Archaeology and Pre-Islamic Art

8/6/2019 Archaeology and Pre-Islamic Art

1/17

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Swets Content Distribution] On: 24 February 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 925215345] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Iranian StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427941

Archaeology and pre-Islamic artB. A. Litvinskyaa Academician Professor, Institute of Oriental Studies, Moscow

To cite this Article Litvinsky, B. A.(1998) 'Archaeology and pre-Islamic art', Iranian Studies, 31: 3, 333 348To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/00210869808701914URL:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210869808701914

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427941http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210869808701914http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00210869808701914http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713427941


2/17

Iranian Studies, volume 31 , numbers 3-4, Summer/Fall 1998

B. A. Litvinsky

Archaeology and Pre-Islamic Art

ENCYCLOPAEDIA IRANICAIS A UNIQUE WORK. PRO F. EHSAN Y ARSHATER AND HIScolleagues have performed a colossal task in preparing and publishing volumesI-VIII. Archaeology, numismatics, pre-Islamic architecture, and art have all beendealt with comprehensively. I have divided the articles into the following groups:1) Archaeology, architecture, and art; 2) archaeological periods; 3) material cul-ture, architecture and art, and groups of artifacts; 4) monuments; and 5) varia.These articles were written by prominent specialists, many of whom participatedpersonally in the excavations of the relevant monuments or examined them onsite.

1. Archaeology, architecture, and art

The article ARCHEOLOGY consists of 7 sections, two of which are dedicated toCentral Asia. The archaeology of Afghanistan is found in AFGH ANISTAN viii.T. C. Young's impressive opening entry (ARCHEOLOGY i. Pre-Median: his-tory and method of research) covers a long period for which he sketches the prin-cipal studies and stresses the importance of the work of J. de Morgan. D.Stronach's ii. Median and Achaemenid is a model entry; the author manages notmerely to present the history of scholarship of Median monuments, but to givebrief characterizations of the most important monuments and to stress the rela-tionship of early multi-columned halls with the later "Palace P" at Pasargadae.While examining the problems of chronology, D. Stronach proposes thatPersians "...may have entered their eventual homeland in a peaceful fashion;perhaps over a surprisingly long time." (p. 293) He also gives a very successfulcharacterization of the material culture of Achaemenid Iran with a map showingceramic zones. However, the author has not included Dahan-e Golaman in hissurvey. (There is now a separate article on this site.-Ed.)

K. Schippmann uses a different approach in iii. Parthian archaeology. Thisis merely a list of monuments with very brief descriptions but a complete bibli-ography. It is certainly useful, but does not provide a comprehensive study of thearchaeology of these periods.

The section on the Sasanian period by D. Huff (iv. Sasanian) combines both

approachesa study of the problems and a thorough list of monuments. Theauthor correctly notes that "archaeological field work has played a comparativelysmaller part in forming the image of Sasanian history and culture than the largenumber of preserved monuments, buildings and rock reliefs, collections of coinsand objects of art," (p. 302).

B. A. Litvinsky is Academician Professor, Institute of Oriental Studies, Moscow,and foreign member of the Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Roma).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o

n]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


3/17

334 Litvinsky

A comparison of the sections vi. Islamic Iran and vii. Islamic Central Asiademonstrates clearly the different ways in which archaeological work is conductedin these two regions. Before the thirties the Islamic archaeology of Iran was con-sidered of minor importance, while the archaeology of Central Asia had its start

with the excavation of medieval Islamic cities (the 1885 excavations of Afrasiabby N. I. Veselovsky). While it was impossible to organize excavations in themain cities of Islamic Iran, excavations in Central Asia were conducted atSamarkand, Bukhara, Tashkent, Mary, Termez, Urgench, Khulbuk, and so on.Consequently the archaeology of Islamic Central Asia is first and foremost thearchaeology of urban centers.

The article AFGHANISTAN viii. Archeology (N. H. Dupree) opens with abrief note on the history of archaeological studies in Afghanistan and then sur-veys the archaeological monuments of the country, arranging them in chrono-

logical order. It should be noted that the Afghan International Center for KushanStudies has now published a collection of articles in Western languages andPersian (Tahqlqat-e-Kushanl, ed. Khalil Poladian [Kabul, 1984]) on the pre-Islamic sites.

Dupree fails to include the Rodney Young excavation of 1953, when part ofthe city wall of the lower city of Balkh was excavated.1 Moreover, when shedeals with stone and bronze age monuments, there is very little data and onlycursory reference to publica tions. Missing is any attempt at the definition ofspecific features of the cultures and their links with neighboring areas and cul-

tures. Dupree 's discussion of the Folul Hoard is imprecise. She fails to compre-hend its close resemblance to the art of Elam, even though the first studies of P.Amiet had been published by then. P. Amiet proposed the idea that groups ofartisans from Elam moved to Bactra.2

Historical periods are constructed as simple lists of monuments. Yet by thetime of writing this article the very full reference book on monuments ofAfghanistan compiled by Warwick Ball in collaboration with J. G. Gardin hadalready been published. This work of two volumes has been widely used by N.H. Dupree, but in her bibliography she cites it incorrectly (W. Ball is not the

editor, the book has two volumes, not three, and its title isArchaeologicalGazetteer not Gazatteer).

The article AZERBAIJAN ii. Archeology (W. Kleiss) is organized chrono-logically, and the most important excavations and monuments are described foreach period. The author faced a difficult problem: by 1978 a total of 101 Urartianforts, settlements, and other sites and inscriptions had been discovered and identi-fied. The most significant among them was Bestam, excavated by W. Kleisshimself. But the article is based only on the materials from Iranian Azerbaijan;materials from Northern Azerbaijan (the former Azerbaijan SSR) are totally

excluded. This is rather strange because in the beginning of the article the authorstates with good reason that before the partition in the nineteenth century,

1. R. Young, "The Southern Wall of Balkh-Bactra," American Journal ofArchaeology 59 (1955): 267-76

2. P. Amiet, "Bactrian protohistorique," Syria 54 (1977): 89-191; idem,"Antiquites de Bactriane,"La revue duLouvre et des musees deFrance 283 (1973):153-63.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o

n]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

2011


4/17

Archaeology and Pre-Islamic Art 335

Iranian and Russian Azerbaijan constituted a single cultural entity. In NorthernAzerbaijan, Russian and Azerbaijani scholars examined archaeological monu-ments in detail and conducted extensive excavations. The material obtained datesfrom the early Paleolithic to Safavid and Qajar times. In the event of publication

of a supplement, it would be useful to include a separate article on the archaeol-ogy of Northern Azerbaijan.ARCHITECTURE consists of eight sections. There is some inconsistency

here. Section i is "Seleucid architecture" but section iv "Central Asian" beginswith the Neolithic period. The entries on Seleucid and Parthian architecture areextremely brief. The second includes an extensive bibliography. Although thereis a reference in the text to Nisa, the architecture of Nisa was not included. In theSeleucid entry, there is no mention of the Temple of Oxus although its founda-tion dates to the end of the 4th-beginning of the 3rd-centuries B.C.E.

The entry ARCHITEC TURE iii. Sasanian (D. Huff) is superb. It containsan extremely condensed but comprehensive characterization of the Sasanid archi-tecture of Iran. Huff provides a sketch of building technology and brief descrip-tions of specific buildings. The text informs us about building materials, con-struction, and structural types (vaulted and domed constructions, columns, etc.),decorative details, functional types of building (with subdivisions into religiousarchitecture, palaces, fortifications, and houses) , and is accompanied by a mostdetailed bibliography. This should be considered a model for articles on architec-ture.

The article ART IN IRAN consists of 11 sections from the Neolithic to the"post-Qajar" period. The masterfully written i. Neolithic to Median, seventh mil-lenium to seventh century B.C.E. (the late E. Porada), proposes many novelideas on geography as a determinant in the development of the art of ancient Iran.Her analysis of iconographic motifs is particularly interesting. Unfortunately,the architecture and art of Urartu are not treated very thoroughly. Material on themain monuments is missing. In ii. Median art and architecture the late P.Calmeyer surveys the available though sparse material and proposes new inter-pretations in several cases. Calmeyer also authored iii. Achaemenian art and

architecture though in this latter case there is much more material. His arrange-ment also differs from the usual attempts to provide a chronological definition ofthe evolution of Achaemenian art and architecture using materials from the mostrecent excavations. Some of his conclusions seem problematic. For example, inhis conclusion he writes: "With the exception of metalwork, it [Achaemenianart] did not reach very far beyond modern Iran," (p . 579). But this is not the case.Pazyryk, Chorasmia, the Temple of Oxus in Bactria, Achaemenian-like capitalsin India, the apadana-like hall in Armenia (Erebuni), and others all show thespread of Achaemenian influence. The question of the influence of Persepolis

reliefs on the reliefs of the Parthenon is debatable, but the problems of the ori-gins of Achaemenian art and its relation to Greek art remain to be more fullyexplored.

S. B. Downey has written an interesting short outline of Parthian art. Shediscusses Parthian art not only within the boundaries of modern Iran, but on allthe territory of the Parthian state. (For Kuh-e Khvaja, the results of the 1974-75

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o

n]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


5/17

336 Litvinsky

expeditions of the Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente3 are impor-tant. It is not clear why they are not mentioned in the article.)

In light of the most recent studies, the art of Nisa is conceived of in quite adifferent way from its perception at the time volume 2 ofEIr appeared. Since

then, there have been remarkable findings of paintings and other cultural arti-facts, and new studies have been published.4

ART IN IRAN v. Sasanian (P. O. Harper) is devoted exclusively to art. Itcontains very comprehensive definitions of all kinds of Sasanian art: rock reliefs,toreutics, painting, mosaic, textiles, glass, seals, ceramics. It is a brief butextremely well-written outline of Sasanian art, supplied with a thorough bibliog-raphy. It is unfortunate that the author did not turn her attention to the influenceof Sasanian art upon the art of neighboring peoples, especially on the Buddhisticart of Afghanistan.

G. Azarpay, author of vi. pre-Islamic Eastern Iran and Central Asia, refrainedfrom describing or even listing the most important monuments, but instead usedher section to define the main lines of artistic development. Unfortunately manyconstituent parts of the arts of Central Asia have not been mentioned (toreutics,coroplastic, textiles, ceramics, etc.). The Hellenistic period is described only onthe basis of the materials of Ay Khanom, without reference to Takht-i Sanginand the Temple of the Oxus. It should be noted that the reliefs found at Airtamwas limestone, not alabaster (p. 597). Azarpay correctly dates Khalchayan notfrom the 2nd century B.C.E. as G. A. Pugachenkova does, but from the lst-2 nd

centuries C .E. (p. 593).AFGHANISTAN ix: Pre-Islamic Art by F. Tissot, the curator of theGuimet museuma repository of remarkable works of art from Afghanistanprovides a general overview. There are some omissions in the article. The authordoes not mention the Fulol Hoard, without which it is difficult to understand theorigins of art in Afghanistan. Bactrian seals have also been omitted, although thefirst series of them had been published by the time the article was published.5

Contrary to the author's opinion, the inscription from Sorkh Kutal gives noexplanation of the functions of the Temple. Tissot describes Hephthalite atti-

tudes concerning Buddhism without taking into account the full complexity of

3. D. A. Faccenna "New Fragment of Wall-Painting from Ghaga Sahr Kuhi JJvaga-Sistan, Iran," East-West,N. S. 31/l^t (Rome 1981).

4. These include T. S. Kawami, Monumental Art of the Parthian Period in Iran,(Leiden, 1987);H. E. Mathiessen, Sculpture in the Parthian Empire (Aarhus, 1992);P. Bernard, "Les rhytons de Nisa: I. Potesses grecques,"Journal des savants (1985);idem, "Les rhytous de Nisa: a quoi, a qui ont-ils servi?" Histoire et cultes de I 'AsieCentrale preislamique. Sources ecriteset documents preislamiques (Paris, 1991); A.Invernizzi, "Die hellenistischen Grundlagen der friihparthischen Kunst,"Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan, N.S. 27 (1996); V.N. Pilipko,"Excavation of Staraia Nisa," Bulletin of theAsia Institute, N.S. 8 (1996).

5. See V. I. Sarianidi, Drevnie zemledel'tsy Afganistana [Ancient Farmers ofAfghanistan] (Moscow, 1977), 87-100.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o

n]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


6/17


this question.6 No r are there references in the text to the works of B . Rowland onthe art of Afghanistan and Central Asia and in particular his study on B amiyan.

H. Grevemeer, author of DARVAZ, is only partly familiar with the Russianliterature on the subject. Had he been more conversant with it, he would have

found thorough materials on the history, ethnography, and physical anthropol-ogy of the people of Darvaz, especially in the work of the oldest Tadjik histo-rian, B. Iskandarov. The author is not correct when he says that Darvaz "lacksmineral resources." Gold, copper, and other ores have been mined in the region.

The article DARDESTAN contains sections on geography and languages.Oddly enough, there is no history of the Dardic peoples, and there is no archae-ology at all. Further, there is no mention of the work of Russian researcherswho first established the connection between Dardic and Central Asian customsand beliefs and who pointed out that this connection had very ancient roots

related to a common homeland.7

Nor has G. Tucci's remarkable work8

been usedor the valuable work by H. P. Francfort.9 Unfortunately there is also no indica-tion in the article of the results of expeditions to the upper part of the Indus val-ley, during which more than ten thousand petroglyphs and one thousand inscrip-tionsamong them many Iranian inscriptionswere found. These contain themost im portant data on the history of the Dards and D ardestan.10 Y. A. Rapoportsuperbly summarizes the written sources and the results of archaeological expedi-tions in CH ORA SMIA i. Archaeology and pre-Islamic History.

2. Archaeological periods

CH AL CO LITIC ER A IN PERS IA (E . F. Heinrickson) very clearly interpretsthe material originating from the territory of contemporary Iran. Unfortunatelythe author has ignored the richest materials, which come from south Turkmeniaand Central Asia.

BRONZE AGE, on the other hand, is quite comprehensive. R. H. Dysonand M. M. Voigt derive their material from greater Iran, including Afghanistanand South Turkmenia. For readers of the encyclopedia a chronological table of

the periods (levels) of the different monu ments of the bronze age would be veryuseful. The authors consider Andronovo culture and pottery to have reachedCentral Asia from Southern Siberia. This is not the case. Andronovo tribes

6. See B . A.Litvinsky, Outline of History of Buddhism in Central Asia (Moscow,1968), 25-26; B. A. Litvinsky, "The Hepthalite Empire," in History of theCivilizations of Central Asia, vol. III., ed.B..A. Litvinsky (Paris, 1996),147.

7. See B . A.Litvinsky, "Tajikistan i India (primery drevnikh svyazeii kontaktov)"(Tajikistan and India. Examples of ancient links and contacts), India v drevnosti,(Moscow, 1964), 146-51.

8. "On Swat. The Dards and connected problems," East and West, N.S. 27: 1-4(1977): 3-103.

9. "Note sur la mort de Cyrus et les Dardes," Orientalia Iosephi Tucci memoriaedicata, Serie Orientale Roma,56, 1, (1985): 395-400.

10. See K. Jettmar et al., eds., Antiquities of Northern Pakistan Reports andStudies, vols. 1-2 (Mainz, 1989, 1993); vol. 3, G. Fussman and K. Jettmar, eds.(Mainz, 1994) (with detailed bibliography).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d B

y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t i

o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

2011


7/17

338 Litvinsky

populated the whole of Kazakhstan as well and reached Central Asia from there.Also, the authors refer to T. Burrow "The Proto-Indoaryans"(Journal of theRoyal Asiatic Society, 1973), but are unfamiliar with the archaeological com-mentary on this article contained in my own work11 and the numerous works of

E. Kuz'mina.3. M aterial culture architecture an d art; groups o f artefacts

O. Grabar, author of the brilliant article AYVAN, sets forth his ideas on theorigin of the ayvdn, the problem of the four ayvans, and the practical, sym-bolic, and esthetic properties of theayvan, all of which are very important forthe history of architecture of Iran and Central Asia.

AYVAN (or TAQ)-E KESRA (E. Kelly) is also very interesting. He right-

fully describes it as the most famous of all Sasanian monuments (p. 155), andprovides a thorough discussion of the dating of the building.APA DA NA (D. Stronach) provides not only a brief description ofapaddnas

in Susa and Persepolis but also makes convincing arguments about the genesisof the apadana type and the dating of theapadanas of Susa and Persepolis. Healso provides a judicious review of the functions of theapadana and the entirecomp lex of Persepolis, which has been the subject of long-lasting debate.

DO ME S (B . O'K ane) has used Central Asian material hardly at all. For thetypology of early domes and squinches, it provides a sound overview. T he earli-est genuine domes had diameters exceeding the diagonal of the square baseswhich is why they did not need squinches. The intermediate types consist ofarches between dom es without squinches and domes supported by squinches. Theconstruction, typology, and evolution of domes and squinches have been studiedin the works on Central Asia more thoroughly than for Iran proper.Unfortunately the author has made little use of this literature.

One of the lengthier articles, CLOTHING, consists of 28 sections, all bydifferent authors. As a whole, this is a comprehensive and serious entry. In itsintroduction, it is correctly emphasized that the study of costume is still in itsinitial, descriptive phase. The authors of the introduction dwell on such prob-lems as sources and classification as well as on potential methods of studyingclothing; they describe three main approaches and also some theoretical prob-lems.

After the introduction there is a section on pre-Islamic and Islamic clothin g,followed by clothing of pre-Islamic Eastern Iran, the Sogdians, and the Iraniantribes on the Pontic steppes and in the Causasus. The entry concludes with twovaluable linguistic sections: xxvii. Historical lexicon of Persian clothing(Golam-Hosain Yosofi) and xxviii. Concordance of clothing terms among ethnicgroups in modern Persia(-Eds. of EIr). The article is illustrated with 30 draw-ings and 116 plates and is equipped with an extensive bibliography . I mu st men-tion, however, two important gaps. The history of costume here has its start inthe Median and Achaemenid periods. Obviously, this should have been precededby a section on pre-Median clothing, which is widely reflected in the iconogra-

11. "Problems of the Ethnic History of Central Asia in the 2nd Millennium B.C.E.Central Asian aspects of the Aryan problem,"EthnicProblems of Central Asia in theEarly Period (second millennium B.C.E.)(Moscow, 1981), 154-69.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d B

y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

2

011


8/17


phy of early Iron Age Iran. Secondly, it is strange that although there is a sec-tion on Sogdia there is nothing on Chorasmia or Bactria, even though we havesignificant iconographic sources for them, such as murals (Diberjin, Dalverzin,Khalchayan, Toprak-Kala, Ba'alyk-Tepe, Ajina-Tepe, etc.), sculpture (Surkh

Kotal, Khalchayan, and Toprak Kala), coroplastic (from many places), and textileremnants (including full costumes from Termez). I would have hoped that all ofthis would have been included in the section on pre-Islamic Eastern Iran, but inthis undeservedly short entry these materials have not even been mentioned. Norhas material from central and southeastern Afghanistan been used. A few lines onp. 753 are devoted to the dress of the Iranian population of Eastern Turkestan,but the great bulk of iconographic material from this region has been over-looked. The author has referred to some terms from Khotanese and Sogdian, butthere are no references to the relevant works of H. M. Belenitskii, W . B .Henning, and V. B . Livsh its. I believe that this particular section of the entry onclothing requires much more work and should have a much more complete bibli-ography.

J. W. Allan in ARMOR quite naturally bases the first part of his contribu-tion (concerning prehistoric Iran) on archaeological data. However a great deal ofthe data has not been mentioned. For example, there is a warrior in armor withconical helmet depicted on a silver vessel from Marlik.12 At Hasanlu IV (about900 B.C.E.) bronze and iron scales from scale armor were found and also a pieceof a metallic shoulder armor plate. A bronze rectangular scale was also found at

Ziwije.13

A bronze statuette from Hurvin has plate armor on its chest and abdo-men.14 At Ziwije golden plates from a suit of plate armor were found and warri-ors were depicted clothed in jackets with rows of little squares.15

There are helmets in the M etropolitan M useum of Art, supposedly fromElam (fourteenth century B.C.E.), fashioned in a very artistic manner. A largenumber of bronze and iron helmets dating from the ninth to seventh centuriesB.C.E. of different types come from Western Iran and pictures of them are foundin the art of that provenance. This material has been studied by several scholars.The Avestan m aterials should also have been cited as written sources. The list of

classic written sources providing information on Persian armor is far from com-plete. Babylonian documents of the Achaemenid epoch mentioning the armor ofAchaemenid warriors have not been used. The iconography has not been used atall.16

12. See E. A. Negahban, A Preliminary Report o n M arlik Excavation: Goh ar RudExpedition Rudbar: 1961-1962 (Tehran, 1964), 53, fig. 104.

13. R. H. Dyson, "The Death of a city,"Expedition 2, no. 3, (1960), 10.14. R. Ghirshman, Perse. Proto-lraniens. M edes. Achemen ides(Paris, 1963), 19.

15. A. Perrot, Assur. II. Auflage. (Munchen, 1972), Taf. 177; R. Ghirshman,Tombe princiere de Zivie et la debut de I'art scythe(Paris, 1979), 39, pi. 119, III, 13.

16. See H. Schoppa, Die Darstellung der Perser in d er griechischen Kunst bis zumBeginn das H ellenismus (193 3), passim; A . B ovo n, " Presentation des guerriersperses et la notion de barbare dans la I-ere moitie du Vl-eme siecle,"B GH LXXXVH(1963 ), passim; I. Holscher, "Griechische Historienbilder des 5. und 4. Jahrhun dertsv. Chr." Beitrdge zur Archiiologie 6, passim; M. V. Gorelik, "Zash chitnoevooruzhen ie p ersov i medyan achem enidskog o vrem eni" (Armour of Persians andMedians in Achaemenid times),Vestnik drevnei istorii no. 3 (1982).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t i

o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

2011


9/17

340 Litvinsky

Regarding material discoveries, the author limits himself to mentioningPersepolis but omits Pasargadae,17 Deve Hiiyiik,18 Gordion,19 and Egypt.20 Theremarkable findings at Amaphis and Idalion (Cyprus) may also be connected tothe Achaemenids.21

There is no information on Scythian armor in the article, although this sub-ject has been studied in detail (the bibliographical references are too numerous tomention here).

Some information is available from numismatic iconography.22 ForParthian times cuirasses, statues, and scale armor discovered at Nisa are impor-tant sources.23 There is very rich material on the armor of the Kushans andSogdians; unfortunately none of it is reflected in the entry, although all thesepublications had appeared before this volume of the encyclopaedia.

BELTS i. In ancient Iran (P. Calmeyer) and ii. In the Parthian and Sasanian

Periods (E. H. Peck) both contain rich material and deal with Central Asia,Siberian Scythians, and Hatra as well as Iranitself. Regarding the second sec-tion, it is important to note that composite belts were very widespread in thesixth-ninth centuries C.E. from Japan and T'ang China in the east to Hungary inthe west.

In Central Asia and Sinkiang, the metallic details of belts have been foundin many places as well as being depicted in the murals of seventh-eighth centu-ries C.E. at Ajina Tepe, Afrasiab, Balalyk Tepe, Shahristan, Varakhsha, Kalai-Kafirnihan, and elsewhere. The situation in China, where emperor Kao Tsu

(618-626) had introduced a rule that the type of belt worn must depend on rankand nobility, would have influenced the practice of wearing belts in CentralAsia.24

17. D. Stronach, Pasargadae: A Report on the Excavations Cond ucted by theB ritish Institute of Persian Studies from 1961 to 1963(Oxford, 1978), 181; 222; fig.28; 22 3; M uscarella, op . cit., 1988, 212 , fig. 322.

18. P. R. S. Moorey, Cemeteries of the First M illenium B .C.E. at Deve H tiytik,near Carchem ish, salvaged by T . E. Law rence and C. L. Wo oley in 1913(Oxford,1980), 52-53 .

19. R. S. Young, "The Campaign of 1955 at Gordion. Preliminary R ep ort s,"Am erican Journal of Archaeology, 60/3 (1956): 257 , pi. 86/22.

20 . W. M. Petrie, The Palace of Apries (Memphes, II)(London, 1909), 11, 13, pi.XVI; idem Tools and Weapons (London, 1917), 38-39, pi. XLII/109-114, 115-118.

2 1 . Gjerstad, E. et al.,Findings and Results of excavations in Cyprus (1927-1931),The Swedish Cyprus expedition,vol II (Stockholm, 1935).

22 . P. Gardner, The Coins of the K ings of Ba ctria and India(London, 1866), pi.IX/4; R. B. Whitehead, Catalogue of Coins in the Punjab M useum, Lahorevol. 1:

Indo-Greek coins (Oxford, 1914), pi. IV, 229).23. G. Pugachenkov a, "O panzyrnom vooruzhenii parfyanskogo i ba ktr iisk og o

voinstva" (About the armor of the Parthian and Bactrian Host),Vestnik drevneiistorii, no. 2 (1966).

24. B . Laufer, Jade: A study in C hinese archaeology and religion (Chicago, 1912),286-93 ; Vostochnyi Turkestan v drevnosti i rannem srednevekov'e: Khoziaistvoimaterial'naia kul'tura. Pod redaktsii B . A. Litv insk og o. (East Turkestan in an tiquityand early medieval times. Econo my and material culture. Ed. by B . A. L itv in sk y ),(Moskva, 1995), 232.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t i

o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

2011


10/17


BRONZES OF LURISTAN (O. Muscarella) is a masterpiece of insightfuland critical scholarship. The author clearly distinguishes between excavated andunexcavated objects. As a result he believes that "it is impossible to write ameaningful archeological history of Luristan bronzes at present; perhaps such a

history will never be written" (p. 479). Nevertheless, his contribution maps outways in which the study of "bronzes from scientific excavations in Luristan" and"Luristan bronzes in general" should be conducted.

On the entry CRYSTAL ROCK, I have several remarks. The term for"crystal" should have been given in Khotanese-Mcfara. Perhaps it should alsohave been noted that rock crystal objects including T'ang drinking cups had beensent as royal gifts many times from Samarkand and Kapisa (Begram).25 Rockcrystal beads and seals have been found at Central Asian sites of the third to theseventh_centuries C.E.26

In AHAN, V. Pigott successfully elucidates how iron mining developed, butin my opinion there are still several serious omissions in the entry. There shouldhave been a more thorough discussion of the abundance and variety of ironmanufactures including armor in Urartu.27 The opinion that for the Parthian andSasanian periods "Archeologically, therefore we have only scant indication of theavailability and uses of iron during this time" (p. 627) is mistaken. Actuallyeven for the Achaemenid period, iron was widespread in Central Asia. Iron armoris especially plentiful in the burial mounds of Iranian nom ads (Saka tribes).28 Asconcerns a later period, Bactria from the fourth century B .C.E. to the second to

third century C.E. was a true "Realm of Iron." Excavations of the Temple ofOxus and graveyards of the nomads in Beshkent Valley (south Tajikistan) haveyielded thousands of iron implements of various types: iron arrowheads alonenumbered more than three thousand. There were also hundreds of spearheads,butts, daggers, nails, clamps, and so on. When V. Pigott wrote his entry, infor-mation on these findings had already been published by A. N. Bernshtam, B . A.Litvinsky, A. M. M andelshtam and others.

DERAFS (banner, standard, flag, emblem) (A. Shapur Shahbazi) is attrac-tive owing to its comprehensive use of Iranian and Greek sources as well as of a

plenitude of iconographic material. The bibliography is quite complete omittingonly a few works.29

25 . See E. H . Schafer, The Golden Peaches of Samarkand. A study ofT'ang Exotics(Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1963), 227.

26. B. A. Litvinsky, Ukrasheniya iz mog il'nikov zapadnoi Fergany(Jewelry fromburial courtyards in the west Ferghana Valley) (M oscow, 1973),102-3; L. M.Levina, Etnokul'turnaya istoriya Vostocnogo Priaral'ya (The Ethnocultural H istoryof the eastern part of the territories adjacent to the Aral Sea) (Moscow , 1996), 2 3 8 -3 9 .

27 . See R. B. Wartke, Toprakkale: Untersuchungen zu den M etallobjekten imVorderasiatischen Museum zu Berlin, Schriften zur Gesch ichte und Kultur des A ltenOrients, 22 (Berlin, 1990).

2 8 . See B. A. Litvinsky, Drevnie kochevniki "Kryshi M ira"(Ancient nomads ofthe "Roof of the World"), 1972; B. A. Litvinskii,Eisenzeitliche Kurgan e zwischenPamir und Aral See (Miinchen, 1984).

29. For example: C. Bonner, "The Standard of Artaxexes II,"The Classical Review,61 (1947): 9-10.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


11/17

342 Litvinsky

CERAMICS is one of the longest archaeological articles in the encyclope-dia. It covers the period from the emergence of ceramics in the Neolithic period(7,000 B.C.E.) to the 19th century C.E. The material is arranged chronologicallyand geographically. Twenty tables of drawings of the shapes and ornamentation

of ceramics are included in the text. There are also 35 photos of ceramics of theIslamic period. Every section concludes with a detailed bibliography. The com-parison of this article with the corresponding article inSurvey of Persian Artdemonstrates clearly the degree to which our knowledge in this field has grownin the half of a century since the first edition of theSurvey of Persian Art.Progress in the field of pre-Islamic ceramics is especially noteworthy.Nevertheless I must make several comm ents.

1. When preparing the entry, the geographical limits were not clearlydefined. Most of the authors present and explain ceramic material that comes

from the territory of modern Iran. There are only sporadic references to the cul-tures of southern Turkmenia, though it was a part of Khurasan. There are onlysingle references to ceramics from Afghanistan and Afrasiab (Samarkand). Butthese are not based on any familiarity with the material itself but on secondaryand random articles. One is left to wonder whether Afghanistan and Central Asiawere excluded deliberately. If so , the reason should have been explained.Naturally without them the picture is not as complete as it might otherwise havebeen. In my opinion ceramics from Afghanistan, Margiana, Bactria, Sogd,Chach, and Chorasmia should have been included, perhaps under separate head-ings. This is even more important because ceramic development and the charac-terization of distinct periods for several areas of Central Asia have been workedout in great detail. The entry thus lacks a description of the characteristic ceram-ics of specific periods, for exam ple the Kushanian period.

2. The authors of most of the sections describe ceramics only in terms ofform and ornament. These are very important, of course, but the history ofceramics is not so limited. Also there are no definitions of techniques and tech-nology. The composition of ceramic paste, the ways of making vessels and cor-responding tools and devices, the method of coating the walls of vessels with

slip, applying ornament before firing, the types of glaze and their ingredients,pottery kilns (types, construction, auxiliary stock), single or double firing, thepainting of the finished products and so onall these are missing from theentry.

M. Alram has written a very fine entry, ARSACIDS iii. Arsacid Coinage,with two tables of coins. At the end of the article he speaks of indigenous dynas-ties that exercised the right to mint coins and largely displaced Arsacid currencyfrom their domain. He might also have mentioned Margiana here. In the ancientcity of Merv many such coins were found. In nearby regions two hoards with

500 and 600 examples were discovered. On the obverse of the coins is the headof the ruler and on the reverse a seated archer with the sign n under his bow .Russian numismatists generally agree that coins of this type come from a localMargianian mint. V. N . Pilipko presented a detailed typological classificationand attempted to date individual issues.30 The group as a whole belongs to the

30. "Parfyanskye bronzovye monety so znakom IT pod lukom,"Vestnik drevneiistorii, no. 4 (1980).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


12/17


period from the second half of the last century B.C.E. to the middle of the 3rdcentury C.E. M. Alram 's bibliography lacks several major w orks.31

4. Monuments

The entry ANAW includes i. Prehistoric period by T. C. Young and ii.Historical Period by G. A. Pugachenkova. The excavation team led by R.Pumpelly in 1904 conducted the first scientific excavations of the prehistoricperiod in Central Asia, though from a modern perspective they had seriousdefects. It probably should have been noted that the excavations proper were car-ried out not by R. Pumpelly, a geologist, but by the archaeologist H. Schmidt.However, the first amateur excavation had been conducted long before that byGeneral A. Komaroff.

The long article BISOTUN consists of three sections: i. Introduction, ii.archaeo logy, and iii. Dariu s's inscriptions. The latter is of particular significancefor the author, R. Schmitt, examines versions of Darius's inscription, remnantsof the copies and correlates the three versions (Babylonian, Elamite, and OldPersian). The results of the analyses of the different stages in the genesis of theB isotun m onument are set out in a table.

In COGA MIS, E. Kantor paints a clear picture of the cultural sequence ofthis important monument. The value of the article is enhanced by the fact thatthe material from Chogha Mish has been examined against the background of the

history of the Susiana plain as a whole. COGA SAFID (F. Holl) is organized ina similar fashion. The results of the excavations of Chogha Safid are presented inrelation to the excavations of other monuments of the Dehloran Plain(Khuzistan). The chronological table correlating five monuments of the DehloranPlain is particularly useful.

DAHAN-E GOLAMAN was a large urban settlement in Sistan, and, in allprobability, the Achaemenid provincial capital. It was excavated in 1962-66 byItalian scholars. G. Gnoli has been examining this monument since its discov-ery, and his contribution provides a complete description and excellent analysis.

This is one of the best articles dedicated to an individual monum ent.P. Bernard, author of AY KANOM, heads the excavations of this remarkable

Greek colonial city in the eastern part of the Hellenistic world. The author hassucceeded in presenting the data and at the same time demonstrating the fusion ofHellenistic and Oriental traditions.

G. A. Pugachenkova and E. V. Rtveladze's article AFR ASIAB (the modernname of the site of ancient and medieval Samarkand) is quite comprehensive. Ofcourse, since it was written, many discoveries have been made at Afrasiab byarchaeologists from Uzbekistan (H. G. Ahun-Babaev, O. N. Inevetkina and oth-ers) and France (P. Bernard, F. Grenet). This reviewer has only two com ments. Ido not agree with the statement that "In the 4th-5th century A.D., a time ofcrisis in the slaveholding society and the beginning of the shaping of feudalism,the inhabited area of Afrasiab shrank" (p. 577). The existence of slaveholding

31. For example, G. Ya. Abramishvili, Katalog parfyanskikh mone tGosudarstvennogo muzeya G ruzii(Tbilisi, 1974) and D. Sallwood, "The Drachms ofthe Parthian 'DarkAge'"JRASno. 1 (1976).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


13/17

344 Litvinsky

society in Central Asia was an official Marxist doctrine and all Soviet historians(by the way including myself) tried to demonstrate it, although there were no realfacts and events were "adjusted" to suit this theory. My second comment is thatin reality a decline in urban life in Sogd only took place in the second half of the

fourth century. The invasion of new tribal nomadic confederations had a consid-erable effect in this development.32

P. Bernard's DELBARJINis a model of conciseness, providing a clear pic-ture of the city's structure, its sections, art, inscriptions, and the problems of itschronology in a relatively short article. The article is also accompanied by a bib-liography.

M. L. Carter's BEGRAM details the history of the study of Begram-Kapisaand of the site of the Begram treasure. The author discusses the differing opin-ions concerning chronology itself but does not present any data concerning the

site, its size, and organization.P. Leriche, the coordinator (since 1986) of Mission Franco-Syrienne obDoura-Europas, has published a series of major works dedicated to DURAEUROPOS. This article contains a skillful historical and archaeological descrip-tion of the city. I would only like to add that in the course of describing the cityLeriche failed to mention the very interesting necropolis.33 The bibliographyshould have included G. Hopkins,The discovery of Dura-Europos, 1979 (withdetailed bibliography); W. Hoepfner and E. L. SchwanderHaus und Stadt inklassischen Griechenland (Munich, 1986), 205^4-1 (with accurate architectural

reconstructions).Although C. E. Bosworth provides the information found in written sourceson DEHESTAN, the archaeological material should also have been included. Thewhole region of Dehestan has been examined in great detail, and numerousremains from the Bronze and early Iron Age have been discovered. For theIslamic period the results of extensive excavations at Meshedi Misrian, whichwas the main urban center in the medieval period, are of considerable signifi-cance. The splendid Islamic architectual monuments of Dehestan have also beenexamined in books and articles in Russian.

The same comment is relevant to the article by C. E. BosworthDANDANQAN. The author says that this town was situated tenfarsakhs fromMerv. In fact the ancient city was in the area of Dash Rabad some 60 km fromMerv. Excavations in the early 1940s uncovered remnants of urban life and themost important mosque of the city built in the ninth to early tenth century.Radical rebuilding of the mosque dates to the end of the eleventh century, accord-ing to an Arabic inscription. The mosque has stucco decoration. In 1953 whenthe city was studied in detail, it was discovered that it had first emerged inSasanian times. The location of the city later shifted. The city had a fortified

shahristan as well as a vast (1.6 x 1 km)rabaz during the Islamic period. Lifefinally ended there in the fifteenth century.

32. C. V. Shishkina, "Ancient Samarkand: capital of Soghd,"Bulletin of the AsiaInstitute 8 (1996): 90-91.

33. See N. P. Toll, "The Necropolis," The Excavations at Dura-Europos.Preliminary Report on the Ninth Season of Work 1935-36. ed. M . I. Rostovtzeff etal., pt. 2 (NewHaven, 1946).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


14/17


The article DUSH ANBE is written by M . Atkin on the basis of Russian andTadjik sources, even including articles from Russian and Tadjik newspapers. Thearticle contains a great deal of information. However, histories of the HisarValley, published in Dushanbe, in particular the work of V. A. Ranov and O. S.

Solov'ev, Dushanbe-gorod drevnii [The Ancient city of Dushanbe ], (Dushanbe,1993), were not utilized very well.DEH-E NOW (H. von Gall) deals with four rock-cut tombs in Deh-e Now

near Bisotun. Some of them have rock reliefs on their fronts. The author is espe-cially attentive to a controversial question of dating. Von Gall's evidence andconclusions seem convincing, dating the tombs to the fourth to third centuriesB.C.E. Another article by this author, DA O DOKTAR, argues for the date of"probably the early Hellenistic period" for this particular rock-cut tomb.

In DARAB ii. History and archeology, D. Huff mentions all the archaeo-

logical monuments in Darab and its district and underscores the importance ofDarab in early Sasanian history. This is clearly shown by three rock reliefs(DARAB iii. Rock reliefs by G. Herrmann) and by a building from the time ofShapur II.

Z. Tarzi is the author of BAMLAN. In 1977 he published two volumes ofhis work on the architecture and art of Bam iyan. In this article he gives informa-tion about the history of Bamiyan and a short description of its architecture andart. He follows the idea of an "Irano-Buddhist" art of Bamiyan, which has beenespecially elaborated by Rowland. The bibliography here is too short, and it con-

tains a misprint: the text of Huichao and translation into German by F. Fuchswas published in 1938 not in 1928. About the same time that the encylopediaarticle was being published, D. Klimburg-Salter'sThe Kingdom of Bamiyan:Buddhist Art and Culture of the Hindu Rush(Naples, Rome, 1989), came out.This latter work, certainly, is a serious step forward in the study of Bamiyan.

Mehrdad Shokoohy's article on the caravansary DAYR-E GACIN does notreport the size of the building (the outer dimensions are 108 x 108 m.; thecourtyard 68 x 68 m.) nor that it is surrounded by a rectangle of walls.34

Shokoohy does provide valuable information about the chronology of the cara-vansary.

5. Varia

Here I include articles on archaeological institutions and biographies of the mostprominent archaeologists. DELEGATIONS ARCHEOLOGIQUESFRANCAISES deals with the "delegation" in Iran and the delegation inAfghanistan. The entry was written by the curator of the Museum Guimet, Dr.Francine Tissot. Only one remark should be made. The account of R.Ghirshman's excavations in Begram should have mentioned his important con-tribution to establishing the stratigraphy and chronology of this site. Now wehave the following study of the last period of work of the delegation inAfghanistan; G. Fussinan, "Southern Bactria and Northern India before Islam: a

34. See W. Kleiss, "Qadjarische Lehmziegel Gebiide beim karawanserail Daihr,"Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan,N.S. 13 (1980): 201-6.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


15/17

346 Litvinsky

review of archaeological reports,"Journal of the Am erican Oriental Society,(1996): 243-54 (an excellent and critical review of fieldwork and publications).

The archaeological data of DEH (D. Balland and M . Bazin) are very fragmen-tary. The use of studies by Russian scholarsarchaeologists, orientalists, and

ethnologistswould have allowed the authors to create a more comprehensiveand profound picture of the deh (village) from the early Iron Age to moderntimes.

In DEHQAN, A. Taffazoli asserts that since the eleventh century "thedehqdns gradually lost the ir importance, and the word came to mean simply afarmer" (p. 225). In this regard it is worth mentioning the inscriptions of earlycoins of the Ilek Khans or Karakhanids. Coins minted at the end of the tenth andbeginning of the eleventh century show that local rulers used the titledehqan.35

There is also epigraphic evidence from Central Asia that in the thirteenth to the

fifteenth centuries the termdehqan meant a large landowner and, sometimes, thehead of the local adm inistration.36 This situation existed not only in Central Asiabut also in Sistan. There is relevant material inBada0^ al-waqa3ic, by Zaynal-Din Wasifi. While narrating the events of the end of the fifteenth century, hetells us about a dehqan named Farrukhi who was the owner of a village withover 2000 families and possessor of much wealth.37 Hence different parts of Iranand Central Asia witnessed different evolutions of the class ofdehqans.

The historical part of M. E. Bonine 's article BA ZAR is surprisingly poor asconcerns written sources, and there are no archaeological data at all. The excava-

tions in Pendjikent give an idea of the nature of bazaars in Sogdian tow ns on theeve of the arrival of Islam and of the position of bazaars in city planning. It is apity that the author did not use available studies like V. I. Raspopova, "Odin izbazarov Pendzhikenta VII-VIII vv." (One of the bazaars of Pendjikent in the sev-enth-eighth centuries),Strany i narody Vostoka 10 (1971).

The section of BUDDHISM i. In pre-Islamic times (R. E. Emmerick) con-cerning archaeological monuments of Buddhism in West Turkestan is basedsolely on the works of Russian scholars that have been translated into westernlanguages. The data therefore are very incomplete and inexact. There is no infor-

mation on written Buddhist documents from Termez, Merv, and so on. ThoughBuddhism was not widespread in Sogd, Buddhistic objects and motifs are foundin the art of Panjikent. The statement of Emmerick that Sogdiana was totallynon-Buddhistic therefore should have been made not quite so categorically. Thereis no "Bagram cAli" in the Merv oasis but there is the modern urban site"Bayram cAli". The data about the Buddhistic monuments in Afghanistan arealso imprecise. The colossal Buddhas in Bamiyan date not from the Kushanperiod but from post-Kushanian times, most likely from the sixth to the seventh

35. E. A. Davidovich, "O monetahkh dikhkanov Ilaka kontsa X-nachala XI v." (Onthe coins of the dehqans of Ilaq at the end of the lOth-beginning of the 11th C ) ,Drevnost'i i srednevekov'e narodov Srednei Azii. Istoriya i kultura,ed. B. Gafurovand B. A. Litvinsky (Moscow, 1978), 80-100.

36. A. M. Mukhtarov, "Nadgrobnye kairaki XIH-XVI vv s upominaniem termina'dihkan' (gravestones with the term 'dehqan'),"Epigrafika Vostoka, 18 (1967): 8 0 -9 3 .

37. Zayn al-Din Wasifi, BadaDic al-waqa'i, vol. 2 (Moscow, 1961), 1215-18.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


16/17


centuries C.E. The author proposes a very unusual and strange notion concerningSurkh Kotal: "It may have been the site of a dynastic cult or of an unusualBuddhist sect" (p. 493). What sort of a sect is that? One unknown to the authorand undoubtedly unknown to anybody on earth. In this regard I would like to

remind the reader that the main investigator of Surkh Kotal, the late D.Schlumberger, believed with good reason that there were no Indian features inSurkh Kotal art, that Indian influence had not yet touched this monument.38 Itwas local Bactrian art. But two kilometers from the acropolis of Surkh Kotal,there is another monument. Its decoration is a twin of Surkh Kotal, but at thesame time there are also Buddhistic pictures there. This is evidence of aBuddhistic (Gandharan)-Bactrian synthesis, but it is not Surkh Kotal.Emmerick's bibliography also includes none of the late H. J. Klimkeit's valu-able works.

The article "Anahita in the arts," a subsection of ANAHID, contains valu-able material. Unfortunately the author avoided the question of the attribution ofa female deity (Goddess-Mother) which often has symbols of fertility in thecoroplastics of Margiana, Khorezm, and Bactria. These are especially abundantlyrepresented in Kushanian complexes. Many Russian scholars believe that theyare the Central Asiatic variant of Anahit. There is no analysis of the problem ofcorrelating Nana (or Nanai) and Anahita in Sogdian painting. Valuable contribu-tions on this issue were made by G. Azarpay and B . Marshak.39

The author of DIV, Mahmoud Omidsalar, has collected considerable data

from written sources of the Islamic period and from folk tales. However, he isabsolutely unaware of the richest Central Asiatic materials.40 The evidence inSogdian written sources and onomastic, Sogdian painting, and Iranian miniaturepainting is not used at all in the article. Several of the most important works inWestern languages have also been missed.41

To conclude my review of the articles on the archaeology and pre-Islamic artof Iran, I would like once again to note the superb job that was conducted byProf. E. Yarshater and his collaborators in organizing such a tremendous work.Because authors, considered the scholarly elite of the world, have contributed, the

majority of articles have been written at the highest possible level of scholar-ship.

38 . D. Schlum berger, "The Excavations at Surkh Kotal and the problem ofHellenism in Bactria and India,"British Academy Proceedings,47 (1961): 90-1.

39. See A. B elenitsky and B. I. M arshak, "Cherty mirov ozzreniya sogdiitsev VII-VIII vv. v iskusstve Pendzhikenta" [Characteristics of the worldview of the Sogdiansof the 7th-8th c. in the art of Panjikent], Istoriya i Kultura narodov Srednei Azii(drevnost' i srednevekovye),ed. B . G. Gafurov and B . A. Litvinsky (Moscow , 19 76 ),

77-7 ; G. Azarpay, Sogdian Painting. The Pictorial Epic in Oriental Art (Berkeley,Los Angeles, and London, 1981), 132-40.

40 . B . A. Litvin sky , "S emantika drevnikh verovan ii i obriadov Pam irtsev, [1 ]"[The Sem antic of the ancient beliefs and custom s of the in habitan ts of the Pam ir, I] ,B . A. Litvin sky, ed., Srednyaya Aziya i ee sosedy v drevnosti i srednevekov'e:Istoriia i kul'tura (Moscow, 1981), with an extensive bibliography.

41 . For example: A. Christensen, Essai sur la demon ologie iranienne(Copenhagen, 1941) and Th. Nb'ldeke, "Der weisse Dev von Mazandaran,"Archiv fiirReligionswissenschaft,18 (1915).

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11


17/17

348 Litvinsky

The main part of my specific notes, doubts, and suggestions concerningmany of the individual articles have been set out above. Here I would like toraise some more general questions.

1. There is no consistency in the geographical boundaries of the encyclopae-

dia articles. Is the subject of EIr only Iran in its contemporary geographicalboundaries or is it the whole area inhabited by Iranian tribes and peoples? Inprinciple, the compilers seem to share the second approach, and many articlesconcerning Afghanistan, Central Asia, and Transcaucasia have been included.However, some of the general articles have sections devoted to Central Asiawhile others do not. Only two or three articles have any information on Scythianarchaeology and art. In several articles the authors either make no reference toareas outside modern Iran, or present only random data that show they do notknow the m ain publications and scholarship. Where issues have been much m ore

thoroughly researched for Central Asia, Transcaucasia, and the Scythians, forexample, than for Iran properitself, this has meant an opportunity to expand thehorizon of knowledge on that particular subject has been lost.

2. The inclusion in the EIr of articles on minor archaeological monumentsor groups of artifacts seems to be another problematic issue. Thus, for example,J. G. Shaffer's article DEH MORASl GONDAY, though well-written andresearched, still is one whose inclusion in the encyclopaedia is by no meansobligatory. It would have been sufficient simply to mention the name of thismonument in AFGHANISTAN viii. Archeology. This monument and others

like it have not played a significant part in history or the history of culture.Similar articles are AYBAK, DANESTAMA, and DAM. Articles like thesewould be appropriate only in a specialized work like an archaeological gazetteer,which contains a full list of monuments or groups of artifacts in Iran orAfghanistan. In contrast, articles dealing with the archaeology of Central Asia,Transcaucasia, and the Scythians stand out like a sore thumb for the lack of ref-erences to even the most important cultures and monuments.

3. The articles on monuments vary in their organization and content. Somearticles have no specific or concrete descriptions and a text containing only theo-

retical data, while in other cases the text contains only specific facts and informa-tion. Some articles are accompanied by excellent illustrations; others are devoidof illustrations.

4. Many articles are too short. But I understand that there is a limit to thesize of the encyclopaedia.

Finally, I think that in spite of individual shortcomings the published vol-umes of Encyclopaedia Iranica are a great contribution to the study of Iran andthe Iranian peoples. These volumes enrich world civilization.

D o w n

l o a

d e

d

B y :

[

S w e t s

C o n t e n t

D

i s t r

ib

u t

i o n

]

A t :

22

:14 24

F e

b r u a r y

20

11

Archaeology and Pre-Islamic Art

Documents

Transcript of Archaeology and Pre-Islamic Art