The Religion and the Pantheon of the Sogdians (5Th–8Th Centuries CE) in Light of Their Sociopolitical Structures1

The Religion and the Pantheon of the Sogdians (5th–8th centuries CE) in Light of their Sociopolitical Structures1

Michael Shenkar

Sogdiana as a “city-state culture”1 Politically, these cities were part of a single state only when ruled by an external power – a “macro-state”. Sogdiana (Sog. Suγδ) is first and foremost a geo- Many city-states throughout history have had a repub- graphical term. It refers to the region around the Zer- lican form of government.6 In contrast, most Sogdian avshan and Kashkadarya river valleys, which was home city-states were headed by a “lord” (written as xwβ or to a distinctive Sogdian civilization from the fifth–ninth with an arameogram MRY’).7 The ruler of the largest centuries CE.2 In terms of political organization, there Sogdian city, Samarkand, also claimed the title “king of was never a “Sogdian State” or a “Sogdian Empire”. In Sogd” (sγwδyk MLKʼ).8 Despite these titles, in all cases fact, for most of this period Sogdiana represented a net- where sufficient historical data is available it is clear work of independent or semi-independent principalities that these rulers were not absolute monarchs, but had centered around a number of oases with a complex – and their power limited by the city community (n’β) and not always sufficiently understood – system of interactions­ were undoubtedly controlled and regulated through pub- and interdependencies between “major” and “minor” cit- lic institutions.9 Furthermore, the available evidence sug- ies (such as Samarkand and Panjikent, for instance).3 gests that in most cities the rulers were not only elected These principalities were inhabited by people who pos- by the community but could be deposed by it.10 sessed many elements of common culture, language and Coins of the Sogdian cities were customarily inscribed background and were conscious of their shared heritage, with the names of their rulers, but the dominant (and but their primary political and social identification was often the only) iconographic element to appear on Sogdian to the city of their origin.4 According to these parameters, coins in the seventh–eighth centuries are tamgha-signs. Sogdiana between the fifth and the eighth centuries was In the Iranian world the tamghas usually functioned as a classical “city-state culture” – distinct from territorial symbols of a particular clan or dynasty. However, as was “macro-states” as defined by the Copenhagen Polis Centre.5 the Centre, see http://www.teachtext.net/bn/cpc/. It is regrettable, although hardly surprising, that Sogdians are not included among the 1 I am grateful to Frantz Grenet, Pavel Lurje and Shaul Shaked for thirty-seven “city-state cultures” identified by the Copenhagen Polis their important remarks, which helped to improve this paper. Center from all continents and historical periods. For a brief description 2 A useful survey of the main stages of Sogdian history can be of these cultures, see Hansen 2006, pp. 17–24. found in de la Vaissière 2011; Marshak 2002, pp. 1-25; Grenet and 6 Hansen 2006, p. 12. Rapin 2013. Smirnova 1970 is still indispensable for the social history 7 For the suggestion that MRY’ should rather be read as afšīn, see of Sogdiana and for the account of the Arab conquest. For the history de la Vaissière 2007, pp. 28-29. of research of Sogdiana and important insights into Sogdian history, see 8 For the recent discussion of the Sogdian nobility ranks and titles, also Livshits 2008. see de la Vaissière 2007, pp. 28-38. 3 de la Vaissière 2007, pp. 23-28. 9 Smirnova 1970, p. 38; de la Vaissière 2007, pp. 37-38. As Vasilij 4 This is reflected in the different surnames (9 in number) that the Bartol’d has pointed out, unlike Persia, the kings of Mawarannahr were Sogdians were given in Chinese, depending on their city of origin. See only the first among other nobles and resembled more the “Greek Yoshida 2006. basileis” than “Asian despots”. Bartol’d 1963, p. 324. 5 According to this definition “a city-state culture arises when a 10 Marshak 2002, p. 13. The most famous case is that of Tarkhūn, region is inhabited by a people who have the same language (or a king of Samarkand, who was deposed in 710 for signing the agreement common lingua franca), the same religion, the same culture and the with the Arabs. See Ṭabarī (ed. and tr. Hinds 1990), p. 176. Some cit- same traditions, but is divided politically into a large number of small ies, such as Paykand in the Bukhara oasis, even had no king at all by states, each of which consists of a city and its immediate hinterland”: the time of the Arab conquest. Narshakhī mentions only the “people of Hansen 2006, p. 9. For a brief introduction and definition of the “city- Paykand” when describing the interaction of the Arabs with the city’s state” and the “city-state culture”, see Hansen 2006, pp. 7–31, with officials: Narshakhī, (ed. and tr. Frye 2007) pp. 59–60, and Ṭabarī references to numerous publications on the subject by the Copenhagen explicitly refers to it as the “city of merchants”: Ṭabarī (ed. and tr. Polis Center. For an overview of the research and the publications of Hinds 1990) p. 135.

Journal Asiatique 305.2 (2017): 191-209 doi: 10.2143/JA.305.2.3262803 192 michael shenkar demonstrated by Naymark, in Sogdiana in the seventh– The city functioned as a basic unit of Sogdian culture eighth centuries, tamghas were not dynastic symbols, but in general, not only with regard to its political organiza- rather “signs of polities”11 – reflecting the rise of civic tion. The publications of the Copenhagen Polis Centre communities in the Sogdian cities and a decline in the highlight numerous elements of social, political and eco- power of the princes. In fact, it appears that no “dynas- nomic structures shared by city-state cultures.16 Given ties” existed in Sogdiana for some two centuries before these similarities, and the fact that the Sogdians of the the Arab conquest, in the sense that almost no Sogdian fifth–eighth centuries fully belong with these city-state king managed to make his rule hereditary and to pass it cultures in terms of their political, social and economic to his son.12 It was only after the Sogdian cities began to organization,17 it is reasonable to presume that Sogdian succumb to the Arabs (who brought with them a strictly religious structures – being of course, a social phenome- patrilineal concept of kingship) that we see sons of pre- non – may also bear a certain resemblance to those of vious Sogdian kings being routinely appointed to ruler- other city-state cultures. Our corpus of sources (espe- ship in Sogdiana, and actual royal dynasties appear.13 cially textual ones) for the study of Sogdian religion is The most notable examples are Tughshada, installed by dispiritingly meagre,18 and it may therefore prove useful Qutayba b. Muslim in Bukhara, and Turghar, son of to look at the religious institutions and traditions of other Ghūrak, who was made king of Samarkand in 738. city-state cultures. With all due deliberation and aware- They were followed by their sons – Qutayba and Yazid ness of the methodological problematic involved in such respectively14 – and at least in Bukhara all subsequent a comparative study, I hope to demonstrate that a student Bukharkhudas appear to have been Tughshada’s descend- of Sogdian religion can benefit from the immense amount ants. Therefore, the establishment of the real dynasties in of scholarship, models and approaches developed for the Sogdiana (such as the Bukharan Bukharkhudas) was in study of Classical Greek religion. I have chosen the reli- fact a by-product of the Arab conquest.15 gion of the Classical Greek poleis as a comparison for one simple reason – it is by far the best known and researched religious tradition among the city-states cultures and 11 Naymark 2005. 12 The known rulers of Panjikent do not seem to have been related therefore provides an unmatched wealth of scholarship to each other, and of the seven kings who ruled Samarkand in the and material, both written and archaeological. Moreover, seventh and the beginning of the eighth centuries, there is only one many models and approaches first developed in the study case of direct succession from father to son Dusuoboti (probably Sog. of Greek religion have also been later successfully δ twk’ sp’ ’ k) was succeeded by his son whose name the schinese applied to other religious traditions. sources give as Ninje-shi-shi who probably ruled from 696 to 698. For a list of these kings with brief accompanying information, see Livshits The only attempt to summarize our knowledge of 2008, pp. 199–200. It is worth noting, however, that according to Sogdian religion as a unified system was made by Mar- some (late) sources, Ghūrak was a brother of Tarkhūn, who preceded shak in 1999.19 In this work, he emphasizes the common him as the king of Samarkand and was deposed in 710 for signing the pantheon of the Sogdians and their worship of common agreement with the Arabs. See Smirnova 1970, pp. 211–212. In the text of a treaty between Qutayba and Ghūrak (Smirnova 1970, p. 208) the gods. However, he also notes apparent similarities latter is called “son of ikhshid”, which means that he was probably a between the Sogdian pantheon and the Olympian pan- son of one of the past kings of Samarkand. However, since the text of theon of Classical Greece, and even employs the term this agreement, and (most importantly) Ṭabarī, do not mention any “polis” religion (!) to characterise the phrase “Samar- family relations between Ghūrak and Tarkhūn, these cannot be consid- kand gods”, used by the Čaghānian envoy in the inscrip- ered proven (cf. Naymark 2005, p. 227). The Chinese sources who 20 refer to the origins of the ruling houses of Sogdiana leave an unambig- tion from the “Ambassador Hall” at Afrasyab. No uous impression that in earlier periods there were dynasties in major Sogdian cities (for the discussion, see Smirnova 1970, pp. 24–38). The decline of the institution of kingship and its loss of authority and power Arabs chose not to appoint a local king, but rather installed a Muslim to the benefit of the rising civic community was undoubtedly a gradual military-governor, as seems to be the case in Panjikent where, after the process. It is inextricably intertwined with the development of the Sog- execution of the last Sogdian king of the city, Dhēwāshtīch, barracks dian trading network in the fifth century and the rise of the wealthy were built on the ruins of his palace (which was burned by the Arabs and influential merchant class in Sogdian society at the expense of the in 722). The city itself probably came to be ruled by an Arab amīr from landowning nobility headed by kings. On the Sogdian trade network, 740 until its abandonment in the 770s. See Belenitskij, Marshak, see de la Vaissière 2005. Interestingly, the studies of the Copenhagen Raspopova 1979, p. 25. Polis Center have shown that there is often a connection between city- 16 Hansen 2006, pp. 17–24. state cultures and commerce. See Hansen 2006, p. 25. 17 Indeed, the Sogdian principalities were compared with the poleis 13 de la Vaissière 2007, p. 47, speaks about Sogdian princes taking of the Classical Greece in the past. See Belenitsky and Marshak 1981, advantage of the Arab conquest to reinforce their status and to consol- p. 19; Maršak and Raspopova 1991, p. 188. idate their dynasties. 18 See below. 14 on the coins of Yazid b. Ghūrak, see Naymark 2015. 19 Marshak 1999. For an overview of the history of research of 15 It is certainly not accidental that in the last article in the treaty Sogdian religion, see Shkoda 2009, pp. 10–25. between Qutayba and Ghūrak from 712 (Smirnova 1970, p. 208), 20 “And with regard to me do not have any misgivings (or suspi- Qutayba makes a special commitment that Ghūrak’s son will inherit cions?) – about the Smārkanthian gods, as well as about (the Smārkan- the throne of Samarkand after him. In other cases, however, the thian) writing I am keenly aware…”. See Livšits 2006, pp. 60–61. the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 193

Fig. 1. Map of Central Asia in Late Antiquity showing the location of Sogdiana and its major cities. After Grenet and Rapin 2013, Fig. 11.

attempt has been made to advance further in this direc- Sogdian Religion and the “polis religion” tion, and in the present article I will seek to take a more diverse approach to Sogdian religion by trying to identify In recent years, the dominant model for the study of variations between the forms of religion practiced by dif- Greek religion has been that of the “polis religion” formu- ferent Sogdian cities in comparison to what is known lated by Sourvinou-Inwood.21 It claims that as the main from the function of similar religious structures in the socio-political unit of Greek society, the polis embodied Greek poleis. all religious practices and “encompassed all religious discourse within it”.22 According to Sourvinou-Inwood,

21 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a; Sourvinou-Inwood 2000b. For a recent Marshak understands it as a reference to the gods of the “Sogdian discussion and critical evaluation of this model, see Kindt 2009; Kindt pantheon” who were particularly important and venerated in Samar- 2012, pp. 12–36; Polinskaya 2013, pp. 23–27. kand. See Marshak 1999, p. 188. 22 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a, p. 24. 194 michael shenkar

“the polis provided the fundamental, basic framework in Sogdiana, the place of the Panhellenic poetry was per- which Greek religion operated”, and “[r]eligion was the haps occupied by the “Avestan tradition” and by the epic very centre of the Greek polis”.23 The strength of this poetry of the “Sistāni circle” which connected Sogdiana model is that it allows focus to “move away from gener- to the wider Iranian world to the south and to the west. alizing assumptions about the nature of ‘Greek religion The Sogdians also had the same calendar, which went as such’ and encourages us to pay closer attention to the back to the Achaemenian Empire and corresponded fabric of Greek religion as an agglomeration of ‘local’ closely to that of the Zoroastrians.31 However, in order to variants”.24 I believe that this approach will prove useful understand the Sogdian pantheon and religion, we must for our understanding of the various manifestations of approach them with awareness of local differences and Sogdian religion. Socio-political fragmentation meant nuances. As noted by Sourvinou-Inwood of Greek reli- that every Sogdian city was, it seems, an independent gion, “the gods who were worshipped in the different centre of religious life. Kindt notes that “Greek religion poleis were, of course, perceived to be the same gods. differed from Christianity in that it had no dogma, no What differed was the precise articulation of the cult, its official creed, no Bible, no priesthood in the form of a history, its particular modalities, which aspect of each specially trained and entitled group of people, and no deity each city chose to emphasize, which deities were church. In the absence of such powerful organizing prin- perceived to be more closely connected with, and so ciples, religion was structured alongside the socio-polit- more important to, the city, and so on”.32 Bremmer fur- ical structures of the polis”.25 As in Greek religion,26 the ther observed that “every [Greek – M.Sh.] city had its absence of a central religious authority among the Sog- own pantheon in which some gods were more important dians was dictated by the political fragmentation and than others and some gods not even worshipped at all. polytheistic nature of Sogdian religion. It seems that in Every city also had its own mythology, its own religious the absence of dogma, creed and “church” (priesthood calendar and its own festivals. No Greek city, then, was is treated below), it is the community that assumed in a religious clone”.33 The same appears equally true for Sogdiana the role reserved for a state-organized and Sogdian cities. Similar to Classical Greece,34 it seems state-supported religious establishment, as, for instance, that every Sogdian city had one or several protecting dei- in Sasanian Iran. ties.35 The same deity could assume different forms, quite In their 1991 article, Marshak and Raspopova observe distinct from the type known in other regions. The ven- that because of this political decentralization and social eration of Sogdian deities varied from one community to particularism, we should ask whether it is correct at all another, and even from one household to another.36 As the to speak of “Sogdian religion” in general, rather than of material from Panjikent clearly indicates, every family various cults that were widespread in Sogdiana.27 Their probably had its own patron god(s) or goddess(es). This is conclusion is that all the deities from wall paintings all the more so in the case of different cities and civic found at various Sogdian sites belong to one and the communities. same “pan-Sogdian pantheon”.28 I tend to agree with the We will now examine the structures of Sogdian reli- Russian scholars and a useful parallel is provided by gion, applying, where appropriate, comparative material Greek religion. Despite variations and local differences, from the Greek poleis in order to shed light on the more most specialists believe that the use of the umbrella term obscure aspects of Sogdian religion and society. “Greek religion” is justified, and that the Greeks saw themselves as part of a single religious group.29 It seems equally justified to employ the terms “Sogdian religion” Sources for Sogdian religion and the “Sogdian pantheon” in the case of the Sogdians. In Greece “…the religious inventories of the individual The vast majority of written sources in the Sogdian city-states resembled each other because of their shared language were discovered in the Tarim basin, outside of past and the spread of epic poetry throughout the Greek the Sogdian heartland, but in an area with many Sogdian world. In particular the poems of Homer and Hesiod colonies and a substantial Sogdian population. Moreover, had unified and structured the Greek pantheon”.30 In almost all documents of a religious nature are Man- ichaean, Buddhist or Christian. Few fragments belong to 23 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a, p. 37. 24 Kindt 2009, p. 29. 31 See Marshak 1992; de Blois 1996. 25 Kindt 2012, p. 16. 32 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a, p. 18. 26 osborne 2015, p. 17. 33 Bremmer 1994, p. 1. 27 Maršak and Raspopova 1991, p. 188. 34 Hansen 2006, p. 121. 28 Maršak and Raspopova 1991, p. 189. 35 Although we possess enough evidence for that only in the case 29 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000a, p. 17; Polinskaya 2013, p. 9, n. 29. of Panjikent. See below. 30 Kindt 2012, p. 13. 36 Marshak 1999. the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 195 what is usually vaguely defined as the “native” or the unknown from other traditions and were probably unique “national” Sogdian religion, “Sogdian Zoroastrianism” to Sogdians.45 or simply, “the Sogdian religion”,37 that is, a particular However, the main source for the study of Sogdian variant of the Iranian religion practiced by Sogdians. If religion and cult is undoubtedly the material culture – the one prefers – as I do – to apply the term “Zoroastrian- architecture of Sogdian temples, their funerary rites, and ism” only to the Sasanian variant of Iranian religion and primarily the exceptionally rich Sogdian divine iconog- its subsequent derivations, it is perhaps better to use the raphy.46 It is unfortunate that Sogdian divine images term “Sogdian religion”. I should note that I have no are almost never labelled, and therefore can seldom be fundamental objections to a more broad definition of definitely identified based on the iconography and attrib- Zoroastrianism, to include all the heterogeneous expres- utes alone.47 The comparative analysis of the pictorial sions of religious traditions in the pre-Islamic Iranian representations of Sogdian gods alongside the images of world with its considerable variability; and to consider deities depicted on the Kushan coins (who are always the religion of the Sogdians as a particular “Sogdian var- named) is an invaluable tool,48 but it is not always help- iant” of Zoroastrianism.38 This is as long as those who ful and is hampered by a chronological and geographical do so acknowledge the problems inherent in using Zoro- gap. Scholars have explored the Zoroastrian texts in astrian sources for interpretation of Sogdian religious order to try to find in them clues that would help to material.39 uncover the identity of the Sogdian gods painted on the In contrast with the predominance of the three univer- walls of Sogdian dwellings. The necessary context and sal religions in Sogdian written sources, in the Sogdian justification seem to be provided by the survival of a heartland their material traces are negligible. The evi- few Sogdian fragments mentioning Zoroaster (Sog. dence for Manichaeism appears to be limited and ambig- Zərōšč?),49 which are very close in their content and uous.40 Buddhism, predominant in the neighboring spirit to Zoroastrian literature, the majority of the Sog- Tokharistan, was probably also present in Sogdiana, but dian theonyms corresponds to Avestan deities, the Sog- declined before the first half of the seventh century.41 dian calendar, and convincing identification of some The material evidence for Christianity appears somewhat scenes on the Sogdian ossuaries as depicting rituals and more substantial,42 but it is beyond doubt that the majority priestly accessories well-known from the Zoroastrian of the Sogdian population in the cities of the Zeravshan cult.50 It has also been suggested that the Sogdians were and Kashkadarya valleys adhered to “Sogdian religion”. familiar with parts of the Avesta, which formed an The fact that the universal religions were unable to prevail important component of their religion at least from the in Sogdiana itself, and that Sogdian religion remained pre- Achaemenian period onwards.51 Still, we must keep in dominant there, is due to it being deeply embedded in the mind that in the case of Zoroastrian written sources we social structures of the Sogdian city.43 are dealing with a corpus of texts that was produced by Another important source for the study of Sogdian a different culture, in a different period(s), in another religion is the theophoric components of Sogdian names, geographical region, and in languages other than Sog- which gives us some indications as to the deities that were dian. Moreover, even for the Sasanian religious iconog- known in Sogdiana.44 Most of them are Sogdian forms of raphy (unhampered by most of these problems) the rele- divine names well-known from Zoroastrian tradition; vance of the Avestan and Middle Persian texts is very some like the goddess Žēmat (Demeter) are originally Greek transmitted through Bactrian mediation, and some Indian divine names also appear. In addition, we have a 45 Some examples are listed in Shenkar 2014, p. 168. number of theophoric components that reveal deities 46 For a brief overview and basic bibliography of Sogdian archaeology, see Marshak 2003, pp. 3–9. For Sogdian religious iconography, see Marshak 1999; Mode 2003; Grenet 2006/2010 and Shenkar 2014. Ref- 37 For a recent translation of these fragments, see Grenet and erences to additional studies are found in Shenkar 2014, p. 186, n. 56. Azarnouche 2007/2012, pp. 170–173. 47 The best example is the goddess Nana, whose iconographic sim- 38 A survey of the debate as to whether or not Sogdian religion ilarity with the Kushan goddess Nana/Nanaia (identified by inscription belongs with Zoroastrianism can be found in Shkoda 2009, pp. 10–25. on the Kushan coins), leaves no doubt as to her identity. See Shenkar 39 See Shenkar 2014, pp. 6–9. 2014, pp. 116–128. However, she is an exception among numerous 40 Lurje 2013. Sogdian deities. 41 Marshak 1999, p. 175. For a study of Buddhist art in Central 48 For the most recent studies of the Kushan pantheon and divine Asia, see Mkrtychev 2002. iconography, see Shenkar 2014; Jongeward and Cribb 2015 and espe- 42 on Sogdian Christianity, see Ashurov 2013. cially Grenet 2016. 43 Marshak had already explained it was because of Sogdian reli- 49 Lurje 2010, no. 1566. gion’s connection with the traditions of the communities and agnate 50 For instance, one of the scenes appearing on the Sivaz ossuary groups. Marshak 1987, p. 237. was convincingly interpreted by Grenet as part of the Zoroastrian funerary 44 For the onomasticon of the Sogdian personal names, see Lurje ritual known as sedra. Grenet 2009: 107–108. 2010. 51 Sims-Williams 2000. 196 michael shenkar limited.52 It seems that their potential for the interpreta- That note of caution notwithstanding, wall paintings tion of Sogdian culture may be even more restricted, and certainly seem to share a common “language” and icono- they should be used with restraint and deliberation. graphic conventions, which were shared by all Sogdians In summary, the study of the Sogdian pantheon is a regardless of their city. It is possible to see stylistic and challenging attempt to find correspondences between thematic features in Sogdian religious art from the the iconography, the theophoric components of Sogdian Bukhara oasis in the West to Semirech’e in the East. Mar- names and Zoroastrian textual sources. Hence, despite shak singled out three layers in Sogdian iconography: decades of scholarly effort, the identity of only a few “Ancient (Classical), Sasanian and Indian”.55 In a semi- deities among the rich Sogdian iconographic pantheon nal article published by him and Frantz Grenet one year can be considered safely established.53 earlier, they identified three strata of Sogdian religion: 1. Near Eastern and Mesopotamian; 2. Greek. 3. Zoroas- trian.56 I suggest that “Zoroastrian” should be replaced Regional Aspects of Sogdian Religion with a more neutral term, “Iranian”, and to add a fourth stratum: Indian. a. Wall paintings Sogdian paintings usually represent the divine in anthropomorphic form distinguished by their superior Sogdian murals have been uncovered at four main size.57 Sogdian gods are often shown enthroned – some- locations: Panjikent, Afrasiab (Samarkand), Varakhsha thing that is not found in Sasanian art, for instance. Gods and Bunjikat (Ustrushana). Although it is rarely acknowl- are usually closely associated with an animal attribute, edged, the fact that most of the entire iconographic mate- and are sometimes directly mounted on it (like Nana or the rial concerning Sogdian religious iconography comes from goddess on the makara from Temple II at Panjikent).58 the town of Panjikent bears significant methodological More often, however, these animals form supports for the implications. Panjikent, which is located in the Zeravshan thrones of Sogdian gods, who at times also hold a small valley, some 60 km east of Samarkand, was not an insig- figurine of the same animal on a plate. Unlike Sasanian nificant town, and we know that in the beginning of the gods, Sogdian gods are usually armed. They also often eighth century its ruler even laid claim to the title “king have other attributes, such as a crown, a royal diadem, a γ δ 54 of Sogd” (s w yk MLKʼ). However, the prominence of nimbus, or flames rising from shoulders that symbolize Panjikent cannot be compared with that of the major their transcendent, elevated nature and status. However, Sogdian cities such as Samarkand, Bukhara, Naḵšab and none of these attributes are in fact obligatory, and most Keš that were capitals of important regions and princi- are also shared by kings. palities. For instance, the size of Panjikent (13.5 ha) is Furthermore, it is important to stress that in most 16 times smaller than Samarkand, which occupied 219 cases pictorial representations of gods in wall paintings ha and was undoubtedly the largest and the most impor- uncovered at other Sogdian sites do not radically depart tant Sogdian city. The predominance of the Panjikent from what is seen at Panjikent. In some cases, it is even material inevitably creates a distortion of which scholars possible to see exact correspondences. Two characteristic should be aware. There is also a chronological aspect. examples are the goddess Nana and the “divine couple” The majority of the known paintings from Panjikent date that consists of a god seated on a throne supported by from around 740, when the city was rebuilt after it was camels and a goddess on a throne that rests on the pro- sacked and burned by the Arabs in 722. This means that tomes of mountain rams. This couple is often depicted in our window on to Sogdian iconography is narrow not Panjikent houses (Fig. 2),59 and a similar composition only in spatial, but also in temporal terms. In other words, featuring the same gods is also found at Afrasyab, Samar- we should be aware that most of our material on Sogdian kand.60 This comes as no surprise, given the proximity of religious iconography comes from one city, which was not Panjikent and Samarkand, and we should naturally expect even among the five largest Sogdian cities, and even this that the cult in these cities would have much in common. material is for the most part limited to the 740s. In a However, in Varakhsha in the Bukhara oasis we also sense, when scholars speak of “Sogdian religion” and the “Sogdian pantheon”, they are in fact discussing the religion of Panjikent after the 740s. 55 Marshak 1999, p. 183. 56 Grenet and Marshak 1998. 57 For important discussions, see Belenitskij and Marshak 1976; 52 Shenkar 2014, p. 192. Marshak 1989; Marshak 1999. 53 Shenkar 2014, p. 191 and passim. The attitude of Frantz Grenet 58 Shenkar 2014, p. 170. in his numerous groundbreaking studies of Sogdian iconography is 59 Panjikent XXIV/2, Panjikent XXIV/13, Panjikent XXV/28. For more positive. See Grenet 2006/2012. a discussion of these deities whose identity is uncertain, see Shenkar 54 He was probably proclaimed King of Sogd in 721. See Grenet 2014, pp. 138–139, 162. and de la Vaissière 2002. 60 Shenkar 2014, pp. 138–139, pl. 21. the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 197

Fig. 2. Enthroned divine couple, Panjikent XXV/28, southern wall. meet an image of a god seated on a camel, although this process that is still inadequately understood, she became time without his female companion.61 the most important deity in Bactria and Sogdiana.62 Her The case of Nana is even more remarkable in its visual representations in Panjikent and in Ustrushana are iconographic consistency. Nana, originally a Mesopota- identical in regard to the three main elements, which mian goddess, was introduced to Bactria not later than became “canonical” in Sogdian iconography: four arms, the first century CE from the Parthian Empire (although the Sun and the Moon with enclosed anthropomorphic it was perhaps as early as the Achaemenian period). In a

62 See Shenkar 2014, pp. 116–128. For a recent, original inter­ 61 Shenkar 2014, p. 139, F. 131. pretation of her functions in the Kushan pantheon, see also Falk 2016. 198 michael shenkar

images of Nana come from Panjikent,67 and there is every reason to think that in Panjikent Nana received much greater veneration than elsewhere in Sogdiana. Temple II, one of the two temples in the city, was dedi- cated to Nana, and she was in fact a patron goddess of Panjikent, as it becomes clear from the series of coins minted during the reign of Dhēwāshtīch that carry the legend “Nanaia, the Lady of Panč” (pncy nn(δ)-βnpn- wH).68 No comparable coins in the name of a deity are known from any other Sogdian city. Our perception of her dominance in the Sogdian pantheon is thus filtered through the lens of Panjikent and her complete preva- lence there was probably an exception rather than the rule, since it is not attested for other Sogdian cities. The Syriac version of The Alexander Romance mentions a temple in Samarkand dedicated to “the goddess Rhea whom they call Nani”,69 and the sanctuary of Jartepa-II, judging by the preserved paintings in the cella, was also probably dedicated to Nana.70 This evidence indicates that she was probably the most important deity of the Samarkand Sogd. However, this does not necessarily confirm that her position and the status of her cult was similar in other regions of Sogdiana. In fact, quite the opposite seems to be the case. For instance, there is no evidence that Nana played a major Fig. 3. Nana from the “Small Throne Room” of the Palace in role in the Bukhara district. Narshakhī, who provides us Bunjikat, Ustrushana. After Sokolovskij 2009, f. 71. with valuable information about the cults in pre-Islamic Bukhara, does not even mention her and she is unattested in Varakhsha.71 Nana is pictured on one ossuary from the personifications, and a lion mount – her constant com- Kashkadarya valley (Khirmantepa), but basing on this panion (Fig. 3). A wooden beam dated to the seventh or sole piece of evidence it is impossible to estimate her to the first half of the eighth century CE from Kujruk-tobe, position among the Sogdians of this region. In the narrative a Sogdian city in Southern Kazakhstan, also depicts the epic paintings that decorated the walls of the “Small familiar image of Nana.63 Moreover, her representation Throne Room” in Bunjikat, the capital of another impor- also appears on a stone burial bed of a prominent mem- tant region of Ustrushana, Nana seems to play a significant ber of a Sogdian community living in distant China.64 role.72 However, the huge divine figure placed in the center Although far removed from the Sogdian homeland and of the main wall in front of the entrance to the same room rendered in a different style, the image of the goddess depicted not Nana, but a male deity seated on a throne Nana still faithfully reproduces all three elements of her supported by horses.73 It is therefore this god, whose iden- iconography in Panjikent and Ustrushana. She is four- tity is not easily established, and not Nana, who was most armed. In her two upper hands, the goddess holds two probably the patron deity of the kings of Ustrushana. spheres – representations of the Sun and Moon. Beneath In summary, it seems certain that in other Sogdian her, are the carvings showing two heads of roaring lions. principalities, Nana was also known and venerated, but In fact, the only exceptional image of Nana is found on the Khirmantepa ossuary, where no lion is present 67 Nana is represented as the most revered deity in several private (Fig. 4).65 houses in Panjikent (III/7; VI/26; VI/41; XXI/2; XXIII/50; XXV/12). 68 Lurje 2010, no. 779, with bibliography. However, see Naymark Nana is usually considered to be the most important 2013, p. 350, who suggests (referring to his forthcoming study), that this Sogdian deity, and is often referred to as the head of the legend is a title of Dhēwāshtīch containing the name of the goddess. Sogdian pantheon.66 The overwhelming majority of the 69 Grenet 1995/1996b, pp. 215–216. 70 Berdimuradov and Samiebaev 1999. 71 It is, however, possible that she is represented as a bust above 63 Shenkar 2014, pp. 125–126. the fire-altar on the earliest copper coins of Bukahra. See Shenkar 2014, 64 Shenkar 2014, p. 127. p. 121. 65 Shenkar 2014, p. 125, fig. 112. 72 Sokolovskij 2009. 66 Shenkar 2014, p. 127. 73 Shenkar 2014, p. 111, fig. 85. the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 199

Fig. 4. ossuary from Khirmantepa. Courtesy of Frantz Grenet. nowhere did she occupy such a prominent place as in the and catalogued 272 examples, divided them into three Samarkand region, and particularly in Panjikent, which regional groups based on production techniques, shape might have been the center of the cult of Nana in Sogdiana and decoration types: Central (Samarkand region includ- and indeed her “sacred city”.74 Her dominant presence ing Panjikent), Western (Bukhara oasis) and Southern in the Sogdian personal names75 should probably be (Kashkadarya valley).76 The Central group, containing the viewed as reflecting the fact that the Samarkand Sogd was majority of the ossuaries (254 out of 272) is further sub- the most populous – and politically and economically divided into three sub-groups: eastern, northern and west- important – region of Sogdiana in this period. ern. Panjikent, together with Samarkand, belongs with the eastern sub-group of the Central group. This sub-group is b. Ossuaries characterized by decorations of floral and geometric designs, garlands, architectural elements such as arches, The fact that Panjikent has so many wall paintings and zoomorphic and anthropomorphic characters, heads while other Sogdian centers have not preserved such a and masks. Still, there are even further differences in orna- wealth of paintings, hinders attempts to determine regional ment between the two neighboring cities.77 For instance, variations in this media, but there is one category of objects zoomorphic and anthropomorphic characters are more typ- for which there is sufficient comparative material from all ical of Samarkand than of Panjikent.78 Sogdian regions: the Sogdian ossuaries. Pavchinskaya, Some Sogdian ossuaries are decorated with multifigural who undertook a comprehensive study of the ossuaries complex scenes depicting Sogdian divinities, heavenly musicians, priests wearing an ensemble (including padām) and using accessories familiar from Sasanian and modern 74 It is tempting to speculate that by minting coins with the legend Zoroastrian priestly practices, and performing rituals some “Nanaia, the Lady of Panč”, Dhēwāshtīch hoped to exploit the status of which are apparently similar to Zoroastrian ones (Fig. 5). of Panjikent as a religious center of the cult of Nana for his political benefit. The appearance of this religious message on coins, which is unprecedented in Sogdiana, may be connected to the arrival of Islam 76 Pavchinskaya 1990; Pavchinskaia 1994/1996. with its inseparable link between religion and political authority. 77 Pavchinskaya 1990, p. 9. 75 Lurje 2010. 78 Pavchinskaya 1990, p. 9. 200 michael shenkar

These explanations, however, do not take into account the regional aspect. The Panjikent wall-paintings must be compared first of all not with the ossuaries from other regions, but with the Panjikent ossuaries, which bear no images of gods or priests at all. Some of the ossuaries, especially in Panjikent, were excavated from nauses – mausoleums which undoubtedly belonged to the same affluent citizens of Panjikent who lived in the houses decorated with narrative religious and epic paintings. Common people and peasants were probably buried in large storage jars or had their bones scattered (or per- haps, buried in special places without any particular marking). Ossuaries depicting complex scenes with numer- ous characters, priests, “Zoroastrian” rituals and gods, are limited only to two particular geographical regions of Sogdiana: to the Southern (Kashkadarya) group and to the western subgroup of the Central (Samarkand) group (according to Pavchinskaya’s classification).82 Images on these ossuaries also demonstrate distinctive stylistic and iconographic features that clearly set them apart from Sog- dian paintings. For instance, the ossuaries from “Bijana- jman and Miankal” (western sub-group of the Central group) which most probably show Sogdian deities, have no comparable representations in the wall paintings (Fig. 6).83 The ossuaries of the Southern group (Kashka- Fig. 5. ossuary from Molla-kurgan. darya valley) present numerous peculiarities and exhibit After Stewart et al. 2013, p. 100. divine images not found elsewhere (Fig. 7).84 Most images of gods and their attributes do not correspond to Interestingly, such “Zoroastrian” scenes are found only on those known from paintings (the paintings, of course, ossuaries and on stone funerary couches of Sogdians living mainly from Panjikent). Even the most “canonical” and in China, while wall paintings (including those from the widely distributed image of the goddess Nana found on Panjikent temples) only show libations on (mostly portable) fire-altars performed before images of deities by people 82 One possible exception is that of the two ossuary fragments wearing common Sogdian dress – even without the found on the site of Afrasyab. One shows a couple seated on a carpet seemingly obligatory padām mouth-cover. How can this and another fragment probably originally belonged to a composition discrepancy be explained and what does it tell us about depicting a deity on a throne with rams’ support and surrounded by Sogdian religion? According to Grenet, it reflects the dif- musicians, similar to the Sivaz ossuary. See Naymark 2003. However, ference between the “Indianized” art of the Panjikent the findspot and the fact that the fragments are hand-moulded (and not stamped as characteristic for the Kashkadarya region) indicate that they wall-paintings, which was limited to the aristocracy, while were produced in Samarkand. It is possible that these are imitations of the Zoroastrian art of the general Sogdian population man- the Kashkadarya valley ossuaries produced especially for the natives of ifested itself in the ossuaries.79 Marshak suggested that this region residing in Samarkand. An additional ossuary bearing a rep- stamped ossuaries – being mass-produced objects – were resentation of priests attending the fire-altar was found at Krasnaya rechka – a Sogdian colony in the Chui valley, north of Sogdiana proper. intended to be used by all Sogdians and thus corresponded See Pugachenkova 1994/1996, pp. 239–240; Grenet 2002, p. 94. Given to common Sogdian beliefs, while wall paintings reflected its similarities to the famous Molla-kurgan ossuary from the Samarkand the particular beliefs of their customers – individual fami- region (Grenet 2002, pp. 93–94) it obviously also belongs with the lies and communities who had their own patron-gods.80 western sub-group of the Central (Samarkand) group and was most In a recent publication, Grenet wrote that “priests serving probably produced in this region of central Sogdiana and imported to Krasnaya rechka. Another ossuary fragment that possibly belongs to at court or in aristocratic families tended to adopt a fash- this region depicts the judgment of the soul by the god Rašn. See ion not very distinct from that of their patrons, while Grenet 1986, pp. 106–107; Shenkar 2014, p. 141. It is currently kept funerary art shows a more conservative outfit”.81 in the Tashkent Historical Museum, but its alleged provenance is Samarkand. 83 Shenkar 2014, pp. 170–174. Their style also shows much more 79 Grenet 1986, p. 99, 128. dominant Sasanian influences than the wall paintings. 80 Marshak 1999, p. 187. 84 With the exception of Nana (Khirmantepa ossuary), and possibly 81 Grenet and Azarnouche 2007/2012, p. 169. Shiva (Kabanov 1974). the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 201

Fig. 6. ossuary from Bijanajman and Miankal group. Courtesy of Frantz Grenet.

Fig. 7. ossuary from Yumalak-tepa (Kashkadarya). Courtesy of Frantz Grenet. 202 michael shenkar an ossuary from Khirmantepa is exceptional, as she has same time as the first city walls. The two sanctuaries no lion – her constant companion in all other representa- stood side by side, and together with their sacred pre- tions in Sogdian art.85 cincts occupied 1/6 of the original city – they were clearly The central question remains: why do these multifig- intended to constitute a significant, if not the principal ural scenes, “Zoroastrian” priests and subjects appear component, of the original urban plan (Fig. 8). Seven only on ossuaries, and only in these two well-defined building stages have been identified for the temples, with regions? Unfortunately, murals from these two regions the last stage corresponding to the end of Panjikent in are almost completely unknown. It is possible that they 770s when the city was deserted by its inhabitants. also contained comparable “Zoroastrian” subjects, but, The temples were continuously expanded, reflecting given the situation in Panjikent, these images on ossuar- the growth in their importance and economic power. ies are perhaps better explained as a result of different In the course of time, the vast area of temples’ temenos media, combined with certain – albeit not easily defina- was built over with additional rooms and chapels. ble – regional aspects. Because multifigural ossuaries Workshops, utility and living rooms were also added. In are confined to certain regions (and are few in number) the first quarter of the eighth century metal casting work- it cannot be said with any certainty that they reflect the shops and bakeries were located within the Panjikent beliefs of “all Sogdians” or any kind of “Sogdian com- temples, and it seems that writing was also taught there.91 mon belief”. Interestingly, these developments took place in both tem- ples more or less in concert.92 The temples seem to have c. Terracotta undergone parallel development, suggesting that they were administered by a single body. If competition existed A similar picture emerges when another mass-pro- between the temples we would expect to find periods duced category of objects is examined – the terracottas. when one temple “rose” above the other, overshadowing The Sogdian terracottas have been extensively studied.86 it in its importance, but this is clearly not the case. A solid Meshkeris, who dedicated a special study to the relation- wall separated the two temple compounds, making any ship between Sogdian terracottas and Sogdian monumen- direct passage between them impossible. This may have tal art, identifies a number of thematic and stylistic par- reflected some sort of ritual (possibly related to purity) allels between these two media.87 However, as noted by rather than an administrative division. Marshak, the characters represented in coroplastics usu- The body administering the temples could have only ally do not correspond to deities known from paintings.88 been the Panjikent’s civic community (n’β). Furthermore, According to the Russian scholar, the former probably as noted insightfully by Shkoda, the temples were the represented lesser gods deemed by the common people “organizational centers” of the city’s n’β.93 Almost 40 to be more helpful in their daily life.89 years ago, Sergey Khmel’nitskij attempted to challenge the consensus over the interpretation of the Panjikent tem- ples as “temples” and obstinately argued for their strictly Temples, Priests and the Civic Community “non-religious”, “secular” function as places for “com- munity gatherings”.94 His suggestion, which showed The most studied and the best-known Sogdian sanctu- complete disregard for the abundant and unequivocal aries are undoubtedly the Panjikent temples.90 These tem- evidence for the religious nature of the site, was for the ples were built at the beginning of the fifth century, at the most part ignored, while his opponents mainly concen- trated on the cultic and ritual nature of the buildings. However, both views are not mutually exclusive and can 85 Shenkar 2014, p. 125. in fact be harmonized. After seventy years of continuous 86 For a catalogue of objects kept in various museum collections up to 1989, see Meshkeris 1989. For a history of research and an extensive excavations at Panjikent it can be stated with certainty that survey of publications on Sogdian terracottas, see Dvurecheskaya 2005 the two temples were the only structures in the city large pp. 229–256; Dvurechenskaya 2016, pp. 80-103. A useful brief discus- enough to be considered public buildings.95 The sacred sion of Sogdian coroplastics is found in Marshak 1999, pp. 190–191. compound of the temples was preceded by a spacious 87 Meshkeris 1979. 88 The exception is the goddess Nana, whose partially preserved image, recognizable by her lion mount, is found on a terracotta plaque 91 Shkoda 2009, pp. 96–97. from Panjikent. See Zejmal’ 1985, n. 494. 92 Shkoda 2009, p. 56. 89 Marshak 1999, p. 191. Interestingly, one of them is Buddha who 93 Shkoda 2009, p. 117. is depicted in a wall painting from Panjikent. A clay mould, which was 94 Khmel’nitskij 1977; Khmel’nitskij 2000, pp. 192–199. used to produce terracotta plaques carrying an image of Buddha, was also 95 Three rooms: 12/III, 12a/III and 12б/III aligned in enfilade were found during excavations in Panjikent. See Marshak and Raspopova suggested to constitute a public building (Raspopova 1990, 189). Even 1997/1998. if this is so, they are of very modest dimensions to be anything more 90 Shkoda 2009. than a quarter community centre. the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 203

Fig. 8. The Panjikent temples, Fifth-sixth building periods. After Shkoda 2009, Fig. 43. square which was, it seems, the largest and the central word n’β with the name of the community in question. square of the city.96 Therefore, the inescapable conclusion The resulting term has the meaning “head/leader (of com- is that meetings of Panjikent’s magistrates and assemblies munity x)”.98 In the Mount Mugh documents (A-13) a of the civic community would have taken place within the title of another city magistrate who is called “counsellor” temple precincts, in some of the numerous “chapels” and is given (βʼnkrʼm).99 Three vast households in Panjikent in the square adjacent to the temples.97 (XVI, XXI, XXIII/XXV) that clearly stand apart from The Sogdian communities were headed by a leader who bore a title constructed from a combination of the 98 Like čāčānnāfč “head/leader of the community/people of Čāč”, or n’pcβzty “head/leader of the community/people of Vazd”. See Livshits 2015, pp. 235–236. 96 Belenitskij, Bentovich and Bolshakov 1973, p. 38. 99 “From the councillor and commune of Penjikent to the tarxān 97 Skoda 2009, p. 116. and Vaghēfarn”. See Livshits 2015, pp. 55–56. 204 michael shenkar other houses and rivalled the royal palace for their excep- theatrical processions of people in character costume.108 tional size, most probably belonged to such individuals However, the numerous painted and sculptured images – the leaders of the Panjikent community and holders of of Nana found in Temple II unambiguously confirm the most important offices in the city.100 It should be that it was dedicated to this goddess and functioned as noted that besides the conventional Reception Halls the centre of her cult in Panjikent. The deity (or deities) – that could house some 20–30 people at a time –, in worshipped in Temple I remain unknown. Based on the households XVI and XXI а spacious additional hall or presence of the ātešgāh, Shkoda has concluded that in large courtyard was built that could admit several times Temple I “Zoroastrianism had manifested itself in a this number.101 It is plausible that some of the less impor- more clear way”,109 and Grenet has further argued that tant gatherings of city officials might have taken place the paintings in this temple are more “Zoroastrian” in there. Temples probably played a similar role also in other their contents and subjects than those in Temple II.110 In Sogdian cities. An important passage in the Chinese any case, from the beginning, statues made of unbaked chronicle Tongdian (“Comprehensive Canons”) men- clay were placed in the niches in the cellae of both tions a temple in Sogdiana called Bayi which was “the ­temples,111 and despite any possible differences in their center of the government”.102 decoration, the rituals carried out in them were essen- The well-known marriage contract from Mount Mugh tially the same – kindling the sacred fire on portable sheds light on another aspect of the temples’ functions in altars before anthropomorphic statues of deities. Finally, Sogdian society, and reinforces the assumption that they taken together, the paintings in the temples and in the were central public institutions that answered to various private houses in Panjikent share the same repertoire of needs of the community. According to the text of this subjects.112 In my opinion, it indicates that both were cre- contract, it was composed in the “Foundation Place” ated by and reflected the ideology of the same social unit (βwntyn’k ’st’ny),103 which is certainly a public institution, – the Panjikent n’β – within which they functioned. but its exact nature is unclear. One Chinese source speaks After the Arab conquest of the city in 722, Temple I of Sogdian laws that were kept in a temple in Samarkand,104 was burned, while Temple II was spared, although it too and it is reasonable to assume that this “Foundation was abandoned and fell into disuse.113 When life in Pan- Place” was part of a temple complex in which marriage jikent resumed in 740s and many houses in the city were ceremonies were conducted and the laws of the commu- reconstructed and the walls of the Reception Halls nity stored.105 repainted with religious and epic scenes, none of the tem- However, the temples were first and foremost the ples were rebuilt. Their economic power was destroyed, focal point of the city’s religious life and cult. Both tem- with priests killed or fled. Moreover, some of the rooms ples in Panjikent had a similar layout.106 The most impor- in the temples were converted for use as private dwell- tant architectural difference between them is the presence ings in the 740s. There are traces of habitation even in in Temple I of an ātešgāh, a four-columned fire-cham- the cella, and some rooms and parts of the temenos were ber, with a central stationary fire-altar where the contin- converted into garbage pits.114 Life in Panjikent contin- ually sustained fire was kept.107 However, the ātešgāh ued without any temples. How could the inhabitants of only functioned for a limited period of time between the Panjikent – who, as the paintings in their renewed houses middle of the fifth and the sixth centuries. The reasons tell us, still worshipped the same Sogdian gods – manage for its construction and its subsequent loss of use are without their sanctuaries and why no care was taken to unknown. This is unfortunate, since such transformations rebuild them?115 Walls could be restored and priests in the cult could have potentially important historical assembled or appointed again, but what was irretrievably implications for our understanding of religious life in destroyed by the Arabs was the raison d’être of the tem- Panjikent. ples – their political, economical and legal foundation –, The temples’ decoration has much in common. Both the Panjikent n’β and the city institutions. Barracks of the included epic and battle scenes, themes related to water, Arab garrison were built on the ruins of the palace of depictions of adorants and donors bringing offerings, and

108 Shkoda 2009, pp. 85, 107. 100 Raspopova 1990, p. 187. 109 Shkoda 2009, p. 125. 101 Raspopova 1990, p. 187. 110 Grenet and Azarnouche 2007/2012, pp. 163–164. 102 Compareti 2016, p. 275. 111 Shkoda 2009, p. 61. 103 Livshits 2015, pp. 17–37. 112 Shkoda 2009, p. 115. 104 Livshits 2015, p. 34. 113 Shkoda 2009, p. 48. 105 Shkoda 2009, pp. 116–117. 114 Shkoda 2009, pp. 48–49. 106 Shkoda 2009, pp. 60–70. 115 Although an attempt was made to reconstruct one of the chapels 107 Shkoda 2009, pp. 27–32. in the courtyard of the Temple II. See Shkoda 2009, p. 49. the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 205

Dhēwāshtīch,116 and the city was most probably governed and even the three left unfilled were made less deep.127 by an Arab amīr. This suggests some modifications in the ritual took place, Two other cities where the Sogdian levels have been but the nature of these changes is unfortunately impossi- exposed on a sufficient scale to merit any serious discus- ble to define because of the absence of any further evi- sion are Paykand and Naḵšab (Erkurgan). Interestingly, dence. in Paykand and Naḵšab the only public buildings to have From the Chinese “Chronicle of the Tang Dynasty” been identified are again the temples and the palace (in (Tangshu) we know that in the neighbouring city of Keš the case of Paykand, garrison barracks have also been there was a temple dedicated to a deity to whom sacri- uncovered). In Paykand, the sanctuary (along with the fices of one thousand rams were made each time before palace) was the earliest structure to be built at the site, going to war.128 predating its urban development and the construction of An additional Sogdian temple was excavated at the walls of the shahristān.117 In the third–fourth centuries Jartepa-II. This is an extramural sanctuary, not attached CE, the temple was the “core” of the citadel,118 and to any settlement, located on the road leading from pre-urban Paykand developed around the sanctuary.119 It Samarkand to Panjikent.129 Originally a small fortress, it consisted of two halls surrounded by corridors which had was converted to a sanctuary in the late fourth or early podiums for the portable fire-altars installed in the middle. fifth century.130 Its architectural layout is close to those The temple was preceded by a courtyard (17 × 12 m). In of the Panjikent temples, and based on the paintings in period V, the entrance to the sanctuary was through a the cella that seem to depict Nana, the temple was prob- four-columned ayvān. The so-called “administrative ably dedicated to this goddess. The excavators note that quarter” situated to the southwest of the temple, was Jartepa-II had a higher status than simply functioning as probably a complex of utility rooms of the sanctuary.120 a local village temple (it is also located outside the set- The excavations of Erkurgan, ancient Naḵšab, have tlement). Indeed, it is too monumental for a small village. revealed only the remains of a palace, two temples and They suggest that Jartepa-II was attended by travellers, two complexes associated with funerary activities (called pilgrims and merchants and could have been a pan-Sog- “Dakhma” and “Mausoleum” by the excavators).121 As dian, extramural sanctuary.131 Given its location, it is plau- in Panjikent, the cella of Naḵšab’s temple contained sible that Jartepa-II could have functioned as a “station” niches (no less than 15 in number). Some of them had on the path of pilgrims coming to the Nana’s Panjikent traces of burning and obviously contained lamps or burn- temple. In fact, since the restructuring of Jartepa-II from ers, while other niches (among them also the central a fortress to a temple is contemporary with the erection niche) most probably housed divine statues. This is con- of the Panjikent temples, it was perhaps connected with firmed by fragments of clay statues at the site, including the establishment of the cult of Nana in the region and one well-preserved head found under the floor of the was part of a network of sacred places dedicated to the third period.122 All walls in the cella were covered with great Lady of Panjikent, which was being developed in polychrome paintings and the columns were painted in the beginning of the fifth century. red.123 The ayvān walls were also painted and one pre- Jartepa-II was not an isolated phenomenon. There is served fragment depicts the leg of a marching horse.124 good reason to believe that the landscape of late antique In the central niche located in the northern wall, in front Sogdiana was dotted with sanctuaries and sacred places. of the entrance,125 fragments of a painting showing a Smirnova collected and analysed some 30 Sogdian top- male bust in three-quarter view were uncovered. He onyms which were once locations of such sanctuaries, wears a conical headdress and has a nimbus surrounding since they include the components βγn- (temple) and βγ his head.126 In the second building phase, all the niches (god).132 Such toponyms undoubtedly designated settle- except for three (including the main one) were filled in, ments which possessed temples of a much more elevated status than ordinary village sanctuaries and their exist-

116 Belenitskij, Marshak, Raspopova 1979, p. 25. 127 Sulejmanov 2000, pp. 93–94. 117 omel’chenko 2013, pp. 105–109. 128 Compareti 2016, p. 246. 118 Omel’chenko 2013, p. 116. Omel’chenko forthcoming, pp. 76–77. 129 Berdimuradov and Samibaev 1999; Berdimuradov and Sami­ 119 Senemov 2002, p. 12. baev 2001. 120 Andrey Omel’chenko, personal correspondence. 130 Berdimuradov and Samibaev 2001, p. 50. 121 Sulejmanov 2000. 131 Berdimuradov and Samibaev 1999, pp. 26, 61. 122 Sulejmanov 2000, pp. 96–97. 132 Smirnova 1971. Some of them were recently discussed by Lurje 123 Sulejmanov 2000, pp. 91–92. For the description of the paintings, 2004, pp. 212–213. According to Smirnova, the toponyms with βγ refer see pp. 107–110. to huge statues of Sogdian gods erected under the open sky on elevated 124 Sulejmanov 2000, p. 93. places or on artificial structures. See Smirnova 1971, p. 106. Such 125 Sulejmanov 2000, pp. 88–101. monuments, however, are not attested by Chinese or Arab sources and 126 Sulejmanov 2000, p. 108. archaeological confirmation for their existence is yet to be found. 206 michael shenkar ence can only be explained by the fact that the fame of The Panjikent temples and the temples of Erkurgan those temples spread well beyond their immediate local- and Jartepe-II have a similar core architectural layout of ities, or that the settlements themselves grew around the “Iranian type”,141 while that of the Paykand temple them. Furthermore, like Jartepa-II, some of them stood clearly stands apart. The reason for this is probably that at the junctions of main routes connecting major Sogdian the temples of the Zeravshan and the Kashkadarya val- cities.133 Some of these temples could have been regional, leys derive from the architectural tradition of neighboring or even “pan-Sogdian”, sanctuaries. Unfortunately, we Bactria (Surkh Kotal, Takht-i Sangin), while the Bukhara lack clear evidence for “pan-Sogdian” religious struc- oasis is located much farther to the west and maintained tures (such as the Classical Greek major Panhellenic close ties with Khorāsān instead. Hence, it is not surpris- sanctuaries, amphictyonies, religious leagues and Olym- ing that a different form of temple architecture would pic games). However, the existence of at least “pan-Sog- have developed in Paykand, the westernmost city of the dian” sanctuaries is plausible. From the Chinese sources Bukhara oasis from which Merv could be easily reached. we know that celebrations in the temple of “the ances- The parallel drawn between the architectural layout of tors” in the Samarkand region were attended also by the Paykand temple and that of the major Sasanian sanc- the people from the neighbouring countries (i.e. other tuary at Taḵt-e Solaymān appears convincing and proba- Sogdian principalities).134 Tangshu also mentions a tem- bly reflects the influence (and likely domination) that the ple of a deity called Dexi135 in the Ištīkhan region and Sasanian Empire started to exert over the Bukharan oasis tells us that “people come from everywhere to worship from the third century CE.142 him”.136 The ability of various Sogdian cities to negoti- One striking peculiarity of Sogdian temple architec- ate such complex themes as the establishment of new ture is its duality. There are two temples in Panjikent, colonies and joint military operations,137 suggests that which are linked together, two temples standing side by they could also communicate in the religious sphere. side at Erkurgan, and a double-temple in Paykand. Do these The “Temple of Oxus” at Takht-i Sangin on the border sites reflect an implicit duality in the cult? A worship of with Bactria undoubtedly functioned as a major, super- two distinct, but related deities? We are unfortunately regional religious centre.138 And sanctuaries which pos- not in a position to provide a reasoned answer, since only sessed similar status could have also existed in Sogdiana, for Temple II in Panjikent can we establish with confi- especially given the obvious similarities between the dence that it was dedicated to Nana. It is worth mentioning, architectural layout of the Oxus Temple and the Panjik- however, that the most important late Sasanian temple ent temples. Although evidence for pilgrimages in the complex at Taḵt-e Solaymān also contained two distinct ancient Iranian world is elusive and problematic,139 sanctuaries placed side by side.143 Bīrūnī preserves important information that during one There is, of course, no doubt that in Sogdiana the tem- of the Sogdian feasts, the mages of Bukhara gathered ples were served by priests. However, as we have already in a village in a “fire-temple” (which according to its seen, any definite images of priests seem to be absent name was dedicated to the god Rām). During another from Sogdian wall paintings – including those that feast, the Sogdians, according to Bīrūnī, assembled in adorned the Panjikent temples. This is surprising, as one Paykand.140 would naturally expect a sanctuary to be decorated with images of rituals featuring priests. One might attempt to resort to argumentum ex silentio that the priests were 133 For instance, the village Xušūfaγn, probably meaning “temple of Oxus” (Lurje 2004, p. 209). Earlier interpretations sought to trans- depicted in the cella of Temple I and that their paintings late it as “Having six temples” (Smirnova 1971, p. 92). Without, of were not preserved. However, the Jartepa-II temple, course, entering the etymological discussion, it is difficult to see how where we do have sufficient information on the painting a village could contain as many as six temples, while a city like Pan- program of the cella, shows hunting images and an jikent had only two. Be that as it may, this temple was located on one of the main roads of Sogdiana between Ishtikhan and Kushanya. enthroned divine couple attended by donors all dressed Another example is the Samarkand village Rastivagn (*ršn[y]βγn– in common clothes. In addition, in contrast with the “temple (of) Rašnu), which stood on the shortest road that led to accounts of the Arabic conquest of the Sasanian Empire Bukhara. See Smirnova 1971, p. 93. where priests are frequently mentioned, the same sources 134 Compareti 2016, p. 251. are utterly silent about Sogdian priests.144 This fact can 135 Probably to be identified with the Sogdian deity Taxsīč (txs’yc), who has been compared with Tammūz; see Grenet and Marshak 1998, pp. 9–10. 141 Shenkar 2011. 136 Compareti 2016, p. 281. 142 omel’chenko 2013, p. 117; Omel’chenko forthcoming. 137 The Kultobe inscription. See Sims-Williams and Grenet 2007. 143 Huff 1978. 138 Litvinskij and Pichikyan 2000. 144 Grenet and Azarnouche 2007/2012, pp. 159–160. Interestingly, 139 This issue has recently received detailed treatment (not includ- the story of the conquest of neighboring Chorasmia by Qutayba b. Mus- ing Sogdiana) by Grenet 2010. lim does feature the killing of priests and the burning of their books. 140 Bīrūnī (ed. and tr. by Sal’e 1957), p. 254. See Grenet and Azarnouche 2007/2012, p. 159. This is probably not the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 207 only point to the possibility that there was no organized Conclusions priesthood in Sogdiana and that priests as a distinctive group did not play a prominent role in the areas of public Between the fifth and the eighth centuries Sogdiana life, politics and administration.145 In contrast with Sasa- developed political and social institutions that situate it nian Iran, in Sogdiana the priests did not constitute a firmly as a “city-state culture”. I have argued that a close separate estate. As can be seen from the Mount Mugh look at the religious structures of the Greek poleis (as the documents (A-9, R1-3) the community (n’β) was divided best known among the “city-state cultures”) can help us into three social classes: the nobility (’’ztk’r), the mer- understand several aspects of Sogdian religion for which chants (xw’kry) and the ‘workers’ (k’ryk’r). It is plausible there is an almost complete lack of sources. that – as in Classical Greece, where priests were under The city-state was the centre of Sogdian religious life, the control and authority of the polis146 – Sogdian priests and although it is legitimate to speak about “Sogdian reli- were also essentially magistrates. In one of the Mount gion” as a general term, we must be aware of important Mugh documents (A-5), a “chief priest” (maγupat) is and numerous regional variations. Each Sogdian city recorded receiving payments along with other Panjikent developed different cultic practices and veneration of officials. Unlike the majority of officials in the docu- individual deities varied greatly from one community to ment, he is left unnamed, which suggests that he was the another. Our perception of the Sogdian religion is marred only bearer of this title in Panjikent.147 by the fact that the bulk of the material comes from a Since a letter from Mount Mugh (1.I) calls certain single town – Panjikent – and is also limited to one short priests, Nizhitak and Kūrchī, the “best friends” of the period of time. It seems that temples were at the heart of Panjikent ruler Dhēwāshtīch,148 one might suggest that the city’s civic community. They were the seat of the city’s the priests mostly associated with the nobility. We have administration and combined the functions of several no information as to whether the office was hereditary or institutions. Sogdian priests were not a separate class, but if priests were chosen by election or lot. Perhaps, like in were rather magistrates appointed by the civic community. Greece,149 all these variants were found. However, since Future enquiries into the nature of Sogdian religion should recitations and memorization of long sacred hymns approach the religion of each Sogdian city as self- played an important role in the Sogdian cult (as in other contained entities, while at the same time drawing on Iranian cults), it required a long process of education comparative material from other “city-state cultures”. starting from childhood. A priestly category like this must have been one that was a permanent, life-long posi- tion (which were probably also hereditary), while it is Bibliography plausible that other responsibilities in the temples were carried out by priests whose tenure was temporary. Per- Ashurov, B. (2013), Tarsākyā: an Analysis of Sogdian Chris- haps, these “tenured” specialists were mostly involved in tianity Based on Archaeological, Numismatic, Epigraphic the burial rites and this is why we find their representa- and Textual Sources. Unpublished PhD thesis. SOAS, Uni- tions only in a funerary context, while the depictions of versity of London. priests elected from among the nobility to serve in the Bartol’d, V.V. (1964), Sochineniya t. II/2, Moscow. temple for a limited period of time decorate the walls of Belenitskiy, A.M. and Marshak, B.I. (1976), “Cherty mirovozreniya sogdiytsev VII–VIII vv. v iskusstve Pen- the Panjikent temples?150 dzhikenta”, in Istoriya i kul’tura narodov Sredney Azii, drevnost’ i srednie veka, Moscow, 75–89. Belenitskij, A.M., Bentovich, I.B. and Bol’shakov, O.G. (1973), Srednevekovyj gorod Srednej Azii, Leningrad. Belenitskij, A.M., Marshak, B.I. and Raspopova, V.I. (1979), accidental, since as far as we know no “city-state culture” existed in “Sotsial’naya struktura naseleniya drevnego Pendzhikenta”, Chorasmia. Therefore, an influential priestly class might have devel- Tovarno-denezhnye otnosheniya na Blizhnem i Srednem oped there, with links to the monarchy (who held absolute dynastic Vostoke v epokhu srednevekov’ya, Moscow, 19-24. power), unlike in Sogdiana. Berdimuradov, A.E. and Samibaev, M.K. (1999), Khram 145 Bartol’d has already noted that the Sogdian priesthood “did not Dzhartepa – II (k problemam kul’turnoj zhizni Sogda v play any role in the struggle against the Arab aggressor”. Bartol’d 1963, IV-VIII vv.), Tashkent. pp. 238–239. —, (2001), “Une nouvelle peinture murale sogdienne dans 146 Sourvinou-Inwood 2000b, p. 38. le temple de Džartepa II (avec les notes additionnelles par 147 Grenet and Azarnouche 2007/2012, p. 160. F. Grenet et B. Marshak)”, Studia Iranica 30, 45–66. 148 Livshits 2015, pp. 88–94. 149 Flower 2015, p. 295. Bremmer, J.N. (1994), Greek Religion, Cambridge. 150 Two characters wearing casual Sogdian costume and a padām Burkert, W. (1985), Greek Religion, Cambridge. mouth-cover on the southern wall of the Afrasyab paintings probably Compareti, M. (2016), Samarkand the Center of the World, depict temporary priests-magistrates performing their ritual duties. Costa Mesa. 208 michael shenkar

Dvurechenskaya, N.D. (2005), Istoriya izucheniya terrakotovoj Khmel’nitskij, S.G. (1977), “Obshchestvennye zdaniya v drev- plastiki Srednej Azii (Problemy istorii, filologii, kul’tury 15), nem Pendzhikente”, Pamyatniki kul’tury: Novye otkrytiya Magnitogorsk. 1977, 407-416. —, (2016), Terrakotovaya plastika drevnejshikh gosudarstv —, (2000), Mezhdu Kushanami i Arabami. Arkhitektura Sred- Srednej Azii IV v. do n. e. – IV v. n. e. (arkheologicheskij nej Azii V-VIII vv., Berlin-Riga. aspect), Saint-Petersburg. Kindt, J. (2009), “Polis Religion – A Critical Appreciation”, Falk, H. (2016), “Kushan Rule Granted by Nana: The Back- Kernos 22, 9–34. ground of a Heavenly Legitimation”, in Falk, H. (ed.), Kushan —, (2012), Rethinking Greek Religion, Cambridge. Histories: Literary Sources and Selected Papers from a Sym- Litvinskij, B.A. and Pichikyan, I.R. (2000), Ellinisticheskij posium at Berlin, December 5 to 7, 2013, Bremen, 265-300. khram Oksa v Baktrii, Moscow. Flower, M. (2015), “Religious Expertise”, in Eidinow, E. and Livšic V. (2006), “The Sogdian Wall Inscriptions on the Site Kindt, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek of Afrasiab”, in Compareti, M. and de La Vaissière, É. Religion, Oxford, 293-307. (eds.), Royal Nawrūz in Samarkand: Acts of the Conference Frye, R.N. (2007), The History of Bukhara by Narshakhi, held in Venice on the Pre-Islamic Afrāsyāb Painting, Rome, Princeton. 59-74. Grenet, F. (1986), “L’art zoroastrien en Sogdiane”, Mesopo- Livshits, V.A. (2008), “Istoriya izucheniya Sogda”, Rakhmat- tamia 21, 97–131. Name: Sbornik Statej k 70-letiyu R.R. Rakhimova, St. Peters- —, (2002), “Zoroastrian Themes on Early Medieval Sogdian burg, 184-202. Ossuaries”, in Godrej, P.J. and Mistree, F.P. (eds.), A Zoro- —, (2015), Sogdian Epigraphy of Central Asia and Semirech’e, astrian Tapestry, Middletown, 90–98. London. —, (2009), “Le rituel funéraire zoroastrien du sedra dans l’ima­ Lurje, P.B. (2004), Istoriko-lingvisticheskiy analiz sogdiyskoy gerie sogdienne”, in Gignoux, P., Jullien, C., and Jullien, F. toponimii, Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Saint-Petersburg. (eds.), Trésors d’Orient. Mélanges offerts à Rika Gyselen, —, (2010), Personal Names in Sogdian Texts, Wien. Paris, 103–113. Marshak, B.I. (1987), “Iskusstvo Sogda”, Tsentral’naya Aziya: —, (2006/2010), “Iranian Gods in Hindu Garb. The Zoroastrian novye pamyatniki pis’mennosti i iskusstva, Moscow, 233- Pantheon of the Bactrians and Sogdians, Second–Eighth 248. Centuries”, BAI 20, 87–101. —, (1989), “Bogi, demony i geroi pendzhikentskoj zhivopisi”, —, (2010), “Cosa sappiamo dei pellegrinaggi nel mondo irani- Itogi rabot arheologicheskikh ekspeditsij Gosudarstvennogo ano preislamico?”, in Balbeo, A. and Piano, S. (eds.), La Ermitazha: Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, Leningrad, 115–127. bisaccia del pellegrino: fra evocazione e memoria, Torino, —, (1992), “The Historico-Cultural Significance of the Sog- 167-183. dian Calendar”, Iran 30, 145-154. —, (2016), “Zoroastrianism among the Kushans”, in Falk, H. —, (1999), “Sogd V–VIII vv. Ideologiya po pamyatnikam (ed.), Kushan Histories: Literary Sources and Selected iskusstva”, in Brykina, G.A. (ed.), Srenyaya Aziya v rannem Papers from a Symposium at Berlin, December 5 to 7, 2013, Srednevekov’e, Moscow, 175–192. Bremen, 203-241. —, (2002), Legends, Tales, and Fables in the Art of Sogdiana, Grenet, F. and Azarnouche, S. (2007/2012), “Where are the New York. Sogdian Magi?”, BAI 21, 159–179. —, (2003), “The Archaeology of Sogdiana”, The Silk Road Grenet, F. and Marshak, B.I. (1998), “Le mythe de Nana 1/2. dans l’art de la Sogdiane”, Arts Asiatiques 53, 5–18. Maršak, B.I. and Raspopova, V.I. (1991), “Cultes communau- Grenet, F. and Rapin, C. (2013), “Formatsionnye periody sog- taires et cultes privés en Sogdiane”, in Bernard, P. and dijskoj kul’tury”, Sogdians, their Precursors, Contemporaries Grenet, F. (eds.), Histoire et cultes de l’Asie centrale préisla­ and Heirs (Transactions of the State Hermitage Museum mique, Paris, 187–201. LXII), 13-29. —, (1997/1998), “Buddha Icon from Panjikent,” Silk Road Art Grenet, F. and de la Vaissière, É. (2002), “The Last Days of and Archaeology 5, 297-305. Panjikent,” Silk Road Art and Archaeology 8, 155-196. Meshkeris, V.A. (1979), “Terrakoty i monumental’noe iskus- Hansen, M.H. (2006), Polis. An Introduction to the Ancient stvo Sogda”, Iskusstvo tadzhikskogo naroda, t. 4, Dushanbe, Greek City-State, Oxford. 3-19. Hinds, M. (1990), The History of Al-Tabari Vol. 23: The Zenith —, (1989), Sogdijskaya terrakota, Dushanbe. of the Marwanid House: The Last Years of ‘Abd Al-Malik Mkrtychev, T.K. (2002), Buddijskoe iskusstvo Sredney Azii and The Caliphate of Al-Walid A.D. 700-715/A.H. 81-96, (I–X vv.), Moscow. Albany. Mode, M. (2003), “Die Religion der Sogder im Spiegel ihrer Huff, D. (1978), “Recherches archeologiques a Takht-i Sulei- Kunst,” in Jettmar, K and Kattner, E. (eds.), Die vorislami­ man (Iran), centre religieux royal sassanide”, CRAI 122, schen Religionen Mittelasiens, Stuttgart, 2003, 141-218. 774–89. Naymark, A. (2003), “A Note on Sogdian Coroplastics: Two Jongeward, D. and Cribb, J., with Donovan, P. (2015), Kus- Ossuary Fragments from Afrasiab”, Ērān ud Anērān Webfest- han, Kushano-Sasanian, and Kidarite Coins: A Catalogue schrift Marshak (http://www.transoxiana.org/Eran/Articles/ of Coins from the American Numismatic Society, New York. naymark.html). Kabanov, S.K. (1971), “Izobrazhenie Shivy na ossuarii”, —, (2005), “The Meaning of “Tamghas” on Sogdian Coins”, Sovetskaya arkheologiya 1971/2, 249-255. Tsentral’naya Aziya ot Akhemenidov do Timuridov: the religion and the pantheon of the sogdians 209

arkheologiya, istoriya, etnologiya, kul’tura, Saint Peters- Sims-Williams, N. and Grenet, F. (2007) “The Sogdian burg, 225-231. inscriptions of Kultobe”, Shygys, 2006.1, 95-111. —, (2013), “Eshche raz o chekane samarkandskogo ikhshida Shenkar, M. (2011), “Temple Architecture in the Iranian World Ugraka”, in Tokhtas’ev, S.R. and Lurje, P.B. (eds.), Com- in the Hellenistic Period”, in Kouremenos, A., Rossi, R., mentationes Iranicae. Sbornik statej k 90-letiyu Vladimira Chandrasekaran, S. (eds.), From Pella to Gandhara: Aaronovicha Livshitsa, Saint Petersburg, 343-367. Hybridisation and Identity in the Art and Architecture of the —, (2015), “Monety Samarkandskogo Ikhshida Yazida b. Hellenistic East, Oxford, 117–140. Ugraka”, Vosemnadtsataya Vserossijskaya numizmatich- —, (2014), Intangible Spirits and Graven Images: The Iconog- eskaya konferentsiya, 20-25 aprelya 2015 goda, Moscow, raphy of Deities in the Pre-Islamic Iranian World, Leiden- 55-57. Boston. Omel’chenko, A.V. (2013), “Tsitadel’ Pajkenda v III-IV vv.”, Shkoda, V.I. (2009), Pyandzhikenstkie khramy i problemy Rossijskaya arkheologiya 2013/2, 105-119. religii Sogda (V–VIII vv), St. Petersburg. —, (forthcoming), “On the Question of Sasanian Presence in Smirnova, O.I. (1970), Ocherki iz istorii Sogda, Moscow. Sogdiana. Recent Results of Excavations at Paykand”, Jour- —, (1971), “Mesta domusul’manskikh kul’tov v Sredney Azii”, nal of Inner Asian Art and Archaeology 7. Strani i narodi Vostoka 10, 90–121. Osborn, R. (2015), “Unity vs. Diversity?”, in Eidinow, E. and Sokolovskij, V.M. (2009), Monumental’naya zhivopis’ Kindt, J. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Greek dvortsovogo kompleksa Bundzhikata, Saint-Petersburg. Religion, Oxford, 11-31. Sourvinou-Inwood, C. (2000a), “What is Polis Religion?”, in Pavchinskaya, L.V. (1990), Rannesrednevekovye ossuarii Buxton, R. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, Oxford, Sogda kak istoricheskij istochnik. Avtoreferat dissertatsii na 13-37. sosikanie uchenoj stepeni kandidata istoricheskikh nauk, —, (2000b), “Further Aspects of Polis Religion”, in Buxton, R. Samarkand. (ed.), Oxford Readings in Greek Religion, Oxford, 38-55. —, (1994/1996), “Sogdian Ossuaries”, BAI 8, 203-227. Stewart, S. et al. (2013), The Everlasting Flame. Zorvastri- Pugachenkova, G.A. (1994/1996), “The Form and Style of anism in History and Imagration, London-New York. Sogdian Ossuaries”, BAI 8, 227-245. Sulejmanov, R.K. (2000), Drevnij Nakhshab, Samarkand- Polinskaya, I. (2013), A Local History of Greek Polytheism. Tashkent. Gods, People, and the Land of Aigina, 800–400 BCE, Lei- de la Vaissière, É. (2005), Sogdian Traders, Leiden. den-Boston. —, (2007), Samarcande et Samarra: Élites d’Asie centrale dans Raspopova, V.I. (1990), Zhilishcha Pendzhikenta, Leningrad. l’Empire Abbasside, Leuven. Sal’e, M.A. (1957), (ed. and tr.), Abu Rejkhan Biruni. Izbran- —, (2011), “Sogdiana iii. History and Archaeology”, Ency- nye proizvedeniya. T. I. Pamyatniki minuvshikh pokolenij, clopædia Iranica Online Edition, March 4, 2011, available Tashkent. at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/sogdiana-iii-history- Semenov, G.L. (2002), Sogdijskij gorod V-XI vv. Formirovanie and-archeology plana. Dissertatsiya v vide nauchnogo doklada na soiskanie Yoshida, Y. (2006), “Personal Names, Sogdian i. In Chinese uchenoj stepeni doktora istoricheskikh nauk, Saint-Petersburg. sources”, Encyclopædia Iranica Online Edition, August 15, Sims-Williams, N. (2000), “Some Reflections on Zoroastrianism 2006, available at http://www.iranicaonline.org/articles/per- in Sogdiana and Bactria”, in Christian, D. and Benjamin, C. sonal-names-sogdian-1-in-chinese-sources (eds.), Realms of the Silk Roads: Ancient and Modern (Silk Road Studies 4), Turnhout, 1–13.