RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS AND STRUcTURES IN THE ANcIENT cITY OF SIDAK (SOUTHERN KAZAKHSTAN)

E. A. Smagulov

RELIGIOUS BUILDINGS AND STRUcTURES IN THE ANcIENT cITY OF SIDAK (SOUTHERN KAZAKHSTAN)

E. A. Smagulov

The ancient city of Sidak is located in the Turkestan region of Southern Kazakhstan, 18 km to the north-west of the city of Turkestan. In historical and cultural terms, it is in a region of the Middle Syr Darya River (called Yaksart/Djeikhun in ancient times) with old traditions of settled and urban culture, as well as being in a marginal zone between the Great Eurasian stePPes and fertile agricultural and urban areas of central Asia.

ToPograPhically the ancient city is classified as a “tobe Platform” (a Platform on toP of a hill). The total area of the ancient city, which has a rounded rectangular layout, is 340x180m. A long axis runs from NE to SW. The height of the Platform is 8-9m. In the north-eastern Part of the ancient city there is a huge horseshoe-shaPed mound of a “citadel” 6-7m above the Platform, the total height being 15m. The Platform is located to the south and east of the citadel. To the north of the citadel there is also a “northern Platform”. It is in a shaPe of a mound, seParated from the citadel by a deeP and wide trough and looks like an indePendent section making traditional toPograPhy of this tyPe of site more comPlex.

The gate of the citadel can be traced in the southern Part of the Platform and has the form of a wide access ramP, on the eastern and western sides of which there are tyPical towers located at the two ends of the horseshoe-shaPed mound of the citadel. The gate of the city is assumed to have been located on the northern sloPe of the eastern Part of the Platform in the form of a wide ramP oPPosite the “northern Platform” (Pl. IV-1).

By its size this ancient city cannot be referred to the city of the early Middle Ages, but the material yielded from excavations of the city makes it Possible to assume that this settlement Played rather a sPecific religious function both in the “Kanguy” (classical) times and in the early Middle Ages uP to the years of the Arab conquest in the mid-eighth century.

The site was mentioned for the first time in archaeological literature in the 1940s by the Southern Kazakhstan Archaeological ExPedition (SKAE) headed by A. N. Bernshtam, which collected visible material and made an ocular Plan of the ancient city. Giving a summary of the work done in 1947, A. N. Bernshtam noted that a number of features of the discovered Pottery “sPeak of the extremely archaic character of the material of Sadykat[1], and that this ancient city can be dated from the end of the 1st millennium Bc to the first centuries AD and the character of the material (in the first stage of existence of the ancient city) testifies to the far western and most ancient reflection of Kanguy–Khorezm civilization”.[2]APParently, this observation of A. N. Bernshtam was the result of his acquaintance with the discoveries made by S. P. Tolstov in the land of the Ancient Khorezm. But, unfortunately, this idea was not been further develoPed and grounded in the materials and works of the SKAE. It is obvious that S. P. Tolstov clearly understood the deeP historical interaction of ancient Khorezm with cultures of the Syr Darya River basin (in its lower and middle reaches) and that was why the Khorezm Archaeological and EthnograPhic ExPedition (KAEE) started working almost sixty years ago on the banks of the ancient Syr Darya riverbed. The most imPortant result of this work was the discovery in the lower reaches of the river on the long ago extinct riverbeds of Jetyasar culture, which made an imPact, then underestimated, on the ethnic and cultural genesis of not only central Asia but also of south areas of Eastern EuroPe. At the same time, S. P. Tolstov defined the concePt of an “Aral ethnogenesis nodal Point”[3], which, as follow-uP studies showed, was a concePt which could be aPPlied to the entire Syr Darya River basin. PerhaPs this was the reason why in 1966 a team of KAEE visited those regions of Kazakhstan, which are located in the Syr Darya River basin between the city of Kzyl-Orda and Turkestan, and investigated more than 70 settlement sites, including the site of the ancient city of Sidak. Later L. M. Levina suggested a dating of the Pottery found at the site of Sidak to the first half of the 1st millennium cE.[4]

Since 1998 the Turkestan Archaeological ExPedition[5](TAE) of the Institute of Archaeology named after A. K. Margulan has been Periodically investigating the site of Sidak, one of the goals of which has been the excavation to the maximum extent Possible of the area of citadel develoPment with the view of conserving it and creating a museum. As a result of these investigations there was yielded a mass of material which characterizes various asPects of the culture of the region in the early Middle Ages. The subject of this PaPer is the Presentation of some archaeological finds at this tyPical historical site at the ancient city of Sidak which in one way or another exPlain religious function of the ancient city of Sidak, and the dating of artifacts which testify to the relationshiPs of the Middle Syr Darya River basinwith other central Asian regions.

StratigraPhy of the citadel

The sequence of strata in the citadel shows that the occuPation layer is 16 m thick and the lower layer may be dated back to the first century BcE. Uniform ceramic objects yielded from the lower strata have a number of tyPical features which bear a close analogy to those artifacts that were found at a number of archaeological sites in Southern Kazakhstan and the Tashkent and Bukhara regions and date back to the turn of the millennium. This Provides grounds for dating this Period of the site to from the first century cE to the second half of the seventh century. There are at least five construction strata in the occuPation layer of the site rePresented by the ruins of big buildings and constructions.

The main task of the excavations at the site of the citadel in the first years was the investigation of the uPPer stratum, the latest occuPation layer (UOL). At this site an area of 1200m2, and 0.5-1.2m deeP was excavated. The first results of excavations clearly showed that activity at the settlement gradually came to an end after a total conflagration. After the fire, PeoPle continued to live in some of the Premises (second Period of OL) for a time before the settlement was abandoned.

In the north-eastern corner of the citadel two temPles (Pl. IV-2) were discovered. In one of them there was a free-standing semi-oval-shaPed altar (room 14) and in the other an altar in the form of a niche built in the southern wall (room 1).

The walls of room 1 were made of large-size sun-dried earth bricks (52-46 × 26-25 × 10cm) using clay mortar and covered with multilayer fine Plaster. The room with corners oriented to the cardinals was located on the NW sloPe of the citadel.

When excavation of the whole room was comPleted it became clear that it was a temPle. The door leading to the street was made in the NE wall. Its width is 1.4 m. At the threshold three wooden end floor beams 20-30cm wide (all wooden structures in the room were burnt or charred) were found, as well as a longitudinal beam lying against the left wall. There is every indication that the doorway was arched.

A long Passage (1.9m) leads to a sPacious room (8.2 × 6.8m). The bases of two columns Probably made of wood were discovered right in the middle on the left and right sides of the room. Under the base of the columns there were Panel boards measuring 20cm in width.[6]The dimensions of the Panels are 100 × 120cm. The distance between the altar wall (oPPosite the door) and the edge of the wooden column base is 3m and the distance between the columns is 2.3 m.

A sиfa (Podium), which was 0.7m high and 1.1-1.15m wide, was located to the left sideof the door against the north-eastern and south-eastern walls of the room. To the right side of the door, the sиfa was 1.7 m long, extending to a Point 1.25 meters from the north-western wall. This corner has no sиfa and there is an access to the wall with an inbuilt rectangular firePlace which was discovered full of ash.

Directly oPPosite the entrance door there is a built-in altar in the south-western wall which has no sиfa. It is made in the form a low (15-17cm high) Pedestal rectangular in shaPe (0.7 × 1.1m). The surface is thoroughly coated and calcined. In front of the sиfa a wooden board (0.30m in width and 1.2m in length) is buried in the Plastered floor. A niche 0.7m deeP and 0.55m wide is in the wall above the Pedestal at a height of 0.25cm. The uPPer Part of the niche is not Preserved. To the left of the Pedestal in the floor there is a small oval cuP-shaPed cavity, thoroughly covered with clay coating.

While handling the debris there were discovered fragments of three large jugs and a long ceramic tube (1.7m).

The sPecial PurPose of room 1 is emPhasized by the increased thickness of the walls and the isolation of the construction. Initially, it was a detached edifice. The arched doorway to the building is located not in the center of the wall but slightly to the northwest. The altar is made in the wall oPPosite the door and the wooden columns are located to the right and left side of the door in the middle of the room. Judging by a layer of sinter accumulated in the middle of the room above the burnt layer of the roof, the burnt and destroyed Premises remained in ruins for some time. Furthermore, the ruins were backfilled and at a height of 1m above the initial floor was discovered the badly traced floor of the next occuPation Period (the second) with a firePlace in the center of the room.

The building of the temPle was seParated from the surrounding buildings by a street measuring 2.7-2.8m in width (Pl. IV-2). The street ran around the NW and SE sides of the temPle; there was Probably also a street on the SW side, and the NW wall of the building was facing the vallum. The street debris is rePresented by rather unconsolidated fragments of unfired bricks. At the height of 0.5m above the original floor, the floor of the second occuPation Period is Poorly traced. In some areas of the original floor there are orange calcined sPots which are visible also on the walls facing the street. The fact that this was an oPen street and not a roofed Passage is evidenced by the fact that debris of the floor layer contains neither any charred beams and Poles, nor signs of a vaulted ceiling. In the area of the floor near the wall a thick (uP to 10 cm) layer of sinter can be traced. In addition, the wall in the street oPPosite the strictly vertical SE wall of room 1 is slightly inclined and made of fired bricks (with an interlayer of adobe bricks). This may indicate that the temPle (room 1)and the structures on the other side of the street even though dated from the same time are comPletely indePendent buildings. During the excavation of the street only a few fragments of ineffective thick-walled Pottery and one three-Point iron arrowhead were discovered.

The street turns in the eastern corner of the temPle (room 1). In this corner of the northwestern wall there is a wide (1.7m) niche 30 cm deeP. In front of it there is a badly damaged low Pedestal 1.5 × 1.1m in size. A layer of ash and calcination is on toP of the Pedestal. Outside the eastern wall of room 1 facing the street there is a sиfa made of adobe bricks (46 × 25 × 10 cm) and covered with high-quality coating. The width of the sиfa is 0.85m, the height less than 0.5m, and the length is about 3m. The coating of the sиfa is in some Places calcined.

A skeleton of a small jackal (canis aиreиs)[7]was found a little south of the end of this sиfa near the wall on the first floor in the sinter beds. The jackal was lying on its right side with its back against the wall of room 1, with legs slightly Pulled uP. The imPression is that he died when he was sleePing, and eventually sinter layers concealed its corPse. This find, in our oPinion, is consistent with other observations made while excavating room 1, which showed that after the catastroPhic fire and destruction of the citadel, and Possibly of the whole settlement, it was uninhabited for some time. Jackals and other wild animals were at their ease in the ruins of the site.

Room no. 14 is located in a block of Premises on the other side of the street running around temPle no. 1. It is square in Plan with dimensions of 4.8 × 4.9m. There is a sиfa 0.50m high and 1.15m wide against three walls. The sиfa against the wall oPPosite the door is a little bit wider, being 1.3m. The thickness of the walls of the room is 1.2-1.1 m, and the surviving height is uP to 1.6m. They are made of large-size adobes. The surface of the walls and sиfa is thoroughly Plastered with three high-quality thin layers of yellow Plaster. Some Parts of the coating are calcined. A semi-oval (“horseshoe-shaPed”) altar is in the floor in the middle of the room. Its length is 1.25m, width 1.15m, and height 50cm. The surface is slightly concave. At the edge of the straight side of the Podium there is a tyPical edge-lined elevation with cone-shaPed Projections at the ends. All this is covered by a thin high-quality yellow coating. In the center of the altar there is a Pink sPot of calcined coating, and a round cuP-shaPed hollow 9-10cm in diameter filled with very fine ash.

As a result of earlier excavations of early medieval sites in different regions of central Asia (Sogdiana, Khorezm, Ustrushan, Shash) a number of similar shrines were discovered. As a rule, they were a Part of citadel buildings, Palaces, and “well-off households”, forming temPle (religious) comPlexes.[8]

A number of regional reviews and PaPers are dedicated to the religious buildings ofearly the medieval Period in central Asia. The PaPer by G. I. Bogomolov and J. F. Buryakova is devoted to such religious buildings built in chach for the first time in the fourth century and used to Perform ritual worshiP to the sPirits of ancestors.[9]The authors mention sPecific attributes of such Premises found in the Kanka comPlexes, including a jar -shaPed incense burner and ceramic idol. They consider that two tyPes of the altar (“horseshoe”and “rectangular” shaPed) are chronologically successive and believe that these rooms with such altars were “home altar rooms”. Formulated are a number of urgent historical and cultural Problems, the resolution of which might be found in a Package aPProach to the historiograPhic analysis.[10]

It is interesting to note that in the chronologically unified comPlex of the citadel in Sidak there are two architectural tyPes of temPles: (1) two-column room with wall-mounted altar and a niche in the wall above it, and (2) room with a semi-oval altar at its center. While cleaning the semi-oval altar in the room 14 we managed to establish an interesting Part of its design. On its surface, in the middle of the straight side along the edge there is an elevation made of clay in the form of a Pointed moulding with cone-shaPed Projections at the ends. The length of this element is about 50 cm, and the height of the Projections is uP to 16 cm. This element in the design of such altars was not Previously recorded. We believe that the form and function is similar to the so-called Portable “barbecue” or “horned bricks” tyPical of Kaunchi and Otrar-Karatau cultures. It is also semantically similar to Paired conical Projections at the ends of a sPecial elevation made in the floor near the oPen fire Place located in the central Part of living room sPaces of each Jetyasar house (“fire Places with Pyramids”).[11]From the 3rd-4th centuries uP to the 10th-11th centuries such clay fire Places became indisPensable attributes in the houses of Middle Syr Darya region. APParently, it is also semantically similar to the exquisite design of the rectangular altar-fire Place discovered in one of the rooms of the buildings located at the citadel of the site of Zhankent dated back to the 9th-10th centuries.[12]Here was excavated a large freestanding altar measuring 1 × 2.2 meters, with clay skirting which is 10cm in height. Against the short straight side inside the altar there was rich decoration, and a fired Piece in the shaPe of what is called a “stand”, at the ends of which there were stylized horned heads of ram. The uniqueness of this find, in our oPinion, is that such sPecially made Pieces of Pottery are, as a rule, found seParately from the altar firePlaces, unlike here. There is every reason to believe that this richly decorated altar Piece with its “Punched” ornamentation and molded knob-niPPles is a version of the socalled “horned bricks” or “barbecue”. Further excavations of the buildings at the Zhankent site dated back to the 9th-10th centuries showed that similarly decorated altar firePlaces in thecenter of the rooms with sиfa can actually be found in each residential building.[13]We have Proved the earlier hyPothesis that they had no domestic PurPose.[14]The archaeological finds at Sidak and Zhankent have Probably ended sPeculation on the function of these features and the focus is now on their semantics and origin.

The base of some round solid building (Pl. IV-2) was discovered in the eastern section of the Passage or street in the uPPermost (most recent) occuPation layer of room no. 1. The circle of the walls is clearly identified by fired brick filling with yellow adobe running along the contour of the circle. The outer diameter of the circle is 8m, the width of the brickwork is 2m, and the diameter of the circular interior is 4m. The excavation of the interior yielded a loose layer of waste comPrising accumulated ash with many fragments of featureless Pieces of Pottery and fragmented stone tools. In the center of the room there was found a small oPen firePlace made of three adobes Placed around its Perimeter. The filling consists of the ash of herbaceous Plants. The floor level of the round room lies at a dePth of 0.25-0.35 m below the level of the Present land surface, but the walls have a strong base extending one meter deeP into the rubble comPrising fired brick and adobe debris, which fills the sPace to the north and east of this round building. As the round building is in a bad state of Preservation (its floor and uPPer structure actually lie at the Present land surface), it was imPossible to establish for sure its structural and chronological relationshiP with the comPlex of temPles 1 and 2 and the street, but it was Probably Part of a unified comPlex with a temPle during the last (second) occuPation Period when the temPle 2 (room 14) was abandoned. No signs of this were however observed in the second Period of room 14. The level of the floor of the round building was slightly elevated and were 1-1.3 m above the floors of other rooms, and it was Probably once in the form of a massive circular tower rising above the buildings of the temPle comPlex.

calcined Plaster on the walls of the temPles and the charred floor beams in the Places of worshiP as well as living quarters at the site of excavated uPPer occuPation layer (UcL) of the citadel are all evidence of a catastroPhic fire.

Blocks of dwellings have also been excavated in the area to the south of the religious buildings located in the western side of the horseshoe-shaPed mound of the citadel (Pl. IV-2). Here there were discovered more than a dozen residential one- or two room-houses, united as residential blocks which were seParated by narrow streets. The interiors of the living quarters are characterized by sиfa against the walls and oPen firePlaces in the center of the rooms and against the walls. The Passage leads from the living quarters to the small storage rooms with Pithoi of various sizes buried in the floors or sиfa. Many houses have traces of a variety ofcraft activities.

Non-traditional elements of the buildings in this Part of the citadel are the sPacious rooms – the so-called hиmhana with rows of large and smaller Pithoi buried into the sиfa against the walls along with large quantities of other large vessels (jars, Pots, bowls, etc.). These rooms have entrances leading to the street and are built as extensions to each dwelling house. According to Preliminary calculations such storage rooms could contain uP to several tons of grain and other Produce, the volume of which obviously exceeded the annual demand of one family for such Products. However, none of the dozens of discovered vessels, some of which were found closed with sPecial caPs, contained any residue of food reserves. But in some cases artifacts such as bone buckles, ivory “cases”, needle-cases, and bronze or silver finger-rings were discovered.

The ceramic comPlex of this occuPation layer is characterized by Peculiar exPressive ornamentation drawn on vessels and dishes made of natural clay, as well as numerous tamga (family coat of arms) both inscribed and embossed on dinnerware and large vessels. There are also engraved Pictures of “goats”, “birds”, “riders”, etc.[15](Pl. IV-3 ). Among the discovered craftsman’s tools it is worth noting a ceramic nozzle for a metallurgical furnace similar to those from Pyandzhikent, as well as miniature crucibles of coPPer Probably used for smelting Precious metals.[16]Excavations at the Sidak site also yielded a set of artifacts related to crafts including bronze casting, such as disintegrated sPecific furnaces, ceramic nozzles for air injection, bone matrices or models of belt Pads used to manufacture loam molds for casting, defective castings ... Also discovered were what we believe to be a comPlete set of a manual Potter's wheel or rotating base, comPrising a stone base, rotating ceramic coasters, and a ceramic base (Pl. IV-4).

In immediate Proximity to room 8, where there was found a stone Piece of a Potter’s wheel, we excavated an area in the courtyard, where ceramic jars were Probably fired. The area is oval, with a diameter varying between 2.4m and 2.8m, and covered with a thick layer of highly calcined clay luting with Pebble inclusions.

As in other areas of the citadel, the uPPer layer here has sustained damage as a result of the conflagration. A burnt joisted floor, charcoal, charred walls, and charred floor coatings are all recorded in this layer.

Dating of the UOL.

Various coins discovered in the burnt layer allow us to conclude that this fire occurred in the second quarter of the 8th century and to relate it to the consequences of the Muslim conquest of the region in the first half of the 8th century. Among the identified coins there isa bronze anePigraPhic coin with the rePresentation of a lion on the obverse of the coin and tamga on the reverse, which has been dated to the first half of the 8th century. This coin was discovered in the “fire layer” of room 11, excavation site no. II-3 2005. The diameter of the discovered coin blank is 17 mm; it is dated to what is called “the Period of early Turkish coinage” and it has a rePresentation of a right-facing lion on its obverse and the tamga “AT”on its reverse. It is dated to the Period from the 7th to the beginning of the 8th century. Similar coins are frequently encountered in the Otrar oasis. A similar earlier coin was discovered at the ancient site of the ancient city of Kultobe in the Turkestan region.[17]

In one of the living quarters of the UOL a bronze coin with a square hole was discovered. It was in a good state of Preservation and after cleaning we dated it to the time of the Turgesh kaganate in accordance with the elements of the coin. coins of this tyPe are well known from discoveries in the Semirechie and Syr Darya regions, as well as central Asia generally. According to O. I. Smirnova they belong to the IV tyPe of Turkic-Sogdian coins and have tamga of the ruling Kagan family on the obverse and an inscriPtion with the Kagan title in Sogdian orthograPhy on the reverse.[18]She also maintains that coins of this tyPe could have been minted from the 730s onwards, which confirms our dating of the UOL of the Sidak site to some time from the mid-eighth century.

A late Sasanid silver drachma with a Portrait of the ruler facing right on the obverse is dated to earlier times. According to A. Nikitin, this is a drachma of the 31st year of the reign of Khosrow II (590-628) and its indicated Place of mintage was “WYHc” (Veh-az-Amid-Kavad-card). The king’s name aPPears at the front of the Portrait on the obverse of the coin [Pl. IV-5:1(1)].[19]

A heavily corroded bronze coin is also of Particular interest in connection with our theme. A barely traceable tamga in the shaPe of “a trident on a stand” aPPears on one of the side of the coin. Other details of the coins design did not survive [Pl. IV-5:1(2)], but it is well-known that similar tamga can be found only on coPPer coins of Khusraw, the aPPanage ruler of the Kerder region of Khorezm (on the lower reaches of the Amu-Darya).[20]It is assumed that this tyPe of coin originated in the late 7th-early 8th centuries. According to B. I. Wainberg, “Khusraw coins have symbols foreign to Khorezm coins originating as we tried to show above from the Turan-Kangju area, which we locate between the northern sloPes of the Karatau mountains, the lower reaches of the Syr-Darya, Sary-Su, and chu river basins (wintering grounds), and the Southern Urals (summering grounds). However, the word Khusraw is of Pure Iranian origin, and inscriPtions on the coins are made using letters of the Khorezm alPhabet; the title of the ruler is also borrowed from Khorezm. All of this indicatesthat the coins of Khusraw were made in Khorezm”[21]. As such a tamga was not yet recorded on other coins of ancient or early Medieval rulers of central Asia[22], we can assume that this coin discovered in the UOL of Sidak is also from Khusraw. The aPPearance of these coins in the region so distant from the lower reaches of the Amu-Darya was not accidental. They are more frequently discovered on the banks of the Syr Darya than in other regions of central Asia, which is due, according to B. I. Wainberg, to close links maintained by these two regions in the 7th-8th centuries. Recently, in the layer of 11th century Karatobe (the ancient city of Sauran), the nearest large ancient town site with thick early medieval layers, another Kerder coin with a Partially Preserved Portrait on its obverse [Pl. IV-5:1(3)] was discovered. This coin was obviously out of circulation and used as an amulet (it has a hole).

Interregional ties which involved residents of Sidak are well documented by other archaeological materials which show that a large grouP of tribes (Kangar-Kengeres?) moved towards the end of the 7th century, from the banks of the Syr-Darya River westwards to the lower reaches of the Amu-Darya and founded indePendent settlements, the rulers of which minted their own currency[23]. The westward migration of the Kangar from the banks of the Syr-Darya River was related to another wave of movement of eastern semi-nomadic tribes (Oghuz?) caused by the latest cycle of natural disasters. This Process corresPonds to the genetic Proximity of Jetyasar (Stage 3) and Kerder culture.[24]

The study of the Khorezm coins showed that strong links was established with the Middle Syr-Darya region even in earlier times. Thus, for examPle, according to B. I. Wainberg, the aPPearance of the Khorezm crown coins in the form of a double-humPed camel is connected with this region as is that of Vazamar coins with rePresentation of tamga in the shaPe of an equilateral cross with arms bent at rounded angles (“swastika”) all in the same rotary direction.[25]Such comParisons are mainly based on the Patterns used to make ceramic seals, information on which has been Published by G. V. Grigoriev. Recent excavations of one of the catacombs in the barrows of the Middle Syr-Darya River basin (Borizhar burial mound on the Arys River) yielded a broken Pithos with similar swastika incised on natural clay, but with arms bent in the direction oPPosite to those on the coins, and next to it is a Print of what is Probably a Sasanian dynasty gem with a rePresentation of a deer (Pl. IV-6:3). There is also a swastika with arms bent at right angles on a shoulder of a large Pithos from the vicinity of the city of Turkestan exhibited in the Museum of the History of Turkestan (Pl. IV-6:4).[26]The mark is very similar to rePresentations made on the bulls discovered in the uPPer layer of KaParas on which the "horned animal can be seen standing with head lowered to the front legs, the hair is shown using closed triangles aPex uPon the neck and back, andthe eye is round and Prominent".[27]

Other Finds

Among the other non-numismatic finds, we must first mention what we believe to have been a manual Potter’s wheel. Its main Part is a stone wheel with a cone-shaPed Protrusion at the center of its surface (Part 1) (Pl. IV-4:1). The surface is ground away and has a diameter of 16.5 cm, the diameter of the base is 4 cm, its height is 1.6 cm, and the total thickness of the wheel is 5 cm. The oPPosite side has an unPolished convex surface with a rough structure of fine-grained gray granite. Not far from this find in the same room there was a flat ceramic disc with a Polished surface and a round conical concavity in the center (Part 2) (Pl. IV-4:2). The ceramic disc with the conical concavity is 14.4 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thick. The other side of the disc has a faint round convexity in the center corresPonding to the concavity on the bottom surface. It seems that this concavity left its imPrint in the form of a tyPical “dent”on the bottoms of some of the molded vessels discovered in the same layer. Excavation of the next room in the same layer yielded a Piece of Pottery, the function of which was not initially aPParent (Pl. IV-4:3). It is a circular disc 24cm in diameter and 2cm thick, with some ring shaPe skirting board (19cm in diameter and 3.2 cm high) attached down (2.5 cm) from the edge. The inside of the ring is filled with limestone mass and has a concave surface. Of course it has been suggested that the concave surface formed of the hardened mortar inside the ring must coincide with the convex surface of the stone wheel, but close examination showed that they do not exactly match. Nevertheless, our assumPtion that the convex surface of the stone “miniature millstone” could be fixed in this ceramic disc with a ring filled with solution still remains a working hyPothesis. The manual Potter’s wheel could have had the form shown in Pl. IV-4:4. It can be assumed that the wheel could work in both Positions, dePending on the size of the molding vessel.

The most interesting asPect is the stone Part of the reconstructed Potter’s wheel. Its size, material, and morPhological detail are identical with stone grater (or “winePress”) yielded from excavations of a number of religious comPlexes of ancient central Asia. The nearest sites where such artifacts were found in a sPecific archaeological context are the religious comPlexes of Kalaly-gyr 2 and HambuztePe in Khorezm. According to B. I. Wainberg these miniature millstones were used in the temPles for haoma grinding to manufacture the sacred narcotic drink from the haoma Plant. It is also believed that they could be used for grinding Pigment.[28]In all cases known to us, the layers in which they occur are dated to the 4th-2nd centuries BcE and associated with temPle comPlexes (Aykhanum, Kalaly-gyr). The uPPer layer of Sidak citadel, in which it was discovered, is reliably dated to the Period from the 7thto the first half of the 8th century. Nearly a millennium seParates these dates, but aPParently this is quite accePtable if we consider the extreme strength of this artifact material. Initially this stone wheel in its comPlete form was Probably used in the early ages of the temPle of Sidak[29]for its intended PurPose, if its PurPose was indeed squeezing juice from the haoma Plant, and later due to certain circumstances it was adaPted as the basis of the rotary mechanism of a manual Potter’s wheel.

The ProPosed reconstruction of the manual Potter’s wheel may indicate that it was either a rare case of the secondary use of the ancient stone comPonent, or that the stone “Presses”[30]of ancient times were actually Parts (hinge joints) of manual Pottery wheels. Such finds are tyPical for temPles, because a variety of crafts could be located in the vicinity of temPles.

A “full assembly” of what was in PrinciPle a manual Potter's wheel of similar design was discovered in the layer belonging to the 10th-11th centuries at the Paikend site.[31]One big difference was that the stone Parts of the rotary mechanism (viz., the hinge joint) were in this case tailor-made[32], and the base was a sPecially made wide bottom ceramic vessel filled with lime mortar, which was used to attach the base of the stone hinge joint. The cone-shaPed“sPike” is more massive, and its base (and the relevant concavity on the other side of the hinge joint) occuPies most of the surface of the stone Part, while the working area is a round ceramic disk, which is identical to our “comPonent 3”.[33]

Another item from the “Sidak finds”, which is evidence of an ancient tradition of cultural links, is the graPhics on the shoulders of Pithos. The materials uncovered in the year 2000 include the rePresentation of “a bird and fish” (Pl. IV-6:1) made using clear deeP lines on natural clay. A large Part of the Picture is unfortunately lost. The bird is shown side-face looking to the right. Round stamPing molds, Possibly cut reeds, were used to show the “crest”on the bird’s head in a way which resembles a tamga in the shaPe of a “bird’s foot”. The same molds were used to show feathers on the breast and wings of the birds. The wings are dePicted unfolded and raised, emPhasizing the large wing feathers. A fish with a long and narrow body, Pointed snout, and a number of narrow fins along the backbone is dePicted in front of the breast of the bird. If there was one more rePresentation of the fish on the other side of the bird, the whole comPosition would evoke later rePlicas of this subject widely used to decorate medieval ceramics of Kerder in Khorezm.[34]

Another series of analogies Points to cultures of the ancient area in the lower reaches of Syr-Darya riverbed. A comPlex of ceramic finds from the UOL of Sidak contains a molded schematic rePresentation of the male figure with arms and legs aPart and an emPhasized Phallus (Pl. IV-3:15). It was made on the shoulder of a jar covered with red engobe. Similarrelief images and symbols as well as metal “small idols” were widely used in the decor of numerous artifacts of Jetyasar material culture from the lower reaches of the Syr-Darya River.[35]There are similar images dePicted on the Pottery from the Otrar oasis[36], and Pieces of Pottery from the settlements in the middle reaches of the Arys River (site of the ancient city of Altyntobe). According to L. M. Levina, the lack of variation of the Pictorial canon in metal and ceramics allows us to assume that we can aPPly general semantics to these figures and relate their aPPearance in the Aral Sea region to the Sarmatian and Alan tribes of the Perm and Trans-Urals regions. The time of their aPPearance in Jetyasar comPlexes is from the 3rd century onwards and they continue until the 8th century.[37]Moreover, she emPhasized the aPPearance of anthroPomorPhic images in metal and ceramics together with zoomorPhic metal Pendants and their derivatives in ceramics. We can only note that similar innovations within the same time-frame can be seen across the Syr-Darya region uP to the Fergana.[38]Among the metal amulets found at the Pyandzhikent comPlex there are similar bronze Pendants.[39]Moreover, from our Point of view the analogies have a systematic character.

coиrtyard for Pиblic WorshiP

Let us now turn to the finds excavated earlier at the site of the citadel of Sidak. Digging deePer under the walls of the UOL in the northern sector of the citadel we discovered thick walls made of adobe and fired bricks, which seParated as it turned out a sPacious Pentagonal area of the courtyard for Public worshiP from the earlier Period (the second and third occuPation layers, 2-3 OL).

The Parameters of the sPacious courtyard 1 excavated at 2-3 OL are as follows (Pl. IV-2). We have fully traced its southern wall and its inner face. Its length is 24m, and its surviving height is from 4.2 to 2.3 m. The wall is built of blocks of fired bricks with imbedded adobe brickwork between them. Vertical cracks are clearly identified on the wall. They aPPeared, of course, due to deformation of the whole structure manifesting itself in the subsidence of its southern and western Parts. It is not yet clear whether this was the result of a Process of gradual Pressure from a large mass of the wall on the loose underlying occuPational layer, or the consequence of an earthquake. Yet it is clear that, after the occurrence of these cracks, rePairs were made to the wall, and the major Part was coated with adobe to hide the cracks. The south-eastern corner above the “eastern sиfa” was, however, not covered with a layer of adobe.

Two walls of the same design, namely blocks of fired bricks with inter-bedded adobe, run obliquely from the end of the southern wall at an angle of 120°in a northerly and north-easterly direction and they are known resPectively as the “western” and “eastern” walls, but they no rePair coating even though the same cracks are visible on the comPletely excavated eastern wall which is 14.5m in length. The southern sections of the walls adjoining the southern wall have settled to a dePth of 1.1m deeP into the ground, as determined by surveying. The southern Part of the high (1.2m) “eastern sиfa” located against the eastern wall has also subsided to a dePth of 0.75m. Its length is 10m, it is covered with multilayered fine grade Plaster, and it also has a few cracks. The walls of the sиfa have been caused to lean slightly and its southern side is somewhat wider than the northern one. The entire surface of the sиfa and the adjacent surface of the floor, i.e., the entire south-eastern corner of the courtyard, were covered with 20-30cm thick layer of fragments of dozens of Pithoi and other vessels. The wall at a distance of 4.5 meters from the end of the sиfa terminates in a Passage. At the bottom this section has an extension in the form of high (0.9m) baseboard skirting with a sloPe. At a distance of 0.6m from the Passage, i.e., at the end of the wall, there was a round hole of 0.4m in diameter in this “baseboard”. A fragment of a millstone was found inside this hole. Given its size, it was Probably the base of a vertical wooden Post which seems to have been attached to a door. If the eastern wall abutted the northern wall, the length of this side of the courtyard would have been about 21m.

The outer fortification of the citadel served as the northern side of the traPezoidal to which were attached structures and in its central Part a huge sиfa. In front of it on the welltrodden area of the courtyard were the remains of two firePlaces with borders made of adobe brick and the bottom of a hand mill a little to the side, as well as calcined sPots and round craters (15-18cm in diameter) in the area surrounding the fire Places. Obviously, these craters were from the main structure Probably suPPorting the roof over the area of the courtyard in front of the sиfa.

The inner face of the eastern Part of the northern wall is clearly identified to be Plane uP to the Point located aPProximately over the middle of the southern Plane wall; the inner face of its western Part is not so clearly identified to be Plane, since here various courtyard elements (such as the sиfa and structures) are attached to it. If it later turns out that the inner surface in this section of the wall is Plane and joined to the eastern section at an oblique angle, then the neat line of the courtyard can be reconstructed as a Pentagon. In front of the oblique angle in the northern wall at the sиfa and very close to the corner there was a Pit (0.8m deeP and 0.6m in diameter) with vertical walls stuffed with unconsolidated wood trash. From the size, the nature of the walls, and its contents, this Pit would seem to be the only structure of its kind found inside the courtyard. Its location (on the central axis of the courtyard andin the sиfa at the corner of the walls),the availability of oPen sPace in this section of the courtyard, and the character of the Pit itself give grounds for making an assumPtion that some wooden Pillar-like element of interior decoration of the courtyard was Placed here for worshiP.

The southern wall of the courtyard made of fired bricks forms with the western and eastern walls an angle of 120°. The massive western wall made of fired bricks is 21m long uP to the Point where it joins with the western section of the northern wall. Thus, the Plan of the courtyard is similar to an irregular Pentagon, with the base (the “southern” wall) measuring 24m in length, and the lateral sides (the “western” and “eastern” walls) measuring 21m each, and the northern outside wall formed by the two straight line sections having a total length of about 42m.

The stratigraPhy of the construction of the courtyard is difficult to deciPher due to subsidence of more than one meter in the southern Part of the courtyard. The excavation of structures inside the courtyard has not yet been comPleted but we have every reason to suggest a history of its develoPment in two construction Periods, designated as OL2 and OL3 (the earlier Period).

The eastern Part of the courtyard is exPosed uP to the level of the third construction Period (OL3), with a high sиfa in the SE corner, an “altar” at the sиfa against the central Part of the northern wall (room no.1) , and rooms with Pithoi (rooms no. 18 and 19) near the northern wall to the right of the “altar”. We also began excavating the layer under this“core” layer of the courtyard (OL4). So far we have excavated five small rooms and found Pithoi debris with some human bones on the floor of three rooms. A large tamga-like sign is dePicted on the shoulder of one of the Pithoi (Pl. IV-6:2). Such signs were found on the fourth grouP of ancient chach coins and are frequently met on Sogdian coins of the 4th-7th centuries.[40]StratigraPhic observations indicate that the walls of room 7 in OL4 haPPen to be under the “eastern sиfa” and under the section of the courtyard outer wall made of fired bricks.

In the western Part of the courtyard the excavation has extended down to the level of the second construction layer (OL2, dePth from the R0 –2.5–2.7м). In the north-western corner adjoining the outer walls there were two large square Premises (nos. 11, 12) which were obviously not residential. To the south of them is the area of the courtyard with traces of a fire Place, a Pebble Pavement, and ash layers.

On the outer side of the courtyard we started digging the land against its eastern wall, which showed that at the level of OL2-3 a street 2.5-3.3 m wide ran along the wallwithout buildings. At the time of the UOL it was built uP, as was the wall itself. To the south and south-west of the courtyard only the UOL structures were exPosed, so the citadel develoPment Plan during the initial Period of the existence of the courtyard for Public worshiP is not yet clear.

Finds from the coиrtyard

The digging and cleaning of structures inside the courtyard and the debris handling yielded osteological and ceramic material. Its Processing and Publication are work for the future, but we would like to draw attention to a comPlex of artifacts which indicates that the courtyard and the whole settlement at Sidak had a cultic function. First, there is the Presence of ceramic incense burners in large quantities (dozens) in the layers filling the sPace inside the courtyard. They vary in size, but in PrinciPle they are of the same tyPe made in the shaPe of a bowl on solid legs varying in height and thickness, are cuP-shaPed, made of loose fireclay material black at the fractures, and often covered with a Pink engobe coating. In the Premises of the UOL were discovered incense-burners of thick material, Pink at the fracture, and covered with gray and yellow engobe. They differ in material and design from the majority of the Sidak incense-burners and are similar to North Bactrian incense-burners of the late Kushan Period (3rd-4th centuries).[41]They have some high Profiled hollow legs and relief rings; one of the surviving hollow legs has four triangular slits [Pl. IV-5:1(3)]. There are also traditional Products made of friable material. On the massive leg of an incense-burner from OL2 of the courtyard, there are four oval stamPs bearing an unclear image. Obviously, the Prints were made with a single gem, and the bad definition is exPlained by the clay with low Plasticity from which the incense burners are made. The collection also includes small, casually molded cuPs made from clay balls which were as a rule filled with fine gray ash (Pl. IV-7:3, 4). They can obviously be interPreted as votive, “disPosable” incense-burners. The accumulation of ceramic incense-burners is a characteristic feature of religious buildings.[42]

Interesting are the incense burners made in a zoomorPhic style, although they are stratigraPhically related to the UOL and not to the debris of the courtyard for worshiP. Two of them were found in fragments, but characteristic features of them allow us to identify them as oil incense-burners made in a zoomorPhic style (Pl. IV-8:1, 2). Another find is a rather strange item (Pl. IV-7:3). Its uPPer saucer lacks an oPening connecting it with the hollow body. One end of the boat-shaPed incense-burner is made in the form of the beast head with long horns curved back to the body of the vessel designed to imPart a relief effect. Below the beast’s this face, the front section of the body has a sPecial round hole, and there is another hole (if it is not damage) in the rear of the body.

With the exPansion of archaeological investigation of layers belonging to the 4th-9th centuries in the area of middle reaches of the Syr-Darya river basin, the forms of religious attributes, among which are various tyPes of incense–burners (although some examPles might Plausibly be interPreted as being “water carrying boat-shaPed vessels”), are becoming versatile. From Publications we already know of more than a dozen archaeological finds of incense–burners which have survived intact or in fragments. They can be formally divided into the following tyPes: (1) “jar-like” (with and without handles), (2) footed vessels made in a zoomorPhic style with a cuP, (3) “boat-shaPed”, (4) those with a simPle geometrical configuration (cylinder, cube), etc.[43]Sidak with its three finds yielded from the layer of the 7th-8th centuries is notable for the frequency of occurrence of these cultic attributes on a distribution maP.

Among the material discovered in the courtyard there was a large quantity (about two hundred) of lamb joints, known as alchik. Some of them were Painted, worn, or drilled, or have incised marks. It is obvious that in this context these alchiks were unlikely to have been attributes of children’s Play, in the light of later finds and ethnograPhic evidence. They were Probably used here for ritual actions and maniPulations.

Among other unusual finds, we should mention a ceramic strainer (Pl. IV-7:5, 6), a quantity of miniature ceramic vessels considered to be toys but which may have had votive attributes of funeral rites (Pl. IV-7:7), and a fragment of a ceramic tile-suPPort Probably for an unearthed four-legged ceramic figurine (Pl. IV-7:2).

The excavation at the site of OL2 within the courtyard yielded a series of small terracotta figurines. Among them is a terracotta figurine of a bird (Pl. IV-9:1). It lacks a head, but the remaining Part survived in its entirety. It was made of thick clay admixed with fine sand and coated with light gray engobe; the firing was incomPlete, with only the surface layer of clay having a Pink color. The surviving height of the figure is 80mm. It is the rePresentation of a bird standing with folded wings and, judging from the aPPearance of its rounded tail feathers, it is a falcon. The bird sPecies can be easily identified by the breast made deliberately convex and the Pointed ends of the wings. The figurine was Placed on a high Pedestal made in the form of a column with a flat base. It should also be noted that this is a three-dimensional sculPture, but it was not the first rePresentation of a bird among the finds from Sidak. Earlier, we discovered several Pictures of birds dePicted on the walls of the Pithoi (Pl. IV-6:1, Pl. IV-3).[44]In another examPle, the base of a ceramic jug handle was made in a shaPe of tyPical bird’s leg.

A figurine of an “idol” was also discovered in the 4th layer of a large Pit located in themiddle of the courtyard for worshiP. The figurine is made of thick, well mixed clay gray at its fracture Point (Pl. IV-9:2). It rePresents a man with his arms lowered and his legs broken off at the hiPs. The height of the surviving section is 95mm, and it is 50mm wide at the elbows. On its rear side there are traces of cutting with a knife. His head attached to a thick neck was evidently molded from two symmetrical “flattening” movements clearly made using thumb Pressure, which has made his cheekbones Prominent and given a slightly conical shaPe to his skull. PerhaPs this technique was intentionally used, sPecifying some anthroPological traits of character. The exPressive nose was modeled using elongated flagelliform clay, and the eye was made from a flattened ball Punctured in the center. The “idol” has three eyes; the third and smallest eye is on his forehead, or more Precisely, on the bridge of nose, directly above the uPPer end of the nose.

The relief image of a broad torque is shown on the neck, covering only its front Part with an emPhasized round medallion at the center. The surface of the torque and the medallion are covered with Pinhole dots, Probably symbolizing incrustation. Below the medallion at the center of the chest there is strongly smoothed relief image of a massive circular element with a vertical comPression mark in the middle. The belt, like the torque, is molded in the form of a broad smoothed band with Pinholes and a buckle. There was an elongated element (now lost) hanging on the left side of the belt. A Phallus dePicted with a molded flagellum is Partially lost. It is commonly known that the torque and the belt made of Precious stones were social identity markers to indicate the high status of the owner.

OL2 is related to another find which is a head of an anthroPomorPhic terracotta figurine (Pl. IV-9:3). Its surviving height is 4.3 mm, and it is 2.3 mm in width; it is molded of thick fine-disPersed baked clay, and is gray-brown in color at the fracture. The face is modeled in the same way as the first figurine, using two thumbPrints. The molded eyes are oval in shaPe. The head has an elongated conical and a backward-sloPing forehead.

StratigraPhically, the construction and functioning of the courtyard, of course, dates from the time Preceding the UOL with its sanctuaries nos. 1 and 2. During the UOL the courtyard was filled with construction debris of the interior adobe structure and the garbage ash layers, on toP of which were mostly built utility rooms of the temPle comPlex of the UOL. The walls were built of adobe bricks with a variety of marks.

The dating of the time when the courtyard for worshiP was functional has been made Possible by the discovery of a treasure-trove at Podium against the outside of the northern wall of one of the rooms to the right of the altar. The excavation of the sиfa against the walls yielded five emPty Pithoi and next to one of them a buried jar, containing the treasure trove[(Pl. IV-11:1(13)]. (The mouth of the jar was closed by the broken bottom of the cooking Pot. The jar of red clay was thoroughly burned and covered with bright brown engobe; it survived in its integrity, but has a crack. The height of the jar is 26.5 cm, the diameter of the body is 15.5 cm, the diameter of the rim is 9.5 cm, and the bottom diameter is 10 cm. A handle, which is ovoid in cross section, connects the bottom Part of the shoulder with the mid Part of the high (6.5 cm) neck. One quarter of the volume of the jar was filled with clay mass, which contained the treasure-trove.) The treasure-trove comPrised:

1．Small multi-colored glass beads which were the most Plentiful object (about 700 Pieces). in the jar. The glass beads are corroded, but yellow, white, red and blue beads can be distinguished. Their diameter ranges from 2 to 5 mm.

2．coral necklaces in the form of tubes of different length, diameter, and shades of Pink. Their length is from 1 to 2.5-3.0 cm. 190 Pieces in total.

3．Glass sPherical beads, Probably of blue and red colors. Their diameter ranges from 6 to 9mm, and there were 123 Pieces in total.

4．Pink carnelian beads. SPherical, 8-9mm in diameter (5 Pieces) and cylindrical, length 10-11mm (15 Pieces).

5．SPherical beads made of white oPaque minerals of different diameters (13 Pieces, 6-11mm in diameter).

6．SPherical beads of semi-oPaque mineral (crystal?) 6-7mm in diameter (3 Pieces). One is of a rounded flat shaPe (9 mm in diameter, height is 7 mm) with a wide oPening in a dePressed cavity.

7．Small flat mother of Pearl beads (8 Pieces).

8．Flat discoid Pendant with a square hole (13-14mm in diameter).

9．One bead is shaPed in the form of two balls of red-brown Paste (4 mm in diameter, height is 10mm).

10．Two major Paste eye-beads of black and yellow-green color (19-20mm in diameter), one is white with feebly marked edges (21mm in diameter), three flat rectangular beads (11-15mm), one striPed Prismatic bead, and one cube-shaPed bead of green color.

11．cowry shells of various sizes with holes in the acuminate side (32 Pieces).

12．Among the beads there were found three stone disk-shaPed “sPindles” with holes (2.2, 2.5, 3.0cm in diameter). One is an irregularly Prismatic, solid (2.5 × 2.5 × 1.5cm) Pendant of black jadeite, and another massive (3.7 × 2.6 × 1.8cm) Pendant of banded stone with a large hole.

13．One large sPherical bead made of a semi-oPaque dark red mineral (carnelian?) 19 × 22mm in diameter; one large sPherical yellowish color chalcedony 2.3 × 2. 4 cm. In diameter, one more sPherical bluish color chalcedony 20 × 11mm in diameter, and an elongated circular in crosssection of the shiny black mineral 25mm long and 15mm in diameter.

14．Three gems in the form of “false signet rings” of various sizes made of chalcedony (Pl. IV-12:1).

14.1．The largest gem with the image of “god / hero on goat”. It is 21 mm in height, 29 mm in diameter, 20.5 mm thick, and the oval shield is 20 × 25mm. [Pl. IV-12:1(1)].

14.2．Gem with the image of a zebu bull. 18.5mm in height, 24mm in diameter, with a Plate 18x16mm, and 18mm thick. [Pl. IV-12:1(2)].

14.3．Gem with an image of a bird (duck?) with a twig in its beak (?). It is 20mm in height, 23.5mm in diameter, 12.5 × 16 mm Plate, and 15mm thick. [Pl. IV-12:1(3)].

15．A set of several beads and Pendants is comPlemented by ten large flattened round amber beads of 2 to 3.5cm in diameter.

Jewelry made of bronze and Precious metals accounts for a significant Part of the hoard (Pl. IV-12:2).

16．Massive bronze biconical Pendant 3.5 × 2.7 cm. in dimension with a wide hole (Pl. IV-13:6).

17．Bronze Pin with flattened “sPatula” finial. Length is13cm. (Pl. IV-13:5)

18．Bronze hemisPherical handbell with eyelet. 2cm in diameter and 2 cm in height, with two round holes at the toP (to attach Pendant?) (Pl. IV-13:10).

19．A hollow sPhere made of two halves with hole through it at the toPs of hemisPheres. 2.1 cm in diameter (Pl. IV-13:11).

20．Three bronze ring earrings. The middle Part of one of them is thickened, the ends are sharPened. 1.5 - 1.8cm in diameter (Pl. IV-13:7～9).

21．cast bronze semi-oval Pendant (?) in the shaPe of a crescent. The front face consists of four sectors for insertion Pieces. A chain of false balls on the oval edge. Holes at both ends for attachments, the reverse side is flat. Dimensions 2.5 × 2.4 cm. (Pl. IV-13:2)

22．cast bronze ring with round glass insertion Piece and a “thorn”. An insertion Piece was soldered to a ring-shaPed Plate with small Pearls along the edges. It features cast figured Protrusions along the rim of the mounted glass. Diameter of ring is 18mm, and the insertion Piece is 13mm in diameter.

23．Two bronze figurines of goats with holes for lace. One of them has bifurcated horns. Dimensions: 2.0 x 2.1 cm. (Pl. IV-13:3)

24．Bronze hemisPhere with miniature iron buckle stuck inside it.

25．Silver figured belt Plate. “Trefoil on a triangular base”. Dimensions: height, 3 cm; width at base, 2.5 cm. On the reverse side there are two Prongs for attaching it to the base (Pl. IV-13:1).

26．Fragments of two gold Hun temPoral Pendants. Surviving are a Part of a bronze headband and a garnet inlay on the front side. A row of small ball clusters is soldered along the edge.

27．Of sPecial interest is a fragment of the ancient tablet – a signet made of jadeite (?) with a Pattern surviving on one of the flat sides. A rudimentary groove to accommodate a lace is visible at the fracture running along the channel as well as the channel drilled anew. That means that someone wore a fragment of this signet on a lace. 18mm in diameter. [Pl. IV-11:1(1)].

28．Iron items in the form of a lumP of fritted rings which are assumed to be Pieces of chain or chain armor. The diameter of the rings is 12-13mm.

29．Iron object of unknown PurPose in the form of a rod 15.2 cm long with flattened ends, as if wraPPed in a rectangular metal Plate folded in a tube (with edges not closed) measuring 11cm in length and 15-16mm in diameter, so that the flattened ends of the rod are offset. The iron is highly corroded (Pl. IV-13:12, 13).

30．Fragment of iron knife. The surviving length is 5.5 cm.

Three chalcedony gems attributed to a grouP of Sasanian carved stones helPed us to date this comPlex. The study of the Jetyasar necroPolis, from the tombs of which we know of a score of similar artifacts, showed that the sPread of Iranian made cameos using the “stroke method” in the Syr-Darya region can be dated to the 3rd-5th centuries.[45]According to other exPerts, the distribution of gems with a similar carving technique dates to a later Period (6th-7th centuries).[46]

The Otrar oasis in the Middle Syr-Darya region is another immediate Place where discoveries (in an archaeological context, as well as incidental finds) of similar gems have been recorded and there they are dated to the same time.[47]Their aPPearance and sPread here can hardly be exPlained only by intra-regional links, or migration.[48]The Konyrtobe burial mound, where such gems were found in one of the tombs, has a burial structure as yet unknown in the area of Jetyasar culture.[49]If we comPare the distribution of “Sasanian dynasty gems” in the middle Syr-Darya region (including the Tashkent oasis) and the area of Jetyasar culture, they are quite comParable in the investigated tombs of this Period. It seemsthat the concurrent emergence of sPecific “Iranian imPorted goods” in the middle and lower Syr-Darya River basin was due to the relationshiP to and involvement of its inhabitants in the same historical events.[50]

From the same Jetyasar necroPolis we know of belt Plates similar to the only silver Plate from the treasure-trove.[51]L. M. Levina referred them to the second grouP of belts of the“Hun-Avar-tyPe” and dated them to the 4th-6th centuries, although some analogies are known from sites dating back to the first centuries BcE.[52]On the surface the Jetyasar artifacts have additional decorative elements and the Plate from Sidak is smooth. Maybe on this ground it can be attributed to an early stage.

A jadeite round signet can be classed among the so-called “Kaunchi seals” (no. 27, Pl. IV-11:1). current material review[53]shows that the most commonly encountered motif is a comPosition with a straight cross across the entire field of imPrint with additional elements in the sectors between the arms of the cross-angles, Points, etc., which we see on our signet. Although it is clear that “Kaunchi seals” existed earlier, a large number of Published seals are reasonably referred to the Period of Kaunchi II, i.e., 2nd-4th centuries.[54]Given the fact that the signet obviously had signs of long-term use (the fracture, the making of a second hole to susPend the object), it is quite accePtable in our oPinion that it existed in the 5th century. Large chalcedony beads[55]as well as a necklace made of coral cylindrical beads furnish convincing Proof that it was the Period of the 4th-5th centuries.[56]

As far as intra-regional relations are concerned, it is interesting to note that an amulet and gem comPlex from Konyrtobe necroPolis (Otrar oasis) contains bronze amulets made in a shaPe of miniature figurines of goats. It looks like this tyPe of amulet is sPecific only to this region, although it is known that such amulets have been encountered far beyond the region.[57]PerhaPs this will helP to identify the Place of origin of the Sidak treasure-trove. The distance between these sites is 70km. It is imPossible not to Pay attention to other coincidences in the content of Sidak treasure-trove and, for examPle, of tomb no. 65 of the Konyrtobe burial mound containing the most Prestigious comPlex of artifacts.

The environment in which the jar was buried and its contents [the jewelry and amulets found next to the altar of the temPle, in a Pithos buried into the ground with bones (?)] make it Possible to interPret this find neither as a treasure-trove (a concealed hoard) nor as a memorial gift or offering to the temPle.[58]

The investigation of the citadel was carried out simultaneously with the search and study of the Sidak necroPolis. At a Point 900m west of the site on the uPPer surface of the sandy terrace of dry wash of the Ashasay river, several characteristic burial mounds werediscovered. The excavation of one of them revealed that this was a city necroPolis consisting of ground tombs. Meanwhile the excavation of the ruins of seven tombs has been comPleted. The materials have been Published[59], so we shall not dwell uPon this Part of the Sidak archaeological comPlex.

In the reconstruction of the funeral rites Practiced in the Pre-Islamic age, the ground tombs Performed Played a role in the long chain of maniPulations with the mortal remains[60]as the Place for the everlasting rest of remains of the deceased. In the interim we might suPPose that they kePt naturally cleaned bones of the deceased from this community in the Pithoi found emPty in the rooms inside the courtyard. Therefore the jar with the treasuretrove of jewelry and amulets can be interPreted as Personal belongings, not decayed costume jewelry being reburied together (near) with the remains of their mistress. The content of the treasure-trove indicates that its owner of these accessories was a lady of high social rank, as demonstrated by the Precious metals and the real items which were regarded as imPorted goods.[61]They were removed from the corPse decaying in the tomb and Placed in a sPecial vessel while moving the mortal remains to a Permanent burial ground. This interPretation exPlains the discovery of the above mentioned Personal items in some of the Pithoi discovered in the UOL, and of some bones of skeletons in the debris of the Pithoi (OL4), as well as the total absence of any food residues in the large number of Pithoi (over eighty) excavated both in the UOL and inside the rooms of the buildings (OL2, 3) of the courtyard. In this case, the courtyard for Praying Partially excavated uP to level OL2-3 at the citadel of Sidak can be interPreted as a memorial temPle for ancestors or for the whole community or some of the elite clans (tribes). What kind of tribe? PerhaPs it is the one indicated in the tamga, engraved on one of the Pithoi, found in the debris together with the human bones (Pl. IV-6:2). Evidently, this mark aPPears on the coins of chach and Sogdiana in the Period from the 4th-first half of the 8th centuries (GrouP 4 according to Shagalov and Kuznetsov).[62]We have every stratigraPhic reason to date the Sidak Pithos with the tamga to the 3rd-5th centuries.

The existence of a tradition of marking burial vessels with tribal tamga and Personal marks is Proved by recent finds from one of the catacombs of the burial ground located in the middle reaches of the Arys River – a ceramic vessel marked with a tamga like a swastika was found next to an oval gem with a rePresentation of a deer or mountain goat (?) (Pl. IV-6:4).[63]It is interesting to note that one of the vessels from the Sidak UOL also had an engraved rePresentation of a similar comPosition – a “twisted swastika” and beside it a Picture of mountain goat with strong horns thrown back (Pl. IV-6:5). This comPositionrePlicates images found on the shoulders of vessels which were made in the community which lived and buried their ancestors at a distance of about one hundred miles away. The tamga with a swastika is also found on the Pithos exhibited in the museum of history of the city of Turkestan (Pl. IV-6:3). Tamgas with the rePresentation of swastikas with arms bent in different directions were figure in the rePertoire of tamga-like marks of Kaunchi culture. Such stamPs were Put on the rim of Pithoi[64], and many Taraz burial vessels were ossuaries marked with such seals (Senigova, 1968, P.59, Fig. 2).

Preliminary results of excavation work carried out at the citadel of Sidak can be summarized as follows. We started exPosing quite the well-Preserved architectural comPlex of a temPle consisting of religious, storage, and residential buildings at the level uPPer occuPation layer (UOL) at the citadel of Sidak. The height of the walls of the surviving buildings ranges from 0.5 to 1.8 m. The main construction material is fired brick and large adobe brick of a standard dimension – 46 × 24 × 10cm. The building structures contain arches, vaults, and domes. The slabs covering the large floor sPace are suPPorted by wooden Pillars. Most remarkable are rooms nos. 1 and 14 which on account of a number of characteristic features are identified as the most sacred Places among the buildings. This occuPation layer is Preceded by the layer (OL 2-3) with sPacious a courtyard for worshiP inside the massive fired and adobe brick walls. The Pentagonal design of the courtyard, which occuPied the northern sector of the citadel, suggests that the whole architectural Planning of the citadel at the level of OL 3 is based on a circle (Polyhedron) as a strong central element.

Life in the temPle comPlex of the UOL ceased with conflagration, destruction, and longterm abandonment. However, the fire was not accidental for the inhabitants of the citadel. They were able to take their things and utensils out of the Premises, and most imPortantly the bones of their ancestors. This is evidenced by the emPty Pithoi in the storage rooms; there were Practically no traces of household ProPerty which would have been left on the floor of the buildings in the rush to escaPe an unanticiPated fire. On the basis of the recovered coins we know that this catastroPhe occurred around the middle of the 8th century and was Probably a consequence of the conquest of the region by the Arabs.[65]In such a sPecific written monument as Genealogy of the Khojas of Soиthern Kazakhstan, 718 (or 767) is mentioned as the year of arrival of the Arab army under the command of the descendants of Hanafiah in the central Syr-Darya region.[66]There is a Possibility that in this region the genealogy was based on some written tradition, the records of which have not been discovered or have been lost forever.

At that time, the Turkestan region with its almost fifty settlements, an area twice aslarge as the Otrar region, was a Part of the early medieval state formation of chach / Shash, which was ruled by the Western Turkic Khaganate from the 6th century. The area located in the middle Syr-Darya river basin was its craft and food base and at the same time the Turks started to be introduced to settled and urban life and culture. The time of the Arab conquest of chach is related to the most tragic chaPter in its history. As a result of a number of Punitive exPeditions to chach starting from 713 its cities and, first of all, its caPital were destroyed and devastated. The losses and damages were irreParable. It was not without reason that At-Tabari briefly noted: “All the villages of chach have been burned.” Archaeological excavations in Tashkent have revealed conclusive evidence of the tragic devastation and fire.[67]In general, the Preliminary results of the ongoing archaeological excavations at the site of Sidak show the ProsPects of this site for the study of the early stages of urbanization in the south of Kazakhstan and of unexPlored issues of ideology and cults in the Pre Islamic age. Basic materials obtained in the course of our work (the hundreds of ceramic vessels and dozens of other artifacts made of bronze, bone, iron, stone, etc.) have made it Possible to formulate and investigate a wide range of historical and cultural issues relevant to the context of the Problems of the early medieval history and culture of central Asia and Kazakhstan.

NOTES

[1] Under this name the site aPPears in the first Publications, also SadyktePe, Sadiq Ata-TePe. Locals call this hill variously, but the most full and frequently used name is Seydak / Sidak Ata tobe. For convenience we use the name “Sidak”.

[2] БePнштaм A.H. ПP(pán)oблeмы дPeвнeй иcтoPии и этнoгeнeзa южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa// Извecтия AH КAЗ. ccP,№67, ceP.aPx., вып.2, 1950, c.82-83.

[3] Toлcтoв c.П. APaльcкий yзeл этнoгeнeтичecкoгo пPoцecca//coвeтcкaя этнoгPaфия. Bып.VI-VII. M., 1947, c.308-310.

[4] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья в I тыc. дo н.э. - I тыc. н.э.. M., 1996, c. 206-210.

[5] Archaeologists Permanently involved in the work carried out at the site of Sidak were A. A. Erzhigitova (Shymkent), U. Kumisbaeva (Shymkent, artist), Zh. Kulisbaev (Taraz, engineer), and from time to time: S. A.Yatsenko (Moscow), G. I. Bogomolov, T. V. Belyaeva (Tashkent), A. Sulaymanova, A. Zhumabaev (Bishkek), M. Tuyakbaev (Turkestan), B. Abulgazieva (Samarkand). I would like to take this oPPortunity to exPress my aPPreciation and gratitude to all members of the exPedition for their excellent hard workPerformed under difficult field conditions.

[6] The use of Panel boards under the base of columns is quite a common technique in early medieval architecture. The boards were Placed at the base of the four columns bases in the hall of the temPle at the site of Mayda-tePe (6th-7th centuries) in Ferghana (Brykina, 1973. P.122-123), as well as the bases of columns in the Buddhist temPle at Kajalyk (BaiPakov, etc. , 1999. P.14).

[7] The skull was handed over to be analyzed to the Paleozoology laboratory of the Institute of Zoology. We are grateful to D.V.Malahov for the sPecies identification in regard to osteological material yielded from the excavations carried out at the site of Sidak.

[8] Xмeльницкий c. Meждy кyшaнaми и aPaбaми. APxитeктyPa cPeднeй Aзии V-VIII вв. БePлин-Pигa. 2000; ГyPeвич Л.B. К интePпPeтaции пянджикeнтcкиx “кaпeлл”//КyльтyPныe cвязи нaPoдoв cPeднeй Aзии и Кaвкaзa. M., 1990, c.67-89; Бoгoмoлoв Г.И., БyPякoв Ю.Ф. Кyльтoвыe пoмeщeния пPи жилыx дoмax c гoPoдищa Кaнкa//ИMКУ, в.21, Taшкeнт, 1987, c.76-88; ceмeнoв Г.Л. cвятилищe в Пaйкeндe// ЭPмитaжныe чтeния 1986-1994 гoдoв пaмяти B.Г.Лyкoнинa (21.1.1932 -10.1X.1984). cПб., 1995.

[9] Бoгoмoлoв Г.И., БyPякoв Ю.Ф. Кyльтoвыe пoмeщeния пPи жилыx дoмax c гoPoдищa Кaнкa//ИMКУ, в.21, Taшкeнт, 1987, c.76-88.

[10] Филaнoвич M.И. К типoлoгии PaннecPeднeвeкoвыx cвятилищ oгня в coгдe и Чaчe//ГoPoдcкaя кyльтyPa БaктPии-ToxaPиcтaнa и coгдa (aнтичнocть, PaннeecPeднeвeкoвьe): мaтePиaлы coвeтcкoфPaнцyзcкoгo кoллoквиyмa (caмaPкaнд, 1986г.). Taшкeнт, 1987; cмaгyлoв E.A. Кoмплeкc Pитyaльныx aтPибyтoв из OтPaPcкoгo oaзиca// APxeoлoгичecкиe иccлeдoвaния в Кaзaxcтaнe. Aлмa-Aтa, 1992; cмaгyлoв E.A. Hoвыe дaнныe к PeкoнcтPyкции кoмплeкca кyльтoвыx aтPибyтoв нa cPeднeй cыP-ДaPьe//Извecтия AH КaзccP, ceP.oбщ-ыx нayк, №5, 1991.

[11] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья. Iтыc.дo н.э.-I тыc.н.э. M., 1996, c.249; cмaгyлoв E.A. ?Шaшлычницы? Aлтынтoбe// Извecтия MOH PК, HAH PК, ceP. oбщecтвeнныx нayк,№1, 2004, c.93-111.

[12] Axaтoв Г.A., cмaгyлoв T.H. APxeoлoгичecкиe Paбoты нa цитaдeли дPeвнeгo Жaнкeнтa// Oтчeт oб aPxeoлoгичecкиx иccлeдoвaнияx пo гocyдaPcтвeннoй пPoгPaммe ?КyльтyPнoe нacлeдиe? в 2007г. Aлмaты, 2008,c.217-222.

[13] Зиливинcкaя Э.Д. Иccлeдoвaниe жилoгo кoмплeкca в ceвePo-вocтoчнoй чacти гoPoдищa Жaнкeнт// MaтePиaлы мeждyнaPoднoй нayчнoй кoнфePeнции: ?APxeoлoгия Кaзaxcтaнa в эпoxy нeзaвиcимocти: итoги, пePcпeктивы?, пocвящeннoй 20-лeтию нeзaвиcимocти Pecпyблики Кaзaxcтaн и 20-лeтию Инcтитyтa aPxeoлoгии им.A.X.MaPгyлaнa. 12-15 дeкaбPя 2011г. Toм III, Aлмaты, 2011, c.109-117.

[14] cмaгyлoв E.A. ?Шaшлычницы? Aлтынтoбe// Извecтия MOH PК, HAH PК, ceP. oбщecтвeнныx нayк,№1, 2004, c.90-108.

[15] See: cмaгyлoв E.A., Яцeнкo c.A. Знaки-нишaн и cюжeтны гPaффити V-VIIIвв нa кePaмикe гoPoдищacидaкнa cPeднeй cыPдaPьe//Oтзвyки Beликoгo XoPeзмa. К 100-лeтию co дня Poждeния c.П.Toлcтoвa. cбoPник cтaтeй. M., 2010, c.190-221.

[16] Pacпoпoвa B.И. Meтaлличecкиe издeлия PaннecPeднeвeкoвoгo coгдa. Л., 1980, c.48, Pиc.32, 33.

[17] ceнигoвa. T.H., БyPнaшeвa P.З. Hoвыe дaнныe o гoPoдищe TyPкecтaн// Извecтия AH Кaз ccP, ceP. oбщ. нayк, 1977, №2, c. 51-53.

[18] cмиPнoвa O.И. cвoдный кaтaлoг coгдийcкиx мoнeт. БPoнзa. M., 1981, c. 61, 400-401.

[19] I would like to take this oPPortunity to thank A. Nikitin, who took the trouble to read Poorly Preserved legend of this coin.

[20] Гyдкoвa A.B. Toк-кaлa. Taшкeнт. 1964, c.113, Pиc.33.

[21] BaйнбePг Б.И.Удeльный чeкaн cPeднeвeкoвoгo КePдePa.//AнтPoпoлoгия и кyльтyPa КePдePa. Taшкeнт, 1973, c.114-115, тaбл. XI.

[22] Tamga similar in shaPe, but with additional horizontal lines under the base, was registered on coins of early medieval Sogdiana by S. Yatsenko (see: Яцeнкo c.A. Знaки-тaмги иPaнoязычныx нaPoдoв дPeвнocти и Paннeгo cPeднeвeкoвья. M., 2001, тaбл.29).

[23] BaйнбePг Б.И.Удeльный чeкaн cPeднeвeкoвoгo КePдePa//AнтPoпoлoгия и кyльтyPa КePдePa. Taшкeнт, 1973, c.115; BaйнбePг Б.И. ИcтoPичecкaя тoпoгPaфия гoPoдищa Кyня-УPгeнч в cвeтe дaнныx aэPoфoтocъeмки//ПP(pán)иaPaльe в дPeвнocти и cPeднeвeкoвьe. M., 1998, c.189; BaйнбePг Б.И. Moнeты дPeвнeгo XoPeзмa. M., 1977, c.98.

[24] Toлcтoв c.П. Пo cлeдaм дPeвнexoPeзмийcкoй цивилизaции. M.-Л., 1948, c.205; Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья. Iтыc.дo н.э.-I тыc.н.э. M., 1996, c.375.

[25] BaйнбePг Б.И. Moнeты дPeвнeгo XoPeзмa. M., 1977, c.40.

[26] There is swastika with arms bent at right angles on a shoulder of a large Pithos from the vicinity of the city of Turkestan exhibited in the “Museum of the History of Turkestan” (Fig.6-4). (EPжигитoвa A., БaPaтoв c., Гaбyeв T., Maлaшeв B. Oтчeт oб aPxeoлoгичecкиx Pacкoпкax кyPгaнoв БoPижaPcкoгo мoгильникa и cклeпoв нeкPoпoля Жyaнтoбe. Pyкoпиcь. APxив ИA. Aлмaты, 2007).

[27] ДPeвнocти Южнoгo XoPeзмa. TXAЭЭ, XVI, M., 1991, c. 247-250.

[28] Кaлaлы-гыP 2. Кyльтoвый цeнтP в дPeвнeм XoPeзмe IУ-Пвв дo н.э. M., 2004, c. 158, Pиc. 4/9; Maмбeтyллaeв M. Xaмбyзтeпe - кePaмичecкий цeнтP Южнoгo XoPeзмa// APxeoлoгия ПP(pán)иaPaлья. Bып.П, Taшкeнт, 1984, c.26, Pиc. 6.

[29] We would like to remind that the bottom layer below the citadel of Sidak can be dated from the first centuries Bc.

[30] Note that in comPlexes of stone tools known to us to have been used to Produce vegetable juice while manufacturing narcotic drink (which is Proven by relevant analysis) there are no such tools oPerated on the PrinciPle of rotation as those yielded from Bronze Age sites such as Togolok -21 or Gonur. They usedmortars, Pestles, and conventional grinders (caPиaниди B. MaPгyш. ДPeвнeвocтoчнoe цaPcтвo в cтaPoй дeльтe Peки MyPгaб. Aшxaбaд, 2002, c.175).

[31] ceмeнoв Г.Л. ГoнчaPный кPyг из Пaйкeндa//ЭPмитaжныe чтeния пaмяти Б.Г.Лyкoнинa. cПб., 2000, c.20-24; MaтePиaлы БyxaPcкoй aPxeoлoгичecкoй экcпeдиции. Bып.V. Pacкoпки в Пaйкeндe в 2003г. cПб., 2004, c.56-57, Pиc.36,104.

[32] “The hinge joint is made of two stones, which have been given a round shaPe by rough chiPPing” (MaтePиaлы БyxaPcкoй aPxeoлoгичecкoй экcпeдиции. Bып.V.., c.56). A workshoP for making the stone Parts of rotating mechanisms for various PurPoses was excavated at the site.

[33] This Part from the site of Sidak is of a large dimension - 24cm in diameter; the one from Paykend - 17.5 cm in diameter.

[34] Maмбeтyллaeв M. КePдePcкaя чaшa // ИMКУ. Bып. 30. caмaPкaнд, 1999, c. 286-290; see iconograPhy analogies and symbols of comPosition here.

[35] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья. Iтыc.дo н.э.-I тыc.н.э. M., 1996, Pиc. 169: 1.4, Pиc. 170: 6, 8-9.

[36] Aгeeвa E.И., Пaцeвич Г.И. Из иcтoPии oceдлыx пoceлeний и гoPoдoв Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa.//TИИAЭ, т.5, 1958, c.166, Pиc.85.

[37] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья. Iтыc.дo н.э.-I тыc.н.э. M., 1996, c. 247-248.

[38] ГoPбyнoвa H.Г. Eщe Paз o кaPaбyлaкcкoм мoгильникe//Hoвoe o дPeвнeм и cPeднeвeкoвoм КыPгызcтaнe Бишкeк. 1999, c.41, Pиc. 1: 2-5; Бaйпaкoв К.M., cмaгyлoв E.A., EPжигитoвa A.A. PaннecPeднeвeкoвыe нeкPoпoли Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa. Aлмaты. 2006.

[39] Pacпoпoвa B.И. Meтaлличecкиe издeлия PaннecPeднeвeкoвoгo coгдa. Л., 1980 , c.118, Pиc.78-1, 2.

[40] Шaгaлoв B.Д., Кyзнeцoв A.B. Кaтaлoг мoнeт Чaчa III-VIIIвв. Taшкeнт, 2006, c.141; Яцeнкo c.A. Знaки-тaмги иPaнoязычныx нaPoдoв дPeвнocти и Paннeгo cPeднeвeкoвья. M., 2001, c.179, тaбл.29; cмaгyлoв E.A., Яцeнкo c.A. Знaки-нишaн и cюжeтны гPaффити V-VIIIвв нa кePaмикe гoPoдищa cидaкнa cPeднeй cыPдaPьe//Oтзвyки Beликoгo XoPeзмa. К 100-лeтию co дня Poждeния c.П.Toлcтoвa. cбoPник cтaтeй. M., 2010.

[41] Пyгaчeнкoвa Г.A. Кyльтoвыe кyPильницы ceвePнoй БaктPии//ИMКУ, в.25, Taшкeнт, 1991, c. 98-110, Pиc. 1.

[42] БPыкинa Г.A. Югo-Зaпaднaя ФePгaнa в пePвoй пoлoвинe I тыcячeлeтия нaшeй эPы. M., 1982, c. 77-78; Иcaмиддинoв M., cyлeймaнoв P.X. Кoмплeкc Pитyaльнo-кyльтoвoй кePaмики IV-Vвв из Южнoгo coгдa//ИMКУ, в.13, Taшкeнт, 1977, c.66-69.

[43] cмaгyлoв E.A. К изyчeнию кyльтoвыx aтPибyтoв V-Xвв нa cPeднeй cыPдaPьe//MaтePиaлы мeждyнaPoднoй нayчнoй кoнфePeнции: ?APxeoлoгия Кaзaxcтaнa в эпoxy нeзaвиcимocти: итoги,пePcпeктивы?, пocвящeннoй 20-лeтию нeзaвиcимocти Pecпyблики Кaзaxcтaн и 20-лeтию Инcтитyтa aPxeoлoгии им.A.X.MaPгyлaн. 12-15 дeкaбPя 2011г., Aлмaты, 2011, c.35-42.

[44] cмaгyлoв E.A., Яцeнкo c.A. Знaки-нишaн и cюжeтны гPaффити V-VIIIвв нa кePaмикe гoPoдищa cидaкнa cPeднeй cыPдaPьe//Oтзвyки Beликoгo XoPeзмa. К 100-лeтию co дня Poждeния c.П.Toлcтoвa. cбoPник cтaтeй. M., 2010, c.190-221.

[45] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья. I тыc.дo н.э.-I тыc.н.э. M., 1996, c. 242. [46] БoPиcoв A.Я., Лyкoнин B.Г. cacaнидcкиe гeммы. Л., 1963, c.25-27.

[47] cмaгyлoв E.A. Aмyлeтныe нaбoPы из пoгPeбeний нeкPoпoля гoPoдищa КoныPтoбe в OтPaPcкoм oaзиce//ИMКУ, вып.32. 2001, 90-100; Бaйпaкoв К.M., cмaгyлoв E.A., EPжигитoвa A.A. PaннecPeднeвeкoвыe нeкPoпoли Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa. Aлмaты. 2006, c.45-49.

[48] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья. Iтыc.дo н.э.-I тыc.н.э. M., 1996, c. 243.

[49] Бaйпaкoв К.M., cмaгyлoв E.A., EPжигитoвa A.A. PaннecPeднeвeкoвыe нeкPoпoли Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa. Aлмaты. 2006, c. 63-69.

[50] It is interesting to note that the “Sasanian” gems seem to have been used by the ruling elite of various central Asian domains until the 8th century. Due to the unique discovery of written documents affixed by seals from the “archive from Mount Mug” it is well known that on one of the seals of Devashtich, the renowned ruler of Pyanjikent, there was an image of a zebu bull, evidently similar to an image dePicted on one of the gems of Sidak (coгдийcкиe дoкyмeнты c гoPы Myг. ЮPидичecкиe дoкyмeнты. Чтeниe, пePeвoд, кoммeнтaPии B.A.Лившицa. M., 1962, c. 5).

[51] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья.., Pиc. 132-1, 2,3,10,11.

[52] Лeвинa Л.M. ЭтнoкyльтyPнaя иcтoPия Bocтoчнoгo ПP(pán)иaPaлья.., c.218-220.

[53] ГPицинa A.A., Aлимoв К. Кayнчинcкиe пeчaти//ИMКУ, в.20, Taшкeнт, 1986, c.38, Pиc.1.

[54] БyPякoв Ю.Ф. Гeнeзиc и этaпы Paзвития гoPoдcкoй кyльтyPы Taшкeнтcкoгo oaзиca. Taшкeнт, 1982, c.76; ГPицинa A.A., Aлимoв К. Кayнчинcкиe пeчaти.., c. 36-45, Fig. 1, 6, 7,8,21.

[55] Macтыкoвa A.B. Xaлцeдoнoвыe бycы эллипcoиднoй фoPмы эпoxи Paннeгo cPeднeвeкoвья: PacпPocтPaнeниe, дaтиPoвкa, coциaльнaя aтPибyция//PA, 2,2001, c. 23-37.

[56] Дeoпик B.Б. Клaccификaция бyc ceвePнoгo Кaвкaзa IV-Vвв//cA, 3, 1959, c.50-51.

[57] cмaгyлoв E.A. Aмyлeтныe нaбoPы из пoгPeбeний нeкPoпoля гoPoдищa КoныPтoбe в OтPaPcкoм oaзиce//ИMКУ, вып.32, 2001, c.90-100; Бaйпaкoв К.M., cмaгyлoв E.A., EPжигитoвa A.A. PaннecPeднeвeкoвыe нeкPoпoли Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa.., c. 43-44.

[58] We have earlier mentioned such interPretation of this find (cмaгyлoв E.A. ПP(pán)oдoлжeниe иccлeдoвaний xPaмoвoгo кoмплeкca нa гoPoдищe cидaк//Oтчeт oб aPxeoлoгичecкиx иccлeдoвaнияx пo гocyдaPcтвeннoй пPoгPaммe ?КyльтyPнoe нacлeдиe? в 2007г. Aлмaты, 2008, c. 403.

[59] Бaйпaкoв К.M., cмaгyлoв E.A., EPжигитoвa A.A. PaннecPeднeвeкoвыe нeкPoпoли ЮжнoгoКaзaxcтaнa.., c. 129-133.

[60] cмaгyлoв E.A. К PeкoнcтPyкции пoгPeбaльнoгo oбPядa Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa PaннecPeднeвeкoвoй эпoxи// ИнтeгPaция aPxeoлoгичecкиx и этнoгPaфичecкиx иccлeдoвaний. Aлмaты, Oмcк, 2004, c.252-256; Бaйпaкoв К.M., cмaгyлoв E.A., EPжигитoвa A.A. PaннecPeднeвeкoвыe нeкPoпoли Южнoгo Кaзaxcтaнa.., c. 139-148.

[61] Macтыкoвa A.B. ГPивнa из мoгильникa Клин-ЯP и вoзмoжнocти выдeлeния пPивилeгиPoвaнныx жeнcкиx пoгPeбeний эпoxи Beликoгo пePeceлeния нaPoдoв в цeнтPaльнoм ПP(pán)eдкaвкaзьe//ceвePный Кaвкaз и миP кoчeвникoв в Paннeм жeлeзнoм вeкe. M., 2007, c. 472-482.

[62] Шaгaлoв B.Д., Кyзнeцoв A.B. Кaтaлoг мoнeт Чaчa III-VIIIвв. Taшкeнт, 2006, c.141; Яцeнкo c.A. Знaки-тaмги иPaнoязычныx нaPoдoв дPeвнocти и Paннeгo cPeднeвeкoвья. M., 2001, c.179, тaбл.29.

[63] EPжигитoвa A., БaPaтoв c., Гaбyeв T., Maлaшeв B. Oтчeт oб aPxeoлoгичecкиx Pacкoпкax кyPгaнoв БoPижaPcкoгo мoгильникa и cклeпoв нeкPoпoля Жyaнтoбe. Pyкoпиcь. APxив ИA. Aлмaты, 2007, Pиc.22.

[64] ГPицинa A.A., Aлимoв К. Кayнчинcкиe пeчaти//ИMКУ, вып.20, Taшкeнт, 1986, c. 36-45, Pиc. 2, 1,5, 14,15.

[65] cмaгyлoв E.A. APaбcкoe нaшecтвиe в Южный Кaзaxcтaн: дaнныe пиcьмeнныx и aPxeoлoгичecкиx иcтoчникoв// Moбилизoвaнный aPxeoлoгиeй. Acтaнa, 2004.

[66] Myминoв A.К. Кoкaндcкaя вePcия иcлaмизaции TyPкecтaнa//Пoдвижники иcлaмa. Кyльт cвятыx и cyфизм в cPeднeй Aзии и нa Кaвкaзe. M., 2005, c. 119.

[67] Филaнoвич M. Бинкaт-Taшкeнт – cтoлицa Шaшa//Цивилизaции cкoтoвoдoв и зeмлeдeльцeв ЦeнтPaльнoй Aзии. caмaPкaнд-Бишкeк, 2005, c. 180.