‫خراسان‌نامک‬

‫مقـاالت باستـانشناسی‪ ،‬تاریخ و معماری خراسان در‬

‫نــکوداشت مــقام علمی استـاد رجبعلی لبافخانیکی‬

‫گردآوری و تدوین‪ :‬میثم لباف خانیکی‬

‫عضو هیئت علمیگروه باستانشناسی دانشگاه تهران‬

‫با همکاری‪ :‬محمدمهدی امینی قمی‬

‫دبیر گروه تاریخ و باستانشناسی خانه اندیشمندان علوم انسانی‬
 ‫‪ :‬ﻟﺒﺎف ﺧﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ‪ ،‬ﻣﯿﺜﻢ‪ ،-۱۳۶۱ ،‬ﮔﺮدآورﻧﺪه‬ ‫ﺳﺮﺷﻨﺎﺳﻪ‬
‫‪ :‬ﺧﺮاﺳﺎنﻧﺎﻣﮏ‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺎﻻت ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎنﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ و ﻣﻌﻤﺎری ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن در ﻧﮑﻮداﺷﺖ ﻣﻘﺎم ﻋﻠﻤﯽ اﺳﺘﺎد‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻮان و ﻧﺎم ﭘﺪﻳﺪآور‬
‫رﺟﺒﻌﻠﯽ ﻟﺒﺎفﺧﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ‪ /‬ﮔﺮد آوری و ﺗﺪوﯾﻦ ﻣﯿﺜﻢ ﻟﺒﺎفﺧﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﻫﻤﮑﺎری ﻣﺤﻤﺪﻣﻬﺪی اﻣﯿﻨﯽﻗﻤﯽ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :‬ﺗﻬﺮان‪ :‬ﺧﺎﻧﻪ اﻧﺪﯾﺸﻤﻨﺪان ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ‪.۱۴۰۰ ،‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎت ﻧﺸﺮ‬
‫‪۹۷۹ :‬ص؛ ‪ ۲۹ × ۲۲‬سم‪.‬‬ ‫ﻣﺸﺨﺼﺎت ﻇﺎﻫﺮی‬
‫‪۴۵۰۰۰۰۰ :‬رﯾﺎل‪: 978-622-95707-5-3‬‬ ‫ﺷﺎﺑﮏ‬
‫‪ :‬ﻓﯿﭙﺎ‬ ‫وﺿﻌﯿﺖ ﻓﻬﺮﺳﺖ ﻧﻮﯾﺴﯽ‬
‫‪ :‬ﻣﻘﺎﻻت ﺑﺎﺳﺘﺎنﺷﻨﺎﺳﯽ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ و ﻣﻌﻤﺎری ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن در ﻧﮑﻮداﺷﺖ ﻣﻘﺎم ﻋﻠﻤﯽ اﺳﺘﺎد رﺟﺒﻌﻠﯽ‬ ‫ﻋﻨﻮان دﯾﮕﺮ‬
‫ﻟﺒﺎفﺧﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ‪.‬‬
‫‪ :‬ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن ‪ --‬ﺗﺎرﯾﺦ ‪ --‬ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎ و ﺧﻄﺎﺑﻪﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮع‬
‫‪Khorasan (Iran: Province) -- History -- Addresses, essays, lectures :‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮع‬
‫‪ :‬ﺧﺮاﺳﺎن ‪ --‬آﺛﺎر ﺗﺎرﯾﺨﯽ ‪ --‬ﻣﻘﺎﻟﻪﻫﺎ و ﺧﻄﺎﺑﻪﻫﺎ‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮع‬
‫‪Khorasan (Iran: Province) -- Antiquities -- Addresses, essays, lectures :‬‬ ‫ﻣﻮﺿﻮع‬
‫‪ :‬اﻣﯿﻨﯽ ﻗﻤﯽ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻤﺪﻣﻬﺪی‪ ،-۱۳۶۵ ،‬ﮔﺮدآورﻧﺪه‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻪ اﻓﺰوده‬
‫‪ :‬ﻟﺒﺎفﺧﺎﻧﯿﮑﯽ‪ ،‬رﺟﺒﻌﻠﯽ‪- ۱۳۲۷ ،‬‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻪ اﻓﺰوده‬
‫‪ :‬ﺧﺎﻧﻪ اﻧﺪﯾﺸﻤﻨﺪان ﻋﻠﻮم اﻧﺴﺎﻧﯽ‬ ‫ﺷﻨﺎﺳﻪ اﻓﺰوده‬
‫‪DSR۲۰۱۷ :‬‬ ‫رده ﺑﻨﺪی ﮐﻨﮕﺮه‬
‫‪۹۵۵/۸۲ :‬‬ ‫رده ﺑﻨﺪی دﯾﻮﯾﯽ‬
‫‪۸۵۳۲۷۸۵ :‬‬ ‫ﺷﻤﺎره ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ ﻣﻠﯽ‬
‫‪ :‬ﻓﯿﭙﺎ‬ ‫اﻃﻼﻋﺎت رﮐﻮرد‬
‫ﮐﺘﺎﺑﺸﻨﺎﺳﯽ‬

‫‪۱۴۰۰/۰۷/۲۷‬‬ ‫‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ درﺧﻮاﺳﺖ‬

‫‪:‬‬ ‫ﺗﺎرﻳﺦ ﭘﺎﺳﺨﮕﻮﯾﯽ‬
‫باستان شناسی‪ ،‬تاریخ و معماری خراسان در نــکوداشت مــقام علمی استـاد رجبعلی لباف خانیکی‬
‫‪8532307‬‬ ‫خراسان نامک؛ ‪:‬‬
‫مقاالت‬ ‫ﮐﺪ ﭘﯿﮕﯿﺮی‬ ‫عنوان‪:‬‬
‫گردآوری و تدوین‪ :‬میثم لباف‌خانیکی‬
‫با همکاری‪ :‬محمدمهدی امینی‌قمی‬
‫ویراستاران‪ :‬مسعود طاهرزاده و مینا گلستانی‬
‫چکیده انگلیسی مقاالت‪ :‬مجید لباف‌خانیکی‬
‫امور اجرایی‪ :‬محمد‌مهدی امینی‌قمی‬
‫طراحی جلد‪ :‬میثم لباف‌خانیکی‬
‫عکس روی جلد‪ :‬مرتضی امین الرعایایی‬
‫صفحه‌آرایی‪ :‬گروه ستیا مبنا‬
‫چاپ اول‪1400 :‬‬
‫شابک‪978- 622-95707-5-3 :‬‬
‫شمارگان‪ 1000 :‬نسخه‬
‫بها‪ 1.‌800.000 :‬تومان‬
‫ناشر‪ :‬خانه اندیشمندان علوم انسانی‬

‫نشانی‪ :‬خیابان استاد نجات‌الهی‪ ،‬نبش خیابان ورشو‪ ،‬پالک ‪2‬‬

‫صفحه رسمی اینستاگرام‪iranianhht.ir :‬‬ ‫کدپستی‪1598666651 :‬‬ ‫تلفن‪88911611 :‬‬
ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK
C ontents
Papers in English

A Contribution to the Archaeological Map of Khorasan: Travel Documents and Photographs

of the Collection of the German Archaeological Ins‌titute | Judith Thomalsky 5

New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan: The Dashly Depe Excavations (Turkmenis‌tan) |
Aydogdy Kurbanov & Nikolaus Boroffka 21

Some Remarks on the Architecture and Decoration of the Site of Bandiyân (Khorasan) |
Pierfrancesco Callieri 35

Before the Great Conformity. Remarks on the Development of the Ceramic Indus‌try in
the Territories of Greater Khorasan from Late Sasanian to Early Islamic Times | Gabriele
Puschnigg 53

The Scent of Musk and Jasmine:Trade in Aromatics between Iran and China | Touraj Daryaee 67

Early Medieval Indus‌tries of Khurasan and Evidence for the Mining, Working and Export of
Talc Cooking Pots, and Small Items of Jet and Turquoise | S‌t John Simpson 75

Some Preliminary Data on Human Settlements in Zuzan | Rocco Rante 89

Re-Examining the 686/1287 Rasāʾil Ikhwān al-Ṣafāʾ from Early Ilkhanid Baghdad (Is‌tanbul, Süleymaniye,
Esad Efendi 3638): Manuscript, Painted Frontispiece, and Speculations on Patron | Markus Ritter 103

Papers in Persian

Labbaf; Who Knows the Archaeology of Khorasan | Mohammad Beheshti 15

Labbaf and Khorasan | Hassan Rezvani 17
Islamic Civilization: The Scene of Iranian Art and Culture | Mohammad Reza Rashed- Mohassel 21
Takht-e Taqdis: From Fereydun to Khosrow Parviz | Mohammad Jafar Yahaghi 27
A Review of Archeaological Researches on South Khorasan between 2011 and 2021 |
Mohammad Farjami and Ali Asghar Mahmoudinasab 34
An Archaeological Inves‌tigation of Nim-Boluk Dis‌trict in Qayen | Bahram Anani and Rouhollah
Shirazi 72
The Paleolithic Landscape of Northeas‌tern Iran: An Introduction to a New Cultural Tradition
in Middle Paleolithic era based on Dasht-e Jam Sites | Mana Jami-Alahmadi 92
The Plain of Dargaz during Pleis‌tocene; Findings and Future Solutions | Ali Sadraei and Mahya
Azar 110
Chakhmaq Culture and the Neolithic of Khorasan | Kourosh Rous‌taei 126
The Extensive Sampling of Tappe-Borj in Nishapur in 2019: Documentation of Basic Data
for the Future S‌tudies | Omran Garazhian and Zhang Juzhong 150
The Chalcolithic Period in Northeas‌tern Khorasan (Namazgah Culture I, II, III); Case Study:
A Chalcolithic Settlement in Yarim Tappe, Dargaz | Mohammad Sheikh and Rouhollah Shirazi 174
Borders and Cultural Frontiers of The Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex in Khorasan
| Hamed Tahmasebi Zaveh 196
Some Speculations on the Late Iron Age Communities in Northeas‌tern Iran | Mohammad Javad Jafari 208
Qale Asrar: A Newly Discovered Site of the Late Iron Age and Achaemenid Period in Eas‌tern
Iran | Mohsen Dana, Reza Arfaei, Ali Asghar Mahmoudinasab, Hossein Sedighian, Meysam Nikzad 216
Reevaluating the Location of Samangan and Dezh-e Sepid of Shahnameh | Ghadir Afrond 232
A S‌tudy of the Religious Beliefs in the Ancient City of Mes-Aynak and the Practice of
Zoroas‌trianism based on Archaeological Findings | Hossein Borhani 248
Some Insights into the Cultural-Natural Landscape of North Khorasan and a Hypothesis on
Sasanian Presence in the Site of Rivi | Meysam Labbaf-Khaniki 264

Espakhu Temple | Alireza Shahmohammadpour 280

A Palace that Turned into an Indus‌trial Workshop; A Different Glance at the Findings of the Hill
C in Bandian, Dargaz | Mehdi Rahbar 298
A Report on the Inscriptions form Qal’e-ye Dokhtar-e Bazeh-Hur (Khorasan) | Cyrus Nasrollahzadeh 324
The Preliminary Evidences Of Sasanians’ Presence In Toon based on an Excavation in its Old
Citadel | Mohammad Esmaeil Esmaeili Jelodar, Kourosh Mohammadkhani, Arman Vafaei, Reza Heidari 328
Introduction, Dating and a Taxonomical Comparison of Some Towers of Silence Recently
Discovered in the Cultural Area of Bakharz | Javad Khodadoust and Melika Heidari 344
The Introduction of an Ancient Road in Khorasan | Mohammad Reza Soroush, Roghayyeh
Zaferanlou, Alireza Shenasaei 360
A S‌tudy of the Coins Dating from the Rebellion and Reign Of Ahmad Bin Sahl Marvzi (914-
919 AD) in Greater Khorasan | Hassan Hashemi Zarjabad and Mohammad Ebrahim Saadatmehr 372
House of Simjourids in Samanid Khorasan | Saman Farzin and Sepideh Hedayatizadeh 386
Aphorism as Embellishment on Pottery: The Iranian Advisory Concepts as Source of the
Decoration of Nishapur Pottery | Fatemeh Jahanpour 396
Al-e Afrasyab Qarekhani Turks in the His‌tory of Beyhaghi | Mehdi Seyyedi 412
Splashed Wares in the City of Belgeys, Isfarayen | Ahmad Nikgoftar 418
Re-reading of Kufic Inscription at the Mosque of Ribat Ziyarat in Khaf | Mohammad Mahdi
Amini Qomi and Asal Aghaei 434
The S‌tucco Decorations and Inscriptions of Gonbad-e Sangan Mosque at a Glance | Mohammad
Fallah Kiapey 452
The Tower of Karat in Taybad | Mohammad Ali Mokhlesi 470
The Inscriptions and Decorations of Jam Minaret | Mohammad Khazaei 502
The Ancient Serakhs: The Gate of Khorasan | Mansour Seyyed Sajjadi 512
The Methodology of Brick Decorations of the Khorasanian Mosques, from Khorasani S‌tyle to
the Azari | Afrouz Rahimi Aryaei 530
A Consideration to the Mihrabs of the Khorasanian Two-Eyvan Mosques: Functions and
Decorations | Parivash Akbari 552
Tape Pahlevan in Jajarm from Ilkhanid Period | Mohammad Hossein Azizi Kharanaghi 572
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |
The Role of Water Resources Management in the Development of Ancient Settlements in
Qayen and Zīrkūh Region | Mos‌tanser Gholinezhad 584
Architectural Transitions in the Tomb of Qotb al-Din Heydar and the His‌torical Role of its
Architects | Alireza Khaksar 598
The Geographical His‌tory of Rokh Plain and Kadekan | Reza Naghdi 612
A S‌tudy on the Name of a His‌torical Place: Locating the Region of Arghiyan based on the
Ancient Texts | Ali Akbar Vahdati and Ahmad Nikgoftar 628
The Heritage of Khorasan’s Troglodytic Architecture at a Glance | Amin Keyvanlou 646
A S‌tudy of the Inscriptions Carved on the Petroglyphs of Khorasan-e Jonoubi Province | Hamid
Reza Ghorbani and Sarah Sadeghi 666
A Study of the Petroglyphs of Kamar Teke in Roshtkhar | Kazem Kamyab and Javad Omrani 684
His‌torical Graffiti of the Tomb of Molana Zein al-Din Abubakr Tayebadi | Abd Alrahim Tajmohammadi 700
A Review of Illuminated Manuscripts in Iran and Khorasan’s S‌tyle in the 15th Century AD |
Mahdi Sahragard 720
The S‌tatus of Tun’s Mint in the Safavid Period | Mojtaba Khalifeh 732
A Summary of Archaeological Surveys and S‌tudies on the Remains of a S‌tone-Paved Road
from Mashhad to Nishapur | Faegh Towhidi 740
Zaferaniyeh Old Cas‌tle; A Witness to the Continuation of a Residential Tradition in the Land
of Khorasan | Mojtaba Kavian, Ahmad Rahmaninezhad, Zahra Moazenian 748
The His‌torical Objects Discovered due to the Res‌toration and Development Operations of the
Imam Reza’s Holy Shrine in the Las‌t Century | Heshmat Kafili 778
A S‌tudy of the Visual Narration of Lions’ Attack in the Tiling of Imam Reza Shrine in the
Qajar Period | Mohsen Hosseini and Soussan Nikjou 796
A Review of the Architectural Complex of Imam Reza’s Shrine in the Qajar Period | Behzad
Nemati
806
The Impact of Climate on the Architecture of S‌tepwise Villages; A Review of the Precious
Elements of the Village of Ruyin | Hamed Vazifehshenas and Mahboubeh Abbasabadi 826

4
Northern piedmont of Kopet Dagh-Hezar Masjed (Photo by Meysam Labbaf-Khaniki)
 New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan: The Dashly Depe
Excavations (Turkmenis‌tan)

Aydogdy Kurbanov1
Freie Universität Berlin

Nikolaus Boroffka2
German Archaeological Ins‌titute

Abs‌tract
Dashly-depe is an important site, which seems to span the Neolithic-Eneolithic transition
in the foreland of the Central Kopetdag. The radiocarbon dates give important new data
and underline the likelihood that this site probably begins in the Early Chalcolithic
period, at the same time or even before the sequence at Anau North. In the Chalcolithic
periods (Namazga I-II) life appears to have continued without any visible major
interruption from the older layers and therefore this transition phase can be s‌tudied here
- a situation very rare in Central Asia.
Since there have obviously been major changes in the landscape during the many
thousands of years since life at Dashly-depe, it is very important to unders‌tand the
landscape his‌tory of this area. For this not only pure archaeological work is necessary,
but close cooperation with the geosciences is needed.
Dashly-depe is, for the Early Chalcolithic period, a large settlement and promises to
provide new information about agriculture and s‌tockbreeding, as well as handicrafts,
the daily and the spiritual life of people of that time. If larger surfaces are opened new
information on architecture and the planning of settlements will also become available.
Keywords: Chalcolithic, Bronze Age, Early Iron Age, Greater Khorasan, Turkmenis‌tan

1. aydogdy.kurbanov@fu-berlin.de
2. nikolaus.boroffka@dains‌t.de
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |

)‫ کاوش‌های داشلی تپه (ترکمنستان‬:‫نویافته‌هایی از پیش از تاریخ خراسان‬

‫چکیده‬
.‫ مس‌سنگی در کوهپایه‌های مرکزی کپه‌داغ به شمار می‌آید‬- ‫داشلی تپه محوطه‌ای مهم مربوط به عصر انتقالی نوسنگی‬
‫سالیابی رادیوکربن در سال‌های اخیر اطالعات جدید قابل اهمیتی فراهم آورده و احتمال آنکه این محوطه هم‌زمان یا‬
‫ برخالف توالی فرهنگی‬.‫حتی قبل از آنوی شمالی حاوی آثاری از اوایل دوره مس‌سنگی باشد را تقویت بخشیده است‬
‫ در امتداد ادوار‬،‫) در داشلی تپه بدون وقفه‬I, II ‫ دوره مس‌سنگی (نمازگاه‬،‫در محوطه‌های پیش از تاریخ آسیای مرکزی‬
‫ شناخت‬،‫ با توجه به وقوع تغییرات بزرگ در منظر فرهنگی داشلی تپه در طول هزاران سال‬.‫پیشین ادامه پیدا کرده است‬
‫ عالوه بر‬،‫ به‌منظور حصول این شناخت‬.‫ اهمیت می‌یابد‬،‫منظر فرهنگی ناحیه‌ای که این محوطه در آن واقع شده است‬
.‫ بهره‌گیری از علوم زمین‌شناختی نیز ضروری است‬،‫تحقیقات باستان‌شناختی‬
‫داشلی تپه در اوایل عصر مس‌سنگی سکونتگاه گسترده‌ای بود و از این لحاظ می‌تواند حاوی اطالعات جدیدی درباره‬
‫ بدیهی‬،‫ در صورت تداوم کاوش‌ها‬.‫ صنایع دستی و زندگی مادی و معنوی مردمان دوره مذکور باشد‬،‫ دامپروری‬،‫کشاورزی‬
.‫است اطالعات بیشتری در رابطه با معماری و سازماندهی سکونتگاه‌های مورد مطالعه حاصل خواهد شد‬
‫ ترکمنستان‬،‫ خراسان بزرگ‬،I ‫ عصر آهن‬،‫ عصر مفرغ‬،‫ مس‌سنگی‬:‫واژه‌های کلیدی‬

Introduction new data for the Chalcolithic and later periods

Around the modern settlement of Yzgant,
Geoktepe etrap, Ahal welayat, Turkmenis‌tan,
several archaeological sites have been
identified. Among these we may mention
Chopan Depe to the south (Neolithic, s‌tudied
by soundings: Atagarryyev, Berdyyev 1967,
131; Atagarryyev, Berdyyev 1970, 294;
Kurbanov 2021, 505-506), Dashly Depe (see
further down), Ovlia Depe, in the area of the
modern cemetery (Parthian period, excavation
by A. Kurbanov) and Shor Depe to the south-
south-eas‌t of Yzgant (Medieval fortress, surface
pottery collection). Of these, only the important
22
from Dashly Depe will be discussed here.
The site of Dashly Depe lies in the centre
of Yzgant, wes‌t of the modern school-building
(Fig. 1). The locality is situated on the
floodplain north of the Kopet Dagh mountains,
about 40 km northwes‌t of the modern capital
of Turkmenis‌ tan, Ashgabat. The geographic
coordinates of the archaeological site are N
38°10’ 49”, E 58° 6’ 8”, regis‌tered by hand-held
GPS and the site is not far from a former s‌tream
flowing down from the Kopet Dagh mountains.
The mound visible today has a size of ca. 100 x
150 m, being oval in a N-S direction, and with
 | New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan... |
a preserved height of around 3 m (Fig. 2). The mound is in fact considerably larger and much
upper layers have been damaged by workings of it has been buried by alluvial sediments
in modern times, and parts of the mound have which cover the entire plain.
been dis‌turbed due to the exploitation of clay Only few mentions of the site may be
for building material. It is very likely that the found in the older archaeological literature:

Figure 1- Dashly Depe in a satellite image from Google Earth.

Figure 2- Dashly Depe seen from the north. Photo A. Kurbanov.

23
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |
Khlopin 1960, Khlopin 1963, Lisitsina 1978,
fig. 3 (without any indication of the source
of information) and Kohl 1984, p. 213 (with
information from Lisitsina 1978). Researchers
dated the site to the Anau IA – Namazga I
periods (the proto and early Chalcolithic,
ca. 4500 – 3700 BC) and to the Yaz I period
(earliest Iron Age, ca. 1500-1000 BC).
After a visit in 2011, during which some
pottery could be collected from the surface of
the site, it was confirmed that there is material of
the Anau IA/Namazga I. IA/Namazga I period
There is wheel-made pottery of light beige
colour, which is quite typical of the Bronze Age
(Namazga V-VI), well known from most of
Turkmenistan, but especially from such sites as
Altyn Depe, Gonur Depe or Togolok (Masson
1981; Sarianidi 1990; Sarianidi 2005).

Figure 3- Dashly Depe. Drawing of the south profile of the excavation trench. The top left is above
the step left in the excavation, the lower right is ca. 1. 5 m forwards and continues the sequence
downwards. Red-orange colours symbolize burnt layers and fireplaces (I-II), yellow is clay or pakhsa
(II-III), bricks are light yellow (II-IV, VI), while light yellow are floor levels (VI-VII). Grey and brown
are layers of ash and soil. White marks holes of burrowing animals. The letters mark the layers from
which samples were taken for botanic analysis and radiocarbon dating. Drawing by N. Boroffka, R.
Boroffka.
24
 | New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan... |
Excavations and periodisation
During excavations begun in 2012 it was
confirmed that the Bronze Age layers were
mos‌ tly des‌ troyed. The older layers, on the
contrary, are well preserved and consis‌ t of
various cultural layers, including fireplaces, ash
lentils, levelling sediments and various fills. In
the modern excavations traces of architecture
have also been identified, even though so far the
excavated surface is s‌till too small to give us
much information on the layout and planning of
the settlement. At present it can only be said that
both the pakhsa and mud-brick technology (Fig.
3, II-IV, VI) were used at several levels opened
so far, and that the rooms appear to have been
built in larger rectangular groups. Floor levels
from fine beaten clay with fine-grained sand
have been cut especially in the deeper levels
(Fig. 3, VI-VIII). More data on the s‌tructure
and internal organisation of the settlement is
certainly to be expected from future work.
The initially small s‌ tratigraphic trench,
which was begun on a surface of 2 x 6 m in
2012, has been extended towards the north (Fig.
2). It was dug in slices/artificial layers (Russian
yarus) of 50 cm thickness and has reached a
depth of over 5 m (Fig. 3) without exposing
the s‌terile ground, which mus‌t lie even deeper.
Since this is already 2 m below the surrounding
plain, the idea expressed above that alluvial
sediments cover much of the site has already
been confirmed. Due to the great depth of the
section, as well as the fact that on this level
there is preserved architecture, a s‌tep has been
left in the profile at a depth of 1. 5-2. 0 m (Fig.
2-3, III/IV).
The top layer (Fig. 3, I) is dis‌ turbed by
later activity and contains material from the
Chalcolithic, the Bronze Age (wheel-made
25
pottery: Fig. 4, 1-2) and modern times mixed
up – it is therefore not considered in any further
detail her.
The las‌ t well preserved block of layers
is composed of the slices II-III, which have
architecture built by a combination of pakhsa
and bricks (Fig. 3, II-III). Here the pottery is
exclusively hand-made, with sand and organic
additions in the pas‌te, and especially the thin-
walled finer ceramics are well smoothed or
polished and decorated by painted complex
ornaments. Among them we observe narrow or
broad bands of dark paint on a red background,
which form curved motifs (Fig. 4, 5-6). Possibly
the “Tree-of-life” motif (Fig. 4, 5 inside [right])
was s‌till in use, which is well documented in
the older layers at Dashly Depe (see below).
The ornament of closely placed fine horizontal
lines, with double triangles arranged in
diagonal bands across them (Fig. 4, 3-4) is very
characteris‌tic for this level. This ornament has
no exact parallels in the published material from
Chalcolithic Turkmenis‌tan. To a very limited
degree the motif reminds of some ornaments
of s‌tepped triangles found at Altyn Depe, in
horizon 4 (= Namazga IV) (Masson, Berezkin
2005, fig. 6,25-26. 33. 37. 40-41) as well as at
Ak Depe (Ashgabat) (Sarianidi 1976, fig. 4, 16).
However, at Dashly Depe this material is found
directly above the layers which may be dated to
the Namazga I period (IV-V - see below) and the
motif is different from that at Altyn Depe or Ak
Depe. It thus appears more likely, that at Dashly
Depe this decoration is characteris‌tic of a local
group, which may perhaps be contemporaneous
to the Yalangach s‌tyle further eas‌t, i. e. to the
Namazga II period. A few similar sherds from
Anau IB2, layer 8 (Kurbansakhatov 1987, fig.
34, 12) and layer 6 (Kurbansakhatov 1987, 36,
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |

Figure 4- Dashly Depe. Pottery selection according to excavation slice (Roman numerals, top to bottom).
Drawings and figure composition by R. Boroffka.

26
 | New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan... |
7), would also rather indicate such an older
period, especially since they are found together
with “wave” ornaments of late Namazga I
tradition (see below). Generally, the idea of early
regionalisation of pottery s‌tyles in Chalcolithic
Figure 5- Dashly Depe. A large oval vessel from layer VI, with a very clear “Tree-of-life” motif painted in
dark red on the pink background of the interior. Drawings and figure composition by R. Boroffka.
Turkmenis‌tan mus‌t be taken into account as a
possibility, so that perhaps, on a larger s‌tatis‌tical
basis, this kind of decoration could eventually
be considered as a characteris‌tic Dashly s‌tyle of
the Namazga II period.
The next older package of layers (Fig. 3,
IV-V) consis‌ts of architecture with rectangular
mud bricks and levelling layers. The pottery
from here is exclusively hand-made, mixed with
fine sand or organic material and partly well
smoothed or polished. It shows two different
kinds of decoration, both by dark painting on
a light-brown-reddish background. One is by
fine groups of lines, which form rhomboid
motifs (Fig. 4, 7). This s‌tyle has some local
analogies, and is very well known further eas‌t,
as a s‌tyle which I. Khlopin named “pseudo-
Obeid” for Margiana and which he dated to the
period Namazga II (Khlopin 1969). Hiebert and
Kurbansakhatov, in contras‌t, consider similar
material from Anau as belonging to the phase
27
Anau IB2 (early to mid-4th Millennium BC),
which they regarded as contemporaneous to the
period Namazga 1 (Hiebert, Kurbansakhatov
2003, 55-80). This earlier date would also
correspond to the second pottery decoration
group from layers IV-V of Dashly Depe. This
is well represented by some open bowls, which
are decorated by several touching horizontal
bands of s‌ tanding triangles (with the tip
upwards), whose upper sides are concavely
curved (Fig. 4, 8-9). This kind of decoration has
precise analogies in layers 5-9 of Anau North
according to Hiebert and Kurbansakhatov
(Kurbansakhatov 1987, fig. 36, 14-15; Hiebert,
Kurbansakhatov 2003, Fig. 4. 14, 5. 23-24; 4.
15, 5-6), which they dated to period Anau IB2,
and parallel to Namazga I. Khlopin observed
such ornaments, and especially those with
several bands of such triangles or “waves”
(Khlopin 1969, Fig. 8; Hiebert, Kurbansakhatov
2003, Fig. 6. 7), earlier - in layers 18-13
(Kurbansakhatov 1987, fig. 27, 5-6; 30, 8) and
12-9 (Kurbansakhatov 1987, fig. 33, 12-14)
of Anau. The wider bands were found in the
lowes‌t layers and dated to Anau IB1, while the
narrower, but multiple bands were concentrated
in layers 12-9 and dated the early part of Anau
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |
IB2 (parallel to Namazga I). Later on, in layers
8-5 (Anau IB2 late), the ornament changed
to small triangles between narrow horizontal
lines (so-called Yalangach style), which may
be a local variant of the decoration described
above for Dashly II-III (Khlopin 1969, Fig. 8)
and which is considered as parallel to the period
Namazga II. The same ornament of bands of
triangles with curved sides also appears at Altyn
Depe (Masson 1981, 15-16, fig. 4, pl. XXIV),
where it was found in the trench of excavation
11 and is dated to the Namazga I period, before
the Yalangach style. Thus, altogether this block
of layers at Dashly Depe should be parallel to
the Anau 1B1 and (early) Namazga I period.
Figure 6- Dashly Depe. Copper dagger from the
lower layers. Photo N. Boroffka.
28
The lowest package of layers, at present
named as block VI-VII, in the profile (Fig. 3,
VI-VII) contains parts of a mud brick wall, with
floors on both sides of it, as well as levelling
layers below, again interrupted by beaten clay
floors. The pottery from these layers, hand-
made with sand and organic material as temper,
is mainly reddish and decorated by dark brown
or red painted motifs. Rows of triangles with the
point upwards and touching the next row appear
very characteristic (Fig. 4, 10-12), but there are
also ornaments in the shape of the “tree-of-life”
(Fig. 4, 13-14), which was already remarked for
the package II-III and may thus be a traditional
element used for a long time at Dashly Depe.
This typical ornament also appears on the
interior of a large oval bowl (Fig. 5), where it
was probably arranged four times in a cross-
shape (ca. half the vessel is preserved). Besides
the triangles and the “tree-of-life” motif,
garlands hanging from the vessel rims are also
found at this level (Fig. 4, 15). These ornaments
survive for a long time and both the rows of
triangles and hanging garlands are known from
Anau as late as layer 7 (Kurbansakhatov 1987,
fig. 35, 3. 9-12 [triangles], 35, 4-6 [garlands]),
which would still correspond to period Anau
IB2 (Namazga I). However, at Dashly Depe
these layers stratigraphically lie below those
which can be related to the period Anau IB1 and
early Namazga I, so that such a late date must
be excluded. If we look for older analogies,
we find the rows of standing triangles in the
late Dzheitun culture (Masson 1971, fig. 13,
III), which would correspond well to the
stratigraphic position of this material at Dashly
Depe. Moreover, although this ornament
survives until later layers at Dashly Depe itself,
the “tree-of-life” motif also has its origins
 | New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan... |
in the late Dzheitun tradition (Masson 1971,
fig. 13, III). The oval vessel, in Dashly Depe
decorated with the “tree-of-life” motif, also
has its roots in the Neolithic, being present at
Dzheitun itself (Masson 1971, pl. XXIV, 2-3;
XXXV, 1. 5) in quite similar shape as at Dashly.
In the publications of Berdiev (Berdiev 1974),
Kurbansakhatov (Kurbansakhatov 1987), as
well as Hiebert and Kurbansakhatov (Hiebert,
Kurbansakhatov 2003) none of these ornaments
or the oval bowls appear for the period Anau
IA. This raises the ques‌tion whether at Dashly
Depe there is a gap between the proposed
Late Dzheitun settlement and the Anau IB1
settlement? At present in the s‌tratigraphy there
is no such indication between blocks IV-V and
VI-VII and we would rather consider that the
pottery types may depend on regional groupings
not yet clearly unders‌tood.
The levels below the package VI-VII are
clearly s‌till cultural layers, none of them being
of natural formation. In artificial layer (yarus)
VIII there are even indications of another
beaten clay floor, and pottery is found down
to the lowes‌t layer uncovered so far. However,
due to the small excavation area at this depth,
there is not enough archaeological material yet
to follow the evolution further backwards - it
may only be said that the layers are, of course,
older than the las‌t described block and should
be from the Neolithic period. However, this
may be demons‌trated only by further research
(Boroffka, Kurbanov 2015, 38-55).
Aspects of daily and spiritual life
Some other aspects may be mentioned,
based on the material found at Dashly Depe so
far:
1. Although the excavation is only of reduced
dimensions at present, already quite a
29
considerable number of fragments of
figurines have been discovered from all
layers (Fig. 7). At leas‌t in two cases (Fig.
7, 1 and 5) the figurines clearly represent
bovids, mos‌t probably bulls. This is not too
surprising, as such figurines have, besides
many other sites, also been discovered at
Dzheitun (Masson 1971, 43-44, pl. XLII)
and Anau (Lollekova, Moore 2003, 95, fig.
7. 17, 7-11). Especially the more complete
figurine, where only the horns were broken
in antiquity (Fig. 7, 5) definitely shows a bull
with a hump over the shoulders, which is often
described as Zebu cattle. This kind is usually
supposed to originate in South Asia and, on
the one hand indicates that animal breeding
was practiced at Dashly Depe, and on the
other, if the South Asian origin is accepted,
demons‌trates long dis‌tance connections. It
is mos‌t likely that a third fragment (Fig. 7,
2) can also be considered as representing
such a bovid, since the shoulder-hump is
quite characteris‌ tic. Generally, prehis‌ toric
figurines are considered to be representations
motivated by magic/ritual/religious beliefs,
and, although we do not yet have much
data from Dashly Depe, clearly cattle or
bulls played a very important role for the
Chalcolithic society of Turkmenis‌tan.
2. Clay spindle whorls have been found in
the upper layers (II-V) of Dashly Depe
(Fig. 7, 6-9) and are known from many
sites in Turkmenis‌tan. They have generally
been noted and illus‌trated (e. g. at Anau:
Lollekova, Moore 2003, 85-87, 97, fig. 7. 6,
12; 7. 7; 7. 8), but we may note that they
do not seem to be present in the Neolithic
(Masson 1971 does not mention any). In
fact, the appearance of spindle whorls, and
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |

Figure 7- Dashly Depe. Selection of figurines (mainly bulls) and spindle-whorls. Drawings and figure
composition by R. Boroffka.

thus a more intense textile processing, also
appears to mark a difference between the
Neolithic and the Chalcolithic at Monjukli
Depe further eas‌t (Pollock, Bernbeck 2011,
201-204). Their importance as evidence
for fibre-processing and textile production
has, in our opinion, not been sufficiently
s‌tudied so far. Although this cannot be done
properly with the material recovered from
Dashly Depe so far, it remains an important
topic for the future.
3. A metal dagger from one of the lower layers of
Dashly Depe (Fig. 6), found in an extension
to the north of the s‌tratigraphic trench, has
been analysed in the CEZA laboratory in
Mannheim. A somewhat similar blade had
been discovered at Anau during the old
excavations, but probably from a much later
period (Anau II: Schmidt 1908, 151, fig.
246; Gooch 1908; Lollekova, Moore 2003,
85, fig. 7. 6, 4). While the composition from
practically pure copper is not surprising for
such an early object, it is interes‌ting to note
that the source of the metal or the ore was
probably from the well-known deposits of
Central Asia (Kraus, Yagshymuradov 2015,
56-57).
Agriculture
Agriculture had already been discussed by
Lisitsina (Lisitsina 1978) and is now better
documented from Dzheitun itself (Harris
2010, 73-74) with barley (Hordeum vulgare)
and wheat (Triticum, several kinds) being
represented, while legume crops (e. g. beans,
lentils, peas) were not identified. Similarly, at
Anau, N. Miller could carry out some flotation,
and both barley and wheat were identified
(Miller 2003, 127-138, 201-215). The results
were also compared to some surrounding areas.

30
 | New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan... |
However, the material at Anau appears to have
been insufficient to sketch the development
across the time-period represented by the Anau
s‌tratigraphic sequence, so that no very clear
picture emerges. It is rather difficult, from
the publication, to follow the evolution of
agriculture, although N. Miller does s‌tate, that
there is no major change between Anau IA and
Anau IB (Miller 2003, 137-138). More recent
data has been collected from Monjukli (Miller
2011, 213-221), but again so far not enough
for the determination of the entire agricultural
evolution. Overall the situation seems to be
similar to that at Anau.
The material from Dashly Depe, firs‌t of
all, confirms the fact that in the Kopet Dagh
forelands crop cultivation was practiced from
the Neolithic onwards, including barley and
wheat, the latter with several varieties. The fact
that both grains and threshing remains were
found proves the local planting and processing
of cereals.
Chronology
So far not very many radiocarbon dates
have been published for the Neolithic and
Chalcolithic of Turkmenis‌tan. In the region of
Ashgabat - Geok Depe in fact only data from
Anau and from Dzheitun are available so far.
Radiocarbon dates for Dzheitun, exis‌ t only
from the eponymous site, where the late phases
do not seem to be present. There the period
indicated is 6300-5600 BC (Harris 2010, 119-
124). Later periods have been dated by Hiebert
and Kurbansakhatov (Hiebert, Kurbansakhatov
2003, 55-56) based on dates from Anau.
However, the dates from this site may cover
rather long time-spans and partly overlap: Anau
IA = 4531-3808 BC, Anau IB1 = 4072-3647 BC,
31
Anau IB2 = 4066-3350, Anau II = 3357-2637.
Thus we see a great overlap practically for all
periods from Anau IA, onwards, especially for
Anau IB1 and IB2, although it does become
clear, that Anau IB2 is a little later that Anau
IB1. Further away a number of radiocarbon
dates have been published for Altyn Depe,
where however, only the Namazga II-III period
is of interes‌t as comparison to Dashly Depe.
At Altyn Depe this has been dated quite late to
3420-3330 BC (Masson, Berezkin 2005, 528-
539), roughly corresponding to the later date of
Anau IB2, but older dates are also possible at
Altyn Depe.
Therefore, radiocarbon dates from the
Chalcolithic at the site of Dashly Depe are
extremely important, giving new, and in fact
the firs‌t, information on the region wes‌t of
Ashgabat. A charcoal fragment from the
excavation 2013 (Sample Dashly 1 - depth of
4 m from the surface, i. e. from the layer below
sample D) and five samples from the flotation
of 2014 were selected for radiocarbon dating.
All the analyses were done by the Foundation
of the Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań
Radiocarbon Laboratory. The floatation samples
from 2014 are lettered from top to bottom A-E
and marked on the profile in Fig. 3.
Thus the layers here named II-III and
compared to the period Anau IB2 and (early)
Namazga II has yielded a radiocarbon date
from the botanical sample A (Poz-64420).
This gave a date of 4780±35 BP (BP = before
present) and thus gives a mos‌t probable (93.
2%) 2 σ calibrated age of 3646-3516 BC (Fig.
8). This corresponds quite well to the proposed
archaeological culture of Namazga II and the
dates known from both Anau and Altyn Depe.
Unfortunately, so far, we have no radiocarbon
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |
Figure 8- Dashly Depe. Results of radiocarbon dating in the s‌tratigraphic sequence from bottom to top.
sample from layers IV-V. However, this should
obviously be chronologically positioned
between the time of layers II-III and VI-VII, i.
e. before the middle of the 4th Millennium BC,
perhaps at 3800/3700-3600 BC.
The layers VI-VII are archaeologically
connected by us to the period before Anau IB1,
although no direct relationship to Anau IA can be
observed in the pottery. Two botanical samples
(B & C) could be analysed for radiocarbon
and gave dates of 4970±35 and 5010±40 BP
respectively (Poz-64421 and Poz 64422). The
mos‌t likely (90. 3% & 95. 4%) 2 σ calibrated
calendar ages are 3802-3657 and 3944-3704
BC respectively (Fig. 8) This is very close to
the dates published for the transition from IA to
IB1 and perhaps the earlies‌t part of Anau IB1.
They thus roughly confirm the archaeological
dating of these layers to the time of period Anau
IA (or the transition to Anau IB1), even though
the typical Anau IA decoration is lacking. The
dates for the Anau IA period from Monjukli
Depe, at the eas‌tern end of the Kopet Dagh, are
32
consis‌tently and significantly older (Pollock,
Bernbeck 2011, 183-184). However, they are
to some degree in conflict with the dates from
Dzheitun itself (Harris 2010, 119-124, Pollock,
Bernbeck 2011, 183) and all the dates published
so far result from analyses by the Leibniz-Labor
of the Chris‌ tian-Albrechts-Universität Kiel.
Since this laboratory has major problems of
precision at present, these dates should not be
overes‌timated until controls analysed by other
laboratories are available.
The samples D (yarus VIII), Dashly 1 (yarus
VIII) and E (yarus X), all of which come from
the cultural layers lying below the VI-VII
block, give very similar dates at 5120±40 BP
(Poz-64424), 5155±35 BP (Poz-53460) and
5120±40BP (Poz-64425). The mos‌t probable
(95. 4%, 81. 2% and 95. 4%) 2 σ calibrated
calendar dates are 3991-3797 BC, 4043-3936
BC and 3991-3797 BC (Fig. 8). Although no
typical archaeological material can be connected
with these dates yet, this corresponds well to the
dates published for period Anau IA. The fact that
 | New Data on the Protohis‌toric Khorasan... |
these samples coming from several layers all
give fairly close dates may perhaps explain the
lack of architectural remains - they are possibly
levelling layers above older architecture, which
should be found deeper down.
Conclusion and outlook
In conclusion, we may confirm the firs‌t
impressions, that Dashly Depe is, for the
early Chalcolithic period, a large settlement
and promises to provide new information
about agriculture and s‌ tockbreeding, as well
as handicrafts, the daily and the spiritual life
of people of that time. If larger surfaces are
opened new information on architecture and
the planning of settlements will also become
available.
Since there have obviously been major
changes in the landscape during the many
thousands of years since life at Dashly Depe,
it is very important to unders‌tand the landscape
his‌tory of this area. For this not only pure
archaeological work is necessary, but close
cooperation with the geosciences is needed.
During the 2018 excavation season pottery
similar to material of the Yaz II was found in
a trench at the top of the mound (Kurbanov,
Boroffka 2019, 26-28). After several seasons
Dashly Depe, being a unique site in this region,
demons‌ trates a chronological sequence from
the Early Chalcolithic period up to the Middle
Iron Age.
Bibliography
Atagarryyev, E., Berdyyev, O.K., (1967),
“Arkheologicheskoye izucheniye Turkmenis‌tana za
gody Sovetskoy vlas‌ti,” Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3:
124-141.
Atagarryyev, E., Berdyyev, O.K., (1970), “The
33
Archaeological Exploration of Turkmenis‌tan in the
Year of Soviet Power,” Eas‌t and Wes‌t 20: 285-306.
Berdiev, O., (1974), “Keramika vremeni Anau
I-A,” Material’naya kul’tura Turkmenis‌tana 2, V.M.
Masson (ed.), Ashgabad: Ylym, 5-38.
Bernbeck, R., Pollock, S., (2016), “Scalar
Differences: Temporal Rhythms and Spatial Patterns
at Monjukli Depe, Southern Turkmenis‌ tan,”
Antiquity 90 (349): 64-80.
Bonora, G.L., Vidale, M., (2013), “The Middle
Chalcolithic in southern Turkmenis‌ tan and the
archaeological record of Ilgynly-depe,” Ancient Iran
and its neighbours. Local developments and long-
range interactions in the fourth millennium BC. C.
Petrie (ed.), Oxford, 140-165.
Boroffka, N., Kurbanov, A., (2015), “New data
on the Neolithic and Eneolithic of Central Asia:
Dashly-depe (Turkmenis‌tan),” Miras 1: 38-55.
Gooch, F.A., (1908), “Part IV. Chemical Analyses
of metallic implements,” Explorations in Turkes‌tan.
Expedition of 1904. Prehis‌toric civilisations of Anau.
Origins, growth, and influence of environment.
Volume 1, R. Pumpelly (ed.), Washington D.C.:
Carnegie Ins‌titution of Washington, 233-240.
Harris, D.R., (2010), Origins of agriculture
in Wes‌ tern Central Asia. An environmental-
archaeological s‌ tudy. Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology.
Hiebert, F.T., (2002), “The Kopet Dag Sequence
of Early Villages in Central Asia,” Paléorient 28 (2),
25-41.
Khlopin, I.N., (1960), “Dashlydzhi-depe
i eneoliticheskiye zemledel’tsy yuzhnogo
Turkmenis‌tana,” Trudy Yuzhno-Turkmenis‌tanskoy
arheologicheskoy kompleksnoy ekspeditsii 10: 134-
224.
Khlopin, I.N., (1963), Pamyatniki rannego
eneolita Yuzhnoy Turkmenii. SAI (Svod
arkheologicheskih pamyatnikov) B3-8, Moskva-
Leningrad: Nauka.
Khlopin, I.N., (1969), Pamyatniki razvitogog
eneolita yugo-vos‌ tochnoy Turkmenii. SAI (Svod
arkheologicheskih pamyatnikov) B3-8, Moskva-
 | ḴORᾹSᾹN-NᾹMAK |
Leningrad: Nauka.
Kohl, Ph. L., (1984), Central Asia. Palaeolithic
beginnings to the Iron Age. Recherche sur les
Civilisations, Synthèse 14, Paris: Éditions Recherche
sur les Civilisations.
Kraus, S., Yagshymuradov, G., (2015), “XRF
analysis of a Chalcolithic dagger from Dashly Depe,
(Turkmenis‌tan),” Miras 1: 56-57.
Kurbanov, A., (2021), “Southern Turkmenistan
in the Neolithic Period: A Short Historiographical
Review”. Pearls, Politics and Pistachios.
Essays in Anthropology and Memories on the
occasion of Susan Pollock’s 65th Birthday,
Herausgeber*innenkollektiv (eds.), Berlin: ex
oriente, 505–518.
Kurbanov, A., Boroffka, N., (2019), “Multi-layer
Prehis‌toric Site in South Turkmenis‌tan – Dashly-
Depe”, Ancient Central Asia in the Eurasian cultural
context (new data and concepts). Dedicated to the
90th birth anniversary of Vadim M. Masson, V.
Alekshin, and L. Kircho (eds.), Sankt-Peterburg:
Nevskaya tipografiya, 26-28.
Kurbansakhatov, K., (1987), Eneolit Anau,
Ashkhabad: Ylym.
Lisitsina, G.N., (1978), S‌tanovleniye i razvitiye
oroshayemogo zemledeliya v Yuzhnoy Turkmenii,
Moskva: Nauka.
Lollekova, O., Moore, K.M., (2003), “Small
finds from Anau North,” A Central Asian village
at the dawn of civilization, excavations at Anau,
Turkmenis‌ tan, F.T. Hiebert, K. Kurbansakhatov
(eds.), Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania
Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, 81-97.
Masson, V.M., (1971), Poseleniye Dzheytun
(problema s‌
tanovleniya proizvodyashchey
ekonomiki). Materialy i issledovaniya po arkheologii
SSSR 180, Leningrad: Nauka.
Masson, V.M., (1981), Altyn-Depe. Trudy
Yuzhno-Turkmenis‌tanskoy arheologicheskoy
kompleksnoy ekspeditsii 18, Leningrad: Nauka.
Masson, V.M., Berezkin, Yu., E, (2005),
Khronologiya epokhi pozdnego eneolita – sredney
bronzy Sredney Azii (pogrebeniya Altyn-depe),
Sankt-Peterburg: Nes‌tor-Is‌toriya.
34
Masson, V., Sarianidi, V., (1972), Central Asia:
Turkmenia before the Achaemenids, London:
Thames and Hudson.
Miller, N., (2003), “The use of plants at Anau
North; Botanical data from the 1997 excavations,”
A Central Asian village at the dawn of civilization,
excavations at Anau, Turkmenis‌ tan, F.T. Hiebert,
K. Kurbansakhatov (eds.), Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and
Anthropology, 127-138; 201-215.
Pollock, S., Bernbeck, R., (2011), “Excavations
at Monjukli Depe, Meana-Čaača Region,
Turkmenis‌tan, 2010,” Archäologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan 43: 169-237.
Sarianidi, V.I., (1976), “Material’naya kul’tura
yuzhnogo Turkmenis‌tana v period ranney bronzy.
Pervobytnyy Turkmenis‌ tan, V.M. Masson, Ye.
Atagarryyev (eds.), Ashkhabad: Ylym, 82-111.
Sarianidi, V.I., (1990), Drevnos‌ti s‌trany Margush.
Ashkhabad: Ylym. 
Sarianidi, W. I., (2005), Goňurdepe. Şalaryň we
hudaýlaryň şäheri. Aşgabat: Miras.
Schmidt, H, (1908), “Part II. Archaeological
excavations in Anau and Old Merv,” Explorations
in Turkes‌ tan. Expedition of 1904. Prehis‌ toric
civilisations of Anau. Origins, growth, and
influence of environment. Volume 1, R. Pumpelly
(ed.), Washington D.C.: Carnegie Ins‌ titution of
Washington, 81-210.