The Petroglyphs of Pashkhurt Valley in the Surkhan Darya Province (South Uzbekistan) – Preliminary Report

The Petroglyphs of Pashkhurt Valley in the Surkhan Darya Province (South Uzbekistan)– Preliminary Report Anna Augustinová– Ladislav Stančo ABSTRACT This report focuses on agroup of petroglyphs that were recently discovered and documented near the village of Zarabag in the Sherabad District (south Uzbekistan). Although the prehistoric and early medieval petroglyphs rank among the most well -known and studied phenomena in the archaeology of Central Asia, they have been virtually unknown in south Uzbekistan. The group consists of 42 individual stones with rock art that have been recently found, carefully documented and preliminarily analysed. This paper offers abrief description of the site, and of the individual petroglyphs, their basic typology and preliminary dating as well as aspatial analysis. KEYWORDS Rock -art; petroglyphs; landscape; Central Asia; Bactria; Yaz culture; Sapalli culture. In the autumn of 2015 during the research activities of the Czech -Uzbekistani -French archaeological team 1 in the Sherabad District of Surkhan Darya Province, south Uzbekistan, numerous previously unknown petroglyphs2 were detected. This discovery was unexpected and is of great importance, since no similar rock art sites had previously been known in this region. Our activity focused, beyond the detection and documentation of the single examples, on their spatial analysis with regard to the settlement pattern. Beside both co -authors, Johana Tlustá was engaged in the photographic documenting of the petroglyphs. The field work lasted altogether four days in late September and early October 2015. PETROGLYPHS IN THE SHERABAD REGION Although rock art is by no means unique in other regions of Central Asia, in the environment of south Uzbekistan this phenomenon had not been uncovered yet. The highest concentrations of petroglyphs in Uzbekistan are to be found in the north -eastern (western Tien -Shan, Turkestan and Alai ranges, Fergana Valley) and in the central (Nurata and Zarafshan ranges) parts of the country. Some clusters of rock art are also present in the north -western part of the republic (central Kyzyl Kum, the mountains of Bukantau, Tamdytau, Sultan Uvays, Kuldzhuktau; see: Khujanazarov 2004; Khujanazarov 2011, 99). The only exception in south Uzbekistan so far is represented by the site of Zaraut Kamar situated in the Zaraut Say gorge close to the village of Kyzyl Alma in the Sherabad District of the 1 One part of the team excavated the site of Burgut Kurgan (Stančoetal. 2016) belonging to Yaz Iculture, while another part of the team conducted an archaeological non -destructive survey in the Zarabag Oasis (Augustinováetal. 2016) and Kayrit Oasis (Stančo 2016) nearby the aforementioned Yaz Isite. 2 According to R.G. Bednarik’sglossary, the petroglyphs represent arock art branch that involved areductive process in its production such as percussion or abrasion (Bednarik 2003, 14). STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2, 122–138 123ANNA AUGUSTINOVÁ– LADISLAV STANČO Surkhan Darya province; thus the site is situated only 10 km north of Zarabag. Unlike the Zarabag petroglyphs, the site of Zaraut Kamar is asmall limestone rock shelter decorated with paintings. Numerous researchers have dealt with this site (Formozov 1965, 63–84; 1969; Kabirov 1976, 73–82; Khujanazarov 1996; Okladnikov 1966, 69–75; Roginskaya 1950; Rozwadovski 2004, 16–18; Tashbayevaetal. 2001; Sher 1980, 181–183) and ascribed the paintings to the Mesolithic period. The petroglyphs studied in autumn 2015 were detected in the western part of the Sherabad District in the steppe belt of the Kugitang Mountains piedmonts. They are scattered in the vicinity of the Zarabag micro -oasis, which is located 6 km to the north of the centre of the village of Pashkhurt. They are concentrated into three clusters (Pl. 5/1 and 5/2) and represented by 42 individual decorated stones. The first and largest concentration (Za_01) is situated immediately east of the Zarabag Oasis (Pl. 5/3) and includes 27 stones. The second one (Za_02) represented by nine stones continues to the east of the first cluster with aspatial gap around the Yaz Isite of Burgut Kurgan. The last, and so far the smallest cluster (Za_03), is situated west of the Zarabag village and consists for now of only four decorated stones. The first two concentrations (Za_01, Za_02) follow avirtual axis along the road connecting the villages of Zarabag and Maydan. The petroglyphs are situated about 3–5 km north -west of this crossroads. The third cluster (Za_03) is located on the right side of the road connecting Zarabag and Kampyrtepa. LANDSCAPE CHARACTERISTICS The steppe landscape of the piedmonts of Kugitang– part of the Alai -Western Tian Shan Steppe (PA0801)3– consists of vast rocky outcrops, low elongated ridges and wavy plains separated by dry river beds. In the springtime, there are two seasonal rivers flowing through the research area (Shalkan and Machayly), but their riverbeds are dry during the rest of the year. The altitude of the steppe landscape here varies between 700 and 1500 m.a.s.l. The petroglyphs occur on the loose lying stones that are typically situated on the slopes of the elongated ridges. The stones themselves are rocks of volcanic origin; their black colour patina strongly contrasts with the grey and brown shades of the landscape (and with the green palette in the spring time). This characteristic colour makes them quite easy to find and visible (unlike the petroglyphs themselves) even from the distance of several hundred meters. The elevation of the petroglyphs discovered so far varies between 822 m.a.s.l. in the case of P40 (Za_02) and 1098 m.a.s.l. in the case of P21 (Za_03) with an overall average elevation of 907 m.a.s.l. STATE OF PRESERVATION Due to the fact that stones with petroglyphs in the open landscape are exposed to the elements for avery long time, it is not possible to decidedly recognize each of the depicted motifs. Stone P11 has brought to light an interesting finding. Apart of this petroglyph was covered with soil at the moment of its discovery. After its complete clearing, the differences in preservation 3 Adescription of this ecosystem is given in detail in the following link (visited 20/8/2016): http://www. worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/pa0801; in the map part of this source, this ecosystem seems to cover almost the entire Surkhan Darya province. In the text part, however, its eastern border seems to be marked by the Kugitang Mountains. 124 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 between the exposed and previously covered parts became clearly obvious (Pl. 5/4). This example distinctly illustrates that the original appearance of the motifs differed markedly from what we can see now. They were more contrasting and crisply scratched and they could even have looked much more distinct in the landscape than today. This fact also warns that the petroglyphs are irretrievably disappearing because of exogenous influences and it is necessary to capture and document them now. DISCOVERY CIRCUMSTANCES AND METHODS OF DOCUMENTATION The discovery of the studied petroglyphs came about by coincidence. The first of them was shown to us by alocal herder named Rustam Sukhrobov from the Zarabag village. Following his first discovery we succeeded in finding all the other so far undiscovered petroglyphs. Even if not each of the stones bears clearly recognizable depictions, we have documented every stone with obvious marks of engravings in order to get detailed data on the placement of the petroglyphs in the landscape. The documentation of the petroglyphs was carried out in several steps. Every stone was positioned by GPS (Garmin eTrex and Topcon GMS-2), described in the terrain and photographically documented.4 Afterwards, the spatial data were processed in QGis software and analysed. The identifiable motifs were redrawn by Adobe Illustrator and further studied. The documented petroglyphs are summarized here in asimple catalogue in the form of atable (Tab.1) that is supplemented by drawings and photographs. We take into account the elevation of the stones (m.a.s.l.), the orientation of the petroglyphs to the cardinal points, and the size of the surface (cm) on which the motif is situated. In iconographic and stylistic terms, we have focused on the questions, whether the petroglyph contains only one object (O) or acomposition of more objects (C), and especially what motifs are depicted. As for map data, the only topographic map of the research area freely available is the 1:100000 map compiled by the Soviet military in 1983 (Pl. 5/1) which is not detailed enough for our intentions. As aworking map underlay, the satellite imagery of Google Earth served us better. Petroglyph No. Cluster No. Elevation Coordinates Composition Size of the surface with engraving (cm) Slope orientation Motif P01 Za_01 895 66.775689404 37.759957043 C 45×40 N-W arkhar (2), markhor (1), unrecognizable animals (?; Fig. 1) P02a Za_01 910 66.773478175 37.760613682 C 180×30 E geometric pattern (1), arkhar (1; Fig. 2) P02b Za_01 910 66.773478175 37.760613682 C 180×50 W geometric pattern (1) P03 Za_01 913 66.773120100 37.760852901 O 30×40 S wild goat (1; Fig. 3) P04 Za_01 909 66.770350719 37.760290811 C 50×80 E unclear motif P05 Za_01 902 66.769965319 37.760029547 O 20×20×20 S-W geometric pattern (1; Fig. 4) P06 Za_01 907 66.768900314 37.760525420 C 90×40 W markhor (2), wild goat (2), Siberian ibex (2), unrecognizable animals (?; Fig. 5) P07 Za_01 902 66.769192507 37.760121999 C 60×50 S-W unclear motif P08 Za_01 866 66.780430209 37.759459661 O 50×50×40 S-E scorpion/group of goats (1; Fig. 6) 4 The photographs of the petroglyphs were taken by A. Augustinová, L. Stančo and J. Tlustá. 125ANNA AUGUSTINOVÁ– LADISLAV STANČO Petroglyph No. Cluster No. Elevation Coordinates Composition Size of the surface with engraving (cm) Slope orientation Motif P09a Za_01 888 66.780099878 37.759642471 O 60×30 S-E arkhar (1; Fig. 7) P09b Za_01 888 66.780099878 37.759642471 O 60×30 S-E unclear motif P10 Za_01 888 66.780047826 37.759383721 C 40×30 N-E unrecognizable animal (?), anthropomorphic figure (1; Fig. 8) P11 Za_01 903 66.773457052 37.760509495 C 70×20 N hunting scene – wild goat (1); Siberian ibex (?), human figure (1; Fig. 9) P12 Za_01 920 66.770570911 37.760331128 O 30×20 S markhor (1; Fig. 10) P13 Za_01 912 66.768535282 37.760027032 C 60×30 S unclear motif (Fig. 11) P14 Za_01 912 66.768550873 37.760023596 C 40×40 W markhor (1; Fig. 12) P15 Za_01 883 66.778938901 37.759348769 C 43×20 W unclear motif P16 Za_01 893 66.777652949 37.759347847 C 50×50 Z unclear motif P17 Za_01 895 66.776868990 37.759593939 O 50×30 S-W unclear motif P18 Za_01 898 66.773340041 37.762283441 C 80×60 W unclear motif P19 Za_03 1096 66.719582789 37.776641892 O 70×50 W unclear motif (Fig. 13) P20 Za_03 1079 66.720908135 37.775806887 C 50×40 S-E unclear motif P21 Za_03 1098 66.721546249 37.776746834 O 90×30 N-E Siberian ibex (1; Fig. 14) P22 Za_03 1083 66.721551111 37.780153407 C 70×40 N-E unclear motif P23a Za_03 860 66.789964791 37.757679345 C 70×30 N-E unclear motif (Fig. 15) P23b Za_03 860 66.789964791 37.757679345 O 25×40 E unclear motif P24 Za_02 862 66.792460838 37.754813069 C 60×40 S-W unrecognizable animals (?, Fig. 16) P25 Za_02 869 66.792637445 37.754709721 C 40×50 S-W arkhar (1; Fig. 17) P26 Za_02 865 66.793008177 37.754570497 O 60×30 S arkhar (1; Fig. 18) P27 Za_02 861 66.794905756 37.754776860 O 60×50 S-E unclear motif P28 Za_02 863 66.796356915 37.754772753 C 50×25 S arkhar (1), Siberian ibex (2; Fig. 19) P29 Za_02 863 66.796446769 37.754746014 O 60×25 S Siberian ibex (1; Fig. 20) P30 Za_01 917 66.766510382 37.760572862 O 25×25 E unclear motif P31 Za_01 914 66.765581919 37.760823984 C 80×30 S wild goat (1), part of human figure (1; Fig. 21) P32 Za_01 917 66.771556539 37.761058761 O 50×50 S-E unclear motif P33 Za_01 909 66.772960592 37.760822475 C 80×70×70 N-W unclear motif P34 Za_01 907 66.774544101 37.760487786 O 60×20 S-W cow (1; Fig. 22) P35 Za_01 897 66.776250405 37.760264659 C 40×20 W unclear motif P36 Za_01 891 66.776979715 37.759791082 C 50×70 S-W unclear motif P37 Za_01 896 66.777420519 37.759600645 C 60×70 S-W unclear motif P38 Za_01 889 66.778642014 37.759450190 C 50×50 S-E unclear motif P39 Za_03 823 66.797400000 37.754500000 C 30×70 W unclear motif P40 Za_03 822 66.796900000 37.754600000 C 50×30 S unclear motif P41 Za_03 830 66.796500000 37.754700000 O 60×30 S unclear motif P42 Za_03 833 66.794000000 37.753600000 C 60×60 S unclear motif Tab.1: Overview of the petroglyphs discovered in 2015. 126 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 THE ZARABAG PETROGLYPHS As mentioned above, the petroglyphs surrounding the Zarabag micro -oasis are divided into three clusters (Za_01–03) and each stone has its own number (P01–P42). Aletter after the number in the code (e.g. P02a, P02b) indicates that the stone has motifs on more than one side, and they seem to be separated from each other. All of the documented decorated stones share similar characteristics and are situated in similar places in the landscape. As far as the proposed identification of the motifs is concerned, it is necessary to take into consideration that it is based only on the subjective appraisal of the authors, who do not claim it to be an indisputable statement of fact. The main motifs that occur repeatedly on numerous stones and are clearly recognizable, resemble “wild goats” of various species which still exist today in various places of the vast territory of Eurasia including parts of Uzbekistan: “ibexes”, “goats” and “sheep”. Some of them resemble “arkhar” (mouflon– Ovis orientalis bocharensis; seven depictions: P01, P02a, P09a, P25, P26, P28; Tab.1; Fig. 1, 7, 17, 18, 19; Kholikov 2004, 66–71). Other depicted motifs are similar to “markhor” (Capra falconeri heptneri; five depictions: P01, P06, P12, P14; Tab.1; Fig. 1, 5, 10, 12; Bogdanov 1992, 101–105). Still other recognizable species of animal bear aresemblance to a“wild goat” (Capra aegagrus; fi ve depictions: P03, P06, P11, P31; Tab.1; Fig. 3, 5, 9, 21), or the similarly looking “siberian ibex” (Capra sibirica; seven depictions: P6, P11, P21, P28, P29; Tab.1; Fig. 5, 11, 14, 19; Dayanetal. 1986, 105–116; Grubb 2005, 637–722). Among other depictions on the petroglyphs, there is amotif resembling a“cow” (P34; Fig. 22) and a“scorpion” or several goats not better identifiable because their depictions are very thickly packed together (P08; Fig. 6), numerous geometric patterns (P02a, P02b, P05; Fig. 2, 4), an anthropomorphic figure seemingly depicted in interaction with anot recognizable animal (P10; Fig. 8) and probably ahunting scene (P11; Fig. 9). Fig. 1: P01 (Za_01)– arkhar, markhor, unrecognizable animals (redrawn by A. Augustinová). 127ANNA AUGUSTINOVÁ– LADISLAV STANČO Fig. 2: P02a (Za_01)– geometric pattern, arkhar (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 3: P03 (Za_01)– wild goat (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 4: P05 (Za_01)– geometric pattern (redrawn by A. Augustinová). 128 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Fig. 5: P06 (Za_01)– markhor, wild goat, siberian ibex, unrecognizable animals (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 6: P08 (Za_01)– scorpion/group of goats (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 7: P09a (Za_01)– arkhar (redrawn by A. Augustinová). 129ANNA AUGUSTINOVÁ– LADISLAV STANČO Fig. 8: P10 (Za_01)– unrecognizable animal, anthropomorphic figure (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 9: P11 (Za_01)– hunting scene (?)– wild goat, siberian ibex, human figure (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 10: P12 (Za_01)– markhor (redrawn by A. Augustinová). 130 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Fig. 11: P13 (Za_01)– unclear motif (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 12: P14 (Za_01)– markhor (redrawn by A. Augustinová). Fig. 13: P19 (Za_03)– unclear motif (redrawn by A. Augustinová). 137ANNA AUGUSTINOVÁ– LADISLAV STANČO Danielisová, A.– Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, A. 2010: Preliminary Report of Archaeological Survey in Sherabad District, South Uzbekistan in 2009. Studia Hercynia XIV, 67–90. Dayanetal. = Dayan, T.– Tchernov, E.– Bar -Yosef, O.– Yom -Tov, Y. 1985: Animal Exploitation in Ujrat El- -Mehed, aNeolithic Site in Southern Sinai. Paleorient 12, 105–116. Dvurechenskayaetal. 2014 = Двуреченская, Н.Д.– Двуреченский, О.В.– Мокробородов, В.В.– Рукавишникова, И.В.– Рукавишников, Д.В. 2014: Маршрутные исследования на юге Узбекистана в2013 году. Краткие сообщения Института археологии 236, 69–82. Formozov, A.A. 1965: The Rock Paintings of Zaraut -Kamar, Uzbekistan. Rivista di Scienze Preistoriche 20, 63–84. Formozov 1969 = Формозов, А.А. 1969: Очерки по первобытному искусству. Наскальные изображения икаменные изваяния эпохи камня ибронзы на территории СССР. Москва. Grubb, P.2005: Artiodactyla. In: D.E. Wilson– D.M. Reeder (eds.): Mammal Species of the World. ATaxonomic and Geographic Reference. Baltimore, 637–722. Kabirov 1976 = Кабиров, Д. 1976: Древнейшая наскальная живопи Зараутсай. Первобитное искусство. Новосибирск, 73–82. Kaniuth, K. 2011: Tilla Bulak 2010. Vorbericht über die vierte Grabungskampagne. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 43, 261–282. Khujanazarov 1996 = Хужаназаров, М.M. 1996: Древнейшие Наскальные изображения Узбекистана. Кистокам истории древнего каменного века Средней Азии. Ташкент. Khujanazarov 2004 = Хужаназаров, М.M. 2004: Памятники наскального искусства Центральной Азии. Алматы. Khujanazarov, M.M. 2011: Rock Art Sites in Uzbekistan. In: J. Clottes (ed.): Rock Art in Central Asia. AThematic Study. Paris, 99–112, 183–188. Kholikov, T.Sh. 2004: Materials on Conditions of Population of Artiodactyls in Mountains of Kugitang and Bausuntau (Western Side). Узбексий Биологический Журнал 5, 66–71. Lhuillier, J. 2016: Pottery from Burgut Kurgan and Kayrit Oasis, Preliminary Report for Season 2015. Studia Hercynia XX/2, 112–121. Lytleetal. 2008 = Lytle, F.– Lytle, M.– Rogers, A.– Garfinkel, A.– Maddock, C.– Wight, W.– Cole, C.: An Experimental Technique for Measuring Age of Petroglyphs Production. Results on Coso Petroglyphs. In: Paper Presented at the 31st Great Basin Anthropological Conference. Portland. Maryashev– Zheleznyakov 2013 = Марьяшев, А.Н.– Железняков, Б.А. 2013: Древности Кулжабасы. Алматы. McNeil, J.L. 2010: Making Lemonade. Using Graffiti to Date Petroglyphs. Utah Rock Art XXIX, 9–21. Miklashevich, E. 2003: Rock Art Research in North and Central Asia 1995–1999. In: P.G. Bahn– A. Fossati(eds.): Rock Art Studies News of the World 2. Oxford, 88–118. Mkrtychevetal. 2005 = Мкртычев, Т.К.– Болелов, С.Б.– Ильясов, Д.Я. 2005: Исследования на юге Узбекистана. Археологические открытия 2004 года. Москва, 524–528. Okladnikov 1966 = Окладников, А.П. 1966: Петроглифы Ангара. Москва– Ленингрaд, 68–75. Roginskaya 1950 = Рогинская, А. 1950: Зараут ‑сай. Москва– Ленингрaд. Rogozhinskiy, A.E. 2011: Rock Art Sites in Kazakhstan. In: J. Clottes (ed.): Rock Art in Central Asia. AThematic Study. Paris, 9–42, 161–166. Rozwadovski, A. 2004: Symbols through Time. Interpreting the Rock Art of Central Asia. Poznań. Rtveladze 1974 = Ртвеладзе, Е.В. 1974: Разведочное изучение Бактрийских памятников на юге Узбекистана. In: В.М. Маccон (ed.): Древняя Бактрия. Ленинград, 74–85. Rtveladze– Khakimov 1973 = Ртвеладзе, Э.В.– Хакимов, З.А. 1973: Маршрутные исследования памятников Северной Бактрии. In: Из истории античной культуры Узбекистана. Ташкент, 10–34. Sher 1980 = Шер, Я.А. 1980: Петроглифы Средней иЦентральной Азии. Москва. 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. 138 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Stančoetal. 2014 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Bendezu -Sarmiento, J.– Pažout, A.– Vondrová, H.: Kayrit Burial Site (South Uzbekistan). Preliminary Report for Season 2014. Studia Hercynia XVIII/1–2, 31–41. Stančoetal. 2016 = Stančo, L.– Shaydullaev, Sh.– Bendezu -Sarmiento, J.– Lhuillier, J.– Kysela, J.– Shaydullaev, A.– Khamidov, O.– Havlík, J.– Tlustá, J.: Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Burgut Kurgan in 2015 Burgut Kurgan. Studia Hercynia XX/2, 86–111. Stančo, L. 2016: Archaeological Survey in the Surroundings of Kayrit (South Uzbekistan), Preliminary Report for Season 2015. Studia Hercynia XX/2, 73–85. Takakietal. 2006 = Takaki, R.– Toriwaki, J.– Mizuno, S.– Izuhara, R.– Khudjanazarov, M.– Reutova, M.: Shape Analysis of Petroglyphs in Central Asia. Forma 21, 243–258. Takakietal. 2010 = Takaki, R.– Izuhara, R.– Mizuno, S.– Khujanazarov, M.– Kashiwabara, M.: Differences of Petroglyph Styles among Archaeological Sites with Spatial and Time -Wise Distance. Forma 25, 45–48. Tashbayevaetal. 2001 = Tashbayeva, K.– Khujanazorov, M.– Ranov, V.– Samashev, Z.: Petroglyphs of Central Asia. Bishkek. Vahdati, A.A. 2010: Stone Canvases. APreliminary Report on the Study of Two Rock ‑Art Complexes in North Kho‑ rassan Province, Northeastern Iran. Tehran. Vahdati, A.A. 2011: APreliminary Report on aNewly Discovered Petroglyphic Complex near Jorbat, the Plain of Jajarm, North -eastern Iran. Paléorient 37/2, 177–187. Anna Augustinová Institute of Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague Celetná 20, CZ-11000 Prague 1 [email protected] Ladislav Stančo Institute of Classical Archaeology Faculty of Arts, Charles University in Prague Celetná 20, CZ-11000 Prague 1 [email protected] 170 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Pl. 2/1: Distribution of archaeological sites at Kayrit, eastern Pashkhurt Valley, Uzbekistan (map by author). Pl. 3/1: Location of Burgut Kurgan in the eastern part of the Pashkhurt Valley, Sherabad District, south Uzbekistan (map by L. Stančo). 175PLATES Pl. 5/1: Three clusters of petroglyphs near the Zarabag Oasis on the 1983 Soviet military tophographic map 1:100000 (by A. Augustinová). Pl. 5/2: Petroglyphs of Zarabag represented by 42 stones (map by A. Augustinová). 176 STUDIA HERCYNIA XX/2 Pl. 5/3: The cluster Za_01– the largest group of the Zarabagpetroglyphs (map by A. Augustinová). Pl. 5/4: The state of conservation of the petroglyph P11 (Za_01): A– situation at the moment of discovery; B– after clearing the surface; C– detail showing the different state of preservation above and below the ground level marked by the white line (photos by A. Augustinová and J. Tlustá).