The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and Recent Excavations in Akra in Northwest Pakistan

32 Pages·2015·7.3 MB·English

Bryn Mawr College
Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr
College
Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology Faculty
Classical and Near Eastern Archaeology
Research and Scholarship
2005
The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and Recent
Excavations in Akra in Northwest Pakistan
Peter Magee
Bryn Mawr College, [email protected]
Cameron Petrie
Robert Knox
Farid Khan
Ken Thomas
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.
Follow this and additional works at:http://repository.brynmawr.edu/arch_pubs
Part of theClassical Archaeology and Art History Commons, and theHistory of Art,
Architecture, and Archaeology Commons
Custom Citation
Magee, Peter, Cameron Petrie, Richard Knox, Farid Khan, and Ken Thomas. 2005. The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and Recent
Excavations in Akra in Northwest Pakistan.American Journal of Archaeology109:711-741.
This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College.http://repository.brynmawr.edu/arch_pubs/82
For more information, please [email protected].
The Achaemenid Empire in South Asia and
Recent Excavations in Akra in Northwest Pakistan
PETER MAGEE, CAMERON PETRIE, ROBERT KNOX, FARID KHAN, AND KEN THOMAS
Abstract subject peoples. A significant proportion of this
The impact of the Achaemenid annexation of north- research has been carried out on the regions that
westernP akistanh as remained a focus for archaeological border the classical world, in particular Anatolia,1
researchf or more than a century.A lack of well-stratified the Levant,2a nd Egypt.3I n contrast, the far eastern
settlementsa nd a focus on artifactst hat are not necessar-
extent of the empire, which is encompassed by the
ihlya avpeu pnrtoipl nroiawte of obrf uasscseastseidno gut hr eu nefdfeercststa onf idminpgeo rfi tahlc iso inssturoel. borders of modern-day Pakistan and Afghanistan,
In this article, we present the results of three seasons of has received less attention. In this paper, we present
excavationsa t Akra located in the North West Frontier data from new excavations in northwest Pakistan
Provinceo f Pakistan.A lthough researchw as cut short in that provide fresh insight into indigenous settle-
2001 by global events,o ur preliminaryr esultsi ndicate that ments in this region during and also prior to the
Athceh areemlaetinoinds ahninpe xbaettiwoneew na su crobnasindiesmra,b ltyrm adoer,e caonmd ptlheex period of Achaemenid annexation (fig. 1) .
than previouslya rguedb y scholarsA. krae xperiencedr apid Royal inscriptions, edicts, and administrative
growthi n settlement at the beginning of the first millen- texts dating from the reign of Darius onward indi-
nium B.C.,s everalc enturiesb efore the Achaemenidsr uled cate that there were three provinces located along
this area, and exhibited contacts with regions in both the eastern frontier of the Achaemenid empire in
wpeen airnes ualbalreI tnod riae atunrdn C toe nPtarkaliA stsainad ,w uer hinogp teh itso t iimnvee. sWtighaetne what is today South Asia: Gandara, Thatagus, and
furthert he causeso f this settlemente xpansiona nd trade.* Hindush.4 Toponyms, derivatives, and derivative
ethnic designations also appear in the descriptions
of the empire and its inhabitantsr ecorded by a num-
INTRODUCTION ber of contemporary and later classical authors, in-
The Achaemenid capitals at Pasargadae, Perse- cluding Herodotus, Arrian, and Quintus Curtius.5
polis, and Susa have traditionally provided the ba- The commemorative Behistun inscription, which
sis of our understanding of the archaeology of the was carved between ca. 520 and 518 B.C.,6 lists
Achaemenid empire. However, in recent decades Gandara and Thatagus among the provinces that
archaeologists and historians alike have turned Darius inherited when he seized the throne in 522
their attention to the peripheries of the empire in B.C.7T hatagus also is listed as one of the provinces
search of evidence of how the Achaemenids ruled that rose up against the new king8 and was the loca-
* The authorsw ould like to thank the following scholars 4Vogelsang1 990, 97-102. For a comprehensiver eview,s ee
who read over drafts of this paper and made many useful Vogelsang 1992, 94-179.
comments and corrections;a ny errors that remain are the 5E .g., Sattagydiaa nd India in Herodotus (3.89-95 [de
responsibilityo f the authors:P rofessorD an Potts (Sydney), Selincourt 1972]); India in Arrian (Anabasis3 .8.3-4, 3.28.1,
ProfessorJ ames Wright (Bryn Mawr), Professor Stephanie and Indica[ Brunt2 000, 2004]) , and QuintusC urtius( 4.12.9,
Dalley( Oxford), and ProfessorD erekK ennet (Durham). The 9.7.14 [Rolfe 1976]); SattagydiansG, andhariansa, nd Indians
fieldworkt hat providedt he data on which this paper is based in Herodotus (3.98-105, 7.61 ff. [de Selincourt 1972]); and
would not have been possiblew ithoutt he financiala ssistance various types of Indians in Arrian (3.8.3-4. 3.28.1 [Brunt
of the AustralianR esearchC ouncil, BritishM useum,S ociety 2004]) and QuintusC urtius( 4.12.9,9 .7.14 [Rolfe 1976]) . For
for SouthA sianS tudies( BritishA cademy), AustralianI nstitute a comprehensiver eviewo f the relevantc lassicals ources,s ee
of Nuclear Science and Engineering, and the Universityo f Vogelsang 1992, 180-244.
Sydney.W ithoutt he assistanceo f numerous officialsi n Paki- 6S chmidt 1990, 299-300.
stan, fieldworki n Bannu would not have been possible. We 7I nscriptiono f DariusI at Bisutum (hereafterD B), sec. 6,
would like to thankc urrenta nd previousd irectors-generaol f 1.12-17; Kent 1953, 117-9; Lecoq 1997, 187-214. This dat-
archaeologya nd the manyg overnmento fficialsi n Bannuw ho ing for Darius'a ccession follows the chronology outlined in
facilitatedo ur stayt here. Vogelsang 1986, 130; 1992, 122; 1998, 197.
^.g^Sancisi-WeerdenburgandKuhrt^ljSummers^S, 8DB,s ec. 20, 2.5-8, Kent 1953, 121-3. The detailso f Darius'
85-108; Dusinberre1 999, 73-102. accession have been extensivelyd iscussed;f or recent assess-
2E .g., Stern 1982. ments, see Vogelsang (1998, with references).F or a provoca-
3E .g., Sancisi-Weerdenburagn d Kuhrt1 991. tivea ssessmenot f the ethnicityo f Cyruss,e e Potts( forthcoming.)
711
AmericanJ ournal of Archaeology1 09 (2005) 711-41
712 PETER MAGEE ET AL. [AJA109
Fig. 1. Map of the Near East and South Asia. (Archaeological Computing Laboratory,U niversityo f Sydney)
tion of one of the three battles in the ensuing cam- relationships between Baxtrish (Bactria) and
paign against rebellious forces in the eastern prov- Gandara,11a nd between Harauvatish (Arachosia)
inces of the empire.9 However,t he date of the initial and Thatagus,12w hich might mean that Gandara
annexation of Gandaraa nd Thatagus is not certain. and Thatagus were annexed when Cyrus secured
Recent assessments of the classical sources that Arachosia and Bactria. Whether or not this is the
relate Cyrus' expedition to Central Asia agree that case, Darius considered them to be part of his em-
he marched through Arachosiai n southern Afghani- pire in 522 B.C.
stan, destroyed the city of Capisa (modern Begram), It is generally supposed that Hindush is analo-
and then campaigned into Bactria between 539 gous with modern Sind,13 although there are no
and 530 B.C., when he died somewhere in the north- excavated remains that support this suggestion.14
east of his newly expanded empire.10T he arrange- This province is not mentioned in the Behistun
ment of the provinces in a number of Darius' inscription, but it does appear on all but one of
royal inscriptions has been taken to indicate close Darius' other survivingi nscriptions,15in cluding two
9Fleming1 982;B ivar1 988,2 00;V ogelsang1 990, 100;1 992, 12Vogelsang1 985, 79-80; 1990, 100; 1992, 110-5, 129.
127-9. Discussedf urtherb elow. Discussedf urtherb elow.
10P articularlyH erodotus (1.169, 1.201-16 [de Selincourt 13Revieweidn Bivar( 1988,2 02-4), whereT axilai s proposed
1972]) butalsoP liny( 6,24.92 [Rackhaml989]),Arrian( 3.27.4 as a possible alternative,a lthough the route of Scylaxt hat is
[Brunt2 004]) , and QuintusC urtius( 7.3.1 [Rolfe 1976]) . See reconstructedd oes not passT axila.S ee also Vogelsang 1990,
Francfort( 1988, 170), Bivar (1988, 198-90), and Vogelsang 101-2.
(1992,1 8 7-9) , who listo ther sources.I n contrast,B riant( 2002, 14A lthough there are significantI ron Age remainsa t Pirak
38-40) maintainst he order presented by Herodotus, imply- in Baluchistan,t he latest occupation phase (period III) has
ing thatC yrusc ampaignedt o CentralA siab efore and afterh is been dated to ca. 1100-800 B.C. (Jarrigea nd Santoni 1979,
victoryi n Babyloni n 539 B.C. 12-3; Vogelsang 1985, 75-7).
11V ogelsang 1990, 99-100. Discussedf urther below. 15K ent 1953, DH 147, DNa 137-138, DPe 136, DPh 136-
2005] THE ACHAEMENIDE MPIREI N SOUTH ASIA 713
of the so-called foundation charters from Susa that journeys to or from Hindush appears to have been
do not mention either Gandara or Thatagus.16 authorized in Harauvatish,s uggesting that they may
Hindush appears with Thatagus among the 24 "for- have been made via another route, possibly east
tress cartouches" inscribed on either side of the through Baluchistan to Carmania.26 While this
base of a statue of Darius, recovered at Susa in group of documents as a whole provides an often
17
1972, and both are also represented on the so- intimate view of the movement of individuals and
called canal stelae from Egypt.18B ivarh as suggested groups to and from the east of the Achaemenid
that Hindush was annexed in 515 B.C., following empire and of the routes that were being used, it is
the reconnaissance of the Indus River by Scylax of difficult to establish the significance of the paucity
Caryandau ndertaken in 517 B.C.19 of documents related to Gandara and Thatagus. It
The names for eastern provinces and their related may indicate that there was little movement between
ethnic designations also appear in several of the these two eastern provinces and the western cen-
ration disbursement documents in the Persepolis ters at this time, but it could also reflect differential
Fortification (PF) text corpus (509-496 B.C.), which document survival.
among other things typically lists the name of Representatives of Gandara, Thatagus, and/or
the traveler, the route, and the person who autho- Hindush are depicted as delegates bringing gifts
rized the payment.20T he most regularly appearing to the king on the Apadana staircases, and as
toponyms from the eastern empire are Harauvatish throne/ dais bearers on the Tripylon and Hall of
(Arachosia) and Hindush, while Gandara is listed One Hundred Columns reliefs at Persepolis.27T hey
twice and Thatagus is completely absent.21T he one also appear on the reliefs that decorate the exte-
documented journey from Gandara to Susa rior facades of the tombs of Darius and of each sub-
(PF1358) was made via Harauvatish under the au- sequent Achaemenid king at Naqsh-i Rustam and
thority of an official there named Bakabadushw ho Persepolis,28 with the exception of the tomb of
also authorized journeys from other areas.22T his Darius III, which was unfinished when he was de-
has led to the suggestion that a route from Gandara feated by Alexander at Gaugamela in 331 B.C., and
to southwest Iran via the oasis of modern Kandahar remained so after his death.29T he representatives
was in common use.23A lthough there are 16 sepa- of Gandara, Thatagus, and Hindush in each in-
rate documents that mention Hindush and/or In- stance are characterized by their loincloths, sandals,
dians,24o nly one relating to travel originating in and exposed upper body, which distinguish them
Hindush was authorized by an official who may have from the representatives of other eastern provinces
resided there (PF1552).25S ignificantly,n one of the such as Bactria and Arachosia.30
137, DSe 141-142, DSf 142-144, DSm 145; also Lecoq 1997, and Barrikanaa, lsoi n southernA fghanistan( Vogelsang1 990,
DH 218-219, DNa 219-221, DNe 225-226, DPe 228, DPh 230, 101). Bivar( 1988,2 05) suggestsh e wast he satrapo f Arachosia.
DSe 232-234, DSf 234-237, DSm 239, DSv 242, DSz 243-245. 23Vogelsang1 985, 82-7; 1990, 101.
16S pecificallyD Sf, Kent 1953, 142-4; Lecoq 1997, 234-7; 24S ummarizedi n Vogelsang 1992, 167-9, table 12.
DSz, Lecoq 1997, 243-5. These foundation charters list 25T his official was named Parnaka (Hallock 1969, 434;
Hindush and Arachosia as suppliers of ivory, and because Vogelsang 1992, 167). PF1425a nd 1529 refer to Indiansb e-
elephantsa ren ot knowni n historicaAl rachosiaV, ogelsangh as ing authorizedb ya certainI rdubamaw, hoa lsoa uthorizedt hree
suggested that it acted as an emporium for the Indian ivory otherj ourneys (PF1362,1 491, 2051) leading Bivart o suggest
trade (Vogelsang1 985, 81; 1987, 186; 1992, 132). that he was satrapo f Hindush (Bivar1 988, 206-7).
17Stronach1 972, 241-3; Roaf 1974, 116, 145-7. There is 26V ogelsang 1990, 102. This is noteworthyi n light of the
no cartouchef or Gandara. suggestion that Arachosiaa cted as an emporium for the In-
18R oaf 1974, 79-84; Vogelsang 1992, 105. dian ivoryt rade (see supra n. 16; Vogelsang 1985, 81; 1987,
19B ivar 1988, 201-3 (after Herodotus 4.44). See also 186; 1992, 132).
Vogelsang 1990, 101-4. 27S chmidt 1953, 82-90, 116-20, 134-7; Roaf 1974, 84-92;
20V ogelsang1 990, 101 (afterH allock1 969, 6). Bivarm akes 1983, 1-164. The ethnic identificationo f the individualsa nd
the assumptiont hat authorityt o travelw asb eing given by the groupsf rom the easti s reviewedi n Vogelsang( 1992, 147-51) .
satrapso f the provincesi n whicht hejourneyso riginated( Bivar It is notable that at least one Indian representativeo r delega-
1988,2 06-7) . In the instancew heret hej ourneyf rom Gandara tion is not depicted in each instance.
was authorizedb y the satrapo f Arachosia( PF1358),h e sug- 28S chmidt 1970, 77-118, pls. 39-52. The ethnic identifica-
gests that the permit was being renewed (Bivar1 988, 205). tion of individualsa nd groups from the east is reviewedi n
21V ogelsang 1990, 101. The lack of documents that men- Vogelsang (1992, 135-43). Representatives of Gandara,
tion Thatagusi s onlys omewhata melioratedb y three textst hat Thatagus,a nd Hindush are shown on each tomb.
refert o Sa-da-ku-i"s,t heS attagydian("P F789,2 018, 2020), who 29S chmidt 1970, 107, pls. 76-79.
wasr esponsiblef or distributinga griculturapl roduce at Shiraz 30R eviewedi n Vogelsang 1992, 140-3; 1990, 98. The del-
(Bivar1 988, 208 [afterH allock 1969, 233, 622-4]). egates from Makaw ill not be discussedh ere.
22B akabadusha uthorizedt ravelf rom Arachosia,G andara,
714 PETER MAGEE ET AL. [AJA109
The appearance of the representatives of istration with four levels of control: the king, the
Gandara, Thatagus, and Hindush on each royal provincial governor, the local potentate, and the
tomb relief up to ArtaxerxesI II indicates that these local masses.36A s such, Arachosia appears to have
provincesc ontinued to be a part of the royal concep- been an important administrativec enter, with a sa-
tion of the empire until at least 338 B.C., less than trap who had influence over the neighboring prov-
10 years before Alexander's victory at Gaugamela. inces to the east, particularlyT hatagus.37A similar
The maintenance of fealty with the Achaemenid situation appears to have existed between Bactria
king beyond this date is suggested by Arrian's and Gandara,38w hich is supported by the fact that
description of the army of Darius III at Gaugamela, there are no clear references to Achaemenid offi-
where the king is said to have "obtained the help of cials in the Indus Valley in the ancient Indian lit-
those Indians who bordered on the Bactrians, to- erature, but there are references to Bactrians and
gether with the Bactrians and Sogdianians them- Kambojas.39T he satraps in Bactria and Arachosia
selves, all under the command of Bessus, the satrap are first mentioned in the Behistun inscription,
of Bactria."3A1 rrian then notes, "Barsentes, satrap suggesting that this system operated at least from
of the Arachotians, led both the Arachotians and 520-518 B.C.,40a nd the description of the army of
the Indian hill-men, as they were called."32 Al- Darius III indicates that it was maintained until the
though Arrian does not use the more specific eth- empire was subsumed by Alexander in 330 B.C.41
nic determiners used by Herodotus, if the evidence From the commencement of archaeological re-
of a relationship between Bactria and Gandara is search in what is today modern Pakistan, attempts
taken into consideration, then it is likely that the were made to discover Achaemenid occupation in
Indians bordering the Bactrians at Gaugamela were the region and to identify relevant place-names
troops from Gandara.33T he Indian hill-men were mentioned in the Achaemenid and classical
thus presumablyf rom either Thatagus or Hindush, sources. This was particularlys o for the province of
depending on the perceived boundaries of those Gandara, due to its importance in both the
provinces. Achaemenid and the later Kushan periods. As early
There has been some debate about the nature of as 1863, Sir Alexander Cunningham proposed that
Achaemenid administration over the eastern prov- Charsadda,w hich is situated in the PeshawarV alley,
inces, using Achaemenid and classical sources. was the location of ancient Pushkalavati (fig. 2).42
What is clear is that both are harmonious in refer- This Sanskrit name became the Greek Peukelaotis,
ring to the existence of satraps in Bactria and Peukelaitisa, nd Peukalau sed by Arrian, Strabo, and
Arachosia (Harauvatish),w hereas at no point does Pliny, respectively.43S ir John Marshall confirmed
either refer to satraps in Gandara, Thatagus, or Cunningham's identification in 1903 when he re-
Hindush.34H owever, the chroniclers of Alexander covered an inscriptionf rom Ghaz Dheri, 1.6 km from
make it clear that there were rulers and/ or official Charsadda, which contained the phrase "Puskhala
personages in the far eastern provinces in the late visae" or "in the district of Puskala."44T he signifi-
fourth century B.C.35V ogelsang has argued that the cance of Cunningham's pioneering identification
sources indicate the existence of a stepped admin- is emphasized by the fact that it was made nearly 60
31A rrianA nabasi3s .8.3 [Brunt2 004]; V ogelsang1 992,2 21- sideredt he Indianr ulerst o be, byr ight,h is subjects;a nd in his
3; Briant2 002, 756. invasion,h e wase ffectivelyr eaffirmingc ontrolo verh is proper
32A rrianA nabasi3s .8.4 [Brunt2 004]; V ogelsang1 992,2 21- vassalsI. n apparentc ontrastt o his Achaemenidp redecessors,
3; Briant2 002, 756. he made a point of appointing satrapst hroughout the con-
33V ogelsang 1992, 222-3. quered Indian territories,e ither making new appointments,
34E .g., DB, sec. 38, 3.10-19, sec. 45, 3.54-64; Kent 1953; or reappointing previous rulers (e.g., Arrian 5.29.4, 6.16.3
Arrian3 .8.3-4, 3.25.8 (Brunt2 004). See also the discussioni n [Brunt2 004]).
Vogelsang 1992, 169-73. 36Vogelsang1 985, 87-91; 1992, 227, and esp. 313-5.
35E .g.,w hen Alexanderm archest owardI ndia,h e is met by 37Vogelsan1g9 85,8 7-91; 1990,1 00;1 992,1 72-3, 227, 313-5.
Taxiles'a nd the Indian hyparchs( unapxoi), or princesw est 38Vogelsang1 985, 87-91; 1990, 99-100; 1992, 178-9, 313-
of the Indus (Arrian4 .22.6 [Brunt2 004]) , who are considered 5; Briant2 002, 746.
both rulersi n theiro wnr ighta nd de factos ubjectso f the Great 39V ogelsang1 987, 187 (afterW itzel1 980);B ivar1 988, 199.
King( Bosworth1 995,1 47-8;V ogelsang1 992,2 36;B riant2002, 40E .g., DB, sec. 38, 3.10-19, sec. 45, 3.54-64; Kent 1953.
748, 756-7) . The use of the title "hyparchsh"a s the connota- 41A rrian3 .8.3-4 (Brunt 2004); Vogelsang 1992, 314.
tion of subordinationa, nd could emphasizeb oth Alexander's 42C unningham 1871,89.
perceiveds elfjustificationa nd providea n indicationo f the na- 43A rrianA nabasis4 .22, 4.28, and Indica4 .11 (Brunt2 000,
ture of their relationshipt o the Achaemenidk ing (Bosworth 2004); Strabo 15.1.27 (Jones 1976); Pliny 4.21.62 (after
1995, 147-8). Bosworthh as suggested that when Alexander Wheeler 1962, 3).
seized control of the Achaemenid empire, he may have con- 44M arshall1 904, 176.
2005] THE ACHAEMENIDE MPIREI N SOUTH ASIA 715
Fig. 2. Map of Pakistan,n orthern India, and Afghanistan, showing main Iron Age sites
years before the publication of H. Weissbach'sm ag- provided the first well-stratified archaeological se-
isterial Keilinschriftedne rA chdmenideonf 1911, which quence in the region.45A lthough he initially pro-
led to so much research on the territories and pro- posed that there was no substantial occupation at
vincial administration of the empire. the site before the Achaemenid period, reanalysis
Since the 1950s, archaeological teams have con- of Wheeler's sequence46 and renewed excavations
ducted more systematice xcavations at sites in north- at the site47h ave shown that it was actually founded
west Pakistan that are relevant to the time frame of in the mid second millennium B.C., and that it is
the Achaemenid conquest. Sir Mortimer Wheeler's the only site in the PeshawarV alley with an unbro-
excavations at the Bala Hissar at Charsaddai n 1958 ken sequence of occupation from ca. 1400 to 50
45W heeler 1962, 13, 33. 47Alietal. 1998, 1-34.
46Dittmann1 984, 155-93.
716 PETER MAGEE ET AL.
[AJA109
B.C.48 Recent excavations at the Bala Hissar have categorically that the archaeological site of Bir-kot-
aimed at confirming the timing of the site's foun- ghwandai actually corresponds to the Bazira men-
dation49 and have produced little in the way of new tioned by Alexander's historians."62
results that are directly relevant to the Achaemenid As such, the excavations at settlement sites and
period. cemeteries in northwest Pakistan have exposed se-
To the north of Charsadda, in the Swat Valley, quences of material remains that can be dated from
Italian and Pakistani archaeologists have been con- the mid to late second millennium to the late first
ducting research since the late 1950s. The excava- millennium B.C. However, while the question of
tions at a number of necropoleis, including Kherai,50 the Achaemenid and/or Hellenistic presence has
Loebanr, Katelai, Butkara,51 and Timargarha,52 have remained one of the main foci of this research, there
revealed a sequence of cultural material that the is little doubt that we are no closer to understand-
Italians have organized into numbered phases (Swat ing the impact of these imperial powers than we
53
1-7). Dani has labeled this assemblage the were 40 years ago. In the first instance, the identifi-
Gandharan Grave Culture.54 The investigation of cation of Achaemenid archaeological horizons at
affiliated settlement sites such as Aligrama and sites in northwest Pakistan has been significantly
Ghaligai55 has contextualized this grave sequence affected by the unstratified nature of many of the
by revealing associated domestic assemblages. cemetery excavations in the Swat Valley; the lack of
There is general agreement that the Swat/ consensus over the relative sequence of the mate-
Gandharan grave sequence as a whole can be dated rial from the settlements and graves; and the prob-
from the mid to late second millennium to the end lems associated with the absolute chronology of the
of the first millennium B.C. However, there is con- sequence at Charsadda. The dearth of comparative
troversy over the relative dating of the phases and Achaemenid-period material in areas immediately
the absolute dating of the entire sequence, and no to the west has exacerbated this problem. The only
single site has been excavated that provides a com- major excavated site in Afghanistan with evidence
plete sequence.56 for Achaemenid occupation is Kandahar, which is
The excavations at the site of Bir-kot-ghwandai situated almost 500 km to the east of the Indus River,
had the potential to anchor the Swat sequence in a and has been proposed as the possible location of
specific Achaemenid historical context. Sir Aurel the capital of the Achaemenid province of Arachosia
Stein was the first to identify Bir-kot-ghwandai as (fig. 2).63 Even at this major site, however, there are
Bazira,57 a city that, according to Arrian, was cap- conflicting interpretations of the chronology of the
tured and fortified by the Macedonians during Iron Age and Achaemenid-period deposits.64 Schol-
Alexander's conquest of Swat.58 Excavations began ars have acknowledged these problems. The most
at the site with the aim of establishing the validity of comprehensive review of these issues led Dittmann
Stein's identification,59 and Callieri thought he was to conclude, "what is perfectly clear is that the se-
initially able to provide validation due to the dis- quence of the 1st millennium B.C. in northern Pa-
covery of a fortification wall during excavations.60 kistan needs much more study. . . . My hope is that,
However, on the basis of numismatic finds, it has in the future, Pakistan archaeology will follow the
been established that this wall could not have been pioneering work of Wheeler, Dani and Stacul in
constructed until the Indo-Greek period in the order to elucidate one of the most interesting peri-
second to first centuries B.C.61 In fact, Olivieri has ods in Pakistan's history, namely the Iron Age."65
gone so far as to say, "the information provided by In the absence of any clearly defined archaeo-
the excavation to date is not yet sufficient to prove logical contexts that can be positioned in relation
48D ittmann 1984, 159, 193. ^Callieri1 990,6 76;C allierie t al. 1990, 164;s ee also Callieri
49A li et al. 1998, 1-34. et al. 1992.
50S tacul 1966b, 261-74. 61O livieri 1996, 50.
51Salvator1i 975,333-51. 62O livieri 1996,50.
52D ani 1967,22-40. 63McNicolal nd Ball (1996, 392-4) indicatet hat Mundigak
53Tusa1 979,675-90. (period IV) is another possiblec andidate,w hile Helms (1997,
54D ani 1967,22-40. 91-2) arguest hat there is cause to doubt that Kandaharis the
55S tacul 1967,9-43. capital.
56C f. Stacul 1966a, 37-79; Dani 1967, 24-40. ME.g.c, omparet he chronologya nd conclusionsp resented
57S tein 1929b, 40, 47. in McNicolla nd Ball (1996, xvii, 392-4) with those in Helms
58A rrian4 .27-8 (Brunt 2000). (1997,91-2).
59Filigenzai nd Stacul 1985, 436. 65D ittmann 1984, 191.
2005] THE ACHAEMENIDE MPIREI N SOUTH ASIA 717
to the historical narrative, interpretations of the as testimony to the influence of the Achaemenids.
effects of Achaemenid annexation, therefore, have Such evidence is of questionable relevance in ex-
relied on either generalized theories concerning amining ancient imperialism because it provides
the beneficial impacts of colonial or imperial activ- no insight into indigenous responses to imperial
ity in South Asia or the identification of artifacts strategies of control. More important, as noted by
that might confirm a physical Persian presence. For Sancisi-Weerdenburg,71w hen such evidence is ab-
an example of the former approach we need not sent the empire is prone to be interpreted as weak,
look any further than Wheeler's introduction to his a possibly erroneous conclusion that takes no ac-
volume on Charsadda,w here he says: count of the multiplicity of strategies that centers
Fromt he decline of the prehistoricI ndusC ivilisation can employ to subjugate and integrate subject prov-
of the thirda nd second millenniau ntil the advento f inces.72A n alternative and more productive avenue
the Achaemenidk ingsi n the middle of the sixth cen- is to examine the indigenous (and foreign) ar-
turyB .C.,i t mayb e inferreda nd assumedt hat these chaeological evidence that dates before and after
regionsw ere the battlefieldso fj ealous local regimes;
a condition which in the time of Alexanders till sub- such a conquest, to determine whether changing
sistedi n some measuree ast of the Indus.T o the worst patterns of social and economic behavior coincide
abuseso f this inter-regionarl ivalryt he strong arm of with imperial episodes. Many Old and New World
the PersianE mpires et a term. Safe communications studies have been characterized by such an ap-
werea mongstt he Imperialb lessingsa nd long-distance proach. For example, the Upper Mantaro Archaeo-
traffickingb ecamea t lasts ecurea nd profitable.C om-
mercialc ities such as thosej ust mentioned were the logical Project in Peru focused on the manner in
economic response,w hethern ewlyf ounded or newly which production and subsistence was altered with
enlarged. There is in fact no hint that Begram or the incorporation of this region into the Inca em-
Charsad(d)ao r Taxilae xisted appreciablyb efore the pire in the Wanka III period. By examining changes
extensiono f Persianp owera crosst he Hindu Rushi n in technology, ceramic production, and alterations
earlyA chaemenidt imes.66
in subsistence strategies,73t he effects of imperial
Wheeler had few external indicators for the chro- conquest were discernible. Similarly,M orrison and
nology of the Bala Hissar, and so the assumptions Sinopoli's analysis of agricultural production and
concerning the benefits of empire undoubtedly tribute in the Vijayanagarae mpire in India illumi-
played a significant part in his interpretation of the nated the varied strategies employed in provincial
site's history. Furthermore, given the critical role areas to satisfy imperial economic policy.74
that he played in the colonial authority in South The project that forms the basis of this article has
Asia,67i t is also arguable that Wheeler's interpreta- as its aim the elucidation of changes in economic
tion was as reflective of his perceptions of the ben- and social structuresa cross the time period in which
efits of British rule in South Asia as it was an northwest Pakistan is incorporated into the
important reading of the archaeological record. Achaemenid empire. We had hoped to focus on
Attempts to identify classes of objects that may this issue by examining changes in settlement size
serve as verification of an actual Persian military or and distribution, subsistence strategies, and shifts
bureaucratic presence have further obfuscated an in ceramic production using compositional analy-
understanding of the impact of imperial control. sis; but recent global events have meant that the
For example, the appearance of punch-marked continued collection of data in the field has been
coins at Taxila,68t he recognition of Aramaic as a temporarily suspended. Nonetheless, three seasons
known language in post-Achaemenid Mauryan in- of excavation have provided fresh evidence for the
scriptions,69 and the influence of Achaemenid chronology and socioeconomic configuration of
monumental sculpture on Mauryan palatial archi- settlement before and, to a lesser extent, during
tecture70a ll have at various times been emphasized the Achaemenid annexation. The data suggest a
66W heeler 1962, 5. this coinage is not to be associatedw ith the Achaemenids.
67B oast 2002, 165-70. 69A llchin 1995, 132-3.
68E .g., Allchin (1995, 131), where it is commented that 70F or the questionable influence of Achaemenid art on
punch-markedc oins "mayb e seen as almostt he only substan- Mauryanp alatiala rchitecture,s ee Chakrabat1i 997, 190-1.
tial evidence of an Achaemenid presence in the early Bhir 71S ancisi-Weerdenburg1 990, 264.
mound."S uch an argumenti s indeed questionableg iven that 72Sinopoli1 994, 169-72.
therei s no evidencet o indicatet hatT axilaw asn ecessarilyp art 73Costinetal1. 989, 10 7-39; D'Altroya nd Bishop1 990, 120-
of the Achaemenida dministrativne etworka t this time. This is 38; Hastorf 1990, 262-90.
further emphasized in the most recent analysis of punch- 74M orrisona nd Sinopoli 1992, 335-52.
markedc oinage by Cribb( 1985, 549) , in which he arguest hat
718 PETER MAGEE ET AL. [AJA109
much more complex trajectory for settlement pat- Throughout the history of occupation, there are
terns in this part of South Asia than is implied in material signs of continuous contact with the hill
Wheeler's analysis. In particular,i t is evident based areas to the west, and there are also indications of
on our excavations at Akra and surrounding sites variable and intermittent contact with areas as di-
in the Bannu Basin that the emergence of urban- verse as Baluchistan, the Gomal, and the Indus to
ism in this region was in no way linked to imperial the south and east, and with various parts of Cen-
episodes. We present this new evidence in the hope tral Asia to the northwest and west.79
that it may both methodologically and substantively In 1995 the project turned its attention to the
contribute to our understanding of the archaeol- site of Ter Kala Dheri, located about 5 km to the
ogy of the Achaemenid empire and late prehistoric south of Bannu city on the banks of an ephemeral
South Asia. stream known locally as the Lohra nullah (or
stream).80 This settlement appears to have once
AKRA AND THE IRON AGE IN THE BANNU
been quite large, and while it may have originally
BASIN
stretched along the bank of the nullah at a width of
Since 1986, a research team currently made up 400 m, it is now almost entirely ruined by erosion
of members from Bryn Mawr College, the British and intentional destruction.81 Of the six trenches
Museum, the Institute of Archaeology (University that were excavated, only two contained intact oc-
College London), the Pakistan Heritage Society, cupation deposits: trenches TKD-N and TKD-S2.
and the University of Oxford has been conducting Each of these revealed a distinct phase of occupa-
archaeological research in the Bannu Basin, which tion; TKD-N presented surface and pit deposits
lies south of Peshawar in the North West Frontier with an associated Neolithic ceramic assemblage
Province (fig. 3). The basin is a small, topographi- comparable to material from Sheri Khan Tarakai.
cally defined region to the east of the Sulaiman TKD-S2 revealed in situ floor deposits associated
Range, and is separated from the Gomal Plain in with a previously unknown assemblage of hand-
the south and the Indus River and plain to the east made ceramic forms, characterized by black-on-red
by a series of substantial ranges.75 This is a climati- geometric decoration on a brown ground.82 This
cally marginal area, between western winter and distinctive ceramic material was aptly labeled Bannu
eastern summer precipitation zones, and does not black-on-red ware, and two radiocarbon determina-
receive regular rainfall from either. It is, however, tions from the stratified layers containing this new
fed by a number of ephemeral streams that flow out assemblage indicated a possible date in the early
of the various ranges, and by two perennial rivers, first millennium B.C.83 The ceramic assemblage
the Kurram and the Tochi, which flow from the draws its closest parallels to the Iron Age assem-
Sulaiman Range and have created passes through blage from Margiana in Central Asia, and the exca-
the mountains between the eastern low- and west- vations at Ter Kala Dheri were the first in the Bannu
ern highlands. The ancient and modern settle- region with material dating to this period. Despite
ments are concentrated in the northwestern part the significance of the finding, there were major
of the basin, in the area between the two perennial limitations with the excavations at the site, particu-
rivers.76 larly that it has been heavily disturbed and that the
From 1986 until 1995 the Bannu Archaeological two preserved phases of occupation are separated
Project (BAP) focused on the survey, excavation, by a considerable gap in time, indicating that there
and analysis of a number of prehistoric sites that may not be an intact sequence of continuous occu-
range in date from the Neolithic period to the pation preserved at the site. However, the discovery
Bronze Age, the most notable being Sheri Khan of deposits containing the hitherto unknown phase
Tarakai.77T he research of the BAP has shown that of occupation drew the project's attention to the
local environmental conditions have had a particu- imposing mounds of Akra, located approximately
lar effect on prehistoric subsistence strategies and 7 km south of Ter Kala Dheri and about 12 km south
the social and settlement systems in the region.78 of Bannu. Previous surface surveys at Akra had
75Hemphilal nd Kidwai1 973, pl. 5. 78E .g., Thomas 1986, 26-7.
76T homas and Knox 1994, 97. 79T homas and Knox 1994.
77Forreportsonthisworkse, e Khane tal. 1986,83-90; 1987, 80K han et al. 2000d, 81-100.
83-90; 1988, 99-148; 1989, 281-91; 1990, 241-7; 1991a; 81K han etal. 2000d, 81.
1991b, 111-27; 1991c, 156-74; 2000d; Thomas and Knox 82K han et al. 2000d, 83, 86-9.
1994, 89-104; Thomas et al. 1997, 237-51. 83Stuivere t al. 1998; Khan et al. 2000d, 89-91.
2005] THE ACHAEMENIDE MPIREI N SOUTH ASIA 719
Fig. 3. Map of Bannu Basin, showing main EarlyH istoric sites
shown that fragments of the newly observed Bannu discovery of coins and numerous fine art objects
black-on-red ware liberally covered the surface of there during the 19th century in particular sug-
parts of the site. gested to these scholars that the site was most im-
Akra is physically the most prominent site in the portant during the Historic period (ca. 250 B.C. to
Bannu region and has been known to European A.D. 1000). These discoveries coupled with the
visitors and scholars for more than 150 years. It at- site's size led Stein to argue that Akra was the an-
tracted the attention of a number of military offic- cient capital of Bannu, and he drew attention to
ers stationed in the district during the late 19th the records of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims
and early 20th centuries A.D., including Sir Herbert Faxian and Xuanzang who visited the Bannu re-
Edwardes and S.S. Thorburn.84S ir Aurel Stein vis- gion on their travels through the subcontinent in
ited and photographed the site in 1905, 85 and the fifth and seventh centuries A.D., respectively.87
Raverty, Gordon, Dani, and Khan86a ll have de- Stein also made the prescient observation that the
scribed the site and/or aspects of its history. The ample irrigationa nd remarkablef ertilityi n the north-
84E dwardes1 851;T horburn 1876. Khan 1986, 183-95.
85S tein 1905. 87S tein 1905, 7-10; 1929a, 14; Liu 1994, 196.
86R averty1 883;G ordon 1943, 136-95; Dani 1968, 250-64;