Central Asia and the Interaction Between the Iranian Plateau and the Steppes in Late First Millennium BC Case Study from Ulug-Depe in Turkmenistan

Home , Iranian Plateau, Iron Age, Scythia, Ulug Depe, Yuezhi

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 331-353 brill.com/acss

Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau and the Steppes in Late First Millennium BC Case Study from Ulug-depe in Turkmenistan

Johanna Lhuillier* cnrs umr 5133 Archéorient [email protected]

Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento** Délégation archéologique françaises en Afghanistan (dafa) / cnrs-Ext-500 [email protected]

Abstract

Research led by the joint French-Turkmen Archaeological Expedition (MAFTur) at Ulug-depe have brought to light the longest continuous stratigraphic sequence of southern Central Asia, starting from the Late Neolithic up to the Middle Iron Age. During the last fieldwork seasons, a later, still poorly-known occupation has been identified: after its abandonment at the end of the Middle Iron Age period, Ulug-depe was briefly reoccupied during the late 1st millennium BC. The archaeological levels related to this occupation are extremely poorly preserved, and this stage is mainly wit- nessed by a particular pottery complex. Preliminary and ongoing researches on this pottery complex suggest that it principally includes Hellenistic-period vessels associated with some more unusual shapes. This association of material finds analogies in the area of interaction between the northern and the southern parts of Central Asia (i.e., in Uzbekistan, in a territory stretching from Tashkent to the Aral Sea through the Syr Darya area). In this paper, we will present a first overview of these discoveries,

* Université Lyon 2, Maison de l’Orient et de la Méditerranée, 7 rue Raulin 69365, Lyon, France. ** DAFA, Shash Darak, Kabul Afghanistan.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700577-12341335Downloaded from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 332 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento placing Ulug-depe at the crossroads of different cultural groups, sedentary and possibly nomadic, at the end of the 1st millennium BC.

Keywords

Turkmenistan – Ulug-depe – Hellenistic period – pottery

1 Introduction

The French-Turkmen archaeological mission works at Ulug-depe since 2001. In 2010 we identified for the first time some elements related to the very last occupation of the site, which we temporarily attribute to the Hellenistic period in a broad sense. This paper offers us a possibility to present the first results of the ongoing study of these data, consisting mainly in ceramics. We do not intend here to go into much detail regarding the dating of the numerous pottery types, which have been well discussed elsewhere,1 but rather to contribute filling a gap in the mapping of Hellenistic Central Asia. Ulug-depe is located 175 km east of Ashgabat in Turkmenistan, not far from the village of Dushak, in an alluvial plain of the eastern foothills of the Kopet Dagh (fig. 1). The site was first studied by V.I. Sarianidi in the 1960s. Sarianidi dug several trenches in order to obtain a preliminary chronological sequence of the site identifying the main occupation stages of Ulug-depe during the Bronze and the Iron Ages.2 Ulug-depe is a site equidistant from the well-known sites of Namazga-depe and Altyn-depe. Thanks to its location, in an area at the crossroads of southern Central Asia and Iran, Ulug-depe was deemed to be a key settlement for the study of the local variant of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (a.k.a. Oxus Civilisation). For this reason the French-Turkmen Archaeological Mission (MAFTur) chose to investigate Ulug-depe in order to study the proto- historic periods of southern Central Asia. In the 2000s the MAFTur, originally under the direction of M. Mamedow (National Department for the Protection, Research and Restoration of Monuments of the Ministry of Culture of Turkmenistan) and O. Lecomte (CNRS) – and now directed by Mamedow and J. Bendezu-Sarmiento (CNRS) – resumed the excavations at Ulug-depe. As main result of this long-term research

1 For a recent study, see Lyonnet 2012. 2 Sarianidi 1969; 1971; 1972.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 334 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento activity we obtained at Ulug-depe the longest stratigraphical sequence of southern Central Asia: with an area of about 13 ha at its base, a height of about 30 m from the surrounding plain, the site has been occupied continuously at least from the Early Chalcolithic – maybe from the Late Neolithic, according to the discovery of isolated potsherds – unto the Middle Iron Age.3 After this last period, two limited occupations occurred: one at the end of the 1st millennium BC, on which we will focus here, and a second, very temporary, during the Islamic period.

2 The Archaeological Context

The remains of late 1st millennium BC Ulug-depe are mainly located among those of the Middle Iron Age settlement, when an urban settlement occupied most of the top of the site. The site, surrounded by a fortification wall, consists of a lower town, poorly preserved, and an upper town enclosing several large buildings.4 In the upper town, the most impressive building of the Middle Iron Age is a square 40 m-sided “citadel”. To the west of it, a long rectangular building (approximately 60 × 25 m) divided into long and narrow rooms has been interpreted as a warehouse. The Middle Iron Age city was abandoned around the 7th century BC; the “citadel” and other buildings were emptied, and in some cases closing rituals were performed.5 The dating of the city, for the difficulty in identifying a precisely dated pottery assemblage, has initially been subject to debate: first preliminary attributed to the pre-Achaemenid/Achaemenid period (Middle/Late Iron Age),6 now its chronology is confirmed in the Middle Iron Age, i.e. the pre-Achaemenid period.7 This is based on several concomitant elements: the stratigraphic data (which evidenced a continuous occupation with the Early Iron Age levels),8 a better knowledge of the pottery types of the Yaz II complex – Middle Iron Age (that constitutes the majority of the findings)9 and of specific shapes,10 and

3 For a complete overview of this sequence, see Lecomte 2007; 2013. 4 For a complete overview of this city, see Lecomte 2013, 170-180. 5 Lecomte et alii 2002; Lecomte & Mashkour 2013. 6 Boucharlat et alii 2005. 7 Since there is no “Achaemenid” occupation at Ulug-depe, this term does not refer to the local periodization of the site, but we rather use the term “pre-Achaemenid” in a strict chronological meaning, to speak about the period prior to the Achaemenid domination over Central Asia. 8 Lhuillier et alii 2015. 9 Lhuillier et alii 2013. 10 Lecomte 2013, 174-175.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 335 finally several radiocarbon unpublished dates. As for now, no evidence of an Achaemenid occupation could be identified with certainty, and, thus, we cannot rely on the stratigraphy and on the evolution of the pottery types to date the late 1st millennium BC remains.11

3 The Late 1st Millennium BC Archaeological Remains

The remains relative to the late 1st millennium BC occupation are found almost at the surface level in the uppermost layers, and thus partly eroded, of the site. The Middle Iron Age “citadel” and the “warehouse” – both displaying thick, lasting walls – were partly reoccupied: in some areas of the two buildings, new mud-brick walls and stone structures relative to new structures were built during the late 1st millennium BC. This is particularly noticeable in the south-eastern corner of the external, peripheral corridor of the “citadel” where large boulders were used, together with fragments of mud bricks, to build small walls to divide the corridor into small rooms. In the area south of the citadel, some walls were built with mud bricks of similar size than those used in the citadel (60 × 30 × 10 cm). This fact may indicate that they were reemployed. However, other walls in the same area were built with square mud bricks (32 × 32 × 10 cm) which are usually taken as a chronological indicator of the Hellenistic period.12 Some post-holes and large fireplaces built with boulders have been discovered between the partially destroyed walls of the earlier warehouse (fig. 2, Ch. 21, 22, 28), and are related to several short-time squatter occupations. In the western and south-western parts of the site and down below the tepe (fig. 2, Ch. 19, 31, 32), the structures did not follow the orientation of the most ancient architectural remains. There, small domestic rooms with fireplaces and storage pits have walls built with rectangular mud bricks13 and stones preserved only for two or three courses. Sometimes no architectural structures were preserved, and only floors with some grinding tools testify an ancient occupation. During the first years of work of the French-Turkmen team, we had some difficulties in understanding these badly preserved superficial structures

11 On the contrary to Merv and other sites of Bactria, where a thorough examination of the pottery complexes in relationship with the stratigraphy evidenced the persistence of Yaz III types into the Hellenistic period (see Puschnigg 2008; Callieri 2014). 12 For a recent synthesis about this, see Mokroborodov 2013. 13 These bricks have a standard size of 60 × 30 × 10 cm.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 336 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento and in determining their chronological horizon. The assemblages from these levels are extremely mixed, including potsherds from most of all the previous occupations at the site. In 2010 and 2011, the opening of new trenches at the top of the site led for the first time to the discovery of almost non-mixed assemblages, shedding retrospectively a new light on the finds of the previous years of excavations. These assemblages have been found in most than half of our soundings. Being at this point our team able to establish a first pottery typology, these discoveries gave us a new perspective on the history of Ulug-depe. The distribution map of this pottery shows its particular abundance in the “citadel” area (fig. 2, Ch. 8-10), with a low but continuous concentration all around it in the upper town (fig. 2, Ch. 3, Ch. 21-30). Another important concentration is found on the western slope of the tepe (fig. 2, Ch. 32), and in a lesser extent, in its southern part (fig. 2, Ch. 19, 31). On the contrary, and although a dozen of trenches were opened in the northern part of the site, not a single late 1st millennium BC potsherd could be collected there. This distribution fits well with that of the architectural remains, and suggests that the occupation was denser in the central, highest part, and in the southern part of the site, where the partial preservation of the walls of the previous period favoured an opportunistic occupation. The high concentration of late potsherds in the western border may be explained with the erosion of the top of the site toward this lower part.

4 The Pottery

The pottery assemblage attributed to the late 1st millennium BC is small in comparison to the previous ones, with a total of about 270 diagnostic potsherds. Furthermore, no potsherd of this type had been noticed during the systematic surface collection made by the French-Turkmen team prior to the beginning of the excavations14 or in the soundings opened by V.I. Sarianidi. However, this material has to be considered with due caution, because the identifi- cation of non-diagnostic sherds (plain body sherds) is almost impossible without a clear stratigraphic context, due to the similarity of the fabric with that of the Middle Iron Age pottery (Yaz II assemblage), except, sometimes, for a light brown colour instead of the pinkish one typical of the Yaz II pottery. Considering the high fragmentation of the pottery at Ulug-depe, the amount

14 Lecomte et alii 2002.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 337 Topographical map of of with the repartition the site 1st millennium BC pottery the late Topographical Lhuillier). J. modified by Caverne, (MAFTur/J.-B. figure 2

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 338 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento of pottery attributed to this typology of the 1st millennium BC has to be signifi- cantly re-evaluated. The abovementioned similarity of fabric suggests a local production for these ceramics. The bulk of the pottery is wheel-made, with a fine, well- levigated clay surface. The assemblage includes tableware and storage vessels, which suggests a domestic occupation. The original assemblage probably included handmade cooking pots, but the stability of their shapes throughout the 1st millennium BC makes it very difficult to date precisely the potsherds of this ware that we collected. A few and scarce painted potsherds relate to a different typology (see infra). Ulug-depe’s late 1st millennium BC assemblage includes three main groups of potsherds: some “Achaemenid” types, some Hellenistic types, and some scant specimens of types that may be associated with the neighbouring areas.

5 “Achaemenid” Types

This group gathers three types of potsherds only, which display some analogies with Achaemenid ceramics found in Iran. Some rare occurrences (about fifteen potsherds) of carinated bowls with a flared wall and a concave, S-shaped rim (fig. 3, 1) are comparable to the Iranian “tulip bowls”, which are considered a typical shape for the Achaemenid period, in ceramics as well as in metal ware. However, in Iran and in Central Asia, they are still attested in post-Achaemenid levels, and some potsherds of this group may also be compared with Hellenistic carinated bowls (for example at Aï Khanoum).15 Bowls or plates with a long horizontal rim (about half a dozen of potsherds) (fig. 3, 2) were considered by A. Cattenat and J.-C. Gardin16 as a shape widespread in the Iranian plateau that appeared during the Achaemenid period and lasted during the Hellenistic period. The two types by them identified, either with a hemispherical or a carinated wall, are present at Ulug-depe. More common than the previous one, this type was in use throughout the Hellenistic period in Bactria, at Kampyr-tepe, Termez, and Kurganzol,17 and at Ai Khanoum.18

15 Lyonnet 2013a, fig. 110. 16 Cattenat & Gardin 1977. 17 Sverchkov 2006; 2008. 18 Lyonnet 2012.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 339

figure 3 “Achaemenid” pottery types (MAFtur).

Finally, a fragment of a rim of jar can be included in this group, although yet unique. It belongs to a band-rimmed jar very similar to the Pre-Achaemenid/ Achaemenid (Yaz II-III) ones, but which stands out by its fabric grog-tem- pered, its modelling technology, and a particular ornamentation made of an applied frieze of triangles (fig. 3, 3). These features recall a very similar fragment discovered by the Italian-Turkmen team at Nisa, which displays an applied bearded man standing in profile, an iconography close to the mod- els of the Achaemenid court art.19 This potsherd may also be paralleled with

19 C. Lippolis presented it at a conference held in Bern in February 2016.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 340 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento pottery with swirling cordons found at Tepe Yahya Period II and at several sites of Baluchistan, with similar triangle motif20 which are dated in the second half of the 1st millennium BC (500-250 BC).21

6 Hellenistic Types

The Hellenistic types are more varied, and open shapes are prevalent. Slipped sherds are found among all the open types, more rarely on the closed ones: the slip is usually red, sometimes with a vertical burnishing, and, very rarely black. The most common shapes are hemispherical bowls displaying several vari- ants, with simple, thinned, thickened, or inturned rim (fig. 4, 1), or more rarely bevelled rim (fig. 4, 2). Bowls with convex walls and thickened bevelled rims, and in one case, with a slight depression maybe for a lid (fig. 4, 3) are also frequent. Other shapes include bowls with in-turned rim, and a flat base (fig. 5, 1); one single bowl with a ribbed wall (fig. 5, 2); a few bowls have an everted and concave rim (fig. 5, 3). Scarce evidences of annular bases may be associated with the afore-mentioned types of plates or bowls.22 Fish plates, a common Hellenistic type, are scarce at Ulug-depe, where they are represented by few triangular or dropping rims, and by two disc bases with a central depression, including one in grey ware (fig. 5, 4). Some rare rims may be attributed to gob- lets with straight or carinated wall (fig. 5, 5). Large, deep basins feature flared walls and flattened rim (fig. 6, 1), or convex walls and thickened rim (fig. 6, 2). Fragments of other large opens bowls might be related to kraterae, with vertical or slightly convex walls with a long horizontal rim (fig. 6, 3); one sinuous body sherd and one foot may belong to the same type (fig. 6, 4). Closed shapes include middle-size jars with a banded-rim, a thickened rim, a slightly concave rim inside, or a beaked rim, and a thick, flat base (fig. 7, 1); and necked jugs, with or without a handle, with thickened or beaked rim (fig. 7, 2). Small jugs have sometimes a handle, and are slipped with a vertical burnishing (fig. 7, 4). The only complete jug presents an ovoid body, a triangular banded-rim, and a disc base (fig. 7, 3). Among the jars or the jugs, a group of very few potsherds stands out from the technological point of view: the ware has a red colour and is carefully pol- ished. Diagnostic sherds include only one disc-base and one body sherd of a

20 Magee 2004, 52, fig. 5, 16c-d. 21 Magee 2004, 75. 22 See for example Boucharlat et alii 2005, bottom of fig. 18.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 341

figure 4 Hellenistic pottery: small open types (MAFtur).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 342 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento

figure 5 Hellenistic pottery: small open types (MAFtur). necked jug or small jar has an applied horizontal band with vertically pendant endings (fig. 7, 5).

7 Other Pottery Types

The last group of ceramics that we include in this assemblage gathers some more unusual pottery types, including mainly potsherds with splashes of slip. Considered in a broad geographical frame, the analogies we could observed for these potsherds point at a potential link with the northern, steppe world (in a broad sense), but also possibly with the Iranian-Afghan territory of Sistan. Within this group, a homogeneous complex was discovered in the uppermost, reoccupied layers of the warehouse (fig. 2, Ch. 21), in an area reorganised with large boulders and post-holes. It includes four complete wheel-made

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 343

figure 6 Hellenistic pottery: large open types (MAFtur).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 344 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento

figure 7 Hellenistic pottery: large closed types (MAFtur).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 345 vessels, in a beige-coloured ware: three almost identical small jars with a flat base, an ovoid ribbed body, a short neck, and an everted, thinned rim; and a small bowl with a flat base and a raised thick rim (fig. 8). Two potsherds with splashes of slip have been discovered in the same level. The shape of the small jars is not frequent and has no direct analogies but may be compared with pottery from Chorasmia as well as with pottery from Sistan. Vessels comparable both by their shape and their technological patterns are found in Chorasmia,23 and in burials of the nomadic populations of the Aral Sea dated to the last quarter of the 1st millennium BC.24 It also recalls pottery from the burial cham- ber at Issyk Kurgan, dated to the 4th-3rd c. BC.25 R. Ghirshman and G. Dales found similar small jars in Nad-i Ali in Afghanistan.26 Dales compared this shape with pottery from Dahan-i Ghulaman in Iran,27 and established a parallel between the incised sign found on some of these vessels both at Nad-i Ali and at Dahan-i Gulaman.28 In other areas of the site of Ulug-depe, wheeled-made potsherds with splashes of slip or paint have been found in the same archaeological con- texts together with the aforementioned Hellenistic ceramics (fig. 9). These potsherds are exclusively body sherds and their cultural and chronological attribution is thus extremely difficult. As a working hypothesis, we relate them to the ceramic production attributed to the “Kangyuï” cultural area – intended as the area of the Syr-Darya delta – mainly the Jety Asar culture,29 and to the Kaunchi culture in Chach (Tashkent area), both dating in their initial stage to the end of the 1st millennium BC, where splashes of slip are widespread.30 However, one of those potsherds (fig. 9, sherd ULG2010.US21437) by its fabric and its painted motif displays some analogies with Sistani post-Achaemenid pottery from Nad-i Ali31 and Qal’a-ye Sam.32 This kind of pottery, which is called

23 Vorob’eva 1973, fig. 4; Tolstov & Vaïnberg 1967, fig. 45a. 24 Yagodin, 1990, figs. 6 and 11. 25 Akishev 1978, 15, fig.; Hall 1997, 871. 26 Ghirshman 1942, NA 70, pl. IV; Dales 1977, pl. 15.7, 8, pls. 32-37. 27 See Scerrato 1966, figs. 56-57, left of fig. 59. 28 U. Scerrato (1966, 27, fig. 58) dated the site from the Achaemenid period and said that this incised motif is “infrequent and consists in a few straight, or wavy lines; a recurrent motif, however, is a particular sign formed of a sort of trident, down-turned and surmounted by a circlet.” 29 Levina 1996. 30 Burjakov & Koshelenko 1985. 31 Dales 1977, pl. 24. 32 Maresca 2016.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 346 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento

figure 8 Other pottery types: complex of vessels discovered at the top of the site (MAFtur).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 347

figure 9 Other pottery types: potsherds with splashes of slip (MAFtur).

“Dipinta Storica Sistana”33 by G. Maresca,34 is associated with some types also found at Ulug-depe, including types inherited from the Achaemenid period (tulip bowls, carinated bowls with horizontal rim) and types introduced during the Hellenistic period (fish plates, bowls with incurved rims, burnished pottery).

8 Conclusion

It remains difficult to precisely date the newly-discovered assemblage of Ulug- depe since we have no possibility to link it to the stratigraphy of the previous occupations, and we lack elements like coins or inscriptions. The presence of “Achaemenid” pottery types, though it is very reduced, is not in itself sufficient to suppose an occupation of the site during this period, though we cannot totally exclude it. It certainly confirms the observation

33 “This ceramic class is characterised by a peculiar painted decoration in red, wine-red, ochre, brown and dark brown, sometimes limited to the rim but more often covering also the shoulder or the upper portion of the vessel. Almost always monochromatic, the decoration consists mostly of geometric patterns (multiple superimposed upside-down «V», rectangles divided in four portions by diagonal lines, cross-shaped motifs, single or multiple rows of traits or dots, sometimes set within metope frames) but also, quite rarely, of stylized phytomorphic motifs (sheaves of wheat or hydrophytes)”. 34 Maresca 2016, 203-204.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 348 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento made by A. Cattenat et J.-C. Gardin on the Kopet Dagh foothills as an area of co-occurrence of both Iranian and Central Asian types;35 it will remain so at least until the end of the 1st mill. BC, as evidenced by the analogies between some unusual potsherds found at Ulug-depe and pottery from Sistani sites. The “Achaemenid” types from Ulug-depe were most probably in use until the Hellenistic period, as pointed out by some of the potsherds which feature a red slip similar to the Hellenistic slip. Moreover, these types are always found in layers which also contain the Hellenistic pottery types. On the contrary, no types specifically related to the “Achaemenid” period in Central Asia have been found: even if it remains extremely difficult to distinguish the pottery of this period (Yaz III complex) from the previous Pre-Achaemenid period (Yaz II complex), none of the shapes that have been recently identified as more specific of the Yaz III complex elsewhere in Central Asia36 have been discovered at Ulug-depe.37 On the contrary, pottery from the late 1st millennium BC at Ulug-depe is very similar to potsherds collected by the Italian-Turkmen team in the Murghab delta and attributed to the “Late Yaz III” period (dated 300-?), which, according to M. Cattani and B. Genito, corresponds to an intermediate stage between the Yaz III and the Parthian period.38 Assemblages combining Yaz III types and Hellenistic types are known in Margiana during the 3rd century BC, as evidenced also in Merv oasis by V.A. Gaibov;39 and in some cases, Late Iron Age Yaz III complex might “also testifies to the Hellenistic period”.40 Most of the ceramics found in the uppermost levels of Ulug-depe can be related to the Hellenistic types widespread in Central Asia (as for now, no specific “Parthian” types could be identified),41 though all of the shapes com- monly found in most of Central Asian Hellenistic sites are not featured. For example, flasks and grey ware are lacking. Similarly, Hellenistic Central Asia settlements are usually built with square mud bricks, thus contrasting with the architecture of the previous periods.42 At Ulug-depe, some walls indeed display square mud bricks, but most of the architectural remains related to this last occupation stage are made of rectangular mud bricks (60 × 30 × 10 cm) due to the reoccupation of earlier structures, and maybe to the secondary use

35 Cattenat & Gardin 1977, 243. 36 Boroffka & Sverchkov 2013; Lhuillier forthcoming 2019. 37 Lhuillier et alii 2013. 38 Cattani & Genito 1998, 75, pls. 10-11. 39 Gaibov 2004. 40 Callieri 2014, 61; see also Callieri 1996. 41 Cf. Haerinck 1983. 42 Mokroborodov 2013.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 349 of these bricks. Should this be related to an occupation of the transitional period between the Late Iron Age and the Hellenistic period, or to an occupation by a non-Hellenistic group during the Hellenistic period? The ceramics with splashes of slip underline the presence of another cultural group, likely nomadic. The opportunistic occupation of Ulug-depe may be related to the movements of nomadic groups coming from northern territories, mainly the Yuezhi, toward Bactria and neighbouring regions including Parthia and Sistan at the end of the 1st millennium BC.43 Some of these groups occupied the piedmont of the Kopet Dagh, as evidenced by dozens of kurgans44 and by textual sources (Strabo XI. 8.2; Justin, Prologus, XLI). We also identified some nomadic necropolises during our surveys south of Ulug-depe in the Kopet Dagh foothills, the dating of which cannot be precisely determined without excavations. These elements do not contradict each other and may suggest a long occupation of the site, though likely not continuous and on a limited area, throughout the Hellenistic period and maybe slightly later. The existence of shapes common to both Achaemenid and Hellenistic assemblages may suggest an occupation of the uppermost levels of Ulug-depe around the period of the Greek conquest. However, recent studies have shown that some of the types present at Ulug-depe like fish plates appear only some decades after the conquest.45 This may suggest a second occupation of the site during the Hellenistic period. Finally, the coexistence of Hellenistic and “nomadic” types may be sugges- tive of a third, later occupation, during the Late Hellenistic or the beginning of the post-Hellenistic period: the Greek types of pottery lasted even until the Antique period, after the invasion of the nomadic peoples.46 In conclusion to this preliminary examination of the late 1st millennium BC pottery assemblage of Ulug-depe, we may infer that – also considering the scarcity of the findings and the restricted area of occupation at the site in this period – Ulug-depe likely saw a squatter occupation by some populations who settled into the abandoned but still partially preserved structures of the site. The heterogeneous aspect of the pottery assemblage here analysed may also reflect several successive occupations during a prolonged period of time

43 For a synthesis on the subject, see for example Zadneprovskiy 1994. 44 Mandel’shtam 1971; Marushchenko 1959. 45 Lyonnet 2013b. 46 For example in Sogdiana (Lyonnet 2013c).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 350 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento that covers the Hellenistic and part of the Antique periods, between the late 4th century BC and the turn of the 1st millennium AD, when different populations met in this area of the foothills of the Kopet Dagh.

9 Acknowledgments

We want to express our deep gratitude to Olivier Lecomte, Mokhamed Mamedow, Rémy Boucharlat, Akhmed Khalmyradow and Henri-Paul Francfort, who made the work at Ulug-depe possible. We are grateful to all the members of the team who contributed to the discovery of the late 1st millennium BC occupation: Aurore Didier, Armance Dupont-Delaleuf, Jérôme Haquet, Elise Luneau, Pierre Siméon, and Elodie Trutet. We would like especially to thank A. Didier and A. Dupont-Delaleuf who greatly contributed in the identifica- tion of some of the fragments of the pottery assemblage here discussed among the huge mass of ceramic finds from the excavations. We are also extremely grateful to Bertille Lyonnet, whose very detailed comments greatly helped us to improve this paper. We also wish to thank Hana Sofkova for part of the CAD pottery drawings. Funding for the excavation was provided by the French Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires Etrangères.

Bibliography

Akishev, K.A. (1978). Kurgan Issÿk (Moscow). Boroffka, N., and Sverchkov, L. (2013). The Jaz II and Jaz III Period Pottery. Classification and Chronology Viewed from Bandykhan, Southern Uzbekistan. In: M. Wagner, ed., Pottery and Chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia, Warsaw: The Kazimierz Michałowski Foundation, pp. 49-74. Boucharlat, R., Francfort, H.-P., and Lecomte, O. (2005). The Citadel of Ulug-Depe and the Iron Age Archaeological Sequence in Southern Central Asia. Iranica Antiqua 40, pp. 479-514. Burjakov, Ju.F., and Koshelenko, G.A. (1985). Tashkenskiï oasis (Chach). In: G.A. Koshelenko, ed., Drevneïshie gosudarstva Kavkaza i Srednej Azii, Moscow: Nauka, pp. 297-303. Callieri, P. (1996). Margiana in the Hellenistic Period: Problems of Archaeological Interpretation. In: E. Acquaro, ed., Alle soglie della classicità. Il Mediterraneo tra tradizione e innovazione. Studi in onore di Sabatino Moscati, Pisa, Rome: Istituti Editoriali e Poligrafici Internazionali, pp. 569-578.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 351

Callieri, P. (2104). Margiana in the Hellenistic Period: Again on Problems of Archaeological Interpretation. In: C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, B. Genito, and B. Cerasetti, eds., ‘My Life is like the Summer Rose’ Maurizio Tosi e l’Archeologia come modo di vivere. Papers in Honour of Maurizio Tosi for his 70th Birthday (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2690), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 59-62. Cattani, M., and Genito, B. (1998). The Pottery Chronological Seriation of the Murghab Delta from the End of the Bronze Age to the Achaemenid Period: A Preliminary Note. In: A. Gubaev, G. Koshelenko, and M. Tosi, eds., The Archaeological Map of the Murghab Delta. Preliminary Reports 1990-95, Rome: IsIAO, pp. 75-87. Cattenat, A., and Gardin, J.-Cl. (1977). Diffusion comparée de quelques genres de poterie caractéristiques de l’époque achéménide sur le plateau iranien et en Asie centrale. In: J. Deshayes, ed., Le plateau iranien et l’Asie centrale des origines à la con- quête islamique. Leurs relations à la lumière des documents archéologiques (Colloques Internationaux du CNRS n° 567), Paris: Éditions du CNRS, pp. 225-248. Dales, G.F. (1977). New Excavations at Nad-i Ali (Sorkh Dagh), Afghanistan (Research Monograph Series no. 16). Berkeley: Center for South and Southeast Asia Studies. Gaibov, V.A. (2004). Ranneéllinisticheskaya keramika Margianÿ. Problemy istorii, filolo- gii, kul’turÿ 14, pp. 600-608. Ghirshman, R. (1942). Fouilles de Nad-i Ali dans le Séistan Afghan. Revue des Arts Asiatiques 13 (1), pp. 10-22. Hall, M.E. (1997). Towards an absolute chronology for the Iron Age of Inner Asia. Antiquity 71, pp. 863-874. Haerinck, E. (1983). La céramique en Iran pendant la période parthe (ca. 250 av. J.C. à ca. 225 après J.C.): typologie, chronologie et distribution (Supplément à Iranica Antiqua 2), Leuven: Peeters Publisher. Lecomte, O. (2007). Entre Iran et Touran, recherches archéologiques au Turkménistan méridional (2001-2006). Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 151 (1), pp. 195-226. Lecomte, O. (2013). Activités archéologiques françaises au Turkménistan. In: J. Bendezu- Sarmiento, ed., L’archéologie française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels (Cahiers d’Asie centrale, 21-22), Paris: Éditions de Boccard, pp. 165-190. Lecomte, O., Francfort, H.-P., Boucharlat, R., and Mamedow, M. (2002). Recherches archéologiques récentes à Ulug Dépé (Turkménistan). Paléorient 28 (2), pp. 123-132. Lecomte, O., and Mashkour, M. (2013). La cigogne, la chèvre et les renards. In: A. Peruzzetto, F.D. Metzger, and L. Driven, eds., Animals, Gods and Men from East to West. Papers in Honour of Roberta Venco Ricciardi (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2516), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 27-32. Levina, L.M. (1996). Étnokul’turnaya istoriya vostochnogo Priaral’ya, I tÿs. do n.é. – I tÿs. n.é. Moscow: Vostochnaya Literatura.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access 352 Lhuillier and Bendezu-Sarmiento

Lhuillier, J. (forthcoming 2019). Evolution of Ceramic Production and Manifestations of Diversity During the Pre – and Achaemenid Periods, Based on the Study of Material from Ulug-depe, Kuchuk-tepe, and Koktepe (Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan). In: J. Bendezu-Sarmiento, M. Mamedow, J. Córdoba, ed., From Archaeology to History. The Advent of the Iron Age in Central Asia and Other Regions of the East (Isimu 17), Madrid: Universidad Autonoma de Madrid. Lhuillier, J., Bendezu-Sarmiento, J., and Lecomte, O. (2015). Ulug-depe and an Overview of the Iron Age in Turkmenistan. Journal of Iranian Archaeology 4, pp. 78-89. Lhuillier, J., Dupont-Delaleuf, A., Lecomte, O., and Bendezu-Sarmiento, J. (2013). The Middle Iron Age in Ulug-depe: A Preliminary Typo-chronological and Technological Study of the Yaz II Ceramic Complex. In: M. Wagner, ed., Pottery and Chronology of the Early Iron Age in Central Asia, Warsaw: The Kazimierz Michałowski Foundation, pp. 9-28. Lyonnet, B. (2012). Questions on the Date of the Hellenistic Pottery from Central Asia (Ai Khanoum, Marakanda and Koktepe). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 18, pp. 143-173. Lyonnet, B. (2013a). La céramique de la maison du quartier sud-ouest d’Aï Khanoum. In: G. Lecuyot, ed., Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum IX, L’habitat (Mémoire de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 34), Paris: Éditions de Boccard, pp. 179-234. Lyonnet, B. (2013b). La céramique hellénistique en Asie centrale. In: N. Nina Fenn, and C. Römer-Strehl, eds., Networks in the Hellenistic World – According to the Pottery in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond (British Archaeological Reports International Series 2539), Oxford: Archaeopress, pp. 351-368. Lyonnet, B. (2013c). Recherches récentes sur les céramiques de Sogdiane (de la fin de l’âge du bronze à la conquête arabe). Contribution à l’histoire de l’Asie centrale. In: J. Bendezu-Sarmiento, ed., L’archéologie Française en Asie centrale. Nouvelles recherches et enjeux socioculturels (Cahiers d’Asie centrale 21-22), Paris: Éditions de Boccard, pp. 261-282. Magee, P. (2004). Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran, 1967-1975, Volume IV: The Iron Age Settlement (American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletins 46). Cambridge: Peabody Museum Press. Mandel’shtam, A.M. (1971). Meshrepitakhtinskiï Mogil’nik. Kratkie Soobshcheniya Instituta arkheologii AN SSSR 128, pp. 66-72. Maresca, G. (2016). Echoes of Regional Traditions Plus Western Typological Influences: Some Notes about the Post-Achaemenid Pottery Assemblage from the Italian Excavations at Qal‛a-ye Sam (Iran, Sistan). In: R.A. Stucky, O. Kaelin and H.-P. Mathys, eds., Proceedings of the 9th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 9-13 June 2014, Basel, Volume 2, Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, pp. 195-207.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to DownloadedSiberia from24 (2018)Brill.com10/10/2021 331-353 08:29:01PM via free access Central Asia and the Interaction between the Iranian Plateau 353

Marushchenko, A.A. (1959). Kurgannie pogrebeniya sarmatskogo vremeni v podgornoï polose Yuzhnogo Turkmenistana. Trudÿ Instituta istorii, étnografii i arkheologii AN TurkmSSR 5, pp. 110-122. Mokroborodov, V.V. (2013). Format sÿrtsovogo kirpicha kak dopolnitel’nÿï istochnik po khronologii pamyatnikov rannezheleznogo veka. O’zbekiston Arxeologiyasi 1 (6), pp. 12-20. Puschnigg, G. (2008). Hellenistic Echoes in Parthian Merv: Transformation and Adaptation in the Ceramic Repertoire. Parthica 10, pp. 109-127. Sarianidi, V.I. (1969). Prodolzhenie rabot na Ulug-Depe. Arkheologicheskie Otkrÿtiya 1968 goda. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 434-345. Sarianidi, V.I. (1971). Issledovanie sloev rannezheleznogo veka na Ulug-Depe. Arkheologicheskie Otkrÿtiya 1970 goda. Moscow: Nauka, pp. 433-344. Sarianidi, V.I. (1972). Raskopki 1970 g. na Ulug-Depe. In: V.A. Masson, ed., Uspekhi sred- neaziatskoï arkheologii 2, Leningrad: Nauka, pp. 53-55. Scerrato, U. (1966). Excavations at Dahan-i Ghulaman (Seistan-Iran). First Preliminary Report (1962-1963). East and West 16 (1-2), pp. 9-30. Sverchkov, L.M. (2006). Opÿt sinkhronizatsii keramicheskikh kompleksov épokhi élli- nizma (Kampÿrtepa, Termez, Dzhigatepa, Kurganzol), Materialÿ Tokharistanskoï ékspeditsii 5, pp. 105-124. Sverchkov, L.M. (2008). The Kurganzol Fortress (on the History of Central Asia in the Hellenistic Era). Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 14, pp. 123-191. Tolstov, S.P., and Vaïnberg, B.I. (1967). Koï-Krÿlgan-kala – pamyatnik kul’turÿ drevnego Khorezma IV v. do n.é. – IV v. n.é. (Trudÿ Khorezmskoï arkheologo-étnograficheskoï ékspeditsii AN SSSR 5). Moscow: Nauka. Vorob’eva, M.G. (1973). Dingil’dzhe v drevnem Khorezme. Usad’ba I tÿsyacheletniya do n.é. (Materialÿ Khorezmskoï ékspeditsii AN SSSR 9). Moscow: Nauka. Yagodin, V.N. (1990). Kurgannÿï Mogil’nik Devkesken-4. Arkheologiya Priaral’ya 4, pp. 28-81. Zadneprovskiy, Y.A. (1994). The Nomads of the Northern Central Asia after the Invasion of Alexander. In: J. Harmatta, ed., History of Civilisations of Central Asia. Vol. II, The Development of Sedentary and Nomadic Civilisation 700 B.C. to A.D. 250, Paris: UNESCO Publishing, pp. 448-463.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 331-353 from Brill.com10/10/2021 08:29:01PM via free access