Antique Samarkand Or Afrasiab Ii and Iii Differentiation, Chronology and Interpretation

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24 (2018) 420-439 brill.com/acss

Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii Differentiation, Chronology and Interpretation

Bertille Lyonnet* cnrs, umr 7192 [email protected]

Abstract

The article deals with the Antique period of the old Samarkand. Using the old data from the Soviet excavations and the new one coming from the French-Uzbek ones, it gives stratified data leading to a finer distinction of the pottery between periods IIA, IIB and III. Proposals for their absolute dating and interpretation are added.

Keywords

Sogdiana – Greek – Sakā – pottery – high-footed goblet

1 Introduction

At Samarkand, excavations have been going on for over a century on the huge mound of Afrasiab, the ancient Marakanda conquered by Alexander the Great in 329-327 BC. As is now well established, the city has known a very long history, from around the middle of the first millennium BC down to the Mongol invasion in 1220 – if not to consider earlier occupations dated from the Middle Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age along the Siab in the northern part of the site.1 During the first half of the last century, the main focus of research had been the medieval period that covers the whole mound. It is only during the 1940s, when A.I. Terenozhkin made several small excavations at different points of the site, that a first attempt of stratigraphy was made. It gave birth to four main

* 11 place Marcelin Berthelot, 75005 Paris, France. 1 Avanesova 1991; 2001.

© koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/15700577-12341337Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 421 periods (I to IV) dated from 6th century BC to the turn of our era, followed by a long hiatus and a re-occupation, from the Turks down to the Mongols.2 This author was the first to realize the importance of the city from the very beginning (Afrasiab I), to stress the exceptional quality of the ceramic production during the next two periods (Afrasiab II and III),3 and to bring to light a major decline at the time of the Kushans. Though his conclusions were contested at that time,4 they have been in the main supported by all the excavations and soundings that have been made since then. No one ever fundamentally questioned his definition of periods II-III, that he called “Sako-Hellenistic”, characterized by the introduction of various shapes of tableware and red slip in Afrasiab II, then of grey ware, glossy-metallic slip and high-footed goblets in Afrasiab III. At that time, he dated these two periods between the 4th and 2nd centuries BC.5 Minor changes were brought later in the repartition of the ware between the two periods while more important ones concerned the absolute dates, and these matters are not yet entirely solved. S.K. Kabanov,6 G.V. Shishkina7 and myself8 have attempted several times to precise the absolute dates of these periods. The first two authors have worked respectively on the material from excavations (henceforth Exc.) 25 and 9 in the western part of the city, as well as on that of Exc. 6 and 41 on the NW part of the acropolis. The last two ones correspond more or less to two areas where the French-Uzbek team has worked from 1989 to 1995, one conducted by P. Bernard and I. Ivanitskij (renamed Exc. 2) and the other by C. Rapin and M. Isamiddinov (renamed Exc. 3). After a short review of the different points of view that have been put forward concerning Afrasiab II and III, the article will mainly deal with the distinction between them, a subject that has last been approached in details long ago,9 and will try to determine absolute dates for them.

2 Terenozhkin 1950. 3 One will find in Shishkina 1969a, fig. 1, a very useful map of Afrasiab showing the repartition of all the finds dated to the Afrasiab I and II periods. 4 See Terenozhkin 1972. 5 He revised these dates in 1972 to propose the 4th and 3rd centuries BC. 6 Kabanov 1969; 1973; 1981. 7 Shishkina 1969a; 1969b; 1974; 1975; 1976; 1996. 8 Lyonnet 2001; 2010; 2012. 9 Shishkina 1974; 1975; 1976.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 422 Lyonnet

2 The Afrasiab II Period

Period II is related to the Greek conquest and the colonization that followed. It is characterized by the introduction of foreign East-Mediterranean types of vessels in the material culture of the area, among which the fish-plates and echinus-bowls, jugs and craters, and by the introduction of red slip. When did exactly this new material appear at Afrasiab has been the subject of debate, since only two Greek coins had been found in situ,10 and no attempts of radiocarbon dates ever been done. The starting date for period II has fluctuated between immediately after Alexander’s conquest and the beginning of the Seleucid period. The basis for such proposals was not the same: while Terenozhkin11 relied almost exclusively upon the shapes and material of the arrowheads found in the defensive walls, Kabanov and Shishkina mainly based their conclusions on the successive phases of construction that they had brought to light and on the various materials used (pakhsa, rectangular or square bricks, pebble foundation), or the presence of burnt layers and the pottery found in them. However, the scarcity of the pottery related to each of the successive ramparts and their repairs has to be underlined. Detailed attempts have been made, especially by G.V. Shishkina on the basis of comparisons between her Exc. 9 and 41,12 to show an evolution of the pottery within Afrasiab II and to better distinguish Afrasiab III. However, the lack of precise stratigraphy (made by jarus) and the rather low number of pottery shapes that were analyzed13 did not lead to very conclusive statements since most of the shapes were attested in all the layers. Only was determined the rather late arrival and short period of production of hemispherical bowls with a round bottom, grooves along the rim and two applied long pellets on them, perhaps a weak imitation of the “Megarian” bowls.14 Her statement was based on their absence in Exc. 9, considered to have started earlier than Exc. 41, as well as in the Afrasiab III layers.

10 One Antiochos II and one Diodotus I/II, see Atakhodzhaev 2013. 11 Terenozhkin 1972. 12 Shishkina 1974; 1975. 13 Table 1 in Shishkina 1974 mentions 294 studied diagnostic sherds on Exc. 9. In Shishkina 1975, she mentions 657 sherds from jarus XV to XVIII in Exc. 9, and, in Exc. 41, 67 sherds from jarus XXIV-XXV, 446 from jarus XXI-XXIII and 323 from jarus XVIII-XX, i.e. altogether 1496 sherds. 14 For these, see below footnote 28.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 423

3 The Afrasiab III Period

Indeed, ever since the first periodization that had been advanced by Terenozhkin for the Afrasiab material culture, the hallmark of period III has been the high-footed goblets. They are not all alike, and, as said long ago by Kabanov,15 there is a clear evolution from those that are similar to the cylindro-conical goblets with red or brown slip known during the Greek period but with a higher thick base, to the elongated vessels resting on a high and narrow stemmed foot. Various proposals have been advanced as for their origin, none of which is convincing. In this same article, Kabanov, on the basis of the stratigraphy of his Exc. 6, had considered the possibility of two parallel lines of evolution for the drinking vessels, one being local and materialized by the cylindro-conical goblets on a low, flat-, disk – or ring – base related to previous ones in the Afrasiab I period, and the other foreign, Greek, and visible, according to him, in the footed goblets. He also proposed an evolution of the last ones, from those with a large, almost hemispherical base of the reservoir to conical elongated ones, the foot of which evolves to become more and more unstable. This supposed Greek origin for the high-footed goblets led him to propose a much earlier date for their appearance, in the 3rd century BC. Later on, however, in his Exc. 25 in the western part of the city, he brought to light-coloured unslipped and often highly polished high-footed goblets, some of them handmade, that were undoubtedly linked by their stratigraphic position with period Afrasiab I (fig. 1, 3, 4); he dated them to the very end of the Achaemenid period, creating therefore a sub-phase IB.16 Other such vessels, though extremely few in number,17 have been found later and confirmed a date at the end of the 4th century BC.18 Their presence before the Greeks ruined Kabanov’s first proposal, but on such a faint numerical basis – altogether not more than a dozen vessels – it is unclear if there is a relation between these early high-footed goblets and the later ones. It should be noticed, however, that a similar shape, though only attested by small fragments, is known at the same time in Chorasmia, giving more body to a possible local creation.19 Anyhow, not one footed drinking vessel, except craters, has been noticed in any Greek level in Central Asia.

15 Kabanov 1964. 16 Kabanov 1981. 17 Only two sherds of such drinking vases have been discovered in the French-Uzbek excavations; one comes from a sounding made under the Great Mosque (fig. 1, 2). 18 Ivanitskiï 1992. 19 See for instance at Kyuzeli-gÿr dated to the Yaz II-III period, recently re-published in Minardi 2015, fig. 7, 11.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 424 Lyonnet

Figure 1 Examples of gobelets from Afrasiab period I and IIA. 1: Period I. Base of whitish gobelet without slip, 89-2-fortuitous; 2: Period I. Footed-gobelet, linking part between the reservoir and the foot, white without slip, polished, 91-3-079; 3: Period I. Reservoir of a footed-gobelet and departure of the stem, from Kabanov’s excavation, reddish without slip; 4: Period I. Stem part of a footed-gobelet, from Kabanov’s excavation, buff-red without slip; 5: Period IIA. Red-slipped gobelet on a thin disc-base, 90-2-050; 6: Period IIA. Red-slipped, polished gobelet on a flat-base, 91-3-015, 024; 7: Period IIA. Red-slipped, polished gobelet on a ring-base, 95-2-023, 033, 035, 077, 082; 8: Period IIA. Red-slipped gobelet on a ring-base, 94-9-009.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 425

On my side, I mentioned their presence, usually handmade, in the steppes around the Black Sea between the 3rd and 1st centuries BC20 but, up until now, no such finds have been attested in contemporary sites or kurgans of the Central Asian Steppe area. Shishkina, as for her, rejected Kabanov’s first proposal, and she mainly underlined that almost no change was visible in the pottery between periods II and III except for the apparition of the footed goblets in the last one. Because these vessels were dated at that time to the 1st century BC, she dated the end of Afrasiab II to the end of the 2nd century BC.21

4 Afrasiab IIA

From the comparisons I could make with the pottery from Ai Khanoum, I concluded that the Afrasiab II period had to be divided into two sub-phases separated by a hiatus. The first one, Afrasiab IIA, had pottery similar to that of the earliest levels of Ai Khanoum. This pottery assemblage was mainly whitish in colour, with red slip only on a small number of specific shapes like bowls with a G or T rim-shape or goblets (fig. 1, 5-8). Due to the absence of a secure absolute date for Ai Khanoum period I, the dates I proposed for this first Greek occupation at Afrasiab have changed, from a possible pre-Seleu- cid one (in 2001) to that of a recolonization under Seleucos I or Antiochos I (in 2010 and 2012). Anyhow, because of the lack of development within this early Greek material at Afrasiab, I also considered that it did not last very long, and that it ended with that same king (Antiochos I) or his son (Antiochos II). The basis for this early ending of period IIA was the extremely low number of Greco-Bactrian coin finds at Afrasiab, and more generally in the Zeravshan valley, while Antiochos’ imitations are numerous, leaving the possibility that Sogdiana became independent at about the same time when the Greco- Bactrian kingdom was created.22 Admittedly, my conclusions were fragile since, at Ai Khanoum itself, we had very little secured basis for such absolute dates: only a few coins had been found in situ and could help relate some of the construction levels to a specific sovereign. Nevertheless, during the 10 years of excavations, the discovery of an outstanding number of Antiochos I coins and the total absence of any

20 Lyonnet 1997, 164. 21 Shishkina 1974. 22 Lyonnet 2001; 2010; 2012.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 426 Lyonnet other later than Eucratides I23 were giving a far more precise chronological frame for the different stages of the pottery than at Afrasiab. On this last site, almost none of the very few known coins had been found on the mound itself and even less in situ while most were coming from the market.24 My proposal was fiercely contested by J.D. Lerner, especially in 2010, who considered that the total lack of absolute dates either at Ai Khanoum or at Afrasiab prevented any proposition for the beginning and the end of Afrasiab II.25 A few years ago, however, discoveries by modern (and illegal) means of a much larger number of Greek coins in the earth dug out from all the previous excavations at Afrasiab,26 brought much weight to my proposals: the securely attributed ones consist of 4 coins to Seleucos I, 12 to Antiochos I, 6 to Antiochos II and only two to Diodotus I and II, while 4 other coins are disputed between pre- Seleucid sovereigns or Antiochos I and another 3 between Antiochos I and III. Finally, further recent work on the Temple at Ai Khanoum itself has also supported this proposal with the re-discovery of four Antiochos I coin in the early levels of the sanctuary around this building, one being within the pebble foundation underneath.27

5 Afrasiab IIB

According to the comparisons with the Ai Khanoum pottery, this limited IIA pottery assemblage, was separated by a hiatus from the next one that I called IIB.28 This last one, I wrote, is close to the pottery of the last stage at

23 Bernard 1985. This publication deals exclusively with coins not coming from hoards. In one of them (Hoard III), a treasure sold on the market but seriously considered as coming from Ai Khanoum, coin 129 first identified as Eucratides I by Holt 1981 has later been attributed to Eucratides II by O. Bopearachchi 1991, 217, série 1H, whom he dates between 145 and 140 BC (ibid., 72). This one coin would allow a slightly later date for the end of Ai Khanoum than is usually stated (see below), but it may have been added by the dealers to the original hoard as has certainly been the case for the Lysias coin (see below). 24 Naïmark 2005. 25 Lerner 2010. 26 Atakhodzhaev 2013. 27 Martinez-Sève 2010. 28 Lyonnet 2001; 2010; 2012. In Lyonnet 2012, footnote 58, considering that it was necessary to check their exact stratigraphic position in the French-Uzbek excavations which I could not do at that time, I thought preferable to give a wider chronological range for the bowls with round bottoms and applied pellets along the rim. I wrote that they may had appeared earlier than IIB and they were drawn together with the IIA pottery on fig. 10, 6. There is no question that this was and is a mistake, as now verified from their stratigraphic position,

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 427

Ai Khanoum (periods VII and VIII), dated to the end of Eucratides’ I reign, i.e. around the middle of the 2nd century BC.29 A recent publication of the pottery from a house in the SW quarter of Ai Khanoum, now entirely dated to the first half of the 2nd century BC, has fortunately brought some light on the Hellenistic material of this time.30 It must be underlined here that the dates for the starting point of this house (Ai Khanoum period IV) have changed of a century, from the beginning of the 3rd century (under Antiochos I) in previous publications, to the beginning of the 2nd century in this last one. This is due to new information coming from the pottery of the Athenian Agora that had been published in between.31 Indeed, theoretically, the many innovations introduced in the material culture of Bactria and visible in Ai Khanoum Period IV could be related just as well to the situation created after the overthrown of the Diodotids by Euthydemus I, soon after followed by the anabasis of Antiochos III, as they had been to the re-conquest of the area under Seleucos I/Antiochos I. These innovations are especially visible in the decoration with the introduction of grey ware, pal- mette stamps and, later, moulded bowls and applied moulded heads, while red slip suddenly also becomes much more in fashion. New shapes or sizes are also introduced: the diameter of the table ware increases, the shapes of the craters become more various, amphorae appear, etc. The most important criteria that led to a much later date for periods IV-VIII is the new and precise absolute date

as stated by G.V. Shishkina, and as is clear from the Ai Khanoum material too. This type of bowls was correctly placed in Afrasiab IIB in the 2001 article. 29 This date is contested by J.D. Lerner (2003/2004; 2010; 2011) and, actually, is the main theme that guides his total rejection of the conclusions made by the Ai Khanoum excavation team. The basis for his very late date is that he holds for sure the presence of one coin of Lysias (120-110 BC) in the treasure published by Holt (1981), though the composition of this treasure has kept changing each time it appeared at different market-places, as already mentioned by Holt, and as he himself explains. His assertions have been criticized on a numismatic ground by Holt 2012. On that of the pottery, I would like to add that, if one may discuss the possibility of a few years of occupation after Eucratides’ I death in 145 (which could explain one Eucratides’ II coin in the city), the total absence of innovations or change in the pottery from period VIII – which is the period of reoccupation of the city after it had been taken over by nomads among which, most probably the Yuezhi – compared to that of VII, i.e. the very end of Eucratides’ I reign, and the fact that numerous sherds of VIII stick with those of VII, prevent the idea that the city may have continued for half a century or more after his death. Another proof is the total absence of any footed vessel in period VIII, while a few graves excavated on the Bala Hissar (Leriche 1986, 62 and annexe 3) provide examples of the earliest types of such vessels (material unfortunately not yet published), the date of which has to be around the turn of the 1st century BC, see below. 30 Lyonnet 2013. 31 Rotroff 1997.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 428 Lyonnet given to the arrival of “Megarian” bowls and their diffusion in Minor Asia by S. Rotroff,32 though other shapes are also concerned. Nevertheless, it remained difficult to differentiate this Afrasiab IIB material from that of the Afrasiab III period, as Shishkina had herself underlined. Stratigraphic information from the French-Uzbek excavations at Afrasiab, however, gives now a secure basis for a separation between them. The data presented here comes exclusively from Paul Bernard and Igor Ivanitskij’s excavations. Only there was a reasonable surface exposed, with floors, walls, pits and their openings, and other structures securely identified. Paul Bernard, furthermore, gave me a very precise stratigraphic description of all the units that he considered as devoid of intrusions, or mentioned the doubtful ones. Unfortunately, I did not dispose of the sections and plans of the area except for those already published, and, since P. Bernard’s death, his archives are not yet available.

6 The New Data

As exposed by P. Bernard,33 these French-Uzbek excavations took place precisely where Kabanov had worked in the 60s and 70s,34 himself taking over previous work done by Terenozhkin and extending it up to the rampart above the Siab. Both Bernard’s predecessors had already brought to light a large building made of pakhsa and of a few bricks, including rooms with “altars”, other rooms surrounded by sofas with jars, post-holes of weaving looms and loom-weights. Kabanov35 had attributed this building to the “Kushan” period. Slightly more to the south, below an older excavation made by L.G. Brusenko36 of a Muslim cemetery and earlier remains of houses, T.I. Lebedeva had continued working. She had reached occupational levels that she dated to the 5th and 4th centuries AD,37 though B.I. Marshak considered them to be earlier (4th century AD) because the pottery found there was totally unknown at Pendjikent. P. Bernard hoped that working further down in this area would lead to the discovery of an earlier, hopefully Greek, quarter of habitation close to the rampart. This, unfortunately, did not happen, but his excavations have

32 Rotroff 1982; 1997; 2006. 33 Bernard et alii 1990; 1992; Bernard 1996. 34 Kabanov 1964; 1969; 1973. 35 Kabanov 1969. 36 Brusenko et alii 1975. 37 Lebedeva 1992.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 429 nevertheless brought to light many accurate new data that can be added to Kabanov’s one. The French-Uzbek excavations have revealed more of the so-called “Kushan” pakhsa building; this denomination has rightly been rejected since the Kushans have never controlled Sogdiana. However, no specific material helped dating it precisely.38 The area was badly disturbed, as most of the site is, by a dozen of pits and by badrabs dating to the Islamic period that had entered into even the lower levels of the building, into the rampart and into the Lebedeva’s area. There, furthermore, two zemlyanki (subterranean rooms) dated to the 8th century had largely destroyed almost all the levels. Nevertheless, under the “Kushan” building, a series of levels with several successive floors and vague remains of walls grossly built could be identified. There, too, were discovered the lower part of a “pottery” kiln,39 fills and many pits. The last ones sometimes contained almost complete very fine red or black slipped vessels among which a great number of high-footed goblets, and a few pots in grey ware, all dated to the Afrasiab III period (fig. 2 and fig. 3, 4-6). Altogether, the number of sherds found in these layers amounts to almost 6000.40 Clearly, a lot of the material coming from these levels was included in the building material of the “Kushan” construction above it and probably caused Kabanov’s misdating. From under floor 3 downwards, starts another series of pits, many of which cut one another, and, in the last year of excavation, a (partly buried?) hut was discovered, overlying another pit. No standing architecture except for the hut has been related to these structures. The total number of sherds from the well identified units found in these lowest levels amounts to at least 2500. It contained not one high-footed goblet, but, as in the above layers, very fine red slip, often glossy or metallic-like types among which oenochoes, craters (one of which with an applied “Buddha”-like bust),41 bowls with round-bottoms and applied pellets along the rim, others with in-turned rim larger than the previous IIA whitish echinus bowls, a few grey ware pottery, etc. (fig. 3, 1-3). The significant number of sherds that has been brought to light in these levels, together with their stratigraphic position, lead me to attribute them to

38 The building dates to the Afrasiab IV period, whenever that is, from the 2nd to the 5th century AD. 39 Curiously, no over-burnt pottery material has been discovered around the kiln, but there was an ashy layer in the bottom of the rectangular chamber with the lower part of an unfired container. Its use as a pottery kiln is not ascertained. 40 The numbers mentioned here and further down are those coming exclusively from the units considered as not disturbed by P. Bernard. 41 This is published in Bernard 1996.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 430 Lyonnet

Figure 2 Examples of footed-gobelets, Afrasiab period III. 1: Red-slip inside, Red-brown slip outside, 93-2-142; 2: Red-slip inside and outside, 94-2-026; 3: Red-slip inside and outside, 92-2-219; 4: Brown-black slip inside and outside, 91-2-185; 5: Brown-black slip inside and outside, 89-2-094, 105; 6: Remains of brown-black slip inside, brown-black wash outside, 89-2-085, 086, 110, 130, 139.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 431

Figure 3 Photos of Afrasiab periods II and III pottery. 1: Period IIB, grey-black handle from a oenochoe, 02-9-080; 2: Period IIB, round bottom bowls with applied pellets along the rim, red-slip: 95-2-030, grey-black slip: 90-2-031; 3: Period IIB, crater with an anthropomorphic figure applied on a series of wavy bands and under a molded ring outside, and a wavy band inside the rim, brown wash inside and outside, 94-2-015; 4: Period III, squat pot on a flat base, molded ring at the base of the collar, eroded black slip, 94-2-038; 5: Period III, top of a pot without handle, molded ring at the base of the collar, red and black slip, 94-2-038, 039; 6: Period III, probable œnochoe (rim missing), molded ring at the base of the collar, several grooves on the shoulder, black and red slip, 94-2-033, 038. period IIB. This period, here, is clearly separated both from IIA and from III, though, of course, the pottery shapes or the quality and colour of the slips of IIB continue in III. Of course, Paul Bernard tried to relate the “Kushan” building and the layers under it with the rampart and its different periods of construction and repairs.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 432 Lyonnet

Unfortunately, in this defensive wall and around it, only very few sherds were recovered from well stratified units so that a precise date for the different stages is often difficult to give. To give examples, from all the pre-Greek (Afrasiab I) units or levels, not more than 90 sherds were recovered in situ; for the Greek IIA period altogether only 360 sherds were found in their original position, i.e. in the pebble foundation of the rampart and repairs of the wall (52 sherds), in the floors close to the ramparts and in the fills between them (101 sherds), in pits (183 sherds), in an ashy layer (11 sherds) and in a disturbed grave (13 sherds). Only in one instance is there a secure stratigraphic relation between the IIB units described above and the IIA ones close to the ramparts: it concerns one unit of 13 sherds squeezed under the bottom of the hut and an ashy layer dated to IIA.

7 The Absolute Chronology of Afrasiab IIB and III

It is of course important to date these periods as precisely as possible, even if no coin was found in these levels. We have a starting point for IIB, around the middle of the 2nd century BC thanks to the date of the last occupation at Ai Khanoum, but no precise date for the introduction of the high-footed goblets, and no absolute date for the end of Afrasiab III. In the cemeteries attributed to several nomadic groups excavated in Northern Bactria, high-footed goblets were, in a few cases, found together with coins.42 Their attributions range successively from Heliocles43 (in K. 14 of Kyzyl Tepe),44 to imitations of Eucratides45 (at Tup Khona)46 and Heraos (at Tulkhar;47 at the BM IV cemetery in the Bishkent valley48). The footed goblets associated with them are, however, not totally alike and the stemmed ones are only linked with the last two types of coin issues. Discussion is still going on about the dates of the last Greek kings in Bactria,49 and of those nomads who

42 See Lyonnet 1997, 157-172. 43 We deliberately omit here the mentions of coins of earlier Greek kings or those that are not associated with high-footed goblets. 44 Obel’chenko 1992. 45 According to E.V. Zeïmal’ (1983, 106-109), these imitations are from the 2nd, 3rd and 4th series. 46 D’yakonov 1950; Litvinskiï & Sedov 1984. 47 Mandel’shtam 1966. 48 Medvedskaya 1983. 49 The end of Heliocles, for instance, still varies from 145 to around 90 BC, see Cribb 2005.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 433 succeeded them50 even if recent progress has been made in the overall chronology of the Kushans thanks to the discovery of the Rabatak inscription. The coin issues linked with high-footed (stemmed) goblets are situated between c. the first third of the 1st century BC and the first third of the 1st century AD. To these local coins must be added that of Tiberius (16-21 AD) found in grave 3 of Tillya Tepe together with such a high-footed goblet51 which gives a further confirmation for their date. For the end of Afrasiab III, we now have indirect data coming from Bactria. There, at Kampyr Tepe, the presence of many coins found in situ has recently pointed out the total absence of high-footed goblets in the Kushan levels related to Kanishka’s I reign,52 now determined as starting in 127 AD.53 We can therefore consider that, by the early 2nd century AD, this type of drinking vessels had already disappeared from Bactria. In Sogdiana, the same is probably true, though we cannot totally ignore the possibility that some odd-shaped footed goblets, unknown in Bactria, have continued for a short while. Afrasiab III would then be dated from c. the first third of the 1st century BC to the turn of the 2nd century AD., i.e. a little less than two centuries, and period IIB, from c. the middle of the 2nd century BC to c. the first third of the 1st century BC, i.e. about 75 years.

8 Possible Historical Interpretations

The identification of period Afrasiab IIB raises several problems. The pottery shapes are, as I already said, deeply Greek-influenced and, as for period III itself, there is no evidence of any “nomadic” or local features. If the Greeks had lost control of Sogdiana at the time of Diodotus I (end of IIA) after a very difficult conquest, how can we explain that they are back about a century later without apparent major fights with the local population? And what happened at Afrasiab between IIA and IIB? Sources are particularly rare for this period and this area and we are left only with archaeology and hypotheses to solve these questions.

50 For Heraos, see now Falk 2015, 85-88. In c. AD 30, Kujula Kadphises attacked and elimi- nated the four other xihou. Heraos is either a different person whose coinage was issued just before Kujula took power, or Kujula himself in the early part of his reign. 51 Sarianidi 1989. 52 Bolelov 2006. 53 Falk 2015, 111.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 434 Lyonnet

On the one hand, the presence of this IIB pottery at Afrasiab underlines differences in the material culture between Eastern Bactria and Sogdiana.54 The absence of destructions and the quality of the material shows that the Yuezhi did not settle nor even probably pass through the Ferghana55 and Zeravshan valleys, but rather through those of the Upper Wakhsh and Qizil Su to arrive directly on the opposite bank of Ai Khanoum, at that time the capital of Bactria. One can only imagine that the death of Eucratides I, the arrival of nomadic invaders and the pillage of the city made many of the Greek colonists and of the Bactrian elite escape and flee away, some of them up to Marakanda. We are left then to admit that the Sakā nomadic component of Sogdiana, still present in the Zeravshan valley as shown by the fighters represented with high- collared armours on the Orlat bone plaques,56 and who will fight against (and be defeated by) the Yuezhi at the time of Heraos as testified by the Khalchayan frieze,57 was aware of these events and preferred an alliance with their previous Greek opponents. However, at that time, the Samarkand area seems to have been peaceful since there is no sign of a reconstruction or repair of the rampart. The Afrasiab IIB and III pottery, though undoubtedly Hellenistic and showing the same main development as in northern Bactria, like the introduction of grey ware, stamps and other decorations, cannot be totally compared to the Bactrian assemblage. On the one hand, it has very original features among which many shapes that clearly imitate metallic ware (oenochoes, glossy black or red slip). If contacts existed then between Sogdiana and Bactria, as was most probably the case, the material culture in each area seems to have had its own specific features, possibly testifying of separate entities at that time. Unfortunately, we still lack information from Bactra itself. On the other hand, some specific features at Afrasiab IIB and III, especially the deep red slip, tend to show that contacts with the Early Roman world were at work before and around our era. This is well in accordance with the Chinese sources and the trade they mention with the West, though they do not explic- itly mention Sogdiana.

54 The differences between Eastern Bactria, the Waksh and Qizil Su valleys and the rest of Bactria during the nomadic invasions have already been underlined in Lyonnet 1997. Eastern Bactria underwent a profound decline after the destruction of Ai Khanoum and never really recovered. 55 At Akhsiket, in Northern Ferghana, the early levels show a material culture similar to that of Afrasiab IIB (see Anarbaev & Inevatkina 1990). 56 Ilyasov & Rusanov 1997/1998. 57 Bernard 1987.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 435

This, in turn, raises back the question of the origins of the high-footed goblets. The first examples consist of regular Central Asian Greek goblets or bowls on just a higher ring or plain disk-shaped foot. Further on, the shape of the container changed, a stem appeared and the foot developed. With the last ones, Sogdiana, at least on the left bank of the Zeravshan River,58 enters into a large zone extending from Chorasmia in the north-west, to Pakistan in the south-east, where this type of drinking vessel is well represented. Kabanov59 had already compared those of Afrasiab with all the areas around, and since his publication other cemeteries and sites have produced exact similar ones. A precise study of the different stages of their evolution and of their date is still needed to see if the quick diffusion of the stemmed ones can be linked with a political event and/or with one specific ethnic group, or, with the introduction of Roman silver – or glass – ware.60

Bibliography

Anarbaev, A.A., and Inevatkina, O.N. (1990). Stratigraficheskoe izuchenie Shakhristana i gorodishcha Éski Akhsi. Istoriya material’noï kul’turÿ Uzbekistana 4, pp. 71-86. Atakhodzhaev, A.Kh. (2013). Données numismatiques pour l’histoire politique de la Sogdiane (IVe-IIe siècles avant notre ère). Revue numismatique 170, pp. 213-246. Avanesova, N.A. (1991). Kul’tura pastusheskikh plemen épokhi bronzÿ Aziatskoï chasti SSSR (po metallicheskim izdeliyam). Tashkent: Fan. Avanesova, N.A. (2001). U istokov urbanisticheskogo Afrasiaba. Istoriya material’noï kul’turÿ Uzbekistana 32, pp. 57-68. Baratte, F. (2001). Orient et Occident: le témoignage d’une trouvaille d’argenterie d’époque parthe en Asie centrale. Journal des Savants 2, pp. 249-307. Bernard, P. (1985). Les monnaies hors trésors. Question d’histoire gréco-bactrienne, Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum IV (Memoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 28), Paris: Éditions de Boccard.

58 No high-footed goblet has been discovered on the right bank of the river, or in Chach (Tashkent area). This border line could be that of the Kangyui territory (to the North). 59 Kabanov 1964. 60 Roman glassware with similar stemmed goblet is usually dated much later, not before the 3rd century AD (see Whitehouse 1997, nos. 154, 156 or Negro Ponzi Mancini 1984, fig. 2, no. 5). Silverware presents several examples dating to about our era said to be Indo- Parthian (see for a recent instance Baratte 2001, fig. 1 and fig. 22).

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 436 Lyonnet

Bernard, P. (1987). Les nomades conquérants de l’empire gréco-bactrien. Réflexions sur leur identité ethnique et culturelle. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, pp. 758-768. Bernard, P. (1996). Maracanda-Afrasiab, colonie grecque de Sogdiane. In: S. Moscati, ed., Convegno internazionale sul tema: La Persia e l’Asia Centrale da Alessandro al X secolo, Roma, 9-12 novembre 1994, Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, pp. 331-365. Bernard, P., Grenet F., and Isamiddinov, M. (1990). Fouilles de la mission franco- soviétique à l’ancienne Samarkand (Afrasiab): première campagne, 1989. Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, pp. 356-380. Bernard, P., Grenet, F., and Isamiddinov, M. (1992). Fouilles de la mission franco- ouzbèque à l’ancienne Samarkand (Afrasiab): deuxième et troisième campagnes (1990-1991). Comptes rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles- Lettres, pp. 275-311. Bolelov, S.B. (2006). Zhiloï kvartal kushanskogo vremeni na Kampÿrtepa. (Raskopki 2000-2002 godov). Materialÿ Tokharistanskoï ékspeditsii 6, pp. 15-80. Bopearachchi, O. (1991). Monnaies gréco-bactriennes et indo-grecques. Catalogue raisonné. Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale. Brusenko, L.G., Buryakova, E.Yu., and Filanovich, M.I. (1975). K istorii slozheniya musul’manskogo kladbishcha v severnoï chasti Afrasiaba. In: Sh.S. Tashkhodzhaev, ed., Afrasiab IV, Tashkent: Fan, pp. 100-114. Cribb, J. (2005). The Greek Kingdom of Bactria. Its Coinage and its Collapse. In: O. Bopearachchi and M.-F. Boussac, eds., Afghanistan, ancien carrefour entre l’est et l’ouest, (Indicopleustoi: Archaeologies of the Indian Ocean 3), Turnhout: Brepols, pp. 207-225. D’yakonov, M.M. (1950). Rabotÿ kafirniganskogo otryada. Materialÿ i issledovaniya po arkheologii SSSR 15, pp. 147-186. Falk, H., ed. (2015). Kushan Histories: Literary Sources and Selected Papers from a Symposium at Berlin, December 5 to 7, 2013 (Monographien zur Indischen Archäologie, Kunst und Philologie), Bremen: Hempen Verlag. Holt, F.L. (1981). The Euthydemid coinage of Bactria: Further Hoard Evidence from Aï Khanoum. Revue Numismatique 23, pp. 7-44. Holt, F.L. (2012). When Did the Greeks Abandon Aï Khanoum? Anabasis 3, pp. 161-172. Ilyasov, J.Ya, and Rusanov, D.V. (1997/1998). A Study on the Bone Plates from Orlat. Silk Road Art and Archaeology 5, pp. 107-159. Ivanitskiï, I.D. (1992). Saratepe-2 – poselenie keramistov seredinÿ I tÿs. do n. é. pod Samarkandom. Istoriya material’noï kul’turÿ Uzbekistana 26, pp. 22-41. Kabanov, S.K. (1964). Areal i évolyutsiya dvukh drevnikh keramicheskikh form. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3, pp. 79-87.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 437

Kabanov, S.K. (1969). Izuchenie stratigrafii gorodishcha Afrasiab. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1, pp. 183-198. Kabanov, S.K. (1973). Stratigraficheskiï raskop v severnoï chasti gorodishcha Afrasiab. In: Ya.G. Gulyamov, ed., Afrasiab II, Tashkent: Fan, pp. 16-84. Kabanov, S.K. (1981). Osvoenie zapadnÿkh raïonov goroda na rannikh étapakh ego zhizni. In: Yu.F. Buryakov, ed., K istoricheskoï topografii drevnego i srednevekovogo Samarkanda, Tashkent: Fan, pp. 23-59. Lebedeva, T.I. (1990). Keramika Afrasiaba V-VI vv. n. é. Istoriya material’noï kul’turÿ Uzbekistana 23, pp. 160-168. Leriche, P. (1986). Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum V. Les remparts et les monuments associés (Memoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 29), Paris: Éditions de Boccard. Lerner, J.D. (2003/2004). Correcting the Early History of Ay Kanom. Archäologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan 35/36, pp. 373-410. Lerner, J.D. (2010). Revising the Chronologies of the Hellenistic Colonies of Samarkand- Marakanda (Afrasiab II-III) and Aï Khanoum (Northeastern Afghanistan). Anabasis 1, pp. 58-79. Lerner, J.D. (2011). A Reappraisal of the Economic Inscriptions and Coin Finds from Aï Khanoum. Anabasis 2, pp. 103-147. Litvinskiï, B.A., and Sedov, A.V. (1984). Kul’tÿ i ritualÿ kushanskoï Baktrii. Pogrebal’nÿï obryad. Moscow: Nauka. Lyonnet, B. (1997). Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974-1978), sous la direction de Jean-Claude Gardin. Volume 2. Céramique et peuplement, du Chalcolithique à la conquête arabe (Mémoires de la Mission archéologique française en Asie centrale 8), Paris: ERC. Lyonnet, B. (2001). Les Grecs, les Nomades et l’indépendance de la Sogdiane, d’après l’occupation comparée d’Aï Khanoum et de Marakanda au cours des derniers siè- cles avant notre ère. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 12, pp. 141-159. Lyonnet, B. (2010). D’Aï Khanoum à Koktepe, questions sur la datation absolue de la céramique hellénistique d’Asie centrale. In: K. Abdullaev, ed., Traditsii Vostoka i Zapada v antichnoï kul’ture Sredneï Azii, Tashkent: Noshilik yog’dusi Press, pp. 141-153. 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. (2013). La céramique de la maison du quartier sud-ouest d’Aï Khanoum. In: G. Lecuyot, ed., Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum IX. L’habitat (Memoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan 34), Paris: Éditions de Boccard, pp. 179-191. Mandel’shtam, A.M. (1966). Kochevniki na puti v Indiyu (Trudÿ Tadzhikskoï arkheo- logicheskoï ékspeditsii 5). Moscow, Leningrad: Nauka.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access 438 Lyonnet

Martinez-Sève, L. (2010). A propos du temple aux niches indentées d’Aï Khanoum: quelques observations. In: P. Carlier and C. Lerouge-Cohen, eds., Paysage et religion en Grèce antique. Mélanges en l’honneur de Madeleine Jost (Travaux de la Maison R. Ginouvès 10), Paris: Éditions de Boccard, pp. 195-207. Medvedskaya, I.N. (1983). Raskopki Shaartuzskogo otryada v 1977 godu. Arkheologicheskie rabotÿ v Tadzhikistane 17, pp. 120-130. Minardi, M. (2015). Ancient Chorasmia. A Polity between the Semi-Nomadic and Sedentary Cultural Areas of Central Asia. Cultural Interactions and Local Developments from the Sixth century BC to the First century AD (Acta Iranica 56). Leuven: Peeters. Naïmark, A.I. [Naymark, A.I.] (2005). Nakhodki grecheskikh monet v Sogdiane. Numizmatika i épigrafika 17, pp. 116-138. Negro Ponzi Mancini, M.M. (1984). Glassware from Choche (Central Mesopotamia). In: R. Boucharlat and J.-F. Salles, eds., Arabie orientale, Mésopotamie et Iran meridional, de l’Age du Fer au début de la période islamique, Paris: Éditons ERC, pp. 33-40. Obel’chenko, O.V. (1992). Kul’tura antichnogo Sogda. Po arkheologicheskim dannÿm VII v. do n.é. – VII v. n.é. Moscow: Nauka. Rotroff, S.I. (1982). Hellenistic Pottery. Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls (The Athenian Agora 22), Princeton: American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S.I. (1997). Hellenistic Pottery, Athenian and Imported Wheelmade Table Ware and Related Material (The Athenian Agora 29), Princeton: The American School of Classical Studies at Athens. Rotroff, S.I. (2006). The Introduction of the Moldmade Bowl Revisited. Hesperia 75, pp. 368-369. Sarianidi, V.I. (1989). Khram i nekropol’ Tillyatepe. Moscow: Nauka. Shishkina, G.V. (1969a). Materialÿ pervÿkh vekov do nasheï érÿ iz raskopok na severo- zapade Afrasiaba. In: Ya.G. Gulyamov, ed., Afrasiab I, Tashkent: Fan, pp. 221-246. Shishkina, G.V. (1969b). O mestonakhozhdenii Marakandÿ. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1, pp. 62-75. Shishkina, G.V. (1974). Keramika kontsa IV-II vv. do n. é. (Afrasiab II). In: Ya.G. Gulyamov, ed., Afrasiab III, Tashkent: Fan, pp. 28-51. Shishkina, G.V. (1975). Éllinisticheskaya keramika Afrasiaba. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 2, pp. 60-78. Shishkina, G.V. (1976). Severnÿe vorota drevnego Samarkanda. In: B.G. Gafurov and B.A. Litvinskiï, eds., Istoriya i kul’tura narodov Sredneï Azii, Moscow: Nauka, pp. 99-104. Shishkina, G.V. (1986). Les remparts de Samarcande à l’époque hellénistique. In: P. Leriche and H. Tréziny, eds., La fortification dans l’histoire du monde grec, Paris: CNRS, pp. 71-78. Shishkina, G.V. (1996). Ancient Samarkand: Capital of Soghd. Bulletin of the Asia Institute 8, pp. 81-99.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to SiberiaDownloaded 24 from (2018) Brill.com09/24/2021 420-439 03:10:49AM via free access Antique Samarkand or Afrasiab ii and iii 439

Terenozhkin, A.I. (1950). Sogd i Chach. Kratkie soobshcheniya Instituta istorii material’noï kul’turÿ AN SSSR 33, pp. 152-169. Terenozhkin, A.I. (1972). Voprosÿ periodizatsii i khronologii drevnego Samarkanda. Sovetskaya arkheologiya 3, pp. 90-99. Whitehouse, D. (1997). Roman Glass in the Corning Museum of Glass, Volume 1. New York: The Corning Museum of Glass. Zeïmal’, E.V. (1983). Drevnie monetÿ Tadzhikistana. Dushanbe: Donish.

Ancient Civilizations from Scythia to Siberia 24Downloaded (2018) 420-439 from Brill.com09/24/2021 03:10:49AM via free access