SOURCES The oasis of Karabag spreads over both the banks of the seasonal river called the Karabag Say3 at alength of 3.3 km in the north -south direction. The current extent of the oasis is approximately 276 ha. Based on the 2016 census, 4,375 people and 867 families lived in the village of Karabag; most of the inhabitants are Uzbeks whereas the inhabitants of Zarabag are supposed to be mostly Tajiks. During the prospection in the oasis, we recorded the narration of aformer Imam from the mosque in Karabag named Ximodinov Shahriddin Hojibobo. 4 Based on his account the history of Karabag began 1000 years ago.5 In the vicinity of the spring near the mosque (KB_S01– Kata Boloq) there was astop -off for the caravans that went from the north (Tashkent, Samarkand, Karshi etc.) to the south across the Amu Darya to Afghanistan. Near this spring settled the second son of Genghis Khan– Chagatai Khan and it was him, who named the place Qorabog‘6, 3 The name Karabag Say is used by local inhabitants, but more appropriate would be the naming Karabag Darya (Say = Uzb. “river bed”; Darya = Uzb. “river”). 4 XimodinovShahriddin Hojibobo(Aged 85?); village ofKarabag-SherabadDistrict, south Uzbekistan; September 1st, 2016. 5 Take into consideration that the term “1000 years ago“ used by locals is only an expression meaning “ahistory that they even do not know from the narrative, but only as alegend”. 6 We used the English transcription of the title (Qorabog‘ = Karabag) to preserve the unity of the transcription with other titles in the paper. 111A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV meaning The Black Orchard and therefore the inhabitants of Karabag consider themselves today the lineal descendants of Genghis Khan. Asmall mosque for 15 people was founded 200 years ago 7 near the above mentioned spring by Afandi Xon– aman who came from Afghanistan and settled here. Later it was extended and in 1991 it was rebuild in the present form. This mosque serves for the Friday’sprayers also for the inhabitants of the surrounding villages (Zarabag, Kampyrtepa, Shalkan and Kyzilalma) where no working mosques remain by now. The ethnic origin of the inhabitants of Karabag is mentioned also in the work of B. Kh. Karmisheva (1976). In 1966 she recorded anarrative by Abdulla Atchilov aKarabag -born long- -term co -worker with the historic -regional Museum in Termez as well as by alocal teacher also born in Karabag. Based on their narrative, the founding of the village of Karabag was complicated. Fifteen groups of inhabitants all of different origin (avlodi = Uzb. “generation”; tuda = Uzb. “group”) settled there. Members of this heterogeneous community entered into marriages with the inhabitants of neighbouring Zarabag (which differed in language) and with the inhabitants of Paskhurt (who did not differ from Karabag people, because all of them were Chagatay). WATER SOURCES Seven springs were detected in the village of Karabag (Fig. 5; KB_S01–KB_S07; buloq = Uzb. “spring”) and six of them have alocal name. Near the mosque springs the Kata Buloq (KB_S01; kata = Uzb. “Big”); in the narration of the Karabag mosque former imam (see above) this spring was connected with the earliest history of the village. The Ashrav Buloq (KB_S02) bears the name of aperson unknown today. The Tosh Buloq (KB_03; tosh = Uzb. “Stone”) and Chikes Buloq (KB_S04; chikes = Uzb. “Bull”) are situated close to each other in the north of the Karabag Village. The Dzhida Buloq (KB_S04; dzhida = type of fruit) springs in the central part of the village, not far away from the spring of Bakhodin Buloq (KB_S06; Uzb. “Bakhodin’sspring”). The last nameless (or Orom8) Buloq (KB_S07) is also situated in the central part of the village. THE MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES AND THE LOCATIONS WITH ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE During the prospection, 63 places with finds of archaeological material were detected (POL_136–196, POL_208; Pl. 4/3), which are summarized with coordinates in the table (Tab.1), as well as 26 places with negative results (NEG_024–057, NEG_064). Four sites in the Karabag Oasis had already been mentioned in the earlier literature– Khush- -Vakttepa (Arshavskaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982, 134; Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973, 22; Rtveladze 1974, 77; Stride 2004, code Uz -SD-233; Danielisová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010, 83, code 057), Kurgantepa (Arshavskaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982, 134; Stride 2004, code Uz -SD-163; Danielisová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010, code 116), Gilyam Pusht (Arshavskaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982, 134; Stride 2004, code Uz -SD-152; Danieli7 Term “200 years ago“ used by locals is only an expression meaning “atime ago”. 8 This spring had no name before our prospection. But because of awedding ceremony in anearby household during our survey, the local people that helped us with the communication and translation in the villages, named this spring Orom Bulok at this occasion (orom = Uzb. “Happiness”). This information has rather an ethnological character without any importance for our research purposes. Nevertheless, it represents an important component of the formation of the society and their relation to their surroundings. 112 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 sová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010, code 115) and Mazaristantepa (Arshavskaya– Rtveladze– Khakimov 1982, 134). The identification of some of these sites with the sites detected during our survey is, however, slightly difficult, since the names used by the local population have probably changed over the last forty years. Fig. 5: Water sources– springs– in the Karabag Oasis (map by A. Augustinová). The site called Khush -Vakttepa9 (KuPi_051; POL_139) was already known to the Czech -Uzbek team, since it had been surveyed during two short visits: for the first time on 3rd September 2009 and then again on 15th September 2010. The pottery material gained from the site hinted at dating to the Kushan and High Medieval period (13 th c.), but perhaps also to the Early Medieval (5th–7th c.) and Pre -modern times (17th–18th c. AD).10 The location in earlier works corresponds in this case with our detections: it is situated in the centre of the Karabag village among the gardens and houses on the left bank of the Karabag Say. The small compact mound (ca. 9×13 m; h. 3.5 m) is unfortunately gradually disrupted by digging clay for the construction works. Due to this fact, there are visible sections with clearly recognizable cultural layers that contain pottery fragments (Pl. 4/5). Based on the ceramic fragments that we sampled from the recognized settlement levels, these were dated to the end of the 4th–5th c. AD, to the 11th c., and to the Pre-modern period (18th–19th c.), (Figs. 6:3 and 4; 7:1 and 2), which corresponds roughly to our previous dating. Other pottery fragments have been collected in the nearest surroundings of this mound. These are supposed to be closely connected with this site, and are dated to the Bronze Age and to the Early Medieval period (5th–7th c.). 9 The name Khush -Vakttepa (vakt = Uzb. “Time”) is mentioned in the earlier works (Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973; Rtveladze 1974; Stride 2004; Danielisová– Stančo– Shaydullaev 2010), but during our present field survey it was presented to us as Khudzboktepa (khudzhbok = Taj. “Pleasure”). 10 Two scholars were consulted with different results. 119A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV Moreover, three pottery fragments belonging to the 11th–12th c. were found in the middle of the Karabag Say (POL_142) on an island in the middle of the seasonal river (although this island was probably only recently cut -off from the bank). This place is situated 55 m to the east of the KuPi_049 in the fields. All these sites (KuPi_047, KuPi_048, KuPi_049, POL_142) likely belonged to each other. Avery distinct hill (KuPi_050; 165×100 m) that is visible from the wide surroundings revealed only afew pottery fragments (seven pieces– four of them dated to the High Medieval period (11th c.) and three to the Pre -Modern period (18th–19th c.). Another scatter of finds was detected in the middle part of the Karabag village between the three above mentioned springs Kata Buloq (KB_S01), Bakhodin Buloq (KB_S06) and the nameless spring (KB_S07), 80 m to the north -east of the Kush -Vakttepa (KuPi_051). Fifty pottery fragments were collected there dated to the Early Medieval and High Medieval period (see Tab.1) including also material from the Pre -Modern period. Another substantial scatter/cluster was detected in agarden (POL_170) having produced 45 fragments. Most of them (32 frags.) was dated to the Pre -Modern period, while the others belong to the Bronze Age (two frags.), Early Medieval period (5th–6th c.; five frags.), and to the High Medieval period (12th c.; four frags.). In another garden (POL_182), most of the collected fragments (25 pcs.) belong to the High Medieval period (12th c.), the rest of them were identified as Pre -Modern pottery. In the north of Karabag village, another scatter of ceramic fragments was detected in the field (POL_175). The finds belong to the Early Medieval period (three frags.), High Medieval period (11 frags.) and to the Pre -Modern period (13 frags.). Pottery from agarden (POL_159) located in the central part of the village (just opposite Bilgardon (KuPi_047, across the Karabag Say), was dated to the Medieval and Pre -Modern periods, more precisely to the Late Medieval period (17th c.; 13 frags.), Pre -Modern period (eight frags.), Early Medieval period (5 th –6 th c.; eight frags.), and only two fragments belong to the 12 th c. Scatter (POL_183) was detected in yet another garden, where the majority of ceramic fragments belong to the High Medieval period (12th c.). In the same place was also found one fragment roughly dated to the 4th c. AD, which is, so far, rare in the Kugitang piedmonts. In agarden marked as POL_148 in the vicinity of Kurgantepa (KuPi_055) alarge group of ceramic fragments were detected dated to the High Medieval period (18 frags.). Some archaeological material was detected also in other parts of the village of Karabag, we limit ourselves, however, to the above listed examples with more substantial results, while the find spots with less numerous fragments are summarized in table 1 (Tab.1). CEMETERIES AND CENTRAL PROMINENT TOMBS Since the present burial grounds have often been continually used in various historical periods or are located in areas of previous human activities, they could help to unearth old cultural levels thanks to disrupting the surface and subsurface layers during grave digging. We also surveyed and documented these sites. If there were surface finds, we marked these cemeteries as polygons with finds (POL_XX), in case there were no finds, on the other hand, such cemeteries were marked as places with anegative result (NEG_XX). Attention was also paid to the centrally placed prominent tombs, which we understand as burials of important local authorities, most probably religious ones and thus we call them “graves of imams”. These are sometimes an integral part of acemetery, sometimes they are located separately. 120 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Five cemeteries have been surveyed in the village of Karabag. Three of them (Kurgantepa– KuPi_055; Bakhodin Balogardon– KuPi_045 and Gilyam Pusht– NEG_052), are characterized above. No finds have been detected in the remaining two cemeteries. The cemetery called Koziz (NEG_054) lies on the right bank of the Karabag Say (200 m to the west of the river) to the north of the Karabag village, and it is still used for burying. The whole area of this cemetery has the shape of ahigh mound with very steep slopes and covers an area of 0.5 ha. On the opposite bank of the Karabag Say (200 m to the east of the river; 400 m to the east of the Koriz cemetery) is situated another cemetery, which is named after the central grave (Jalavli Mozor Bobo– Uzb. “Cemetery of the Grandfather Jalavli”; NEG_055). It is not used today, even the area of the cemetery (0.5 ha) is not delimited by afence. The area of the burial ground is situated on aplatform which is elevated ca. 2 m above the surrounding terrain. As in the other oases, we detected several prominent tombs (perhaps graves of imams) in the Karabag village. They are typically covered with asmall house made of stones/mud bricks/concrete, and often have aritual function in the life of the local inhabitants. Jalavli Ota (KuPi_053; Uzb. “Father Jalavli”) is connected with the old burial ground of asimilar name (Jalavli Mozor Bobo– Uzb. “Cemetery of the Grandfather Jalavli”; NEG_055). The locals believe that aritual linked to this place can heal cattle disease– if the cattle are ill, they bring them here and walk with them around the grave counter clockwise three times. In this way, the animal is supposed to be cured. The two other prominent tombs are isolated without any connection with an earlier burial ground that would still be remembered by the inhabitants, and the term “central grave” is therefore less appropriate. The Roy Bobo (KuPi_052) lies in the south part of Karabag. Around this grave, we encountered various traces of digging damage that was connected to the construction of houses in the vicinity, but there were no finds. The Khodzhulmat Yasaul (KuPi_054) lies in the vicinity of KuPi_054 at the western margin of the Karabag village close to the right bank of the seasonal river. KAMPYRTEPA PRESENT STATE OF THE VILLAGE AND THE NARRATIVE SOURCES The third of the researched oases was the smallest one, it is situated where the present -day village of Kampyrtepa is. The oasis is connected with the Zarabag village by an asphalt road. It spreads 4.5 km along both banks of the Kampyrtepa Say, aseasonal river flowing from the Kugitang Mountains and becoming the left tributary of the Machay River. The oasis extends over an area of 170 ha. The inhabitants are mostly Uzbeks and according to the census in 2016, in the village of Kampyrtepa, there lived 1,400 people grouped in 599 families. Alegend associated with Kampyrtepa was recorded in the village of Zarabag in 2016. According to this legend, the inhabitants of Kampyrtepa left their village for unknown reasons and wanted to move to the village of Pashkhurt. However, they were not accepted and therefore they continued to the village of Zarabag, where they successfully settled among the local inhabitants. The incoming Kampyrtepaens were subsequently buried in anameless burial ground in Zarabag. Thus, the burial ground (KuPi_X013; POL_108),14 should be the cemetery of the inhabitants originally from Kampyrtepa. 14 In the preliminary report for the Zarabag Oasis published in Studia Hercynia XIX it is labelled as burial ground B3 (Augustinováetal. 2015, 273). 121A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV WATER SOURCES In the smallest oasis we detected only two springs (Fig. 13). The first of them, called Bosh Buloq, is situated in the northern part of the village (Fig. 14; KT_S01; Uzb. “Spring of the Chief”) and springs in the vicinity of the isolated grave (KuPi_060) named Buloq Ota (Uzb. “Father of the spring”). The second one Okhun Buloq (KT_S02; “Okhun’sspring”) is situated in the southern part of the village. Fig. 13: Water sources– springs– in the Kampyrtepa Oasis (map by A. Augustinová). Fig. 14: The Bosh Buloq (KT_S01)– spring in the northern part of the village of Kampyrtepa (photo by A. Augustinová). 122 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 SIGNIFICANT MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES AND LOCATIONS WITH ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE During the survey, 11 places with archaeological finds were detected (POL_197–207; Tab.1) as well as six places with negative results (NEG_058–063). Three sites in the village of Karmpyrtepa contain the word tepa in their name, but only on the surface of the first of them (Eishntepa– KuPi_056; POL_201) asignificant amount of pottery fragments have been detected. Fewer fragments have been collected in Oladüsttepa (KuPi_057; POL_197) while the third site– Seyidtepa (KuPi_058; POL_204) yielded only several fragments of Pre -Modern period pottery. Fig. 15: South ‑west view of the site Eishntepa (KuPi_056) in the Kampyrtepa Oasis (photo by A. Augustinová). Fig. 16: The stone structures detected in the disrupted surface on the site Eishntepa (KuPi_056) (photo by A. Augustinová). 123A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV Eishntepa, the first of them (Fig. 15; KuPi_056; POL_201), is situated in the western part of Kampyrtepa across the main road from the cemetery of Kampyrtepa Ota. The upper platform (70×45 m) of this site is elevated about 6 m above the surrounding surface, and there are several accumulations of stones (remains of graves? / stone structures?) visible on the platform. On the west side of the Eishntepa the surface is disturbed by abulldozer built dust -road which– cut deep into the terrain– reveals two clearly recognizable linear stone structures, probably the remains of walls (Fig. 16). Alarge collection of ceramic fragments has been collected (58 items) that belong to several periods (Tabs. 1 and 2)– the Bronze Age (one frag.), 2nd–3rd c. AD (four frags.), 4th c. AD (two frags.), 5th–6th c. AD (three frags.), 10th–12th c. (26 frags.) and 18th–19th c. (22 frags.), (Figs. 17:1–4 and 6; 18:2–4). Besides these fragments, also an entire storage vessel may have been found here; nowadays it is still in use in aneighbouring garden (Pl. 4/6). Fig. 17: Selected pottery from the surface survey in the Kampyrtepa Oasis. Findspot and dating: 1–4 and 6: Eishn Tepa (KuPi_056), 1– Bronze Age, 2– High Medieval (12 th c.), 3– Late Kushan (4 th c.), 4– Kushan period (2 nd –3 rd c.), 6– High Medieval (12 th c.); 5– Oladüst Tepa (KuPi_056), High Medieval (12th c.); (drawing by T. Kolmačka). 124 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Fig. 18: Selected pottery from the surface survey in the Kampyrtepa Oasis. Findspot and dating: 1– Kampyrtepa Ota (KuPi_059), High Medieval period (12th c.); 2–4– Eishn Tepa (KuPi_056), High Medieval period (10th c.); (drawing by T. Kolmačka). The second site named Oladüsttepa (KuPi_057; POL_197) is situated in the western part of Kampyrtepa on the right bank of the seasonal river. It is situated on amound that with its height of about 10 m overlooks the surrounding terrain with the upper flat platform (90×25 m). The mound seems to be of anatural origin: if there was any settlement, it utilized this natural feature. Based on the testimony of the inhabitant of anearby house, aceramic vessel was found there, but it was taken away by the locals and we could not study it. The surface of the upper platform was disrupted, but only several fragments of pottery were found there, most of them detected in the place where the above mentioned ceramic vessel may have been found. The third place with the element “tepa” in its name, is called Seyidtepa (KuPi_058; POL_104). This large mound is situated in the south -east part of the Kampyrtepa village. Even though no ceramic fragments were found there (apart from amere three fragments of the Pre -Modern period), there are several stone structures on the surface. One of them could be interpreted as akurgan, the rest of them are unclear accumulations of stones. The site has been disrupted by digging soil which revealed alarge section through the subsoil. There are, however, no signs of the cultural levels visible in this section. Although alarge assemblage of archaeological material was found in the village of Kampyrtepa, its analysis shows that its large percentage is dated to the Pre -Modern period (18 th –19 th c.). 125A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV Most of the finds dated to the earlier periods come from the above mentioned tepas, burial grounds, and morphological features. There are only two other places (POL_199, POL_206), where among the Pre -Modern pottery one fragment dated into 12th c. was found. The first fragment was nevertheless found on apath amidst gardens (POL_199) and this fact prevents ahypothetical connection with any potential site. The second findspot represents the garden (POL_206) in the far south -east end of the village, where five fragments belonging to the High Medieval period (12th c.) were found. CEMETERIES AND PROMINENT TOMBS Only one cemetery is situated in the village of Kampyrtepa. It is named Kampyrtepa Ota (Uzb. “The father of Kampyrtepa”) and 17 pottery fragments were found there (Bronze Age– one frag.; late 4th–5th c. AD– two frags.; High Medieval period (12th c.)– seven frags.; Pre -Modern period (18th–19th c.)– seven frags.). Two central graves were noticed in Kampyrtepa. The first of them (KuPi_059; Kampyrtepa Ota) represents the central grave of the burial ground of the same name. The second one (KuPi_060; Boloq Ota– Uzb. “Father of the spring”), lies isolated at the northern margin of the village near aspring (KT_S01, Bosh Buloq), and none of the respondents remembered any connection of this place with aburial ground. ZARABAG The exhaustive information about the largest oasis of the studied area, Zarabag, which extends over an area of ca. 425 ha including its general information, water sources, morphological features etc. has been already published in the preliminary report for the season 2015 (Augustinováetal. 2015, 262–281), hence we summarize here only the newly gained data. All of the data (including also the features from the last season)15 are summarized in the tables (Tabs. 1 and 2). NEWLY DETECTED MORPHOLOGICAL FEATURES AND THE LOCATIONS WITH ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE Asite with the local name Bobolangar (Uzb. “Old man’sshadoof/well pole”; KuPi_008; POL_039; Fig. 19) located in the western part of the Zarabag village (998m.a.s.l.), deserves the main attention. It is situated on the small spur of adescending dry stony ridge at the approximate distance of 120 m from the right bank of the seasonal river of Machayly. It is elevated 15 m above the spring of an identical name (ZA_S08– Bobolangar). On the summit’ssurface, there are the clearly visible remains of the stone structures of the two basic shapes: rectangular and circular (d. ca. 1.5 m), preliminarily interpreted as graves. Aditch, perhaps awater canal, which is not used in the present day, skirts this small mound. There are two substantial terrain disruptions (on the north -west and south -east sides of the site), caused by clay digging. Most of the rich archaeological material comes from these two spots, but numerous ceramic fragments were also scattered on the surface of the site. Altogether 136 ceramic fragments were found– 50 sherds including one unique fragment of dastarkhan (“aritual table”, Pl. 4/7) belong to the Late Bronze Age (Sapalli Culture; Figs. 20 and 21). One fragment is dated to the 15 The category of the features and objects compared to the preliminary classifications of the previous season in Zarabag (Augustinováetal. 2015, 279–281) were reassessed under the newly gained data. 126 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Early Iron Age (Yaz ICulture), six fragments belong to the Achaemenid period (5th–6th c. BC), and one fragment belongs to the High Medieval period (11th–12th c.). The most numerous finds belong to the Late Bronze Age and based on the good state of preservation of the finds (large parts of vessels preserved), this site may possibly be aburial ground. Fig. 19: The view of the site of Bobolangar (KuPi_008) from the south ‑west (photo by A. Augustinová). In close proximity– to the south -west of Bobolangar (KuPi_008), is situated asecond site, nick -named Bobolangar-2 (KuPi_009; POL_104). It forms aflat promontory, its surface is again covered with stone rectangular structures, and as in the case of Bobolangar (KuPi_008), we interpret them as graves. The third small ridge labelled Bobolangar-3 (KuPi_010; POL_107) lies in the neighbourhood of Bobolangar-2. Astone platform with asquare ground plan (6×6 m) is the only feature on the top of this mound. Bobolangar lies 1.4 km to the north of the site of Tulki Tepa (KuPi_011) detected by L. Stančo during his survey. The site probably belongs to the same period– the Bronze Age (Stančoetal. in preparation). We also focused on the morphological features of likely anthropic origin in the landscape, although without sufficient archaeological material to date them. Nevertheless, it is also necessary to take note of them. Most of them were already mentioned in the previous preliminary report (Augustinováetal. 2015, 279–281). Two features situated 2.9 km to the south -east of the Zarabag Oasis in the direction of the village of Kayrit, that are very similar to (KuPi_025) were newly discovered. Both features that are attached to each other are formed by the remains of the stone walls of square ground plan (KuPi_043– 9×9 m; KuPi_044– 11×12 m).This place is already known from the prospection of L. Stančo as Kayrit XV (Stančo 2016, 83, Tab.2); one fragment of pottery dated to the Medieval period was found there. 127A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV Fig. 20: Selected pottery from the surface survey in the Zarabag Oasis belonging to the Bronze Age site Bobolangar (KuPi_008); (drawing by L. Damašek and A. Augustinová). 128 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Fig. 21: Selected pottery from the surface survey in the Zarabag Oasis belonging to the Kushan Sassa‑ nian period (4th–5th c.). 1–3 and 5–7 POL_010; 4 POL_023 (drawing by L. Damašek and A. Augustinová). 135A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV POL_063 66.750192 37.760636 Zarabag garden 11 (11) pottery 1 10 POL_064 66.752362 37.760458 Zarabag garden 9 (6) pottery 1 5 POL_065 66.750618 37.761188 Zarabag garden 6 (2) pottery 2 POL_066 66.753888 37.762503 Zarabag garden 17 (17) pottery 17 POL_067 66.747614 37.764893 Zarabag garden 23 (23) pottery 4 19 POL_068 66.752110 37.762648 Zarabag garden 8 (8) pottery 1 1 1 5 POL_069 66.751107 37.762133 Zarabag garden 11 (4) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 4 POL_070 66.750522 37.763015 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_071 66.751648 37.762263 Zarabag garden 28 (28) pottery 9 17 POL_072 66.748104 37.765379 Zarabag garden 3 (3) pottery 1 2 POL_073 66.747300 37.765668 Zarabag garden 8 (8) pottery 8 POL_074 66.746365 37.765771 Zarabag garden 17 (17) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 2 1 1 13 POL_075 66.746575 37.765108 Zarabag garden 18 (0) pottery POL_076 66.745371 37.765600 Zarabag garden 8 (0) pottery POL_077 66.745750 37.764481 Zarabag garden 8 (6) pottery 1 5 POL_078 66.744489 37.764616 Zarabag garden 5 (5) pottery 2 2 3 POL_079 66.744668 37.765272 Zarabag garden 8 (2) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 1 POL_080 66.743371 37.766169 Zarabag find 4 (4) pottery 4 POL_081 66.743584 37.766372 Zarabag garden 4 (4) pottery 2 2 2 POL_082 66.744291 37.767512 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 1 POL_083 66.744030 37.767822 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_084 66.744992 37.768245 Zarabag garden 27 (21) pottery 9 12 POL_085 66.749430 37.751390 Zarabag site 45 (38) pottery, grinding slab 20 14 4 136 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 POL_086 66.728653 37.770459 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_087 66.729374 37.770409 Zarabag garden 5 (5) pottery 2 1 2 POL_088 66.730370 37.770606 Zarabag garden 4 (3) pottery, coins (2) 3 POL_089 66.751278 37.753183 Zarabag find 3 (2) pottery 2 POL_090 66.753196 37.748232 Zarabag find 4 (4) pottery 4 POL_091 66.735557 37.769897 Zarabag garden 3 (3) pottery 1 1 1 POL_092 66.734527 37.769627 Zarabag field 28 (15) pottery 3 5 6 POL_093 66.735429 37.770692 Zarabag field 14 (14) pottery 1 11 2 POL_094 66.737859 37.770553 Zarabag find 4 (4) pottery 1 3 POL_095 66.737696 37.769793 Zarabag garden 6 (6) pottery 3 3 POL_096 66.738313 37.767388 Zarabag garden 4 (0) pottery POL_097 66.737868 37.768324 Zarabag find 7 (0) pottery 2 2 1 4 POL_098 66.737961 37.768941 Zarabag garden 2 (1) pottery 1 POL_099 66.741532 37.766962 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 1 POL_100 66.747030 37.759288 Zarabag garden 2 (1) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 1 POL_101 66.748720 37.759628 Zarabag garden 2 (2) pottery 2 POL_102 66.747853 37.767764 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery POL_103 66.724295 37.770315 Zarabag garden 3 (0) pottery POL_104 66.741699 37.761463 Zarabag site 13 (1) pottery 1 Polygon No. Coordinates Village Type of survey area Quantity of finds (dated) Type of finds Bronze Age Early Iron Age (Yaz I) Middle and Late Iron Age (Yaz II/Yaz III) 6th–5th c. BC 2nd–4th c. AD 5th–6th c. AD 7th–9th c. AD 10th–11th c. AD 12th c. AD 13th c. AD 14th–15th c. AD 16th–17th c. AD 18th–19th c. AD 137A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV POL_105 66.740615 37.763279 Zarabag garden 2 (2) coins 2 COI POL_106 66.746537 37.762141 Zarabag find 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_107 66.742412 37.760477 Zarabag find 1 (1) pottery, mortar 1 POL_108 66.744283754 37.76789437 Zarabag site 8 (8) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 1 2 2 POL_109 66.782624004 37.760404386 Zarabag feature 5 (5) pottery 3 2 POL_110 66.727590 37.766656 Zarabag prospection 8 (8) pottery 8 POL_111 66.727747 37.767064 Zarabag prospection 5 (5) pottery 1 4 POL_112 66.719612 37.768718 Zarabag prospection 47 (46) pottery, metal 20 20 5 18 POL_113 66.718023 37.771348 Zarabag prospection 11 (10) pottery 1 3 1 5 POL_114 66.723412 37.768283 Zarabag prospection 17 (11) pottery 1 2 8 POL_115 66.729274 37.771178 Zarabag garden 1 (1) pottery (incl. a whole vessel) 1 POL_116 66.739236000 37.773225000 Zarabag burial ground 10 (9) pottery 1 3 3 POL_117 66.75143335 37.769979453 Zarabag burial ground 1 (0) pottery POL_118 66.741550667 37.767572924 Zarabag burial ground 5 (0) pottery POL_119 66.751185581 37.765816748 Zarabag burial ground 15 (2) pottery, seal 0 2 POL_120 66.727887494 37.771865381 Zarabag burial ground 1 (0) pottery POL_121 66.755450 37.770472 Zarabag find 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_122 66.719599 37.772364 Zarabag prospection 4 (4) pottery 4 POL_123 66.772691 37.775465 Zarabag prospection 1 (1) pottery 1 138 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 POL_124 66.775816 37.775310 Zarabag prospection 8 (8) pottery 8 POL_125 66.781609 37.767033 Zarabag prospection 2 (2) pottery 1 1 POL_126 66.745494 37.751955 Zarabag prospection 2 (2) pottery 2 POL_127 66.745264 37.782661 Zarabag prospection 1 (0) pottery POL_128 66.709616 37.771457 Zarabag prospection 4 (4) pottery 4 POL_129 66.719749 37.771424 Zarabag prospection 19 (19) pottery 4 15 POL_130 66.718653 37.770352 Zarabag prospection 21 (20) pottery, coin (1) 3 10 7 POL_131 66.741694 37.753300 Zarabag prospection 3 (3) pottery 3 POL_132 66.742823 37.752144 Zarabag prospection 2 (2) pottery 2 POL_133 66.744738 37.752079 Zarabag prospection 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_134 66.761494 37.763052 Zarabag prospection 10 (3) pottery 1 2 POL_135 66.754049 37.751747 Zarabag prospection 4 (3) pottery 3 POL_136 66.80795 37.77223 Karabag find 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_137 66.80795 37.77223 Karabag garden 3 (2) pottery, coins (3) 2 1 COI 1 COI Polygon No. Coordinates Village Type of survey area Quantity of finds (dated) Type of finds Bronze Age Early Iron Age (Yaz I) Middle and Late Iron Age (Yaz II/Yaz III) 6th–5th c. BC 2nd–4th c. AD 5th–6th c. AD 7th–9th c. AD 10th–11th c. AD 12th c. AD 13th c. AD 14th–15th c. AD 16th–17th c. AD 18th–19th c. AD 139A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV POL_138 66.80653 37.77064 Karabag find 37 (37) pottery 1 1 2 1 1 32 POL_139 66.80934 37.77144 Karabag tepa 43 (29) pottery 1 1 18 3 3 8 POL_140 66.81008 37.77223 Karabag field 55 (20) pottery 1 3 1 1 2 11 POL_141 66.80069 37.76954 Karabag tepa 4 (4) pottery 1 3 POL_142 66.80577 37.77069 Karabag burial ground 92 (91) pottery 2 7 62 16 1 26 POL_143 66.80221 37.77587 Karabag tepa 11 (11) pottery 4 7 POL_144 66.80192 37.77401 Karabag tepa 3 (0) pottery 3 POL_145 66.80226 37.77319 Karabag tepa 59 (57) pottery 2 12 14 31 POL_146 66.80330 37.77350 Karabag pole 11 (11) pottery 3 3 8 POL_147 66.80670 37.77041 Karabag garden 31 (31) pottery (incl. a whole vessel), coins (3) 1 2 1 2 28 POL_148 66.80735 37.77078 Karabag garden 25 (24) pottery 17 1 2 4 POL_149 66.80669 37.77130 Karabag find 9 (9) pottery 3 1 2 3 POL_150 66.80718 37.77124 Karabag garden 11 (11) pottery 4 7 POL_151 66.80714 37.77173 Karabag garden 14 (14) pottery 5 9 POL_152 66.80747 37.77222 Karabag garden 1 (1) potter (incl. a whole vessel) 1 POL_153 66.80782 37.77189 Karabag find 5 (5) pottery 4 1 POL_154 66.80902 37.77321 Karabag garden 2 (2) pottery 2 POL_155 66.81886 37.75439 Karabag / Kayrit field 2 (0) pottery 2 POL_156 66.80706 37.78148 Karabag garden 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_157 66.80436 37.78039 Karabag garden 3 (3) pottery 2 1 POL_158 66.80705 37.77695 Karabag garden 2 (2) pottery 2 POL_159 66.80570 37.77628 Karabag garden 28 (28) pottery 8 2 13 5 POL_160 66.80963 37.77106 Karabag garden 23 (22) pottery 4 5 13 140 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 POL_161 66.81022 37.77121 Karabag garden 13 (9) pottery 4 3 2 POL_162 66.81072 37.77086 Karabag garden 2 (2) pottery 1 1 POL_163 66.81052 37.77052 Karabag garden 12 (2) pottery 2 POL_164 66.81096 37.76490 Karabag garden 15 (15 pottery 1 9 2 3 POL_165 66.80995 37.76503 Karabag garden 2 (2) pottery 1 1 POL_166 66.80854 37.77507 Karabag garden 7 (7) pottery 2 2 4 POL_167 66.80808 37.77608 Karabag garden 2 (1) pottery 1 POL_168 66.81383 37.76795 Karabag garden 2 (2) pottery 1 1 POL_169 66.80612 37.77266 Karabag find 13 (13) pottery 1 4 6 POL_170 66.80652 37.77277 Karabag garden 45 (43) pottery 2 5 4 32 POL_171 66.80595 37.77324 Karabag garden 3 (3) pottery 3 POL_172 66.80031 37.77954 Karabag garden 3 (3) pottery 1 2 POL_173 66.81301 37.76976 Karabag garden 10 (10) pottery 2 2 8 POL_174 66.80689 37.77351 Karabag garden 12 (10) pottery 3 1 6 POL_175 66.80180 37.78589 Karabag field 31 (27) pottery 3 11 13 POL_176 66.80796 37.77157 Karabag garden 16 (16) pottery 9 6 POL_177 66.81067 37.76531 Karabag garden 24 (24) pottery 1 1 5 18 POL_178 66.81040 37.76570 Karabag garden 13 (13) pottery 2 2 11 POL_179 66.81009 37.76608 Karabag garden 3 (2) pottery 2 Polygon No. Coordinates Village Type of survey area Quantity of finds (dated) Type of finds Bronze Age Early Iron Age (Yaz I) Middle and Late Iron Age (Yaz II/Yaz III) 6th–5th c. BC 2nd–4th c. AD 5th–6th c. AD 7th–9th c. AD 10th–11th c. AD 12th c. AD 13th c. AD 14th–15th c. AD 16th–17th c. AD 18th–19th c. AD 141A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV POL_180 66.80847 37.76729 Karabag garden 3 (3) pottery 1 2 POL_181 66.80770 37.76767 Karabag garden 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_182 66.80953 37.76837 Karabag garden 38 (31) pottery 25 6 POL_183 66.80616 37.76840 Karabag garden 14 (11) pottery 1 9 1 POL_184 66.80691 37.76966 Karabag garden 18 (18) pottery 2 1 2 8 5 POL_185 66.80684 37.77576 Karabag garden 5 (0) pottery 1 4 POL_186 66.80626 37.77485 Karabag garden 10 (0) pottery 10 POL_187 66.80573 37.77396 Karabag garden 12 (12) pottery 1 11 POL_188 66.80072 37.78043 Karabag garden 3 (0) pottery 3 POL_189 66.81448 37.76600 Karabag field 4 (4) pottery 4 POL_190 66.81342 37.76839 Karabag garden 17 (7) pottery 7 POL_191 66.81368 37.76716 Karabag garden 10 (10) pottery 3 7 POL_192 66.81508 37.76641 Karabag garden 16 (14) pottery 7 4 3 POL_192 66.80199 37.77725 Karabag garden 7 (7) potter (incl. a whole vessel) 7 POL_193 66.80106 37.77760 Karabag garden 1 (1) pottery 1 POL_194 66.80864 37.77243 Karabag garden 6 (5) pottery 5 POL_195 66.78940 37.81609 Karabag prospection 1 (0) pottery POL_196 66.78569 37.75715 Karabag prospection 4 (3) pottery 3 POL_197 66.66515 37.78853 Kampyrtepa tepa 17 (17) pottery 4 5 8 POL_198 66.68070 37.78316 Kampyrtepa garden 6 (2) pottery 2 POL_199 66.67882 37.78327 Kampyrtepa find 6 (6) pottery 2 4 POL_200 66.67813 37.78347 Kampyrtepa garden 2 (0) pottery 142 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 POL_201 66.67631 37.78364 Kampyrtepa tepa 58 (58) pottery 1 6 3 7 19 22 POL_202 66.67699 37.78360 Kampyrtepa garden 27 (26) pottery 2 6 5 4 13 POL_203 66.67701 37.78501 Kampyrtepa burial ground 17 (17) pottery 1 2 2 7 7 POL_204 66.69305 37.77790 Kampyrtepa tepa 3 (3) pottery 2 POL_205 66.69102 37.78021 Kampyrtepa garden 2 (2) pottery 2 POL_206 66.69812 37.77950 Kampyrtepa garden 5 (5) pottery 3 2 POL_207 66.69325 37.77966 Kampyrtepa garden 3 (3) pottery 3 POL_208 66.80672 37.76881 Karabag garden 2 (2) pottery 2 Tab.1: The surveyed polygons with finds (POL_001–208) in the oases of Zarabag, Karabag and Kampyrtepa. Polygon No. Coordinates Village Type of survey area Quantity of finds (dated) Type of finds Bronze Age Early Iron Age (Yaz I) Middle and Late Iron Age (Yaz II/Yaz III) 6th–5th c. BC 2nd–4th c. AD 5th–6th c. AD 7th–9th c. AD 10th–11th c. AD 12th c. AD 13th c. AD 14th–15th c. AD 16th–17th c. AD 18th–19th c. AD 143A. AUGUSTINOVÁ– L. STANČO– L. DAMAŠEK– M. MRVA– S. SHAYDULLAEV Code Local Name Village Coordinates Quantity of finds (dated) Type of feature Type of finds Dating (quantity) Polygon No. KuPi_001 Koshtepa Zarabag 66.76292452 37.745028036 28 (16) tepa pottery Sapalli (Late Bronze Age)(5), 4th c. (1), 18th/19th c.(2), 18th/19th c. mountain area (7) POL_023 KuPi_002 Koshtepa-2 Zarabag 66.763079921 37.745474959 15 (9) surface disruption pottery Yaz II/III (Early Iron Age)(5), 5th–6th c.(1), 12th–13th c. (1), 18th/19th c. (1), 18th/19th c. mountain area (1) POL_024 KuPi_003 Karaultepa Zarabag 66.749028163 37.785670459 0 (0) × × × NEG_027 KuPi_004 ×Zarabag 66.782624004 37.760404386 5 (5) tepa pottery 12th c.(3), 18th–19th c. (2) POL_109 KuPi_005 Dülanatepa Zarabag 66.729326751 37.776512057 0 (0) tepa × × NEG_028 KuPi_006 Vayorona/Erona Zarabag 66.731507471 37.775841756 0 (0) tepa × × NEG_029 KuPi_007 ×Zarabag 66.732156565 37.774467794 0 (0) tepa × × NEG_030 KuPi_008 Bobolangar Zarabag 66.740390000 37.762070000 68 (62) burial ground/ tepa? dastarkhan, poterry Bronze Age (29), Sapalli (Late Bronze Age) (22), Yaz I (Early Iron Age) (1), 5th–6th c. (6), 11th–12th c. (1), 18th–19th c. (2) POL_039 KuPi_009 Bobolanger-2 Zarabag 66.741699000 37.761463000 13 (1) burial ground pottery 18th–19th c. (1) POL_104 KuPi_010 Bobolangar-3 Zarabag 66.742412000 37.760477000 1 (0) unspecified feature pottery ×POL_107 KuPi_011 Tulkitepa Zarabag 66.749430000 37.751390000 45 (37) tepa grinding slab, pottery Sapalli (Late Bronze Age) (20), 12th c. (14), 18th–19th c. (4) POL_085 KuPi_012 ×Zarabag 66.719005000 37.769516000 4 (4) bank-like feature pottery Sapalli (Late Bronze Age) (3), 17th c. (1) POL_043 KuPi_013 ×Zarabag 66.744283754 37.76789437 10 (6) burial ground pottery (incl. a whole vessel) Sapalli (Late Bronze Age) (1), 4th c. (2), 5th–6th c. (2+1 vessel) POL_108 KuPi_014 Kurukhsay Tepa Zarabag 66.755105043 37.768986532 1 (0) tepa pottery ×NEG_024 KuPi_015 ×Zarabag 66.780619000 37.759905000 0 (0) semicircular feature × × NEG_032 KuPi_016 Vayorona/Erona Zarabag 66.733624237 37.774059512 0 (0) bank-like feature × × × KuPi_017 ×Zarabag 66.722983075 37.771041356 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_018 ×Zarabag 66.722920043 37.770967344 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_019 ×Zarabag 66.722775958 37.771029454 1 (0) kurgan × × POL_019 KuPi_020 ×Zarabag 66.723324805 37.770915627 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_021 ×Zarabag 66.745264018 37.782661607 0 (0) pit unclear origin × × NEG_31 144 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 KuPi_022 ×Zarabag 66.785837626 37.759176102 1 (1) pit unclear origin pottery 12th c. POL_27 KuPi_023 ×Zarabag 66.742863000 37.781070000 0 (0) pit unclear origin × × × KuPi_024 ×Zarabag 66.746750800 37.782275453 0 (0) mound feature × × × KuPi_025 ×Zarabag 66.771625774 37.760569761 0 (0) square feature × × × KuPi_026 ×Zarabag 66.745264018 37.782661607 0 (0) circular feature × × × KuPi_027 ×Zarabag 66.719544819 37.776658488 0 (0) circular feature × × × KuPi_028 ×Zarabag 66.719498383 37.776764939 0 (0) circular feature × × × KuPi_029 ×Zarabag 66.719691753 37.776798634 0 (0) circular feature × × × KuPi_030 ×Zarabag 66.758239120 37.766691819 1 (0) revision – Zarabag I–II pottery × × KuPi_031 ×Zarabag 66.756735000 37.770556000 4 (0) revision – Zarabag IV pottery × × KuPi_032 ×Zarabag 66.778016000 37.755062000 0 (0) revision – Zarabag III × × × KuPi_033 Yakadarakh Zarabag 66.707258000 37.796702000 0 (0) bank-like feature × × × KuPi_034 ×Zarabag 66.723389000 37.787848000 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_035 ×Zarabag 66.723325000 37.787866000 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_036 ×Zarabag 66.723349000 37.787942000 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_037 ×Zarabag 66.725374000 37.787689000 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_038 ×Zarabag 66.725318000 37.787712000 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_039 ×Zarabag 66.725533000 37.787896000 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_040 ×Zarabag 66.733761365 37.773950715 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_041 ×Zarabag 66.732595610 37.775445711 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_042 ×Zarabag 66.732667862 37.775363149 0 (0) kurgan × × × KuPi_043 ×Zarabag 66.786729000 37.748623000 0 (0) square feature × × × KuPi_044 ×Zarabag 66.787082000 37.748607000 0 (0) square feature × × × KuPi_045 Bakhodin Balogardon Karabag 66.811264000 37.771758000 0 (0) kurgan × × NEG_057 KuPi_046 ×Karabag 66.810009000 37.765056000 2 (2) tepa pottery 5th–6th c. (1), 18th–19th c. (1) POL_165 KuPi_047 Bilgardon Karabag 66.802163000 37.775873000 11 (11) tepa pottery 12th c. (4), 18th–19th c. (7) POL_143 KuPi_048 ×Karabag 66.801995000 37.774390000 3 (3) tepa pottery 10th c. (3) POL_144 187PLATES Pl. 4/5: Khush ‑Vakttepa (KuPi_051) in the Karabag Oasis. The profile with the cultural layers in the disrupted surface of the site Khush ‑Vakttepa (photo by A. Augustinová). Pl. 4/6: The storage vessel probably from the site Eishntepa (KuPi_056) in the Kampyrtepa Oasis which is still in use (photo by A. Augustinová). 188 STUDIA HERCYNIA XXI/1 Pl. 4/7: Bobolangar (KuPi_008), the Zarabag Oasis– the Bronze Age dastarkhan (photo by A. Augus‑ tinová). Pl. 4/8: The granite mortar found in the Shalkan Say in the Zarabag Oasis– Yaz Culture (photo by A. Augustinová).