Antique Samarkand Or Afrasiab Ii and Iii Differentiation, Chronology and Interpretation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
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 begin- ning (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 sub- ject 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 begin- ning 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 pot- tery 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 pot- tery 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 cylin- dro-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 gob- lets 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 ori- gin 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 west- ern part of the city, he brought to light-coloured unslipped and often highly polished high-footed goblets, some of them handmade, that were undoubt- edly 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 ves- sel, except craters, has been noticed in any Greek level in Central Asia.