The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

8/18/2019 The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

1/25

CHAPTERTHIRTEEN

THEANCIENTOASISLANDSCAPEOFCHORASMIA: THEROLE OF THEK ALA

INCENTRALASIANSETTLEMENTPATTERNS

MICHELLENEGUSCLEARY

We finished unloading our caravan and hurried to the ruins. Having passedby an obscure labyrinth of defence constructions near the gates, and aftercrossing an enormous internal space inside which were bushes and sandaround ruins, we climbed up the northern wall. From this fifteen-meterhigh place we saw the grandiose and unforgettable panorama of ancientKhorezm [Chorasmia], subjugated by desert. In front of us… dead sandslay. Far on the northern horizon we saw the bluish silhouette of the Sultan-Uizdag mountains and everywhere, among the thickening waves ofbarkhans [dunes], there were countless ruins of fortresses, fortified manorsand small cities. (Tolstov 1948b, 19-20)1

The ancient Central Asian land of Chorasmia was an agricultural oasissurrounded by nomadic communities and largely isolated from othersettled peoples. Many features of the mid to late 1st millennium BC oasislandscape were well preserved until the twentieth century, such as fields,

vast irrigation systems, huge fortified enclosures, and monumental culticstructures. Previous scholars have interpreted the large, fortifiedenclosures preserved from this oasis society as urban centres, despite thefact that most of these sites lack key urban features such as residentialareas, streets, and production quarters. A different interpretation of thesemonumentalkala sites can be attempted by looking at the preservedremains of the ancient oasis as an entire landscape. This paper investigatesthe strength of this alternative interpretation by looking at the landscapearound the Chorasmian complex of Ayaz-kala, drawing from thearchaeological investigations of previous scholars, and the author’s fieldsurveys.2 From this study another picture emerges concerning how theseancient Central Asians may have inhabited the oasis and occupied their


2/25

Chapter Thirteen2

sites in a non-nucleated pattern. The influence of earlier oasis civilizations,such as the B.M.A.C./Oxus Civilization, and the close ties between the

Chorasmians and the nomadic pastoralist world interact with thechallenging geographic conditions to form a unique, Central Asian oasissettlement pattern.

The kala s of ancient Chorasmia provide scholars with a uniqueopportunity to study a relatively well-preserved agricultural oasis from the7th century BC-2nd century AD. Chorasmia was virtually untouched by thecolonizing effects of the Greco-Macedonian conquest (Rapoport 1994,161), and therefore presents a window into a “local” Central Asiansettlement pattern that has continued in some form until the twentiethcentury AD (Francfort 1979, 22, 25; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 400ff.;Leriche 1977, 303; Vogelsang 1992, 279). This paper explores analternative interpretation of the ancient, monumentalkala sites ofChorasmia, which will have an impact upon our understanding ofsettlement and urbanism in ancient Central Asia.

Background

Chorasmia was an ancient land of Central Asia located in the oasiszone formed by the delta of the ancient Oxus River (modern Amu Darya;Fig. 13.1). This delta formed many oases where the distributaries of theOxus created lush, fertile areas, separated by arid “fingers” of the KyzylKum and Karak Kum deserts.

The lands of the Massagetae/Saka have long been located within andimmediately surrounding the Oxus delta. Chorasmia itself has beendescribed as forming a “wedge into the nomadic world of the arid region”(Rapoport 1994, 161). The Chorasmians most likely had very close ties totheir nomadic neighbours, and may have shared many cultural traits. TheGreek historian and geographer Strabo recorded that the Chorasmiansbelonged to the tribe of the Massagetae and Saka (Strabo 1944,Geog .XI.viii.8), and were recorded as one of the five tribes composing theMassagetae confederacy.3 Rapoport states that “the nomads createdChorasmia as they came into military and cultural contact with the BronzeAge agricultural civilizations of southern Turkmenia and northeasternIran” (Rapoport 1994, 161). This raises further questions as to whetherChorasmia was a traditional settled state as has been previously thought.4

The Chorasmian people remain somewhat mysterious, due to a lack ofhistorical sources. We know that Chorasmia, together with Sogdia, Aria,and Parthia became the 16th satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire, probablyduring the 6th century BC (Helms et al. 2001:121, n.12). We know that


3/25

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia 3

F i g u r e

1 3

. 1 :

M a p o

f C e n

t r a l

A s i a

i n t h e

4 t h

c e n t u r y

B C

, i n c

l u d i n g

C h o r a s m

i a n s i

t e l o c a

t i o n s

( a f

t e r

B r e g e l

2 0 0 3

, M a p

3 ) .


4/25

Chapter Thirteen4

sometime before the invasion of Alexander, Chorasmia becameindependent of the Achaemenids, since their king, Pharasmanes, came

with a delegation to Alexander the Great and offered his allegiance (Arrian1971, IV.15.5). With such scant historical sources5 almost all ourinformation comes from archaeology, and there has been a great deal ofconjecture and difference of interpretation of this often meagre evidence.

The Kala Sites

The Chorasmiankala sites of the 7th century BC to 2nd century AD6 arelarge, heavily fortified enclosures, usually rectangular in plan, and often

with a smaller fortified building or citadel within.7

The kalas wereconstructed of unfired mud brick and pakhsa (or pisé ), and are manifest ina variety of sizes, layouts, styles, and functions. They are spacedthroughout the oasis zones of the delta, primarily in the southern areas tothe east and west of Amu Darya.

The fortifications of the Chorasmiankalas of this period, known toRussian scholars as the Antique period and subdivided by Tolstov intoArchaic (7th-4th century BC), “Kangiui” (4th-1st century BC) and “EarlyKushan” (1st-2nd century AD)8 periods, are very characteristic of a localCentral Asian tradition (Bergamini 1987, n. 3; Francfort 1979, 18). Thecharacteristic defensive features they include are: arrow-shaped loopholes;double walls with archer’s galleries in between (mur creux , or hollowwalls according to Francfort 1979); hollow towers projecting from the lineof the trace; and huge, labyrinthine gateways protected by towers andloopholes. They were originally designed to face the attacks of armednomadic cavalry (as opposed to siege-style warfare of the Macedoniansemploying siege machines, miners, engineers, etc.), and defended byarchers from the tops of the walls and the archer’s galleries inside thewalls (Bergamini 1987, n. 3; Francfort 1979, 18-19, 20, 40, 41; Fig. 13.4)

At present, many of the largerkalas have been identified as urbancentres or “cities” based on the large areas enclosed by the walls (over 5ha), their sophisticated fortifications, and the extensive irrigation systemsfound associated with the enclosures (Khozhaniyazov 2006, 76; Tolstov1948b, 125-6). Tolstov uses the Russian wordgorodishche to describe thelarger urban sites (for example Tolstov 1948a, 77, 84, 102; Tolstov 1948b,101), and this term implies an urban classification for the site, or at thevery least that it was a large fortified settlement.9 Tolstov reconstructedancient Chorasmia as a powerful, sedentary state, fuelled by a slave-owning, agricultural economy, where the largerkalas were the urban


5/25


settlements of this state: the administrative and religious centres of astrong, centralized government (Tolstov 1948b, 103, 116).

Thekala

fortifications and their associated irrigation networks representthe investment of vast amounts of economic resources and labour, andimply the existence of a strong, centralised administration (Tolstov 1948b,103). However, the mere presence of fortified enclosures and largeirrigation networks should not necessarily lead to the assumption of acentralised, highly urbanised state, especially in this zone of nomadicpastoral production. Biscione (1979, 210), in his analysis of Bronze andIron Age settlement patterns in southern Central Asia, cautioned thatcentralization and canal systems are not always connected. Lecomte(1999, 140) agrees that such a direct relationship between a complexirrigation system and a strong central power is now disputed. Obviously acertain degree of co-ordination is required to construct and maintain suchirrigation systems, but does such co-ordination necessarily require anurbanised, centralised state, following the Mesopotamian model? ForChorasmia, questioning this assumption is important, especially given thatin the intervening years since Tolstov set up his grand narrative about theChorasmian kingdom (Tolstov 1948a), there has been further investigationof thesekala sites. This paper contends that there is little evidence of therequisite physical structures normally associated with ancient urbancentres, and that the key to better understanding the fortification andsettlements of ancient Chorasmia is to look beyond the walls at the extra-mural landscape around eachkala .


6/25

Chapter Thirteen6

Table 13.1 : Ten attributes or indicators of urbanism concerning the

classification of sites in Central Asia and the Near East.

INDICATORS OFURBANISM Ayaz-kala 3 Dzhanbas-kala Kalaly-gyr 1 Kiuzeli-gyr

Toprak-

kala(Sultan-uiz dag)

SITE DATE

4th/3rdc BC,

1st-2ndc AD

4th c BC-1st c AD

5th or4th c BC 7th-5

th cBC

2nd?/3rd?-6th c AD

Size: approx.enclosed site area7 – 15ha. (Biscione

1979); >15ha.(Francfort 1979;Zadneprovsky1995); >5ha.(Khozhaniyazov2006); >10ha(P'yankova 1994)

5ha. X 3.4ha. X 62.5ha.√ 25ha.√ 17ha.√

FortificationsBiscione, 1979;Francfort 1979;

Khozhaniyazov2006; Lavrov 1950;Masson andSarianidi 1972;P'yankova 1994;Zadneprovsky 1995.

√ √ √ √ √

Monumental ArchitectureBiscione 1979;Lavrov 1950;

Khozhaniyazov2002; Masson andSarianidi 1972;P'yankova 1994;Zadneprovsky 1995

√

√

√

√

√

Cultural ProductionMasson andSarianidi 1972

X √ √ ? √


7/25


Table 13.1 (cont.) : Ten attributes or indicators of urbanism concerning theclassification of sites in Central Asia and the Near East.

INDICATORS OFURBANISM Ayaz-kala 3 Dzhanbas-kala Kalaly-gyr 1 Kiuzeli-gyr

Toprak-

kala(Sultan-uiz dag)

SITE DATE

4th/3rdc BC,

1st-2ndc AD

4th c BC-1st c AD

5th or4th cBC

7th-5th cBC

2nd?/3rd?-6th c AD

Variety of BuildingTypes/High Densitywithin Enclosure

Daviau 1997; Francfort1979; Khozhaniyazov2002; P'yankova 1994

X X X X √

Irrigation (Large Scale Public Works)Biscione 1979; Massonand Sarianidi 1972;P'yankova 1994

√ √ √ √ √

Streets/Organised Intra-mural Planning

Daviau 1997; Lavrov1950; P'yankova 1994X √ X X √

ResidentialQuarters/Occupational

DepositsLavrov 1950; Massonand Sarianidi 1972;P'yankova, 1994

X √ X X √

Craft Production ZonesKhozhaniyazov 2002;

Masson and Sarianidi1972; P'yankova 1994;Zadneprovsky 1995

X X X X X

Long-Distance TradeKhozhaniyazov 2002;Masson and Sarianidi1972; Zadneprovsky1995

X √? X √? X


8/25

Chapter Thirteen8

The Issue of Urbanism

The city is not so much a mass of structures as a complex of inter-relatedand constantly interacting functions… (Mumford 1961, 85)

Several scholars have pointed out that the classification of the largerChorasmiankala sites as cities is problematic. Helms writes that “Theterm “urban” is very loosely used by Tolstov and his followers. It can beargued that none of the fortified sites in Chorasmia was urban, fromKiuzely-g’ir to Kazakl’i-yatkan and even Toprak-kala (Sultan-uiz-dag)”(Helms in Khozhaniyazov 2006, n. 111). Lavrov also stated that many ofthe sites in Chorasmia cannot be considered cities (Lavrov 1950, 33). If webegin to compare the larger Chorasmiankala s with the theoreticalcharacteristics attributed to ancient urban settlements, some interestingobservations are possible. Ten attributes or indicators of urbanism areshown in Table 13.1, that have been isolated from relevant worksconcerning the classification of sites in Central Asia and the Near East.10 These attributes are based on hierarchical socio-evolutionary models, andare useful here to demonstrate that the evidence from Chorasmia does notactually fit these models. The “urban indicators” of Table 13.1 are mostuseful because they help to identify the range of possible functions for thesite. As the quote from Mumford above points out, a city fulfils a range offunctions crucial to a particular society.

From Table 13.1 we can clearly see that the Chorasmiankalas 11 arelacking more than half of these indicators – the most obvious, and perhapsthe most important being size, residential quarters, craft productionquarters and a high density of intra-mural occupation. The two exceptionsare the Dzhanbas-kala and Toprak-kala sites. Dzhanbas-kala is so far theonly site with intra-mural residential structures, and a medium density ofconstruction. But its small size and lack of variety of building typespreclude it from being considered an urban centre. Toprak-kala has manyof the physical attributes associated with urban centres, but does lackevidence of long-distance trade and developed craft production areas,according to Rapoport (1994, 161).

This lack of urban characteristics is perhaps most simply expressed byFrancfort when he defined an ancient Central Asian city as the following:being fortified, being over 15ha in area, and having a high density ofstructures within its enclosure (Francfort 1979, 10, n. 21). As a result,Francfort classified the vast majority of Chorasmiankalas as “fortresses”

instead of cities (Francfort 1979, 18, 23-24, 33).12

Of thekalas that he didclassify as cities in his tables, Francfort noted that their surfaces appearedvery little built upon,13 and comments that in Chorasmia, urban enclosures


9/25


remain rare, with only Toprak-kala14 being a true city (Francfort 1979, 34;table 1). Bergamini (1981, 171, 174) has critiqued Francfort’s definition of

a city as an overly simplistic classification, and considers that Francfortdid not attempt a deeper understanding of the urban context. Nonetheless,his basic definition points to the heart of the problem for the Chorasmiansites, which is the lack of structures within the enclosure walls.

We can illustrate these issues regarding the classification ofChorasmian cities by looking at the examples of several sites. The firstsite, Kalaly-gyr 1, is a single, vast enclosure dating to the 4th century BCand is important as the largest of the Chorasmiankalas . The secondexample is the Ayaz-kala complex of sites that is of great interest inunderstanding the role of thesekala s in ancient Central Asian oases.

Kalaly-Gyr 1

Kalaly-gyr 1’s huge enclosure, an area of approximately 63 ha(Rapoport and Lapirov-Skoblo 1963, Fig.1), is constructed of 15 m thickdouble mud-brick walls, with two-storey archer’s galleries, towers, andfour monumental gateways (Fig. 13.2). It is dated to the 5th or 4th centuryBC and has been claimed by Rapoport as the Achaemenid-built seat of the16th satrapy (Rapoport et al. 2000, 30).15 Yet the interior is devoid ofdwellings, streets, cultural layers, or even fields (Lavrov 1950, 15; Tolstov1948a, 79; Tolstov 1948b, 94). The only intra-mural structure is a hugepalatial building, 1 ha in area, which is attached to the western wall –typical of Chorasmian planning.16 The excavations of this palace buildingproduced evidence of occupation and artefacts, including the remains ofpottery, stone column bases, a mould for an Achaemenid style columncapital,17 an altar, and fragments of wall paintings (Rapoport et al. 2000,31-33). The rest of the enclosure remained conspicuously devoid ofartefacts or cultural debris.

Tolstov stated that the most probable function of Kalaly-gyr 1 was as acattle enclosure (Tolstov 1948a, 80; Tolstov 1948b, 94). Tolstov’shypothesis that this site’s inhabitants lived in passages in the externalfortification walls was based on a passage in the Avesta (Tolstov 1948b,94-96).18 This was how he reconciled classifying the site as an urbansettlement, without it having any internal structures save one. Rapoportand Khozhaniyazov (and confusingly later Tolstov as well) consider thesite to have been founded as a city, and explain the lack of intra-muralfeatures by concluding that the site was unfinished, due to the collapse of


10/25

Chapter Thirteen10

Figure 13.2 : Kalaly-gyr 1 plan

(Tolstov, 1962, fig.29, annotations by the author).


11/25


Achaemenid control in Chorasmia (Khozhaniyazov 2006, 72; Rapoport etal. 2000, 31; Tolstov 1960, 17). Pottery, some occupation layers found

within the palace, and clear evidence that the building was destroyed byfire (Rapoport and Lapirov-Skoblo 1963, 143) point to it having beeninhabited, and thus argue against the site being unfinished. Rapoportassesses the neighbouring, slightly earlierkala of Kiuzely-gyr19 (withsimilar palatial/cultic structures, extensive fortifications and a large, emptyenclosure) as having been a “proto-city”. Rapoport suggests the vacantintra-mural space of Kiuzely-gyr to have been intended for the refuge ofsurrounding inhabitants and their cattle in times of danger (Rapoport et al.2000, 25, 28), yet he does not apply this same idea to Kalaly-gyr 1 despitethe similarity of material evidence.

Given Rapoport and Tolstov’s clear statements that Kalaly-gyr 1, andeven Kiuzely-gyr, were devoid of intra-mural structures except one ormore monumental palatial/cultic buildings, and were most likely used asrefuges for cattle, it seems strange that these authors continue to use theterms “settlement” and “city” in conjunction with these sites. Many otherscholars have still generally referred to these two sites as examples ofCentral Asian urbanism (for example in Belenitskii 1968, 55; Francfort1998, 186; Khozhaniyazov 2006:76; Negmatov 1994, 446). Of the urbanindicators, both Kalaly-gyr 1 and Kiuzely-gyr have only basic features(table 13.1), implying that these sites served only limited functions. Gardin(1995, 99) refuted an urban classification for similar pre-HellenisticBactrian kala sites due to their limited functions, and so we shouldlikewise be reconsidering the urban classification of almost all theChorasmiankalas .

This raises the question that if thesekalas are not urban centres, thenwhy such large enclosures with such sophisticated fortifications? Whatfunction did they serve? How were they inhabited and used? Thesequestions have not yet been adequately addressed. Work done by theRussian scholars Andrianov, Nerazik and Vorob’eva (Andrianov 1969;Nerazik 1976; Vorob'eva 1973) has highlighted the many preservedfeatures in the landscape immediately surrounding the largerkalas . Theyrecorded irrigation canals, many small dwellings, large homesteads andfield walls. These scholars still worked under the assumption of an urban-rural division, and looked at these extra-mural features as rural“settlements”. Other scholars examined thekala monuments in isolation(e.g. Bolelov 1998; Khozhaniyazov 1987; Manylov 1965; Tolstov 1948a).

An alternative approach is to examine thekalas and the extra-muralfeatures together – to view them in the context of their settled landscape asa whole – in order to understand the function and context of thesekalas


12/25

Chapter Thirteen12

better. This can be exemplified through an analysis of the sites that makeup the Ayaz-kala complex.

The Ayaz-Kala Complex

The Ayaz-kala complex of sites lies in the south-eastern portion of theChorasmian oasis, near the edge of the Kyzyl Kum desert, on a spur of theSultan-uiz-dag hills. Ayaz-kala is a complex of three monumentalkala sites, Ayaz-kala 1, 2, and 3 (Fig. 13.3), and ancient landscape featuresincluding irrigation canals, fields, and homesteads. The complex covers anarea of approximately 80 ha (Nerazik 1976, 39).

Ayaz-kala 1 is the so-called “border fortress”, and occupies the cliffsabove. Ayaz-kala 2 is an early medieval fort dated to the 7th to 8th centuriesAD that also occupies high ground (Nerazik 1976, 41); however, due tothe late date of this site, it will not be considered in the followingdiscussion. The thirdkala monument is the so-called “urban-type” site ofAyaz-kala 3 located on the plain below.

Ayaz-kala 1 has an area of 2.7 ha20 and is dated to the 4th /3rd centuriesBC (Nerazik 1976, 41). It was probably in use until the early medievalperiod. Ayaz-kala 1 exhibits very typical features of Chorasmian militaryarchitecture, having a rectangular plan, with strongly fortified double wallswith archer’s galleries, projecting rounded towers, arrow-shapedloopholes, and a strongly fortified, labyrinthine gateway (Fig. 13.3). Ascan be seen in Figure 13-4, Ayaz-kala 1 exhibits the typical double wallsof Chorasmian ancientkalas , with parabolic mud-brick vaulting formingthe structure between the two storeys of the archer’s gallery. There is noevidence of intra-mural habitation (Lavrov 1950, 20; Tolstov 1948a, 104).This kala was considered by Tolstov to have been the garrison fort for alocal militia providing border protection for the Chorasmian state and arefuge for the local inhabitants of the settlement below (Tolstov 1948a,104). As at Kalaly-gyr 1 and Kiuzely-gyr, Tolstov envisioned the garrisonto have been accommodated in the galleries within the fortification walls(Tolstov 1948a, 104).

Ayaz-kala 3 is a medium sizedkala at just under 5 ha, but has beenclassified by Khozhaniyazov as a “Fortified settlement of Urban Type”(Khozhaniyazov 2006:76). The dating of this site is contentious, but mostscholars agree the enclosure itself is of the later Antique period, 1st-2nd centuries AD (Bolelov 1998, 134).21 Ayaz-kala 3 has several featuresindicative of an urban centre (Table 13.1). It has dimensions of 270 x 185(Bolelov 1998, 116) which give an approximate area of 5 ha22. This fitswithin Khozhaniyazov’s definition of an ancient Chorasmian urban type


13/25


Figure 13.3 : Ayaz-kala Complex plan

(Nerazik 1976, fig.18, annotations by M. Negus Clearysettlement (2006, 76), but not that of other Central Asian scholars (Table13.1). The site had formidable mud-brick fortifications (now greatlyeroded) with the characteristic Chorasmian double walls with archer’sgallery (probably only a single storey); towers 8 to 9 m wide and regularlyspaced at 21 to 22 m apart, while a gateway defended by a barbican waslocated in the middle of the western wall (Khozhaniyazov 2006, 55; Fig.13.3 and Fig. 13.5). The site has been formally planned, as is evident in

the unusual rhombus-shaped trace of the walls (Nerazik 1976, 43), theregularly spaced towers, and the location of the monumental buildingattached to one wall (this is seen at many other Chorasmian sites of thisera23). This “palace-administration” building has an unusual plan,dominated internally by a set of corridors forming a cross shape24, and itwas fortified in its own right, with thick double walls, three small towersand a defended entry (Bolelov 1998, 121; Lavrov 1950, 127; Fig. 13.5).Interestingly, this building pre-dates the enclosure walls, being of the4th /3rd centuries BC, whilst the fortifications were not built for

approximately another 300 years in the 1st

-2nd

centuries AD (Bolelov1998, 134).25


14/25

Chapter Thirteen14

Importantly, Ayaz-kala 3 lacks several key features that preclude itbeing considered a city. There is no evidence of intra-mural occupation--

no cultural deposits, debris, or structural remains within the enclosure(Bolelov 1998, 117). Excavations revealed cultural deposits in themonumental building, but Bolelov and Khozhaniyazov both state that theenclosure was not built up in the ancient period (Bolelov 1998, 117;Khozhaniyazov 2006, 55). There are therefore no residential quarterswithin thekala except the single monumental building. Neither are therecraft or cultic areas, nor even streets. There are also very few artefactsfound within thekala enclosure.

The Ayaz-kala complex was very well preserved at the time of theSoviet surveys in the 1940s-1960s. Nerazik recorded many of the featuressurrounding Ayaz-kala 3, and published an extremely interesting plan ofthe complex. This plan clearly shows the distribution of core socio-economic activities within the broader extra-mural area of the Ayaz-kalas,rather than being concentrated within the enclosure walls as would beexpected of an urban settlement. The remains of production centres(several pottery kilns) were found in association with charred walls nearthe ancient river bed to the south of Ayaz-kala 3 (Nerazik 1976, 39; Fig.13.3). These date from the 4th-3rd centuries BC (Nerazik 1976, 41), whichmakes them contemporary with the Ayaz-kala 3 monumental building.The main canal feeding the complex during this period approached thecomplex from the south-east (Nerazik 1976, 37, 41; Fig. 13.3). A ruinedstructure of unknown type is located on the highest point of the cliffs tothe east of Ayaz-kala 1 (Fig. 13.3) which has been interpreted as adefensive signal tower (Khozhaniyazov pers. comm. 2005) or a smallcultic structure (Helms pers. comm. 2002). There are several smallerbuildings to the north of Ayaz-kala 3 that Nerazik considered to have beenofficial buildings (Nerazik 1976, 43), and another noted on the plan asNo.4 which was a storehouse (Nerazik 1976, 42). Residential zones can beidentified in the several small dwellings and the farmsteads located aroundthe east, south and southeast. There are over fourteen farmsteads, ordomestic structures, that were located and planned by Tolstov and Nerazik(Nerazik 1976, Fig. 18; Tolstov 1948a, Fig. 40).These homesteads are scattered around the Ayaz-kala 3, close to theancient canal. The farmsteads consist of dwellings, located within a set ofwalls that form a courtyard or several courtyards (Fig. 13.3). In these largedwellings, artefacts have been found that provide evidence of the kinds ofdomestic and economic activities that are conspicuously absent fromwithin thekala sites. For example, occupation levels were excavated, andartefacts such as pottery, utensils, coins, beads, and votive figurines were


15/25


unearthed. Domestic hearths, storage areas, sofa benches, and cookingovens were also found (Nerazik 1976, 42-46). A characteristic of these

farmsteads is that they were enclosed in walls of their own, though theymay simply have been field walls since most of the vineyards andvegetable fields were located within them. There are also emptycourtyards which may have been cattle corrals (Nerazik 1976, 42; Tolstov1948a, 103).

Figure 13.4: Ayaz-kala 1, photo of the enclosure wall showing theremains of the archer’s galleries and mud-brick vaulting.


16/25

Chapter Thirteen16

What we see here at Ayaz-kala is not an urban settlement, but a ruralsettlement. There are two large fortified enclosures, but the material

evidence shows these to have had very limited functions–that of defenceor refuge, and perhaps administration (in the monumental building inAyaz-kala 3). It appears from the dating of the complex that the south-eastcanal, farmsteads, vineyards, pottery kilns, Ayaz-kala 3 “palace” building,and Ayaz-kala 1 were all constructed and occupied at the same time —4th /3rd century BC. Several of the farmsteads and dwellings wereabandoned for a period after the 3rd century BC, then renovated andreoccupied in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD (Nerazik 1976, 48). During thisperiod of re-occupation in the early 1st century AD (Bolelov 1998, 134),the construction of the Ayaz-kala 3 enclosure implies that there was someincreased need for defence on the plain, and perhaps the monumentalbuilding increased in importance.

Interpretation

It appears from this evidence that thekala sites of the Ayaz-kalacomplex did not function as settlements at all, but rather were part of anextended rural landscape. The various socio-economic activities werespread out around two primary public infrastructures: the fortifiedkalasand the main canal. Nerazik illustrated this same pattern at several otherisolated sites where the extra-mural landscape surrounding thekalas waspreserved—Gyaur-kala in the Chermen-yab area, Dzhanbas-kala andKurgashin-kala (1976, ch. 1). Bolelov, one of the excavators of Ayaz-kala3, has provided clear archaeological evidence that Ayaz-kala 3 was not acity, but he did not discuss its urban status. However, he did state thatAyaz-kala 3 can be considered an administrative-palace complex, thecentre of a larger settlement (Bolelov 1998, 134), and perhaps this is howwe should be interpreting the rest of thesekala sites.

Biscione (1979, 207-208) recognised a settlement pattern in southernCentral Asia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age where manysmaller “village” sites and a larger, fortified site (called by Biscione a“Central Place”) were clustered in the oases of great rivers. Lecomte(1999, 140) describes the Iron Age sites of ancient Dehistan where thereare similar scatters of fortified citadels surrounded by smaller farmsteadslocated in an irrigated landscape. Leriche (1977, 307-308) and laterVogelsang (1992, 273) proposed a similar settlement pattern for ancientBactria, where the rural population was clustered around one or moredefended sites.26 Hiebert suggested that a non-nucleated settlement patternwas typical of the pre-modern oases of Central Asia. This is a pattern of


17/25


dispersed and separate building complexes, rather than a pattern of townsand cities (Hiebert 1992a, 111). Lamberg-Karlovsky isolates thekala as

the main architectural type of this pattern. He suggests that thekalas

werethe seats of local tribal leaders, orkhans , who controlled discrete parts ofthe irrigation systems, and the local population. He argues that thekhan ,the kala, and its associated non-nucleated settlement pattern, are distinctlyCentral Asian and extend back into the Bronze Age. This social system ofthe khanate was the result of groups contending for control of land andwater (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 400-401, 404-405). Ethnographicparallels also support this conception of thekalas (Khozhaniyazov 2002,147ff.).

Figure 13.5 : Ayaz-kala 3, aerial photo (Nerazik 1976, fig.19). There are also parallels with sites from ancient Central Asia and Iran

that appear to have been similar fortified enclosures, empty except for acitadel/palace, that functioned as refuges and administrative/cultic centresin the pre-Hellenistic period (despite being large urban centres in laterperiods) such as Afrasiab (Vogelsang 1992, 289), Old Kandahar(Vogelsang 1992, 257), Persepolis and Susa (Boucharlat 1997, 217, 221-223; Mousavi 1992, 204, 206).

It is possible that an additional role for thesekalas was as a monumentof the community. Philip (2003, 114) suggests that the prominent walledsites of the Early Bronze Age Levant played "the vital symbolic role of


18/25

Chapter Thirteen18

inscribing the community into the landscape in a durable, highly visiblemanner." He proposes that while the walls provided protection, they were

also created by the labour of the community, and as such they becameexpressive monuments, demarcating space and acting as symbols of thecommunity (Philip 2003, 112). Demarcation may have been important inChorasmia given its position in the nomadic world.

Nomadic fortifiedkala sites such as Kala-i Zakhoki Maron27 raisequestions as to whether the fortifiedkala s are the seemingly obviousevidence of sedentary agriculturalists as has been previous thought. Theymay perhaps represent the influence, if not the actual product, of nomadiccommunities; at the very least, these sites argue for a greater role forpastoralism in ancient Central Asian oasis economies.28

Conclusion

The Chorasmiankalas are perhaps the best preserved example of whatappears to have been a local Central Asian architectural type, a keystructure in a non-nucleated oasis settlement pattern. The archaeologicalevidence thus far does not support the existence of urban centres in ancientChorasmia, and instead suggests another picture. It seems most likely thatthe ancient Chorasmiankalas , with their large enclosures, strongfortifications, and monumental temple/palatial buildings, served a limited,but vital set of functions as secure centres for cultic and administrativestructures, and as refuges for the surrounding rural population and theircattle during enemy raids. They may also have functioned as protectedspaces for trade activities, and served as symbols of the community anddemarcations of land ownership.

The Chorasmiankalas offer a valuable perspective on a non-Hellenistic, late Iron Age settlement pattern that is perhaps truly of CentralAsian origin. As Hiebert points out, despite there being no continuity ofpopulation from the ancient period, there is a strong environmental factorthat dictates the oasis economy and thus the kinds of architectural formscreated there (Hiebert 1992b, 349). This is why thekala , has remained aconservative, but enduring form throughout Central Asian history.Moreover, rather than assuming thatkala s like Ayaz-kala to have been theurban centres of an agricultural state, we should be reconsidering thesekala s as centres for local oasis communities. While the material evidencedoes not suggest they were cities, it may instead imply a greater role forpastoralism in the oasis zones than has been previously proposed, andmuch more work is required on this point, including the exploration of theethnographic parallels.


19/25


Notes1 Translation by the author.2 S.W. Helms and the author surveyed nine sites in 2002 season, and the authorwith the assistance of F.J. Kidd surveyed 24 further sites in 2005. All surveys wereconducted in the right bank area of the Amu Darya, in what is nowKarakalpakstan. The author is currently preparing a PhD thesis at the University ofSydney entitled, “The Architectural Landscape of Ancient Chorasmia: CentralAsian fortresses, urbanism and thekala ”.3 The five tribes were recorded by the Greeks as being the Derbices, Apasiacae,Attasii, Chorasmii and Augasii (Tarn 1938, 812).4 The full extent of the role of pastoralism and the influence of nomadism inancient Chorasmia is an important topic for future research. Tolstov posited thatthe Chorasmian culture grew out of a steppic nomadic pastoral culture, and so inits early phases (“Archaic” 7th to the 4th centuries BC) cattle rearing played a muchmore important role in the Chorasmian economy. According to Tolstov’shypothesis, in its “Classical” phase (“Kangiui” 4th-1st century BC) the Chorasmianculture became a powerful, settled state, with agriculture as the primary mode ofeconomic production, reliant on slave labour. (Tolstov 1948b, 95, 113, 122).5 For a summary and discussion of the main Classical, Persian and other primaryhistorical sources relating to Chorasmia, see Helms 1998, 82-86; Helms et al.2001:121; Khozhaniyazov 2006:35-37; Rapoport et al. 2000, 23-24.6 This date range has specifically been chosen by the author for this paper (despitethe fact that Tolstov’s periodisation takes the Chorasmian ancient period right upto the 4th century AD) because the 2nd /3rd century AD is century in which Toprak-kala is believed to have been constructed. It is also the beginning of the so-called“Late Kushan period”. Toprak-kala, in the opinion of the author, represents achange in function and usage of the large Chorasmiankalas . See discussion inNegus Cleary, forthcoming.7 Horne defines aqala’ in modern day Iran as a fortified dwelling (Horne, 1994,76). The term is used throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan today with the samemeaning (Horne, 1994, 83; Szabo and Barfield, 1991). See also discussion inLamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 400 of the characteristics of Central Asiankalas .Almost every Chorasmian site is locally named in the Turkic languages ofKarakalpak, Kazak, Uzbek or Turkmen as “-kala”, for example, “Bazar-kala”,“Pil’-kala”, “Kurgashin-kala”, with the meaning of a fortified enclosure. I makeuse of this name here as convenient for describing this type of site, as opposed toan unfortified rural sites, irrespective of the various differences in size, layout andapparent function.8 S.P. Tolstov set up the divisions of the Chorasmian periodisation in the 1940’s,and named the “Kangiui” and “Kushan” periods after what he then thought werethe names for the ruling empires or dynasties at that time in Chorasmia. Since thistime other scholars have pointed about the problems with these names, given that

the Kushan empire may not have reached as far north as Chorasmia (cf. Nerazikand Bulgakov 1996, 207-8), and that the “K’ang- kü” referred to in the Chinesehistories is most probably not the Chorasmians. For a discussion of these problems


20/25

Chapter Thirteen20

with the terminology of the periodisation, see “Preface” by Helms inKhozhaniyazov 2006:14-15.9 Wahlberg in his 2005 translation of Tolstov 1948b, translatesgorodishche as“settlement” (Tolstov 2005, 98). But poselenie is used much more generally for“settlement”, andgorodishche contains as its root the wordgorod meaning “city”.The Russian-English Dictionary (Smirnitsky et al. 1989, 130) gives the followingdefinitions for the termgorodishche as “(i) large city; and (ii) site of ancientsettlement”. Employing either definition, the use of this term classifies the site as asettlement, and implies that it was inhabited primarily at least for residentialpurposes.10 See discussion on urbanism in Negus Cleary forthcoming.11 The list of sites shown on table 13.1 is representative only. Of the over 70Chorasmian sites dating from the 7th century BC to the 4th century AD,approximately 19 have been identified by Khozhaniyazov as being of “urban type”(Khozhaniyazov 2006:76-77, fig.20), and a sample of 5 have been included here.They have been chosen based on their being the most widely known of theChorasmiankalas and being indicative of the main characteristics of the sites.12 In fact, for the time period of the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC, Francfort classifiesnone of the Chorasmian sites as cities (Francfort 1979, 25).13 For example, Francfort includes Kalaly-gyr 1, Kiuzely-gyr and Chirik-Rabat as“cities” in his tables (Francfort 1979, 17) but in the text writes that their internalenclosed areas had very few structures. In the face of Francfort’s own very simpleand clear definitions, this discrepancy appears very strange, but note 114 seems toinfer that Francfort included these sites under his list of cities due to Tolstov's nowout-moded hypothesis that the sites were inhabited in their walls, not in structuresbuilt within the enclosure. And although he includes Bazar-kala and Eres-kala inhis table of Kushan period cities (Francfort 1979, 31) he then states that theyinstead appear to be large fortresses, not cities at all (Francfort 1979, 34).14 For a discussion of Toprak-kala Sultan-uiz-dag see comments in Negus Clearyforthcoming.15 The evidence for Kalaly-gyr 1 having been an Achaemenid centre is extremelythin and debatable. See comments in Negus Cleary forthcoming; Helms 1998, 89;Vogelsang 1992, 291.16

Other examples with this layout include Ayaz-kala 3, the Bazar-kala outerenclosure, Dzhanbas-kala, Ichan-kala (Khiva), and now even Kazakly-yatkan.17 This is a fragment of a mould for a gryphon’s head decoration, thought to havebeen used to decorate the ends of column capitals in emulation of the animal stylecapitals of Persepolis. See Rapoport and Lapirov-Skoblo 1963, 148, Fig. 4, Fig. 5.18 Refer note 9.19 Refer table 13.1, and see plan in Rapoport et al. 2000, part 1 pl.3.20 S.W. Helms and the author conducted a total station survey of the site in 2002.21 Dating for the Ayaz-kala Complex, as for all Chorasmian sites with theexception of Tash-kyrman-tepe and Kazakly-yatkan (Akchakhan-kala) is relative

and based on ceramic assemblages, Kushan coins and Scythian bronze arrowheads(see Helms et al. 2001, 136-137). Calibrated radio-carbon absolute dates are only


21/25


available for recent excavations at Tash-kyrman-tepe and Kazakly-yatkan(Akchakhan-kala), see Helms et al. 2001, 137ff.; Helms et al. 2002, 18, 22.22 A total station survey of the site conducted by S.W. Helms and the author in2002 gave average overall dimensions of 260x185m, or 270x185m if the gatewaylabyrinth was included. Tolstov published the dimensions also as 260x180m(Tolstov 1948a, 103).23 E.g. Kalaly-gyr 1, and for other examples please refer to note 12.24 These internal walls are substructural, originally supporting the now-erodedfloors above and stabilising the sandy dune on which the building has beenconstructed (Bolelov 1998, 119, 121). Some walls may indicate the original layoutof rooms within the building (Bolelov 1998, 119).25 The earlier existence of the “palace” building is supported by the fact that thenorthern enclosure wall has a distinct “kink” in it where it bends slightly toaccommodate the building, and the enclosure walls are built over the original northwall of the building.26 These oases were governed by an elite residing in the fortifiedkalas . Minorpolitical units (feudal-style lords or local noblemen, likely thehyparchs of theAlexander historians) were centred upon the residences of local rulers. SeeLeriche, 1977 307-308; Vogelsang 1992, 273.27 See Abdoullaev 2001, 206, Fig.3.28 The difficulties in identifying nomadic cultures in the archaeological record arenumerous, see for example Litvinskii 1976.

Works Cited

Abdoullaev, K.A. 2001: La localisation de la capitale des Yuëh-chih. In La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civilisations de l'Asiecentrale . 197-214.

Andrianov, B.V. 1969: Drevnie orositel'nye sistemy priaral'ya . Moscow:Nauka.

Arrian. 1971: Anabasis (The Campaigns of Alexander) . Translated by A.de. Selincourt. London: Penguin Books.

Belenitskii, A.M. 1968:Central Asia . Translated by J. Hogarth. Geneva:World Publishing.

Bergamini, G. 1981: review of H. P. Francfort. Les Fortifications en AsieCentrale des l'age du bronze a l'epoque Kouchane , 1979. MesopotamiaXVI, 169-176.

-----------. 1987: Parthian Fortifications in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia XXII,195-214.

Biscione, R. 1979: Centre and Periphery in Later Protohistoric Turan: Thesettlement pattern. In H. Härtel (ed.),South Asian archaeology, 1979 :

papers from the fifth International Conference of the Association ofSouth Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe . Museum für Indische


22/25

Chapter Thirteen22

Kunst der Staalichen Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin: D.Reimer Verlag, 203-213.

Bolelov, S.B. 1998: Krepost' Ayaz-kala 3 v pravoberezhnom Khorezme.In Nerazik, E.E. and Efimova, L.S. (eds.),Priaral'ie v drevnosti isrednevekov'e. K 60-letiu Khorezmskoi arkheologo-ètnografichekoièkspeditsii . Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura RAN, 116-135.

Boucharlat, R. 1997: Camp Royal et Résidences Achéménides.Topoi.Orient–Occident, Suppl. 1, 217-228.

Bregel, Y. 2003: An Historical Atlas of Central Asia . Leiden: Brill.Daviau, P.M.M. 1997: Tell Jawa: A Case Study of Ammonite Urbanism

during Iron Age II. In Aufrecht, W.E., Mirau, N.A., and Gauley S.W.(eds.),Urbanism in antiquity: from Mesopotamia to Crete. Sheffield,England: Sheffield Academic Press, 156-168.

Francfort, H.-P. 1979: Les fortifications en Asie Centrale de l'age du Bronze a l'epoque Kouchane . Paris: CNRS.

-----------. 1998: Central Asia and Eastern Iran. In Boardman, J., Hammond,N.G.L., Lewis, D.M., and Ostwald, M. (eds.),The Cambridge Ancient

History, Volume IV: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c.525 to 479 BC . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165-193.

Gardin, J.-C. 1995: Fortified sites of eastern Bactria (Afghanistan) in Pre-Hellenistic times. In Invernizzi, A. (ed.), InThe Land of the Gryphons:Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity . Firenze: CasaEditrice, 83-103.

Helms, S.W. 2006: Preface. In Khozhaniyazov, G.The Military Architecture of Ancient Chorasmia (6th century BC-4th century AD). Paris: De Boccard, 7-19.

-----------. 1998: Ancient Chorasmia: The Northern Edge of Central Asia fromthe 6th Century B.C. to the mid-4th century A.D. In Christian, D. andBenjamin, C. (eds.),Worlds of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern:

proceedings from the Second Conference of the Australasian Society for Inner Asian Studies (A.S.I.A.S), Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia, September 21-22, 1996 . Sydney: Ancient HistoryDocumentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 77-96.

Helms, S.W., Yagodin, V.N., Betts, A.V.G., Khozhaniyazov, G., andKidd, F. 2001: Five Seasons of Excavations in the Tash-K'irman Oasisof Ancient Chorasmia, 1996-2000. An Interim Report. Iran 39, 119-144.

Helms, S.W., Yagodin, V.N., Betts, A.V.G., Khozhaniyazov, G. andNegus, M. 2002: The Karakalpak-Australian Excavations in AncientChorasmia: the Northern Frontier of the 'Civilised' Ancient World.

Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39, 3-44.


23/25


Hiebert, F.T. 1992a: The oasis and city of Merv (Turkmenistan). Archeologie Islamique 3, 111-127.

-----------. 1992b: Bronze Age oasis settlements of Central Asia

. PhD thesis,Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge,Massachusetts.

Horne, L. 1994:Village Spaces: Settlement and Society in Northeastern Iran . Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Khozhaniyazov, G. 1987: Novye dannye ob oboronitel'nykhsooruzheniakh Ayaz kala 3.Vestnik karakalpakskogo filiala

Akademika nauk UzSSR 4, 102-110.-----------. 2002: Les fortifications Karakalpakes aux XVIIe-XIXe siecles.

Cahiers d'Asie Centrale 10, (Karakalpakes et Autres gens de l'Aral Entre rivages et deserts) , 139-166.

-----------. 2006:The military architecture of ancient Chorasmia (6th century B.C.-4th century A.D.). Translated by S. W. Helms. Paris: De Boccard.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1994: The Bronze Age khanates of CentralAsia. Antiquity 68, (259), 398-405.

Lavrov, V.A. 1950:Gradostroitel'naya kul'tura Srednei Azii . Moscow:State Publishing House, Architecture and Urban Planning.

Lecomte, O. 1999: Vehrkana and Dehistan: Late Farming Communities ofSouth-west Turkmenistan from the Iron Age to the Islamic Period.Parthica: Incontri di culture nel mondo antico 1, 135-170.

Leriche, P. 1977: Problèmes de la guerre en Iran et en Asie Centrale dansl'empire perse et a l'époque hellénistique. In Le Plateau iranien etl'Asie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique : leurs relations àla lumière des documents archéologiques : [actes du colloque], Paris,22-24 mars 1976 . Paris: Éditions du Centre National de la RechercheScientifique, 297-312.

Litvinskii, B.A. 1976: Problemy ethnicheskoii istorii drevenii irannesrednevekoii fergany. In Istoriya i Kul'tura Narodov Sredneii

Azii . Moscow: 49-65.Manylov, I.P. 1965: Rabot'i na gorodishche Pil'-kala v 1963 godu.

Odshchestvenni'e Nauki v Uzbekistane 3, 53-56.Masson, V.M. and Sarianidi, V.I. 1972:Central Asia: Turkmenia before

the Achaemenids . Translated by R. Tringham. New York: Praeger.Mousavi, A. 1992: Parsa, a Stronghold for Darius. A Preliminary Study of

the Defence System of Persepolis. East and West 42, (2-4), 203-226.Mumford, L. 1961:The City in History : Its Origins, its Transformations,

and its Prospects . New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.Negmatov, N.N. 1994: States in North-Western Central Asia. In Harmatta,J. (ed.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia Volume II. The


24/25

Chapter Thirteen24

development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D.250. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 441-456.

Negus Cleary, M. forthcoming: Walls in the desert: the phenomenon ofCentral Asian Urbanism in the kingdom of ancient Chorasmia. InParry, K. (ed.), Art, Architecture and Religion on the Silk Road andacross Inner-Asian History: proceedings from the fifth conference ofthe Australasian Society for Inner Asian Studies (A.S.I.A.S.),

Macquarie University, November 27-28, 2004, Sydney. Sydney:Turnhout, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, MacquarieUniversity, Brepols.

Nerazik, E.E. 1976:Sel'skoe zhilishche v Khorezme (I-XIV v.v.). Iz istorii zhilishcha i sem'i. Arkheologo-etnograficheskie ocherki . Moscow:Nauka.

Nerazik, E.E. and Bulgakov, P.G. 1996: Khwarizm. In Litvinsky, B.A.(ed.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia Volume III: Thecrossroads of civilizations: AD 250 to 750 . Paris: UNESCOPublishing, 207-231.

Philip, G. 2003: Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Journal of Mediterranean Archaeology 16, (1), 103-132.

P'yankova, L. 1994: Central Asia in the Bronze Age: sedentary andnomadic cultures. Antiquity 68, (259), 355-372.

Rapoport, I.A. 1994: The Palaces at Topraq-Qal'a. In Litvinskii, B.A. andBromberg, C.A. (eds.),The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia.Studies from the Former Soviet Union . Bloomfield Hills (Michigan):Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 161-185.

Rapoport, I.A. and Lapirov-Skoblo, M.S. 1963: Raskopki dvortsovogozdaniya na gorodishche Kalaly-gyr 1 v 1958 g." In S. P. Tolstov (ed.),

Materialy Khorezmskoi Ekspeditsii 6: Polevye issledovaniyakhorezmskoi ekspeditsii v 1958-1961 gg. Moscow: Nauk, 141-156.

Rapoport, I.A., Nerazik, E.E. and Levina, L.M. 2000:V nizov'yach Oksa iYaksarta. Obrazy drevnego Priaral'ya . Moscow: Indrik.

Smirnitsky, A.I., Akhmanova, O.S., Vigodskaya, Z.S., Gorbunova, T.P.,Rothstein, N.F. and Taube, A.M. 1989: Russian-English Dictionary .Moscow: Russky Yazyk Publishers.

Strabo 1944:The Geography of Strabo . Translated by H. L. Jones.Cambridge Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press; WilliamHeinemann.

Szabo, A. and Barfield, T.J. 1991: Afghanistan: an atlas of indigenousarchitecture. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.

Tarn, W.W. 1938: The Greeks in Bactria and India . Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.


25/25


Tolstov, S.P. 1948a: Drevnii Khorezma. Op'it istoriko-arkheologicheskogoissledovaniya . Moscow: MGU.

Tolstov, S.P. 1948b:Po sledam drevne-khorezmiiskoi tsivilizatsii

.Moscow; Leningrad: Nauk.-----------. 1960: Results of the work of the Khoresmian Archaeological and

Ethnographic Expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences: 1951-1956. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay 34-35 (Old Series), 1-24.

-----------. 1962:Po Drevnim Deltam Oksa i Yaksarta . Moscow: Nauka.-----------. 2005:Following the Tracks of Ancient Khorezmian Civilization .

Translated by E. Wahlberg. Tashkent: U.N.E.S.C.O. Tashkent Office.Vogelsang, W.J. 1992:The Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid

Empire : The Eastern Iranian Evidence . Leiden: Brill.Vorob'eva, M.G. 1973: Dingil'dzhe. Usad'ba Seredn'i i tysyacheletiya do

n. e. v drevnem Khorezme . Moscow: Nauka.Zadneprovsky, Y. 1995: Early Urban Developments in Central Asia. Iran:

Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 33, 155-159.

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

Documents

Transcript of The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia