doi: 10.2143/AWE.13.0.3038737 AWE 13 (2014) 175-195
MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION: THE MECHANICS OF STYLISTIC INFLUENCE FROM THE MEDITERRANEAN TO BACTRIA
RACHEL MAIRS
Abstract Classical Greek and Roman influence on the material culture of Central Asia and north- western India is often considered in the abstract. This article attempts to examine the mech- anisms of craft production and movement of artisans and objects which made such influence possible, through four case studies: (1) Mould-made ceramics in Hellenistic eastern Bactria; (2) Plaster casts used in the production of metalware from Begram; (3) Terracotta figurines and the moulds used to produce them, from various archaeological sites; and (4) Mass production of identical gold adornments in the nomadic tombs from Tillya Tepe. The implications of such techniques for our understanding of the development of Gandharan art are also discussed.
Introduction Tjn xárazi fróntise texniká na gínei. See to it the engraving be skilfully done. ´Ekfrasiv sobarß kai megaloprepßv. The expression series and dignified. To diádjma kallítera mállon stenó· The diadem preferably rather narrow; ekeína ta fardiá twn Párqwn den me arésoun. those broad Parthian ones are not to my liking. J epigrafß, wv súnjqev, elljniká· The inscription, as usual in Greek; óx’ uperbolikß, óxi pompÉdjv— nothing excessive, nothing pompous – mjn ta parezjgßsei o anqúpatov lest the proconsul, who always pokes around pou ólo skalíhei kai mjná stjn PÉmj — and reports to Rome, take it the wrong way – all’ ómwv bébaia timjtikß. but nonetheless, of course, honorific. Káti polú eklektó ap’ to állo mérov· Something very special on the other side; kanénav diskobólov éfjbov wraíov. Some handsome youth, a discus-thrower. Pro pántwn se sustßnw na kuttázeiv Above all, I bid you pay attention (Siqáspj, prov qeoú, na mj ljsmonjqeí) (Sithaspes, in god’s name, don’t let this be forgotten) metá to Basileúv kai to Swtßr, that after the words ‘King’ and ‘Saviour’ na xaraxqeí me grámmata komcá, Filélljn. be engraved in elegant lettering: ‘Philhellene.’ Kai tÉra mj me arxíheiv eufuologíev, And now don’t start your witticisms on me, ta «Poú oi ´Elljnev;» kai «Poú ta Elljniká like: ‘where are the Greeks’ and ‘where is Greek used písw ap’ ton Hágro edÉ, apó ta Fráata péra». around here, this side of Zagros, way beyond Fraata’.
997030.indb7030.indb 175175 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 176 R. MAIRS
Tósoi kai tósoi barbaróteroí mav álloi Since so many others, more barbarous than we, afoú to gráfoun, qa to grácoume k’ emeív. write it, we will write it too. Kai télov mj zexnáv pou eníote And finally, do not forget that on occasion mav érxont’ apó tjn Suría sofistaí, there come to us sophists from Syria, kai stixoplókoi, ki álloi mataióspoudoi. and poetasters and other pretentious pedants. ´Wste anellßnistoi den eímeqa, qarrÉ. Thus, we are not lacking in Greek culture, I do believe. (C.P. Cavafy, Philhellene, 1912)1
The impact of Classical Graeco-Roman influences on the material culture of Central Asia and north-western India, in regions beyond the political control of Rome or the Hellenistic empires of the eastern Mediterranean, has been a subject of perennial fascination and debate. This influence may be read, literally and visually, on the coins of Cavafy’s philhellenic Iranian dynast and his real-life inspi- rations. It may be evident in the style of excavated buildings and artefacts, and also in subject matter, something nicely encapsulated in a Gandharan relief depicting the entry of the notorious ‘Greek gift’ into Troy, as a rather Indian Cassandra prophesies dire consequences at the city gates (Fig. 1).2 In addition to the scholarly interest which it has aroused, the use of imagery and artistic styles associated with the Classical Mediterranean world is also something which has been politicised in both past and present. The use of Greek and Indian iconography and scripts on different sides of a single Indo-Greek coin allowed the king who issued it to present himself in different ways to different constituencies – as basileus and as maharajah.3 Intellectual custody battles over the ‘Asian’ or ‘European’ affinities of the Greek kingdoms of Bactria and India and their culture dominated scholarship throughout the period of the European colonial empires of the 19th and 20th centuries, and arguably continue to do so.4 Discussion of the relationship between the visual culture of the Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms and Kushan empire and that of the contemporary Mediterranean world can all too quickly drift into the abstract. This relationship is stated to have been forged through influence, transmission and interaction, without, in some cases, sufficient attention being given to agency, instrument, and political and socio-economic context. Even theoretical trends which may appear to offer a more practical and constructive approach to cultural influence and interaction and
1 Cavafy 2008. 2 Allan 1946. 3 Another source of inspiration for Cavafy: Oikonomides 1984; Coloru 2009, 117–19. 4 Mairs 2006.
997030.indb7030.indb 176176 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 177
Fig. 1: A Gandharan relief depicting the Trojan horse (after Allan 1946, fig. 1) (© Trustees of the British Museum).
the mechanisms by which these phenomena happen – I think, in particular, of the recent popularity of ‘hybridity’ and associated concepts borrowed from post-colonial theory – can sometimes, depending upon the context of their application, turn out merely to re-present existing, imprecise models under new management.5 My purpose here is not to offer any such new model for the production of Mediterranean influence on the visual culture of the Hellenistic Far East and Kushan empire, nor extensively to critique existing models. What I should like to do is to draw attention to one aspect of the literal, tangible process of transmission of things and skills, and suggest that a focus on the small-scale, practical movement and reproduction of particular motifs and images is one way to temper our broader theoretical discussions, and ground them in the local and specific. Stylistic analogies between elements of the material culture of two distant regions can best be made compelling by tracing the routes and agents of their diffusion with as much preci- sion as we can.
5 Kouremenos, Chandrasekaran and Rossi 2011 contains a collection of recent studies on the Hellenistic East which engage with the concepts of hybridity and hybridisation to varying extents.
997030.indb7030.indb 177177 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 178 R. MAIRS
The material I discuss here is principally, though not exclusively, from three archaeological sites in Afghanistan – Aï Khanoum, Begram and Tillya Tepe – which have not coincidentally been the subject of a recent major international touring exhibition of collections from the National Museum in Kabul.6 While this exhibi- tion has focused attention on the striking interaction of different cultures and artistic traditions in the material culture of ancient Afghanistan, it has also presented to audiences in Europe and North America some of the very items which made such influence and innovation possible. These include plaster casts from Begram, used to copy scenes in relief from metal vessels, and gold appliqués from Tillya Tepe which were produced in identical forms in large numbers. Although examples of these were not contained in the exhibition, I also discuss moulded ‘Megarian bowls’, found at Aï Khanoum and elsewhere in eastern Bactria, which link the region into much wider networks of the diffusion and imitation of ceramic forms across the Mediterranean and Near East. Terracotta figurines and the moulds used to make them provide a smaller-scale, more localised perspective on the reproduction of images, and my examples here derive principally from Kampyr-tepe, on the north bank of the Oxus in present-day Uzbekistan. Models, moulds and mass production were among the techniques which allowed motifs and artistic styles to be made ‘transportable’. Whether and to what extent this actually happened depended on a range of political, social and economic factors. My discussion of these wider questions is of necessity relatively brief, but I would like to note a few points in anticipation of my discussion in the following sections. Until around the middle of the 3rd century BC, Bactria was – nominally at least – part of a wider Near Eastern empire, whether that of the Achaemenids or of Alexander and his Seleucid successors. Even after its independence, the Graeco- Bactrian state retained commercial contacts with other regions of the Hellenistic East, and some notion of a Greek cultural and political identity. It is in this context that we should view eastern Bactria’s close adherence to Mediterranean ceramic styles and trends in this period. Begram, in the 1st and 2nd centuries AD, was tied into maritime as well as overland trading networks with the Mediterranean.7 These networks allowed goods from Roman Egypt to reach Begram, and they also gave
6 See the French and English catalogues for general introductions to the respective sites, their history and archaeology: Cambon and Jarrige 2006; Hiebert and Cambon 2008; 2011. For further details and publications on the archaeological sites of the Hellenistic Far East and Kushan empire discussed here, the reader is referred to the bibliographical survey Mairs 2011a, available in print form and online at
997030.indb7030.indb 178178 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 179
the city itself a prominent position as an intermediary in the trade of Chinese and Central Asian goods to the Roman empire. The terracottas and moulds from Kampyr-tepe offer yet another context for the reproduction and transportation of images, that of the army. In the Graeco-Bactrian and Kushan periods, Kampyr-tepe was an important fort on the Oxus, and finds of figurines of soldiers are a constant in all periods at the site. There is also a topic which is too large for me to engage with fully here, but too important to omit from my discussion, that of the development of Gandharan art. The Buddhist art of Gandhara in the early centuries AD developed out of influences from the Graeco-Roman world, but many points in its development and subsequent evolution remain obscure.8 In the following sections, I will make occasional reference to the implications of the artefacts discussed for our understanding of the development of Gandharan art, and this is a topic to which I will return in my concluding remarks.
Eastern Bactria: Mould-Made ‘Megarian’ Bowls Excavations at the Hellenistic period city of Aï Khanoum in eastern Bactria, modern north-eastern Afghanistan, were contextualised, between 1974 and 1978, by an extensive regional survey, which was intended to reveal something of settle- ment patterns and material culture in eastern Bactria during the active life of the ‘Greek’ city, and in earlier and later periods.9 This survey provided ample new material to support a phenomenon already observed among the material from Aï Khanoum: that some Bactrian pottery types at Aï Khanoum can be demonstrated to adhere closely to forms from the Mediterranean world, and apparently with very little ‘time-lag’ in their transmission. J.-C. Gardin observes that:
l’évolution des types hellénistiques, à Aï Khanoum, suit de façon étonnamment proche l’évolution des modèles méditeranéens. La « proximité » doit s’entendre ici de deux façons. Dans le temps, tout d’abord, les intervalles paraissent courts entre l’apparition de modèles ou de traits nouveaux, en Méditerranée orientale, et leur introduction en Bactriane. En second lieu, cette évolution parallèle se manifeste par des analogies nombreuses et précises, et non par des parentés aussi éloignées que ces deux régions le sont elle-mêmes l’une de l’autre, comme un coup d’œil sur la carte suffit à le rappeler.10
The first major ‘wave’ of innovation in ceramic types dates back to at least the beginning of the 3rd century BC (perhaps as early as the late 4th century), in which
8 For a useful set of recent studies, see Brancaccio and Behrendt 2006. 9 Gentelle 1989; Gardin 1998; Lyonnet 1997. 10 Gardin 1985, 450; conclusions revisited and largely reaffirmed in Gardin 1990.
997030.indb7030.indb 179179 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 180 R. MAIRS
forms of Greek tableware, bowls and plates were introduced which do not have antecedents in the local ceramic record. Mediterranean parallels for these forms were discussed by Bernard as far back as the report of the first season of excavations at Aï Khanoum.11 ‘Mediterranean’ ceramics, whatever their ultimate origins in terms of imported exemplars or immigrant potters, were manufactured locally in eastern Bactria. Technical similarities in the firing process to ceramics produced in the Achaemenid period in the region point towards local production.12 The Hellenistic period presents a contrast to both earlier and later periods in terms of the quantitative and qualitative impact of regime change and immigration on the Bactrian ceramic record. Gardin assesses innovation in ceramic production and styles in Bactria in the periods of Achaemenid rule, the Graeco-Bactrian king- dom, and the period after the mid-2nd century BC ‘nomadic invasions’, according to a number of criteria.13 These include: any correlation between ceramic innova- tion and change in other forms of material culture; and the impact of such innova- tions on the overall material culture assemblage, in terms of extent and duration. The period of Greek rule scores highest in all of these categories by a considerable margin. The most significant diagnostic forms among the Mediterranean ceramic types of eastern Bactria are the so-called ‘Megarian bowls’, distinctive mould-made vessels. Although a Megarian origin for the style is no longer supported, the term is still commonly encountered in the literature. In addition to providing a classic example of the wide diffusion of people, goods and styles in the Hellenistic period, and connecting Aï Khanoum into these same networks, ‘Megarian’ mould-made bowls are an especially helpful chronological peg on which to hang the evolution of Bac- trian ceramic forms. Their all-over relief decoration enables them readily to be distinguished from earlier styles, and to be identified even from small fragments.14 From a possible original place of manufacture in Alexandria, these mould-made vessels, made in imitation of more expensive metalware, were introduced at Athens towards the end of the 3rd century BC,15 but appear in the ceramic record only in small numbers until ‘a fairly sudden increase in production in the second half of the first quarter of the 2nd century’.16 This indicates a date of adoption at Aï
11 Schlumberger and Bernard 1965, 604–40. 12 Lerner 2003–04, 278–79. 13 Gardin 1986. 14 Rotroff 2006, 357. 15 Rotroff 1982; 2006. 16 Rotroff 2006, 374.
997030.indb7030.indb 180180 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 181
Khanoum of no earlier than the early 2nd century BC, with attendant consequences for the absolute chronology of Aï Khanoum.17 As with many of the items discussed in this paper, it has not yet been possible to fully trace the trail of these ceramic forms back along routes across the Iranian plateau and Mesopotamia from the Mediterranean, and almost all the details of the processes of transportation and emulation which brought them to Bactria remain obscure.18 If anything, excavations along the probable routes of transmission may indicate that adherence to Mediterranean forms is actually stronger in eastern Bactria, and there are certainly comparatively few sherds of mould-made bowls at places such as Dura Europos and sites of the Levant and Mesopotamia in general.19 As well as the convenience with which they may be identified and used as a chronological anchor, the way in which mould-made bowls were produced is also of relevance to my discussion here, and in the following sections. On some level, the physical form of these bowls was evidently attractive to consumers, although the precise social context and connotations of their adoption and use remains a matter for debate. This created markets for them in Athens and the Aegean, and later further afield.20 On a more practical level, the way in which the bowls were produced also contributed to their spread. They were thrown on the potter’s wheel inside moulds which created the design on their outer walls. Such moulds were used on multiple occasions, despite being prone to damage, and were repaired.21 Local production of ‘Mediterranean’ ceramic forms in eastern Bactria, in addition to pro- ceeding in emulation of imported vessels, also involved the production of precise copies using imported moulds. Moulds for making ‘Megarian’ bowls have in fact been found at Aï Khanoum.22 Whether or not these are themselves imported, the technique of manufacture using moulds spread to Bactria along with the ‘Megarian’ mould-made bowl style. Little information is available on any Mediterranean foodstuffs or other com- modities which may have been brought to Bactria in imported pots. A number of ceramic vessels from the Aï Khanoum treasury bear brief texts in Greek accounting for the jar’s contents, relevant payments made, and the persons through whom business was transacted. One of the longest of these texts bears a date of year 24, probably of the Graeco-Bactrian king Eucratides and therefore dating to the 140s
17 A complex and controversial topic, discussed and reassessed by Lerner 2003–04, 380–81; 2010; Lyonnet 2010. 18 Gardin 1990, 191. 19 Hannestad 1990, 180–81. 20 Rotroff 2006, 370; Guldager Bilde 1993. 21 Rotroff 2006, 372. 22 Gardin 1985, 454; 1990, 189.
997030.indb7030.indb 181181 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 182 R. MAIRS
BC or so, but another of its points of interest is a reference to olive oil, which has been decanted into two jars by named agents.23 This is not the only reference to olive oil among these texts, and it is at least possible that the commodity has been imported all the way from the Mediterranean. Strabo claims that it was not possible to grow olives in Bactria (11. 11. 1). Even if these jars at Aï Khanoum have not travelled all the way from the civilised olive-growing world, we are still in a position to look at the circulation of commodities on a more local scale. Similar brief economic texts on vessels occur from other Central Asian sites as well as Aï Khanoum.24 The corpus of such writings is very small, but there is the potential for some interesting future work to be done on the circulation of pots and their contents within Bactria itself. There are, then, several areas in which models, forms and practices in use in Hellenistic Bactria conform very closely to analogies from the Mediterranean world. The handwriting of documentary texts is all but identical. A papyrus document from the Aï Khanoum treasury, with a literary text on it, must have been imported all the way from Egypt.25 Another very Mediterranean commodity, olive oil, may also have been imported, although it should be noted that we at present have no real evidence on whether the olive was cultivated in Hellenistic Central Asia or not. But it is the ceramics which give us the greatest insight into how close these connections were, and how such connections were made and maintained. A vessel and its contents – or the mould for making such a vessel – might travel all the way from the Mediterranean to Bactria, and once there its form might readily be copied by local potters.
Begram: Plaster Casts The city of Begram, around 60 km north of present-day Kabul, is a candidate for the site of Alexander the Great’s foundation of Alexandria-in-the-Causasus, and was later one of the principal cities of the Kushan empire. It was partially excavated by the Délégation archéologique française en Afghanistan (DAFA) in the 1930s and 1940s.26 Most discussion of the site focuses on material discovered in two store- rooms, which may have been a royal treasury or some kind of commercial depot. This store contained items from all over the ancient world, from Roman glass27 to
23 Rapin 1992; Canali De Rossi 2004, no. 329. 24 Mairs 2011a, 40. 25 Lerner 2003. 26 Hackin 1939; 1954; Ghirshman 1946. 27 Whitehouse 2001; Mairs 2012.
997030.indb7030.indb 182182 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 183
Indian ivories28 to Chinese lacquer work.29 The general consensus is that all of this material dates to the 1st or early 2nd century AD, although Menninger30 dates many of the plaster casts, on stylistic grounds, to the Augustan period or even ear- lier – and, as I will discuss below, similar plaster casts are known from excavated strata of the 3rd century BC at Aï Khanoum. As well as evidence for long-distance trade, what the Begram material also illustrates is the mobility of artisans and of templates. Although most or all of the Indian ivories are likely to be imports, three uncarved and unworked pieces of ivory were also discovered with them, suggesting that there may have been an ivory workshop at Begram itself. Indian craftsmen may therefore have travelled to Begram, and other important cities in the Kushan empire, and brought techniques and motifs with them.31 Local manufacture of items with Indian, Graeco-Roman, Chinese or Central Asian motifs does not, however, have to depend on the movement of large numbers of artisans. In terms of how we understand the physical transmission of styles and motifs, the most interesting items from the Begram storerooms are not the more impressive coloured glassware or intricately carved ivories, but a collection of 50 or so plaster casts. These are mostly in medallion form (40 such reconstructed pieces), and depict scenes from Classical mythology – Cupid and Psyche, Athena, Aphro- dite, Ganymede and the eagle, nymphs and maenads – or other figures in Classical style.32 These are moulds taken from metalware, either in the course of manufacture or from completed vessels, and their purpose is to serve as templates on which reproduction vessels can be modelled.33 Although local manufacture from imported vessels cannot be ruled out, it seems very probable that these plaster casts were themselves imported from the Roman empire.34 But we are not left simply to infer this from the presence of these casts at Begram. The physical qualities and characteristics of the artefacts themselves show both that they could easily be transported over long distances, and that they were used in a workshop and not as items of display. Illustrations of these medallions in exhibition catalogues and other publications can be deceptive: although they are very detailed,
28 Mehendale 1997; Simpson 2011. 29 Zhang 2011. 30 Menninger 1996. 31 Mehendale in Hiebert and Cambon 2008, 136–37. An ivory plaque with Indian motifs was found in the treasury at Aï Khanoum (Rapin 1996). 32 Kurz 1954, 110–46; Menninger 1996, 93–135. 33 See in general Burkhalter 1984; Frederiksen 2010. For examples from the Crimea, see Vnukov et al. 1990. 34 Mehendale 1997. Also on the Begram casts, see Richter 1958; Taddei 1992.
997030.indb7030.indb 183183 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 184 R. MAIRS
they are also very small, between 11 and just over 22 cm in diameter.35 These items are very portable. Furthermore, they show signs of having been handled and even rather abused. Some of them carry messy fingerprints on their moulded surface.36 A small plaster statuette of a nude female figure, cast from a mould, has joins which have not been smoothed off.37 Plaster casts of this sort not only allow images to be reproduced precisely over very long distances, but they are also multi-use and can, according to requirement, be used to produce multiple copies of the same image. What we as yet lack archaeological evidence of, however, are the kinds of workshops where plaster casts and moulds might have been used. The precise role of the items from the Begram storerooms in processes of craft production and reproduction therefore remains elusive. Although the medallions and other forms from Begram provide us with by far our largest corpus of such plaster casts, this process of transmission and reproduc- tion was not new to the region. It goes back at least as far as the period of the Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, and there are several examples of plaster mouldings from the site of Aï Khanoum. Four such pieces – compared by Bernard explicitly to the Begram plaster casts, and of Classical Greek style – were found in a house in the southern residential quarter of the city.38 A small medallion carries a image which can no longer be made out, and better-preserved pieces depict a man seiz- ing the hair of a bare-chested woman (Bernard suggests an identification with Cassandra and Ajax, but one might think of any number of examples in Classical mythology and literature), Athena and Poseidon, and the forepart of a horse, with reins. The context in which these were excavated dates to before the end of the 3rd century BC. From the main temple at Aï Khanoum, we have two other such items: a plaster medallion with the image of a Gorgon’s head and a raw clay mould for part of a female bust, which the excavators identify as a tertiary product of the same process that produced the Aï Khanoum and Begram plaster casts: a moulding taken from a piece in plaster, itself formed on a metal original.39 Both bear very overtly Classi- cal images, the care with which the figure is worked contrasts with the rough form of the rest of the piece, and they are, once more, very small and very portable.40 Items such as these provide a valuable demonstration of one mechanism by which motifs might be propagated over long distances and are a rare point of access
35 Kurz 1954, 138. 36 Mehendale in Hiebert and Cambon 2008, 141. 37 Hiebert and Cambon 2008, no. 186. 38 Bernard 1971, 430-35. 39 Bernard 1974, 302 and fig. 14, 304. 40 Francfort 1984, 31–37, pl. 18.
997030.indb7030.indb 184184 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 185
to the ways in which ideas and artistic forms might physically be transmitted. It is not necessary for original pieces, or moulds and casts made from such pieces, to themselves travel over especially long distances. But when there exist mechanisms which permit exact reproduction, rather than less direct artistic ‘influence’, then fairly exact copies of items or individual motifs can indeed be transported accurately over a long distance in a series of much smaller steps. Artisans can copy from an original and they can also reproduce an original they have never seen from a mould or cast. Further along the line, other craftsmen can do exactly the same.
Kampyr-Tepe: Terracotta Moulds41 The plaster casts from Begram and Aï Khanoum relate to a specific kind of craft production – the manufacture of relief-decorated metal vessels – their workman- ship is very fine, and they depict figures from Classical mythology in styles which are of evident Western origin. The moulds for the production of terracotta figurines which have been excavated at countless Hellenistic and Kushan period sites across Bactria and north-western India (and which may be found on display in museums across the region, such as those at Tashkent and Termez) are, on the face of it, very different creatures, but they too relate to a production technique which allowed motifs to be reproduced precisely from a single exemplar, even if the moulds and the figurines produced will likely have enjoyed a smaller and more localised circulation. It should go without saying that my coverage of moulds for the production of terracotta figurines and plaques in Hellenistic and Kushan Central Asia and north- western India does not even aspire to be comprehensive. I draw my illustrations principally from the fortified site of Kampyr-tepe, on the north bank of the Oxus around 30 km downstream from Termez, for several reasons.42 First, because some publications on the site are available in Western European languages;43 furthermore, because the moulds from the Kushan strata of the site display a combination of styles and images from the preceding Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, and from the nomadic world of the steppe from which the new Kushan dynasty had come.44 And,
41 I am grateful to one of the referees for a number of bibliographical references, which I am unfortunately unable to follow up, to articles published in the series Materialy tokharistanskoi ekspedit- sii (Tashkent). Only volume 3 (Rtveladze 2002) was available in the libraries to which I have access. I supply these references here for readers who may have better library provision: Ilyasov 2000; 2004; Sverchkov and Voskovskii 2006. I thank both referees for their helpful comments. 42 Excavation reports: Rtveladze 2000; 2001; 2002; 2006; 2009. Citadel and fortifications: Savchuk 1989; Rtveladze 1984. 43 Nikonorov and Savchuk 1992; Rusanov 1994; Rtveladze 1994; 1995; 1999; Azimov 2001. 44 Abdullaev 1995b, 176.
997030.indb7030.indb 185185 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 186 R. MAIRS
for those with the opportunity to visit Uzbekistan, many moulds and figurines from Kampyr-tepe and nearby sites are on display at the Termez Museum. A large number of the Kampyr-tepe terracottas and moulds depict armed figures. They have been used as sources in the study of the weaponry and armour of Hellenistic and Kushan Bactria, and of the evolution of these between the two periods in question.45 Some of the moulds and moulded pieces from Kampyr-tepe appear strikingly ‘Classical’. A moulded terracotta plaque from the citadel represents soldier dressed in a kilt, high helmet and torso and leg armour, carrying a long oval shield with a ‘thunderbolt’ motif,46 and holding a straight sword.47 The presence of a coin of Eucratides in a higher stratum provides a terminus ante quem of ca. 175–145 BC. From a later period, of around the late 1st to early 2nd century AD and an excavated context in a building adjoining the outer wall of the fortress, we find an armed male figure which also wears a kilt.48 Although at first glance the figure’s chest appears to be bare, the presence of a collar indicates that he may instead be wearing a closely moulded armoured tunic. The latter figurine has a close analogy in a more fragmentary plaque from Chingiz-tepe, depicting an armed, kilt-wearing male figure, again either bare-chested or wearing a modelled to its shape.49 It is hardly unexpected for similar types of moulded terracotta figurine to show up in sites of the same region, but in this instance the army may provide a more specific context in which these images and the moulds used to create them spread. The concentration of figurines of soldiers in the citadel at Kampyr-tepe is, of course, connected with the presence of a garrison at this important fortified crossing on the Oxus (Nikonorov and Savchuk suggest that they served as cult images in the worship of a local divine hero, or they may be more generic votives or decorative items).50 Soldiers are an especially mobile community, and the Bactrian army – of whatever period, and under whichever political masters – could have served as an important vector in the movement and innovation of artistic styles and motifs. Similar such small terracottas and the moulds used to make them occur all over the Hellenistic Far East and Kushan empire, including at sites in north-western India
45 Nikonorov and Savchuk 1992; Nikonorov 1997; Abdullaev 1995a; 2002. 46 A motif with a certain resonance in Bactria: the same thunderbolt design appears on a fragment, the sandal, of the cult statue from the main temple at Aï Khanoum, identified on this basis as a Zeus (Bernard 1969, 338, 340–41). A ring with a similar thunderbolt motif was supposedly also discovered at Aï Khanoum (Bopearachchi and Flandrin 2005, 111–12). 47 Nikonorov and Savchuk 1992, fig. 2 (= terracotta no. 1), 50; Nikonorov 1997, fig. 24a. 48 Nikonorov and Savchuk 1992, fig. 4 (= terracotta no. 3); Nikonorov 1997, fig. 36c. 49 Nikonorov and Savchuk 1992, fig. 5 (= terracotta no. 4); Nikonorov 1997, fig. 36f. 50 Nikonorov and Savchuk 1992, 50.
997030.indb7030.indb 186186 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 187
such as Taxila51 and Charsadda, where Hellenistic-contemporary moulded details and figurines in Classical styles indicate the presence of itinerant craftsmen or at least of imported moulds.52 The implications of the processes of craft production and long-distance artistic influence I discuss here for the later development of Gandharan art, with its overt Graeco-Roman inspirations, should, I hope, be becoming clear. Pieces of Gandharan Buddhist sculpture, on both large and small scales, were, of course, themselves often produced and reproduced using moulds.53 This is a question to which I shall return in my concluding remarks. Items manufactured using imported moulds, or moulds made from imported items, might themselves travel over considerable distances. In the early 1900s, for example, the Japanese archaeolo- gist and explorer Kozui Otani collected two moulded terracotta figurines of the Graeco-Roman Egyptian gods Sarapis and Harpocrates on his travels in Chinese Turkestan, on the other side of the Pamirs from Bactria.54 These figurines demon- strate not just superficial similarities but extremely close correspondences to examples from the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean.55 In Central India, with its connections to Indian Ocean and Red Sea trade routes with the Roman Mediterranean, the impor- tation of terracottas and moulds may have contributed to the diffusion of Western manufacturing methods as well as of Western styles and images.56
Tillya Tepe: Mass-Produced Gold Appliqués The use of moulds can permit the precise reproduction of styles and motifs over long distances, and it can also enable the mass production of many identical items in a single location. The best example of such mass production from Central Asia is undoubtedly the haul of golden jewellery and adornments from the nomadic tombs at Tillya Tepe.57 The Tillya Tepe assemblages display diverse artistic influ- ences, and many different techniques were used in the production of individual
51 Tanweer 2009. 52 Callieri 1995, 300. 53 Mould for a seated Buddha figurine: Behrendt 2007, no. 57; mould for the head of a statue of the Buddha: Behrendt 2007, no. 49; both 4th–5th century AD, and unprovenanced. 54 Maillard 1975; also discussed by Mairs 2007, 85. 55 Grenet 1982, 230. 56 Brancaccio 2005. 57 I visited the Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures exhibition on several occasions at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and again at the British Museum in London, and the cases containing the Tillya Tepe gold consistently drew the largest and slowest-moving crowds. There was often an informal queue of impatient visitors waiting to see these cases. The layout of the pieces on display, and their illustration in the accompanying catalogue, drew particular attention to the sheer number of near-identical appliqués.
997030.indb7030.indb 187187 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 188 R. MAIRS
items.58 The identical gold appliqués – in various abstract shapes, some inlaid with coloured enamel – which were sewn onto the clothing of the deceased were made in very large numbers. The comments on the manufacture of these appliqués which I quote here come from an interview with the curator of the North American leg of the Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures touring exhibition, Fredrik Hiebert, published in the magazine of the National Endowment for the Humanities in 2004:
“I went into this project just having looked at the photographs, and I assumed that these objects came from all over the place,” Hiebert reflects. “Maybe these people were raiding the Silk Road and taking artifacts from China, artifacts from Siberia, artifacts from the Greco-Roman settlements nearby.” “But now,” he says, “having actually handled each one of these twenty-one thousand pieces, I have a completely different idea. I see a tremendous similarity, not only within one burial, but amongst all six of them. Of the twenty-one thousand objects, there was a series of hundreds and hundreds of appliqués that were obviously made from a mold. It’s a really astonishing collection.” The fact that the appliqués were crafted from one mold suggests that they were cast by a single local artisan in Bactria. According to Hiebert, some of the artifacts reveal a continuity of artistic style from the Bronze Age world of four thousand years ago to the nomadic period. “It makes you think that maybe the Silk Road isn’t just driven by the two end markets. It’s not just a thoroughfare for goods to go from east to west and west to east. Maybe it’s part of the engine itself generating this trade.”59
Casting or hammering metal into a mould could enable identical pieces to be produced in large numbers, and comparatively quickly. The material from Tillya Tepe may also offer an insight into east–west movement of artistic styles and techniques of production, from China to the steppe cultures of Central Asia. K.M. Linduff and K.S. Rubinson60 discuss a metalworker’s tomb of the late 4th– early 3rd century BC near Xi’an, which contained ceramic moulds for casting items in the characteristic steppe ‘Animal Style’. Chinese manufacturers could supply Central Asian markets with items produced in their own visual koine, but subsequently casting technology, too, spread westwards into Central Asia, along with the population movements of the 2nd century BC which brought an end to the Greek kingdom of Bactria: ‘This vast “Xiongnu” network must have been the engine that moved these items and technology across western China into eastern Eurasia and beyond, although it may be the groups they pushed aside who brought
58 See Neva 2008 on technical aspects of the production of the jewellery from Tillya Tepe, and ancient Central Asia in general, and on jewellery moulds from Gandhara, briefly, Behrendt 2007, 16–17. 59 Galvin 2004. 60 Linduff and Rubinson 2010.
997030.indb7030.indb 188188 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 189
both further west.’61 Linduff and Rubinson identify some of the gold plaques from Tillya Tepe as products of this westwards movement of artistic styles and the metalworking technologies used to create and reproduce them. The potential of simple techniques such as the creation of multiple identical objects from a single mould to contribute to the transmission of styles and motifs across time and across space is something which I have tried to emphasise through- out my discussion of the material from Aï Khanoum and its eastern Bactrian hinterland, Begram and Kampyr-tepe. What should also be stressed is the impor- tance of the contexts in which styles were used and adopted, as well as their points of origin. Most of my discussion has been directed at a level below that of the archaeological culture, or even assemblage, and has not addressed the ways in which individual images transmitted might be integrated into, and co-exist within, a craftsman’s repertoire or a region’s common artistic heritage. These are theoretical questions which have recently enjoyed a certain vogue in archaeology, and situating Central Asia or the Hellenistic East within such recent debates has the potential to be very productive.62 A ‘culture’ is not a clearly defined, self-contained entity, which interacts abstractly with other such clearly defined, self-contained cultures. An object and its meaning do not always travel together. And a group of people may build a sense of collective identity out of a rather different repertoire of attrib- utes than those modern or contemporary analysts might regard as salient. Analysing the material culture of the Graeco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek states, and the Kushan empire, solely in terms of Greek influences, Indian influences, Chinese influences and so forth, runs the risk of missing the point. This is not some kind of ‘pick-n-mix’ Central Asian artistic and cultural tradition, composed of attributes selected at random or whim from the repertoire of unitary neighbouring cultures. ‘Abstract’ mixing of styles and techniques are created out of literal, tangible forms of movement, the transport and reproduction of motifs and styles by craftsmen, across short-distance networks of exchange. These networks connected with each other like interlocking cogs, creating long-distance routes between the Medi- terranean and Central Asia which were anything but unidirectional and linear. The notion of a single transcontinental ‘Silk Route’, or even of a small number of clearly defined ‘Silk Routes’, is influenced by the accounts of European travellers such as Marco Polo, who travelled the entire distance from Europe to Asia in a single journey, and does not necessarily give an adequate impression of the ways in which ancient networks for the movement of people and goods operated:
61 Linduff and Rubinson 2010, 180. 62 See, for example, the case studies discussed in Ulf 2009; Canepa 2010; Mairs 2011b.
997030.indb7030.indb 189189 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 190 R. MAIRS
There were rarely ever ‘roads’ or even trade mechanisms in the organisational sense, with all the associated paraphrenalia that define roads and trade routes in more recent history. Ancient ‘routes’ were nothing more than amorphous networks, with many minor branches and offshoots subject to endless fluctuations and variations. They even varied from journey to journey as well as from period to period, depending upon the myriad factors of supplies, water, trading opportunities, political circumstances and security. … Any ancient ‘route’, therefore, was at best simply a broad channel of communications across a region for the movement of people, goods and ideas. It rarely followed any fixed pathway. It was never transcontinental.63
Where it is possible to examine the trajectories of goods in more detail – that is, where the ‘dots’ of find-spots we wish to join are reasonably close together on the map, and where we have a good knowledge of the archaeological context of these finds – we have the opportunity to look at how local networks fed into the wider web of ‘Silk Routes’, and how the meanings and cultural associations of items might be transformed as they moved through these networks. An excellent example of how an individual trade item might be traced back along routes is furnished by Roman ribbed glass bowls, which are found at Begram as well as at numerous sites of south- ern India, Arabia, north-eastern Africa and the Mediterranean.64 But bodies of material such as casts, moulds and mass-produced adornments – even where they occur in a small number of sites or more restricted context – also offer a demonstra- tion of some of the practical, tangible ways in which artistic styles and motifs were transmitted over long distances between the ancient Mediterranean and Central Asia through the direct copying and reproduction of objects. There are any number of other examples of styles and categories of artefact which made this movement possible – and, furthermore, theories on how images and styles moved can be intuitive and compelling without having to be utterly literal and pedestrian. Sometimes, we have indirect evidence of the kinds of convenient portable models which artists and artisans might use as sources of inspiration for their work. The wall-paintings at the Kushan-period temple at Dil’berdzhin, in Bactria, for example, depict gods with Greek iconography, including a very recog- nisable Athena and Dioscuri. The models for such depictions, it has been argued convincingly, come from Graeco-Bactrian coins,65 a locally available source of Greek religious iconography. Like coins, engraved gems depicting Classical figures, even with legends in Greek, were small, portable and of intrinsic value sufficient to ensure that they might be passed from hand to hand over long distances and time periods. A ring from Tomb II at Tillya Tepe contains a gem depicting Athena,
63 Ball 2000, 138. Similar points are made by, for example, Gardin 1985, 447–49. 64 Whitehouse 1989; Stern 1991. 65 Grenet 1987.
997030.indb7030.indb 190190 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 191
captioned in Greek, in a gold setting.66 The plaster casts from Begram were one of the many ‘missing links’ between the art of the Graeco-Roman Mediterranean and that of Gandhara, but Gandharan art itself spread through the movement of people and objects. The schist and steatite palettes so typical of Gandharan craft produc- tion, depicting classically influenced or inspired scenes, were small and portable. Late Gandharan portable Buddhist shrines of the 5th and 6th centuries AD, designed for the use of travellers and pilgrims, also show how these images could move along the routes between India and China.67
Conclusion I would like to conclude by drawing attention to a journey on which we cannot follow items with ‘Classical’ influence from Afghanistan: the modern journey from illicit excavation through the antiquities market to private collections. War and political instability in Afghanistan over the past thirty years or so have led to a dramatic increase in the number of illicitly excavated antiquities sold on international markets. These include coins68 and ancient documents in Aramaic, Greek and Bactrian.69 Unprovenanced, and without archaeological context, the information which we can glean from such items on the society which pro- duced them is limited, even though they may still be made to yield a great deal of useful data. One such unprovenanced piece gives us the name of the artisan who made it. A gold bracelet in the shape of a dragon, one of a pair published in the same article,70 bears the Greek signature of a craftsman with a Greek name: Mestor epoei (sic), ‘Mestor made [me]’. Archaeological context may never have been able to tell us much about who this Mestor was and the atelier in which he worked, but it might have told us something of the person who owned the bracelet (or bracelets, if they were found together) and whether the household or settlement in which it was found had a wider archaeological assemblage which displayed other strong connections to the Graeco-Roman world, or very few. As things stand, we are limited in our ability to consider these bracelets as anything other than objets d’art, and this is presumably the value which they have to their anonymous present-day owner. Modern movements of ancient items found in Afghanistan are sometimes
66 Hiebert and Cambon 2008, 242, no. 55. 67 Behrendt 2007, 8–12, 78–83. 68 Bopearachchi and Flandrin 2005. 69 Shaked 2004; Bernard and Rapin 1994; Clarysse and Thompson 2007; Sims-Williams 2000; 2007. 70 Bopearachchi and Bernard 2002.
997030.indb7030.indb 191191 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 192 R. MAIRS
even more difficult to trace in detail than their ancient movements, and this contributes towards us our frequent inability to consider the diffusion of artistic influence from west to east in anything other than the abstract.
Bibliography
Abdullaev, K. 1995a: ‘Armour of Ancient Bactria’. In Invernizzi 1995, 163–80. —. 1995b: ‘Nomadism in Central Asia. The archaeological evidence (2nd–1st centuries B.C.)’. In Invernizzi 1995, 151–62. —. 2002: ‘Transformatsiya Grecheskikh Obrazov v Terrakotovoi Plastike Kampyrtepa’. Materialy Tokharistanskoi Ekspeditsii 3, 27–36. Allan, J. 1946: ‘A Tabula Iliaca from Gandhara’. JHS 66, 21–23. Azimov, I. 2001: ‘Essai de reconstruction graphique de la citadelle de Kampyr-Tepe’. In Leriche, P., Pidaev, C., Gelin, M., Abdoullaev, K. and Fourniau, V. (eds.), La Bactriane au carrefour des routes et des civilisations de l’Asie centrale: Termez et les villes de Bactriane-Tokharestan (Paris), 235–40. Ball, W. 2000: Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire (London). Behrendt, K.A. (ed.) 2007: The Art of Gandhara in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York). Bernard, P. 1969: ‘Quatrième campagne de fouilles à Aï Khanoum (Bactriane)’. CRAI, 313–55. —. 1971: ‘La campagne de fouilles de 1970 à Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan)’. CRAI, 385–452. —. 1974: ‘Fouilles de Aï Khanoum (Afghanistan), campagnes de 1972 et 1973’. CRAI, 280–308. Bernard, P. and Rapin, C. 1994: ‘Un parchemin gréco-bactrien d’une collection privée’. CRAI, 261–94. Bopearachchi, O. and Bernard, P. 2002: ‘Deux bracelets grecs avec inscriptions grecques trouvés dans l’Asie centrale hellénisée’. JSav, 238–78. Bopearachchi, O. and Flandrin, P. 2005: Le Portrait d’Alexandre le Grand: Histoire d’une découverte pour l’humanité (Paris). Brancaccio, P. 2005: ‘Satavahana Terracottas: Connections with the Hellenistic Tradition’. East and West 55, 55–69. Brancaccio, P. and Behrendt, K.A. 2006: Gandharan Buddhism: Archaeology, Art, Texts (Vancouver). Burkhalter, F. 1984: ‘Moulages en plâtre antiques et toreutique alexandrine’. In Bonacasa, N. and De Vita, A. (eds.), Alessandria e il mondo ellenistico-romano: studi in onore di Achille Adriani II (Rome), 334–47. Callieri, P. 1995: ‘The North-West of the Indian subcontinent in the Indo-Greek period. The archae- ological evidence’. In Invernizzi 1995, 293–308. Cambon, P. and Jarrige, J.-F. (eds.) 2006: Afghanistan, les trésors retrouvés: Collections du musée national de Kaboul (Paris). Canali De Rossi, F. 2004: Iscrizioni dello Estremo Oriente Greco: Un Repertorio (Bonn). Canepa, M.P. (ed.) 2010: Theorizing Cross-Cultural Interaction among the Ancient and Early Medieval Mediterranean, Near East and Asia (Washington, DC). Cavafy, C.P. 2008: The Collected Poems, translated by Evangelos Sachperoglou (Oxford). Clarysse, W. and Thompson, D.J. 2007: ‘Two Greek Texts on Skin from Hellenistic Bactria’. ZPE 159, 273–79. Coloru, O. 2009: Da Alessandro a Menandro: il regno greco di Battriana (Pisa/Rome). Francfort, H.-P. 1984: Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum III: Le sanctuaire du temple à niches indentées 2: Les trouvailles (Paris). Frederiksen, R. 2010: ‘Plaster Casts in Antiquity’. In Frederiksen, R. and Marchand, E. (eds.), Plaster Casts: Making, Collecting and Displaying from Classical Antiquity to the Present (Berlin), 13–34. Galvin, R. 2004: ‘The Golden Hoard: An Ancient Afghan Treasure is Recovered’. Humanities: The Magazine of the National Endowment for the Humanities November/December 2004, 11–16.
997030.indb7030.indb 192192 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 193
Gardin, J.-C. 1985: ‘Les relations entre la Méditerranée et la Bactriane dans l’antiquité, d’après des données céramologiques inédites’. In Huot, J.-L., Yon, M. and Calvet, Y. (eds.), De l’Indus aux Balkans, Recueil à la mémoire de Jean Deshayes (Paris), 447–60. —. 1986: ‘Migrateurs et porteurs de pots en Bactriane de l’âge du bronze à nos jours’. In Barrelet, M.T. (ed.), À propos des interprétations archéologiques de la poterie (Paris), 79–94. —. 1990: ‘La céramique hellénistique en Asie centrale. Problèmes d’interprétation’. In Kiessling, E. and Rupprecht, M.A. (eds.), Akten des XIII Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988 (Mainz), 187–93. —. 1998: Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974–1978) 3: Description des sites et notes de synthèse (Paris). Gentelle, P. 1989: Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974–1978) 1: Données paléo- géographiques et fondements de l’irrigation (Paris). Ghirshman, R. 1946: Bégram: Recherches archéologiques et historiques sur les Kouchans (Cairo). Grenet, F. 1982: ‘Trois documents religieux de Bactriane Afghane’. StudIran 11, 155–62. —. 1987: ‘L’Athéna de Dil’berdzin’. In Grenet, F. (ed.), Cultes et monuments religieux dans l’Asie centrale préislamique (Paris), 41–45. Guldager Bilde, P. 1993: ‘Mouldmade Bowls, Centres and Peripheries in the Hellenistic World’. In Bilde, P., Engberg-Pedersen, T., Hannestad, L., Zahle, J. and Randsborg, K. (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Hellenistic World (Aarhus), 192–209. Hackin, J. 1939: Recherches archéologiques à Begram (Paris). —. 1954: Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Begram (Paris). Hannestad, L. 1990: ‘Change and Conservatism. Hellenistic pottery in Mesopotamia and Iran’. In Kiessling, E. and Rupprecht, M.A. (eds.), Akten des XIII. Internationalen Kongresses für Klassische Archäologie, Berlin 1988 (Mainz), 179–86. Hiebert, F. and Cambon, P. (eds.) 2008: Afghanistan: Hidden Treasures from the National Museum, Kabul (Washington, DC). —. (eds.) 2011: Afghanistan: Crossroads of the Ancient World (London). Ilyasov, D. 2000: ‘Terrakoty Kampyrtepa’. In Rtveladze 2000, 97–106. —. 2004: ‘Terrakotovye Plaketki s Gorodishcha Shurobkyran’. In Rtveladze, E.V. (ed.), Materialy Tokharistanskoi Ekspeditsii 4. Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya Shurobkyrana (Tashkent), 62–68. Invernizzi, A. (ed.) 1995: In the Land of the Gryphons: Papers on Central Asian Archaeology in Antiquity (Florence). Kouremenos, A., Chandrasekaran, S. and Rossi, R. (eds.) 2011: From Pella to Gandhara: Hybridisa- tion and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East (Oxford). Kurz, O. 1954: ‘Begram et l’occident gréco-romain’. In Hackin, J. (ed.), Nouvelles recherches archéologiques à Begram, vol. 1 (Paris), 93–146. Lerner, J.D. 2003: ‘The Aï Khanoum Philosophical Papyrus’. ZPE 142, 45–51. —. 2003–04: ‘Correcting the Early History of Ay Kanom’. AMIran und Turan 35–36, 373–410. —. 2010: ‘Revising the Chronologies of the Hellenistic Colonies of Samarkand-Marakanda (Afrasiab II–III) and Aï Khanoum (Northeastern Afghanistan)’. Anabasis: Studia Classica et Orientalia 1, 58–79. Linduff, K.M. and Rubinson, K.S. 2010: ‘Exchange of Metallurgical Technology, Objects and People in Eurasia in the Late 1st Millennium BCE–early 1st Millennium CE’. In Ancient Cultures of Eurasia: Proceedings of the International Confrence dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of A.N. Bernshtam / Drevnie Kul’tury Evrazii: Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi Konferentsii, posvyashchen- noi 100-letiyu so dlya rozhdeniya A.N. Bernshtama (St Petersburg), 172–82. Lyonnet, B. 1997: Prospections archéologiques en Bactriane orientale (1974–1978) 2: Céramique et Peuplement du Chalcolithique à la Conquête Arabe (Paris). —. 2010: ‘D’Ai Khanoum a Koktepe. Questions sur la datation absolue de la ceramique hellenistique d’Asie centrale’. In Abdullaev, K. (ed.), Traditsii Vostoka i Zapada v Antichnoi Kul’ture Srednei Azii: Sbornik Statei v Chest’ Polya Bernara / The Traditions of East and West in the Antique Cultures of Central Asia: Papers in Honor of Paul Bernard (Tashkent), 141–53.
997030.indb7030.indb 193193 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 194 R. MAIRS
Maillard, M. 1975: ‘À propos de deux statuettes en terre rapportées par la mission Otani: Sarapis et Harpocrates en Asie Centrale’. JAs 263, 223–30. Mairs, R. 2006: ‘Hellenistic India’. New Voices in Classical Reception 1, 19–30. —. 2007: ‘Egyptian Artefacts from Central and South Asia’. In Mairs, R. and Stevenson, A. (eds.), Current Research in Egyptology VI: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Symposium which took place at the University of Cambridge, 6–8 January 2005 (Oxford), 74–89. —. 2011a: The Archaeology of the Hellenistic Far East: A Survey. Bactria, Central Asia and the Indo- Iranian Borderlands, c. 300 BC–AD 100 (Oxford). —. 2011b: ‘The Places in Between: Model and Metaphor in the Archaeology of Hellenistic Aracho- sia’. In Kouremenos, A., Chandrasekaran, S. and Rossi, R. (eds.), From Pella to Gandhara: Hybrid- isation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the Hellenistic East (Oxford), 177–89. —. 2012: ‘Glassware from Roman Egypt at Begram (Afghanistan) and the Red Sea Trade’. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan 18, 61–74. Mehendale, S. 1997: Begram: New Perspectives on the Ivory and Bone Carvings [Online with database at http://ecai.org/begramweb/] (Dissertation, University of California). Menninger, M. 1996: Untersuchungen zu den Gläsern und Gipsabgüssen aus dem Fund von Begram (Afghanistan) (Würzburg). Neva, E. 2008: Iskusstvo Drevnikh Yuvelirov (Tsentral’naya Aziya: IV do n.e.–IV n.e.) (Boston). Nikonorov, V.P. 1997: The Armies of Bactria 700 BC–450 AD (Stockport). Nikonorov, V.P. and Savchuk, S.A. 1992: ‘New Data on Ancient Bactrian Body-Armour (In the Light of Finds from Kampyr Tepe)’. Iran 30, 49–54. Oikonomides, A.N. 1984: ‘A Little Known Poem by C.P. Cavafy: Coins with Indian Inscriptions’. Ancient World 9, 35–37. Rapin, C. 1992: Fouilles d’Aï Khanoum VIII: La trésorerie du palais hellénistique d’Aï Khanoum, l’apogée et la chute du royaume grec de Bactriane (Paris). —. 1996: Indian Art from Afghanistan: The Legend of Sakuntala and the Indian Treasure of Eucratides at Ai Khanum (New Delhi). Richter, G.M.A. 1958: ‘Ancient Plaster Casts of Greek Metalware’. AJA 62, 369–77. Rotroff, S.I. 1982: Hellenistic Pottery: Athenian and Imported Moldmade Bowls (Princeton). —. 2006: ‘The Introduction of the Moldmade Bowl Revisited: Tracking a Hellenistic Innovation’. Hesperia 75, 357–78. Rtveladze [Rtweladse], E.V. 1984: ‘Kushanskaya Krepost’ Kampyr-tepe (Issledovaniya i otkrytiya)’. VDI 2, 87–106. —. 1994: ‘Kampir-Tepe: Structures, Written Documents, and Coins’. In Litvinskii, B.A. and Altman- Bromberg, C. (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia: Studies from the Former Soviet Union (Bloomfield, MI), 141–54. —. 1995: ‘Découvertes en numismatique et épigraphie gréco-bactriennes à Kampyr-Tepe (Bactriane du nord)’. RevNum 6, 20–24. —. 1999: ‘Kampyr Tepe-Pandokheïon’. Dossiers d’archeologie 247, 56–57. —. (ed.) 2000: Materialy Tokharistanskoi Ekspeditsii 1: Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya Kampyrtepa (Tashkent). —. (ed.) 2001: Materialy Tokharistanskoi Ekspeditsii 2: Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya Kampyrtepa (Tashkent). —. (ed.) 2002: Materialy Tokharistanskoi Ekspeditsii 3: Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya Kampyrtepa (Tashkent). —. (ed.) 2006: Materialy Tokharistanskoi Ekspeditsii 5: Arkheologicheskie Issledovaniya Kampyrtepa i Shortepa (Tashkent). —. 2009: ‘Kampyr-Tepe-Pandocheion – Alexandria Oxiana’. In Museen, R.E. (ed.), Alexander der Grosse und die Öffnung der Welt: Asiens Kulturen im Wandel (Regensburg), 169–75.
997030.indb7030.indb 194194 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28 MODELS, MOULDS AND MASS PRODUCTION 195
Rusanov, D.V. 1994: ‘The Fortifications of Kampir-Tepe: A Reconstruction’. In Litvinskii, B.A. and Altman-Bromberg, C. (eds.), The Archaeology and Art of Central Asia: Studies from the Former Soviet Union (Bloomfield, MI), 155–60. Savchuk, S.A. 1989: ‘Tsitadel’ Kampyrtepe’. In Pugachenkova, G.A. (ed.), Antichnye i Rannesredneve- kovye Drevnosti Yuzhnogo Uzbekistana. V svete novykh otkrytii Uzbekistanskoi Iskusstvovedcheskoi Ekspeditsii (Tashkent), 73–80. Schlumberger, D. and Bernard, P. 1965: ‘Ai Khanoum’. BCH 89, 590–657. Shaked, S. 2004: Le satrape de Bactriane et son gouverneur: Documents araméens du IVe s. avant notre ère provenant de Bactriane (Paris). Simpson, StJ. 2011: The Begram Hoard: Ivories from Afghanistan (London). Sims-Williams, N. 2000: Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan, Part 1: Legal and Economic Documents (Oxford). —. 2007: Bactrian Documents from Northern Afghanistan, Part 2: Letters and Buddhist Texts (London). Stern, E.M. 1991: ‘Early Roman Export Glass in India’. In Begley, V. and De Puma, R.D. (eds.), Rome and India: The Ancient Sea Trade (Madison), 113–24. Sverchkov, L.M. and Voskovskii, A.A. 2006: ‘Stratigrafiya, Periodizatsiya i Khronologiya Nizhnikh Kampyrtepa’. In Rtveladze 2006, 21–42. Taddei, M. 1992: ‘An Iranian Subject among the Plaster Casts from Begram? Assaying a Recent Hypothesis’. East and West 42, 453–60. Tanweer, T. 2009: ‘Analysis of a New Mould from Taxila’. Journal of Asian Civilizations 32, 17–24. Ulf, C. 2009: ‘Rethinking Cultural Contacts’. AWE 8, 81–132. Vnukov, S.J., Kovalenko, S.A. and Trejster, M.J. 1990: ‘Moulages en plâtre de Kara-Tobe (Crimée)’. RA 1, 27–50. Whitehouse, D. 1989: ‘Begram, the Periplus and Gandharan Art’. JRA 2, 93–100. —. 2001: ‘Begram: The Glass’. Topoi Orient-Occident 11, 437–49. Zhang, L. 2011: ‘Chinese Lacquerwares from Begram: Date and Provenance’. The International Jour- nal of Asian Studies 8, 1–24.
Department of Classics University of Reading Reading RG6 6AA UK [email protected] [email protected]
997030.indb7030.indb 195195 22/09/14/09/14 08:2808:28