The Oxus Civilization

44 Pages·7.9 MB·English

by  Lamberg-Karlovsky С.C.

CuPAUAM39,2013,pp.21-63
The Oxus Civilization
La Civilización del Oxus
1
C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky
Recibido:01-07-2013
Aceptado:20-10-2013
Resumen
LaCivilizacióndelOxus,tambiénconocidacomolaCivilizacióndeBactria-Margiana,estácentradaeneloasisde
Murghab,Turkmenistán, y datada entre el 2200-1700AC. Descubierta por Victor Sarianidi en la década de 1970,
continua sus excavaciones en el poblado de +20 hectáreas de Gonur depe. La Civilización del Oxus tiene una
arquitectura única, una cultura material excepcionalmente rica, y contactos con Mesopotamia, el Valle del Indo y
lallanurairaní.
Palabrasclave:CivilizacióndelOxus,BronceInicial,Turkmenistán,Gonurdepe.
Abstract
The Oxus Civilization, also known as the Bactrian-Margina Civilization, is centere in the Murghab Oasis,
Turkmenistan,anddatedto2200-1700BC.DiscoveredbyVictorSarianidiinthe1970s,hecontinueshisexcavations
onthe+20hectaresiteofGonurdepe.TheOxusCivilizationhasuniquearchitecture,anexceptionallyrichmaterial
culture,andcontactswithMesopotamia,theIndusValleyandtheIranianPlateau.
Keywords:OxusCivilization,EarlyBronzeAge,Turkmenistan,Gonurdepe.
Thediscoveryofaspectacularartifact,arich lizational status, was uncovered in CentralAsia
tomb, a treasured hoard, or an ancient city (Sarianidi, 1976). Its principal discoverer was
belonging to the earliest civilizations attracts a Victor Sarianidi, then of Moscow’s Institute of
very considerable attention. Thus, one might Archaeology,SovietAcademyofSciences(Fig.1).
imagine that the discovery of a completely Hehasspentthepast40yearsexcavatingthe40+
unknown civilization would create a flurry of hectare site of Gonur depe in Turkmenistan. For
interest. At the very least, one might expect this archaeological discovery he coined the cum-
such a discovery to attend the interest of the bersome term the ‘Bactrian Margiana
professional archaeologist. Not entirely so. In Archaeological Complex’, hereafter the BMAC.
notable introductory texts on archaeology there Bactria and Margiana were the geographical
is hardly mention of its existence (Fagan, 2009; terms by which the Greeks, following
Renfrew and Bahn, 2008; Scarre, 2009; Alexander’s conquests referred to this region, of
Chazan 2010). In the late 1970s a remarkable CentralAsia. Margiana (Margush), in turn was a
archaeological complex, fully worthy of civi- Persian satrapy compromising both regions.
1 Stephen Phillips Professor of Archaeology and Ethnology, University, 11 Divinity Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138-
Department of Anthropology, Peabody Museum, Harvard 2019,[email protected]
ISSN0211-1608
22 C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63
Figure1.VictorSarianidiinthelaboratoryatGonurdepe(Sarianidi,2007:11).
Alternatively, and with increasing frequency, English. All are splendidly illustrated with pho-
the ‘Oxus Civilization’, is used to denote the tos, plans, and drawings of the architecture and
BMAC. The Oxus being the name the Greeks artifacts recovered. All are dominated by
used in denoting the greatAmu Darya River, the Sarianidi’s expansive interpretations regarding
greatest of Central Asian rivers. The settlement the religious beliefs, ethnicity, and language of
density of the BMAC is distributed along the the residents of the BMAC (more on this below).
smaller Murghab River which originates in the A series of radiocarbon dates from a number of
Paropamisus Mountains of Afghanistan and BMACsettlementsplacethecivilizationbetween
debauches into the Karakorum desert (Masimov, 2200-1700 B.C. (but see H. Junger’s article for
1975;Salvatori,2008).Overthepasttwodecades radiocarbondatesof2500-1700B.C.inKozhinet
this region has been subject to intensive settle- alii, 2010) (Fig. 2).
ment survey (Salvatori and Tosi, eds., 2008;
The quest for origins, though often said to be
Gubaev et alii, 1998) and the excavation of at
a secondary consideration, remains a primary
leastahalfdozensites.Todateseveralbookshave
focus of archaeological concern. The conceit of
been written byVictor Sarianidi (see bibliography
the archaeologist is to focus upon an ethno-
andLamberg-Karlovsky,2003forreview),largely
graphicreconstructionofthepast,aconcernthat
basedonhisownexcavationsatthesiteofGonur
depe. His books are published in Turkmenistan transcends the ephemera of ‘origins’. The ques-
and Russia, thus very difficult of access and are tion remains: When, Where and How did this
laudably tri-lingual: Turkman, Russian and archaeological entity originate? Within the con-
ISSN0211-1608
CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63 TheOxusCivilization 23
Figure2.TheriverineoasesandmajorsettlementsoftheOxusCivilization(Sarianidi,1998:34fig.9).
text of the BMAC this is a vexing and much due to the lack of excavation but to the research
debated topic. Two hypotheses, their foreign vs. strategy pursued.
localorigin,contendforattention–givenpresent
As to the origin of the Oxus Civilization the
evidence neither can be conclusively affirmed or
first hypothesis argues for a distant and foreign
negated. Chronological distinctions, settlement
source. This view is championed by Sarianidi
sizeandpattern,relationshiptoirrigation,subsis-
who believes their origin is to be sought in
tence economy, and socio-political structure
Anatolia. In his view a great migration of the
remain almost entirely unexamined. This is not future residents of the BMAC traversed
ISSN0211-1608
24 C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63
Figure3. Sarianidi’shypothesisconcerningtheeastwardmigrationsoftheOxusCivilizationfromAnatolia
(Sarianidi,1998:163fig.75).
Mesopotamia where they “could not find free Inthelasthalfofthethirdmillennium,andfor
land”, crossed the Iranian Plateau, and finally millennia before that, the Iranian Plateau was
found their “free land” in the deltaic fan of the inhabited by a mosaic of distinctive cultures – all
Murghab River (Fig. 3). Other tribes are alleged reasonably defined by the archaeological record
to have continued their migration to (Petrie, 2013). Toward the last centuries of the
Northwestern China (Sarianidi, 2009: 42-43). thirdmillenniumarestrictedinventoryofBMAC
Central to Sarianidi’s imagination is his belief artifacts appear on a number of sites on the
thatthemigrantswereAryans,specificallyIndo- Iranian Plateau and in the Indus Valley and the
Iranians,whofollowedproto-Zoroastrianbeliefs Persian Gulf: i.e.: Susa, Tepe Yahya, Shahdad,
and rituals. Tentative support for the foreign Khinaman, Hissar, Jiroft, Harappa, Mohenjodaro,
emergence comes from Pierre Amiet (2004). and Tell Abraq. The archaeologist refers to the
Both entertain notions of BMAC affiliations findsofBMACmaterialsonsitesofanindigenous
(origins) with an Elamite world pointing to a culture as “site intrusion”, that is, artifacts
number of archaeological sites on the Iranian restrictedinnumberandtyperecoveredfroman
Plateau that contain BMAC materials. Amiet indigenous culture. There can be little doubt
identifies the BMAC as having a “Trans- that the BMAC influenced the indigenous cul-
Elamite” identity, a culture of artisan nomads tures of the Iranian Plateau and the Indus
distributed across the Iranian Plateau to Central Civilization, while in complimentary fashion
Asia. Steinkeller (see n.d. in bibliography) simi- numerous artifacts of the Indus and Iranian
larly entertains a diffuse origin from the Iranian Plateau are known from Gonur depe (Sarianidi,
Plateau. 2009) (Fig. 4a, 4d, 4e). Note, however, that not
ISSN0211-1608
CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63 TheOxusCivilization 25
Figures4a.CeramicparallelsbetweentheOxusandShahdad,Iran(Sarianidi,1998:139fig.71).
a single BMAC artifact has been recovered from Iranian Plateau: Malyan (ancientAnshan), Godin
Mesopotamia while an inscribed Akkadian seal TepeandonallsitesofNWIran(ontheKhorasan
wasrecoveredfromGonurdepe(Sarianidi,2002; Road), while present at Susa they are absent on
2005) (Fig. 4b). The view for a foreign, migrato- neighboringChogaMishinKhorasan,andabsent
ry origin of the BMAC simply lacks sufficient at Shahr-i Sokhta; while present at Shahdad they
credible evidence. The distribution of a diffuse are absent at Yahya, Konar Sandal, and Bampur.
inventoryofBMACartifactsoveravastlandscape OntheIranianPlateauwhereBMACartifactsare
offerslittlegeographicalfocusforapointoforigin. recovered they are intrusive, a limited number of
Amiet(1986)and to a certain extent Steinkeller’s artifacts, found in the context of an indigenous
(n.d.) promotion of a trans-Elamite Culture (con- local culture. One cannot demonstrate the exis-
sisting according to Amiet of pastoral nomads) tence of a shared trans-Elamite Culture on the
that identifies BMAC origins within the context Iranian Plateau only a limited inventory of intru-
ofindigenousculturesoftheIranianPlateausim- sive BMAC artifacts recovered from distinctive
ply does not stand up to the archaeological evi- cultures on the Iranian Plateau!
dence.The BMAC is a wholly distinctive culture
Hypothesis two argues for a local oases/pied-
whoseoriginsaretobesoughtinCentralAsianot
mont origin.Arich post Paleolithic settlement of
within the context of the cultures of the Iranian
CentralAsia begins with a mid-seventh millenni-
Plateau!
um Neolithic (Dani and Masson, 1992). In the
So we turn to hypothesis two; an indigenous piedmontzoneoftheKopetDaghMountainssites
origin. BMAC artifacts are, in fact wholly absent as Ilgynly tepe, dated to the fifth millennium,
on important and contemporary sites of the illustrate an elaborate metallurgy, an exceptional
Figures4b.AkkadiancylindersealwithinscriptionfromGonur(Sarianidi,2005:258,fig.115).
ISSN0211-1608
26 C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63
Figures4c.SealoftheIndusCivilizationfromGonurdepe(Sarianidi,2005:258fig.114).
repertoire of figurines, complex mosaics within rd
3 millennium. Excavations at Altyn depe,
elaboratearchitecturalfeatures,allwithinasubstan-
recently directed by Liubov Kircho (2008;
tial settlement (Solovyova, 2005; Salvatori et alii,
Masson, 2001) suggest a local emergence for the
2009) Impressive Chalcolithic and Bronze Age
BMAC.Furthermore,theBMACwasnotthefirst
settlements, such as Namazga and Altyn depe,
tosettleintheMurghabdelta.Recentexcavations
th
sustain urban populations throughout the 4 and
atAdji Kui 1, directed by Gabriele Rossi Osmida
(2008; 2011), indicate the presence of a distinc-
tive earlier settlement, radiocarbon dated to ca.
2700 B.C. Stratified above that settlement are
several fully fortified BMAC communities. The
excavator argues for a local development of the
BMAC. The indigenous nature of the Oxus
Civilization is not, however, a new notion. Years
ago Philip Kohl (1984) in an early and enduring
reviewofthearchaeologyofCentralAsiaoffered
a compelling argument for a local origin.
ThesignatureoftheOxusCivilizationrestsin
its impressive architecture. More specifically, in
Figure4d.Duckweight(?)fromGonurdepe(Rossi the monumentality of the fortification systems
Osmida,2002:100). that surround each settlement (Fig. 5). The sites
Figure4e.Cylindersealfromthe“TempleofSacrifices”,Gonurdepe(Sarianidi,2005:283fig.137).
ISSN0211-1608
CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63 TheOxusCivilization 27
of Gonur, Togolok, Adji Kui 1 and 9 serve as Contemporary communities, i.e. Adji Kui 1
exemplary models of the extent to which the and AdjiKui9,arelessthan3kilometersdistant
community was fortified. One, two, even three from each other and are both well fortified,
perimeter walls, most 2-4 meters in impressive suggesting that even nearest neighbors, likely
width,encloseacommunityincorporatinganarea subject to a common authority, were fortified.
in excess of 20,000 square meters. Within this Decades ago 12 sites were identified within a 20
area at Gonur, Sarianidi identifies temples, x 20 kilometer region in theAdji Kui Oasis.This
palaces, areas of craft production, and ritual does not, however, accurately reflect the settle-
activities. Beyond this fortified area the commu- ment regime of the oasis.Ofthe12sitesinitially
nityextendeditswalledsettlementto20+hectares. surveyedonlythreesurvivedthepast20yearsof
Gubaev et alii (1998) notes that numerous settle- agricultural expansion, principally cotton pro-
mentssurroundingGonurwerenotfortified.Such duction. Alluviation and an extensive agricul-
an observation becomes dubious in light of the tural development that began in the 1930s
factthatfortificationsystemsaroundGonurcould claimed the destruction of an unknown number
not be determined prior to excavation. of ancient settlements. Extensive alluviation,
Figure5.AerialviewoftheexcavationatGonurdepe(Sarianidi,2007:145).
ISSN0211-1608
28 C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63
deflation, and the destruction of sites resulting remarkable persistence, and last remnants, of the
from the reclamation of agricultural land prohibit CentralAsianQalaanditsassociatedsocialstruc-
th th
the reconstruction of an accurate settlement ture, is readily documented in 19 and 20 cen-
regime. An approximation, however, of the turyAfghanistan (Barfield, 2010). In his study of
dense settlement regimes within the Murghab theBMACthearchitecturalhistorianMohammed
deltaduringtheBronzeandIronAgesishintedat Mamedov (2003: 41, 139) observes that the
in the archaeological surveys and maps produced monumentalarchitecturewasbuilton a“definite
over the past two decades by the joint Turkman modular plan”, oriented to the cardinal points,
and Italian missions (Salvatori and Tosi, 2008; while the size of bricks is the same as that found
Gubaev, Koshelenko andTosi, 1998). on earlier sites (“AeneolithicAge”) in the Kopet
Dagh,suggestingalocalCentralAsiancontinuity
What do the elaborate and uniquely fortified
of architectural construction. He further observes
communities of the BMAC signify and how do
that the architectural features of BMAC fortifica-
they address their social world? A cycle of vio-
tions, both monumental and domestic architec-
lence must be entertained. Large urban centers
ture, involved “the same planning principles that
suchasGonurandTogolokpresidedoversatellite
formed the basis of many monumental construc-
communities which were also fortified. Within
tions of Central Asia from the antique and
the restrictive oases of the Murghab deltaic fan
medieval periods that subsequently survived in
ecological constraints may have exacerbated th
folkarchitectureuntilthemiddleofthe20 cen-
needs for access to water, agricultural land and
tury”
pasturage. Contests for the control of water and
th
accesstoirrigationsystems,amplydocumentedat A19 century description of these qala’s and
this time throughout Central Asia (Andrianov, the central role they played in opposing the
1969), fueled conflict for the control of limited Russian annexation of Central Asia is vividly
land and water resources. Ethnographic and his- described in the books of Mac Gahan (1874;
torical sources offer instruction and ample analo- Schuyler, 1876; O’Donovan, 1882). Schuyler
(1876, II: 381) writes: “These forts were in all
gies. In the later IronAge and medieval period a
probabilityintendedtoprotecttheaqueducts[irri-
characteristic feature of the landscape was the
gation systems] and the tilled land from incur-
Qala – a large fortified community serving as the
sions of nomads”. In 1881, between January 12-
residence of the local Khan and a defensive
th
24 atsaristarmyunderthecommandofGeneral
retreat for the community in times of attack
MikhailSkobelevlaidsiegetothelargerectangu-
(Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1994; Szabo and Barfied,
lar fortress of Geok Tepe. It was the last Central
1991: 162-163) in their comprehensive study of
Asian territory, defended by the Tekke Turkman,
architecture offer the following definition for the
to fall to tsarist Russia. The population of the
qala: “The dwelling type known as the qala
surrounding countryside gathered in a fortress
originated as a fortified farm compound with
with an uncanny resemblance to those of the
thick, massive outer walls in square or oblong
BMAC. The Turkman are said to have suffered
plan averaging 40-80 m per side of 6-8 m in
losses of 14,500 before surrendering to General
height. At each corner is a defense tower rising
1 Skobelev. O’Donovan (1882) was an eyewitness
approximately1 / timestheheightofthewalls
3
totheGeokTepebattleandoffersavividdescrip-
(…) multistoried dwelling and storage spaces are
tionofthatconfrontation.Hisobservationsonthe
constructedagainsttheouterwallswiththedoors
fortifications are of interest (O’Donovan, 1882,
and windows facing a central compound (…)
II:143)“Thefortificationswereofthekindwhich
[with] single entry gate (…) Each qala is a self-
the populations of these CentralAsia plains seem
contained unit providing shelter and protection
to have constructed from time immemorial and
for an extended family, their farm animals, and
the remnants of which one still sees scattered far
the provisions necessary for survival”.
and near” and “it was the intention…to concen-
Such is a fulsome description of the BMAC trate themselves and their families within the
architecturaltemplate.Forcenturiesthelargestof fortress in case of invasion” (O’Donovan, 1882,
qala’swasthecenterofpoliticalauthority,afocus II:146)and,finally,“eachmanhavinghismusket
of craft production, a facility for the storage of slungonisbackashefollowstheploughorharrow”
surplus products, and the residence of the tribal and “on the first alarm of an inroad, the oxen are
leader, family and retainers (Tolstov, 1948). The hurriedlydrivenunderthewallsofoneofthefor-
ISSN0211-1608
CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63 TheOxusCivilization 29
tified towers which dot the country” and “place made to publish materials from distinctive strata.
themselveswithintheforttoprotecttheirproper- Regrettably, even after more than thirty years of
tybythefireoftheirmuskets(O’Donovan,1882, research and excavation, the chronology and
II: 62-63). Of equal interest is his observation on stratigraphy of the BMAC remains deeply
the association of forts and irrigation. In dis- problematic. The principle sites excavated
cussing the great Dam of Banfi and its nearby Gonur, Togolok and Sapeli, to mention but three,
fort,theBabaKabasi,hestates‘withoutthisdam did not attend to stratigraphic distinctions nor are
the present cultivated area would be reduced to a thelimitednumberofradiocarbondatesassociated
condition as bleak and arid as that of the plains with specific stratigraphic levels or material
that surround it (…) the old Sarouk fortress (…) inventory.Gonurdepe,subjectedtoover30years
constituted the central stronghold of Merv [the ofexcavationandwith1000sofsquaremetersof
principal city along the Murghab], and protected architectureexposedtovariousdepthsispublished
the water-works” (O’Donovan, 1882, II: 175). as a single period site. Its material inventory,
different building levels, and cemetery with over
The Merv Oasis which constitutes the apex of
2500 burials exposed, is published as a contem-
theMurghabdeltaicfanisabout40milesinwidth
poraneous inventory. The C-14 dates, often
and length and constitutes approximately 1, 600
derived from unspecified contexts, bracket a
squaremiles,beingthelargestoftheOaseswithin
th
th range of 2100-1700 B.C. In his 85 year, Victor
the BMAC horizon. In the 19 century Henry
Sarianidi, with relentless energy, enthusiasm, and
Lansdell (1885: 476-477) gave the width of
a vivid imagination, continues to excavate at
Murghab around Merv as “80 to 100 paces” and
Gonur.To date he has published more than a half
up to “23 feet” in depth. The presence of a large
dozenbooksonGonur.Hisimaginationpopulates
dam“divertsthewateramongthetwosectionsof
Gonur with kings, priests, temples and palaces.
the oasis by means of two main canals, the
TheinhabitantsofGonurareidentifiedasAryans,
Otamish and the Tokhtamish (…) each of the
specifically undifferentiated Indo-Iranians.
two canals distributes water through about 50
Parallelstoarchitectureandmaterialsremainsare
leading arteries, and these in turn feed hundreds
drawn with Syria, Anatolia, and Greece. The
of smaller leats”.
inhabitants of Gonur are identified as adhering to
Each of the two canals was occupied by “proto-Zoroastrian” beliefs, while architectural
different clans of the Tekke tribe, themselves features, ceramics and small finds are taken to be
divided into 17 distinct branches. Additionally, evidence for Zoroastrian ritual behavior.Temples
the Merv Oasis was inhabited by clans of the abound: ‘the Northern and Southern Water
Akhal, Saryks, Salors, Ersaris “and others” Temples’, ‘Fire Temples’ the ‘Solar Temple of
totaling “230,000 souls” in a state of continuous Mithra’, the ‘Temple of Sacrifices’, the ‘Temple
tribalconflict.Nineteenthcenturytravelliterature of Communal Eating’ and the ‘Temple for
describesasettlementregime,apastoralnomadic Soma/Haoma’. The ‘Temple of Mithra’is said to
context, an omnipresent irrigation network, and contain a ‘solar altar’(a not unusual hearth with
the presence of fortifications protecting settle- ample ashes) and a composite figurine “found
ment and waterworks that appear to mirror their nearby’identified asArshtat, Goddess of Justice.
BronzeAge counterparts (Fig. 6). Such conjecture is sufficient to reach the conclu-
sion that “the origin of Mithraism should be
Today the stratified BMAC site of Adji Kui
looked for in Bactia and Margiana’ (Sarainidi,
(Rossi Osmida, 2002; 2008) offers the best evi-
2008: 121) (Fig. 7).
denceforthechronologyoftheOxusCivilization
whileGonur,alsoastratifiedsite,offersthemost Sarainidi’sevidenceforthepresenceofSoma-
extensivehorizontalexposureandmaterialinven- Haoma in each of these ‘temples’is loosely con-
tory. At Gonur the numerous publications of ceived. Soma-hoama is the hallucinogenic (?)
Sarianidi (see bibliography) present the site as drink favored by Indra, the God of Battle, men-
consisting of a single period, without stratigraphic tioned in the RgVeda as a “god of Gods” (RV
or chronological distinctions (Salvatori, 2010; 9.42). The most comprehensive and influential
Lamberg-Karlovsky, 2003). Although Sarianidi study involving the much contested identity of
(2003:206-208)writesofdifferentbuildinglevels, Soma-Haoma, including a review of the related
i.e. as many as four temples built on top of each linguistic, Vedic, historical, and ethnographic
other (Sarianidi, 2009: 99, fig. 17-18) no effort is material, is that of Harry Falk (2003). He con-
ISSN0211-1608
30 C.C.Lamberg-Karlovsky CuPAUAM39,2013:21-63
Figure6. Medievalirrigationsystemofcanalscontrolledbyspecifictriballineage
(Muhammedjanov,1978:130fig.19).
cludes that for Soma-Haoma “there is no need to poppy seeds and cannabis.Analysis of both finds
look for a plant other than ephedra, the one plant of ephedra could not confirm its identification
used to this day by the Parsis”, the present day (see Houben, 2003 for the 1995 analysis and
Zoroastrians of Iran and India. In 1995, Sarianidi Bakels, 2003 for the second identification). As
claimed to have found ephedra twigs in a vessel with the ‘Temple of Soma-Haoma’the identifica-
uncovered at Gonur. In 1998 a second discovery tion of numerous other “temples” rest more on
of ephedra was reported as accompanied by allegation than on demonstration. In each and