Храм Окса в Бактрии (Южный Таджикистан).
Т. 2. Бактрийское вооружение
в древневосточном и греческом контексте.
// М.: «Восточная литература». 2001. 528 с.+ вклейка.
ISBN 5-02-018194-3; ISBN 5-02-018126-9 [см. также Т. 1 и Т. 3.]
Введение. — 5
1. Храм Окса. — 5
2. История изучения древнего среднеазиатского вооружения. — 11
3. Структура, цели и характер исследования. — 20
Часть I. Наступательное оружие. — 25
Глава I. Лук. — 26
1. Каталог костяных накладок на лук из храма Окса. — 26
2. Костяные накладки — общая характеристика. — 28
3. Костяные накладки на лук из храма Окса и история центральноазиатского сложносоставного лука в евразийском контексте. — 30
4. Конструкция центральноазиатского сложносоставного лука и физико-техническая характеристика его работы. — 47
5. Заключение. — 55
Глава II. Стрелы. — 59
А. Бронзовые наконечники стрел. — 59
1. Каталог бронзовых наконечников стрел из храма Окса. — 59
2. Вопросы классификации и хронологии. — 67
3. Стрелы и колчаны. — 77
4. Заключение. — 79
Б. Железные наконечники стрел из храма Окса и история среднеазиатских железных наконечников стрел в древности. — 80
1. Вводные замечания. Принципы формализованного описания железных наконечников стрел из храма Окса. Древнейшие комплексы и находки. — 80
2. Черешковые трёхлопастные наконечники стрел с треугольным и лавролистным контуром пера. — 92
3. Черешковые трёхлопастные наконечники стрел с ромбическим и фигурным контуром пера. — 103
4. Черешковые трёхгранные наконечники стрел. — 107
5. Черешковые четырёхгранные наконечники стрел. — 110
6. Конусовидные и пулевидные черешковые наконечники стрел. — 112
7. Черешковые наконечники стрел, уплощённые в поперечном сечении. — 114
8. Черешковые вильчатые наконечники стрел. — 115
9. Стрелы и колчаны. — 116
10. Заключение. — 119
Глава III. Копьё. Дротик. — 120
1. Каталог наконечников копий и дротиков. — 120
а. Бронзовые наконечники. — 120
б. Железные наконечники. — 120
2. Каталог подтоков. — 139
а. Бронзовые подтоки. — 139
б. Железные подтоки. — 140
3. Типология наконечников копий и дротиков. — 151
а. Наконечники копья. — 154
б. Наконечники дротиков. — 160
4. Типология подтоков. — 162
5. Стратиграфическое распределение типов наконечников копий. — 165
6. Копьё в Греции и на Ближнем Востоке. — 166
7. Заключение. — 200
Глава IV. Меч и кинжал. — 201
А. Индийские, ахеменидско-персидские и бактрийские мечи и кинжалы. — 201
1. Каталог мидийских и ахеменидско-персидских мечей и кинжалов из храма Окса. — 201
2. Каталог бактрийских мечей и кинжалов из храма Окса. — 204
а. Бронза. — 204
б. Железо. — 205
3. Типология бактрийских мечей и кинжалов из храма Окса. — 211
а. Кинжалы железные двулезвийные. — 211
б. Кинжалы железные однолезвийные. — 212
в. Мечи двулезвийные. — 213
4. Обзор истории железных кинжалов и мечей на Переднем Востоке. — 213
5. Железные кинжалы и мечи в Средней Азии. — 234
6. К проблеме происхождения акинака. — 238
7. К датировке акинаков из храма Окса. — 243
Б. Греческие мечи и кинжалы из храма Окса. — 249
1. Махайры. Каталог. — 249
а. Рукояти махайры. Слоновая кость. — 249
б. Устья ножен махайр. Слоновая кость. — 250
в. Устья ножен махайры. Железо. — 260
г. Пеналы ножен махайры. Слоновая кость. — 260
д. Ножны махайры. Дерево. — 263
е. Ножны махайры. Железо. — 263
2. Ксифосы. Каталог. — 264
а. Рукояти ксифосов. Слоновая кость. — 264
б. Устье ножен ксифосов. Слоновая кость. — 265
3. Бутероли. Каталог. — 268
а. Бутероли. Слоновая кость. — 268
б. Бутероли. Железо. — 273
в. Крепления — проволочные стяжки частей ножен. Бронза. — 274
4. Детали ножен (некоторые общие заметки). — 274
5. Греческие мечи и кинжалы из храма Окса в древневосточном и греческом контексте. — 277
Часть II. Оборонительное вооружение. — 295
Глава V. Доспех. — 296
1. Каталог частей доспеха из храма Окса. — 296
а. Части бронзового доспеха. — 296
б. Части железного доспеха. — 296
2. Типология и назначение пластин. — 304
3. Чешуйчатый доспех в Греции и на Переднем Востоке. — 307
4. Центральноазиатский доспех. — 338
Глава VI. Шлем. — 347
1. Каталог частей шлема из храма Окса. — 347
2. Находки частей шлема в храме Окса и проблема истории шлема на Ближнем Востоке. — 348
Глава VII. Щит. — 364
1. Щит в Древнем Иране и Средней Азии. — 364
2. Каталог щитов и их деталей из храма Окса. — 366
3. К истории щита с трискеле. — 369
4. Щит типа тюреос. — 378
Приложение 1. Р.М. Юсупов. Размеры, индексы и классификация черешковых железных наконечников стрел из храма Окса. — 384
Приложение 2. Б.А. Литвинский. Боевые топоры саков Памира. — 418
Приложение 3. Б.А. Литвинский. Новое о находке клада Окса (Амударьинского клада). — 425
Библиография. — 430
Указатель имён. — 501
Указатель географических и топографических названий. — 506
[ Вклейка: табл. 1-111. — между стр. 512-513 ]
Contents. — 525
В своей книге мы попытались рассмотрение комплекса вооружения, обнаруженного при раскопках храма Окса в 1976-1991 гг., совместить с исследованием проблем истории оружия в Бактрии, шире — во всей Центральной Азии. При этом мы исходили из того, что в силу характера своей истории и истории культуры Бактрия, с одной стороны, была теснейшим образом связана с Ираном, а также со всем древневосточным регионом, а с другой — с номадами евразийских степей. Кроме того, Бактрия входила в эллинистический мир. Достаточно сказать, что она была частью Ахеменидского государства, затем её завоевал Александр Македонский, она была включена в Селевкидское царство, её территория являлась частью Греко-Бактрийского царства, а затем, после его разгрома юэчжами, — одной из областей Кушанского государства. Наряду с бактрийцами на территории Бактрии проживали местные и пришлые номады, персы, греки, индийцы и др. Исторические судьбы Бактрии обусловили многовекторные историко-культурные связи и полиэтничность её населения.
Комплекс представленного в храме Окса вооружения охватывает огромный исторический период, с VI в. до н.э. до IV-V вв. н.э., т.е. около тысячи лет. Проведённое исследование позволило выяснить, что какая-то группа населения проживала на территории разрушенного храма или вблизи него вплоть до V в. н.э., и это корректирует прежние хронологические определения. Но изучение комплекса тахтисангинского вооружения приводит и к более широким заключениям. Теперь ясно, что в оружии древней Бактрии во многом нашли отражение исторические судьбы этой страны.
Рассмотрение развития различных типов оружия на широком историческом фоне позволило более ясно проследить синхронные и асинхронные моменты в развитии вооружения во многих районах Евразии, выявить проникновение некоторых видов вооружения за пределы ареалов его возникновения и первоначального бытования, обнаружить взаимодействия и взаимовлияния в процессе его формообразования.
Бактрийский комплекс вооружения представляет из себя сложный феномен, где все эти процессы нашли яркое проявление. Он демонстрирует наиболее яркую среди всех центральноазиатских комплексов составляющую в виде ахеменидских и особенно эллинистических элементов вооружения. Эллинистические элементы (прежде всего — парадные ножны греческих мечей и соответственно сами мечи) настолько многочисленны, что можно (с учётом других видов греческого вооружения) говорить о наличии в бактрийском вооружении, особенно во 2-й пол. IV-II в. до н.э., двух секторов — местного бактрийского, во многом сложившегося под влиянием передневосточных и кочевнических элементов, и эллинистического. Процессы их взаимовлияния, иногда не слишком заметные на первый взгляд,
будут выявлены в дальнейшем, по мере накопления материалов. Следует также подчеркнуть, что эллинистическое вооружение из Храма Окса имеет немаловажное значение для исследования и истории собственно греческого вооружения. Так, количество найденных частей парадных ножен намного превосходит то, что до сих пор было обнаружено во всём эллинистическом мире. Бактрия вместе с тем была, вероятно, своего рода резервуаром, из которого эллинистические предметы искусства и вооружения растекались по всей Центральной Азии и достигали номадов.
Многочисленность различных типов оружия заставляет вновь задуматься о причинах столь поразительного его разнообразия (скажем, наконечников стрел). Обычно считается, что это было, с одной стороны, связано с развитием общей технологии, а с другой стороны, с поисками наиболее оптимальных и эффективных его форм, причём происходило постоянное соревнование между возможностями наступательного оружия и характером доспеха. На развитие вооружения, безусловно, оказывал сильнейшее влияние характер войска и его тактика.
Вместе с тем исследование в области математического и реального моделирования разных типов древнего оружия и доспеха позволило внести значительные коррективы в понимание вопросов его типологии, конструкции, производства, боевых возможностей. Мы попытались использовать некоторые выводы этих исследований, особенно в части лука и оборонительного доспеха. Несомненна большая перспективность таких исследований, особенно важно их осуществление на репликах-копиях различных комплексов оружия, в том числе бактрийского. Проведение серий подобных исследований на основании единой программы и одинаковых методик сулит переход на принципиально новый уровень исследования, когда будут получены объективные количественные характеристики. Это также позволит подтвердить или опровергнуть мнение о том, что вариабельность форм ряда типов оружия является в значительной мере данью моде, а не следствием и показателем прогресса.
Для проведения серий таких исследований понадобятся, конечно, многие годы, если не десятилетия. За это время станут несравненно более детально разработанными и хронологически более определёнными, прецизионно выверенными археологические и типологические аспекты проблемы, в частности наша идея о появлении многих форм ещё на начальном этапе развития (например, железных наконечников стрел, но не только их) и последующих этапах с преобладанием групп одних или других форм с включением вновь разработанных типов. Подлинная история оружия явится синтезом хронологической типологии и конструкций разных типов и форм древнего оружия, с их полной физико-технической характеристикой — от технологии изготовления до боевых свойств.
Summary. * ^
[сноска к заголовку: * Перевод И.Д. Джибладзе.]
The book consists of an “Introduction” and two parts: “Offensive armament” and “Defensive armour”.
The “Introduction” begins with the section “The Temple of the Oxus”, where brief data on the temple of the Oxus are stated. By the mid-1970s, the study of archaeology of Southern Tajikistan has achieved significant success in the examination of monuments of all the epochs, from palaeolithic to late Middle Ages. The only yawning gap that remained was the Hellenistic epoch. In this connection, B.A. Litvinsky as the director of archaeological works in Southern Tajikistan decided to renew the excavations at the site of Takhti-Sangin. For conducting excavation works in the staff of Southern Tajik expedition a special detachment was organized (the director of Southern Tajik archaeological expedition B.A. Litvinsky; the head of the detachment I.R. Pichikian). The excavation works were conducted by I.R. Pichikian under the directorship of B.A. Litvinsky, who also described and sketched the objects found among them the armament. The excavations were conducted in 1976-1991.
The site of Takhti-Sangin is situated on the western side of the Vakhsh river, in the place where this river flows into the Pyandj river. It is the south-western part of the Republic of Tajikistan, its Kabodian region. The site is outstretched meridionally for 2 km along the river and is 250-350 m wide. The excavations were conducted at rectangular citadel (238×167 m). A monumental installation of the temple built directly on virgin soil has been excavated there. There was — in the centre of the main building of the temple — a four-columned hall (12×12 m), enveloped from three sides by the two rows of corridors and in the east opened in the direction of columned portico owing to the presence of a large entrance. The portico is limited from the north and south by the “wings” of the building — cult premises, where clay altars of fire were situated. The main building of the temple has the following dimensions: the eastern façade, 51, the western one, 32, distance between the façades, 49 m.
The temple’s building is encircled by a powerful wall. The space in front of the building constituted vast sacred house-temenos. The propyleae cut through the eastern wall of the temenos revetted from the inside with stone plates.
All the parts of the installation described above were erected simultaneously according to a well-elaborated plan. All the walls were built of clay bricks 50-52×50×52×14-16 cm. The erection of the temple belongs to the very end of IV — early III B.C. In the Hellenistic epoch stone altars of Greek type were installed in front of the main building.
At the time the temple was maintained very carefully, accumulation of cultural layer didn’t exceed 10-12 cm. Into the temple of the Oxus, apparently at the time of its
foundation, the treasures of another, older, temple, that had come to ruins, were transferred — numerous votives, forming its earliest chronological group — VI-IV B.C. In the period of Hellenism (late IV-II B.C.) a mass of treasures came into the new temple, they were placed on the floors and in the corridors, which excludes vertical stratigraphy. Before Yueh-chih conquest the priests had withdrawn the most valuable gold and silver objects and coins from the treasure and buried them on the bank of the Vakhsh river. 2000 years later the river undermined its bank and part of the buried objects and coins came into the British museum as “the Oxus Treasure”. In Kushan epoch (I B.C. — III A.D.) the temple fell into decay, parts of the walls collapsed. It led to numerous repairs, building of counter-force walls and major reconstructions. Pits-bothroi were digged and fences-favissa arranged in the floors of the premises. Older objects and coins became buried underneath them together with new ones.
All these features of forming a cultural layer exclude the possibility of automatic attribution of finds to any definite time on the basis of their locations in stratigraphical column. Therefore a typological working-out and comparative analysis acquire the greatest significance.
In the section “History of study of ancient Central Asian armament” the main contemporary works on history of warfare and armament in antiquity and, especially, in the ancient Near East are listed and characterized. The theoretical question of tasks and aims of the study of armament as a separate branch of the history of warfare is investigated.
This problem is discussed more thoroughly with regard to Central Asia. The study of armament of the ancient population of Central Asia has become possible only after the results of archaeological work became available, first of all those of the excavations of nomads’ kurgans and settlements as well. The list of burial grounds is given, the excavation of which has brought such finds for the first time.
As a result of these excavations, about 700 burials have been uncovered in Bactria alone, several hundreds of kurgans have been excavated in other regions. The author of this book has excavated about 800 burial installations in Pamir, in Ferghana and in Southern Tajikistan. The total number of all the burial installations uncovered in Central Asia and Southern Kazakhstan probably approaches three thousand. However, the armour inventories of the overwhelming majority (almost all) of burial complexes are very scarce and rarely contain objects dated exactly. It hampers the discovery of cooccurrence of types and establishing relative and absolute chronology.
Hundreds of settlements, cities, cult centres have also been excavated, but only few of them contained objects of armament. The text gives a characterization of these complexes. As for Bactria, the importance of the complex of armament from the site of Ai-Khanum is outlined. The history of Central Asian armament is closely connected with the history of armament of the peoples of Eurasian steppes, though there were no full syncronization and parallelism.
The section is completed with a brief outline of history of study of the ancient Central Asian armament and the existing main works and the most prominent works on Scytho-Sarmatian and ancient South Sikerian [Siberian] armament as well.
In the section “The structure, aims and character of the study” concise characterization of the kinds of armament presented in the complex of the temple of the Oxus is
given and a conclusion is made that it is the biggest among the complexes of armament in Central Asia that are known today. A separate chapter is devoted to each kind of armament. The chapters contain a description (in the form of a catalogue) of objects of armament of a given type, considerations on chronology are presented. Only in the chapter dealing with iron arrow-heads a formalized description is made in the form of a table and placed in Supplement I.
The armament found in the temple of the Oxus is introduced in the context of the armament of the whole Central Asian region, it is confronted with Scytho-Sarmatian series, worked out in detail with Near Eastern and in a number of cases — also with Greek armament. The section offers materials on history and cultural history of Bactria, that confirm the necessity of such broad approach. It derives from the closest contacts of Bactria with the whole Near Eastern region and in particular with Achaemenid Iran and prolonged and close relations with Greece. The latter has led to appearance in the temple of a whole series of Greek armament (especially swords’ scabbards), and among them unique objects (for example, the shield with triskele). In some chapters it is expedient to present materials belonging not only to Kushan but also to later, post-Kushan time.
The book mainly examines only those kinds of armament that were represented in the complex of the temple of the Oxus. For example, horse armour, etc. is absent for this reason.
This book, therefore, doesn’t represent the history of armament in Greece or in the Near East, or of Scytho-Sarmatian tribes, or even in Central Asia. Its main tasks are publication of the armament complex from the temple of the Oxus and comparison of it with the complexes of other regions, as well as introduction of the complex which is being published into a broad context. Only occasionally, when the material discovered in the temple of the Oxus (iron arrow-heads, composite bow) allowed it, the proper chapters have a form of essays, summarizing all the known data on Central Asia.
The book, apart from “Introduction”, has two parts: “Offensive armament” and “Defensive armour”. The former opens with the chapter “Bow”. In the course of the excavations four and a half dozen intact and fragmented bone plate-coverings for a bow have been found. Approximately half of them have a cut for bowstring and, undoubtedly, these cuts are end-coverings. In one case two end plate-coverings, starting from their outer butts were glued together in such a way that the butts themselves were adjacent closely to each other and then plates gradually diverged and the space between them 7 cm long was filled with gluing substance. The coverings have been found in the layers of I-III A.D. Also remains of leather gorytus have been discovered. The chapter contains data about the emergence of composite bow in Southern Siberia, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Eastern Turkestan and also China, known both by depictions and by real finds of bronze and early iron epochs. Data of written sources for India are presented as well.
The history of composite bow in Egypt and Mesopotamia is examined mainly according to the depictions on the monuments of art. The Assyrian bow is examined among the others in a most detailed way. The questions of the most ancient bows in Iran and Minoan civilization, emergence and characterization of Scythian bow are elucidated.
Achaemenid-Persian and Achaemenid-Bactrian bows are examined in details, with references to Old Iranian, Elamite and Old Persian sources and iconographical materials. The type of bows prevalent in Graeco-Bactria can be reconstructed on the basis of coin iconography. The bow held by Apollo on the reverses of Graeco-Bactrian coins varies in size and form. Sometimes it is of segment type, sometimes is sygma-shaped (“Scythian”) or has angular outlines. On the coins of Arthemidorus (about 85 B.C.) the bow has fivefold contour — the same contour, but of a more developed form is typical for “Sasanian” (or, according to the author, “Kushan-Sasanian”) bows.
The analysis of bows depicted on Greeco-Bactrian, Parthian and Indo-Parthian coins shows that in II B.C. — I A.D. in Central Asia and the adjacent territories an essentially new type of composite bow strengthened by bone plates developed. Probably this development was a result of the impact of nomads, in particular Yüeh-chih, who were familiar with bow of the Hsiung-nu type. In the developed shape the images of the new bow are represented on the coins of Huviṣka. Riders of hunting and battle scenes on the plates from the temple of the Oxus (Bactria), Orlat (Soghd), Begram (Gandhara) are shooting such bows. It is already III A.D.
In the chapter the remains of a composite bow from necropolis Bogouz (Mesopotamia), Kenkol graveyard (Semirechie), Karabulak graveyard (Ferghana) and site Toprak-kala (Chorasmia), and separate bone plate-coverings on a bow from different parts of Central Asia are examined.
There were special shops for the manufacturing of composite bows in Central Asia. The very process of manufacturing is reconstructed on the basis of ethnographical materials. On the basis of bow physical-mathematical working-outs, made by P.E. Klopsteg and other scholars (C. Bergman, B. Kooi, E. McEwen, R. Miller a.o.), the construction of the bow of “Sasanian” (or “Kushan-Sasaninan”) type are analyzed. The conditions necessary for the maximum effectiveness of such a bow are formulated. A conclusion is made that bow and arrow developed as a result of a single process rather than of two closely interrelated ones. The aim of introducing innovations and improvements in the construction and form of a bow is to ensure shooting a bow with such arrows as would have the maximum range of flight, the best sighting conditions and the maximum piercing capacity. The “bow-arrow” system had in the process of its action to ensure the fulfilment of these conditions.
The chapter is completed by a formulation of the main stages of the beginning of the development of a composite bow in the East.
Chapter II, “Arrows” opens with a section dedicated to bronze arrow-heads. In the course of the excavations about 80 bronze arrow-heads (including fragments) have been found. The absolute majority of them is represented by three-blade ones and practically a half was equipped with a projecting barb and another half with a hidden bush.
The classificatory distribution is as follows:
I. Two-blade arrow-heads with a barb
a) with an inner barb and a rhomboid head proper (1 example);
b) with an external barb and a vaulted head (2 examples).
II. Three-blade arrow-heads with a bush:
a) with an external barb and a laurel leaf head (4 examples);
b) with an external barb and a vaulted head (20 examples);
c) with an external barb and a triangular head (9 examples);
d) with an inner barb and a tower-shaped head (3 examples);
e) with an inner barb and a vaulted head (16 examples).
f) with an inner barb and a triangular head (16 examples);
III. Shafted three-blade arrow-heads:
a) with a triangular head (1 example).
IV. Shafted heads of rhombic section.
а) with a rhombic head (1 example).
For each type of arrow-heads a set of analogous arrow-heads from Bactria and Central Asia and Iran in general is given as well as a comparison with Scytho-Sarmatian series, the datings of which remain (in most cases) the starting points in working out the chronology for the Central Asian series, though full synchronism was absent. Takhti-Sangin arrow-heads in one case have been found in virgin soil, under the floor, but the vast majority have been in the lowest layer, that should be dated to late IV-III B.C. or III-II B.C. Of course, objects dated earlier than the layer itself as well as later objects could have got into that layer. It is only possible to say that a certain part of the arrowheads belongs to the same time as the layer itself where they were located.
Then iron arrow-heads from the temple of the Oxus are examined and a history of Central Asian iron arrow-heads in antiquity is offered. During the excavations of the Temple of the Oxus 3160 arrow-heads have been found. A classificatory description and tables of changes are shifted to Supplement I at the end of the book. In the chapter, methods of formalized description of iron arrow-heads elaborated by the author are substantiated. Elements of this description are used for characterization of separate types of arrow-heads from the Temple of the Oxus. But such measurements for other complexes haven’t been elaborated yet. Therefore the comparison of Takhti-Sangin complex with other complexes and separate finds had to be performed within traditional frameworks.
There are following sections in the chapter:
1) the most ancient forms of iron arrow-heads;
2) shafted three-blade arrow-heads with a triangular laurel leaf contour of battle-parts (about 2650 ex.);
3) shafted three-blade arrow-heads with a rhombic and figured contour of battle-parts;
4) shafted three-edged arrow-heads;
5) shafted four-edged arrow-heads;
6) cone-shaped and bullet-shaped shafted arrow-heads;
7) shafted arrow-heads, flattened in cross section;
8) fork-head shafted arrow-heads.
For each type and variant analogies from Central Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, southern Siberia and of Sarmatian burials are adduced, and Sarmatian prototypes are also named.
The study allows that the following conclusions are made.
1. Iron arrow-heads began to spread in Central Asia in V-III B.C.
2. III-II B.C. are characterized by prevalence of iron arrow-heads.
3. The period of time since III B.C. till the eve of the common era was marked by an intensive search, creative activity in the field of inventing types and forms of arrowheads. The greater part of leading types emerged in that period, and small-sized varieties prevailed. At that stage the influence of Greek types was possible.
4. The types of arrow-head emerged before the eve of common era continued to exist down to early Middle Ages, and also in the shape of small-sized varieties. After the eve of common era big arrow-heads became significantly more numerous.
5. The period of the IV-V cc. was an important milestone, when arrow-heads with a figure cut in the lower part of the blades (facets) and with a threshold-sleeve in the upper part of handle appeared.
6. In early Middle Ages (VI-VIII c.) the variety of types was very great — some of them were a radical reinterpretation of the old types that existed for a long time; along with them, the arrow-heads of types that emerged before the eve of common era, continued to be produced and used, though their number sometimes was not great. New types were invented and spread alongside the old ones.
7. The presence of arrow-heads that appeared later can serve as an
indication for dating (termines post quem); arrow-heads of the main types continued to be produced since III-II B.C. till VII-VIII A.D., i.e. during the millennium. Therefore they are not useful for dating.
8. The evolution followed the line of changing sets of arrow-heads — a specific typological set was characteristic for each epoch, and the proportion of certain types and varieties in the sets varied. Probably there were serious differences for regions and peoples as well.
9. In general, both in sets of types and in details of form, the Central Asian arrowheads to some degree differ from the East European and South Siberian ones.
Chapter III (“Spear. Javelin”) opens with a catalogue of spears, javelins and butts discovered. Then comes the part which is devoted to typology of spear and javelin heads. In the course of excavations 85 complete spear-heads, 25 complete javelin-heads and 65 fragmented ones have been found. The javelin-heads are up to 17 cm long, greater size of an object is taken conditionally as a lower border-line of spear’s size.
For description and classification of spear-heads a system of indexes, elaborated by the author and based on the system of indices, is offered for formalized description of iron arrow-heads.
The following parameters were used for calculating of indices: H — overall height of a head, h1 — height of a bush (its projecting part); h2 — height of slant of a battle-part; h3 — height of upper half of a battle-part; D1 — diameter of basement of a bush; D2 — upper diameter of a bush; D3 — maximum diameter (width) of a battle-part.
a = D3 / h3
б = D3/h2+h3
в = h2/h3
г = h1/ h2 + h3
д = D2 / d1
Classification of Takhti-Sangin spears:
I section — laurel-leafed spear-heads:
Type 1 — genuine laurel-leafed (18 ex.);
Type 2 — laurel-leafed with widening in the lower part — lancet-shaped (16 ex.).
II section — leaf-shaped — triangular spear-heads:
Type 1 — broad leaf-shaped spear-heads (17 ex.).
Type 2 — narrow (stretched) leaf-shaped spear-heads (26 ex.).
III section — flame-shaped spear-heads:
Type 1 — rudimentary flame-shaped spear-heads (5 ex.).
Type 2 — proper flame-shaped spear-heads (3 ex.).
Javelins are represented by shafted type (1 example) and bushed tips (30 examples). The latter consist of laurel-leafed and leaf-shaped forms and bullet-shaped tips. The collection contains more than 150 intact or slightly fragmented butts that give an idea about the original form. They are also classified.
A small part of spear-heads has been found under lower floor and on the lower floors (tips of types I/1 and II/l) and they could have been used in Hellenistic time. These types continued to be used in Yüeh-chih — early Kushan time as well. But the main part belongs to later time, I-IV A.D.
Undoubtedly, Near Eastern and Greek spears penetrated in Bactria; besides, they could exert influence on the development of Bactrian spears. The repositories of the Temple of the Oxus could contain Near Eastern (especially Achaemenid), Greek (especially of Hellenistic time) and nomads’ spears as well.
Examination of Takhti-Sangin spears and javelins on the background of series of this type of armament from the region with which Bactria was connected historically allows to draw some conclusions. First, it is possible to speak about a definite formal-typological similarity of certain types of Takhti-Sangin armament to one of ancient Iran, Greece and Scythians. Second, the similarity is traced only when certain types are compared, but the Bactrian complex in general displays a distinctive quality which is not peculiar to Iranian, Scythian or Greek complexes of spears and javelins. And finally, third, it’s possible to consider that the genesis of the Bactrian set of types of this armament goes back to Central Asian spear-heads of the epoch of late bronze, that are well-known and published in details (N.A. Avanesova, E.E. Kuzmina, B.A. Litvinsky). Later Iranian (especially in VI-IV B.C.), Scythian-Sauromatian (VI-III B.C.) and Greek-Hellenistic (IV-II B.C.) influences and borrowings have been superimposed on this foundation. A certain part of the complex from the Temple of the Oxus is dated mainly to IV-I B.C., many tips to the eve of common era and to III-IV A.D.
Chapter IV, “Sword and dagger” begins with the section “Median, Achaemenid-Persian and Bactrian swords from the Temple of the Oxus”. The catalogue contains a description of separate finds of Median swords, including the remarkable ivory scabbard designed for an akinak of Median type, other scabbards, handles and remains of a bronze sword as well. Besides, a description of 45 Bactrian daggers and swords is included in the catalogue. The daggers were two-bladed and one-bladed. The two-bladed (section I) divide into four types:
Type 1 — two-bladed daggers with straight garde and volute-shaped fmial.
Type 2 — two-bladed daggers with butterfly-shaped garde and fmial in the form of antenna.
Type 3 — two-bladed daggers with straight garde and fmial in the form of antenna.
Type 4 — two-bladed daggers with straight garde and bar-shaped handle without metallic fmial.
Daggers of type 3 are the most numerous ones.
The daggers of section II (one-bladed) are represented by only two examples (with a straight blade and with a curved blade).
Besides, two iron swords have been found. One of them has a straight garde and a bar-shaped handle without metallic finial, the second with fmial in the form of a half-disk with roundish hollowings.
Then the review of daggers, known from the ancient Near Eastern, in particular Assyrian and Hittite, reliefs follows; and also daggers of the Scythians and Sauromats represented by series of finds.
Materials on the history of the dagger in Iran — from the eve of II-I mill. B.C. to Hellenistic time are analysed even in more detail. Following the review of the finds of bronze-iron and iron daggers of pre-Achaemenid times, the evidence of ancient Iranian (Avestan and Old Persian), Babylonian of Achaemenid times and classical sources about the ancient Persian daggers, in particular akinaks, is summarized. In a special paragraph the question of the origin of akinak is elucidated. After the examination of the existing materials and theories the author expresses his own point of view. The sources of development of types of Scythian daggers and swords should be looked for in Eastern Europe. (Cimmerian-Scythian examples have contributed to the acquaintance of the population of the Near East with the type of Scythian daggers and swords, which turned out to be so effective that along with the local types they became the basis for emergence of the type of Persian swords and daggers.) The difference between Scythian and Persian daggers is explained by the presence of different components (in Iran, strong Near Eastern, especially Assyrian influence). In Central Asia and Southern Kazakhstan the development of stabbing armament was largely analogous to Scytho-Sauromatian development.
The characterization of Achaemenid daggers is made on the basis of a complex study of written records, mentioned above, of iconographical materials and examples of this kind of armament that survived to this day. Takhti-Sangin finds are also included in this characterization, among them akinak’s scabbard made of ivory. The main part of Bactrian iron daggers from the temple has been found in the layers of Yüeh-chih — Kushan and Kushan periods. Taking all possible displacements into account, it’s possi-
ble to suppose that in mass they belong to III-I B.C. and some part of them was used even later.
The second part of Chapter IV deals with Greek swords and daggers. Ivory handles of makhairas, mouths of scabbards and bouterolles of makhairas and xiphoses, as well as iron bouterolles are included in the catalogue. 45 mouths of makhairas, 9 mouths of xiphoses and 23 bouterolles (among them 2 made of iron) have been found. After a typological analysis, the author investigates the origins and main stages of the development of this armament and its evolution in Greece and Hellenistic world. For that purpose, written sources, iconographical materials and archaeological finds are used.
Owing to the finding in the temple of the Oxus, the science has now at its disposal a lange number of detailed facts regarding ceremonial, battle and miniature (votive) scabbards of Greek swords which considerably exceed in quantity all the material obtained by the archeologists for two centuries of the excavations from continental Greece and from beyond its borders — eventually all the relevant material known till now. And it is worth noting not only the fact that the finds in this temple many times exceed those made in the entire Greek world but they have been discovered at the farthest periphery of the classical oikumene. It should be noted that Greek armament, in particular swords and daggers, had been used, and probably manufactured in Bactria and Northern India not only prior to Graeco-Bactrian kingdom, but also later.
Chapter V, “Armour”, also contains a catalogue of plates of armour found (one bronze plate, about 80 separate iron plates and one big fragment of armour, consisting of approximately 200 plates) in the temple of the Oxus. The typology of iron plates is based on their form. Seven types can be distinguished. Rectangular and trapezoid plates with one prominent butt were the most numerous ones.
Then the main lines of the development of scale armour in Greece and Near East are elucidated. For that purpose written sources (in particular, texts from Nuzi), iconographical materials and finds of parts of armour are used. Much attention is paid to the development of the armour of Assyrians and Hittites, that has become possible after the author’s study of their reliefs in various museums. These materials are confronted by the author with finds of scales of Assyrian armour made by different researchers. Besides, data on armour of Urartu and Scythians are given.
Evidence of early Iron Age armour in Iran is elucidated in detail. It is continued by an analysis of written sources. Using works of Iranologists and Indologists as a basis, the author enumerates terms occurring in Avesta, Rigveda and later Indian and Zoroastrian writings. Also the data of Babylonian documents of Achaemenid times are involved, as well as the data of classical authors, in particular Herodotus, Xenophon, Arrian.
But even taken in totality, the data of written sources on Achaemenid armour are rather scarce. The situation with iconographical sources is not simple either: there are no images of warriors in armour in Persepolis reliefs; as for images of the Greek vase-painting, they are equivocal. Nevertheless, we can distinguish several variants of depiction of the armour in vase-painting and they are completed by images on gemmas.
More real data on construction of armour have been received in the course of archaeological excavations in Persepolis and Pasargadae and also in the former parts of
Achaemenid Empire — Egypt (Memphis and elsewhere), Asia Minor, Cyprus. The variants of reconstruction of armour are set forth and their reliability is analysed.
The data on Central Asian armour are analysed even in more detail. In the appropriate section data of classical authors about armour of Central Asian peoples are adduced.
The most ancient material evidence of the existence of armour in Central Asia are presented by a drawing on a horn plate from Aktam burial (VI-IV B.C.) and a sculptural figurine of a warrior in the armour from Djambul museum. The most complete finding has been made in the Aral area, at Chirik-Rabat. Reconstructions of this armour, proposed by S.P. Tolstov and M.V. Gorelik, are discussed, as well as the conclusion of H. von Gall that Chirik-Rabat armour is the most ancient among the remains of cataphractarii’s armament known up to now. Information published by P. Bernard and F. Grenet about the findings of large fragments of scale armour at Ai-Khanum, where different parts of armour were discovered, is set forth. Iron plates were fastened to a base, consisting of leather, felt and textile. The finds from Ai-Khanum give an idea about the construction of Graeco-Bactrian armour. The finds from Taxila-Sirkap layer II and evidence of Gandhara iconography are of considerable importance. Information about the finding of fragments of scale armour in Nisa and later materials, among them those from Bactria (Dilberjin), is set forth for comparison.
In Bactria, other kinds of armour, alongside scale-armour as it is shown by finds at Kampyr-tepe, were wide-spread — particularly, cuirass of thorax type. Besides, at Kampyr-tepe the statuette depicting a warrior in muscle cuirass has been discovered and in other cases in flat cuirass.
The conclusions of the author consist of the following. It is possible to state that Bactrian scale-armour is not connected or is insignificantly connected with Greek tradition. Its roots lay in the ancient Oriental region and go back to II mill. B.C. A great influence on the development and spreading of scale-armour has been exerted by Assyria and via Iran, perhaps even in pre-Achaemenid time the idea of scale-armour penetrated into Central Asia. Another probable way of spreading could be the nomadic world connected with Scythians. As for the Greek influence, it was expressed by spreading different kinds of cuirass in Bactria.
Chapter VI, “Helmet”, contains the description and analysis of four suspended bronze and one iron cheek-piece of helmet, found in the Temple of the Oxus. These cheek plates evidently have come off from ancient helmets. As it is known, the cheek-pieces were the attribute of many types of Greek helmets since VI B.C. and during more than a half millennium, and cheek-pieces of many types were simply suspended. It makes attempts at searching for analogues by way of examining thoroughly all available material unproductive. The cheek-pieces existed not independently but only with helmets. It is possible to try to define on the basis of iconography of coins what types of helmets in antiquity were especially wide-spread in Bactria — at least from the beginning of Hellenism.
Among the helmets used in Bactria there were, in particular, the helmets of Beotian type. The Beotian helmet was widespread all over Greece, but even more so, in the Hellenistic East. Mesopotamia is the place of origin of an entire specimen, too. Greek soldiers wear just this type of the helmet on Sidon sarcophagus and Alexander mosaic in
Pompei. Since the time of Alexander the Great, these helmets have acquired cheek-pieces and “plumes”. Such helmets are known from coins of Seleucus I and Antiochus II. It is on them that the images of ear and horn of the ox have appeared first. Then Beotian helmets come into repertoire of details of images on coins of Graeco-Bactrian kings, starting from Eucratides I and Menander to Archebius and Hermaeus. Depictions on bronze medallion, with relief reproduction of the bust of Graeco-Bactrian ruler found at Takhti-Sangin should be added to the depictions of Beotian helmets. The helmets depicted on a clasp from burial 3 of Tilla-Tepe necropolis belong to this type.
The greater part of cheek-pieces from the temple of the Oxus could well originate from Beotian helmet. Taking into account the probability of its emergence in Central Asia since the second part of IV B.C. and its existence up to I B.C. they should be more likely placed in these chronological limits. As one of the cheek-pieces has been found 5 cm above the virgin soil, it is quite possible to consider that at least this example belongs to III-II B.C.
In Central Asia not only Hellenistic Helmets of Beotian type were prevalent, but also other types. Judging from the images on the coins of Sophit Attic-type helmets were also spread.
Further data on helmets associated with Eastern tradition are adduced. Evidence of Assyrian and Iranian helmets are reported here. As for the latter,information contained in the ancient Greek and Babylonian sources is involved;in conclusion the question of Central Asian helmets of Koban type are discussed.
The last comes chapter VII — “Shield”. The chapter opens with a presentation of data on the shield, occuring in Avesta and ancient Achaemenid inscriptions. Then follows the analysis of iconographical materials in which the depiction of Achaemenid shield is presented. The form and construction of three types of Achaemenid shield: rectangular, round and oval, are analysed. According to ancient Greek evidence some Achaemenid shields were wattled and covered with leather. Pamir and mountain Altai Saka had such shields.
But the shields discovered in the Temple of the Oxus are not of such types, but of Greek ones.
The shield decorated with an emblem in the form of a triskele has been discovered. It is round, made of bronze and wood. The metal upholstery of the shield consists of a bronze edge (the outer rim of the shield) and the central bronze umbo. Its interior was wooden. The diameter is 56.5 cm. From the central bronze roundel-umbo three images of human legs bent in knees and expressed rather conventionally, go away to the outer rim. At the same time, in spite of all the conventionality of the image, the movement of a running man is captured, on the whole, exactly.
Further the history of Greek shield is examined, finds of umboes and emblems are reported. However, among them even not a single finding of triskele has been known till now. Prior to the discovery in the temple of the Oxus, the emblem on the shield in the form of triskele was known only in iconography, in particular, on coins and vase-painting of the second part of VI — early V B.C. The analysis demonstrates that the triskele from the temple of the Oxus has the closest resemblance with triskele depicted on Athensian coins of the second part of VI B.C.
There are several possible ways via which the shield with triskele could have got into the Temple of the Oxus.
1. The shield got into Bactria in early V B.C. from Attica with some Greek migrants and much later was brought to the deity of the Temple of the Oxus as a gift.
2. It could have got into Bactria as a part of a booty as a result of Graeco-Persian wars.
3. It could have got into Bactria also from the craftsmen’s workshops of the capital of Achaemenid empire.
4. The shield could have got into Bactria later, for example in the epoch of Alexander’s campaign.
5. Still, another possibility should be taken into account: in Bactria a common artisan reproduced an emblem, which he saw on a shield that had come into Bactria many generations before.
Besides, a shield with triskele in the Temple of the Oxus bronze umbo of outstretched rhombic form was found. Apparently there was a shield of tureos type in the temple. Such shields appeared for the first time among the Galls. Their history in Greece goes back to III B.C. and it continued up to I B.C. This type of a shield was especially popular in Ptolemaic and Seleucid mercenary armies in the second part of III B.C. It appeared at Bosporus. The analysis of the umbo’s form and comparison with precisely dated examples led to a conclusion that the shield from the Temple of the Oxus had to belong to III-II B.C.
The book is concluded by Conclusion and three supplements. The first supplement belongs to the author’s apprentice R. Yusupov. There a detailed formalized characterization of types found in the Temple of the Oxus and also the tables of their measurings according to the system of B.A. Litvinsky are adduced.
The second supplement, written by B.A. Litvinsky, contains the analysis of battle-axes found during the excavations of Saka burials in Pamir, conducted by A.N. Bernshtam and the author.
The third, written by B.A. Litvinsky, deals with the analysis of new materials on the history of the Oxus Treasure and the history of its discovery. These new materials have been discovered and published in the remarkable article by J. Curtis.