Kazah–magyar régészeti kutatások Azsetiszu vidékén

Mordovin, Maxim (2009) Kazah–magyar régészeti kutatások Azsetiszu vidékén. Archaeologiai Értesítő, 134 (1). pp. 197-215. ISSN 0003-8032

[img] Text
Restricted to Repository staff only until 31 December 2029.

Download (1MB)


A kazah–magyar együttműködés 2005-ben megszületett ötlete 2007-től valósult meg. Az együttműködés célja a korai türk régészeti örökség kutatása. Ebből a magyar fél (ELTE BTK Régészettudományi Intézet) a Zsetiszu vidéke kora középkori településeinek kutatását vállalta fel. Így kezdetben négy helyszín (Merke, Aszpara, Dzsájszán 27–Terekti 1 és Tölebi) felmérését végeztünk el, 2008-ban pedig megkezdtük a Tölebi határában található 9–10. századi vár régészeti kutatását. A tanulmány célja az eddigi eredmények rövid bemutatása. | The idea of the cooperation was raised in 2005 by Aiman Dosymbaeva, archaeologist and Head of the Department of Turkic Heritage. As a leader of a research group consisted mainly of young specialists, she took aim to a previously hardly investigated area of the early mediaeval archaeology, namely, the early Turkic heritage – primarily burials, barrows and sanctuaries located in mountains. The research group very soon had to face many questions, answering which their own efforts seemed to be insufficient. Among these questions the main concerned the problem of relations between nomad tribes and the early towns (mostly located on the Silk Road). Aiman Dosymbaeva suggested us to join their project, but focusing especially on urban and fortified settlements. These settlements, mainly early urban centres were located on the northernmost route of the Silk Road, and existed as early from the 8th–9th C until 13th–15th C.Two institutes participated in this project: Archaeological Institute A. Kh. Margulan of the Ministry of Culture and Education of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Almaty, and Institute of Archaeological Sciences, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest. The cooperation includes two decisive courses: early Turkic Heritage and fortified settlements. The early urban centres of the studied period cannot be considered as Turkic because of their – according to the contemporary written and epigraphic sources – sogdic (iranian) population.The cooperation started in 2007, when a systematic field walking and topographic survey of four sites in South Kazakhstan, Dzhambul region was made (Fig. 1). Two of the investigated objects are early urban fortified settlements (Merke and Aspara), one is a small castle (Tolebi) and one is an opened rock-settlement in Dzhaysan (Dzhaysan 27–Terekti 1). Merke Merke used to be the most important early medieval town between Bishkek and Taraz. Located on the river Kara-Su, the settlement was enclosed by at least three lines of city walls, only the inner of which have partially survived. The south-western corner of the city included an impressive citadel, still appearing as the highest point of the former fortifications. Today the territory of the medieval city is almost completely built up, and what has remained is under persistent destruction. The first mention of Merke is known from the 9th C geographic work compiled by Ibn Khordadbeh. In 928–929 Qudamah Ibn Ja’far describes the place as a rich village, and the name Merke also appears in Hudud al-’alam written in 982. The most important and the most detailed is the description made by al-Muqaddisi: “Mirki – medium [city], fortified, has a citadel. The central mosque earlier used to be a church. Emir Amid addaula Fa’iq made a rabat built out of the walls.” According to later sources, the mongol invasion destroyed the place and it survived until nowadays only as a small village. Some sporadic excavations took place at Merke in 1964, 1986–1987 and 2004–2006. In 2007 a detailed topographic survey was carried out of the central remains of the medieval town (Fig. 2). Aspara Aspara is a large fortified settlement located 2 km from the border with Kyrgyzstan in the present-day Chaldyvar village. It has a complex layout approximately rectangular in plan and consisted of a still visible moat, gate tower, outer and inner bailey and of an inner moat (Fig. 3). There are clearly visible traces of a palace within the inner bailey. The first source concerning this place is an itinerary from Tang-period (7th–8th C). Ibn Khordadbeh and Ja’kut also mention Aspara in the 9th–10th C. After a long decay, by the late 14th C Aspara revives as an important castle of Timur. Although the last sources for the castle are known from the 16th C, its survived toponym indicates the continuous inhabitance of the site up to the present. The object was investigated only in 1964, but neither the material was published, nor the layout was made since then. The only available sketch was prepared around 1940 by A. Bernstam. The new survey carried out in August 2007 resulted in a new detailed plan (Fig. 3, a). Dzhaysan 27–Terekti 1 Settlement Dzhaysan 27–Terekti 1 was discovered after an intensive steppe fire in spring, 2007. These were the first known traces of a seemingly permanent settlement in this region. No written sources are available concerning the site or the region inhabited predominantly by nomad Kazakhs.Three main parts of the settlement were identified during the survey. The main one on the northern side of the Terekti stream is consisted of more than thirty dwellings (or rooms) attached to each other. The second part located on the opposite side of the stream is an empty territory encircled by stonewalls seems to have been an irrigated garden. The water was led there from the third part of the site situated cca 250 m west from the settlement itself. This is a well preserved reservoir connected by double or triple ditches with the “garden” (Fig. 4). Tolebi The small castle is located north-east of Tolebi (some 20 km from the regional centre Chu). The object is the best preserved among the investigated sites. The height of its walls in some places reaches 8–10 m. The rectangular castle is situated on the former bank of Chu river and surrounded by a moat. Its walls are articulated with corner and middle towers (Fig. 6). The gates seem to have been on the western wall. There are no known written sources concerning the castle and its identification with known from the 11th-C Khiam is very doubtful. There were neither excavations nor any other research in the castle before 2007. Adetailed plan was made during the first season of cooperation (Fig. 5).Based on the results of the year 2007, Tolebi was chosen for the further and closer research. The reasons of choosing this particular object were: 1. This is a relatively small site and its excavation brings relatively more information concerning the whole structure. 2. This has the best preserved fortifications and architectural features. 3. This one has never been studied before. 4. Its territory is free of serious modern disturbances and was not built in. Since none from the Hungarian team had practice working with structures made of adobe, the first year of excavations was a “teaching” season for getting familiar with the methodology. Due to this a small territory beside the northern wall of the castle was chosen, including some visible remains of a probable inner building, for the first trenches. As the result, three main periods of the settlement were identified datable to the relatively close period. The pottery from all three groups of layers was almost identical, and represented very low variability. The castle was abandoned and bore no traces of intentional destruction. The period of existence of the castle can be dated to the 9th–10th C. There were some traces of the reuse of the remains but no building activity was detected. Remains of a suburban settlement were discovered some 100 m north-west of the castle during a systematic field walk. Unfortunately, the settlement was completely destroyed by irrigation ditches and ploughing. Among the most notable finds a Christian amulet is noteworthy. Conclusion The castle located near Tolebi village was inhabited for a very short period. It can be dated according to the present state of our research to the 9th–10th C. The cause of its abandoning is yet unknown, but must have been peaceful, because the population could left the site taking all the movable and usable objects. It is very important that this date of the castle does not allow us to identify it with Khiam known from the 11th-C written sources.

Item Type: Article
Subjects: C Auxiliary Sciences of History / történeti segédtudományok > CC Archaeology / régészet
Depositing User: xKatalin xBarta
Date Deposited: 09 Jan 2017 13:08
Last Modified: 09 Jan 2017 13:08

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item