The World of the Oxus Civilization

Bertille Lyonnet, Nadezhda Dubova, Bertille Lyonnet, Nadezhda Dubova, Nadezhda A Dubova, Bertille Lyonnet, Nadezhda A Dubova

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN:
  9781032570037
• eBook ISBN:
  9781351757829
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Ancient History
• Index: Social Sciences

This collection of essays presents a synthesis of current research on the Oxus Civilization, which rose and developed at the turn of the 3rd to 2nd millennia BC in Central Asia.

First discovered in the 1970s, the Oxus Civilization, or the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC), has engendered many different interpretations, which are explored in this volume by an international group of archaeologists and researchers. Contributors cover all aspects of this fascinating Bronze Age culture: architecture; material culture; grave goods; religion; migrations; and trade and interactions with neighboring civilizations, from Mesopotamia to the Indus, and the Gulf to the northern steppes. Chapters also examine the Oxus Civilization's roots in previous local cultures, explore its environmental and chronological context, or the possibly coveted metal sources, and look into the reasons for its decline.

The World of the Oxus Civilization

offers a broad and fascinating examination of this society, and provides an invaluable updated resource for anyone working on the culture, history, and archaeology of this region and on the multiple interactions at work at that time in the ancient Near East.

PART I

THE OXUS CIVILIZATION BACKGROUND

Chapter One

Questioning the Oxus Civilization or Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Culture (BMAC)

An overview

Bertille Lyonnet and Nadezhda A. Dubova¹

Introduction

The Oxus Civilization, also named the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex (or Culture) (BMAC), developed in southern Central Asia during the Middle and Late Bronze Age² and lasted for about half a millennium (ca. 2250–1700 BC) until its decline (ca. 1700–1500 BC) (see Table 1.1). It bloomed and disappeared rather suddenly but did not have a writing system to shed light on its overall culture, language, society, or economy, and/or on the reasons for its development. It is still a mysterious phenomenon, and the presence of exceptional artifacts in its material culture, combined with the lack of knowledge on its background, has led to various hypotheses about its origins. Though there is numerous evidence that it was included in a vast and intensive network of exchanges going on in the ancient Near East from the Mediterranean to the Indus at the turn of the 3rd to 2nd millennium BC (see Figure 1.1), we have no hint as yet as to what its name was in the Bronze Age (see Chapter 2).

It was first recognized in northern Afghanistan and southern Uzbekistan and soon after in eastern Turkmenistan, areas that played a major role during the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods when they are mentioned for the first time in written sources as Bactria and Margiana. The discoveries made in these regions are plentiful and concern both graveyards and settlements, including the largest known up to now, Gonur Depe, they are therefore considered to be the “core area.” A number of long known “stray finds” (mainly from hoards or graves) scattered in a much wider geographical zone all around, up to the frontiers of the Indus valley, in Baluchistan, or in northeastern Iran were seen as part of a “periphery area.” However, recent finds in Tajikistan (see Chapter 23), in the Zeravshan valley (Avanesova 2010; see also Chapter 24), in eastern Iran (see Chapter 19), and in Baluchistan (see Chapter 20) now question the validity of a distinction between a core and a periphery, or, at least, the position of the dividing line. This question will be tackled again later on.

Figure 1.1The world of the Oxus Civilization: main sites mentioned in the book (adapted from a map by H. David). 1 Knossos; 2 Tell el-Dab’a; 3 Acemhöyük; 4 Kültepe/Kanesh; 5 Karkemish; 6 Ugarit; 7 Ebla; 8 Tell Chuera; 9 Tell Brak; 10 Tell Leilan; 11 Tepe Gawra; 12 Mari; 13 Assur; 14 Nuzi; 15 T. Asmar/Eshnunna; 16 Babylon; 17 Ur; 18 Failaka; 19 Tarut; 20 Bahrain/Dilmun; 21 Umm an-Nar; 22 Hili; 23 Tell Abraq; 24 Susa; 25 Godin-Tepe; 26 Deh Hosein; 27 Tepe Sialk; 28 Anshan; 29 Tepe Yahya; 30 Jiroft; 31 Bampur; 32 Khurab; 33 Miri Qalat; 34 Mehi; 35 Shahdad; 36 Shahr-i Sokhta; 37 Tepe Hissar; 38 Namazga-Depe; 39 Altyn-Depe; 40 Geoksjur; 41 Togolok; 42 Kelleli; 43 Gonur-Depe; 44 Dashly-Tepe; 45 Bactra; 46 Sapallitepa; 47 Dzharkutan; 48 Zamanbaba; 49 Karnab (tin mines); 50 Sarazm; 51 Mushiston (tin mines); 52 Farkhor; 53 Shortughai; 54 Taluqan; 55 Sar-i Sang (lapis-lazuli mines); 56 Mundigak; 57 Harappa; 58 Mehrgarh and Sibri; 59 Nausharo; 60 Mohenjo Daro; 61 Chanhu Daro; 62 Lothal; 63 Sintashta.

Table 1.1 Chronological table for sites in Central Asia, the Indus area, Iran, the Gulf, and Mesopotamia

Dates

Anau/ NMG

Gonur

Steppes

Hissar

Sarazm

Mundigak

Mehrgarh

Nausharo

Harappa

Makran

Sh.-i Sokhta

Tepe Yahya

Fars

Susa

Dilmun

Kültepe Kanesh

Mesopotamia (middle chrono)

1500

III

5/ cemetery H

IV A

1600

Tazabag’jab Fedorovo

1700

II

Ib 1833–1720 II 1935?–1835

1760 end of Mari

1800

VI

4

IV B1

Mid.Kaftari

V B

Samsi Addu

1900

I

Petrovka /Sintashta

VIII/Sibri

IV

IV, 0

Early Kaftari

II b

Isin-Larsa

2000

V

III C

Quetta hoard

3 C

Hiatus

V A

II a

Ur III

2100

Hiatus

III

IV, 1

Akkad

2200

Poltavka

IV B2–6

2300

II

3 B

IV

III

2400

IV

III B

IV

ED III

2500

IV

3 A

III c

IVA2

2600

III A

III

VII C

I D

II

ED I–II

2700

VII, A, B

I A–C

2/ Kot Diji

III b

I

III B, C

2800

III

II

IV C

2900

II B

III a

III A

Djemdet Nasr

3000

I

III

VI

1 A, B Ravi/Hakra

LC 5/Uruk

3100

3200

II

V

V

II

3300

II

Hiatus

LC 4

3400

II A

IV

II

3500

I, 3–4

VI

LC 3

3600

3700

LC 2

3800

3900

I

I, 1–2

4000

III

LC 1

Based upon: for Anau/NMG – Kircho, this volume; Gonur – Zajtseva et al. 2008, see Appendix, this volume; Steppes – Bonora, this volume; Hissar – Dyson and Howard (eds.) 1989; Sarazm – Lyonnet 1996 and ¹⁴C dates; Mundigak – Jarrige et al. 2011, Salvatori and Tosi 2005; Mehrgarh – Jarrige et al. 2011; Nausharo – Jarrige et al. 2011; Harappa – Meadow and Kenoyer 2005, Kenoyer 2005; Makran – Besenval 2005; Shahr-i Sokhta – Salvatori and Tosi 2005; Tepe Yahya – Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992, Mutin and Lamberg-Karlovsky, this volume; Fars – Petrie et al. 2005; Susa – Salvatori and Tosi 2005; Dilmun – Laursen 2010; Kültepe/Kanesh – Dercksen 2008; Mesopotamia – Middle Chronology.

This large geographical distribution explains the different names this civilization was given. V.I. Sarianidi (1974) made most of the discoveries in Bactria and Margiana and is the author of the appellation “Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex” (BMAC), a way for him to distinguish it from the Namazga culture that developed further west in Turkmenistan, and to show where it was implanted. This appellation has been slightly modified later as “Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Culture” (see Dubova et al. 2018: 8). After a series of brilliant discoveries, Sarianidi (2006, 2008a) maintained this name and considered it as the fifth civilization after Sumer, Egypt, the Indus, and China. H.-P. Francfort (1984, 2016), who excavated the Harappan site of Shortughai in eastern Bactria, equaled it to the Indus Civilization and, because of its position in the Oxus River catchment area, gave it the more glorious name of the “Oxus Civilization.” The new discoveries in northeastern Iran have recently led the authors to consider that, with its extension from there up to Tajikistan, it more or less corresponds to the area of the Sasanian and Early Islamic Greater Khorasan province: they therefore propose to call it the “Greater Khorasan Civilization” (see Chapter 19). However, as already mentioned by S. Salvatori (2016) for the first two names, to which we can add this third one, neither is satisfactory because they all are too geographical and exclude the areas lying outside. G.L. Possehl (2002), from his Indo-Baluchistan point of view, had proposed to call it the “Middle Asia Interaction Sphere” and it might be the best name – but rarely used – since it covers all the areas where it is known and also implies a circulation of people, goods, and ideas. Here, we will use these names interchangeably, though more frequently BMAC or Oxus Civilization (or Oxus culture).

Publications and books on the Oxus Civilization are plentiful, but a great number are in Russian and/or are difficult to find. Among those in foreign languages, several deal with exceptional masterpieces of art coming from illegal excavations and now in museums or private collections (e.g., Pittman 1984; Ligabue and Salvatori 1989; Aruz and Wallenfels 2003; Vidale 2017b). As mentioned in the Introduction to this volume, we of course condemn in the most vigorous manner the pillage of archaeological heritage and the terrible losses it leads to. This is especially true as far as this civilization is concerned. Nevertheless, these publications give access to a material that would otherwise mostly be hidden away, and most of these authors made a real scientific work out of these market pieces that we constantly use for our research (e.g., Amiet 1977, 1978, 1986, 1988, 1989a, 1989b, 2007; Pottier 1984; Sarianidi 1998b; Winkelmann 2004). We will not, therefore, forbid the use of some of them in this volume.³

This book intends to provide the last data available on this civilization, but, as briefly mentioned in the Introduction to this volume, we are aware of its limits. At Gonur Depe, a major site where excavations are still going on today, a lot of new research and analysis is going on that we cannot report in detail here.⁴ On the other hand, some may consider that we give this site too much weight with several articles and numerous references. Certainly, the fact that it was the major center of Margiana, had a special function (administrative, commercial, and/or religious) – as highlighted in Chapters 10, 12, and 15 – and also that it is the only site excavated on a very large scale, could be considered to bias the data, but the same could be said for many other civilizations where the emphasis has mostly been done on the major cities. We also regret not to present here in a more developed way areas like Mesopotamia, North Syria, or Anatolia with which the BMAC was related, albeit in an indirect manner. From these extreme regions, only written sources (see Chapter 2) and tin-mining areas (see Chapter 29) are considered here, but we will refer to them several times in this overview. However, a chapter is dedicated to the Gulf (see Chapter 22).

As mentioned in the Introduction, we made the choice to let a number of specialists illustrate parts of this civilization.

In the following pages, we wish to give the readers a short updated general presentation (or overvie...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• PART I THE OXUS CIVILIZATION BACKGROUND
• PART II THE “CORE AREA”
• PART III THE “SURROUNDING AREAS”
• PART IV METALS AND METAL DEPOSITS
• Appendix: Radiocarbon dates related to the BMAC/Oxus Civilization
• Index