CHAPTER THIRTEEN

THE ANCIENT OASIS LANDSCAPE

OF CHORASMIA: THE ROLE OF THE KALA
IN CENTRAL ASIAN SETTLEMENT PATTERNS
MICHELLE NEGUS CLEARY

We finished unloading our caravan and hurried to the ruins. Having passed
by an obscure labyrinth of defence constructions near the gates, and after
crossing an enormous internal space inside which were bushes and sand
around ruins, we climbed up the northern wall. From this fifteen-meter
high place we saw the grandiose and unforgettable panorama of ancient
Khorezm [Chorasmia], subjugated by desert. In front of us dead sands
lay. Far on the northern horizon we saw the bluish silhouette of the SultanUizdag mountains and everywhere, among the thickening waves of
barkhans [dunes], there were countless ruins of fortresses, fortified manors
and small cities. (Tolstov 1948b, 19-20)1

The ancient Central Asian land of Chorasmia was an agricultural oasis

surrounded by nomadic communities and largely isolated from other
settled peoples. Many features of the mid to late 1st millennium BC oasis
landscape were well preserved until the twentieth century, such as fields,
vast irrigation systems, huge fortified enclosures, and monumental cultic
structures. Previous scholars have interpreted the large, fortified
enclosures preserved from this oasis society as urban centres, despite the
fact that most of these sites lack key urban features such as residential
areas, streets, and production quarters. A different interpretation of these
monumental kala sites can be attempted by looking at the preserved
remains of the ancient oasis as an entire landscape. This paper investigates
the strength of this alternative interpretation by looking at the landscape
around the Chorasmian complex of Ayaz-kala, drawing from the
archaeological investigations of previous scholars, and the authors field
surveys.2 From this study another picture emerges concerning how these
ancient Central Asians may have inhabited the oasis and occupied their

Chapter Thirteen

sites in a non-nucleated pattern. The influence of earlier oasis civilizations,

such as the B.M.A.C./Oxus Civilization, and the close ties between the
Chorasmians and the nomadic pastoralist world interact with the
challenging geographic conditions to form a unique, Central Asian oasis
settlement pattern.
The kalas of ancient Chorasmia provide scholars with a unique
opportunity to study a relatively well-preserved agricultural oasis from the
7th century BC-2nd century AD. Chorasmia was virtually untouched by the
colonizing effects of the Greco-Macedonian conquest (Rapoport 1994,
161), and therefore presents a window into a local Central Asian
settlement pattern that has continued in some form until the twentieth
century AD (Francfort 1979, 22, 25; Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 400ff.;
Leriche 1977, 303; Vogelsang 1992, 279). This paper explores an
alternative interpretation of the ancient, monumental kala sites of
Chorasmia, which will have an impact upon our understanding of
settlement and urbanism in ancient Central Asia.

Background
Chorasmia was an ancient land of Central Asia located in the oasis
zone formed by the delta of the ancient Oxus River (modern Amu Darya;
Fig. 13.1). This delta formed many oases where the distributaries of the
Oxus created lush, fertile areas, separated by arid fingers of the Kyzyl
Kum and Karak Kum deserts.
The lands of the Massagetae/Saka have long been located within and
immediately surrounding the Oxus delta. Chorasmia itself has been
described as forming a wedge into the nomadic world of the arid region
(Rapoport 1994, 161). The Chorasmians most likely had very close ties to
their nomadic neighbours, and may have shared many cultural traits. The
Greek historian and geographer Strabo recorded that the Chorasmians
belonged to the tribe of the Massagetae and Saka (Strabo 1944,
Geog.XI.viii.8), and were recorded as one of the five tribes composing the
Massagetae confederacy.3 Rapoport states that the nomads created
Chorasmia as they came into military and cultural contact with the Bronze
Age agricultural civilizations of southern Turkmenia and northeastern
Iran (Rapoport 1994, 161). This raises further questions as to whether
Chorasmia was a traditional settled state as has been previously thought.4
The Chorasmian people remain somewhat mysterious, due to a lack of
historical sources. We know that Chorasmia, together with Sogdia, Aria,
and Parthia became the 16th satrapy of the Achaemenid Empire, probably
during the 6th century BC (Helms et al. 2001:121, n.12). We know that

Figure 13.1: Map of Central Asia in the 4th century BC, including Chorasmian site locations
(after Bregel 2003, Map 3).

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

3

Chapter Thirteen

sometime before the invasion of Alexander, Chorasmia became

independent of the Achaemenids, since their king, Pharasmanes, came
with a delegation to Alexander the Great and offered his allegiance (Arrian
1971, IV.15.5). With such scant historical sources5 almost all our
information comes from archaeology, and there has been a great deal of
conjecture and difference of interpretation of this often meagre evidence.

The Kala Sites

The Chorasmian kala sites of the 7th century BC to 2nd century AD6 are
large, heavily fortified enclosures, usually rectangular in plan, and often
with a smaller fortified building or citadel within.7 The kalas were
constructed of unfired mud brick and pakhsa (or pis), and are manifest in
a variety of sizes, layouts, styles, and functions. They are spaced
throughout the oasis zones of the delta, primarily in the southern areas to
the east and west of Amu Darya.
The fortifications of the Chorasmian kalas of this period, known to
Russian scholars as the Antique period and subdivided by Tolstov into
Archaic (7th-4th century BC), Kangiui (4th-1st century BC) and Early
Kushan (1st-2nd century AD)8 periods, are very characteristic of a local
Central Asian tradition (Bergamini 1987, n. 3; Francfort 1979, 18). The
characteristic defensive features they include are: arrow-shaped loopholes;
double walls with archers galleries in between (mur creux, or hollow
walls according to Francfort 1979); hollow towers projecting from the line
of the trace; and huge, labyrinthine gateways protected by towers and
loopholes. They were originally designed to face the attacks of armed
nomadic cavalry (as opposed to siege-style warfare of the Macedonians
employing siege machines, miners, engineers, etc.), and defended by
archers from the tops of the walls and the archers galleries inside the
walls (Bergamini 1987, n. 3; Francfort 1979, 18-19, 20, 40, 41; Fig. 13.4)
At present, many of the larger kalas have been identified as urban
centres or cities based on the large areas enclosed by the walls (over 5
ha), their sophisticated fortifications, and the extensive irrigation systems
found associated with the enclosures (Khozhaniyazov 2006, 76; Tolstov
1948b, 125-6). Tolstov uses the Russian word gorodishche to describe the
larger urban sites (for example Tolstov 1948a, 77, 84, 102; Tolstov 1948b,
101), and this term implies an urban classification for the site, or at the
very least that it was a large fortified settlement.9 Tolstov reconstructed
ancient Chorasmia as a powerful, sedentary state, fuelled by a slaveowning, agricultural economy, where the larger kalas were the urban

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

settlements of this state: the administrative and religious centres of a

strong, centralized government (Tolstov 1948b, 103, 116).
The kala fortifications and their associated irrigation networks represent
the investment of vast amounts of economic resources and labour, and
imply the existence of a strong, centralised administration (Tolstov 1948b,
103). However, the mere presence of fortified enclosures and large
irrigation networks should not necessarily lead to the assumption of a
centralised, highly urbanised state, especially in this zone of nomadic
pastoral production. Biscione (1979, 210), in his analysis of Bronze and
Iron Age settlement patterns in southern Central Asia, cautioned that
centralization and canal systems are not always connected. Lecomte
(1999, 140) agrees that such a direct relationship between a complex
irrigation system and a strong central power is now disputed. Obviously a
certain degree of co-ordination is required to construct and maintain such
irrigation systems, but does such co-ordination necessarily require an
urbanised, centralised state, following the Mesopotamian model? For
Chorasmia, questioning this assumption is important, especially given that
in the intervening years since Tolstov set up his grand narrative about the
Chorasmian kingdom (Tolstov 1948a), there has been further investigation
of these kala sites. This paper contends that there is little evidence of the
requisite physical structures normally associated with ancient urban
centres, and that the key to better understanding the fortification and
settlements of ancient Chorasmia is to look beyond the walls at the extramural landscape around each kala.

Chapter Thirteen

INDICATORS OF
URBANISM

Ayazkala 3

SITE DATE

4th/3rd
c BC,
1st-2nd
c AD

4th c BC1st c AD

5ha. X

Size: approx.
enclosed site area
7 15ha. (Biscione
1979); >15ha.
(Francfort 1979;
Zadneprovsky
1995); >5ha.
(Khozhaniyazov
2006); >10ha
(P'yankova 1994)
Fortifications
Biscione, 1979;
Francfort 1979;
Khozhaniyazov
2006; Lavrov 1950;
Masson and
Sarianidi 1972;
P'yankova 1994;
Zadneprovsky 1995.
Monumental
Architecture
Biscione 1979;
Lavrov 1950;
Khozhaniyazov
2002; Masson and
Sarianidi 1972;
P'yankova 1994;
Zadneprovsky 1995
Cultural Production
Masson and
Sarianidi 1972

Dzhanbaskala

Kalalygyr 1

Toprakkala
(Sultanuiz dag)

Kiuzeligyr

5th or
4th c BC

7th-5th c
BC

2nd?/3rd?6th c AD

3.4ha. X

62.5ha.

25ha.

17ha.

Table 13.1: Ten attributes or indicators of urbanism concerning the

classification of sites in Central Asia and the Near East.

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

Dzhanbaskala

Kalalygyr 1

Kiuzeligyr

Toprakkala
(Sultanuiz dag)

4th/3rd
c BC,
1st-2nd
c AD

4th c BC1st c AD

5th or
4th c
BC

7th-5th c
BC

2nd?/3rd?6th c AD

INDICATORS OF
URBANISM

Ayazkala 3

SITE DATE
Variety of Building
Types/High Density
within Enclosure
Daviau 1997; Francfort
1979; Khozhaniyazov
2002; P'yankova 1994
Irrigation (Large Scale
Public Works)
Biscione 1979; Masson
and Sarianidi 1972;
P'yankova 1994
Streets/Organised
Intra-mural Planning
Daviau 1997; Lavrov
1950; P'yankova 1994
Residential
Quarters/Occupational
Deposits
Lavrov 1950; Masson
and Sarianidi 1972;
P'yankova, 1994
Craft Production Zones
Khozhaniyazov 2002;
Masson and Sarianidi
1972; P'yankova 1994;
Zadneprovsky 1995
Long-Distance Trade
Khozhaniyazov 2002;
Masson and Sarianidi
1972; Zadneprovsky
1995

Table 13.1 (cont.): Ten attributes or indicators of urbanism concerning the

classification of sites in Central Asia and the Near East.

Chapter Thirteen

The Issue of Urbanism

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

Several scholars have pointed out that the classification of the larger
Chorasmian kala sites as cities is problematic. Helms writes that The
term urban is very loosely used by Tolstov and his followers. It can be
argued that none of the fortified sites in Chorasmia was urban, from
Kiuzely-gir to Kazakli-yatkan and even Toprak-kala (Sultan-uiz-dag)
(Helms in Khozhaniyazov 2006, n. 111). Lavrov also stated that many of
the sites in Chorasmia cannot be considered cities (Lavrov 1950, 33). If we
begin to compare the larger Chorasmian kalas with the theoretical
characteristics attributed to ancient urban settlements, some interesting
observations are possible. Ten attributes or indicators of urbanism are
shown in Table 13.1, that have been isolated from relevant works
concerning the classification of sites in Central Asia and the Near East.10
These attributes are based on hierarchical socio-evolutionary models, and
are useful here to demonstrate that the evidence from Chorasmia does not
actually fit these models. The urban indicators of Table 13.1 are most
useful because they help to identify the range of possible functions for the
site. As the quote from Mumford above points out, a city fulfils a range of
functions crucial to a particular society.
From Table 13.1 we can clearly see that the Chorasmian kalas11 are
lacking more than half of these indicators the most obvious, and perhaps
the most important being size, residential quarters, craft production
quarters and a high density of intra-mural occupation. The two exceptions
are the Dzhanbas-kala and Toprak-kala sites. Dzhanbas-kala is so far the
only site with intra-mural residential structures, and a medium density of
construction. But its small size and lack of variety of building types
preclude it from being considered an urban centre. Toprak-kala has many
of the physical attributes associated with urban centres, but does lack
evidence of long-distance trade and developed craft production areas,
according to Rapoport (1994, 161).
This lack of urban characteristics is perhaps most simply expressed by
Francfort when he defined an ancient Central Asian city as the following:
being fortified, being over 15ha in area, and having a high density of
structures within its enclosure (Francfort 1979, 10, n. 21). As a result,
Francfort classified the vast majority of Chorasmian kalas as fortresses
instead of cities (Francfort 1979, 18, 23-24, 33).12 Of the kalas that he did
classify as cities in his tables, Francfort noted that their surfaces appeared
very little built upon,13 and comments that in Chorasmia, urban enclosures

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

remain rare, with only Toprak-kala14 being a true city (Francfort 1979, 34;
table 1). Bergamini (1981, 171, 174) has critiqued Francforts definition of
a city as an overly simplistic classification, and considers that Francfort
did not attempt a deeper understanding of the urban context. Nonetheless,
his basic definition points to the heart of the problem for the Chorasmian
sites, which is the lack of structures within the enclosure walls.
We can illustrate these issues regarding the classification of
Chorasmian cities by looking at the examples of several sites. The first
site, Kalaly-gyr 1, is a single, vast enclosure dating to the 4th century BC
and is important as the largest of the Chorasmian kalas. The second
example is the Ayaz-kala complex of sites that is of great interest in
understanding the role of these kalas in ancient Central Asian oases.

Kalaly-Gyr 1
Kalaly-gyr 1s huge enclosure, an area of approximately 63 ha
(Rapoport and Lapirov-Skoblo 1963, Fig.1), is constructed of 15 m thick
double mud-brick walls, with two-storey archers galleries, towers, and
four monumental gateways (Fig. 13.2). It is dated to the 5th or 4th century
BC and has been claimed by Rapoport as the Achaemenid-built seat of the
16th satrapy (Rapoport et al. 2000, 30).15 Yet the interior is devoid of
dwellings, streets, cultural layers, or even fields (Lavrov 1950, 15; Tolstov
1948a, 79; Tolstov 1948b, 94). The only intra-mural structure is a huge
palatial building, 1 ha in area, which is attached to the western wall
typical of Chorasmian planning.16 The excavations of this palace building
produced evidence of occupation and artefacts, including the remains of
pottery, stone column bases, a mould for an Achaemenid style column
capital,17 an altar, and fragments of wall paintings (Rapoport et al. 2000,
31-33). The rest of the enclosure remained conspicuously devoid of
artefacts or cultural debris.
Tolstov stated that the most probable function of Kalaly-gyr 1 was as a
cattle enclosure (Tolstov 1948a, 80; Tolstov 1948b, 94). Tolstovs
hypothesis that this sites inhabitants lived in passages in the external
fortification walls was based on a passage in the Avesta (Tolstov 1948b,
94-96).18 This was how he reconciled classifying the site as an urban
settlement, without it having any internal structures save one. Rapoport
and Khozhaniyazov (and confusingly later Tolstov as well) consider the
site to have been founded as a city, and explain the lack of intra-mural
features by concluding that the site was unfinished, due to the collapse of

10

Chapter Thirteen

Figure 13.2: Kalaly-gyr 1 plan

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

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

11

Achaemenid control in Chorasmia (Khozhaniyazov 2006, 72; Rapoport et

al. 2000, 31; Tolstov 1960, 17). Pottery, some occupation layers found
within the palace, and clear evidence that the building was destroyed by
fire (Rapoport and Lapirov-Skoblo 1963, 143) point to it having been
inhabited, and thus argue against the site being unfinished. Rapoport
assesses the neighbouring, slightly earlier kala of Kiuzely-gyr19 (with
similar palatial/cultic structures, extensive fortifications and a large, empty
enclosure) as having been a proto-city. Rapoport suggests the vacant
intra-mural space of Kiuzely-gyr to have been intended for the refuge of
surrounding inhabitants and their cattle in times of danger (Rapoport et al.
2000, 25, 28), yet he does not apply this same idea to Kalaly-gyr 1 despite
the similarity of material evidence.
Given Rapoport and Tolstovs clear statements that Kalaly-gyr 1, and
even Kiuzely-gyr, were devoid of intra-mural structures except one or
more monumental palatial/cultic buildings, and were most likely used as
refuges for cattle, it seems strange that these authors continue to use the
terms settlement and city in conjunction with these sites. Many other
scholars have still generally referred to these two sites as examples of
Central Asian urbanism (for example in Belenitskii 1968, 55; Francfort
1998, 186; Khozhaniyazov 2006:76; Negmatov 1994, 446). Of the urban
indicators, both Kalaly-gyr 1 and Kiuzely-gyr have only basic features
(table 13.1), implying that these sites served only limited functions. Gardin
(1995, 99) refuted an urban classification for similar pre-Hellenistic
Bactrian kala sites due to their limited functions, and so we should
likewise be reconsidering the urban classification of almost all the
Chorasmian kalas.
This raises the question that if these kalas are not urban centres, then
why such large enclosures with such sophisticated fortifications? What
function did they serve? How were they inhabited and used? These
questions have not yet been adequately addressed. Work done by the
Russian scholars Andrianov, Nerazik and Vorobeva (Andrianov 1969;
Nerazik 1976; Vorob'eva 1973) has highlighted the many preserved
features in the landscape immediately surrounding the larger kalas. They
recorded irrigation canals, many small dwellings, large homesteads and
field walls. These scholars still worked under the assumption of an urbanrural division, and looked at these extra-mural features as rural
settlements. Other scholars examined the kala monuments in isolation
(e.g. Bolelov 1998; Khozhaniyazov 1987; Manylov 1965; Tolstov 1948a).
An alternative approach is to examine the kalas and the extra-mural
features together to view them in the context of their settled landscape as
a whole in order to understand the function and context of these kalas

12

Chapter Thirteen

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

The Ayaz-Kala Complex

The Ayaz-kala complex of sites lies in the south-eastern portion of the
Chorasmian oasis, near the edge of the Kyzyl Kum desert, on a spur of the
Sultan-uiz-dag hills. Ayaz-kala is a complex of three monumental kala
sites, Ayaz-kala 1, 2, and 3 (Fig. 13.3), and ancient landscape features
including irrigation canals, fields, and homesteads. The complex covers an
area of approximately 80 ha (Nerazik 1976, 39).
Ayaz-kala 1 is the so-called border fortress, and occupies the cliffs
above. Ayaz-kala 2 is an early medieval fort dated to the 7th to 8th centuries
AD that also occupies high ground (Nerazik 1976, 41); however, due to
the late date of this site, it will not be considered in the following
discussion. The third kala monument is the so-called urban-type site of
Ayaz-kala 3 located on the plain below.
Ayaz-kala 1 has an area of 2.7 ha20 and is dated to the 4th/3rd centuries
BC (Nerazik 1976, 41). It was probably in use until the early medieval
period. Ayaz-kala 1 exhibits very typical features of Chorasmian military
architecture, having a rectangular plan, with strongly fortified double walls
with archers galleries, projecting rounded towers, arrow-shaped
loopholes, and a strongly fortified, labyrinthine gateway (Fig. 13.3). As
can be seen in Figure 13-4, Ayaz-kala 1 exhibits the typical double walls
of Chorasmian ancient kalas, with parabolic mud-brick vaulting forming
the structure between the two storeys of the archers gallery. There is no
evidence of intra-mural habitation (Lavrov 1950, 20; Tolstov 1948a, 104).
This kala was considered by Tolstov to have been the garrison fort for a
local militia providing border protection for the Chorasmian state and a
refuge for the local inhabitants of the settlement below (Tolstov 1948a,
104). As at Kalaly-gyr 1 and Kiuzely-gyr, Tolstov envisioned the garrison
to have been accommodated in the galleries within the fortification walls
(Tolstov 1948a, 104).
Ayaz-kala 3 is a medium sized kala at just under 5 ha, but has been
classified by Khozhaniyazov as a Fortified settlement of Urban Type
(Khozhaniyazov 2006:76). The dating of this site is contentious, but most
scholars agree the enclosure itself is of the later Antique period, 1st-2nd
centuries AD (Bolelov 1998, 134).21 Ayaz-kala 3 has several features
indicative of an urban centre (Table 13.1). It has dimensions of 270 x 185
(Bolelov 1998, 116) which give an approximate area of 5 ha22. This fits
within Khozhaniyazovs definition of an ancient Chorasmian urban type

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

13

Figure 13.3: Ayaz-kala Complex plan

(Nerazik 1976, fig.18, annotations by M. Negus Cleary
settlement (2006, 76), but not that of other Central Asian scholars (Table
13.1). The site had formidable mud-brick fortifications (now greatly
eroded) with the characteristic Chorasmian double walls with archers
gallery (probably only a single storey); towers 8 to 9 m wide and regularly
spaced at 21 to 22 m apart, while a gateway defended by a barbican was
located in the middle of the western wall (Khozhaniyazov 2006, 55; Fig.
13.3 and Fig. 13.5). The site has been formally planned, as is evident in
the unusual rhombus-shaped trace of the walls (Nerazik 1976, 43), the
regularly spaced towers, and the location of the monumental building
attached to one wall (this is seen at many other Chorasmian sites of this
era23). This palace-administration building has an unusual plan,
dominated internally by a set of corridors forming a cross shape24, and it
was fortified in its own right, with thick double walls, three small towers
and a defended entry (Bolelov 1998, 121; Lavrov 1950, 127; Fig. 13.5).
Interestingly, this building pre-dates the enclosure walls, being of the
4th/3rd centuries BC, whilst the fortifications were not built for
approximately another 300 years in the 1st-2nd centuries AD (Bolelov
1998, 134).25

14

Chapter Thirteen

Importantly, Ayaz-kala 3 lacks several key features that preclude it

being considered a city. There is no evidence of intra-mural occupation -no cultural deposits, debris, or structural remains within the enclosure
(Bolelov 1998, 117). Excavations revealed cultural deposits in the
monumental building, but Bolelov and Khozhaniyazov both state that the
enclosure was not built up in the ancient period (Bolelov 1998, 117;
Khozhaniyazov 2006, 55). There are therefore no residential quarters
within the kala except the single monumental building. Neither are there
craft or cultic areas, nor even streets. There are also very few artefacts
found within the kala enclosure.
The Ayaz-kala complex was very well preserved at the time of the
Soviet surveys in the 1940s-1960s. Nerazik recorded many of the features
surrounding Ayaz-kala 3, and published an extremely interesting plan of
the complex. This plan clearly shows the distribution of core socioeconomic activities within the broader extra-mural area of the Ayaz-kalas,
rather than being concentrated within the enclosure walls as would be
expected of an urban settlement. The remains of production centres
(several pottery kilns) were found in association with charred walls near
the ancient river bed to the south of Ayaz-kala 3 (Nerazik 1976, 39; Fig.
13.3). These date from the 4th-3rd centuries BC (Nerazik 1976, 41), which
makes them contemporary with the Ayaz-kala 3 monumental building.
The main canal feeding the complex during this period approached the
complex from the south-east (Nerazik 1976, 37, 41; Fig. 13.3). A ruined
structure of unknown type is located on the highest point of the cliffs to
the east of Ayaz-kala 1 (Fig. 13.3) which has been interpreted as a
defensive signal tower (Khozhaniyazov pers. comm. 2005) or a small
cultic structure (Helms pers. comm. 2002). There are several smaller
buildings to the north of Ayaz-kala 3 that Nerazik considered to have been
official buildings (Nerazik 1976, 43), and another noted on the plan as
No.4 which was a storehouse (Nerazik 1976, 42). Residential zones can be
identified in the several small dwellings and the farmsteads located around
the east, south and southeast. There are over fourteen farmsteads, or
domestic structures, that were located and planned by Tolstov and Nerazik
(Nerazik 1976, Fig. 18; Tolstov 1948a, Fig. 40).
These homesteads are scattered around the Ayaz-kala 3, close to the
ancient canal. The farmsteads consist of dwellings, located within a set of
walls that form a courtyard or several courtyards (Fig. 13.3). In these large
dwellings, artefacts have been found that provide evidence of the kinds of
domestic and economic activities that are conspicuously absent from
within the kala sites. For example, occupation levels were excavated, and
artefacts such as pottery, utensils, coins, beads, and votive figurines were

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

15

unearthed. Domestic hearths, storage areas, sofa benches, and cooking

ovens were also found (Nerazik 1976, 42-46). A characteristic of these
farmsteads is that they were enclosed in walls of their own, though they
may simply have been field walls since most of the vineyards and
vegetable fields were located within them. There are also empty
courtyards which may have been cattle corrals (Nerazik 1976, 42; Tolstov
1948a, 103).

Figure 13.4: Ayaz-kala 1, photo of the enclosure wall showing the

remains of the archers galleries and mud-brick vaulting.

16

Chapter Thirteen

What we see here at Ayaz-kala is not an urban settlement, but a rural

settlement. There are two large fortified enclosures, but the material
evidence shows these to have had very limited functionsthat of defence
or refuge, and perhaps administration (in the monumental building in
Ayaz-kala 3). It appears from the dating of the complex that the south-east
canal, farmsteads, vineyards, pottery kilns, Ayaz-kala 3 palace building,
and Ayaz-kala 1 were all constructed and occupied at the same time
4th/3rd century BC. Several of the farmsteads and dwellings were
abandoned for a period after the 3rd century BC, then renovated and
reoccupied in the 1st to 3rd centuries AD (Nerazik 1976, 48). During this
period of re-occupation in the early 1st century AD (Bolelov 1998, 134),
the construction of the Ayaz-kala 3 enclosure implies that there was some
increased need for defence on the plain, and perhaps the monumental
building increased in importance.

Interpretation
It appears from this evidence that the kala sites of the Ayaz-kala
complex did not function as settlements at all, but rather were part of an
extended rural landscape. The various socio-economic activities were
spread out around two primary public infrastructures: the fortified kalas
and the main canal. Nerazik illustrated this same pattern at several other
isolated sites where the extra-mural landscape surrounding the kalas was
preservedGyaur-kala in the Chermen-yab area, Dzhanbas-kala and
Kurgashin-kala (1976, ch. 1). Bolelov, one of the excavators of Ayaz-kala
3, has provided clear archaeological evidence that Ayaz-kala 3 was not a
city, but he did not discuss its urban status. However, he did state that
Ayaz-kala 3 can be considered an administrative-palace complex, the
centre of a larger settlement (Bolelov 1998, 134), and perhaps this is how
we should be interpreting the rest of these kala sites.
Biscione (1979, 207-208) recognised a settlement pattern in southern
Central Asia during the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age where many
smaller village sites and a larger, fortified site (called by Biscione a
Central Place) were clustered in the oases of great rivers. Lecomte
(1999, 140) describes the Iron Age sites of ancient Dehistan where there
are similar scatters of fortified citadels surrounded by smaller farmsteads
located in an irrigated landscape. Leriche (1977, 307-308) and later
Vogelsang (1992, 273) proposed a similar settlement pattern for ancient
Bactria, where the rural population was clustered around one or more
defended sites.26 Hiebert suggested that a non-nucleated settlement pattern
was typical of the pre-modern oases of Central Asia. This is a pattern of

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

17

dispersed and separate building complexes, rather than a pattern of towns

and cities (Hiebert 1992a, 111). Lamberg-Karlovsky isolates the kala as
the main architectural type of this pattern. He suggests that the kalas were
the seats of local tribal leaders, or khans, who controlled discrete parts of
the irrigation systems, and the local population. He argues that the khan,
the kala, and its associated non-nucleated settlement pattern, are distinctly
Central Asian and extend back into the Bronze Age. This social system of
the khanate was the result of groups contending for control of land and
water (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 400-401, 404-405). Ethnographic
parallels also support this conception of the kalas (Khozhaniyazov 2002,
147ff.).

Figure 13.5: Ayaz-kala 3, aerial photo (Nerazik 1976, fig.19).

There are also parallels with sites from ancient Central Asia and Iran
that appear to have been similar fortified enclosures, empty except for a
citadel/palace, that functioned as refuges and administrative/cultic centres
in the pre-Hellenistic period (despite being large urban centres in later
periods) such as Afrasiab (Vogelsang 1992, 289), Old Kandahar
(Vogelsang 1992, 257), Persepolis and Susa (Boucharlat 1997, 217, 221223; Mousavi 1992, 204, 206).
It is possible that an additional role for these kalas was as a monument
of the community. Philip (2003, 114) suggests that the prominent walled
sites of the Early Bronze Age Levant played "the vital symbolic role of

18

Chapter Thirteen

inscribing the community into the landscape in a durable, highly visible

manner." He proposes that while the walls provided protection, they were
also created by the labour of the community, and as such they became
expressive monuments, demarcating space and acting as symbols of the
community (Philip 2003, 112). Demarcation may have been important in
Chorasmia given its position in the nomadic world.
Nomadic fortified kala sites such as Kala-i Zakhoki Maron27 raise
questions as to whether the fortified kalas are the seemingly obvious
evidence of sedentary agriculturalists as has been previous thought. They
may perhaps represent the influence, if not the actual product, of nomadic
communities; at the very least, these sites argue for a greater role for
pastoralism in ancient Central Asian oasis economies.28

Conclusion
The Chorasmian kalas are perhaps the best preserved example of what
appears to have been a local Central Asian architectural type, a key
structure in a non-nucleated oasis settlement pattern. The archaeological
evidence thus far does not support the existence of urban centres in ancient
Chorasmia, and instead suggests another picture. It seems most likely that
the ancient Chorasmian kalas, with their large enclosures, strong
fortifications, and monumental temple/palatial buildings, served a limited,
but vital set of functions as secure centres for cultic and administrative
structures, and as refuges for the surrounding rural population and their
cattle during enemy raids. They may also have functioned as protected
spaces for trade activities, and served as symbols of the community and
demarcations of land ownership.
The Chorasmian kalas offer a valuable perspective on a nonHellenistic, late Iron Age settlement pattern that is perhaps truly of Central
Asian origin. As Hiebert points out, despite there being no continuity of
population from the ancient period, there is a strong environmental factor
that dictates the oasis economy and thus the kinds of architectural forms
created there (Hiebert 1992b, 349). This is why the kala, has remained a
conservative, but enduring form throughout Central Asian history.
Moreover, rather than assuming that kalas like Ayaz-kala to have been the
urban centres of an agricultural state, we should be reconsidering these
kalas as centres for local oasis communities. While the material evidence
does not suggest they were cities, it may instead imply a greater role for
pastoralism in the oasis zones than has been previously proposed, and
much more work is required on this point, including the exploration of the
ethnographic parallels.

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

19

Notes
1

Translation by the author.

S.W. Helms and the author surveyed nine sites in 2002 season, and the author
with the assistance of F.J. Kidd surveyed 24 further sites in 2005. All surveys were
conducted in the right bank area of the Amu Darya, in what is now
Karakalpakstan. The author is currently preparing a PhD thesis at the University of
Sydney entitled, The Architectural Landscape of Ancient Chorasmia: Central
Asian fortresses, urbanism and the kala.
3
The five tribes were recorded by the Greeks as being the Derbices, Apasiacae,
Attasii, Chorasmii and Augasii (Tarn 1938, 812).
4
The full extent of the role of pastoralism and the influence of nomadism in
ancient Chorasmia is an important topic for future research. Tolstov posited that
the Chorasmian culture grew out of a steppic nomadic pastoral culture, and so in
its early phases (Archaic 7th to the 4th centuries BC) cattle rearing played a much
more important role in the Chorasmian economy. According to Tolstovs
hypothesis, in its Classical phase (Kangiui 4th-1st century BC) the Chorasmian
culture became a powerful, settled state, with agriculture as the primary mode of
economic production, reliant on slave labour. (Tolstov 1948b, 95, 113, 122).
5
For a summary and discussion of the main Classical, Persian and other primary
historical sources relating to Chorasmia, see Helms 1998, 82-86; Helms et al.
2001:121; Khozhaniyazov 2006:35-37; Rapoport et al. 2000, 23-24.
6
This date range has specifically been chosen by the author for this paper (despite
the fact that Tolstovs periodisation takes the Chorasmian ancient period right up
to the 4th century AD) because the 2nd/3rd century AD is century in which Toprakkala is believed to have been constructed. It is also the beginning of the so-called
Late Kushan period. Toprak-kala, in the opinion of the author, represents a
change in function and usage of the large Chorasmian kalas. See discussion in
Negus Cleary, forthcoming.
7
Horne defines a qala in modern day Iran as a fortified dwelling (Horne, 1994,
76). The term is used throughout Afghanistan and Pakistan today with the same
meaning (Horne, 1994, 83; Szabo and Barfield, 1991). See also discussion in
Lamberg-Karlovsky 1994, 400 of the characteristics of Central Asian kalas.
Almost every Chorasmian site is locally named in the Turkic languages of
Karakalpak, Kazak, Uzbek or Turkmen as -kala, for example, Bazar-kala,
Pil-kala, Kurgashin-kala, with the meaning of a fortified enclosure. I make
use of this name here as convenient for describing this type of site, as opposed to
an unfortified rural sites, irrespective of the various differences in size, layout and
apparent function.
8
S.P. Tolstov set up the divisions of the Chorasmian periodisation in the 1940s,
and named the Kangiui and Kushan periods after what he then thought were
the names for the ruling empires or dynasties at that time in Chorasmia. Since this
time other scholars have pointed about the problems with these names, given that
the Kushan empire may not have reached as far north as Chorasmia (cf. Nerazik
and Bulgakov 1996, 207-8), and that the Kang- k referred to in the Chinese
histories is most probably not the Chorasmians. For a discussion of these problems
2

20

Chapter Thirteen

with the terminology of the periodisation, see Preface by Helms in

Khozhaniyazov 2006:14-15.
9
Wahlberg in his 2005 translation of Tolstov 1948b, translates gorodishche as
settlement (Tolstov 2005, 98). But poselenie is used much more generally for
settlement, and gorodishche contains as its root the word gorod meaning city.
The Russian-English Dictionary (Smirnitsky et al. 1989, 130) gives the following
definitions for the term gorodishche as (i) large city; and (ii) site of ancient
settlement. Employing either definition, the use of this term classifies the site as a
settlement, and implies that it was inhabited primarily at least for residential
purposes.
10
See discussion on urbanism in Negus Cleary forthcoming.
11
The list of sites shown on table 13.1 is representative only. Of the over 70
Chorasmian sites dating from the 7th century BC to the 4th century AD,
approximately 19 have been identified by Khozhaniyazov as being of urban type
(Khozhaniyazov 2006:76-77, fig.20), and a sample of 5 have been included here.
They have been chosen based on their being the most widely known of the
Chorasmian kalas and being indicative of the main characteristics of the sites.
12
In fact, for the time period of the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC, Francfort classifies
none of the Chorasmian sites as cities (Francfort 1979, 25).
13
For example, Francfort includes Kalaly-gyr 1, Kiuzely-gyr and Chirik-Rabat as
cities in his tables (Francfort 1979, 17) but in the text writes that their internal
enclosed areas had very few structures. In the face of Francforts own very simple
and clear definitions, this discrepancy appears very strange, but note 114 seems to
infer that Francfort included these sites under his list of cities due to Tolstov's now
out-moded hypothesis that the sites were inhabited in their walls, not in structures
built within the enclosure. And although he includes Bazar-kala and Eres-kala in
his table of Kushan period cities (Francfort 1979, 31) he then states that they
instead appear to be large fortresses, not cities at all (Francfort 1979, 34).
14
For a discussion of Toprak-kala Sultan-uiz-dag see comments in Negus Cleary
forthcoming.
15
The evidence for Kalaly-gyr 1 having been an Achaemenid centre is extremely
thin and debatable. See comments in Negus Cleary forthcoming; Helms 1998, 89;
Vogelsang 1992, 291.
16
Other examples with this layout include Ayaz-kala 3, the Bazar-kala outer
enclosure, Dzhanbas-kala, Ichan-kala (Khiva), and now even Kazakly-yatkan.
17
This is a fragment of a mould for a gryphons head decoration, thought to have
been used to decorate the ends of column capitals in emulation of the animal style
capitals of Persepolis. See Rapoport and Lapirov-Skoblo 1963, 148, Fig. 4, Fig. 5.
18
Refer note 9.
19
Refer table 13.1, and see plan in Rapoport et al. 2000, part 1 pl.3.
20
S.W. Helms and the author conducted a total station survey of the site in 2002.
21
Dating for the Ayaz-kala Complex, as for all Chorasmian sites with the
exception of Tash-kyrman-tepe and Kazakly-yatkan (Akchakhan-kala) is relative
and based on ceramic assemblages, Kushan coins and Scythian bronze arrowheads
(see Helms et al. 2001, 136-137). Calibrated radio-carbon absolute dates are only

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

21

available for recent excavations at Tash-kyrman-tepe and Kazakly-yatkan

(Akchakhan-kala), see Helms et al. 2001, 137ff.; Helms et al. 2002, 18, 22.
22
A total station survey of the site conducted by S.W. Helms and the author in
2002 gave average overall dimensions of 260x185m, or 270x185m if the gateway
labyrinth was included. Tolstov published the dimensions also as 260x180m
(Tolstov 1948a, 103).
23
E.g. Kalaly-gyr 1, and for other examples please refer to note 12.
24
These internal walls are substructural, originally supporting the now-eroded
floors above and stabilising the sandy dune on which the building has been
constructed (Bolelov 1998, 119, 121). Some walls may indicate the original layout
of rooms within the building (Bolelov 1998, 119).
25
The earlier existence of the palace building is supported by the fact that the
northern enclosure wall has a distinct kink in it where it bends slightly to
accommodate the building, and the enclosure walls are built over the original north
wall of the building.
26
These oases were governed by an elite residing in the fortified kalas. Minor
political units (feudal-style lords or local noblemen, likely the hyparchs of the
Alexander historians) were centred upon the residences of local rulers. See
Leriche, 1977 307-308; Vogelsang 1992, 273.
27
See Abdoullaev 2001, 206, Fig.3.
28
The difficulties in identifying nomadic cultures in the archaeological record are
numerous, see for example Litvinskii 1976.

Works Cited
Abdoullaev, K.A. 2001: La localisation de la capitale des Yuh-chih. In La
Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civilisations de l'Asie
centrale. 197-214.
Andrianov, B.V. 1969: Drevnie orositel'nye sistemy priaral'ya. Moscow:
Nauka.
Arrian. 1971: Anabasis (The Campaigns of Alexander). Translated by A.
de. Selincourt. London: Penguin Books.
Belenitskii, A.M. 1968: Central Asia. Translated by J. Hogarth. Geneva:
World Publishing.
Bergamini, G. 1981: review of H. P. Francfort. Les Fortifications en Asie
Centrale des l'age du bronze a l'epoque Kouchane, 1979. Mesopotamia
XVI, 169-176.
-----------. 1987: Parthian Fortifications in Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia XXII,
195-214.
Biscione, R. 1979: Centre and Periphery in Later Protohistoric Turan: The
settlement pattern. In H. Hrtel (ed.), South Asian archaeology, 1979 :
papers from the fifth International Conference of the Association of
South Asian Archaeologists in Western Europe. Museum fr Indische

22

Chapter Thirteen

Kunst der Staalichen Museen Preussischer Kulturbesitz Berlin: D.

Reimer Verlag, 203-213.
Bolelov, S.B. 1998: Krepost' Ayaz-kala 3 v pravoberezhnom Khorezme.
In Nerazik, E.E. and Efimova, L.S. (eds.), Priaral'ie v drevnosti i
srednevekov'e. K 60-letiu Khorezmskoi arkheologo-tnografichekoi
kspeditsii. Moscow: Vostochnaya literatura RAN, 116-135.
Boucharlat, R. 1997: Camp Royal et Rsidences Achmnides. Topoi.
OrientOccident, Suppl. 1, 217-228.
Bregel, Y. 2003: An Historical Atlas of Central Asia. Leiden: Brill.
Daviau, P.M.M. 1997: Tell Jawa: A Case Study of Ammonite Urbanism
during Iron Age II. In Aufrecht, W.E., Mirau, N.A., and Gauley S.W.
(eds.), Urbanism in antiquity: from Mesopotamia to Crete. Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic Press, 156-168.
Francfort, H.-P. 1979: Les fortifications en Asie Centrale de l'age du
Bronze a l'epoque Kouchane. Paris: CNRS.
-----------. 1998: Central Asia and Eastern Iran. In Boardman, J., Hammond,
N.G.L., Lewis, D.M., and Ostwald, M. (eds.), The Cambridge Ancient
History, Volume IV: Persia, Greece and the Western Mediterranean c.
525 to 479 BC. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 165-193.
Gardin, J.-C. 1995: Fortified sites of eastern Bactria (Afghanistan) in PreHellenistic times. In Invernizzi, A. (ed.), In The Land of the Gryphons:
Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity. Firenze: Casa
Editrice, 83-103.
Helms, S.W. 2006: Preface. In Khozhaniyazov, G. The Military
Architecture of Ancient Chorasmia (6th century BC-4th century AD).
Paris: De Boccard, 7-19.
-----------. 1998: Ancient Chorasmia: The Northern Edge of Central Asia from
the 6th Century B.C. to the mid-4th century A.D. In Christian, D. and
Benjamin, C. (eds.), Worlds of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern:
proceedings from the Second Conference of the Australasian Society
for Inner Asian Studies (A.S.I.A.S), Macquarie University, Sydney,
Australia, September 21-22, 1996. Sydney: Ancient History
Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie University, 77-96.
Helms, S.W., Yagodin, V.N., Betts, A.V.G., Khozhaniyazov, G., and
Kidd, F. 2001: Five Seasons of Excavations in the Tash-K'irman Oasis
of Ancient Chorasmia, 1996-2000. An Interim Report. Iran 39, 119144.
Helms, S.W., Yagodin, V.N., Betts, A.V.G., Khozhaniyazov, G. and
Negus, M. 2002: The Karakalpak-Australian Excavations in Ancient
Chorasmia: the Northern Frontier of the 'Civilised' Ancient World.
Ancient Near Eastern Studies 39, 3-44.

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

23

Hiebert, F.T. 1992a: The oasis and city of Merv (Turkmenistan).

Archeologie Islamique 3, 111-127.
-----------. 1992b: Bronze Age oasis settlements of Central Asia. PhD thesis,
Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Horne, L. 1994: Village Spaces: Settlement and Society in Northeastern
Iran. Washington D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Khozhaniyazov, G. 1987: Novye dannye ob oboronitel'nykh
sooruzheniakh Ayaz kala 3. Vestnik karakalpakskogo filiala
Akademika nauk UzSSR 4, 102-110.
-----------. 2002: Les fortifications Karakalpakes aux XVIIe-XIXe siecles.
Cahiers d'Asie Centrale 10, (Karakalpakes et Autres gens de l'Aral
Entre rivages et deserts), 139-166.
-----------. 2006: The military architecture of ancient Chorasmia (6th century
B.C.-4th century A.D.). Translated by S. W. Helms. Paris: De Boccard.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1994: The Bronze Age khanates of Central
Asia. Antiquity 68, (259), 398-405.
Lavrov, V.A. 1950: Gradostroitel'naya kul'tura Srednei Azii. Moscow:
State Publishing House, Architecture and Urban Planning.
Lecomte, O. 1999: Vehrkana and Dehistan: Late Farming Communities of
South-west Turkmenistan from the Iron Age to the Islamic Period.
Parthica: Incontri di culture nel mondo antico 1, 135-170.
Leriche, P. 1977: Problmes de la guerre en Iran et en Asie Centrale dans
l'empire perse et a l'poque hellnistique. In Le Plateau iranien et
l'Asie centrale des origines la conqute islamique : leurs relations
la lumire des documents archologiques : [actes du colloque], Paris,
22-24 mars 1976. Paris: ditions du Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique, 297-312.
Litvinskii, B.A. 1976: Problemy ethnicheskoii istorii drevenii i
rannesrednevekoii fergany. In Istoriya i Kul'tura Narodov Sredneii
Azii. Moscow: 49-65.
Manylov, I.P. 1965: Rabot'i na gorodishche Pil'-kala v 1963 godu.
Odshchestvenni'e Nauki v Uzbekistane 3, 53-56.
Masson, V.M. and Sarianidi, V.I. 1972: Central Asia: Turkmenia before
the Achaemenids. Translated by R. Tringham. New York: Praeger.
Mousavi, A. 1992: Parsa, a Stronghold for Darius. A Preliminary Study of
the Defence System of Persepolis. East and West 42, (2-4), 203-226.
Mumford, L. 1961: The City in History : Its Origins, its Transformations,
and its Prospects. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World Inc.
Negmatov, N.N. 1994: States in North-Western Central Asia. In Harmatta,
J. (ed.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia Volume II. The

24

Chapter Thirteen

development of sedentary and nomadic civilizations: 700 B.C. to A.D.

250. Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 441-456.
Negus Cleary, M. forthcoming: Walls in the desert: the phenomenon of
Central Asian Urbanism in the kingdom of ancient Chorasmia. In
Parry, K. (ed.), Art, Architecture and Religion on the Silk Road and
across Inner-Asian History: proceedings from the fifth conference of
the Australasian Society for Inner Asian Studies (A.S.I.A.S.),
Macquarie University, November 27-28, 2004, Sydney. Sydney:
Turnhout, Ancient History Documentary Research Centre, Macquarie
University, Brepols.
Nerazik, E.E. 1976: Sel'skoe zhilishche v Khorezme (I-XIV v.v.). Iz istorii
zhilishcha i sem'i. Arkheologo-etnograficheskie ocherki. Moscow:
Nauka.
Nerazik, E.E. and Bulgakov, P.G. 1996: Khwarizm. In Litvinsky, B.A.
(ed.), History of Civilizations of Central Asia Volume III: The
crossroads of civilizations: AD 250 to 750. Paris: UNESCO
Publishing, 207-231.
Philip, G. 2003: Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant. Journal of
Mediterranean Archaeology 16, (1), 103-132.
P'yankova, L. 1994: Central Asia in the Bronze Age: sedentary and
nomadic cultures. Antiquity 68, (259), 355-372.
Rapoport, I.A. 1994: The Palaces at Topraq-Qal'a. In Litvinskii, B.A. and
Bromberg, C.A. (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia.
Studies from the Former Soviet Union. Bloomfield Hills (Michigan):
Bulletin of the Asia Institute, 161-185.
Rapoport, I.A. and Lapirov-Skoblo, M.S. 1963: Raskopki dvortsovogo
zdaniya na gorodishche Kalaly-gyr 1 v 1958 g." In S. P. Tolstov (ed.),
Materialy Khorezmskoi Ekspeditsii 6: Polevye issledovaniya
khorezmskoi ekspeditsii v 1958-1961 gg. Moscow: Nauk, 141-156.
Rapoport, I.A., Nerazik, E.E. and Levina, L.M. 2000: V nizov'yach Oksa i
Yaksarta. Obrazy drevnego Priaral'ya. Moscow: Indrik.
Smirnitsky, A.I., Akhmanova, O.S., Vigodskaya, Z.S., Gorbunova, T.P.,
Rothstein, N.F. and Taube, A.M. 1989: Russian-English Dictionary.
Moscow: Russky Yazyk Publishers.
Strabo 1944: The Geography of Strabo. Translated by H. L. Jones.
Cambridge Massachusetts; London: Harvard University Press; William
Heinemann.
Szabo, A. and Barfield, T.J. 1991: Afghanistan: an atlas of indigenous
architecture. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Tarn, W.W. 1938: The Greeks in Bactria and India. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.

The Ancient Oasis Landscape of Chorasmia

25

Tolstov, S.P. 1948a: Drevnii Khorezma. Op'it istoriko-arkheologicheskogo

issledovaniya. Moscow: MGU.
Tolstov, S.P. 1948b: Po sledam drevne-khorezmiiskoi tsivilizatsii.
Moscow; Leningrad: Nauk.
-----------. 1960: Results of the work of the Khoresmian Archaeological and
Ethnographic Expedition of the USSR Academy of Sciences: 19511956. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay 34-35 (Old Series), 124.
-----------. 1962: Po Drevnim Deltam Oksa i Yaksarta. Moscow: Nauka.
-----------. 2005: Following the Tracks of Ancient Khorezmian Civilization.
Translated by E. Wahlberg. Tashkent: U.N.E.S.C.O. Tashkent Office.
Vogelsang, W.J. 1992: The Rise and Organisation of the Achaemenid
Empire : The Eastern Iranian Evidence. Leiden: Brill.
Vorob'eva, M.G. 1973: Dingil'dzhe. Usad'ba Seredn'i i tysyacheletiya do
n. e. v drevnem Khorezme. Moscow: Nauka.
Zadneprovsky, Y. 1995: Early Urban Developments in Central Asia. Iran:
Journal of the British Institute of Persian Studies 33, 155-159.