Lhuillier et al. 2015 (2013) Ulug-Depe in the frame of Turkmenistan Iron Age: an overview

IRANIAN ARCHAEOLOGY (4)

Wahesht Mina International Institute No. 4, 2013

Cover Design: Petroglyphs from a boulder showing goats and carnivores, Chenarestan rock art site

Back Cover Design: Middle Paleolithic core-chopper from Site 6, Ardabil Province

Wahesht Mina International Institute

Iranian Archaeology (4)

Typesetting and Layout: Omolbanin Ghafoori

Date of Publication: Winter 2013

ISBN: 978-600-04-0520-5

National Library Number: 3397961

No. of Copies: 1000 Published by: Wahesht Mina International Institute

Address: No. 36, Shahid Sadr St., Valiasr St., Tehran, Iran.

Email Address: [email protected]

Web Site: https://sites.google.com/site/iranianarchaeology/home

Journal of Iranian Archaeology A biannual journal in Persian and English published by Wahesht Mina International Institute. The Journal of Iranian Archaeology

publishes original papers, research reports, and notes. Manuscripts will be accepted in Persian, English, and French. The journal will publish current research on the Iranian archaeology in all fields of archaeology without any chronological limit. Fields of interest include Paleolithic to the Islamic Period Archaeology of Iran and neighboring regions, archaeobotanical, archaeozoological, geoarchaeological, paleoanthropological, and ethnoarchaeological studies in Iran and neighboring regions. Chairman and Director: Mohammad Bahrāmzādeh Editor in chief: Fereidoun Biglari Deputy editors: Marjān Mashkour and Mohammad Karami Assistant Editor: Yousef Hassanzādeh Editorial Advisory Board:

Kāmyār Abdi Department of Archaeology, Science and Research University, Tehran, Iran Abbās Alizādeh The Oriental Institute and the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, The University of Chicago, U.S.A Karim Alizādeh Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, U.S.A Jacques Jaubert PACEA-PPP-UMR CNRS 5199, University of Bordeaux, Pessac Cedex, France Marjān Mashkour Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, Musée national d'histoire naturelle, Paris, France Abbās Moghadam Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICHTO), Tehran, Iran Ali Mousavi Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, University of California, Los Angeles, U.S.A Nima Nezāfati Department of Geology, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran Jebrael Nokandeh Iranian Center for Archaeological Research (ICHTO), Tehran, Iran Holly Pittman Near East Section, Penn Museum, University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A Shāhrokh Razmjou Archaeology Department, University of Tehran, Tehran Margareta Tengberg Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France Mohammad Rezā Saeidi Harsini The Organization for Researching and Composing University Textbooks in the Humanities (Samt), Tehran, Iran Sonia Shidrang PACEA-PPP-UMR CNRS 5199, University of Bordeaux, Pessac Cedex, France English texts revised by Kyle Olson Layout and design Nahid Ghafoori Single Copy Order Rates (outside Iran). Individuals €30.00. Institutions €50.00. Whether Individual or Institution require an additional €8.00 for postage. Please, address your request to: [email protected]

Instructions to Contributors

All manuscript submissions to the Journal of Iranian Archaeology should be in a Word ".doc" file or in a Word-compatible file. The manuscripts should use Times New Roman 12 point font, and be double-spaced. Articles should

not exceed 7,000 words excluding the title page, abstract, and bibliographic references.

The following information is required:

· Cover letter including names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses of the authors. Please also indicate the corresponding author.

· 200-word abstract

· Keywords separated by semi-colons

The body of the paper, title page, references, tables, figure captions, and author notes should be combined in a single

file, in both MS Word or PDF format.

Figures can be provided separately in JPG or TIF format and in high-resolution (at least 300 dpi) suitable for

publication. Figures should be numbered and cited in the text.

Page numbers should be placed in the lower right corner of all pages. Manuscripts submitted to the Journal of Iranian

Archaeology should not be currently under review by any other Journal or been made available in print or on the Internet.

Please, address proposals for contributions to the following address: [email protected]

Citation guidelines

Abdi, K.

2003 “The Early Development of Pastoralism in the Central Zagros Mountains”, Journal of World Prehistory,

Vol. 17, No. 4: 395-448.

Wright, H.T.

1994 “Prestate Political Formations”. In Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East: Organizational Dynamics of Complexity, edited by G. Stein and M.S. Rothman, 67-84. Madison: Prehistory Press.

Daryaee, T. 2009 Sasanian Persia: The Rise and Fall of an Empire, London: Tauris.

Stylistic Guidelines

For texts that you would like to be published in English, we kindly request that you follow several guidelines: (1) Please use topic sentences and transition statements in your paragraphs. A topic sentence states to the reader what

the main focus of the paragraph is. It is usually the first sentence of the paragraph and makes a claim or an argument.

The job of the rest of the paragraph is to support the claim or argument of the topic sentence. A transition statement, on the other hand, is typically the last sentence of the paragraph. Its job is to summarize the ideas of the current paragraph

and introduce the next one.

(2) Paragraphs should be no longer than 8 sentences. (3) Sentences should be short and concise. A good rule of thumb to follow is if your sentence has more than three or

four verbs, it probably means that your sentence should be broken into two separate sentences.

Use of these conventions is recommended for several reasons:

(1) To help clarify the author’s arguments. (2) To assist the editors of this journal in the translation of Persian texts into English and/or French.

(3) To help the reader to better understand the text by making it easier to discern the author’s argument and use of

supporting evidence.

These guidelines apply to manuscripts intended for the English- or French-language reader, whether the text is

submitted in English or French, or whether it is submitted in Persian with the intent to be translated into English or French.

Contents Introductory Note .................................................................................................................................................... 6

Mohammad Bahramzadeh

Technological Notes Concerning “Partially Faceted Butt” on Débitage from the Initial and Early

Upper Palaeolithic Levels of Ksar Akil, Lebanon ................................................................................................ 7

Katsuhiko Ohnuma and Christopher A. Bergman

Palaeolithic rock art in Gobustan, Azerbaijan. The study case of rock 44 of Böyük Daş, Gobustan ............. 15

Dario Sigari

A preliminary study on the Neolithic human skeletal remains from Tepe Abdul Hosein ............................... 23

Akira Tagaya and Yuko Miyauchi

Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavations at the Chalcolithic site of Surezha in the Erbil ....... 32

Governate Kurdistan Region, Iraq, 2013 Gil J. Stein; Abbas Alizadeh; Loghman Ahmadzadeh; John Alden; Henrike Backhaus; Barbara Coutouraud;

Hamid Fahimi; Sam Harris; Kate Lieber; Mehdi Omidfar; and Max Price

New Evidence from the Middle and Late Bronze Age settlements of the western central Zagros, Iran ........ 42

Mohammad Amin Mirghaderi

Sealing and Weighting: The Art of Power during the Sukkalmakh Period ..................................................... 50

Enrico Ascalone

Report of the Third Season of Archaeological Excavation at Lama Cemetery, Iran ..................................... 58

Mohammad Javad Jafari

Ulug-Depe in the Srame of Turkmenistan Iron Age: an overview .................................................................... 78

Johanna Lhuillier, Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento & Olivier Lecomte

Bouyeh, an Iron Age I cemetery at Amlash, Gilan Alborz Mountains ............................................................. 90

Vali Jahani

The Sasanian Colonization of the Mughan Steppe, Ardebil Province, Northwestern Iran ............................. 98

Jason Ur and Karim Alizadeh

Investigation into the Mud-Brick Architectural Units at Ecbatana – Hamadan ........................................... 111

Ali Hozhabri and Kyle G. Olson

Conference Report .............................................................................................................................................. 120

Kyle Olson

Book Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 122

Mohsen Zeidi

Paul Gotch (1915-2008) ...................................................................................................................................... 125

St John Simpson

Summaries of Persian Articles ........................................................................................................................... 130

Iranian Archaeology, No. 4

Ulug-Depe in the frame of Turkmenistan

Iron Age: an overview

Johanna Lhuillier1, Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento2 and Olivier Lecomte3

Abstract: Since 2001, the French-Turkmen Archaeological Mission (MAFTur) carried out excavations at the site of

Ulug-depe, located near Dushak in the Kopet Dagh range piedmont. The site displays the longest

stratigraphy in Central Asia, from the late Neolithic to the Middle Iron Age. The work carried out during

the last 3 seasons focused on the Iron Age; it is yielding a better understanding of this period in the Kopet

Dagh region. Two periods were identified, the Early Iron Age (Yaz I period) and the Middle Iron Age

(Yaz II period). The main features of the occupation of each of these two periods are presented in this

article (stratigraphy and architecture, ceramics, funerary practices). Furthermore, as Ulug-depe is one of

the few sites of Central Asia that displays Bronze Age levels as well as Iron Age ones, we turned our

attention more particularly to the transition between these two periods

Keywords:Ulug-depe, Turkmenistan, Iron Age, Yaz, architecture, ceramics.

1. Postdoctoral Fellow Alexander von Humboldt, Deutsches Archäologisches Institut - Eurasien Abteilung, Berlin. [email protected] (Corresponding author)

2. Deputy Director of the DAFA, Kabul; CR CNRS, UMR 7041, Équipe Asie centrale, director of the MAFTur,

[email protected]

3. CR CNRS; prior director of the MAFTur, Paris.

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Lhuillier, Bendezu-Sarmiento and Lecomte


79

Since 2001, the Turkmen-French Archaeological

Mission, directed by M. Mamedov1 and O. Lecomte

(2001-2012) and J. Bendezu-Sarmiento (since 2012)

carried out excavations at the site of Ulug-depe (Fig.

1), located near Dushak in the Kopet Dagh range piedmont (Lecomte et al. 2002; Boucharlat, Francfort,

Lecomte 2005; Lecomte 2007a, 2011, 2013). First

excavated by V. I. Sarianidi in the late sixties (1967-

1970) (Sarianidi 1968, 1969, 1971, 1972 ; Sarianidi and

Kachuris 1968), the site, by its location, close to the

mouth of a gorge leading to neighbouring Iran, with

its size (5 ha at its top, 13ha at its base) and height

(30m above the level of the surrounding plain),

displays the longest stratigraphy in Central Asia,

from the late Neolithic to the Middle Iron Age

(Lecomte 2013). Therefore, Ulug-depe is one of the

rare sites of Central Asia to present Bronze Age

levels as well as Iron Age ones, thus allowing to

focus on the transitional periods. The early and

middle Iron Age are of particular importance and the

fieldwork recently carried-out by the Turkmen-

French Archaeological Expedition is providing a

better understanding of this period in the Kopet

Dagh range area.

The reasons for the collapse of the proto-urban

civilization, namely the Bactrian-Margian

Archaeological Complex or the Oxus civilization,

as well as for the end of the Bronze Age (in the

second half of the 2nd millennium BC) are still a

matter of debate. The question of Aryan or Indo-

Iranian migrations remains open. The late Bronze

Age is defined by deterioration in the quality of

the craftsmanship and by the disappearance of

long distance exchanges. The rise of the Early Iron

Age culture (Yaz I) around 1450-1300 BC would

emphasize the appearance of rural settlements

scattered over oases (Lhuillier 2013a). The main

difference with the previous period is the

manufacture of a specific handmade pottery

decorated with red geometric patterns applied on a

bright background (Lhuillier 2013b). The other main

feature is a shift in funerary practices, leading to

the disappearance of the grave-burial practice

(Bendezu-Sarmiento & Lhuillier in print).

1. Direction of Antiquity (Turkmenistan).

Figure 1. General map of Turkmenistan with location of Ulug-depe (after Lecomte 2009, fig. 1)

Ulug-Depe in the frame of Turkmenistan Iron Age: an overview


80

The Yaz I cultures disappeared around 1000 BC

with the beginning of the Middle Iron Age (Yaz II).

This period is characterized by new changes in

material culture, mainly by the appearance of a new,

wheel-made and plain pottery, the development of

iron metallurgy, and the emergence of large fortified

sites, as well as the continuation of the same

funerary practices. This period traditionally ends in

Central Asia around 540 BCE with the Achaemenid

conquest of Central Asia. At the current state of our

knowledge, it seems that Ulug-depe’s main

settlement was abandoned at the end of the Yaz II

period.

Discovering Ulug-depe’s Iron Age

At Ulug-depe (Fig. 2) the Early Iron Age levels

were excavated in 2004 and in 2008 in trench 16 as

well as in 2010 in trench 23. The upper layers of

this period were also reached in trench 8 in 2011.

The purpose of these excavations was twofold. First

of all, it aimed at identifying the occupation of this

period, which remains problematic in Central Asia,

and at obtaining stratified artefacts in order to define

the Yaz I variant in the piedmont plain. Secondly, it

aimed at a better understanding of the transitional

period between the Late Bronze Age and the Early

Iron Age, as well as between the Early and the

Middle Iron Age, by defining more precisely their

material culture.

The Yaz II levels were more extensively

excavated, since a magnetic survey led in 2003

had revealed an urban settlement consisting of an

upper part characterized by monumental buildings

on both sides of the main street, and a lower part

(Lecomte 2007b). Trenches 8, 10, 13, 16 and 21-28

were opened on the top of the site in order to

excavate the upper part of the settlement, while

trench 19 corresponds to the surrounding wall.

The transition between the Bronze Age and the

Early Iron Age

The transition between these two periods is one of

the less known steps of Central Asian Archaeology,

and Ulug-depe is one of the very rare sites of

Central Asia occupied during both periods, together

with El’ken-depe, also in the Kopet Dagh range area

of Turkmenistan (Marushchenko 1959).

In trench 23 we reached the Bronze Age levels

under the Iron Age levels, and a stratigraphic

continuity between Middle Bronze Age (Namazga

V) and Early Iron Age (Yaz I) layers was found (Bendezu-Sarmiento and Lhuillier 2011; Lhuillier et al.

2013). The Yaz I layers are directly resting upon

those of the Bronze Age. There is no evidence of a

period of abandonment. Some layers, averaging

50cm width, present an assemblage of both NMG V

and Yaz I pottery, showing that the transition was

gradual (Fig. 3).

Figure 2. General view of Ulug-depe



81

Figure 3. Quantity of Bronze Age and Iron Age

pottery from the 23rd trench, showing the gradual

transition. We are grateful to Elise Luneau for some

of the countings of the Namazga V pottery

It appears clearly only in the pottery types, as V.

I. Sarianidi already documented it at Ulug-depe in the

1960’s. No gap can be observed in the stratigraphy. A

number of structures are directly superimposed,

which is accentuated by the steep slope of the depe.

For example, an Early Iron Age wall was built

directly on a Bronze Age oven (Fig. 4).

This recent discovery strengthens the

hypothesis of a non-violent, progressive and short-

lived transition, between the end of the Middle

Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age.

However, it raises another question, that of the

absence of Late Bronze Age levels (Namazga VI)

at Ulug depe.

More generally, the work carried-out at Ulug-

depe on the Bronze Age ceramics assemblage by

E. Luneau shows that the Namazga VI pottery is

very scarce on the site. This transition is still to be

investigated (persistence of the so-called Namazga

V assemblage during the Late Bronze Age?

Coexistence in different places of the assemblage

traditionally associated with Late Bronze Age and

of the Yaz I assemblage?).

The Early Iron Age

Stratigraphy and architectural remains

Several occupation stages have been identified, all

belonging to the same chronological Yaz I phase. In trench 16, the oldest one is characterized by a

series of pole holes that are suggestive of a wooden superstructure. The second one is defined by a mud brick floor associated with a mud brick construction, of which only the foundations are preserved by two perpendicular lines. A floor with in situ potsherds, containing interesting pieces of handmade pottery, is characteristic of a period of abandonment. A third occupation stage is represented by five ovens built over a small surface (about 3 square meters), which may be identified as a domestic installation. The fourth and last phase of Early Iron Age occupation has been identified in layers containing Yaz I archaeological material but without any related architecture.

Figure 4. The stratigraphic continuity between Bronze Age and Iron Age layers, trench 23

(© J. Lhuillier/ MAFTur)



82

In trench 23, located north of the depe, the

occupation is different. The oldest levels consist of

layers displaying a western slant following the

surface of the site. Several occupation stages have

been recognized. In the beginning, several

settlements and dump layers (organic and full of

ashes) have been identified. Later, the whole area

was levelled off by a layer of square bricks (circa

40cm wide) and several low walls were made of

rammed clay used as buttresses. Several walls

oriented NE-SW and NW-SE were built, with a

steep western slant. Various occupations layers are

linked to them, particularly a floor covered with

burnt kiln fragments. A level of in situ potsherds

emphasizes an abandonment phase. Shortly after

the area was reused and levelled off by the

building of structures of pisé following an E-W

direction. Then, the previous walls were covered

by blocks of pisé. This occupation level is also

associated with successive floors and dump layers.

Finally a massive construction, of which three

walls have been excavated (built with 27 x 52 x 8

cm mud bricks), may be interpreted as a

supporting platform for a fortified building. This

assumption seems to be also strengthened by the

topography of the site and by comparisons

established with other known sites of the Yaz I

period, such as Yaz-depe, Tillja-tepe or Kuchuk-

tepe (Lhuillier 2013c), but further excavations are

needed to confirm this assumption.

The Yaz I ceramic complex

The whole Early Iron Age pottery is handmade.

There are very few complete shapes, but we can

assume that most of the pottery has a flat or

slightly concave bottom (Bendezu-Sarmiento and

Lhuillier 2011, 241-245; Lhuillier 2013a, pl. 30-31, 83-

87). The open shapes include bowls with straight

or opened wall and sharpened, flattened or everted

rim. Some carinated vessels also occur in the

assemblage. Straight-sided wall vases with straight

or everted rim are also well represented. For the

bowls, profiles with an “S” rim predominate (Fig.

5). Other open shapes, with convex walls and

different types of rim are much less frequent.

Some miniature open vessels also occur in the

complex. They are often bowls with convex and

vertical walls or with open wall.

Closed profiles are less morphologically various

but represent more than half of the corpus. Most of

the jars display an everted rounded, or more

frequently, flat lip. Fine wall pots with an S rim

constitute the most abundant form of the Yaz I

complex.

Figure 5. A complete vase with an S rim, Yaz I

period, trench 16 (© A. Pelle/ MAFTur)

Coarse ware, rougher, has generally a storage

function. It is quite rare. Only few cooking pots

have been identified in the corpus. They show

vertical walls and a flat or rounded rim, sometimes

with lugs on the shoulders. Flat lids can also have

a handle or a lug in the centre. Pans, characterized

by a flat bottom with straight walls, are smoothed

and blackened by fire in the inside part.

Furthermore, three main paste groups,

correlated with specific shapes can be distinguished

among hand-made vessels (Lhuillier 2013a, 74-75).

The first group includes vessels with a

compact, very fine and light paste, containing or

not a very fine mineral temper. Vessels of this type

are almost systematically those with an S rim. The

morphological features of this group show very

few variability, only marked by light variations in

the diameter or the incline of the rim. It may

indicate a kind of standardization of the production

(Lhuillier 2013b, 120). The thickness of the wall is

generally very well regularized (3-6mm). Fine

horizontal streaks on the internal and sometimes

on the external surface point out the use of

combined coil-building and wheel-throwing

techniques in order to regularize the walls. A more

precise technological study led by A. Dupont-

Delaleuf (2010) shows that rotation is used in two

cases: 1. the preforming of the vase is

manufactured without rotation and the finishing is

made by rotation, 2. preforming and finishing both

with rotation. Both faces are often polished. Paste

is always of a clear colour, beige or pinkish beige.

There are few firing marks, but some potsherds

have a greenish colour and a black-painted colour,



83

which indicate an overfiring of the vessel. The

greenish beige shade, as well as the thickness of

the paste, made some potsherds of this group

technologically close to the Middle and Late

Bronze Age “wheelmade” ware.

Vessels of the second group display a coarser

paste, with little mineral (limestone) temper or

sometimes chaff. Its size does not exceed 3mm

and the inclusions sometimes punctuate the

surface by forming small vacuoles. This paste

group includes all the open profiles except those

with an S rim and all the jars. This group is the

more important one. The thickness of the wall is

about 1,3-1,5 cm maximum. Sometimes, one can

observe that the walls are regularized by a careful

polishing, but usually one can observe a lack of

preparation of the paste, marked by micro-cracks,

occurring during the drying, and by the variability

of thickness. Paste is usually beige or pinkish

beige, with sometimes red spots resulting from

firing.

The vessels of the last group display a very

coarse paste. The main shapes are cooking pots,

lids and pans. Their paste is prepared with mineral

temper (limestone), chamotte (3-5mm) and

sometimes also with vegetal temper. Some micro-

cracks are visible on the surface. Nevertheless, no

cooking pot shows traces of tallow and coarse

ware can be painted.

In Ulug-depe, 20 % of pottery is painted.

Almost all types of vessels of the Yaz I complex

can be painted, even the coarse ware. The painted

decoration is almost systematically located in the

upper part of the vessels. The organization of the

decoration usually shows the main motives

organized in friezes, delimited by horizontal lines,

and separated by secondary motives. Motives are

in general brown-red, but they can become darker

or lighter, according to the firing process. A large

variety of painted motives are recognized for this

period in Ulug-depe, including triangles, rhombus,

lines and bands, range of points, alone or up a

horizontal band, or shapeless brushworks.

These common features were observed among

all the Yaz I pottery found in Ulug-depe.

However, we can observe some significant

differences between the Yaz I pottery of the

different trenches excavated. In trench 16, in the

centre of the depe, the quality of the complex is

quite high: it includes many pots and bowls with a

“S” profile, sometimes wheel-shaped, and the

cooking pots are quite rare. In trench 23, on the

northern edge of the depe, some vessels with a “S”

profile were also found but they are less frequent.

On the contrary, the cooking pots and the big jars

with lugs are more numerous (Fig. 6), as some

bowls decorated by a range of points up a

horizontal band (Fig. 7). Some jars with a flat

everted rim were discovered only there (Fig. 8).

This shape, discovered for the first time in Ulug-

depe, is also known in the neighbouring site

Garaoj-depe (Gutlyev 1984, fig. 2. 15). The quantity

of painted pottery slightly differs also: in trench

16, 24% of the pottery is painted, while it

represents 17, 3% in trench 23.

Figure 6. Two examples of cooking pots, Yaz I period,

trench 23 (© J. Lhuillier/ MAFTur)

According to the location of these trenches and

to the differences in the quality of the pottery, we

can suggest that Ulug-depe was divided into

“districts” during Yaz I period, hypothesis that is

still to be confirmed by further excavations.

Figure 7. Two examples of bowls decorated by a range of points, Yaz I period, trench 23 (© J. Lhuillier / MAFTur)

The middle Iron Age

The transition between Yaz I and Yaz II periods

The transition between these two periods is badly

known, since the materiel culture changes without

any apparent causes. It is marked in Trench 23 by

a phase of abandonment, then by a reoccupation

during the Yaz II period. The walls of the massive

construction erected during Yaz I period (see

above) were reused, levelled off by new brick



84

layers at their top, the empty spaces were filled in

with deposit sediment mixed with Yaz II

potsherds. This layout is part of a new platform

linked to the citadel excavated at the top of the site

and dated from the Yaz II period by C14 analysis.

Therefore, the foundation trench of the Yaz II

platform (built with mud bricks averaging

52x30x10-12cm in size) was dug into the Yaz I

levels. New levelling layers of pisé were then

added onto the slope of the depe.

Figure 8. An example of a jar with a flat everted rim,

Yaz I period, trench 23 (© J. Lhuillier/ MAFTur)

In trench 16, the transition between Yaz I and

Yaz II is different, since it is characterized by a

continuous stratigraphy. Above the Yaz I level

several Yaz II dump layers (about 40cm thick) can

be found as well as a collapsed mud brick

construction, whose function remains obscure.

Above this construction a large building (oriented

NNE-SSW) was erected with 30-31×24×9cm mud

bricks.

A stratigraphic trench opened under the citadel

of the Yaz II period (trench 8) also confirmed this

progressive transition. The top of the Yaz I layers

was reached 3m under the ground of the citadel,

without any evidence of a gap.

The settlement

The Middle Iron Age occupation consists of a two-

part urban settlement. In the upper part, the main

buildings are the so-called “treasury”, a three parts

building with long corridor like ware-houses; a

“palatial complex” and a “manor house” erected

on a mudbrick and pakhsa platform. The town was

surrounded by a badly preserved city wall, about

1.5 to 3 m thick, set on earlier structures.

A building located at the highest point of the

site, called the “citadel” (Fig. 9), was the centre of

this city (Boucharlat, Francfort, Lecomte 2005; Lecomte

2013). This fortified square building with 40 m long

sides is resting upon a mud-brick and pakhsa

platform. This platform is a complex - probably

two-stepped - structure, which enhanced the citadel

thanks to buttresses and emphasized the verticality

effect. Its preservation is good and the walls are 1 to

3 m high. A staircase proves the existence of a

second floor. Two peripheral walls with buttresses

and recesses define a peripheral corridor, paved

with pebbles and coated with clay. The very

symmetrical plan of the citadel shows narrow

rectangular rooms with low benches.

Figure 9. The citadel, Yaz II period (G. Davtian, MAFTur)



85

In these rooms, big jars were sometimes

discovered during the excavation, some of which

bore sealings (Lecomte 2004; Wu Xin, Lecomte, 2012).

The ground floor of the citadel had thus a storage

function. After an important fire that partially

destroyed the building during the 9th century BC, it

was rebuilt shortly after, as shown by stratigraphy,

reused during two hundred years and finally

abandoned after some closure rites were performed

inside the building (Lecomte, Mashkour 2013).

The discovery of a Neo-Assyrian print on a

bulla led O. Lecomte to abandon the eventuality of a

final occupation of the citadel during the

Achaemenid period. Two typical Iranian Iron II

vessels (i.e. "tankard" with two handles and

carinated profile) were found deposited under a

threshold leading to the northern part of the citadel.

Then only the re-occupation of the ruins of the

destroyed building could be attributed to the Yaz III

period, i.e Achaemenid, and mostly, thanks to the

pottery discovered, to the Hellenistic period. The

occupation of the citadel must thus be attributed to

the Middle Iron Age (Yaz II) period, which was

confirmed by about ten radiocarbon dates obtained

from charcoal samples, all collected in the

destruction layer of the building, dating back the

citadel’s (first phase of occupation) destruction

between the 10th and the first half of the 8th century

BC. This citadel and the contemporary buildings

belong to the main occupation of the site, which can

be defined as Yaz IIB (Lhuillier et al. in print).

Indeed, we found some evidences of an earlier

occupation during the Yaz II period, which is

called Yaz IIA (Lhuillier et al. in print). This first

stage was identified under the citadel itself.

Excavations of the underlying layers in the south-

eastern part of this building have revealed several

buttresses and recesses belonging to an earlier

building which had roughly the same orientation

than the citadel and displayed a plan similar to that

of the second citadel but much smaller.

A trench (8) opened in the northern part of the

citadel under the paved corridor and under the

inner peripheral wall has shown the presence of 3

m thick levels dating to the Yaz II period. Several

dump layers covered by a thin silt layer (0.03 m

thick) indicates a temporary abandonment of the

area between the prior Yaz II fortified building

and the citadel itself. Below, several successive

floors and three mud-bricks walls were identified.

This earlier Yaz II occupation has also been

reached in the centre of the depe (trench 16),

where we excavated a building on a 1,20 m high

platform (the so-called “manor”), whose platform

was constructed on an earlier abandoned Yaz II

building which was levelled off. Under this

building, and on the top of the Yaz I levels, a

collapsed mud brick construction, whose function

remains obscure, and several dump layers were

excavated.

The Yaz II ceramic complex

According to the stratigraphy, ceramics can be

divided into two different chronological stages

inside the Yaz II occupation at Ulug depe. Most of

the ceramics of this complex is wheel-fashioned,

i.e. it was manufactured with coil-building and

wheel-throwing techniques combined into the

same operational process (Dupont-Delaleuf 2013).

The Yaz IIB complex

The most recent assemblage, which comes from

the citadel and other contemporary structures, is

well documented and shows a great morphological

variety, with about 40 open and closed shapes (fig.

10; Lhuillier et al. in print, fig. 7-9). Open vessels

include plates, basins, and hemispherical bowls,

with several kinds of rims. Beakers have vertical

concave wall with flat or more often truncated

base. This complex also includes many closed

vessels. Small or large jars may have a beak rim or

a hooked-rim, with convex or more or less vertical

walls, sometimes with a ridge on the shoulder.

Most of the closed vessels, however, are

cylindrical or carinated jars, mainly manjet-rim

jars with usually a vertical rim, but it can also be

concave, triangular or convex. One can also find

some pots or jugs with an everted rim, sometimes

with a neck. Rarely, some of these vessels can also

have a slip, covering the entire surface or not.

The Yaz IIA complex

In the current state of research, this complex seems to be more varied than the latest Yaz IIB (Lhuillier et al.

in print, fig. 4-6), but it could be only a consequence of the more limited excavations on the levels of this

period. Some jars with vertical walls were found, but most of the closed shapes display convex walls. They

often present a beak- or hooked-rim. The manjet-rim (or banded-rim) jars are present, and they always

have a simple rim: often with a concave, but sometimes triangular or slanting banded-rim. There

are also flat-rim jars similar to those discovered in the later levels of the citadel and everted rim globular



86

pots. Some more unusual shapes are present, like a jar with restricted walls or a thickened-rim jar. However,

vertical or convex manjet-rim jars and outward projecting rim seem to be absent, as well as necked

jars. Open vessels include shapes that will be widespread during the following stage, like opened

walls or convex walls bowls with rim curved

inwards. However, some other shapes seem to be documented only during this stage. These are for

example convex walls bowls with a straight or S-shaped rim, or bowls with inwards curved walls and

thickened rounded rim, flat rim or beak-rim. Opened-wall bowls can be carinated, with their upper part

being concave, which in not the case of the ceramics associated with the citadel. One finds already

carinated beakers; they seem to be smaller than during the next stage (average diameter of the base 4

cm) and the carination is low. There are also some unidentified vessels on a stand.

The most striking feature of this complex is the red slip covering some sherds, either only

inside, either on both sides, on all the surface or only on the rim. The slip is usually heterogeneous,

the stroke of the brush being visible. Handmade coarse ware is present in Yaz II

layers in small quantities. Cooking pots, usually with handles and coarse tempered vessels are still

brought to light in Yaz II levels, but on the

contrary, the coarse ware is very low in proportion in the Early Iron Age layers.

The funerary practices during Yaz I and Yaz II

periods

In the Iron Age, graves disappear almost

completely among the sedentary populations of

southern Central Asia. How might this radical

change during the Iron Age in the southern part of

Central Asia be explained? Can we interpret this

as evidence of the emergence of a new religion?

Indeed, one oft-used explanation is the formation

of Zoroastrianism (Avanesova 1995; Boyce 1975;

Sarianidi 1994; Sarianidi 1998; Sarianidi 2001; Sarianidi

2010) but current research has not yet offered

convincing proof and the discussion remains open.

However, in Ulug-depe, some discoveries dating

from the Iron Age (Yaz I and II) were made


Human scattered rests (isolated bones or

teeth), belonging to about fifteen individuals

were found associated with potsherds and animal

bones in the occupation layers. Are they evidence

of excarnated bodies resulting from Mazdean

practices? It is difficult to be categoric, but it is

very plausible, because among these bones, a left

humerus displays obvious traces of defleshing


Several graves were also excavated, mostly in

a context dated from the Early-Middle Iron age

and from the Middle Iron Age (Fig. 11).

Figure 10. Some examples of ceramics of the Yaz II period from the citadel (© A. Pelle, J. Lhuillier and

Pierre Hamouda/ MAFTur)



87

Grave No. 58 (Fig. 11.1) was found on the

surface of the southwest side of trench 6, making the

grave pit difficult to distinguish. The female adult

individual was found lying on her right side (lateral

decubitus position) in a crouched position.

Grave No. 59 (Fig. 11.2) was discovered in

trench 12, contained an adult, elderly female that

was buried at the bottom of a storage-pit extending

more than one meter in depth. The subject was

found crouched on her left side in a particularly

contracted position (face to knees).

Grave No. 100 (Fig. 11.3) is particular in nature,

and consists of a north-south oriented L-shaped

burial pit, with an east-facing opening. The opening

was sealed with three stacked bricks. Osteological

study reveals that the inhumed was a child between 4

and 5 years of age, lying on his right side in a

crouched position, head pointing to the south. The

entire skeleton was almost perfectly articulated.

Grave No. 80 (Fig. 11.4) was set inside a

storage-pit within trench 3. Inside was a child

between 2-4 years of age, laid on his stomach

(ventral position). The lower limbs were tucked

against the right posterior-lateral side of the

cranium, with the head toward the bottom of the

pit and the feet located at less than 10 cm above

the child's head. The final burial position of the

individual indicates an atypical body movement,

which could only be the result of the attachment of

the ankles to the upper body or the body being

forced into this position as a result of an external

wrapping, such as a type of shroud or woven bag.

Grave No. 101 (Fig. 11.5) of an adult woman

was found in trench 16. It consisted of a body

partially placed inside a large pit, constructed

posterior to the Early Iron Age brick structures.

The lower bent limbs, which were elevated in

comparision with the rest of the skeleton, were

lying on their right side. The superior part of the

body had slipped slightly towards the bottom of

the pit at some point during decomposition. This

movement is confirmed by the position of the

upper body, which is located beneath the lower

body, and one coxal which retained its position but

was no longer articulated with the lower four

lumbar vertebrae found at an even lower depth.

The rest of the body was not preserved or was

never placed in the burial.

We are dealing with graves that have no

associated archaeological material. Such practices

remain obscure, because they do not fit with

“proto-zoroastrian” rituals of decarnisation. So

how can we explain these tombs? For the moment,

the question is still unsolved.

Figure 11. The Iron Age graves, in Ulug depe (©J.

Bendezu-Sarmiento and J. Lhuillier/ MAFTur)

Conclusion

The excavations of Yaz I levels therefore allowed us

to identify several stages of occupation, to suggest the

existence of a settlement divided into districts, and to

bring to light a new ceramics corpus. The ceramics

from these levels are characteristic of the painted

ware cultures of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia.

But they represent one of its most refined variants, in

which an important part of the vessels are painted. In

the same time some of the vessels are made by

wheel-shaping technique, which points to the fact that



88

the use of the potter-wheel or the turn-table had not

completely disappeared by the end of the Bronze age.

Besides, coarse vessels remain very scarce, until the

Yaz II period where they become more frequent. At

the same time, the handmade painted pottery

disappeared and was replaced by the wheelmade

pottery. As well as for the beginning of the period as

for its end, this progressive change of technique is the

only indicator of the transition from the Bronze Age

to the Early Iron Age, then from the Early Iron Age to

the Middle Iron Age. Besides, in both cases

stratigraphy shows the lack of abandonment layers

and a gradual but comparatively quick transformation

of the material assemblage, confirming the absence of

chronological gap. It appears also that the Yaz II

period can be divided into two phases, yet called Yaz

IIA and Yaz IIB, on the basis of the stratigraphy as

well as on the basis of the ceramics. A third phase

(which should be called Yaz IIB2) apparently

corresponds to the reoccupation of the citadel after it

had burnt, ceramics of which remain to be precisely

analysed. This ongoing study will maybe in the future

help to understand what happened in Ulug-depe

about one century before the end of the Yaz II period.

Bibliography Avanesova, N.A.

1995 “Bustan VI, une nécropole de l’âge du Bronze dans l’ancienne Bactriane (Ouzbékistan méridional):

témoignages de cultes du feu”, Arts Asiatiques L:

31-46.

Bendezu-Sarmiento, J. 2006 “Pratiques funéraires à Ulug-depe”, Dossiers

d’Archéologie, Turkménistan, un berceau

culturel en Asie centrale, n° 317: 28-33.

Bendezu-Sarmiento, J. and J. Lhuillier 2011 “Iron Age in Turkmenistan: Ulug depe in the

Kopetdagh piedmont”, Historical and Cultural

sites of Turkmenistan. Discoveries, Researches and restoration for 20 years of independence, M.

A. Mamedov (ed.), 238-249. Ashgabat, Türkmen

döwlet nesiryat gullugy.

in print “Sine sepulchro cultural complex of Transoxiana (between 1500 and the middle of the 1st

millenium BC). Funerary practices of the Iron

Age in Southern Central Asia: recent work, old data, and new hypotheses”, Archäologische

Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, Vol. 45. Boucharlat, R., H.-P. Francfort and O. Lecomte

2005 “The Citadel of Ulug-Depe and the Iron Age Archaeological Sequence in Southern Central

Asia”, Iranica Antiqua, Vol. XL: 479-514.

Boyce, M. 1975 A History of Zoroastrianism, Vol. 1, The Early

Period, Leiden / Köln: E.J. Brill.

Dupont-Delaleuf, A.

2010 “Les chaînes opératoires de la céramique d’Ulug-Dépé (Turkménistan) du Chalcolithique

moyen à la période achéménide”, Les nouvelles

de l’Archéologie, No. 119: 47-51.

2013 “Évolution des techniques céramiques durant la Protohistoire en Asie centrale : l’exemple d’Ulug

dépé”. L’archéologie française en Asie centrale.

Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale, n° 21-22, J. Bendezu-

Sarmiento (ed.), 317-334. Paris: De Boccard.

Gutlyev, G.

1984 “Stratigraficheskij shurf na Garaoj-depe”, Problemy arkheologija Turkmenistana, 22-31.

Ashkhabad: Ylym.

Lecomte, O.,

2004 “A group of Yaz II-III stamp-impressions from Ulug Depe (Turkmenistan)”. U istokov civilizatsii,

Sbornik statej k 75-letiju Viktora Ivanovicha

Sarianidi, M. F. Kosarev, L. M. Kozhin, N. A.

Dubova (eds.), 168-181. Moskow: Staryj sad.

2007a “Entre Iran et Touran, recherches archéologiques

au Turkménistan méridional (2001-2006)”,

Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 2007: 195-226.

2007b “An Iron Age Urban Settlement revealed by

Magnetic Survey: The Case of Ulug Depe

(Turkmenistan)”. Geophysik und Ausgrabung; Einsatz une Aduswertung zerstörungsfreier

Prospektion in des Archäologie, M. Posselt, B.

Zickgraf, and C. Dobiat (eds.), 99-109. Leidorf: Rahden.

2011 “Ulug depe: 4000 years of evolution between

plain and desert”, Historical and Cultural sites of

Turkmenistan. Discoveries, Researches and restoration for 20 years of independence, M. A.

Mamedov (ed.), 221-237. Ashgabat, Türkmen

döwlet nesiryat gullugy.

2013 “Activités archéologiques françaises au Turkménistan”. L’archéologie française en Asie

centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux

socioculturels, Cahiers d’Asie Centrale, n° 21-22, J. Bendezu-Sarmiento, J. (ed.), 165-190.

Paris: De Boccard.

Lecomte, O., Francfort, H.-P., Boucharlat, R. and Mamedow, M.

2002 “Recherches archéologiques récentes à Ulug Dépé (Turkménistan)”, Paléorient, Vol. 28, No. 2: 123-

132.



89

Lecomte, O. and M. Mashkour 2013 “La cigogne, la chèvre et les renards”. Animals,

Gods and Men from East to West, Papers on

archaeology and history in honour of Roberta Venco Ricciardi, A. Peruzzeto, F. Dorna

Metzger and L. Dirven (eds.), BAR International

Series 2516, 27-46. Oxford: Archaeo Press.

Lhuillier, J. 2013a Les cultures à céramique modelée peinte en Asie

centrale méridionale. Dynamiques socio-culturelles

à l’âge du Fer ancien (1500-1000 av. n.è.),

Mémoires de la Mission Archéologique Française

en Asie Centrale XIII, Paris: De Boccard.

2013b “Les cultures à céramique modelée peinte en Asie

centrale : un aperçu de l’assemblage céramique de la deuxième moitié du 2e millénaire av. J.-C.”,

Iranica Antiqua, vol. XLVIII: 103-146.

2013c “Les habitations peuvent-elles caractériser une

hiérarchie sociale ? Un exemple polémique : les cultures du début de l'âge du Fer en Asie central”.

In Les marqueurs archéologiques du pouvoir, O.

Brunet, Ch.-E. Sauvin and T. Al Halabi (eds.), 113-132. Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne.

Lhuillier, J., Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., Lecomte, O. and

Rapin, C.

2013 “Les cultures à céramique modelée peinte de l’âge du Fer ancien : quelques pistes de réflexion

d’après les exemples de Koktepe, Dzharkutan

(Ouzbékistan) et Ulug-depe (Turkménistan)”. L’archéologie française en Asie centrale.

Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels,

Cahiers d’Asie Centrale, n° 21-22, J. Bendezu-Sarmiento, J. (ed.), 357-372. Paris: De Boccard.

Lhuillier, J., Dupont-Delaleuf, A., Lecomte, O. and

Bendezu-Sarmiento, J.

in print “The Middle Iron Age in Ulug-depe: A

preliminary typo-chronological and technological

study of the Yaz II ceramic complex”. In Pottery

and chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia, M. Wagner (ed.). Varsovie.

Marushchenko, A. A., 1959 “El’ken Depe (Otchët o raskopkakh 1953, 1954 i

1956 gg.)”, Trudy Instituta Istorii, Arkheologii i

Etnografii Akademii Nauk Kirgizskoj SSR, Vol. V: 54-109.

Masson, V. M.

1959 Drevnezemledel’cheskaja kul’tura Margiany,

Materialy i issledovanija po arkheologii SSSR, Vol. 73. Moskow: Nauka.

Sarianidi, V. I.

1968 “Prodolzhenie rabot na Ulug-depe”,

Arkheologicheskie Otkrytija 1967 goda: 342-343. 1969 “Prodolzhenie rabot na Ulug-depe”,

Arkheologicheskie Otkrytija 1968 goda: 434-435.

1971 “Issledovanie sloev rannezhelenogo veka na

Ulug-depe”, Arkheologicheskie Otkrytija 1970: 433-434.

1972 “Raskopki 1970 g. na Ulug-depe”, Uspekhi

Sredneaziatskoj Arkheologii, Vol. 1: 53-55.

1994 “Margiana and the Indo-Iranian world”. In South

Asian Archaeology 1993, A. Parpola and P. Koskikalio (ed.), 667-680. Helsinki:

Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

1998 Margiana and Protozoroastrism. Athens.

2001 Necropolis of Gonur and iranian paganism.

Moscow: Mir-Media.

2010 “Nouvelles sépultures sur le territoire de la "nécropole royale " de Gonur Dépé”, Arts

Asiatiques 65: 5-26.

Sarianidi, V. I. and Kachuris, K. A. 1968 “Raskopki na Ulug-depe”, Archeologicheskie

Otkrytija 1967 goda: 342-345.

Wu Xin and Lecomte, O. 2013 “Clay Sealings from the Iron Age Citadel at

Ulug Depe”, Archäologische Mitteilungen aus

Iran und Turan, vol. 44: 313-328.

Lhuillier et al. 2015 (2013) Ulug-Depe in the frame of Turkmenistan Iron Age: an overview

Documents

Transcript of Lhuillier et al. 2015 (2013) Ulug-Depe in the frame of Turkmenistan Iron Age: an overview