DOCSLIB.ORG

About RECENT Excavations at a Bronze AGE SITE in MARGIANA (TURKMENISTAN) Sandro Salvatori

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
About RECENT Excavations at a Bronze AGE SITE in MARGIANA (TURKMENISTAN) Sandro Salvatori 2007] FARFALLE NELL’EGEO 11 ABOUT RECENT EXcavations at A BRONZE AGE SITE IN MARGIANA (Turkmenistan) Sandro Salvatori Abstract A recently published book on the Adji Kui 9 Bronze Age site excavation (Murghab Delta, Turkmenistan), deserves close inspection in the context of the 3rd millennium BC history and archaeology. Introduction Central Asia republics, of western archaeologists 5 and the beginning of joint archaeological projects A full-scale overview of Central Asian archaeo- with local institutions and researchers. It soon be- logy, from the beginning of the research to the ear- came clear that different, irreconcilable, excavation ly 1980s, was published in 1984 by Ph. L. Kohl. A methods and theoretical approaches were being few years later, an appreciable synthesis was pub- used by the two schools. lished by H.-P. Francfort 1 on the Shortughai ex- As for excavation methods, two main opposing cavations in north-eastern Afghanistan. The most and antagonistic approaches were and still are at interesting book on Turkmenistan is by Fred Hie- work: Approach 1 is an uncontrolled approach to bert 2 and provides a good updated survey of the excavation of architectural complexes without con- archaeological research in Margiana up to the early sidering stratigraphic procedures and recording. 1990s. Approach 2 points to understanding and recording Since that date, fieldwork has been carried out cultural variability using archaeological stratigra- at a number of new and old sites, both along the phic methods as dictated by the evolution of the Turkmenistan piedmont and in Margiana 3. In ad- discipline all over the world. dition, an international project aimed at providing A third, apparently harmonising behaviour (Ap- an updated Archaeological Map of the Murghab proach 3), pays some attention to record stratigra- delta 4 has been ongoing since 1990. phic sections (in the geological sense of the term) As one can perceive from the references quoted, of the archaeological sites without employing pro- the collapse of the Soviet Union has favoured the per stratigraphic excavation methods. increasing presence in Turkmenistan and in other V. I. Sarianidi, both in Margiana (Togolok and 1 Francfort 1989. 2 Hiebert 1994. 3 Jeitun: Harris et al. 1993, 1996; Masson and Harris 1994; Coolidge 2005; Anau: Hiebert and Kurbansakhatovn 2003; Par- kai II: Khlopin 1997; Altyn-depe: Berezkin 2001; Kircho 1988, 1994, 2000, 2001b, 2001c, 2004; Kircho, Salvatori, Vidale n.d.; Alekshin and Kircho 2005; Ilgynly-depe: Solovyeva 1998, 2000, 2005; Solovyeva et al. 1994; Kasparov 1994; Korobkova, Sha- rovskaya 1994; Masson Berezkin, Solovyeva 1994; Berezkin, Solovyeva 1998; Ulug-depe: Boucharlat, Francfort, Lecomte 2005; Lecomte 2004a, 2004b, 2005, 2006, 2007; Lecomte, Francfort 2002; Lecomte et al., 2004; Togolok 21: Sarianidi 1986, 1990a, 1990b; Togolok 24: Sarianidi 1998; Adzhi Kui 8: Sarianidi 1990; Gonur 1 South: Sarianidi 1993, 1998; Gonur 1 North: Saria- nidi 2002a, 2002b, 2004, 2005; Gonur Middle Bronze Age graveyard: Salvatori 1993, 1994a, 1994b, 1995; Sarianidi 2001, 2007; Dubova 2004; Rossi-Osmida (ed.) 2002 a book we critically reviewed in the past (Salvatori 2003); Adzhi Kui 1 and 9: Salvato- ri 2002; Site 1211-1219: Cattani 2008a; Site 999: Bonora, Vidale 2008; Takhirbai 1: Cattani 1998; Takhta Bazar: Udeumuradov 1993; Merv: Herrmann, Masson, Kurbansakhatov (eds.), 1993; Herrmann, Kurbansakhatov (eds.), 1994, 1995; Herrmann, Kurbansakhatov and Simpson (eds.), 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999; Williams, Kurbansakhatov (eds.), 2001, 2002, 2003. 4 Gubaev, Koshelenko, Tosi (eds.), 1998; Salvatori, Tosi (eds.), 2008. 5 The new path was paved by former initiatives by French and American scholars and institutions (Deshayes (ed.), 1977; Kohl 1981; Gardin (ed.), 1985, 1988). 12 SANDRO SALVATORI [RdA 31 Gonur sites) and Southern Bactria (Northern Af- 3) - Regional studies and their methodology; ghanistan) 6, and Rossi-Osmida, and Udeumura- 4) - Archaeological and historical interpreta- dov’s excavations at Adzhi Kui 1 and 9 7, followed tions; Approach 1. 5) - Anthropomorphic figurines. Approach 2 was employed at Hiebert’s test tren- ches along the southern slope of Gonur 1 North and Coherence and incoherence or “about the contra- at his excavations at Anau; Cattani’s excavations at diction” Takhirbai 1 and Sites 1211-1219, in the Murghab delta; Salvatori’s test trenches at Adzhi Kui 1 and As for the methods of archaeological excava- 9; Anglo-Turkmenian excavations at the Neoli- tion dealt with on p. 18, the author writes that: thic site of Jeitun; University College of London “The most difficult problem we have had to deal with is (UCL) excavations and restoration work at Merv; the re-education of technicians and workforce regarding French excavations at Ulug-depe; and excavations correct archaeological excavation procedures” because at Altyn-depe and Ilgynly-depe carried out by the they were trained under the “… old Soviet frontier last generation of Russian archaeologists from the school, which considered it superfluous to dig stratigra- Academy of Sciences of Saint Petersburg. phic trenches …”. This statement would seem shara- Imil Masimov’s test trenches at Kelleli 1, 3 and ble, but what does “correct archaeological excavations 4 and Adzhi Kui 3 8 followed what has been iden- procedures” mean if, a few lines above, he writes tified as Approach 3. that “it is obvious [!!!] 10 that, in these borderline con- The volume we are reviewing here 9 explains dition it is not possible to carry out a text-book exca- why stratigraphic excavation, an approach almost vation”?. Many examples would provide opposite universally accepted in archaeology, should be evidence, but it seems enough to refer to the work abandoned. A further considerable message of this of Kircho at Altyn-depe and Solovyeva at Ilgynly, book concerns the interpretation of historical pro- in an equally difficult environment, as well as that cesses. It contends that interpretation must not be of Salvatori 11 at Adzhi Kui 1 and 9, Cattani at Site derived from verifiable data, but rather from free 1211-1219 and Vidale at Site 999 in Margiana. Be- use of the researcher’s fantasy. sides, proper stratigraphic excavations are usually Although the content of this book needs many carried out in even worse environments, and the more pages of commentary, this review should be list would fill hundreds of pages. A few among the enough to give the reader an idea of why archae- many possible examples are in the western desert ological research should be shielded from unpro- of Egypt 12 or at the excavations at Shahr-i Sokhta fessional and untrained treasure hunters. For this in the Iranian Seistan 13. reason only, some of the book’s main topics will Furthermore, when asserting that “… the old So- be discussed: viet frontier school … considered it superfluous to dig 1) - Coherence and incoherence or “about the stratigraphic trenches” (p. 18), the author reveals that contradiction”; he does not know that Soviet archaeologists exca- 2) - Archaeological research methods and prac- vated a large number of “stratigraphic trenches” in tice (about archaeological excavation); Turkmenistan, both in the Meana-Chaacha 14 and 6 Sarianidi 1977. 7 Rossi-Osmida 2007. For AK1 see Rossi-Osmida 2006. 8 Masimov 1979, 1981a, 1981b, 1984. 9 Rossi-Osmida 2007. We prefer to use Adzhi Kui because it is the most commonly used spelling of the name in the scien- tific literature. 10 Sentences in square brackets are mine as well as the bold in reported sentences. 11 Readers will excuse me for this personal remark: Rossi-Osmida writes that I was at Adzhi Kui 1 and 9 “… for a few hours, time enough to dig two small stratigraphic trenches in AK1 and AK9 …” (p. 39). To be precise, I was there for days, with Masimov, Udeumuradov, Gubaev and the Italian team digging stratigraphically in two test trenches. His words not only are ignomini- ous but also denote his ignorance and rather scarce field experience as he thinks that a few hours are enough to dig two test trenches in a proper stratigraphic way. 12 Wendorf, Schild, Associates 2001. 13 Tosi 1968, 1969, 1983; Salvatori, Vidale 1997. 14 For example at Altyn-depe: see Kircho, Salvatori, Vidale n.d. and Alekshin, Kircho 2005: 13-78 and fig. 1. 2007] ABOUT RECENT EXCAVATIONS AT A BRONZE AGE SITE IN MARGIANA (TURKMENISTAN) 13 in the Murghab area 15. Unfortunately, “stratigraphic at micro-periodization of AK9 must be purely an aca- trenches” does not always mean “stratigraphic exca- demic exercise, concentrating on individual habitations vation”! and structures, rather than taking the complete urban The author may not know that “text-book exca- pattern of the citadel into consideration” (p. 68). Single vation” (cf. p. 18) means “correct archaeological exca- houses and structures and the urban organisation, vation procedures”. as a whole, are two complementary and equally important aspects of the archaeological reasoning. Archaeological research methods and practice What is evident, reading the book, is that Rossi- Osmida emulated Sarianidi in his methodological A discussion on archaeological excavation me- approach to digging Bactrian and Margiana settle- thods cannot be considered complete after having ments. The similarity also can be appreciated by examined the above contradictions. Many archa- comparing the section he published on p. 69 with eological textbooks 16 have been written since the that presented for Gonur North by Sarianidi 18. last century which also can be used to trace a hi- Furthermore, the excavation methods and the story of archaeological methods and practices. Also graphic recording used at Adzhi Kui are not a sur- known to archaeologists is that the practical use of prise, knowing that excavations at the site were the word “stratigraphy” is different if is used in a mainly carried out by V. Udeumuradov. The Rus- geological or archaeological context. Furthermore, sian archaeologist, in fact, considers the use of the this word has had different meaning through time stratigraphic method very disappointing 19 and sup- in archaeology.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Emerging Picture of the Neolithic of Northeast Iran
    IranicaAntiqua, vol. LI, 2016 doi: 10.2143/IA.51.0.3117827 AN EMERGING PICTURE OF THE NEOLITHIC OF NORTHEAST IRAN BY Kourosh ROUSTAEI (Iranian Center for Archaeological Research) Abstract: For many years the Neolithic of the northeastern Iranian Plateau was acknowledged by materials and data recovered from the three sites of Yarim Tappeh, Turang Tappeh and Sang-e Chakhmaq, all excavated in the 1960-1970s. In the last two decades an increasing mass of information based on archaeologi- cal fieldworks and reappraisal of archival materials have been built up that is going to significantly enhance our understanding on the Neolithic period of the region. The overwhelming majority of the information is obtained from the Shahroud area and the Gorgan plain, on the south and north of the Eastern Alborz Mountains respectively. So far, sixty two Neolithic sites have been identified in the region. This paper briefly reviews the known Neolithic sites and outlines the various implications of the newly emerging picture of the period for the northeast region of Iran. Keywords: Neolithic, northeast region, Sang-e Chakhmaq, Shahroud, Gorgan plain, Jeitun Culture Introduction Since Robert Braidwood’s pioneering investigations in the Zagros Mountains in 1960s (1961), western Iran has been the interest area for scholars who searching the early evidence of domestications. The follow- ing decades witnessed a series of well-planned works (e.g. Hole et al. 1969) in the region that considerably contributed to our understanding on early stages of the village life. Renewal of the relevant investigations in the Zagros region in recent years points the significance of the region on the incipient agriculture in the Near East (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Agricultural Development in Western Central Asia in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages
    Veget Hist Archaeobot (1999) 8:13-19 Vegetation History and Archaeobotany © Springer-Verlag 1999 Agricultural development in western Central Asia in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages Naomi F. Miller University of Pennsylvania Museum, Museum Applied Science Center for Archaeology, 33rd and Spruce Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA Received September 14, 1998 / Accepted May 15, 1999 Abstract. This paper lays out archaeobotanical evidence archaeologists recognize stylistic continuities, there are of cereals and fruits from 5th-2nd millennium B.C. sites important differences between these occupations, which in Turkmenistan (Anau, Gonur) and Uzbekistan (Djar- are separated by several hundred years (F. Hiebert, per- kutan). Our current res,earch program (1989-present) fo- sonal communication). That is, the cultural relationship cuses on systematic recovery of botanical remains in between the people of Jeitun and Anau is not clear. their stratigraphic context. The cereals from these sites Some time between the earliest attested agriculture at include Hordeum vulgate L. ssp. vulgare (6-row barley) Jeitun and the settlement of Anau, farmers living north and Tritieum aestivum L. s.1. (bread wheat). The pres- of the Kopet Dag increasingly grew crops that are often ence of plump grains of 6-row barley and bread wheat associated with irrigation in an arid environment: varie- may indicate that small-scale irrigation was practised at ties of 6-row barley and hexaploid bread wheat. For ex- Anau as early as the Chalcolithic period. The possibility ample, at one late Neolithic site, Chagylly Depe, the ar- is also raised that these plump-grained types may have chaeologists report, in addition to Hordeum distichum come from the east rather than through northern Iran.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting the Geo-Political Thinking of Sir Halford John Mackinder: United States—Uzbekistan Relations 1991—2005
    Revisiting the Geo-Political Thinking Of Sir Halford John Mackinder: United States—Uzbekistan Relations 1991—2005 A thesis Presented to the Faculty of The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy by Chris Seiple In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy 27 November 2006 Dissertation Committee Andrew C. Hess, Chair William Martel Sung-Yoon Lee Chris Seiple—Curriculum Vitae Education 1999 to Present: The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University: PhD Candidate 1994 to 1995: Naval Postgraduate School: M.A. in National Security Affairs 1986 to 1990: Stanford University: B.A. in International Relations Professional Experience 2003 to Present President, the Institute for Global Engagement (IGE) 2001 to 2003 Executive Vice President, IGE 1996 to 1999 National Security Analyst, Strategic Initiatives Group, Headquarters, United States Marine Corps 1997 National Security Affairs Specialist, National Defense Panel 1996 Liaison Officer, Chemical-Biological Incidence Response Force 1990 to 1994 Infantry Officer, United States Marine Corps Publications • Numerous website articles on Christian living, religious freedom, religion & security, engaging Islam, just war, and Uzbekistan (please see the website: www.globalengagement.org) • “America’s Greatest Story.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 4, no. 2 (Fall 2006): 53-56. • “Uzbekistan and the Bush Doctrine.” The Review of Faith & International Affairs. 3, no. 2 (Fall 2005): 19-24. • “Realist Religious Freedom: An Uzbek Perspective.” Fides et Libertas (Fall 2005). • “Understanding Uzbekistan,” an Enote publication distributed by the Foreign Policy Research Institute (1 June 2005). • “Uzbekistan: Civil Society in the Heartland.” Orbis (Spring, 2005): 245-259. • “Religion & Realpolitik,” St. Paul Pioneer Press, 12 November 2004.
    [Show full text]
  • Kolb on Christian, 'History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia, Volume I: Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire'
    H-Asia Kolb on Christian, 'History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia, Volume I: Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire' Review published on Friday, October 1, 1999 David Christian. History of Russia, Central Asia and Mongolia, Volume I: Inner Eurasia from Prehistory to the Mongol Empire. Oxford and Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Publishers, 1998. 464 pp. $62.95 (cloth), ISBN 0-631-183213; $27.95 (paper), ISBN 978-0-631-20814-3. Reviewed by Charles C. Kolb (National Endowment for the Humanities.)Published on H-Asia (October, 1999) A History of Russia, Central Asia, and Mongolia (Volume I) [Disclaimer: The opinions expressed herein are those of the reviewer and not of his employer or any other federal agency.] This review is divided into three sections: 1) Background and General Assessment, 2) Summary of Contents, and 3) Final Assessment, including a comparison with other English language works. Background and General Assessment "The Blackwell History of the World" Series (HOTW), Robert I. Moore, General Editor, is designed to provide an overview of the history of various geophysical regions of the globe. The HOTW contributions are each prepared by a single authority in the field, rather than as multi-authored, edited works. These syntheses are published in both paperback and cloth, making them appealing for pedagogy and students' budgets, and as a durable edition for libraries. The current volume, third in a projected series of sixteen works, follows the publication of A History of Middle and South America by Peter Bakewell (August 1997) and A History of India by Burton Stein (May 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • A Brief Discussion on Archaeological Sites and Main Discoveries in Archaeobotany in Central Asia
    17 Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), Volume 3, Issue 5, (page 17 - 29), 2018 Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH) Volume 3, Issue 5, November 2018 e-ISSN : 2504-8562 Journal home page: www.msocialsciences.com Agropastoralism and Crops Dispersion: A Brief Discussion on Archaeological Sites and Main Discoveries in Archaeobotany in Central Asia Muhammad Azam Sameer1, Yuzhang Yang1, Juzhong Zhang1, Wuhong Luo1 1Department of History of Science and Scientific Archaeology, School of Humanities and Social Science, University of Science and Technology of China Correspondence: Muhammad Azam Sameer ([email protected]) Abstract ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ The sub-branch of archaeology, called archaeobotany connects present-day man with ancient plants. The ancient plant remains to give the picture of agro-pastoralists activities in Central Asia. Through the plant remains, the way of living, food habits, vegetation, economy and agricultural developments of Central Asia have been traced out. Archaeological sites give new insights of the agricultural denomination in the region, which revealed marked differences. Through archaeobotanical investigation of the plant remains like bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), rice (Oryza sativa), foxtail millet (Setaria italica), broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum), six-row barley (Hordeum vulgare), and other plant fossils provide new prospects about ancient food production in the expanse of Central Asia. A brief discussion on Central Asian archaeological sites and recovered plant remains as well as the agricultural exchange of Central Asia with the neighboring regions are the worthy discussion and essence of this paper. Keywords: archaeobotany, archaeological sites, plant fossils, agropastoralism ______________________________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction Archaeobotany furnishes the connection of ancient plants with the ancient people (Miller, 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • Chakhmaq Abstract.Pdf
    The First Farming Village in Northeast Iran and Turan: Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq and Beyond February 10 - 11, 2014 Program and Abstracts February 10th (Monday):(Advanced Research Building A, 107) 13:00-13:10 Opening address Akira Tsuneki (University of Tsukuba) 13:10-13:30 Geologic setting of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Ken-ichiro Hisada (University of Tsukuba) 13:30-13:50 The site of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Akira Tsuneki (University of Tsukuba) 13:50-14:10 Radiocarbon dating of charcoal remains excavated from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Toshio Nakamura (Nagoya University) 14:10-14:40 Coffee break 14:40-15:00 Pottery and other objects from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Akira Tsuneki (University of Tsukuba) 15:00-15:20 Mineralogical study of pottery from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Masanori Kurosawa (University of Tsukuba) 15:20-15:40 Figurines of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Setsuo Furusato (Matsudo City Board) 15:40-16:10 Coffee break 16:10-16:30 Neolithisation of Eastern Iran : New insights through the study of the faunal remains of Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Marjan Mashkour (Central National de la Recherche Scientifique) 16:30-16:50 Charred remains from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq, and a consideration of early wheat diversity on the eastern margins of the Fertile Crescent Dorian Fuller (University College London) 18:00-20:00 Welcome party II February 11th (Tuesday): (Advanced Research Building B, 108) 10:00-10:20 Vegetation of the Chakhmaq site based on charcoal identification Ken-ichi Tanno (Yamaguchi University) 10:20-10:40 Human remains from Tappeh Sang-e Chakhmaq Akira
    [Show full text]
  • Oil and Gas Industry of Turkmenistan
    Oil and Gas Industry of Turkmenistan March 2009 Oil and Gas Industry of Turkmenistan AUTHOR RPI is acknowledged as a leading research consulting firm specializing in the energy industry of Russia, the Caspian region, Eastern and Central Europe. Formed in 1992, RPI provides an integrated set of services, ranging from strategic planning to corporate intelligence and M&A support. RPI’s clients include investors, contractors and financial institutions involved in oil, gas and power projects in Eurasia and globally. RPI’s expertise extends to all major sectors and aspects of the oil, gas and power business, including, but not limited to E&P, transportation and exports, refining and petrochemicals, infrastructure, equipment and services, as well as economic and financial issues. Since 1992 RPI has produced over 50 research studies and reports, the catalogue of which is available upon request. PUBLISHER’S NOTE Information herein, and any opinions expressed herein, has been drawn from sources believed to be reliable. The authors have verified it to the best of their ability. Nonetheless, RPI does not make claims as to its accuracy or completeness, and it should not be relied upon as such. Part of the maps contained in the report were designed based on maps from the Petroleum Economist World Energy Atlas 2007. To get additional information on RPI’s reports and studies, please contact Vsevolod Prosvirnin by phone at: +7(495) 778 4597 / 778 9332 or by email: [email protected] RPI Moscow Krasnopresnenskaya nab., 12, Suite 1101, World Trade Center, Moscow 123610 Russia Author copyrights are protected by applicable laws and regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Foreign Service Journal, April 2003.Pdf
    Earn more than 30,000 Bonus Points, 7,500 Bonus Miles, or whatever rotates your tires. Announcing the Just register now and pick the rewards track you want to earn on—points, miles, or racing rewards. Then stay between April 1 and June 15, 2003, at any of the 2,300 U.S. hotels in the Priority Club ® Rewards family of brands, and use your Visa ® card to book and pay. Starting with your second qualifying stay, you’re on your way to earning your choice of great rewards! Choose Your Rewards Track STAYS STAYS STAYS STAYS Points or Miles 1,500 Points or 3,000 Points or 6,000 Points or 20,000 Points or Track 350 Miles 750 Miles 1,500 Miles 5,000 Miles Coca-Cola® Racing Coca-Cola Racing Coca-Cola Racing Family Real Stock-Car Racing Racing Family Driver Family Bobbing Head Miniature Replica Hood or at the Rewards Track Car Flag or Figure or Watch One-Year Subscription to Dale Jarrett Collectible Pin Set Track PassTM Racing Adventure Register today at priorityclub.com/racetrack or call 1-800-315-3464. Be sure to have your Priority Club Rewards member number handy. Not a member yet? Enroll for free online or by phone. © 2003 Six Continents Hotels, Inc. All rights reserved. Most hotels are independently owned and/or operated. Stays must be booked and paid for using a Visa card to be eligi- ble. Offer valid in U.S. hotels only. For full details, terms, and conditions of this promotion, visit priorityclub.com/racetrack or call 1-800-315-3464.
    [Show full text]
  • Proto-Indo-Europeans: the Prologue
    Proto-Indo-Europeans: The Prologue Alexander Kozintsev Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Saint-Petersburg and Saint-Petersburg State University, Russia This study collates linguistic, genetic, and archaeological data relevant to the problem of the IE homeland and proto-IE (PIE) migrations. The idea of a proto-Anatolian (PA) migration from the steppe to Anatolia via the Balkans is refuted by linguistic, archaeological, and genetic facts, whereas the alternative scenario, postulating the Indo-Uralic homeland in the area east of the Caspian Sea, is the most plausible. The divergence between proto-Uralians and PIEs is mirrored by the cultural dichotomy between Kelteminar and the early farming societies in southern Turkmenia and northern Iran. From their first homeland the early PIEs moved to their second homeland in the Near East, where early PIE split into PA and late PIE. Three migration routes from the Near East to the steppe across the Caucasus can be tentatively reconstructed — two early (Khvalynsk and Darkveti-Meshoko), and one later (Maykop). The early eastern route (Khvalynsk), supported mostly by genetic data, may have been taken by Indo-Hittites. The western and the central routes (Darkveti-Meshoko and Maykop), while agreeing with archaeological and linguistic evidence, suggest that late PIE could have been adopted by the steppe people without biological admixture. After that, the steppe became the third and last PIE homeland, from whence all filial IE dialects except Anatolian spread in various directions, one of them being to the Balkans and eventually to Anatolia and the southern Caucasus, thus closing the circle of counterclockwise IE migrations around the Black Sea.
    [Show full text]
  • Southern Turkmenistan in the Neolithic Period: a Short Historiographical Review
    Herausgeber*innenkollektiv, eds. 2021. Pearls, Politics and Pistachios. Essays in Anthropology and Memories on the Occasion of Susan Pollock’s 65th Birthday: 505–18. DOI: 10.11588/propylaeum.837.c10763. Southern Turkmenistan in the Neolithic Period: A Short Historiographical Review AYDOGDY KURBANOV* Introduction north of Chopan), Pessejik Depe (1.5 km to the north-west of Togolok), Jeitun (20 km to A large number of settlements attributed to the north-west of Ashgabat), New Nisa - Taze the early Jeitun village communities of the Nusay in Turkmen (within the city limits of Neolithic period (7th–5th millennia BCE) are Ashgabat, near the village of Bagir), Kepele located in southern Turkmenistan, on the (25 km to the north of Ashgabat), Kelata, northern piedmont plain of the Kopet Dag, Yarty Gumbez, and Kantar. from the modern town of Serdar (former Gyzylarbat) to the village of Chache ( Harris 3) The eastern group, “Atek” (between the et al. 1996, 424, Fig. 1). Here, in ancient times, villages of Ak Bugday and Chache). The lands suitable for agriculture were limited eastern group includes Chagylly Depe, by the hills of Kopet Dag on one side and by Monjukli Depe, Chakmakly Depe, and the sand ridges of the Karakum desert on the Gadymy Depe. All of them are situated other. During investigations of the Soviet era, around the modern villages of Mane and 18 sites of the Neolithic Jeitun period were Chache in the Kaka district of Ahal province discovered. O. Berdyev (1969, 55–60) divided of Turkmenistan (Masson 1971, 44; Sarianidi the sites, by their geographic location, into 1992, 116; Korobkova 1996, 37).
    [Show full text]
  • Agro-Pastoral Strategies and Food Production on The
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Kosmopolis University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology Papers and Anthropology 2015 Agro-Pastoral Strategies and Food Production on the Achaemenid Frontier in Central Asia: A Case Study of Kyzyltepa in Southern Uzbekistan Xin Wu University of Pennsylvania Naomi F. Miller University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Pam Crabtree Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers Part of the Agricultural and Resource Economics Commons, Agricultural Economics Commons, Agronomy and Crop Sciences Commons, Archaeological Anthropology Commons, Asian History Commons, Botany Commons, Economic History Commons, and the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons Recommended Citation Wu, X., Miller, N. F., & Crabtree, P. (2015). Agro-Pastoral Strategies and Food Production on the Achaemenid Frontier in Central Asia: A Case Study of Kyzyltepa in Southern Uzbekistan. Iran, LIII 93-117. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/ penn_museum_papers/1 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. http://repository.upenn.edu/penn_museum_papers/1 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Agro-Pastoral Strategies and Food Production on the Achaemenid Frontier in Central Asia: A Case Study of Kyzyltepa in Southern Uzbekistan Abstract This article discusses aspects of the agro-pastoral economy of Kyzyltepa, a late Iron Age or Achaemenid period (sixth–fourth century BC) site in the Surkhandarya region of southern Uzbekistan. The na alysis integrates archaeobotanical and zooarchaeological analyses with textual references to food production and provisioning in order to examine local agro-pastoral strategies.
    [Show full text]
  • Wikivoyage Turkmenistan March 2016 Contents
    WikiVoyage Turkmenistan March 2016 Contents 1 Turkmenistan 1 1.1 Regions ................................................ 1 1.2 Cities ................................................. 1 1.3 Other destinations ........................................... 2 1.3.1 Archaeological sites ...................................... 2 1.3.2 Medieval monuments ..................................... 2 1.3.3 Nature reserves ........................................ 3 1.3.4 Pilgrims’ shrines ........................................ 4 1.4 Understand .............................................. 5 1.4.1 People ............................................. 6 1.4.2 Terrain ............................................ 6 1.4.3 Holidays ............................................ 6 1.4.4 Climate ............................................ 7 1.4.5 Read ............................................. 7 1.5 Get in ................................................. 7 1.5.1 Vaccinations .......................................... 7 1.5.2 Visa .............................................. 7 1.5.3 Registration .......................................... 7 1.5.4 Travel permits ......................................... 8 1.5.5 By plane ............................................ 8 1.5.6 By train ............................................ 8 1.5.7 By car ............................................. 8 1.5.8 By bus ............................................. 8 1.5.9 By boat ............................................ 9 1.6 Get around ..............................................
    [Show full text]