Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan VOL. 1 JANDAVLATTEPA The Excavation Report for Seasons 2002–2006 VOL. 1 Results of excavations conducted by Charles University in Prague and Institute of Archaeology, Academy of Sciences of Uzbekistan in Samarqand Editors K AZ I M ABDULLAE V L ADISLAV STANČ O UNIVERZITA KARLOVA V PRAZE NAKLADATELSTVÍ KAROLINUM ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✠ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍✍ Reviewed by: Mgr. Alžběta Danielisová, Ph.D. Mgr. Karel Nováček, Ph.D. Charles University in Prague, Karolinum Press, 2011 © Ladislav Stančo (ed.), 2011 ISBN 978-80246-1965-1 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍✍ Contents Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Introduction Ladislav Stančo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1. The site and its environs 1.1 General remarks and description of the landscape Kazim Abdullaev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 General description of the site, history of research Ladislav Stančo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3 Jandavlattepa – complete bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 17 22 2. Excavations 2.1 Sector 20, the so-called “Citadel” Ladislav Stančo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Excavations in Sector 04 – the southern town gate Shapulat Shaydullaev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3 Excavations in Sector 08 Ladislav Boháč – Ladislav Stančo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 Excavations in Sector 30: Preliminary research in the nearby environs of Jandavlattepa Kristýna Urbanová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 3. Special studies 3.1 Textile production Kristýna Urbanová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 The metal, stone and bone weapons and implements Jan Kysela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.3 Personal ornaments, jewellery and cosmetic Implements Petra Belaňová . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Terracotta figurines, appliques and gem imprints Kazim Abdullaev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.5 Numismatic finds (2002–2006) Kazim Abdullaev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 119 137 157 172 4. Concluding remarks Kazim Abdullaev – Ladislav Stančo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5. List of small finds from Sectors 04, 07, 20 and 31 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 187 27 94 99 5 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍✍ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements Jan Kysela The objects treated in this article are highly varied from both a functional and typological, as well as material, point of view. The materials include various metals, stone and bone, of which, from the functional point of view, there are mostly weapons and tools while a considerable body of the objects is made up of fragments whose original shape is no longer possible to determine. The objects studied were uncovered at the excavations executed in seasons 2002–2006 at the site of Jandavlattepa, sectors 4 (“Gate”), 7 (“Shakhristan”) and 20 (“Citadel”) and at a minor excavation of a nearby mound. The structure of the present paper is that of a catalogue of the single finds (organised by functional classes) followed by short studies of the single classes. The author’s main concern is to define the function and, when possible, the type and approximate chronology of the single finds. This chronology is only an extrinsic one, given that the majority of the better definable objects came from evidently secondary deposits, and therefore bring, by themselves, hardly any information, temporal or spatial. 3.2.1 Knives 1. 11C005.IV – A tanged, one-edged knife with a straight, sloping back and a slightly convex edge (forming a “central” point). The transition from the blade to the tang is abrupt and angular on the back side, gradual and rounded on the blade side. Preserved almost integrally in three fragments despite minor breaks on the point and the end of the tang. Dimensions: length – 121 mm l.: (tang) – 29 mm (maximum length on the back side) w.: (max) – 23 mm th. 6 mm (blade back) 4.5 mm (tang) tab. 3.2, 1:1; fig. 3.2, 1* 2. 11C005.V – A tanged, one-edged knife with a straight back and a more or less straight edge (forming a “central” point). The transition from the blade to the tang is abrupt and angular on the back side, gradual and rounded on the blade side. Preserved integrally in three fragments. Dimensions: l.: 140 mm l.: (tang) 29 mm w.: (max) 20 mm th. – 6 mm tab. 3.2, 1:2; fig. 3.2, 2 3. 20N002.VII – A one-edged iron knife blade with both back and edge being convex, thus forming a central point. The edge seems to be slightly worn due to whetting. The handle part has not been preserved. It seems, however, to have been of the tanged type with the tang passing abruptly to the backside and more gradually towards the edge. Dimensions: l.: 88 mm w.: (max) – 19.7 mm th. – 15 mm tab. 3.2, 1:3; fig. 3.2, 3* Fig. 3.2, 2 Knife, small find no. 11C005.V. 119 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✡☛ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements Jan Kysela Tab. 3.2, 1 120 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞✍ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 4. 20O011.II – An iron knife-blade fragment. Broken off on both ends and extensively corroded. Dimensions: l.: 62 mm w.: 25 mm th. – 6 mm tab. 3.2, 1:4; fig. 3.2, 4* JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 passes gradually to both back and edge side. Preserved in three fragments with the very point missing. Dimensions: l.: 107.7 mm w.: 15.7 mm th.: 3 mm (blade) 4.5 mm (tang) tab. 3.2, 1:9; fig. 3.2, 9* 10. 5. 20O003.I – Two fragments of an iron knife blade, both fitting together. The resulting blade seems to be slightly convex in both back and edge side with a central tip. Dimensions: l.: 61 mm (45 + 25 mm) w.: (max) 20 mm tab. 3.2, 1:5; fig. 3.2, 5* 6. 20Y002.III – A fragment of an iron knife: the tang and the lower part of the blade. On close examination, and as far as may be determined from the extensive rust, the tang seems to be placed closer to the back side rather than to the edge, and the transition seems to be more abrupt on the former, more gradual on the latter side. Dimensions: l.: 45 mm w.: 15 mm (blade) 5 mm (tang) tab. 3.2, 1:6; fig. 3.2, 6* Sector 04, 2004 two knives not examined personally 04.000.XIX – A tanged, one-edged iron knife with a straight edge and convex back (and thus a “lower” point). The axially placed tang is quadrangular in section, set off abruptly on the backside while passing gradually on the edge side. Preserved in fragments entirely except for the very end of the tang. Dimensions: l.: 129 mm w.: 18 mm tab. 3.2, 1:10; fig. 3.2, 10* 11. 04.000.XX – A fragment of a tanged, one-edged iron knife. The tip-end of the blade is broken off and lost. Both the back- and the edge-side of the preserved portion of the blade are straight without any curvature. The centrally placed tang oval in section is offset abruptly from both sides. Dimensions: l.: 89.5 mm w.: 20 mm tab. 3.2, 1:11; fig. 3.2, 11* 7. 21P006c.I – A fragment of a one-edged iron knife (or other tool?) broken off on both ends. It being a strip of iron tapering in its thickness from the “back” (5 mm) to the “edge” (2 mm), with a slight reduction on the latter (due to whetting?) and with two rivets on one end, tempts one to interpret it as a knife. However, owing to its overall gracility and the unusual use of two rivets very close to each other, the author prefers to leave this interpretation with a question mark. Dimensions: l.: 72 mm w.: 14 mm th. – 5–2 mm tab. 3.2, 1:7; fig. 3.2, 7* 8. 21P006c.II – A fragment of a one-edged iron knife: the tang and the lower part of the blade. The blade (straight on the back and edge in the whole of the preserved part) is visibly worn due to whetting (almost 2 mm difference). The tang is centrally placed with gradual transitions towards both edge and back. Imprints of wood are preserved in the rust on the tang. Dimensions: l.: 77 mm w.: (max) – 23.5 mm th.: 4.3 mm tab. 3.2, 1:8; fig. 3.2, 8* 9. 04.000.XVIII (Tower No. 1 in Sector 04) A one-edged iron knife with a straight edge and a convex back (forming a “lower” point). A central triangular tang 12. 30.013C.I – A group of iron objects originally found together, possibly individual parts of one object: a) An iron rod oval in section, broken at one end, rounded and mono-laterally widened at the other. Dimensions: Length: 35 mm, Diameter: 15 mm b) A fragment of an iron plaque, curved in section with a flat, strip-like part protruding perpendicularly from its straight “upper” edge (as seen in the photograph). The plaque tapers down progressively “from up downwards” in its thickness, suggesting an edge. A rivet seems to be fixed in the plaque (hard to discern due to the rust). Most of the plaque’s circumference as well as the “strip-like” part are missing. Dimensions: l. 43 mm, w. 42 mm, th. 1–3 mm c) A rivet (?) – a minute item, quadrangular in section, widened on one end and broken on the other. Dimensions: l. 10 mm, w. 6 mm d) An iron “chip” wedge-shaped in section. Dimensions: l. 21 mm, w. 11 mm tab. 3.2, 3:1; fig. 3.2, 12* 3.2.2 Bronze arrowheads 13. 07A010.I – A three-winged, socketed bronze arrowhead in a very poor state of preservation. The tip is missing. The badly worn wing blades do not seem to have been reinforced originally. The socket did protrude beyond the wing ends but not enough remains from it to estimate to what extent it did. 121 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞✡ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements The portion of the socket, fused to the martial part is well distinguishable from the wings. Found among the debris of a collapsed wall Dimensions: l. (max preserved): 14 mm w. (max preserved): 8 mm l. of the socket (overall): 5 mm; (only the “free” part): 3.8 mm depth of the socket: 1.7 mm th. of the wings: 1.9 mm, 2 mm, 2.3 mm weight: 1.3 g tab. 3.2, 2:1; fig. 3.2, 13* 14. 09B009.II – A socketed, bronze arrowhead, three-sided in section, badly weathered and so only tentatively classified according to its outline as “leaf-shaped.” The tip and the blades are rubbed off and rounded. The socket, protruding well beyond the martial part, is slightly triangular in section and is preserved in its entirety. Found among the debris of a collapsed wall. Dimensions: l.: 27 mm w.: 10 mm l. of the socket (the free part): 8.5 mm diameter of the socket: 8 mm weight: 4.5 g tab. 3.2, 2:2; fig. 3.2, 14* 15. 09C015.I – A socketed, bronze arrowhead, three-sided in section, with a triangular outline. The edges are straight and the sides even. The edges terminate on their lower ends with massive barbs of different lengths, the transitions between them (tip-bases of a kind) being arcuate. The socket is completely “hidden” inside the arrowhead. It was found together with a little lump of bronze, originally considered a remnant of a broken-off socket. The arrowhead, however, does not seem to have ever had any exterior socket portion. Dimensions: l. (without spikes): 21 mm l. of the spikes: 5.5 mm – 7.8 mm – 7 mm w.: 10 mm weight: 3.1 g tab. 3.2, 2:3; fig. 3.2, 15* 16. Sector 04, 2004 04.000.IV (surface layer above a mud-brick construction) A three-winged, socketed bronze arrowhead with a triangular outline of the wings and “paws” at the socket’s mouth. The tip is not reinforced (i.e. three sided) in a strict sense but still quite substantial. The straight wings – terminating in barbs – lack any reinforcement. The socket measures several millimetres up to the martial part. Its free part is circular in section. The “paws” at its lower end are located in correspondence with the single wings and a “seam” (a result of the casting process) is observable between each wing and the relative “paw.” Dimensions: l.: 36.7 mm l. of the head (including the thorns – 2 mm): 29 mm w.: 12 mm Jan Kysela l. of the socket (max): 14 mm; the free part only: 8 mm diameter of the socket: 7.5 mm l. of the longest paw: 2.4 mm th. of wings: 2 mm – 2 mm – 3 mm weight: 4.3 g tab. 3.2, 2:4; fig. 3.2, 16* 17. 04.000.V (Tower No. 1) A three-winged bronze arrowhead with an ogival outline. Both the tip and the edges are reinforced. The tip (with a length of 12 mm) is thus triangular in section. The tipbases are M-shaped (i.e. feature downwardly pointed projections, giving each side the appearance of a “gothic window”). The wings (although it might be damaged) terminate in barb-less bases in obtuse angles to the socket. The socket (circular in section) reaches up to a third of the martial part’s length. Outside this it is not preserved to any length. Dimensions: l.: 36 mm w. (max): 11 mm l. of the wings: 32.5 mm th. of the wings: 2 mm diameter of the socket (exterior): 7.2 mm; interior: 5 mm depth of the socket: ca 10 mm weight: 4.3 g tab. 3.2, 2:5; fig. 3.2, 17* 18. 04.000.VI (surface layer; oral communication with Dr. Shaydullayev) A three-winged bronze arrowhead with an ogival outline. Both the tip and the wing blades are reinforced with the conformation of the tip-bases analogous to that of the previous item. The wings terminate in acute angles and so form actual barbs. The socket is circular in section and observable to almost a half of the martial part’s length. On the exterior it protrudes relatively little. There is an oval aperture in the socket between two of the wing bases. Dimensions: l.: 37 mm w.: 11 mm l. of the wings (incl. the thorns – 2 mm): 33 mm th. of the wings: 3 mm diameter of the socket: 7.4 mm weight: 5.7 g tab. 3.2, 2:6; fig. 3.2, 18* 3.2.3 Iron Arrowheads 19. 07C009.I – A large, tanged, three-winged iron arrowhead with a triangular outline of the wings. The single preserved wing-base seems to feature a blunt “barb” aligned with the wing blade. The tang is circular in section. According to Litvinskiy’s classification, it appears to be an arrowhead of type 2-1/A-1-7a- – - 1. The very tip is missing, and two of the wings are severely damaged. 122 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 Tab. 3.2, 2 123 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞✠ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements Dimensions: l. (Litvinskiy’s h1): 76.4 mm l. of the head (excluding the “thorn,” h2): 46 mm l. of the thorn (h3): 5 mm l. of the tang (h4): 34.5 mm w. (max preserved, l1): 21 mm w. between the thorns (l2): not preserved diameter of the thorn: 7–3 mm tab. 3.2, 2:7; fig. 3.2, 19* 20. 09C016.VII – A fragmentary large, three-winged iron arrowhead. The heavily corroded margins suggest slender, straight or slightly S-shaped outlines. The lower part of the wings and the supposed tang are totally absent. A fragment of wood seems to have been preserved in the rust. Dimensions: l.: 51 mm w. (max): 18 mm (no other measurements were taken considering the poor state of the item) weight: 7.1 g tab. 3.2, 2:8; fig. 3.2, 20* Jan Kysela 23. 20S003.II – Two matching fragments of a pointed iron object. Put together, its section seems to be flat rather than lentoid (a thick layer of rust on the surface makes discerning this quite difficult). The break on the broadest side shows a surprising likeness to that of Fragment a) of Find 20D.002.II (a blade), i.e. concavely rounded with an unusually clean and smooth surface. Dimensions: frgmt a) l.: 28.5 mm w. (max): 22 mm frgmt b) l.: 36 mm w. (max): 37.6 mm a+b) l.: 53 mm; w. (max): 37.6 mm; Th (max): 10.5 mm tab. 3.2, 3:3; fig. 3.2, 23* 24. 21E025.I – A pointed object, flat to lentil-shaped in section. Its present shape is greatly affected by an extensive rusty involucre. The side opposite the point seems to have resulted from a break. Dimensions: l.: 54.5 mm w.: 26 mm th.: 10 mm tab. 3.2, 3:4; fig. 3.2, 24* 21. 20Y023. I – A fragmentary small, three-winged iron arrowhead. The tip, the outlines, the wing bases and the tang are all absent and so any observation as to the item’s original shape is indeterminate. Another shapeless fragment of iron was found with it. Found in a modern grave sunk in a wall. Dimensions: l.: 26.5 mm w.: 11 mm the associated fragment: 12 × 9 mm tab. 3.2, 2:9; fig. 3.2, 21* 3.2.4 (possible) fragmentary blades 22. 20D002.II – Six fragments of an iron object (a blade?). The three major ones more or less preserve the object’s original lentoid section and smooth surface. All of them feature breaks transverse to the original object’s longitudinal axis: The fragment a) visibly tapers from one short end to the other (a fragment of the blade’s tip?). The break on the broader side is surprisingly regular (arcuate) and clean. The fragments b) and c) match together. The three minor fragments are mere “crumbs” without any connection to each other or to any of the major ones. Dimensions: a) w.: 32.8–26.6 mm, l.: 47.5 mm th. (max): 14.1 mm b) w.(max): 32.5 mm, l.: 39.4 mm th. (max): 12 mm c) w.(max): 36.7 mm, l.: 48 mm th. (max): 9.5 mm b+c) l.: 85 mm d) 31×25×7 mm e) 36×15×8 mm f ) 27×23×6 mm tab. 3.2, 3:2; fig. 3.2, 22* 3.2.5 Sling-shots 25. 11C014.I – A light red-brown stone worked into the shape of a flattened ball. A sling-shot or a pestle. Dimensions: diameter: 52–56 mm th. (max): 45 mm weight: 174.3 g tab. 3.2, 2:11; fig. 3.2, 25* 26. 12D003.II – A bi-conical to egg-shaped polished stone, light grey to greenish in color. One of the ends is rounded, the other rather flat. Traces of polishing (diagonal hairline grooves) are observable on the surface. A sling-shot. Dimensions: l.: 58 mm diameter (max): 29 mm weight: 63.5 g tab. 3.2, 2:12; fig. 3.2, 26 Fig. 3.2, 26 Sling-shot, small find no. 12D003.II. 124 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 Tab. 3.2, 3 125 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements 27. 09E023.I– A stone in the shape of a flattened ball. Possibly a sling-shot. Unfortunately, this find was lost. Dimensions (approximate): diameter (max): 45 mm width: 35 mm weight: not measured No picture. Jan Kysela 30. 20Y002.XIV – A flat, sub-quadrangular slab of smooth, black stone. The surface is rather irregularly formed with a dense “hairline pattern” on both faces of the stone, indicating obvious traces of its use as a whetstone. Dimensions: l.: 134 mm w.: 39–43 mm th.: 4–10 mm tab. 3.2, 4:1; fig. 3.2, 29 3.2.6 A bone plaque – finial of a bow 28. 21F025.I – An oblong, slightly curved bone plaque, progressively diminishing in width and thickness. Plano-convex in section, the edge of the convex side of the plaque being upright, that of the concave one rounded. Both faces are covered with numerous thin, diagonal grooves: those of the convex face are straight and intersect one another quite freely, while those of the plain one are arcuate and never intersect. Both ends of the plaque are broken off. Dimensions: l.: 90 mm w.: 18.2–16.8 mm th.: 5.2–4.4 mm tab. 3.2, 2:10; fig. 3.2, 27a* and 27b Fig. 3.2, 29 A whetstone made of black stone, no. 20Y002.XIV 31. 20Y026.II – A triangular chip of grey stone. The “obverse” side is slightly convex and smooth, while the “reverse” side is basically plain and coarse. There are remnants of a drilled hole in the middle of one of the sides. This find could possibly have been chipped away from the surface of a whetstone. Dimensions: l.: 29 mm w.: 21 mm tab. 3.1, 2:18 (!); fig. 3.2, 30* 32. Fig. 3.2, 27b Finial of a bow, small find no. 21F025.I. 3.2.7 Whetstones 29. 10C003.III. – A thin, oblong slab of grey stone (a whetstone). There are breaks on both of the short and one of the long sides. A hole is drilled through the slab near one of the short ends with some chipping around its mouth on the “obverse” side. On the “reverse” side, two grooves are cut into the surface: one (21 mm long) passing through the hole, the other skirting the broken long side (a possible reason for the breakage). On the “obverse” side, usage resulted in a considerable reduction of the whetstone’s volume, creating a rectangular depression to which the surface gradually sinks. A little cross (4 × 4 mm) is carved in this sloping surface. Dimensions: l.: 56 mm w. (max): 14 mm th.: 3–7 mm diameter of the hole: 2.5 mm tab. 3.1, 3:7; fig. 3.2, 28* 07D009.III – A cylindrical object oval in section made from dark grey stone. Broken away on both short ends, in one of which, remains of a transversely drilled hole are visible. Possibly a fragment of a whetstone with a drilled suspension hole. Dimensions: l.: 45 mm w.: 17 × 14 mm fig. 3.2, 31* 33. 08A009.I – A little block of grey stone slightly oblong in section with a hole drilled bilaterally in the upper side. Probably a whetstone. Dimensions: l.: 54 mm w.: 26 × 19 mm tab. 3.2, 4–3; fig. 3.2, 65* 3.2.8 Varia 34. 07C002.II – A slightly cylindrical bar of grey stone, circular in section. Possibly a pestle or a whetstone. Dimensions: l.: 153 mm diameter: 28–42 mm tab. 3.2, 4:2, fig. 3.2, 32* 126 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 Tab. 3.2, 4 127 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements 35. 09C016.V – A bronze pin with a globular head. Probably secondarily bowed. Broken up into two fragments. Dimensions: l.: 41 mm diameter: 3–4 mm fig. 3.2, 33* 36. 09D010.I – A bronze nail or rivet. The shaft is circular in section with an obtuse tip. The head is semi-globular with the shaft’s upper extremity visible on the surface. Longitudinal crevices are present on the shaft’s surface. Dimensions: l.: 31 mm l. of the head: 5 mm diameter of the head: 9 mm diameter of the shaft: 4 mm tab. 3.2, 5:1; fig. 3.2, 34* 37. 20Q001.I – An iron hook. The two arms make up basically a right angel. The whole surface is covered with an exuberant layer of rust. A voluminous accumulation of rust is adhered mono-laterally to the “long” end. Fragments of wood seem to be preserved within the rust. Dimensions: l.: 63 mm w.: 28 mm (the L. of the short arm) diameter 4–16 mm tab. 3.2, 5:2; fig. 3.2, 35* 38. 20Q012.I – Two fragments of a rectangular iron hook. Made from a flat strip by simple bending, it tapers progressively in its width. Probably fragmentary on both ends. Dimensions: l.: 48 mm l. of the shorter part: 22 mm w.: 11–7 mm th.: 3 mm tab. 3.2, 5:3; fig. 3.2, 36* 39. 20Y004.I – A bronze hook. Made from a rod circular in section with a decreasing diameter. The end opposite of the hook is broken away. There are longitudinal crevices on the surface of the rod. Dimensions: overall l.: 82 mm l. of the hooked part: 24 mm w. of the hooked part: 25 mm diameter: 8–5 mm fig. 3.2, 37* 3.2.9 Minor metal fragments 40. 07C009.III – A heavily corroded iron object, teardropshaped in outline. The narrow end slightly projects forward in a kind of a hook. Dimensions: l.: 67 mm w.: (max) 34 mm; (min) 14 mm th.: 18 mm; (at the “hooked” end): 23 mm fig. 3.2, 38* Jan Kysela 41. 07C010.III – A fragment of an iron band. Trapezoid in section, broken off at both ends. Dimensions: l.: 104 mm w. (lower face): 45 mm; w.(upper face): 40 mm th. (max): 13 mm fig. 3.2, 39* 42. 07C010.IV. – A flat, pointed iron object. A trefoil projection is adhered to one of the ends. Heavily corroded. Dimensions: l.: 47 mm w.: 12 mm th.: 8–12 mm the projection: 6 × 5 × 1 mm fig. 3.2, 40* 43. 07E033.II – A fragment of an iron strip. Broken off at both short ends. One of the long sides is flat, the other rounded in section. Dimensions: l.: 37 mm w.: 22 mm th.: 9.5 mm fig. 3.2, 41* 44. 09E002.III – A fragment of an iron object. Oblong, quadrangular in section, heavily corroded. Dimensions: l.: 27 mm w.: 7 mm th.: 3–4 mm fig. 3.2, 42* 45. 11C005.VI – An iron rod basically quadrangular in section, broken on one end and rounded on the other. A wood fragment seems to be preserved in the rust on the rounded end. Despite the rounding, this is certainly not a brokenoff knifepoint because the object is too fragile and has no definite edge. Two fragments were found. Dimensions: l.: 45 mm w.: 8 mm tab. 3.2, 5:6, fig. 3.2, 43* 46. 11C005.IX – A fragment of iron wire. Dimensions: l. (max): 21 mm diameter: 3 mm fig. 3.2, 44* 47. 20B.001.I – A fragment of an iron object. fig. 3.2, 45* 48. 20N001.I – A club-shaped bronze rod, thickened at one end and broken off on the other. Circular in section. Broken 128 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 Tab. 3.2, 5 129 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡☞☛ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements into three fragments in the course of excavation. Dimensions: l.: 70 mm diameter: 6–10 mm fig. 3.2, 46* 49. 20O010.I – A fragment of a bronze rod, circular in section. Broken off on both ends. There is a wedge-shaped crack along its full length along with several other minor longitudinal crevices. Dimensions: l.: 37 mm diameter: 10 mm fig. 3.2, 47* 50. 20O020.III – A fragment of iron. Dimensions: 17 × 9 × 5.5 mm fig. 3.2, 48* Jan Kysela Dimensions: cca 45 × 55 × 17–20 mm fig. 3.2, 58* 55. 21F014.I – A fragment of a trapezoidal iron object, flat in section. There are recent breaks on two sides. Dimensions: l.: 56.5 mm w.: 31 mm th.: 6–4 mm tab. 3.2, 5:4, fig. 3.2, 59* 56. 21F020.I – A heavily corroded fragment of iron. Dimensions: l.: 38 mm w.: 18 mm th.: 5 mm fig. 3.2, 60* 20Q001.IV – A fragment of an iron rod, perhaps originally quadrangular in section. Heavily corroded. Dimensions: l.: 22 mm diameter: 6 mm fig. 3.2, 49* 57. 51. 58. 21O001.II – A fragment of bronze wire. Dimensions: l.: 11 mm diameter 1.5 m fig. 3.2, 61* 21D025.II, IV, VII–X – Shapeless fragments of iron, all having recent breaks. Found in the fill of a modern grave. Dimensions: l.: 12–49 mm w.: cca 10 mm tab. 3.2, 5:10 (21D025.II), figs. 3.2, 50–54* 21O002.I – A tiny fragment of bronze sheet. Dimensions: l. (max): 10 mm th.: 1.5 mm No picture 52. 21P002.III – A fragment of iron rod. Semi-circular in section, pointed on one end, broken off on the other. Dimensions: l.: 36 mm w. (max): 10 mm fig. 3.2, 62* 21D025.VI – A trapezoidal iron object with a rivet fixed in its centre. The shortest side and the surface without the rivet seem to have been recently broken and chipped off respectively. The object’s thickness and quadrangular section disqualify it from being interpreted as a knife fragment. Found in the fill of a modern grave. Dimensions: l.: 49 mm w.: 32 mm th.: 7–10 mm tab. 3.2, 5:5, fig. 3.2, 55* 53. 21E006.II – A fragment of thin iron band covered with a thick layer of rust. Dimensions: l.: 31 mm w.: 11 mm th. (of a projecting part of the band): 1 mm tab. 3.2, 5:11, fig. 3.2, 56* 21E010.I – A fragment of bronze sheet with irregular outlines. Dimensions: 32 × 24 × 2 mm fig. 3.2, 57* 54. 21E026.II – A shapeless iron fragment. Conspicuously slaggy rust is present on one of the object’s faces. 59. 60. 21P005.I – A shapeless fragment of bronze, oval in section. Dimensions: l.(max): 35.5 mm w.: 13 × 10 mm tab. 3.2, 5:9, fig. 3.2, 63* 61. 21P007.I – A shapeless fragment of iron. Dimensions: 21×6 mm tab. 3.2, 5:8, fig. 3.2, 64* 3.2.10 Synthesis The knives (at least those sufficiently preserved to be examined) from the Citadel and from the Shakhristan (sectors 20 and 7 respectively) belong almost all to one type: tanged, one-edged knives with both backs and edges being either straight or only slightly convex; thus, forming basically central tips. 130 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠✍ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 Conspicuously enough, in both of the knives from the Gate zone (Sector 4) where the tips have been preserved, these are not “central” but “lower” (with curved backs curving to the straight edges). This difference might point to a divergence in the knives’ functional designation rather than to a chronological difference.1 Some minor diversities in the shape of the tang are certainly not to be understood as testimonies of various knife-types, but rather as individual features of single knives2. A single knife (if this is a knife at all) features a handle made up of two rivet-fixed grip scales (no. 8, 21P006c.I). This way of fixing the handle is rare in both antique and early medieval central Asian knives, being usually utilized on those with a curved blade (i.e. sickle shaped), none of which were found in the Citadel and the Shakhristan, while in the one from Sector 02a – the handle arrangement is not preserved. The straight-bladed knives from other more or less contemporary sites feature almost universally a pointed tang, sometimes with a single rivet between the tang and the blade to secure the slip-on handle3. The unusual assembly of iron items from the elevation (sector 30) raises several questions, the first one concerning the fragments’ pertinence or not to a single original object. If we limited ourselves to an attempt to interpret each major fragment, the task would be no less troublesome. The object’s decreasing thickness might suggest a kind of bladed instrument. Indeed, this suggestion would be further supported by the supposed band of metal (i.e. a handle) projecting from the “lower” (the thickest) half. Tentative interpretations as a razor or a leather knife would probably not be untenable, though doubtless Central Asian parallels are unknown to the present author4. Such interpretations are, however, difficult to conciliate JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 with the object’s curved profile and the possible nail or rivet head fixed in the surface (if this is not merely a bulge in the rust). This might lead one to consider the fragment part of an iron mounting of a wooden object with a curved profile. Bronze arrowheads went out of use in Central Asia in the 2nd century BC5. Their presence in the Great Kushan Shakhristan is, therefore, certainly due to a secondary deposition. This phenomenon is not unusual in Central Asia. Yagodin6 suggests that arrowheads (and other minor objects) may accidentally intrude into later contexts in mud-bricks made from material taken from earlier constructions and layers of settlements. This is well imaginable even though one might argue that the (at least partial) cleaning of the mud (an unavoidable step in the production of mud-bricks) would probably easily reveal most of these intrusions. Intentional deposition, however, is definitely not to be excluded. Pugachenkova7 takes this for granted in the case of Khalchayan (the palace of Khanaktepa, Room 4) where five iron arrowheads were sealed in the very finely washed clay of the floor. The author explains this as an apotropaic measure, considering the arrowhead an object of notable magical and protective value. Little can be said about lacunary Arrowhead 07A010.I (no. 13), as practically none of the typological features can be determined. Typological determination of Arrowhead 9B009. II (no. 14) is complicated, too. Given the quite compact character of the object, the wear may not have been great. Perhaps the once sharp edges were only rubbed off. In that case, the original shape could have been that of a “purely three-sided” arrowhead with a long socket. Smirnov lists an analogous arrowhead from distant Mechet-chay (Orenburg region, Russia; a Sauromatian burial, 5/6th century BC) and mentions others of the same kind from the Near East 1 Knives of both types were found “side-by-side” both in barrow cemeteries in the Kafirnigan valley (the last century/ies BC – early 1st century AD (see Mandel’shtam 1966, pp. 115f, pl. XLVII–XLIX and idem 1975, pp. 50 and 117, pl. XV, XXXVII) and in the late “Pogrebal’naya yama 2” in Ak-tepe II (Sedov: 1987, p. 65, pl. VI). Both types are also known from early medieval Sogd (Raspopova 1980, p. 64, tbls. 9 and 10, fig. 40) to list only some examples. The knives from the Ferghana barrows were studied by B. A. Litvinskiy (1978, pp. 10–25). Here, too, both types appear contemporaneously within the course of the whole of the first half-millennium Ad. The scholar notes a marked prevalence of knives with a central tip over those with a lower one. This impression seems to be confirmed by their relative representation in other contexts, too. 2 This, of course, does not hold for the knives where the tang is placed in line with the blade back, none of which has, however, come to light at our site. This feature seems to prevail in the central Asian knives of antiquity and the early middle ages. 3 A scale-grip is relatively well represented in Hellenistic Ai-Khanoum (Francfort 1984, p. 68, pl. 25: no. 1, XXX: second from the left-hand side; Guillaume – Rougelle 1987, p. 43, nos. 0850–0857, pl. 15: 27–30). In later contexts its representation decreases notably. One straight-bladed knife with two rivets was found in Chaqalaq tepe (Higuchi – Kuwayama 1970, fig. 48: 65–53) and another in Ak-tepe (Sedov 1987, p. 65, pl. VI: 3). The one straight-edged knife with two rivets from early medieval Sogd (Raspopova 1980, fig. 40:40, the provenance is not specified in the text) and another from Chaqalaq tepe (Higuchi – Kuwayama 1970, fig. 48: 67–101) seem to have been reworked in antiquity after the blades were broken and, as well, originally might have been sickle-shaped. 4 Leather knives of a “mushroom” outline were widespread throughout history (e.g. Trubnikova 1947 or Gaitzsch 2005, pp. 98–101, pl. 30). The only possible identification of this object from a central Asian context (the Khwarazmian Iron Age site of Dinghilje – see Borob’eva 1973, pp. 153f, fig. 45: 1) is as insecure as ours. 5 Yagodin 1984, pp. 52f. The same takes place at the same time in the whole of the Eurasian zone. For the development there, see the classic work by Smirnov (1961), which was also the point of departure for the present study. 6 1984, p. 33. 7 Pugachenkova 1966, p. 51f. 131 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠✡ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements (7th century BC), from the “archaic” Scythian burials and “later” from Southern Siberia and Kazakhstan.8 Similar arrowheads were also found at Olympia in Greece.9 Smooth, three-sided, triangular, barbed arrowheads with inner sockets (like no. 15, i.e. 9C015.I) appear rarely in archaeological contexts (unlike their ogival variety10). In the Sauromatian area they can be found in the 4th–3rd cent BC with some unique precursors in the 6th century.11 In the same period, they appear in Scythia, while those from southern Siberia were being made of bone12. In Central Asia, pieces perhaps comparable with 9C015.I (no. 15) were found in ErkKala in Margiana (obviously secondarily deposited in an early Sassanid construction).13 Sector 04 Three-winged, socketed arrowheads with a triangular outline are common among the finds from both Central Asia and Eurasia in general. Appearing as early as the 6th century BC, they are particularly frequent in the 4th–3rd (and 2nd) centuries BC, both among the Sauromatians14 and the peoples of Central Asia (both nomad and sedentary)15. A small particularity of the piece in question is the presence of three tiny “stalks” at the socket base. There is, indeed, a Central Asian group of arrowheads (of the same type) whose sockets terminate in “paws.”16 In them, however, the protrusions are much more substantial 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Jan Kysela (making a kind of a “cut-up socket” on their own) while in the piece discussed they leave rather an impression of uselessness. Besides that, “genuine paws” are usually located in the intervals between the wings while the stubs of the Jandavalttepa find are aligned with them (as well as with the casting “seam”!). As a result, this weird feature need not be anything else other than a by-product of a loose, leaking mould, not cleaned after the casting17. The other two arrowheads from Sector 4 are basically of the same type18 (three-winged, ogival, socketed bronze arrowheads with reinforced tips and blades and insignificantly protruding sockets). Once again, direct parallels (all from Khorezm) are not exuberant. Two of these arrowheads, with M-shaped tip-bases, are known to the author from the 5th century site of Dinghildje19 and another from “slag mounds” in the area of the Syrdaria Estuary near the Aral Sea.20 Their varieties, with either straight or arcuate tip-bases, are only a little more frequent in our region.21 The only determinable iron arrowhead22 found in Jandavlattepa belongs to the most common type of these objects: three-winged, tanged arrowheads with barbs. They appeared in Central Asia in the last centuries BC and were in existence to the middle ages (7th/8th centuries AD). After standardization of their basic forms around the turn of the eras, these objects Smirnov 1961, pp. 51f, fig. 23-A: 26, tabl. IV B-IV “Otdel III, Typ 1, Varianta A” (in the following, Smirnov’s types will be abbreviated in the form: III-1-A). Baitinger 2001, p. 25, mainly nos. 374 and 375, pl. 11. The date is not given. Cleuziou, in his study (1977, p. 197), reasonably considers both varieties (his H18 and H19) as representative of the same type, making them part of his “recent” (sixth to third century) and Central Asian (as opposed to “Pontic” and “Near-Eastern”) groups. Smirnov 1961, p. 57, type IV-16, tabl. V B-88, -13. For an example from the site of Aimyrlyg (Tuva, 5th–3rd century BC) see Moshkova (ed.) 1992, pl. 75:36. Usmanova 1963, p. 66, fig. 33a, type IV (but they are called “type V” in the text). Unfortunately, neither the description nor the drawing give undeniable proof of the typological analogy. Smirnov 1961, pp. 48f, pl. III, (type III-9-A). For a summary see Yagodin 1984, pp. 48f, fig. 5: 11–17, cat. nos. 50–69 (type II-6) and Litvinskiy 2001, pp.72–73 (type II-“✁ ”). Both authors list the sites where this type came to light: Ai Khanoum (with 15 items being the best represented type in the arsenal: Yagodin 1984, tabl. I: 53–67; 2nd century BC), Afrasiab, Erk-Kala (Usmanova 1963, p. 65, fig. 33a: IIIb), Dinghildje (Borob’eva 1973, p. 199, tabl. A: 37, type VII; 5th century BC), Dilberdjin (Yagodin 1984, tabl. I: 50–52; 2nd/1st century BC and 3rd–4th century AD – a secondary deposition). While Yagodin (1984, p. 48, fig. 5: 9–10, cat. nos. 48–49) classes them as a type on their own (type II-6), for Litvinskiy (2001, pp. 72–73) they are only varieties of his type II-“✁ ” (see the previous note). With the finds reported from Koy-krylgan-kala (Tolstov – Vaynberg 1967, p1. 34, fig. 53:3), Ai Khanoum and cemeteries of Fergana, Pamir and Altai (for the references see the works of Yagodin and Litvinskiy), these seem to be endemic to Central Asia. This is obvious in several arrowheads exhibited in the Tashkent museum. Along with these, however, there are also some in which the “stalks” are located in the intervals and so, seem to have been made on purpose (whatever that was). The provenance of these pieces is not specified and their date is stated as 6th–4th centuries. It is, however, not certain whether the barbs of these finds from Tower 1 were not preserved or were never present. In a meticulous typology, this might be taken as a typological feature, too. Borob’eva 1973, p. 200, type III-III-5, pl. A: 64–65. Items with absent barbs are present at this site, too (III-I and III-II, nos. 50–52). Levina 1979, p. 183, fig. 5: 6. Others are reported from the Uygarak barrow-cemetery (ibidem). They are also fairly represented in the Samara-Ural zone of Sauromantia (rare pieces in the 7th and 4th centuries, the highest concentration in the 6th and 5th). See Smirnov 1961, p. 52f, fig. 12: 2,4; 15: A8,14, D 2,6 etc., tabl. IV, Type III-V-G. Yagodin 1984, p. 47, fig. 5: 1–5, cat. nos. 40–44 (type II-3-a/b), found in Dilberdjin, Djiga tepe and Emshi tepe, dated by the author to 6th–5th centuries. See also Borob’eva 1973, p. 200, pl. A, “otdel III;” Levina 1979, p. 183, fig. 5: 1–3, 8; Yagodin calls them “three-winged” unlike Smirnov and Borobeva for whom they are “three sided in section.” In these arguments surrounding terminological subtlties, the author follows Yagodin’s way. In Cleuziou’s less pedantic (though for this not less efficient) typology (Cleuziou 1977, p. 197) the arrowheads enter well into type F7 and – one more time – are considered by the author to be representants of his “recent” and “central asiatic” groups (see note 10). For the big theme of the Central Asian iron arroheads see Litvinskiy 2001, pp. 80–119 and also idem 1965; Obel’chenko 1965; Gorbunova 2000. 132 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠☞ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 did not change. It is their size rather than their form that may say something about them. This particular piece, with its 76 mm of total length, belongs among the large-sized ones, which only become widespread from the 3rd century AD onward. However, they were already singularly present in the old era along with the small-sized ones, which on their turn, continued to be used, though in a limited extent, down to the late antiquity and the early middle ages. There is not much sense in searching for precise duplicates of our piece among the countless comparable items. The single varieties of the quite simple type are widespread, and a mere similarity can hardly be taken as a testimony of direct kinship in this case. Blade 20D002.II (no. 22) gives little evidence to indicate the kind of weapon to which it originally belonged, its lentoid section and its breadth being the only possible clues. Few spearheads are known from Central Asian antiquity, and these rarely present a lentoid section (those flat with a midrib or, conversely, more compact ones, being more common)23. In swords and daggers, on the contrary, a lentoid section is the leading and practically only form. This holds true for a long period between the 2nd century BC and 4th century Ad. The change comes in the 4th–5th centuries AD, when single-edged swords appear beside two-edged ones24. It is not possible to decide if the blade was that of a sword or of a dagger, let alone to specify its type. The breadth of blades is basically the same in both weapon classes and the maximum measured breadth of our fragment (35–36 mm) is a common value for both. Although sword-blades might tend to be slightly broader than those of daggers, they at the same time often taper 23 24 25 26 27 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 towards the tip, and so even broad blades may reach the breadth of 35 mm at one point in their length (and there is no way to determine from which part of the blade the fragment originates)25. As a result, it cannot be stated with any certainty which type of weapon the item is a fragment of, neither a sword, nor a dagger (nor even a spear as mentioned above) can be excluded. Keeping in mind the above said, the same must be said about Point 20S003.II (no. 23). Here, the very fact that the object is a fragment of a weapon may be questioned. Its coat of rust does not allow a secure statement on this, but the section seems more oblong than lentoid (i.e. without marked edges). Besides that, the original thickness of the object is not at all clear (again, due to the rust), and quite probably the object would have been too thin and, thus, too fragile for a sword or a dagger. At the same time it lacks a midrib, which might make it more credibly a spearhead. Again, none of the three interpretations can be excluded, but scepticism is highly advisable here. The same holds for Fragment 21E025.I (no. 24). Its obviously pointed form and lentoid section might indicate its martial use. Any specific interpretation (the very tip of a spearhead or a dagger, an arrowhead lentoid in section26, etc.) would, however, be no more than guesswork. The Sling is a weapon of noticeable antiquity and surprising efficiency in both interpersonal violence and venatic activities27. Unfortunately, only man-made slingshots (i.e. those of unbaked clay, worked stone or cast lead) are archaeologically vis- The spearheads from Oxos temple (Litvinskiy 2001, pp. 109–200, for the catalogue see pp. 120–139) most commonly feature a midrib. Those purely lentoid (i.e. without a midrib) are often too narrow (cat. nos. 2582, 4072/2, 4100) or too short (cat. nos. 2046, 2075, 2078, 3230) to be comparable with our piece (minimum reconstructed length of our fragments – i.e. not of the original blade – is cca.130 mm). Several Oxos finds, however, make possible the suggestion that the Jandavlattepa fragment is that of a spearhead (cat. nos. 2580, 2583). Except for Oxos temple, finds of spearheads are extremely rare in Central Asia. In Pendjikent (in a considerably later context – 8th century), two flat to lentoid in section, tanged spearheads were found, but these are quite too short, being 9 and not much over 8 cm (Raspopova 1980, pp. 74f, fig. 49: 8, 9). Other spearheads from that site are triangular or square in section (ibidem), as is that from Toprak-kala (Rapoport – Nerazik 1984, p. 222, fig. 89: 10). Another spearhead with such a compact section, circular in this case, comes from Chaqalaq tepe (Higuchi – Kuwayama 1970, figs. 50: 67–27). In the east-European area, the finds of spearheads are more frequent (Khazanov 1971, p. 47f, pl. XXV, XXVI). Despite the lentoid section of some of them, comparison of these broad, leaf-shaped objects with our relatively slender blade is hardly imaginable. The change is, however, very gradual, and two-edged swords are attested in Pendjikent and other sites as late as the 8th century onward (Obel’chenko 1978, pp. 125f; Raspopova 1980, p. 78). For finds of swords and daggers in Central Asia see Obel’chenko 1978, (and idem 1961, 1962, 1969, 1972), Litvinskiy 2001, pp. 204ff, mainly 234–238; Gorbunova 2000 (summarizes the various contexts and gives reference to numerous sites); Brykina 1982, p. 83, fig. 36; Kruglikova 1986, fig. 22: 17; Lokhovits – Khazanov 1979, pp. 126–127, pl. I: 1–2; Lokhovits 1979, p. 142, pl. III: 10; Mandel’shtam 1966, pp. 102–111, pl. XXXIX–XL; idem 1975, pp. 135–140, 141–143, pl. XXX; Manylov 1990, p. 52, fig. 1: 18, 19; idem 1992, pp. 67f, fig. 2:1; Maslov – Yagodin 1996, pp. 172nn, fig. 4; Sedov 1987, pp. 58ff, pl. I: 2,4; Francfort 1984, p. 67, tabl. 33. pls. 24: 12, 13; while Khazanov 1971 provides a most useful review of the contemporary East-European material. Unfortunately, in many of these works the documentation is not exemplary and the breadth of the blade is usually not mentioned and has to be estimated from the (sometimes poor, even unfathomable) drawings. Those few more scrupulous works (by Litvinskiy, Khazanov and Raspopova), however, show that a breadth of 30 to 50 mm is shared by both swords and daggers. Although rare, such arrowheads appear throughout Bactrian antiquity from the Hellenistic period down to the Middle Ages (see Litvinskiy 2001, pp. 88–90, 114). For the earliest testimonies on the use of the sling, see Korfmann 1972. The use of the sling is studied in detail by Baatz 1990 (the ballistics) and Völling 1990 (the history of its use in the western, mainly Roman, world in antiquity). 133 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠✠ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements ible. A simple, smooth pebble of appropriate shape does the job well enough, but it is, of course, impossible to distinguish between “a simple pebble” and “a pebble slingshot” during excavation. There are two basic shapes of slingshots (or glandes) used all over the world: a) globular or a form derived from it, i.e. that of a flattened ball or even slightly cubic and b) elongated which may vary from ovoid to bi-conical or bipyramidal with pointed or blunt extremities. The use of the sling is attested in Central Asia as early as the Mesolithic period. Several stone pieces of both globular and the characteristic elongated shape were found at the Neolithic site of Chagyly-depe in Turkmenistan28. Numerous finds of stone slingshots come from the Bactrian Bronze Age site of Sapalitepa29. Their use continues uninterruptedly in the Iron Age30. From Central Asian sites of the antique period, indisputable slingshots are known from Aï Khanoum31, Dilberdjin32 and Surkh Kotal33 in Bactria, Chopli-depe in the “North-western Bactria”34, Erk-Kala and Marghiana in general35, Koy-KrylganKala in Khorezm.36 The function of the elongated glandes is unmistakable. In the case of the globular pieces, however, their interpretation as slingshots is not the only possibility, and their use as pestles (as suggested in Tolstov – Vaynberg 1967) is not excluded. It should be also noted that the weight of these objects often exceeds that adequate for slinging: It is almost regu28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Jan Kysela larly higher than 150 g while indubitable slingshots known to me from the western world practically never reach this37. Bone Plaque 21F025.I (no. 28), though fragmentary and lacking the most essential detail (i.e. the string notch at the top), may be without hesitation proclaimed a bone finial of a bow. Countless parallels can be found in both burials and habitations of the Euro-Asian steppes, Central Asia, the Near East and their “neighbouring areas.” These implements were glued (hence the hairline grooves on the plain face) in a pair onto each end of a bow in order to make it rigid and resistant to flexing and so to increase the weapon’s efficiency. Their origin is sought in Western Siberia in the 3rd/2nd centuries BC, and from the first centuries of the new era they seem to have got firmly rooted in the martial traditions of Central Asia, too. This new type of bow remained then in use until modern times38. Within these broad chronological and geographical limits, these simple objects remained practically unchanged. Different conformations of the string-end and more or less arcuate profiles and dimensions are the only possible variables, none of these being of any chronological value probably. Their lengths usually vary around 20 cm (some measure only half of this), their breadth of around 2 cm is average (they usually taper from the “string” end to the “handle” end). The only feature Berdyev 1966, figs. 10: 11–13, 18. Shirinov 1977; Mirsaatov – Shirinov 1974. All of the shots are basically globular. Their dimensions vary from 44 to 98 mm in diameter and from 100 to over 2000 g in weight. This documentation comes mainly from the western areas of Central Asia – Dinghildje: Borob’eva 1973, p.148, fig. 56. Unbaked clay, globular shape, dimensions 37 × 40 – 51 × 49 mm. Koy-Krylgan-Kala: Tolstov – Vaynberg 1967, pp. 137–139. They are all globular or sub-globular. Their diameters range from 44 to 78 mm, their weights from 77.5 to 238 g for those made of unbaked clay and from 98 to 507 g for those made of stone. The authors assume that both the clay and the stone shots were used in the first period (4th–3rd centuries BC) while only those from stone remained in use in the posterior phase (till the 4th century AD). In this period, some – if not all – were being used secondarily as pestles. For Margiana, see Usmanova 1963, p. 59. Leriche 1986, pp. 13 and 114–115, photograph 27–28; twenty stone balls are listed with diameters and weights ranging from 91 to 258 mm and from 70 g to 20.5 kg (apparently, the greater part of them was ammunition for artillery rather than for funditores). Kruglikova 1984, p. 53, fig. 36: Twelve more or less globular pieces from (unbaked?) clay can be counted in the photograph. The diameter indicated by the author is 5–6 cm; Pugachenkova 1984, p. 105, fig. 19. Almost one hundred pieces are mentioned, concentrated near the southern gate. They are said to be made of unbaked clay, globular, with diameters of 8–12 cm, some only 4–5 cm. Fussman – Guillaume 1990, p. 136, pl. 8 and X, globular: cat. nos. 545–557 unbaked clay, diameter15–33 mm; elongated: cat. nos. 558, terracotta 46 × 26 mm and 559, limestone 56 × 31 mm. Pilipko 1985, p. 46, pl. IV: 14: the stone is ovoid with dimensions (estimated according to the scale of the drawing) cca. 55 × 40 mm. According to the author, the find “sleduet veroyatno, otnosit´ k epokhe rannego zheleza”. No reason is given for this conclusion. The date of the “stratigraphic horizon” in which it was found is well established by coin finds to late antiquity (the earliest of which is that of Vasudeva, followed by those of Kushano-Sassanid rulers). Usmanova 1963, pp. 59–64. The author briefly summarizes the presence of slingshots in Margiana and Parthia. Though her main interest is given to the more sizable artillery missiles characteristic for the first centuries AD, the constant use of hand-slings in the area from the Iron age to the early Middle Ages is well attested by both globular and bi-conical pieces, often made of terracotta. See Footnote 15. Völling 1990, p. 36, fig. 31: The heaviest slingshot known from a Roman context was found in Haltern and weighs 155 g, while the average weight for a Roman glans is that of 40–70 g. It is only in late antiquity that there was a tendency to increase the weight, but it still usually remained below 100 g. In the earlier Greek world this value is even lower with 18–36 g at Olynthos (Robinson 1941, pp. 418–443); 30–42 g in Olympia (Baitinger 2001, p. 31), and 21–74 g in Hellenistic southern Thrace (Paunov – Dimitrov 2000: here with four exceptionally heavy, weighing 102, 104, 144 and 150 g). All of these pieces are cast of lead, mostly with an elongated form (no lead slingshot is known to the present author from Central Asia). As such they had different ballistic features than the spherical stones/ “clay lumps” from Central Asia, and it is not simply possible to juxtapose the two groups. In any case, however, the boulders of 300 g and more cannot be seen as ammunition for hand-slings; therefore, another functional designation must be sought for them (e.g. ammunition for staff-slings, yet more sophisticated war machines or a more peaceful use, for instance the mentioned pestles). For a detailed discussion of the composite type of bow, see Litvinksiy 1966 and idem 2001, pp. 28–58, Plate 7, for exceptional finds of entire bows see Rapoport – Nerazik 1984, pp. 216–220, and Brown 1937. 134 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ Reports of Czech-Uzbekistani Archaeological Mission in southern Uzbekistan vol. 1 in which our item slightly differs from other contemporary pieces is the form of the section, which is usually semicircular (i.e. without the squared “back” or “string” side).39 3.2.11 Bibliography: Baatz, D. (1990): Schleudergeschosse aus Blei – eine waffentechnische Untersuchung. Saalburg-Jahrbuch 45, pp. 59–67. Baitinger, H. (2001): Die Angriffswaffen aus Olympia; Olympische Forschungen XXIX. Berlin – New York. Berdyer, O. K. (1966): Chagyly-depe. Novyy pamyatnik neoliticheskoy dzheytunskoy kultury, in: Materialna kultura narodov Sredney Azii i Kazakhstana. Moskva, pp. 3–28. Bogomolov, P. I. – Gendel’man, P. I. (1990): Metallicheskie izdeliya iz gorodishcha Kanka. IMKU 24, pp. 93–106. Brown, F. E. (1937): A recently discovered compound bow. Seminarium Kondakovianum IX, pp. 1–9. Brykina, G. A. (1982): Yugo-zapadnaya Fergana v pervoy polovine I tysyachletiya nashey ery. Moskva. Cleuziou, S. (1977): Les pointes de flèches «scythiques»au proche et moyen orient, in: Le plateau iranien et l’Asie centrale des origines à la conquête islamique. Colloques internationaux du CNRS 567. Paris, pp. 187–199. Francfort, H.-P. (1984): Fouilles d’Ai Khanoum III. Le sanctuaire du temple a niches indentées, vol. 2. Les trouvailles, MDAFA XXVII, Paris. Fussman, G. – Guillaume, O. (1990): Surkh Kotal en Bactriane, vol. II., Les monnaies – les petits objets. MDAFA XXXII, Paris. Gaitzsch, W. (2005): Eisenfunde aus Pergamon; Geräte, Werkzeuge und Waffen; Pergamenische Forschungen Bd. 14. Berlin – New York. Gorbunova, N. G. (2000): O vooruzhenii sredneaziyaticheskikh skotovodov. RA 2, pp. 40–51. Guillaume, O. – Rougelle, A. (1987): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum VII. Les petits objets. MDAFA XXXI, Paris. Higuchi, T. – Kuwayama, Sh. (1970): Chaqalaq tepe; fortified village in North Afghanistan excavated in 1964–1967. Kyoto. Itina, M. A. (ed.) (1979): Kochevniki na granitsakh Khorezma, TKhAEE XI. Moskva. Khazanov, A. M. (1971): Ocherki voennogo dela Sarmatov. Moskva. Kolyakov, S. M. (1979): Masterskaya po obrabotke roga i kosti v kreposti Kaparas, in: Vinogradov, A. V. (et. al.eds): Etnografiya i arkheologiya Sredney Azii. Moskva, pp. 48–53. Korfmann, M. (1972): Schleuder und Bogen in Südwestasien von den frühesten Belegen bis zum Beginn der historischen Stadtstaaten. Antiquitas 3,13. Bonn. Kruglikova, I. T. (1974): Dil’berdzhin (raskopki 1970–1972 gg), 1. Moskva. Kruglikova, I. T. (1986): Dil’berdzhin, khram Dioskurov. Materialy sovetsko-afganskoy arkheologicheskoy ekcpedicii. Moskva. Kruglikova, I. T. (ed.) (1984): Drevnaya Baktriya. Materialy sovetsko-afganskoy arkheologicheskoy ekspedicii, 3. Moskva. Leriche, P. (1986): Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum V. Les remparts et les monuments associés. MDAFA XXIV. Paris. 39 JANDAVLATEPPA 2002–2006/1 Levina, L. M. (1979): Poseleniya VII–V vv. do n. e. i “shlakovye” kurgany yuzhnykh rayonov syrdarynskoy del’ty, in: Kochevniki na granitsakh Khorezma, TKhAEE XI, Itina, M. A. (ed.), Moskva, pp. 178–189. Litvinskiy, B. A. (1965): Sredneaziyaticheskie zheleznye nakonechniky strel. SA 3, pp. 75–91. Litvinskiy, B. A. (1966): Slozhnosostavnoy luk v drevney Sredney Azii. SA 4, pp. 51–69. Litvinskiy, B. A. (1978): Orudya truda i umvar iz mogilnikov zapadnoy Fergany. Mogilniki zapadnoy Fergany IV. Moskva. Litvinskiy, B. A. (2001): Baktriyskoe vooruzhenie v drevnevostochnom i grecheskom kontekste. Khram Oksa v Baktrii, Tom 2. Moskva. Litvinskiy, B. A. – Sedov, A. V. (1983): Tepai-Shakh, kultura i svyazi v kushanskoy Baktrii. Moskva. Litvinskiy, B. A. – Sedov, A. V. (1984): Kul’ty i ritualy kushanskoy Baktrii. Moskva. Lokhovits, V. A. (1979): Podboyno-katakombnye i kolektivnye pogrebeniya mogil’nika Tumek-kichidzhik, in: Kochevniki na granitsakh Khorezma, TKhAEE XI, Itina, M. A. (ed.), Moskva, pp. 134–150. Lokhovits, V. A. – Khazanov, A.M. (1979): Podboynye i katakombnye pogrebeniya mogilnika Tuz-Gyr, in: Kochevniki na granitsakh Khorezma, TKhAEE XI, Itina, M. A. (ed.), Moskva, pp. 111–133. Mandel’shtam, A. M. (1966): Kochevniki na puti v Indiyu. MIA 136. Moskva – Leningrad. Mandel’shtam, A. M. (1975): Pamyatniki kochevnikov kushanskogo vremeni v severnoy Baktrii. Trudy tadzhikskoy arkheologicheskoy ekspedicii AN SSSR VIII. Leningrad. Manylov, Yu. P. (1990): Raskopki kulkudutskoy kurgannoy gruppy v centralnykh Kyzylkumakh. IMKU 23, pp. 46–60. Manylov, Yu. P. (1992): Kurgany Kokpatasa. IMKU 26, pp. 59–65. Maslov, V. E. – Yablonskiy, L.T. (1996): Mogilnik Gyaur-IV v severnoy Turkmenii. RA 2, pp. 168–181. Mirsaatov, T. M. – Shirinov, T. (1974): Funkcional’nyy analiz nekotorykh kamennykh izdeliy iz Sapalitepa. IMKU 11, pp. 61–70. Moshkova, M. G. (ed) (1992): Stepnaya polosa aziatskoy chasti SSSR v skifo-sarmatskoe vremya. Moskva. Obel’chenko, O. V. (1961): Lyavandatskyy mogil’nik. IMKU 2, pp. 97–176. Obel’chenko, O. V. (1962): Mogil’nik Akdzhartepe. IMKU 3, pp. 57–70. Obel’chenko, O. V. (1969): Mirankul’skie kurgany. IMKU 8, pp. 80–89. Obel’chenko, O. V. (1972): Agalysayskie kurgany. IMKU 9, pp. 56–72. Obel’chenko, O. V. (1978): Mechi i kinzhaly iz kurganov Sogda. SA 4, pp. 115–127. Paunov, E – Dimitrov, D.Y. (2000): New data on the use of war sling in Thrace (4th–1st century BC). Archaeologia Bulgarica IV/3, pp. 44–57. Pilipko, V. N. (1985): Poseleniya severo-zapadnoy Baktrii. Ashkhabad. Pugachenkova, G. A. (1966): Khalchayan: K probleme khudozhestvennoy kultury severnoy Baktrii. Tashkent. Pugachenkova, G. A. (1984): Raskopki yuzhnykh gorodskikh vorot Dil’berdzhina, in: Dil’berdzhin (raskopki 1970–1972 gg), 1, Kruglikova, I. T. (ed.) 1984, pp. 93–110. Rapoport, Yu. A. – Nerazik, E. E. (1984): Toprak-Kala, Dvorets. TKhAEE XIV. Moskva. For other bone plaque finds from Central Asia (especially extensive is the documentation from Khawrezm) see for instance, besides the works mentioned in the previous footnote, Kolyakov 1979 (“Kushan period”); Tolstov – Vaynberg 1967, tabl. XX: 8–10; Lokhovits – Khazanov 1979, p. 127, pl. I: 3–10 (1st–3rd c. AD); Lokhovits 1979, p. 142, pl. III:1); Manylov 1990, p. 53; idem 1992, pp. 64f (dated to 3rd–2nd and 3rd–1, centuries BC respectively according to the author); Maslov – Yablonskiy 1996, pp.174f; for Eastern Europe see Khazanov 1971, pp. 29–35 etc. They are absent from the mound cemeteries in the Kafirnigan Valley (Mandel’shtam 1966 and 1975) dated to the last centuries BC and first century AD. 135 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞ 3.2 Metal, stone and bone weapons and implements Raspopova, V. I. (1980): Metalicheskie izdeliya rannesrednevokogo Sogda. Leningrad. Robinson, D. M. (1941): Metal and minor miscelanous objects. Excavation at Olynthos X; Baltimore. Sedov, A. V. (1987): Kobadian na poroge rannego srednevekov’ya. Moskva. Smirnov, K. F. (1961): Voruzhenie Savromatov. MIA 101. Moskva – Leningrad. Tolstov, S. P. – Vaynberg, B. I. (1967): Koy-Krylgan-Kala. TKhAEE V. Moskva. Trubnikova, N. B. (1947): K voprosu o nazhanchnii “kobanskikh sechek,” in: KrSoobsh IIMK XVIII, pp. 49–53. Jan Kysela Usmanova, Z. I. (1963): Erk-kala (po materialam YuTAKE 1955–1959 gg), in: Trudy yuzhno-turkmenstanskoy arkheologicheskoy kompleksnoy ekspedicii Tom XII. Ashkhabad, pp. 20–94. Shirinov, T. (1977): Kamennye yadra Sapalitepa. IMKU 13, pp. 13–21. Vorob’eva, M. G. (1973): Dingil’dzhe, usadba serediny I tysyachletiya do n.e. v drevnem Khorezme. Moskva. Völling, T. (1990): Funditores im römischen Heer. Saalburg-Jahrbuch 45, pp. 24–58. Yagodin, V. N. (1984): Bronzovye nakonechniki strel iz yuzhnoy Baktrii, in: Dil’berdzhin (raskopki 1970–1972 gg), 1, Kruglikova, I. T. (ed.) 1984, pp. 33–57. 136 ✁✂✄✁☎✂✆✝✞✟✂✄✄ ✡✠ ✡✠✞☛✞✡✡ ✡☞✌✍☞