“The Bridge between Eastern and Western Cultures” Volume 2 Number 2 December 2004

In This Issue

Next Issue

About

From the Editor

1907 was a year of remarkablecoincidence. In March, after awinter of stunning discoveries inthe desert, Aurel Stein arrived atthe Mogao Caves near Dun-huang. After learning there ofthe “Library Cave,” he returnedto his excavations along theDunhuang “limes,” in the processuncovering the famous “AncientSogdian Letters.” Back inDunhuang, he would then packoff to London a major part of thetreasures from what we nowknow as Cave 17. As readers ofthis newsletter know, the studyof the Silk Road would never bethe same. Less familiar, I sus-pect, is another event in 1907,which would also result (but notimmediately) in a portentiousdiscovery. In July of that year,when the boxes of Dunhuangmanuscripts were already ontheir way to Europe, the pre-eminent paleontologist of hisday, Charles Doolittle Walcott,first visited the region of theBurgess Shale quarry in westernCanada. His discovery of thespectacular fossils there wouldoccur only two years later, andtheir careful study to arrive at fullunderstanding of their impli-cations would be the work of alater generation. Paleontologyhas never been the same.

Recently I was inspired to re-read the late Steven Jay Gould’sWonderful Life: The Burgess Shaleand the Nature of History, in whichhe makes an eloquent, ifcontroversial, case for thesignificance of the unprece-dented explosion of animal life atthe beginning of the Cambrianera, some 500 million years ago.The evidence for this is in thefossils of the Burgess Shale.

Apart from what his book tells usabout our ancestors (very) farremoved, it is stimulating forwhat it reveals about theuncertain paths of scientificdiscovery. It is a tale about thequestioning of old paradigms,about the impact of institutionaland conceptual limitations onscholarship, about imaginationand new techniques, and aboutcontingency. At the risk ofstretching the analogies, I findinteresting parallels between thestory of studying the Burgessfossils and what we learn aboutthe changing world of scholarshipin contributions to this issue ofThe Silk Road.

Aleksandr Leskov’s article onthe “Maikop Treasure” re-thinksthe old paradigms about thiscollection of early nomadartifacts. Like the Burgess fossils,the Maikop Treasure wasdispersed in separate locationswhere it had never been fullystudied. It has taken Leskov’scareful analysis to “reunite” itand establish (insofar as therecord allows) its history. Thiswork is something akin todissecting the layers of thecompressed soft-bodied animalsof the Cambrian era in order toestablish their three-dimensionalform. While his accomplishmentis the fruition of a lifetime’s studyof steppe archaeology andemploys what we mightcharacterize as traditionalmethods, it also the story ofinstitutional constraints and theaccident of fate whereby Leskovfelt compelled to abandon hisprestigious academic career inUkraine and emigrate to theUnited States. Leskov’s caseserves as a salutory reminder of

• The Maikop Treasure• In Celebration of Aleksandr

Leskov• Greeks, Amazons and

Archaeology• Archaeological GIS in Central

Asiao Archaeological GIS in the

Tarim Basino Archaeological GIS of the

Surkhan Daryao Ancient Settlement Studies in

the Zeravshano GIS, the Silk Road and the

Defensive Systems of theMurghab Delta

o Archaeological Mapping ofAfghanistan

o The Alexandria Archive• Origins of the Jew’s Harp• Excavate in Mongolia this

summer

A special focus on Xinjiang,including:

• Xinru Liu on viniculture• James Millward on Kashgar• an annotated bibliography

of recent Xinjiang studiesand also:

• Connie Chin on scriptureand commerce atBuddhist sites

• Dan Potts on camelsand more....

The Silk Road is a semi-annualpublication of the Silkroad Founda-tion. The Silk Road can also beviewed on-line at <http://www.silkroadfoundation.org>.

Please feel free to contact us withany questions or contributions.Guidelines for contributors may befound in Vol. 2, No. 1 (June 2004)on the website.

The Silkroad FoundationP.O. Box 2275Saratoga, CA. 95070

Editor: Daniel C. Waughdwaugh@u.washington.edu

© 2005 Silkroad Foundation

how politics and scholarshiprarely mix to the benefit of thelatter.

As we learn from JamesVedder’s article, steppe archae-ology has challenged us to re-examine the long-knownevidence of epic and artregarding the Amazons. Hismaterial is part of a larger bodyof evidence and reinterpretationwhich is positing a factual basisfor what commonly had beenseen in traditional Classicalscholarship as figments of theactive Greek imagination.

A substantial focus of thisnumber of The Silk Road concernsthe application of the newesttechnology as a means oforganizing and comparing notonly the full range of archae-ological evidence for Inner Asiabut also a massive amount of newmaterial on ecology, climate, andmuch more. Just as we can nowvisualize the three dimensionalform of the Burgess animals, soalso, thanks to GeographicInformation Systems (GIS)applications, we can begin toconstruct multi-dimensionalimages of archaeological sitesand changes in patterns ofhuman and natural history.

The collection of short piecesby Mariner Padwa, SebastianStride et al. reminds us how goodscholarship depends on not justimagination but on dogged, hardwork in assembling and or-ganizing data. It may come assomething of a shock to realizethat multiple encounters with thesame archaeological site havesometimes led to its beingrecorded in different locations.Developing precise geographiccoordinates for localizing culturalinformation is thus essential, andis far from an easy task, wherethe evidence of earlier mappingmust be correlated with theprecise data obtained fromsatellite imagery. I admire therelative accuracy of the mappingby Stein and Hedin in conditionsthat would test the stamina of

most of us, but I am also mindfulof the fact that some of Hedin’smaps were keyed to the pace ofthe camel he was riding whiletaking compass bearings andsketching. We have nowentered a different world ofprecision, but the only way totake advantage of what thetechnology has to offer is toconvert the accumulated historicrecords. One can hope that thecoordinated activity of theseseveral projects focussing onrelatively small portions ofEurasia will inspire the extensionof this kind of work so thateventually data for all regions willbe connected seamlessly.

It is clear that already theseprojects are revealing newinformation on routes of trade,defensive lines and patterns ofcommunication. If there has beena tendency in popularizations tooversimply the Silk Road, we arereminded here of the complexitiesof the Silk Roads. We can hopethat the new documentation ofarchaeological sites will help inthe effort to study and preservethem in the face of moderndevelopment and looting. Andlastly, a great virtue of theseprojects is their intent to makethe material fully available toeveryone via public-accessInternet sites. Scholarship willnever fulfill its mission if it remainsinaccessible to all but a privilegedfew.

Finally, I amdelighted to noteour contributionfrom MichaelWright, who con-tacted me after wepublicized theprevious issue ofthis newsletter.Attention to musicalong the Silk Roadsoften focusses onthe eastwardmovement ofinstruments such asthe lute (famousexamples being inthe Shosoin imperial

repository in Japan), or evidenceof Western influences asdocumented in T’ang-era mingqior mural painting. As Wrightdemonstrates, the “Jew’s Harp”has a fascinating history oftransmission across Eurasia,most l ikely in the oppositedirection. As in so much elsethese days, archaeologicalevidence forms an important partof the documentation.

Whether you are alreadyinvolved in archaeological workor, like me, are looking forwardto your first experience on anexcavation, the Silkroad Foun-dation is offering an excellentopportunity to participate in onethis summer. Information may befound at the end of this issue.Most histories of the Silk Roadbegin with the story of theinteractions between thenomadic Xiongnu and Han Chinamore than 2000 years ago. Thissummer program will focus onXiongnu sites in Mongolia.

Silk Road studies have comea long way as we approach thecentennial of the greatdiscoveries of 1907. Were we toreturn in yet another century, wemight well be surprised to learnhow little we know now.

Daniel WaughDepartment of HistoryUniversity of Washington(Seattle)dwaugh@u.washington.edu

2

Belt plaque with a tiger attacking a wild donkey.Eastern Zhou Dynasty, Warring States Period,480-222 BCE, Ordos Region. Gilded bronze.Museum für Ostasiatische Kunst, Berlin, Inv.Nr.1965-24a. Photo: Daniel C. Waugh, 2004.

The Maikop TreasureAleksandr LeskovUniversity of Pennsylvania,Philadelphia

To properly begin the story of theso-called Maikop treasure, onemust say at least a little aboutM. A. Merle de Massoneau. Thefounder of the Bank of the Orientin Paris, he had worked for a longtime as the director of theRussian royal vineyards in theCrimea and in the Caucasus. Hisposition clearly indicates not onlyhis material wealth, but also hishigh social status, and explainsas well as the regular work-related trips he had to takebetween the Crimea (where helived in Yalta) and the Caucasus.

During the nearly twentyyears he lived in Russia, deMassoneau had amassed a trulyenormous, unique collection.1

Several documents allow us tojudge its size. Robert Zahn, afamous German archaeologist, forexample, informs Berlin about deMassoneau’s collection: “Thecollection contains various Greekand Roman antiquities, typical forthe south of Russia. Furthermore,it seems to me that the waresmade during the time of the greatmigrations (golden decorations,etc.) are very good, the Islamicancient objects as well as themedieval objects from Circassiantombs (a large collection ofweapons) are all very rich.”2

According to the purchaseinventory, 956 inventory num-bers from de Massoneau’scollection, bought on May 30,1907, went to the BerlinMuseum’s Department ofPrehistory alone. This constitutesapproximately one half of thecollection — in his already citedletter, Dr. Zahn writes that theentire colection, bought for95,000 DM, was divided amongthree departments of the Berlin

Museum. The Prehistory Depart-ment contributed 45,000 DM (ofwhich 42,500 DM came from Mr.Von Diergardt), while theDepartment of Near Asian Art andthe Classics Department con-tributed 25,000 DM each [Damm1988, pp. 65-66]. I do not knowthe number and character of theitems acquired by theDepartment of Near Asian Art, asthey have little relevance to thearchaeology of the Black Seaarea. However, according to thepurchase inventory on June 14,1907, 809 inventory numberswent to the Classics Depart-ment.3 The overwhelmingmajority of these items werefound in the ancient cities of theBosporan Kingdom, 5th centuryBCE — 3th century CE, and in thesynchronous barbarian monu-ments which belonged to theScythian, Sarmatian, andMeothian areas. And this is notsurprising, as the main exca-vation sites in Russia during the19th and early 20th centurieswere ancient Greek cities: Olbia,located in the mouth of theSouthern Bug river; Cherson-esus, on the southern tip of the

Crimea; Panticapaeum, on theeastern side of the CrimeanPeninsula; and Phanagoria, atown on the Taman Peninsula.Also extensively excavated werethe barrows of southern Russia,primarily in the Crimea, thenearby steppes of the lowerDnieper River’s left bank, and thenorthwestern Caucasus (fromTaman to Maikop). Not long priorto de Massoneau’s arrival inRussia, long-term excavations ofextremely wealthy barrows suchas the Major Bliznitsa, SevenBrothers and Karagodeuashkh inthe northwestern Caucasus, andthe Nymphaeum barrows ineastern Crimea, were concluded.During de Massoneau’s stay inYalta, the most famous Scythianbarrows in Crimea wereexcavated: Golden, Talaevskii,

3

Fig. 1. Gold plaque in the shape ofa winged, walking griffin. Adorn-ment of a fabric. H. 3 cm. 5th c.BCE.

Dert-Oba, and Kulakovskii (1890-1895). Meanwhile, discoverieswere made of the Deev and Oguzbarrows a little to the north in thesteppes of the modern Khersonregion, and of the Shulgovka andUshakovskii barrows further tothe east, near the Azov Sea andthe lower Don River areas. Therichest finds of the times,however, were made in theMaikop area. First and foremostcomes the Maikop barrow itself,the richest burial from the 3rdmillennium BCE ever seenoutside of Greece; the First Ul’skbarrow, the tallest in the areasouth of the Kuban River at 15meters high, the central part ofwhich alone contained theskeletons of 360 horses; andfinally the rich Kelermes barrows,

as well as those of Kostromskoi,Kurdzhipis, etc. Sensationaldiscoveries followed one anotherin quick succession. The namesof A.E. Lutsenko, I.E. Zabelin,V.G. Tizengauzen, N.I. Vese-lovskii, and others were widelyknown in Russia and westernEurope. Thousands of gold andsilver decorations, vessels,weapons and horse trappings,including masterpieces of ancientAsian and ancient Greek artfound in the South of Russia atthe end of the 19th and thebeginning of the 20th centuries,constituted a veritable archae-ological boom. Newspapers andjournals regularly reported moreand more sensational dis-coveries, and collecting anti-quities became a fashionableand prestigious activity.

Unfortunately, this “goldfever” led to a troubling increasein grave robbing and to theappearance of large amounts ofarchaeological materials on theblack market. Unlimited pos-sibilities for private collectorswere thus created, the bestexample of which is perhaps thecollection of Merle de Massoneau.

In 1907, de Massoneauconsidered the unstable politicalsituation in Russia and sold hiscollection to the Berlin Museum.The sale was formalized on May30, 1907. Hovever, this salerepresented only a part ofantiquities from Russia thatbelonged to de Massoneau. In1922, a catalog of the remainderof the de Massoneau collectionwas published in Paris. Exhibitedfor sale, this “remainder”contained 117 lots of variousgold, silver, bronze, ceramicmarble and ivory objects from theCimmerian Bosporus.4

I do not know how many ofthe items exhibited for sale in1922 were actually sold, but I doknow that one John Marshall, anagent of New York MetropolitanMuseum’s department of Greekand Roman antiquities bought 32gold plaques from the de

Massoneau collection on August11, 1924, plaques that were notdescribed in the catalog above.5

The meaning of this smallpurchase is difficult to overvalue:of the six types of plaquesrepresented, four types (30plaques) have direct analogs inamong the materials of theClassics Department of the BerlinMuseum, where there are 282plaques of these types[Greifenhagen, 1970-1975, I, p.60, Fig. 37, 1-3; p. 58, Fig. 33, 1-2].

The Berlin plaques constitutea part of the collection theClassics Department bought in1913 from Karapet, an Armenianmerchant6 who declared theitems came from the famousChmirev barrow excavated in1910 [Veselovskii 1909-1910, pp.127-129; figs. 190-202].Sometime later it was shownthat the same four types ofgolden plaques wererepresented by 38 items amongthe several hundred in thecollection of the University ofPennsylvania Museum ofArchaeology and Anthropology(Philadelphia, USA). This col-lection was acquired by themuseum in 1930 under the nameof the “Maikop treasure.” It isworth noting that the collectionof the Berlin Museum’s ClassicsDepartment (acquired in 1913)and of the University of Penn-sylvania Museum share morethan ten other types of goldenwares, represented by manyitems.

The similarity of a significantnumber of items belonging to thethree different collectionsattracted the attention of MikhailIvanovich Rostovtzeff, who in1931 came to the conclusion thathere was a single “very richdiscovery, made [as he thought]in 1912 in the Kuban region,probably in the Maikop area, andsubsequently sold to three (ormore?) parties,” namely theBerlin, Metropolitan, andUniversity of Pennsylvaniamuseums [Rostowzew 1931, p.

Fig. 2. Gold plaque in the shape of awalking stag. Adornment of a fabric.H. 3 cm. 5th c. BCE.

4

Fig. 3. Gold plaque — appliqué witha bent upper edge. Adornment of awood vessel. H. 5 cm. 5th c. BCE

368]. Rostovtzeff emphasizedthat bronze details of a set ofhorse trappings from the Berlincollection indicated the Kubanorigin of the items in thiscollection [Rostowzew 1931, p.367]. It is necessary to add thatthe University of Pennsylvaniacollection contains many itemsanalogous to those in Berlin.Moreover, it appears that someitems from the University ofPennsylvania and Berlin originatefrom one complex.

Not doubting the unifiednature of the University ofPennsylvania and Berlincollections, Rostovtzeff thendetermined their date using ablack-figure kilicos (from theUniversity of Pennsylvaniamuseum — A.L.) that he dated tono later than the first half of the5th century BCE. Note thatRostovtzeff is dating only the partof the collection that belongs tothe Scythian times [Ibid.]

In 1970, Adolf Greifenhagenpublished a catalog of gold andsilver decorations from the BerlinMuseum’s Classics Department[Greifenhagen, 1970-1975]. Ofthis fundamental, two-volumepublication, we are concernedwith 1) Materials bought from deMassoneau in 1907 (Vol. I, Figs.18-28) and 2) Materials fromMaikop bought in 1913 (Vol. I,Figs. 29-38).

1. Items bought from deMassoneau (more than 250 innumber) are typical for Greek

towns int h en o r t h e r nBlack Seaarea andtheir necro-poli. Mean-w h i l e ,practical lyany ofthese ob-jects can beseen inm o n u -ments of

local populations duringScythian-Sarmathian times. Onlya few (about 10 types of items)are characteristic of not Greek butrather Scythian, Meothian, orSarmathian monuments from thesouth of Russia. Thus we willreturn to consider them later.

2. To precious items publishedunder the “Maikop” designation,Greifenhagen adds 45 items,mostly made of bronze but somealso of silver and iron, from thesame collection the museum hadacquired in 1913. Let us noteimmediately that 13 out of the 45published items made of bronze,silver and iron belong to the pre-and post-Scythian times[Greifenhagen, 1970-1975, Vol. I,p. 56, Figs. 25-28, 31-34, 39-43].

During my work on the Maikopcollection in the ClassicDepartment of the BerlinMuseum, I discovered that in1913 significantly more itemswere acquired than Greifen-hagen could publish. The problemwas that a number of items haddisappeared during the SecondWorld War. However, briefinformation regarding theseitems remained in the museum’sinventory. According to thisdocument, there were about 40more exhibits (more actualobjects) in addition to thosedescribed by Greifenhagen. Themajority of the items which haddisappeared were made ofbronze, although some weremade of stone, bone, glass, clay,silver and gold. Most of thebronze items were horse-

trapping details, some manu-factured during pre-Scythiantimes and some made in theScythian animal style. Thisunpublished material completesRostovtzeff’s observationsregarding the unity of the threecollections in the University ofPennsylvania, New York, andBerlin (Classics Department).Apart from the four types ofgolden plaques on whichRostovtzeff’s argument depend-ed, we now possess a muchlarger material from Scythiantimes as well as pre-Scythian,Sarmathian, and medieval eras.

The unity of the three partsof the collection is beyondargument when its fourth part isalso considered. Again it isimpossible to not appreciateRostovtzeff’s foresight when hewrote in 1931 about “three (ormore?)” (emphasis mine—A.L.)buyers of the once unifiedcollection. I mean the part of deMassoneau’s collection thatwent to the PrehistoryDepartment of the Berlin Museumalso in 1907, at the same timethat another part of the samecollection was being acquired bythe Classics Department of thatinstitution.

We can only be surprised atthe fact that objects of the sametype, and plainly identical, couldlie in adjacent departments of thesame Berlin museum for almosta century, and that none of thespecialists paid this fact muchattention. In this regard, it isinteresting to note that as soonas the famous scholar RobertZahn found out from its 1925publication [Alexander 1925, pp.180-181, Fig. 7] that theMetropolitan Museum hadbought golden plaques from deMassoneau’s collection, hepointed out to his New Yorkcolleagues the fact that identicalobjects existed in the ClassicsDepartment of the BerlinMuseum, where he worked, whilethe bronzes from the neighboringDepartment of Prehistory

Fig. 4. Bronze harness plaque inthe shape of a wolf’s head. If thisplaque is turned with the wolf’s headpointing down, then a mountaingoat’s head, facing right, is clearlyvisible. L. 5 cm. 4th c. BCE.

5

remained unnoticed. Meanwhile,the part of de Massoneau’scollection that went to thePrehistory Department contained88 items of pre-Scythian,Scythian, Sarmatian andmedieval times.7 Sixteen bronzedetails of horse trappings,fashioned in the Scythian animalstyle and that belong to this partof de Massoneau’s collectionwere published by H. Shmidt,8 sixof which were published again byJohannes Potratz [Potratz 1960,p. 61, Fig. X.26, XI.28-31; Potratz1963, p. 80, Fig. 59]. One morewas published by Ellis Minns[Minns 1942, P. 1, Ill. I], whilenone of the rest, as far as Iknow, was ever published. It isnecessary to add that someitems disappeared during theSecond World War and areknown to me only from thesurviving old negatives and fromdrawings made in the museuminventory (IIId 7015-7035).

It seems we will never becertain of the method deMassoneau used to divide hiscollection as he prepared it forsale. It is clear that, being a goodbusinessman, he understoodthat if his entire enormouscollection was sold at once, itsmarket value would be lowered.De Massoneau was probablycorrect in his financial calcu-lations. In negotiating with thedirectors of the combined RoyalMuseum in Berlin, he offered tosell the items he knew wouldinterest the directors of specificdepartments.

Thus the Classics Departmentin particular bought the itemsoriginating from ancient townsand their necropoli located in thenorthern Black Sea area[Greifenhagen 1970-1975, Vol. I,pp. 41-53, Figs. 18-28]. Mean-while the Prehistory Departmentacquired the largest part of thede Massoneau collection, wherethe most notable materialconsisted of the treasures fromthe time of the great migrations.Perhaps it was their illustrious

company that kept the onehundred or so bronze, iron, andceramic items characteristic ofpre-Scythian, Scythian, andSarmatian periods from beingnoticed. From the above letter byDr. Zahn, it is known that thecollection offered to the BerlinRoyal Museum was bought in itsentirety.

Six years later, in 1913, thesecond half of the de Massoneaucollection was delivered to Berlinby some merchant namedKarapet, and was offered by himas materials from the Chmurevbarrow located in the steppe onthe left bank of the Dnieper River.As we see, everything was doneto disassociate the name of deMassoneau from the collection onsale. After all, by that time deMassoneau had not been livingin Russia for a long time, he hadsold his collection, and theChmurev barrow was located farenough from Crimea andnorthwestern Caucasus, theorigins of at least 90% of deMassoneau’s archaeologicalcollection. The strategy seemedto have worked — half of theitems was bought by the ClassicsDepartment of the BerlinMuseum, which, as Greifenhagenrightly noted, now became thelargest depository of antiquejewelry from the south of Russiaafter the Hermitage in St.Petersburg [Greifenhagen 1970-1975, Vol. I, p. 10]. The secondhalf of the collection wasacquired by Ercole Canessa, atthe time the most famousantique dealer in the world.9 Itremains unclear whetherCanessa had bought this part ofthe collection in Berlin, or whetherit was first delivered to Paris,where de Massoneau now livedand where one of Canessa’sgalleries was located. It is onlyknown that Canessa moved hiscollections from Paris to Italy in1914, due to the outbreak of theFirst World War.

When the Italian governmentdecide to allocate a special

exhibition area for Canessa’scollections in the Italian pavilionof the Panama-Pacific Interna-tional Exposition in SanFrancisco, his materials weredelivered from Genoa.

In 1915, in the context of thisexhibition that was the biggestcultural event of the year,Canessa showed his collectionsand published a catalog, whereScythian treaures were shown inthe U.S. for the first time[Canessa 1915, lot no. 2]. In thecatalog, “treasures found in thetombs of the Scythian region ofthe Caucasus — Greek work (VIcentury BC)” were published asnumber 2. Then there was a brieflist of all exhibited items, all ofthem characterized as Scythianexcept for one silver cup that wassaid to belong to the “period ofthe Sacae” [Ibid.].

After the San Francisco exhibithad closed, Canessa wrote to themuseum of the University ofPennsylvania about the pos-sibility of its buying a number ofitems from him, as well as aboutsome photographs he had sentthe museum. Certain Scythianobjects, offered to the museumalong with Greek and Romanantiquities, are first mentioned inthe June 26, 1916 letter fromCanessa to Stephen B. Luce,then director of theMediterranean Section of themuseum.

The Scythian items, however,did not interest the museum atthat time. In the July 10, 1916letter, Canessa asked Luce toreturn him the photographs ofthe Scythian items, which wasdone immediately — on July 12,Canessa wrote that he hadreceived the photographs.

One year later, Canessaorganized an exhibit in his NewYork gallery, where, according tothe catalog’s “Greek and RomanGoldsmith Work” section, he wasselling the same treasures froma Scythian tomb from the 6th

6

century BCE [Canessa 1917, Lotno. 1]. The characterization ofthis lot is identical to that of theSan Francisco catalog from 1915.In the next and the largestcatalog of the Canessa col-lection, published in 1919, thesection “Greek and Roman Goldand Silver Objects” opens with lot#78, where the materials thatinterest us are introduced astreasures discovered in theKuban region in the Caucasus, inSouthern Russia. In short,although the entire lot is datedto the 6th century BCE and thealready familiar silver cup is stillsaid to be from the period of theSacae, the objects are no longerpurported to come from thesame complex [Canessa 1919].

All items are divided in threesections: A — gold and silverwares; B — bronze objects; andC — objects manufactured fromvarious materials, such as clay,stone and glass. In all, the list ofitems completely repeats the listsfrom 1915 and 1917.

In 1929, Canessa died, and ayear later, in the last week ofMarch 1930, the American ArtAssociation and AndersenGalleries organized a sale of hiscollection in New York. A catalogwas released for the sale, whereunder #120 material dated to the6th century BCE and called the“Maikop treasure” was published[Canessa 1930]. The catalogueprefaced the incomplete list ofitems (given alphabetically, fromA to P), with a statement that theobjects had been found in theKuban region in the Caucasus in1912, while the Foreword, whichemphasized the most notablematerials, explained that the“famous ‘Maikop treasure’(#120), [had been] unearthed atthe excavations in Scythia during1912" [Ibid., Foreword, ClassicalAntiquities section]. The pre-viously mentioned silver cup(listed here under the letter “0”)was defined in this catalogue asSassanian [Ibid.].

In comparing these fourcatalogs (1915, 1917, 1919, and1930), it is impossible not to notethe low level of scholarshipevident in the characterization ofthe material that interests us.After all, these catalogs had comeout after the publication of Minns’Scythians and Greeks, not tomention the publications inRussian and German, and it issurprising that neither Canessahimself nor the American ArtAssociation (publishers of the1930 catalog) used thenumerous opportunities formaking the chronology of thecollection offered for sale moreexact.

The museum of the Universityof Pennsylvania approached theacquisition of the collectionpublished in 1930 as the “Maikoptreasure” in a completelydifferent manner. The museumconsulted the most importantworld specialist of ancienthistory, art, and archeology ofsoutheastern Europe of the firstmillennium BCE, M.I. Rostovtzeff,who had worked as a professorat Yale University since 1925. Abrilliant scholar of Classical Greekand Roman antiquities, Ros-tovtzeff had received worldrecognition as the best specialistin the area of Scytho-Sarmathianarcheology. His monographshave become classics of worldarcheology and art history,having received the highestregard of their contemporaries,and they remain relevant today.10

And it was Rostovtzeff who, afterfamiliarizing himself with theBerlin part of the collection, hadrepudiated all efforts to connectthe Scythian materials offered forsale with the Chmurev barrow,defining with absolute precisionthe Kuban origins of the objectsthat he had examined, manu-factured in the Scythian animalstyle .

The archive of the Universityof Pennsylvania Museum haspreserved five hand-writtenletters from Rostovtzeff relatedto his participation as the chief

expert in the question of theacquisition of the Canessacollection by the museum.

Honoring the museum’srequest, Rostovtzeff and acolleague from the museum,Helen Fernald, arrived in NewYork one week before the day ofthe auction, and visited theAndersen Galleries, where theyexamined the materials of lot#120, named the “Maikoptreasure.” Earlier, however, in aMarch 12, 1930 letter to thedirector of the museum, HoraceH.F. Jayne, Rostovtzeff hadalready noted the variety and theimportance of the collectionbased on its description in thesale catalog, and had recom-mended that the museum buy it.In a March 24, 1930 letter, thesecretary of the museum, Jane M.McHugh, asked Rostovtzeff tosend the museum an officialmemorandum regarding thevalue of the planned acquisition.It remains unknown whenRostovtzeff sent his memor-andum (the document lacks adate — A.L.), but it must havebeen between the 25th and the28th of March, 1930, as theauction happened on March 29.

Its brevity and precision,clarity and exactitude dif-ferentiate this document thatdefined the fate of thisoutstanding collection of BlackSea area antiquities.

I feel it is necessary to givethe full text of this document[Transcription from original in theMuseum Archives]:

The Museum of the Universityof PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaMemorandum

The inspection of the Scytho-Sarmatian antiquities of thecollection Canessa, which Icarried out with Miss Helen E.Fernald in New York at theAnderson Galleries gavefollowing results.

7

1) The so-called Maikop find isnot one find but consists ofvarious sets which belong tovarious times. All of these setsbelong however to the circleof the Asiatic so-calledNomadic civilisations. Thesets, as far as I can see, arethe following.

A. Set of Scythian antiquitiesof the early Vth cent. B.C. It isa part of a find which wasprobably made in the regionof the river Kuban (N.Caucasus) in 1912 and ofwhich the largest part (themost important articles) cameto Berlin (Antiquarium) andanother (small) part to theMetropolitan Museum. Theobjects in the Canessacollection are interesting andgive a good idea of theScythian burials of the Vthcent.

B. Set of miscellaneousScythian antiquities of the IV-IIIrd cent. B.C. with a slightadmixture of still later things.Representative, and of littlevalue.

C. Objects from a Sarmatianburial probably from N.Caucasus and of the Ist-IIndcent. A.D. Interesting and late.

Especially good is a bronzefibula plated with gold.

D. A silver bowl and someparts of a bridle of a lategrave, probably of the time ofthe Avars or still later (VII-VIIIcent. is just a guess). Rare,interesting and representa-tive.

2) As far as I was able to seeall the Scytho-Sarmatianobjects are genuine. I saw noforgeries among them.

Very truly yoursM. Rostovtzeff

The University of Pennsylvaniamuseum had thanked Rostovtzeffnumerous times for his work, andinvited him to work at themuseum, but only on January30th, 1932 was he able to stopfor a day in Philadelphia on theway from Washington D.C. toConnecticut and work with the“Maikop treasure.”

The result of this work was amore detailed letter fromRostovtzeff concerning theobjects that constitute theMaikop collection. The undatedletter was sent to the museumin the first week of February1932, since in a letter dated

February 9, the director of themuseum, Dr. Jayne, thanksRostovtzeff for his help indefining the objects in the“Maikop collection.” In his lastletter, Rostovtzeff came to theconclusion, after a morethorough acquaintance with the“Maikop collection,” that anumber of bronze waresundoubtedly originating in theKuban region corresponds to theScythian gold of 6th-5th centuriesBCE. At the same time, he doesnot dare attribute to the samepart of the collection certainother items, which, as it turnedout later, were from the BronzeAge or the pre-Scythian times. Incomparing the gold objects fromthe Scythian era with oneanother, Rostovtseff notes thatsome of the objects haveparallels with objects from theCrimea and the banks of theDnieper River. He does notexclude the possibility of theirorigin in the Kuban region, but,taking into account thedifferences in the colors of thegold, some technologicalmethods of manufacture, and thethickness of the plaques, heleans towards the possibility thatthese items constituted their owngroup.

Rostovtzeff further empha-sizes a relatively small group ofSarmathian objects, noting thestrings of beads that belong tothat and earlier periods. Takinginto account the presence amongthe beads of some Egyptianscarabs and figures ofrecumbent l ions, he advisesasking for a consultation fromEgyptologists. The third part ofthe material consists of medievalobjects, which Rostovtzeff, notbeing a specialist, declines tocharacterize.

In conclusion, Rostovtzeffexpresses his readiness topublish the Scythian andSarmathian objects if the relevantphotographs are sent to him.11

It is unclear from his laterletters to the museum whetherhe had received the requestedFig. 5. Gold diadem (Two fragments) decorated with filigree and enamel. L.8.1

and 5.7 cm. 5th century BCE.

8

photographs and whether hewrote the planned article (evenif it were written, it remainedunpublished — A.L.).

Returning to the timeimmediately preceding theauction of the Canessacollection, let us note that duringthe March 21, 1930 meeting ofthe Board of Managers of theMuseum, the possible acquisitionof the Scytho-Sarmatian col-lection was discussed. A memberof the Board since 1916, a well-known businessman andbenefactor, William Hinckle Smith,decided to buy the Maikopcollection for the museum. Thispresent to the Museum seemsespecially generous consideringthat it was offered at the time ofthe Great Depression, whennumerous banks and companieswent bankrupt and the economicsituation was not favorable tosuch impressive donations.

It appears that we will neverknow why the museum, notexpressing interest in buyingCanessa’s collection earlier, nowdecided to acquire it during theGreat Depression, or why Smithsupported the museum’sdecision. I think, however, thatthe terrible warning by AndersenGalleries that it might sell theMaikop collection (lot #120) pieceby piece played a significant role

in the museum’s decision[Canessa 1930, Lot no. 120].Here was a real chance that thetreasure would cease to exist assuch, having been dividedamong many private collectionsof antiquities. Considering thetastes of the collectors at thetime and the principles ofcollection creation, no doubthouse wares and work toolsmade of bronze and iron, a thirdof the collection, would havesimply disappeared. I thinkgenerations of professional andamateur lovers of ancient historyought to be grateful to Mr. Smithand the University Museum forsaving this magnificent collectionof antiquities from southernRussia. The importance of thePennsylvania acquisition in-creases many times when it isunderstood that this is at oncethe only large archeologicalcollection from Eastern Europe inNorth America as well as a partof the world’s largest collection(outside of Russia) that describesthe material and spiritual cultureof tribes inhabiting the steppesof the northern Black Sea areaand the foothills region of thenorthwestern Caucasus for 4500years, from the 3rd millenniumBCE to approximately 1400 CE.

More than a hundred yearsago Merle de Massoneau hadbegun amassing the collectionthat only in the 1930’s found itspermanent owners. The mus-eums of Berlin, New York, and theUniversity of Pennsylvania, aswell as Cologne became theowners of the largest collectionof antiquities from EasternEurope outside of Russia. Manyrevolutions had now died down,two world wars had passed, theSoviet Union had appeared anddisappeared, and the Russia freeof Communism returned to theworld community. Nazism wasdestroyed in Germany, whichafter a forty year division becameone again and entered the unitedEurope. The objects created bygenerations past and saved bythe museums for future ones had

become mute witnesses ofmodern history. Unfortunately,the storms of history did notspare the objects themselves. Inparticular, many rich finds fromroyal Scythian barrows (Aleksan-dropol, Chmurev, Mordvinovskii)that had been preserved in theKharkov Museum of Historydisappeared during the SecondWorld War. I had had theopportunity to work with manyobjects damaged by fire in thesame war in the museums ofUkraine and Germany. I was trulyhappy when in 1989, during myfirst visit to the Berlin Museum’sPrehistory Department, I sawsome Bronze Age objects thatbefore the war had been kept inthe Kherson museum of localhistory. Thanks to the kindnessand collaboration of the scholarsfrom Berlin, these objects boughtby the museum from a privateparty had been returned to theKherson museum by the early1990’s.

During the course of my workwith the Berlin part of the Maikopcollection, I encountered againthe consequences of the SecondWorld War. The reader alreadyknows that some of the objectspreserved by two departments ofthe Berlin Museum had beendamaged by fire, while someothers were broken and survivedin fragments, and still othersdisappeared altogether. Happily,

Fig. 6. Gold earrings decoratedwith filigree and granulation. H. 2.6cm. 5th c. BCE.

Fig. 7. Gold bracelet decorated withrams’ heads (one broken) on thefittings. Diameter 7 cm. 5th c. BCE.

9

both departments had inventorybooks, compiled respectively in1907 and 1913. These pro-fessional books included theobjects’ inventory numbers, theirbrief descriptions, including theirdimensions, and most impor-tantly sketches of these objects,the quality of which can beascertained by comparison withactual surviving items.

In this manner, because oftheir descriptions in the inventorybooks, the hope of recoveringthese objects still exists. The firststep in this necessary directionis the corresponding publicationof these materials using thearchival information, not only thedescriptions and sketches butalso surviving photographs andnegatives. Naturally, thecatalogue of the proposedpublication of the Maikopcollection would include allinformation known to meregarding the missing objectsalong with their inventorysketches and photographs. Ihope such a publication wouldbecome the property of manyspecialists and amateurs of themuseums in the Old and the NewWorlds, of major auction houses,and relatively small antiquegalleries and stores. After all, thevery existence of such a pub-lication would not only return amissing archeological source toworld history, but also fulfill afiscal function important to all inthe museum profession:wherever these objects appear,people must know they are beingsought, that they had beenstolen during the Second WorldWar and must be returned to therightful owners, the BerlinMuseum’s Departments ofPrehistory and Classics.

It is said that wars are notover until the last soldier isburied. I would like to add: andnot until the monuments ofmaterial and spiritual culture ofthe past, ones that belong to allof humanity, are returned tomuseums from which they werestolen.

I think that returning stolenart treasures is an importantmoral and ethical problem ofmodern times, one that must beaddressed by organizations suchas UNESCO as well as by thescientific and cultural communitiesof the world. I am an optimist,and I have some reasons forbeing one. Think, my dear reader,how we could hope that after theSecond World War the worldcould see again, for example,treasures brought by Schliemannfrom legendary Troy. With effortsby the world community it hashappened already [Tolstikov andTreister 1996]. Similarly, a day willcome when we will discover thatitems that had disappeared fromde Massoneau’s collection arefound! The proposed book willhelp this process; that reasonalone makes it worth writing andpublishing. And so I would like tohope that the introduction of theworld’s largest collection ofantiquities from the northernBlack Sea area, a collection thatis virtually unknown to specialistsin Russia, Ukraine, and Georgia,and to all who are somehowconnected to the study ofcivil izations of the EasternMediterranean, will be a positiveimpulse for a thoughtful analysisof this multifaceted archaeo-logical source.

Now this book is ready. We inthe University of Pennsylvaniaare waiting for sponsors’ anddonors’ help which we need forpublication of “The MaikopTreasure.”

About the Author

Dr. Aleksandr MikhailovichLeskov (aleskov@sas.upenn.edu) is a Senior Research Fellowin the Department of the Historyof Art, University of Pennsylvania.In 2001-2003 he was the RodneyYoung Fellow at the University ofPennsylvania Museum ofArchaeology and Anthropology.Prior to that he was a VisitingScholar at the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley, and he has

been a visiting professor in majorEuropean universities. For anappreciation of his distinguishedcareer and a bibliography of hismajor publications, see thefollowing article here byAleksandr Naymark.

References

Alexander 1925Christine Alexander. “Jewelry andMiscellaneous Small Antiquities:Recent Accessions.” Bulletin of theMetropolitan Museum of Art, 20/7(1925): 180-183.

Damm 1988Inciser Gürçay Damm. “Gold-schmiedearbeiten der Völker-wanderungszeit aus demNördlichen Schwarzmeergebeit.”Kölner Jahrbuch für Vor- undFrühgeschichte, 21 (1988): 65-210.

Canessa 1915[Ercole Canessa]. Catalogue:Canessa’s Collection. Panama-Pacific International Exposition,1915. Introd. by ArduinoColasanti. San Francisco:[Canessa Printing Co.], 1915.

Canessa 1917C. & E. Canessa. A Catalogue ofMinor Art: Collection formed by C.and E. Canessa, on exhibition attheir galleries...February-March1917. New York: CanessaGalleries, 1917.

Canessa 1919C. & E. Canessa. Il lustratedCatalogue of the CanessaCollection of Rare and ValuableObjects of Art, of the Egyptian,Greek, Roman and RenaissancePeriods. With descriptive materialby Ernest Govett, StellaRubinstein, and Arduino Cola-santi. New York: Privatelyprinted for C. & E. Canessa, 1919.

Canessa 1930An important collection of rare andvaluable antiquities: Gothic andrenaissance furniture, importantItalian Renaissance bronze, stone

10

number containing writings byand about M. I. Rostovtzeff.]

Tolstikov and Treister 1996Vladimir Tolstikov and MikhailTreister. The Gold of Troy:Searching for Homer’s Fabled City.Intr. Irina Antonova, tr. ChristinaSever and Mila Bonnichses. NewYork: H. N. Abrams, 1996.

Veselovskii 1909-1910Nikolai Ivanovich Veselovskii.[“Raskopki N. I. Veselovskogo vKubanskoi obl.”] Otchet Arkheo-logicheskoi komissii. 1901-1910(1913).

Notes

1. Referencing the letter by D.von Bothmers (December 12,1961), the literature contains amistaken report that deMassoneau had accumulated hiscollection over five years (1890-1895) — see Greifenhagen1970-1975, Vol. I, p. 41; see alsoDamm 1988 , p. 65). At the sametime, the latter article (p. 67)notes that among early medievalmaterials from the de Massoneaucollection, the most important arethose discovered in Kerch, in thetomb opened on May 24, 1904.Clearly, de Massoneau continuedto enlarge his collection at leastas late as the second half of1904.

2. Archive of the Berlin Museumfür Vor- und Frühgeschichte,#1128/07 (translation fromGerman mine — A.L.).

3. Information kindly provided meby the keeper of the collectionof de Massoneau, Dr. GertrudPlatz (her letter to me of August21, 2002).

4. Catalogue 1922. Objectsoffered on sale originated ineastern Crimea, the TamanPeninsula and the neighboringKuban regions.

5. Archive of the MetropolitanMuseum of Art, New York, Letterno. 58 of John Marshall.

& marble sculptures, primitivepaintings & early wood carvings,rare Greek & Graeco-Romansculptures & pottery, gatheredfrom famous European collections,by the late Ercole Canessa ... NewYork: American Art Association,Anderson Galleries, Inc., 1930

Catalogue 1922Catalogue des antiquités grècques,romaines et barbares du BosphoreCimmerien. Paris, 1922.

Greifenhagen 1970-1975Adolf Greifenhagen. Schmuck-arbeiten in Edelmetall. 2 vols.Berlin: Stattl. Museen Preuss.Kulturbesitz, Antikenabteilung,1970-1975.

Minns 1942Ellis H. Minns. The Art of theNorthern Nomads (Annual lectureon aspects of art, Henriette Hertztrust of the British Academy,1942). London: Milford, 1944 (firstpublished in Proceedings of theBritish Academy, 18).

Potratz 1960Johannes A. H. Potratz.“Skythische Kunst.” Orientalia,N.S. 29 (1960).

Potratz 1963Johannes A. H. Potratz. DieSkythen in Südrussland: Einuntergangenes Volk in Süd-osteuropa. Basel: Raggi, 1963.

Rostowzew 1931Mikhail Ivanovich Rostowzew[Rostovtzeff, Rostovtsev]. Sky-thien und der Bosporus. Berlin: H.Schoetz, 1931.

Shmidt 1927Hubert Shmidt. “SkythischerPferdegeschirrschmuck auseinem silber Depot unbekannterHerkunft.” Prehistorische Zeit-schrift, 18 (1927).

SKIFIKA 1993SKIFIKA. Peterburgskii Arkheo-logicheskii vestnik No. 5 (St.Petersburg, 1993). [Special

6. Antiken Abteilung StaatlicheMuseen, Berlin, Inventory Book,p. 35 (Protocol of July 8, 1913).

7. If we are talking aboutmedieval items, we shouldremember that at the end of1935 and beginning of 1936, 673items were sold (according toDiergardt’s will) to Cologne’sRömisch-Germanisches Museum.Two hundred of them, wellpreserved after the war, becamethe theme of a specialpublication. All these itemsbelong to the time of the greatmigrations and are dated to the4th-6th centuries CE. See Damm1988, pp. 65-21O.

8. Shmidt 1927, pl. 9. Two objectspublished here do not belong tothe de Massoneau collection,namely a plaque in the shape ofa moose (inv.#7036), from the P.Mavrogordato collection, and apart of some bimetallic (bronze,iron) object in the shape of ahorse leg (inv.#5826), from thecollection of R. Virhov.

9. For Canessa’s activities in theworld antiques market, seeCatalogue 1915, Introduction byProf. Arduino Colasanti.

10. His important books includeAntichnaia dekorativnaia zhivopis’na Iuge Rossii (1914), Ellinstvo iIranstvo na Iuge Rossii (1918) [hisIranians and Greeks in SouthRussia is a separate work and notmerely a translation of this intoEnglish — ed.], Skifiia i Bospor(1925), and The Animal Style inSouth Russia and China (I929).For a complete listing ofRostovtzeff’s works concerningthe study of southern Russia, seeSKIFIKA 1993, pp.9-11.

11. Archive of the University ofPennsylvania Museum ofArchaeology and Anthropology,Letter of M. I. Rostovtzeff,undated, early February 1932.

11

In Celebration ofAleksandr Leskov

Aleksandr Naymark*Hofstra University

Professor Aleksandr Leskov isknown in Ukrainian and Russianarchaeology as “Sasha theGolden Hand.” Indeed, goldjewelry and toreutic from hisexcavations in the Crimea andsouth Ukrainian steppesconstitute a significant part ofthe collection in the UkrainianMuseum of National Treasures inKiev, while his excavations onthe northwestern Caucasus(Adygeia) formed the core of the“Golden Chamber” in theMoscow Museum of Oriental Art.Leskov is undoubtedly respon-sible for more discoveries ofancient gold than any livingScythian archaeologist.

Given that the odds of findingtrue treasures in archaeologicalexcavations are about the sameas for winning a major lotteryjackpot, everybody unavoidablyasks: what is the secret ofLeskov’s never-fading luck? Thetruth is, there are no miracleswhich lead to buried treasure. Atleast three serious factors havealways significantly increasedthe probabil ity of Leskov’ssuccess.

The first is his organizationalability which enables him tomarshal substantial resourceseffectively. Excavation of a majorScythian barrow involvesobtaining sizeable funding andsupplies, interacting with

multiple institutions, andcoordinating the daily work ofdozens, if not hundreds, ofpeople. Leskov manages suchundertakings with an iron willand in turn inspires devotion fromthose he is supervising. Duringthe Adygeia excavation seasonsof the 1980s, I remember himrepeating again and again: “Youhave only one excavation seasonin your life. It is this very one. Thenext season will be different andwill take place in a different year.You have to do the maximumtoday.” Doing the maximum ofitself should maximize theresults.

Yet his success requires asecond talent, the ability to selectthe best excavation site throughconsideration of all the geo-graphic, topographic andhistoriographic data about thesteppes. For example, hisselection of Adygeia for theexcavations in the 1980s beganfrom his understanding that themajor passes through Caucasianmountains were the shortestroute to the rich coastal areas ofthe Black Sea and further to thecenters of Near Eastern civili-zations in the northwesternCaucasus. These considerationswere supported by his analysisof a great number of excitingdiscoveries in the area rangingfrom the early Bronze Age

kurgans like the Maikop barrowto the burials of the Belo-rechenskaia culture filled withobjects brought by the Levantinetrade of the 14th and 15thcenturies CE. The last link in thelogical chain leading to Leskov’sdiscovery of the now famousUliap barrow field was hisknowledge of the collection ofthe local museum - a cauldrondelivered there by a tractoristfrom Uliap field belonged to thetype which, as Leskov knew,could be found only in the richestof Scythian burials.

The third and most importantfactor is Leskov’s personalphilosophy: “The archaeology ofthe steppes has its own dialectic— only quantity brings qualitythere.” In other words, only large,long-term excavations requiringyears and years of self-disciplineand patience can bring majorresults. To test this conclusion,one would need, like Leskov, toexcavate more than 400 barrowswith thousands of graves, thelion’s share of them belonging tothe Bronze Age period. In fact,Leskov’s most important booksare not devoted to hisspectacular Scythian finds butrather deal with the lessimpressive but equally in-teresting period of the lateBronze Age and the transition tothe Early Iron Age in the steppes.

12

In short, the secret ofLeskov’s success is prosaic: hisdedication and focus, his abilityto mobilize knowledge, and hardwork. What shaped this man’sstrong personality? Born inKharkov, Ukraine, on 19 May1933, Aleksandr lost his father toStalin’s purges at age four andgrew up with his mother partiallyin Ukraine and partially (duringthe five years of World War II) inevacuation in Central Asia andAzerbaijan. His interest in ancientart and archaeology goes backto the age of thirteen — as asixth-grader he came across astack of books on the ancientOrient while visiting a cousinstudying history at Baku Uni-versity. This interest quicklydeveloped into a passion andeven pushed into second placechess, where Leskov alreadyshowed great promise byearning “master candidate”status at the age of 15. (To thisday he still can play blindfoldedthree matches simultaneously.)His lack of interest in naturalsciences almost turned Leskov’shigh school studies into adisaster, but fortunately thegrades on the high schooldiploma were not the majorcriterion for university admissionat that time. Entrance examina-tions were more important and,given Leskov’s field of special-ization, the ones that countedwere those in humanities, i.e.literature, history and languages.

The archaeological expeditionof Kharkov University, headed bythe then young Boris AndreevichShramko, served as Leskov’s firstschool of field work. It was duringa visit to this expedition, thatProfessor Bibikov, Director of theInstitute of Archaeology of theUkrainian Academy of Sciences,noted the bright student andinvited him to apply for graduateschool in Kiev. An early doctoratein 1961, the publication of thefirst book in 1965, and majorsuccess in field work promisedLeskov a great career. His imageas a very promising youngscholar was certainly reinforcedby the epic sum of one millionrubles (a worker’s daily salarybeing 1.59 rubles), which hesqueezed from the Ministery ofMelioration of the USSR for theexcavation of endangeredmonuments in Kherson province.On the basis of this financialsupport, the first Sovietdepartment of contract archae-ology was formed in the Instituteof Archaeology of the UkrainianAcademy of Sciences. Thefollowing decade was a busytime fi l led with huge fieldprojects, a large number ofpublications, honorable officialappointments such as the actingeditorship of the three-volumeArchaeology of Ukraine project,and even some recognitionbeyond the Iron Curtain. Forexample he was invited toconsult on the volume The First

Horsemen in the Time-LifeBooks series, and a specialnumber of Antike Welt wasdevoted to Leskov’s workon Scythian barrows. Hisdiscoveries even won himan important state prize.

Yet, in the weird,unstable political climate ofthe Brezhnev “Era ofStagnation” almost any-thing could be pregnantwith unexpected trouble. Ata New Year’s party held inthe Kiev ArchaeologyInstitute in 1972, fourmembers of Leskov’s

Kherson archaeological teamsang a song with semi-politicalRussian words to the tune of thefamous “Sholom Aleyhem.”Exposure of the “Zionists”followed, and since their chiefLeskov tried to rescue them, hewas accused of failing to providesufficient “political guidance” inhis division. Note was taken ofthe fact that Leskov’s expeditiondid not have a single member ofthe Communist Party in it. Aftera short delay, Leskov was firedon 20 April 1973. As if it were notenough, this measure wasfollowed by an unofficialmoratorium on any publicationsby Leskov and even on anyreference to his work in printedmatter produced in Ukraine. Forthe next three months Leskovwas unemployed and then was“sent” to the institute ofcybernetics of the UkrainianAcademy of Sciences, where hewas to take part in thedevelopment of the keywordvocabulary for a computer searchsystem being designed forarchaeological databases. This“appointment” lasted for a yearand a half and very muchresembled involuntary con-finement intended to prevent hishaving any connection with realarchaeology.

No one at all familiar withLeskov would expect him to haveaccepted this defeat. He cut hislosses and used this time tocomplete the gigantic text of hishabilitation dissertation “ThePre-Scythian Period in SouthernUkraine,” which he submitted forconsideration to the MoscowInstitute of Archaeology of theAcademy of Sciences of theUSSR. The Department ofScythian and SarmatianArchaeology of this leadinginstitution deemed this workready and assigned the date forpublic defense. Yet the story ofthis dissertation turned into oneof the most famous politicalscandals in the Soviet archae-ology of the 1970s. The so-calledexternal review from the

Leskov and his associates atthe Uliap excavation.

13

Department of Archaeology ofMoscow University was com-pletely positive as were theexamination reviews provided bythe three major specialists in thefield employed in the process ofthe defense as the officialopponents: Academician andDirector of the State HermitageMuseum, B.B. Piotrovskii; theDirector of the MoscowDepartment of Scythian andSarmatian Archaeology, Pro-fessor K.F. Smirnov; and the Headof the Department of ScythianArchaeology at the Kiev Instituteof Archaeology of the UkraininaAcademy of Sciences, Dr. A.I.Terenozhkin. There were anumber of unsolicited laudatoryexternal reviews from leadingspecialists such as Professors A.P. Griaznov and I. M. D”iakonov.No objections were raised in thecourse of the discussion. And yet,when the ballot box was opened,one third of the balls turned outto be black. This meant that thedissertation had failed. Thisunprecedented discrepancybetween the publicly-assertedquality of the dissertation andthe secret vote meant only onething: the small circle ofcommittee members closelyassociated with the Director ofthe Moscow Institute ofArchaeology, Boris Rybakov,sadly famous for his anti-Semitism, unanimously cast thenegative vote. Indeed, Rybakovwas known to say publicly aboutLeskov: “So long as I am alive,this ‘American’ will never work inan institution of the Academy ofSciences.” Most disturbing wasthe thought that, even with thispre-determined negative part ofthe vote, it could have come outdifferently if all members of thecommittee had been present onthat day. In fact, several people,including Professor Otto Bader,were so sure that the quality ofthe work would result in apositive vote that they did noteven bother to attend thedefense. The majority of thecommittee was appalled anddrafted a petition, threatening to

turn this case into the beginningof an academic “war.” Leskov,however, chose anotherapproach. Within the nextseveral months he reworked60% of the text (as the officialrules required for the re-defense)and in less than in a year broughthis dissertation to the samecommittee again. This time evenRybakov wanted to avoidconfrontation and sent anunofficial message to Leskovasking him to submit the work toanother committee (it could alsobe done at Moscow University, orin the Leningrad or NovosibirskDivisions of the Institute ofArchaeology), but Leskov refusedto do so. This second time theentire archaeological communitywas alerted and all the membersof the habilitation dissertationcommittee were present. As aresult, there were enoughpositive votes to pass thedissertation, although there wasexactly the same number of blackballs (eight) in the box as in thefirst case.

Although victorious, Leskovfound himself in a difficultsituation. Primarily a fieldarchaeologist by vocation, hewas confined to the editorialdepartment in the Museum of theHistory of Religion and Atheismin Leningrad. An optimist, he kepthoping for the best. Meanwhilehe continued publishing — fourof his books came out during thefollowing four years.

“Stay ready and opportunitywill come,”says Russian folkwisdom. By the very end of the1970s, it became clear even tosome members of thegovernmental elite that thebrainless melioration policies andthe unrealistic “plans” requiringexceedingly high productionlevels from collective farms hadled to the mass destruction ofarchaeological monuments,especially in the agriculturalregions of the eastern part of theSoviet Union. In response to thisproblem a government rescript

was issued in 1980 leading to thecreation of a special archae-ological department in theMoscow Museum of Oriental Art.That is when somebody in theadministration of the Ministry ofCulture remembered aboutLeskov, who was offered theopportunity to head the newventure.

Several successful excavationseasons in the NorthernCaucasus followed. Among thediscoveries were stunninglyinteresting archaeologicalmonuments — the first Scythiansanctuaries of the type describedby Herodotus. As if this were notenough, they were (quite inLeskov’s tradition) full of richfinds. The 1982 season aloneyielded almost a thousandobjects of precious metals,among them the now famousUliap silver rhyton, an amazingsculpture of the High Classicalperiod. This looked like one of themiracles which the Sovietbureaucracy always expectedbut never really achieved — agovernmental decision and theallocation of modest funds hadimmediately brought sensationalresults. Stunned by this, theState Committee for Scienceassigned huge funds to thearchaeological work of themuseum, which allowed Leskovto hire new people, eventuallyturning the museum’s Depart-ment of Ancient Art and MaterialCulture into the second largestarchaeological institution inMoscow. As a result severalmore excavation projects in theNorthern Caucasus werestarted, and the work of theinstitution expanded into CentralAsia and Siberia. The finds ofLeskov’s expedition attractedattention in different countries,and a traveling exhibition of thembegan to make the rounds of theworld’s capitals. This coincidedwith a time of great hopes —Gorbachev started the Pere-stroika process, allowing suchpolitically dubious figures asLeskov to travel and even receive

14

temporary appointments abroad.Within the next decade Leskovheld a number of honoraryfellowships in all kinds ofEuropean institutions and shortterm teaching positions in severalmajor European universities.

It was in 1990 at the heightof all these activities when, afterbeing a member of Leskov’steam and a personal friend foreight years, I notified him aboutmy plans to emigrate to theUnited States. He was not happywith the fact, but merely saidsomething which I believe was apart of his credo: “An archae-ologist should be close to theland, while by leaving the countryyou cut these ties.” Thus it wasquite a surprise when six yearsafter my departure in thefollowing year, I received a callfrom the new immigrantAleksandr Leskov. A few monthslater, Leskov came with lecturesto Bloomington, and, sitting in mydining room, told me the sadstory of everything coming to ahalt in Russia, about the sameparty functionaries controlling theball, albeit with much lessregulation by the state, aboutthe growing corruption, about theabsence of funds and lack ofopportunities for field research.Surprising as his decision mightseem, it was very clear why evensuch an optimist and practicalmagician as Leskov would leavethe country.

As an immigrant myself I haveseen many excellent scholarsfrom the former Soviet Unioncome to the United States and,after struggling for some time,drop their ambitions andabandon their research. This isespecially common among thepeople of the older generationwho have but very little chanceto proceed with their pro-fessional careers. Yet Leskov isthe only one whom I personallyknow, who came to the USA nearretirement age (he was 64!) andinstead of accepting the quiet lifeof a retiree kept fighting for the

continuation of his professionall ife. Many of our joint ac-quaintances were more thanskeptical — Leskov did not evenhave a command of spokenEnglish. But he studied thelanguage and tried, and heworked and pushed. Of coursethere were people whounderstood the situation, saw hisefforts and helped. Leskov toldme many times how grateful heis to Professors David Stronach,Philip Kohl and Holly Pittman,without whose encouragementhe would have lost the faith.

It is already the fourth yearthat Leskov has been hosted bythe Museum of Archaeology andAnthropology at the University ofPennsylvania, where he worksunder the auspices of ProfessorsDonald White and Holly Pittman.Presently, he is preparing the fullpublication of the famous Maikoptreasure, the largest collection ofthe ancient artefacts from theEastern European steppeshoused outside the museumcollections of Russia and Ukraine,which happens to be dividedamong the collections of theUniversity of PennsylvaniaMuseum of Archaeology andAnthropology, the StateMuseums of Berlin and theMetropolitan Museum of Art. Infact, he made here another mostimportant discovery: according tohim the Maikop hoard is by nomeans a treasure, but a privatecollection of the Frenchadventurer M. A. Merle deMassoneau, which was sold inthe early 20th century to differentinstitutions and private indi-viduals. In other words, whatscholarly literature during thelast century treated as onecomplex of finds (although notfree from admixes), turns out tobe a random selection of objectsfrom various regions (Ukraine,Crimea and NorthwesternCaucasus) belonging tocompletely different epochs fromthe early Bronze Age to theMedieval period!

What does Aleksandr Leskovdo now that he has celebratedhis 70th year? If you ask himabout the essence of his presentlife, he will tell you that he is ona mission to increase theawareness of the ancientcultures of the Eastern Europe inthe American academic com-munity by showing the pivotalrole of the steppes in theformation and development ofEurasian civilizations. Two yearsago he organized the first majorprofessional archaeological tourthrough the monuments andmuseums of Ukraine. He hasrecently joined the efforts ofProfessor Renata Holod toorganizes a center of Ukrainianarchaeology at the University ofPennsylvania. Among their plansare publications of scholarly andpopular books devoted to theancient cultures of the area, fieldprojects and, of course, thetraining of graduate studentswho would in the future deal withthis field of study in the USA. Partof the plan is to exchangegraduate students betweenUkrainian research institutionsand The University of Penn-sylvania.

As is always the case withLeskov, he has many other ironsin the fire... One which beganlast year was to join an Israeliproject “The Seventh Century,”being developed by the OlbrightArchaeological Research In-stitute. Following this, he spentthree months studying archae-ological collections in Israel andJordan. He hopes to find materialevidence testifying to thepresence of nomads from theEurasian steppes, whom theBible and other early MiddleEastern annals mention aspassing through this area in theiroffensive against Egypt in theseventh century.

Let us wish him good luck inthese and all his futureendeavors!

15

Books by Aleksandr Leskov

(editor). Ul’skie Kurgany (The UlBarrows). Berlin; Moskva, inpress.

(with V. R. Erlikh). Mogil’nik Fars/Klady: pamiatnik perekhoda otepokhi pozdnei bronzy k rannemuzheleznomu veku na Severo-Zapadnom Kavkaze (The Fars/Klady Cemetery). Moskva:Gosudarstvennyi muzei Vostoka,1999.

(edited with H. Müller-Beck).Arktische Waljäger vor 3000Jahren: unbekannte sibirischeKunst. Mainz: v.Hase und Koehler,1993.

(edited with B. Ia. Staviskii).Kul’turnye sviazi narodov SredneiAsii i Kavkaza: drevnost’ isrednevekov’e (Cultural Con-nections of the Peoples of CentralAsia and the Caucasus inAntiquity and the Middle Ages).Moskva: Nauka, 1990.

(edited with L. Noskova). I Tesoridei Kurgani del Caucaso set-tentrionale: nuove scoperte degliarcheologi sovietici nell’Adygeja enell’Ossezia settentrionale. Roma:De Luca, 1990 (also in Germanas: Grabschätze vom Kaukasus:neue Ausgrabungen sowjetischerArchäologen in der Adygee und imnördlichen Ossetien).

Grabschätze der Adygeen: neueEntdeckungen im Nordkaukasus.München: Hirmer. 1990.

(edited with V. L. Lapushnian).Gold und Kunsthandwerk vomantiken Kuban: neue archä-ologische Entdeckungen aus derSowjetunion. Stuttgart: K. Theiss,1989.

(edited with V. L. Lapushnian).Shedevry drevnego iskusstva

Kubani: katalog vystavki (ArtTreasures of Ancient Kuban:Catalog of Exhibition). Moskva:Ministerstvo kul’tury SSSR, 1985.

(edited with K. A. Dneprovskii).Sokrovischa kurganov Adygei:katalog vystavki (Treasures ofAdygean barrows: catalogue ofthe exhibit). Moskva: Sovetskiikhudozhnik, 1985.

Kurgany, nakhodki, problemy(Barrows, Finds, Problems).Leningrad: Nauka, 1981

(with Ia. I. Shurygin). Muzei istoriireligii i ateizma: Putevoditel’(Museum of the History ofReligion and Atheism: A Guide).Leningrad: Lenizdat, 1981.

Jung und spätbronzezeitlicheDepotfunde im nördlichenSchwarzmeergebiet (Depots miteinheimischen Formen). Mün-chen: C.H. Beck, 1981

(with V. S. Bochkarev). Jung undspätbronzezeitliche Gussformen imnördlichen Schwarzmeergebeit.München: C.H. Beck, 1980

Skarbi kurhaniv Khersonshchyny(Barrows Treasures from theKherson Lands). Kiev: Mys-tetstvo, 1974.

Die Skythischen Kurgane: dieErforschung der HügelgräberSüdrusslands. Zürich: Raggi 1974(Sondernummer of Antike Welt:Zeitschrift für Archäologie undUrgeschichte, Jg. 5).

Novye sokrovishcha kurganovUkrainy/Treasures from theUkrainian Barrows: LatestDiscoveries. Leningrad: Avrora,1972.

Drevnosti Vostochnogo Kryma:Predskifskii period i skify(Antiquities of Eastern Crimea:The Pre-Scythian Period and theScythians). Kiev, NaukovaDumka, 1970.

(edited with N. Ia. Merpert).Pamiatniki epokhi bronzy iugaEvropeiskoi chasti SSSR(Monuments of the Bronze Agefrom the Southern European Partof the USSR). Kiev: NaukovaDumka, 1967.

Gornyi Krym v pervom tysiacheletiido nashei ery (MountainousCrimea in the 1st MillenniumBCE). Kiev: Naukova Dumka,1965.

- - -

*This tribute was originallywritten to celebrate ProfessorLeskov’s 70th birthday in 2003.

16

About the Author

Born in Tashkent, AleksandrNaymark received his educationin archaeology and history atTashkent and Moscow Universi-ties. After moving to the UnitedStates in 1992, he received aPh.D. in Central Eurasian Studiesfrom Indiana University, his dis-sertation being on “Sogdiana, ItsChristians and Byzantium: AStudy of Artistic and Cultural Con-nections in Late Antiquity and theEarly Middle Ages.” He has par-ticipated in more than 30 exca-vations in Central Asia and for atime worked in the Moscow Mu-seum of Oriental Art as its cura-tor of Central Asian pre-Islamic artand coins. Between 1997 and1999 he was a fellow of the Ger-man Archaeological Institute inBerlin. Dr. Naymark is currently anAssistant Professor in Art Historyat Hofstra University. He has pub-lished widely on early islamic art,numismatics and archaeology inCentral Asia. His article on theSogdian palace complex ofVarakhsha appeared in The SilkRoad, Vol. 1, No. 2 (2003). He maybe contacted at Aleksandr.Naymark@Hofstra.edu.

The legends of the Amazons andtheir battles with the Greekswere popular subjects of ancientGreek art. Images of loneAmazons, of combat between anAmazon and a Greek hero, ofgeneral battle scenes,2 andoccasionally of more amicablemeetings appear in vasepainting, sculpture, and otherforms of art. The earliestrepresentation known was madeabout 700 BCE [Schefold 1966,pp. 24-25, plate 7b]. The subjectsappeared frequently in the fifthcentury BCE, eventually rivalingthe popularity of depictions ofcentaurs [Encyclopedia Britannica(1957)].

Did Amazons really exist?Many modern writers deem themto be mythical beings as are thesatyrs and centaurs. Othersbelieve them to be symbols of thePersian or other peoples mena-cing the Greek borders andcolonies. Still others believe thatthey may have been members ofmatriarchal societies of theBronze Age.

Extant ancient writtenrecords, surviving in full, infragments, or in reference byothers, also relate tales of theAmazons. Homer, the eighthcentury BCE Greek poet [Taplin1986; duBois 1982, p. 33], tellsin the Iliad of the arrival of theAmazons to aid in the defense ofTroy besieged by the Greeks.Other ancient writers mentionQueen Penthesilea, who led herband of female warriors to aidKing Priam of Troy.3 After hercompanions have been slain, shefights on valiantly, dispatchingmany Greeks until Achilles with asingle mighty thrust of his swordkills her and her horse. In the fifth

century BCE, Herodotus, theGreek historian born inHalicarnassus, wrote of theSauromatae.4 These nomadicpeople lived east of the Don riverbefore, during, and after hislifetime. One practice occurring inhis time that seemed to impressHerodotus was the participationof the women in battle alongsidethe men. To give credence to thiswarrior image, he relates themyth of the beginnings of theSauromatians. It so happenedthat the Amazons, imprisoned inthree Greek ships on the BlackSea, overpowered and dis-patched the crews. But lackingany knowledge of sailing, theyeventually drifted ashore in theScythian lands. In the aftermathof an ensuing skirmish, theScythians found from the corpsesleft on the battlefield that theintruders plundering their landwere women. The warriors, inawe of their opponents’ abilities,conceived a plan to enhance theirown stock. They withdrew all butthe youngest warriors, who wereinstructed to camp near theAmazons and to avoid battle.Eventually, after one chancemeeting of a couple, they soonwere all paired and joined camps.In time, saying “of womanlyemployments we know nothing”and not abiding the life ofScythian women, the Amazonschose not to join the elderScythians and persuaded theirmates to move northeastwardbeyond the Don river. So beganthe Sarmatians. All the wivescontinued their nomadic customs,and, wearing the same style ofclothes that the men did, rodeand fought alongside them.

Was Herodotus accurate in hisaccounts of these nomadic

people? Did they give rise to thelegends of the Amazons?Herodotus gathered hisinformation about 450 BCEduring his stay on the northerncoast of the Black Sea at Olbia,the hub of the gold trade routebetween Europe and Asia [Rolle1989, pp. 13-14; Sulimirski andTaylor 1991, pp. 583]. Much of hisinformation came from travelerswho had passed through theterritories of the nomads. Inmodern chronology, the intervalof the sixth and fifth century BCEis termed the Sauromatianperiod. Some populationmovements and cultural changecharacterized the Early Sarmatianperiod of the next two centuries.The following five or six centuriesare split into the Middle and LateSarmatian periods. Throughoutthese periods, there wascontinuity in the main customs ofthese ancient nomads of theEurasian steppes, which extendfrom the Carpathian Mountainseastward to the Altai Mountainsand have continued to beinhabited by nomads until recenttimes. The Sarmatians lived in theregion between the Caspian Seaand the foothills of the UralMountains from about 600 BCEto at least 100 BCE. To the westaround the northern shores ofthe Black Sea were theScythians; to the south and eastin what is now Kazakhstan werethe Saka. The Sarmatians werein the region of convergence ofeastern and western cultures.Hence, the relics of their lives areof great archaeological interest.

Is the archaeological record inaccord with the ancientdescriptions of these people?Since they were nomads, onlytheir kurgans (burial mounds) canattest to their l ives. In thesummers of 1992 and 1993, Iparticipated in the excavation ofkurgans at Pokrovka, in themiddle of the area inhabited bythe Sarmatians duringHerodotus’ time. The findingsfrom the area under investigationby this project should add

Greeks, Amazons, andArchaeologyJames F. Vedder1

Los Altos Hills, California

17

substantially to the knowledge ofthese nomadic people. Whatfollows here are some of theresults which correlate with theancient depictions of theAmazons.

The area of the excavations isin a tongue of Russian landprotruding some 55 km.southward into Kazakhstan andsituated about 160 km. south ofOrenburg and 500 km. north ofthe Caspian Sea (Fig. 1). The siteis named for Pokrovka, a villageof about 4000 inhabitants some6 km. to the west and the centerfor the state farm which managesthe vast fields of wheat and cornnearby. The excavation teamcamped on the south bank of theKhobda river, a few kilometersfrom each of the two necropoleisselected for excavation in 1992and from an additional oneexcavated in 1993. Due to a quirkin the boundary lines here, thenorth side of the river some 10meters away is Kazakh land. Inaddition to the archaeologists,the excavation team includedgeologists, physicists, soilscientists, artists, architects,

engineers, programmers, ahistorian, a medical doctor, anda mathematician.

The Pokrovka excavations hadbegun in the summer of 1991,focusing on 14 Sarmatiannecropoleis surveyed in 1990 byDr. Leonid T. Yablonsky of theInstitute of Archaeology, RussianAcademy of Sciences. Onenecropolis of these nomadicpeople contained dozens of burialmounds, or kurgans; anothercontained only one. Theexcavations in 1992 and 1993were the result of the joint effortsof the Russian/American Depart-ment of the Kazakh/AmericanResearch Project whose directorwas Dr. Jeannine Davis-Kimball,Dr. Yablonsky of the Institute ofArchaeology of the RussianAcademy of Sciences and hiscrew, and a group of studentsfrom the Pedagogical Institute ofOrenburg led by Dr. Nina L.Morgunova. The author parti-cipated as the field repre-sentative for Dr. Davis-Kimball.5 Inaddition, there were otherAmericans present, two in 1992and four in 1993.

Figure 2 shows a large kurganin Pokrovka necropolis 3 in awheat field as an example of theappearance of a burial moundbefore excavation. For trainingthe students from thePedagogical Institute ofOrenburg, the second kurgan ofPokrovka necropolis 8 wasexcavated by the classicalmethod of leaving balks along thenorth-south and east-westdiameters (Fig. 3). The soil abovethe original surface as well as theancient humus layer wasremoved by shovels. On most ofthe other kurgans because oflimited time and manpower, andthe large volume of soil involved,a bulldozer and a grader wereutilized to remove the soil abovethe level of the original soilsurface except for one or more

balks left in the north to southdirection. The dark coloredhumus layer was then removedby shoveling. The surface of thelight colored soil underneath wasthen shaved with flat, square-ended spades to locate changesin soil color and texture thatindicate the presence of burialpits within the perimeter of thekurgan.

The excavation of a pit beganon one side of a line dividing thesurface level of the pit in half. Theresulting central wall provides arecord of the stratigraphy of thesoils within the pit. Usually thesoil is loosened in 10- to 20-centimeter-thick layers by carefuluse of a nearly flat spade with a

Fig. 1. Map of the steppe region, showing the location of Pokrovka.

Fig. 2. A large kurgan (44 m. diameter) in a wheat field (Pokrovkanecropolis 3, kurgan 4).

Fig. 3. A kurgan excavationshowing balks along the west to eastand north to south diameters.

18

pointed end. The loosened soilfrom each layer is removed fromthe pit with a shovel. Aftersomething of interest is found,the excavation proceeds with thelarge kitchen knife customary forthe Russians or the smallmason’s trowel customary for theAmericans. Brushes are used tosweep the loosened soil aside forsubsequent removal from the pitby shoveling. Once human boneis encountered, the excavatordetermines the orientation andextent of the skeleton with aminimum of exposure of bone,completes the exposure of theoriginal sides of the pit in theexcavated half, and neatlyshaves the central wall to revealthe soil profile. If there is anystratigraphy of interest, theprofile is recorded withphotography and drafting by thearchaeologist and studentarchitect, respectively. Then theexcavator carefully removes thesoil from the other half of the pitto the level of the skeleton. Sincethe skeleton and any associatedartifacts must be uncovered,cleaned, photographed, drawn insitu, and then removed in oneday, this final work is oftenpostponed to the following day.It takes from two to six hours toaccomplish these final tasks.

One of the most interestingburials relative to the Amazonswas uncovered in tomb 6 ofkurgan 1, necropolis 8. This 30m. diameter kurgan constructedin the Bronze Age in the 11th c.BCE contained two Bronze Age,three Medieval, and eleven EarlySarmatian burials. Tomb 6 had not

been disturbed.The supineskeleton laywith the skull tothe south, legsextended, andthe arms at thesides (Fig. 4).Southwest ofthe skull was aceramic vesselwith diagonali n d e n t a t i o n s

across the rim; southeast of theskull was a small vase-shapedceramic vessel, orange in color,with remnants of red pigment.Northwest of the feet were aceramic jug with a handle and a

ceramic vessel adjacent to bonesof a large animal. In addition,near the right forearm lay an irondagger (Fig. 5); and between thelegs were two iron arrowheads.From the skeletal remains, theperson was identified as awoman, 40 to 45 years old. Theshape of the weapons and theceramic vessels are typical of theEarly Sarmatian period of thefourth and third century BCE.Here very likely is the tomb of awarrior woman. Close by in thiskurgan, burial 15 contained a 25-to 30-year-old woman with twoiron arrowheads. She also hadbronze earrings wrapped withgold foil, glass beads, a ceramicvessel and an iron knife restingon some animal bones. In thenearby smaller kurgan 5, tomb 2held the remains of a 25- to 30-year-old woman with bronze and

iron arrowheads and awhetstone.

There were two veryinteresting tombs in necropolis 2which stretches northward alongthe crest of high ground towardthe bluff overlooking the Khobdariver and the project’s campsite.The first tomb was number twoof the two found in kurgan 3, a30 m. diameter mound. The pithad a wooden cover in place andwas undisturbed by robbers. Theneighboring pit, in contrast, hadbeen looted and badly disturbed.In the grave of interest, theskeleton was in the supineposition with the skull to the westat a level about two metersbelow the ancient soil surface(Fig. 6). This was the burial of awoman of importance from thesixth century BCE. There wereunarticulated camel and horsebones on the floor of the pit alongthe south wall. To the southwestof her skull and at the westernend of the animal bones was aceramic vessel. Near her feetwere sheep bones. Near herright hand was a small ceramicvessel with red pigmentation on

Fig. 4. Tomb of a 40- to 45-year-old, Early Sarmatianfemale (necropolis 8, kurgan 1, burial 6, 1992).

Fig. 5. Detail of the woman’s tombshowing the iron dagger and ironarrowheads (the latter not easilydistinguishable).

Fig. 6. Tomb of a mid-sixth centuryBCE Sauromatian “priestess” withgold ornaments, a carved stone altarand other artifacts (necropolis 2,kurgan 3, burial 2, 1993).

19

its exterior. By the pit wall andnorthwest of the skull were anoval bronze mirror and a carvedstone vessel, or altar. One cornerof the rim of this altar wasmissing, but it was found underher left knee during the finalprocedures of excavation. Thealtar might have been broken aspart of the burial rites. Thebronze mirror was completeexcept for a missing handle.There was a band of granulationon the back near the perimeterexcept for a gap where thehandle had been attached. Thecentral area had some design orimage obscured by corrosion.

There were numerous small paleblue-green glass beadsscattered about the skeleton,possibly evidence of decorationson a garment. Three stampedgold plaques in the form ofrecumbent panthers wereuncovered around her neck (Fig.7). Each had perforations nearthe edges for attachment. Oneplaque was torn into threepieces. At each side of the skullwas an enclosed cone of goldsoldered at the apex to a goldloop with a gap. These served asearrings or pendants from adiadem. There were also somecoral, carnelian, and glass beads,and five fossil shells of marinemollusks (Fig. 8). There were noweapons in this grave, but thewoman was obviously animportant member of this society.Women buried with altars areoften classified as priestesses

[Jettmar 1967, p. 60] and mayhave performed various rites andsacrifices for their people. Therewere a few other artifacts in thisburial including a small carvedbone object.

The other tomb of specialinterest was in a shaft with anarrow ledge near the top for

supporting a wooden cover. Thesupine skeleton with the skull tothe southwest is that of a tall,strong man about 50 years ofage from the third or secondcentury BCE (Fig. 9). An irondagger lay by his right hand.Nearby were residues of ascabbard and gold foildecoration. There was a gold

Fig. 7. The gold panthers and conicalgold pendants in situ around the neckof the “priestess.”

Fig. 8. A display of the small artifacts from the tomb of the “priestess.” Thetwo ceramic vessels are not shown. On the left is the stone vessel with achipped corner glued in place. The oval bronze mirror at the top center hasgranulation around the perimeter and a central design. Below the mirrorare the gold pendants, small gold beads, gold panthers, glass and stonebeads, and a carved bone. At the right are a piece of ore and fossil shellsof marine mollusks.

Fig. 9. Tomb of a warrior about 50 years old from the second orthird century BCE (necropolis 2, kurgan 17, burial 2, 1993).

20

band that probably was part ofthe dagger or scabbard. The goldband looks like finely woven cloth(Fig. 10). On his left side, about20 iron arrowheads, remnants of

a quiver, and a bronze plate withtraces of gilt were uncovered.This plate had been modified withtwo pairs of holes for attachmentto the quiver with leather thongslooped through the holes. Theleather is sti l l preserved bycopper salts from the corrosionof the bronze. Originally the platewas probably a belt buckle asindicated by the two holes at oneend and the slot at the other. Thedesign on this plate is the typicalanimal style of the nomadsdepicting carnivores attackingother animals, in this case ahorse. There was a gold bandaround the right arm near thewrist. Each terminal is incisedwith eyes, nose, mouth, andscales to represent snake heads.Near the northeast corner of thepit, there was an orange coloredceramic jug with a handle. It wasmade on a potter’s wheel insome workshop in middle Asia. Anunusual feature of this burial isthe position of the lower legs.Both had been neatly severedfrom the body at the knees. Thereason is unknown. Perhaps thisold warrior, renowned in battleover his many years of life, wasfelled by his enemy who severedhis legs to ensure that he wouldnever fight again in this world or

the next and left him in thebattlefield to die. His comradesrecovered his remains and gavehim a burial fitting his rank, age,and wealth. We are left to ponder

his fate and wonder aboutthe tales he must have toldof his feats of combat.

How might we interpretthe archaeological evi-dence? At this site nearPokrovka and elsewhere inthe lands of the Sar-matians, skeletons ofwomen buried withweapons have beenuncovered. We discoveredbronze and iron arrow-heads in several tombs anda dagger and ironarrowheads in another.Others have found theseweapons as well as spears,

swords, and armor [Rolle 1989,p. 88]. In the region inhabited bythe Sarmatians, about 20% ofburials associated with weaponsand horse harnesses were offemales [Rolle 1989, p. 89]. Werethese weapons actually evidenceof women involved in combat; orwere they possibly heirlooms,means of self-defense, orequipment for hunting on thejourney to an afterlife? Thedagger could be an heirloom ora weapon for self-defense butnot an instrument for hunting. Ifit were an heirloom, it could notbe very old since its style andshape are consistent with thedating of the other artifacts in theparticular burial. Changes instyles and shapes generallyoccur in less than a century, whichwould mean that any relativelyold items in a tomb would giveconflicting ages for the burial.Arrows would not be consideredfor self-defense but useful forhunting in the afterlife. Perhapsthey believed that they wouldparticipate in battles in theafterlife and would need theirweapons of combat. The quantityof weapons in some burialsindicates such a belief. InSarmatian burials in other areas,the discovery of women with

broken and pierced skulls andarrowheads embedded in bonestrongly supports the view thatthese women did participate inbattles [Rolle 1989, p. 88].Herodotus stated that thewomen rode alongside the menor alone in hunting or battle[Herodotus 1956, IV, p. 239].

Did these women described byHerodotus in the fifth centuryBCE and found by archaeologicalinvestigations give rise to theGreek legends of the Amazons?There are some chronologicaldifficulties. The archaeologicalevidence for the Sarmatians ofHerodotus’ time indicates thatthese nomads first appeared inthe area in the sixth century BCE[Jettmar 1967, p. 60]. But Homerin the Iliad wrote of the band ofAmazons that came to the aid ofKing Priam of Troy besieged bythe Greeks [Taplin 1986]. Homerprobably lived within the periodfrom 750 to 650 BCE and waswriting of events that occurredmuch earlier [Ibid.]. The storieshad been remembered andpassed on orally from generationto generation until finally put intowriting. Most arguments attributethe events to the MycenaeanAge, 1400 to 1100 BCE. Finleymakes a strong case for the DarkAge, 1050 to 900 BCE [Finley1978]. The latest time that theevents could have occurredwould be Homer’s own time[Taplin 1986]. Even if this weretrue, Homer probably died beforethe appearance of the Sauro-matians, as indicated by thearchaeological evidence [Jettmar1967, p. 60]. Findings from recentexcavations east of the CaspianSea suggest that these earliestSarmatians may have been Sakanomads whose origins havebeen traced to Central Asia in theeighth or possibly ninth centuryBCE [Yablonsky 1990, p. 292].These dates give a closerchronological agreement withHomer’s Amazons, but the areais much more remote from theGreeks. The Scythian nomadsnorth of the Black Sea and west

Fig. 10. Artifacts from the tomb of thewarrior. The orange ceramic jug is notshown.

21

of the Sarmatians also hadburials of women warriors butnot as commonly as theSarmatians [Rolle 1989, p. 89].The Scythians first appeared inthe eighth or ninth century BCEaccording to the archaeologicalrecord [Rolle 1989, p. 132;Sulimirski and Taylor 1991, p.561]. Scythian chronology is thussimilar to that of the Saka, and,given the geographic proximity tothe Greeks, contact betweenthem and Scythians was quitelikely. But the time is somecenturies after the commonlyaccepted period of the events ofthe Iliad.

What do the images ofAmazons in Greek art show us?The first known one, on a clayshield from Tiryns dated to about700 BCE, depicts Heraklesfighting Amazons [Schefold 1966,pp. 24-25, plate 7b].6 Throughmuch of the Classical period, theyare portrayed in sculpture asbuxom, sensuous femaleswearing clothing and bearingweapons similar to those of theGreek warriors. I would expect awoman well trained and skilledin combat to have a trim, leanfigure and to dress in her nativecostume [See also Rolle 1989, p.90]. Herodotus said of thewomen of the Sauromatae thatthey “dress l ike the men”[Herodotus 1956, IV, p. 239].Shapiro notes that the Greekartists of the Archaic periodportrayed all their adversaries inbattle with the same style ofdress and weaponry as worn bythe Greeks [Shapiro 1983, pp.105-114]. It is only laterportrayals which show, insuccession, the Amazons in dresssimilar to Thracian, Scythian, andPersian apparel. Thus, Greek artis of no help, especially whenproduced long after whateverhistorical events stimulated theimagery. In their art, the Greekswere interested in portrayingbeauty. For males, they tendedto use athletes as models. ForAmazons, they lacked any realmodels and therefore con-

centrated on the beauty andsensuality of their ideal femaleform.

There were changes in thestyle and subject of Greek artparalleling social and politicalchanges. Shapiro traces theevidence of Amazons in Greek artand literature and shows thechanges from Thracian toScythian and then Persianinfluences in depictions ofAmazons [Ibid.]. Greek literatureoriginated some time after thefirst art, elaborated on the storiesportrayed and may have reliedon the art as the primary sourceof information about theAmazons. Shapiro maintains thatthe earliest images on vasepaintings associating Amazonswith Thrace and Scythia arecloser to the truth than the laterart and literature. The earlyworks show the encounters ofthe popular mythical heroes withAmazons, first Heracles, thenAchilles, and finally Theseus.

Does the origin of the wordAmazon tell us anything? TheBritannica dictionary states thatthe Greek root means “withoutbreast.”7 More correctly, it meansnot to suckle.8 According toancient literature, the Amazonscauterized or mutilated the rightbreast of young girls to destroyits function and developmentbecause it would interfere withthe drawing of the bow andthrowing of the spear and wouldtake strength from the right armand shoulder [Serwint 1993, p.403-422; Rolle 1989, p. 91].Serwint states that there are noknown cases in Greek art ofAmazons depicted without aright breast [Serwint 1993]. Shebelieves that this follows from theartists’ striving for beauty andperfection and their abhorringany display of physicalshortcomings of their subjects.She suggests that the exposureof the right breast in images inAmazons is a symbol of themissing anatomy. Alternatively, itmight be to show the Greeks that

they are being attacked bywomen.

The mythical tribes andnations of Amazons probably didnot exist in reality, but there mayhave been bands of womenwhich went to war for variouscauses. In her compilation onAmazons throughout historySalmonson notes a number ofcases where women bandedtogether to do combat for causessuch as the crusades and theFrench Revolution [Salmonson1991]. She also suggests thatthere may have been somereligious centers that attracted“goddess worshiping, highlyathletic women of the ancientworld” and that Themiscyra, thecapital of Amazonia, was such acenter and did exist. Dietrich VonBothmer has identified a sceneon a Greek vase as a depictionof the gates of Themiscyra [VonBothmer 1957, pl. 10].

Each of us carries a mentalimage of the Amazon of theancient world. In the words ofJessica A. Salmonson:

The Amazon archetypeappears to be highly mutable,and easily interpretedaccording to the whims ofsubjective taste. The Amazonwas an antisexual [sic] manhater, or she was anaggressive, demanding sexobject. She served the systemby emulating men, or she wasa rebel expanding themeaning of femininity, athreat to patriarchy. She wasa demeaning, impossiblefabrication, or she was anupraising, revelatory reality.She was objectified as fearfuland repellent, glamorous andappealing; a destructive andnegative role model, or onethat was ideal and suitable forall young girls. For many, theAmazon was a fascination, afixation, a flirtation, to hate orto admire. [Salmonson 1991,p. x]

22

About the Author

James F. Vedder earned a PhDin Experimental Nuclear Physicsat the University of California,Berkeley, in 1958. He retired in1992 after a distinguished careeras a research scientist forLockheed and NASA. Since 1984he has been involved inarchaeological excavations worldwide. He has published articleson experimental archaeologydemonstrating how the Greekspainted precise sets of concentriccircles on pots 3000 years agoand how the artisans ofÇatalhöyük, Turkey, made mirrorsof obsidian. He is a member ofthe American Physical Society, theAmerican Geophysical Union,Sigma Xi, and the AmericanInstitute of Archaeology.

References

duBois 1982Page duBois. Centaurs andAmazons: Women and the Pre-history of the Great Chain of Being.Ann Arbor: University of MichiganPress, 1982.

Finley 1978Moses I. Finley. The World ofOdysseus. New York: Viking,1978.

HerodotusThe History of Herodotus, tr.George Rawlinson, ed. ManuelKomroff. Garden City, N.Y.: TudorPublishing Co., 1956.

Iablonskii 1993 (1995)Leonid Teodorovich Iablonskii, ed.Kurgany Levoberezhnogo Ileka.Moscow 1993. Translated asKurgans on the Left Bank of theIlek, Excavations at Pokrovka1990-1992, J. Davis-Kimball andL. T. Yablonsky, eds. Berkeley,1995.

Iablonskii 1994Leonid Teodorovich Iablonskii, ed.Kurgany Levoberezhnogo Ileka.Moscow 1994.

Jettmar 1967Karl Jettmar. Art of the Steppes,Ann E. Keep tr. New York: Crown,1967.

Rodenwaldt 1927Gerhart Rodenwaldt, Die Kunstder Antike (Hellas und Rom), 2-eAufl. Berlin: Propyläen Verlag,1927.

Rolle 1989Renate Rolle. The World of theScythians, F.G. Walls tr. Berkeley:University of California Press,1989.

Salmonson 1991Jessica Amanda Salmonson. TheEncyclopedia of Amazons: WomenWarriors from Antiquity to theModern Era. New York: ParagonHouse, 1991.

Scarre 1993Christopher Scarre. “A Tomb ToWonder At.” Archaeology, 46 No.5(1993): 32-39.

Schefold 1966Karl Schefold. Myth and Legendin Early Greek Art, Audrey Hickstr. New York: Abrams, 1966.

Serwint 1993Nancy Serwint. “The FemaleAthletic Costume at the Heraiaand Prenuptial Initiation Rites.”American Journal of Archaeology,97 (1993): 403-422.

Shapiro 1983Harvey Alan Shapiro. “Amazons,Thracians, and Scythians.” Greek,Roman, and Byzantine Studies, 24(1983): 105-114.

Sulimirski and Taylor 1991Tadeusz Sulimirski and TimothyTaylor, “The Scythians.” In JohnBoardman et al., eds. TheCambridge Ancient History, Vol. III,Pt. 2. Cambridge; New York:Cambridge University Press,1991: 547-590.

Taplin 1986Oliver Taplin, “Homer.” In John

Boardman et al., eds. The OxfordHistory of the Classical World.Oxford; New York: OxfordUniversity Press 1986: 50-77.

Von Bothmer 1957Dietrich Von Bothmer. Amazonsin Greek Art. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1957.

Yablonsky 1990Leonid Teodorovich Yablonsky.“Burial place of a Massagetanwarrior.” Antiquity, 64 (1990):288-296.

Notes

1. This paper originated as aninvited, slide-illustrated presen-tation for a Stanford UniversityContinuing Studies Programclass, “Greek and Roman Art,”taught in autumn 1993 by thesince deceased EmeritusProfessor of Classics AntonyRaubitschek (1912-1999). Thesubject was then submitted in1994 as a report to satisfy aclass requirement. This presentversion has incorporated some ofProfessor Raubitschek’s com-ments and suggestions. I amindebted to him for his commentsand keen interest in Amazons. Allexcavation photographs are myown.

2. The temple of Mausolus inHalicarnasus had an Amazon-omachy depicted on one of theseveral friezes encircling thebuilding at different levels. In 355BCE, five sculptors were com-missioned to decorate theexterior, one for each side andone for the pinnacle. On oneextant fragment, the Amazon onthe right with feet planted andbody facing outward is attackinga Greek with one knee to theground and shield raised to fendoff the blows [Scarre 1993, p.34.] Her chiton covers bothbreasts in contrast to thecommon practice of exposing theright breast (as we see in Fig. 11,from a different fragment of the

23

frieze). An Amazon on the leftrides bareback astride a rearinghorse without saddle or reins.She is leaning around the far sideof her steed’s neck with her rightarm raised. Her left leg, exposedto her hip, is bent at the kneeand her shin is parallel to thehorse’s belly. Her other legdangles down on the other side.On another fragment [Fig. 12, towhich Fig. 11 attaches on theleft], the Amazon on the rightlunges forward with a himationstreaming behind and withweapon raised above thecowering, helmeted Greek withhis shield raised in defense. On

the left, an Ama-zon on horse-back is leaningtoward the leftand also ridingbareback withleft leg bent atthe knee. Thisleg is exposed tothe hip with thedrape of thechiton almostexactly as onthe rider in thefirst fragment.Her right kneecan be seen overthe horse’sback. Amaz-ingly, she is

riding backward without saddleor reins and probably shootingan arrow. This image depicts theexpert horsemanship attributedto the Amazons. We mustremember that the Greeks aimedfor beauty in their work and oftenreality suffered. For these andadditional Amazon images, seeRodenwaldt 1927, pp. 428-429,357, 434.

3. Salmonson 1991, pp. 210-212; Rolle 1989, p. 86, believesthat the most informative sourcefor Penthesilea is the poetry ofQuintus of Smyrna.

4. Herodotus 1956, IV, pp. 237-

24

Fig. 11. Detail of Halicarnasus frieze showingbare-breasted Amazon.

Fig. 12. Detail of Halicarnasus frieze with two Amazons and a Greek warrior.

239. Now these earliest tribes ofSarmatian nomads are calledSauromatians.

5. The second largest kurgan innecropolis 2 was excavated thefirst season (1991). In 1992, all6 kurgans of necropolis 8 locatedon the left bank of the Khobdariver about 5 km. east ofPokrovka and the largest kurganof necropolis 2 were excavated.In 1993, 10 of 17 kurgans ofnecropolis 1, 4 km. southeast ofPokrovka, and 10 more innecropolis 2 were excavated.The work and findings through1993 have been reported inIablonskii 1993 (1995); Iablonskii1994. The effort in 1994-1995was supported by the RussianInstitute of Archaeology and theKazakh/American ResearchProject. Since then excavationshave been continued by Dr.Yablonsky with the support of theRussian Institute of Archaeology.

6. See a photo of the shield, nowin The Archaeological Museum ofNauplion, at http://www.culture.g r / 2 / 2 1 / 2 1 1 / 2 1 1 0 4 m / 0 0 /lk04m047.jpg.

7. Britannica World LanguageDictionary, Vol.1. (Chicago, 1966),p. 45.

8. Antony Raubitschek, privatecommunication.

25

Archaeological GIS inCentral AsiaMariner PadwaHarvard University, Cambridge, Mass., USASebastian StrideBarcelona University, Spain

The following short articlesdescribe the current state ofseveral projects developingarchaeological applications ofGeographic Information Systems(GIS) in Turkmenistan, Uz-bekistan, Afghanistan, andChinese Turkestan (Xinjiang).Taken together, it is hoped thatthey point to some of thepotential applications of GIS inCentral Asia.

Of course, these projects arejust a few among many currentlyapplying digital technologies toSilk Road studies, some of whichset an outstanding standard,such as the InternationalDunhuang Project (http://idp.bl.uk). The Electronic CulturalAtlas Initiative (ECAI — http://ecai.org/) has even developed apilot project to link a number ofprojects within a Silk Road DigitalAtlas.

The use of GIS in projectssuch as these is sometimesviewed as simply a developmentof “digital cartography,” but GISis in fact much more. GIS not onlyallows data to be stored andrepresented in spatiallyreferenced databases, alongwith layers of geographicinformation at any scale, but itenables new analytical andinterpretive approaches. It istherefore hardly surprising thatGIS should have becomeomnipresent in all fields thatinvolve spatial information, fromfarming to the management oflarge cities and the running ofarmies. In the field of archae-ology, where the study of spatial

phenomena and geography area fundamental part of under-standing patterns in the past,GIS is rapidly becoming astandard part of the archae-ologist’s toolkit, whether at thescale of a single trench or acrossregions.

In each of the regions dealtwith in the essays in this section,one of the first functions of GIShas been to bring existingmaterial into a single place, inorder to grapple with thedisparate and sometimes chaoticnature of archaeological datafrom Central Asia. Whetherresearch is focused on a singleregion, oasis, or site, theexperience of delimiting data setsand treating them compre-hensively requires a “bottom up”approach. Of course, GIS can beextremely useful even in this non-analytical role, compiling an“encyclopedia” of data whichmay not even have a specificresearch goal. For example, thecomparisons between historicalcartography and modern fieldobservation in Uzbekistan andTurkmenistan demonstrate themassive destruction of archae-ological sites which resulted fromagricultural projects in the lastfifty years. GIS can help tomeasure this destruction and totrack the preservation of existingsites and assess the risks theymay face from futuredevelopment.

However, equally if notultimately more powerful is theuse of GIS as an analytical andinterpretive tool, a role

considered by many to be anintellectual watershed inapplications to archaeology. Ofcourse, the applications illus-trated here are modest incomparision with work underwayin other parts of the world.Nonetheless we hope that thesearticles will i l lustrate someexamples of this type ofapplication of GIS, or at least itspotential. Finally, we hope that,taken together, these articlespoint to some directions for howGIS can bring archaeologicalresources together in a commonplatform across Central Asia.

About the Authors

Mariner Padwa (padwa@fas.harvard.edu) is a Ph.D. candidatein the Committee on Inner Asianand Altaic Studies at HarvardUniversity. He has participatedin archaeological fieldwork inPakistan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan,and Turkmenistan, and iscurrently completing a dis-sertation dealing with thehistory, archaeology, andgeography of the ancientKrorainic oases in ChineseTurkestan (Xinjiang).

Sebastian Stride (sebstride@yahoo.com) spent four yearsliving in Uzbekistan and has beenworking in Central Asia since1995. He is a member of theMAFOuz de Bactriane and theObservatori del Tíbet i de l’ÀsiaCentral and currently teachesCentral Asian History andArchaeology at Barcelona Uni-versity.

Note

1. Lewis R. Lancaster and RuthMostern, “A View from Cyber-space: The Silk Road Atlas of theElectronic Cultural Atlas Initia-tive,” Central Eurasian StudiesReview, 2/3 (2003): 2-7.

Archaeological GIS and OasisGeography in the Tarim BasinMariner PadwaHarvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

The “pivot of Asia,” as Lattimorecalled Chinese Turkestan (moreprosaically the modern XinjiangUighur Autonomous Region), isan area where a great deal ofancient history, and especiallyprehistory, remains uncharted. Atits center lies the Tarim Basin andthe Taklamakan desert (Fig. 1),an immense and harshlandscape of sand dunes, pebbledeserts, and salt flats. But alongthe foothills and at “terminaldeltas” where rivers end in the

desert, for millennia oasissettlements have flourishedwhich were culturally and geo-graphically tied at once to China,South Asia, western Central Asia,and the Eurasian steppe.

The exploration of the TarimBasin at the beginning of thetwentieth century was a time of

spectacular discoveries, withunknown ancient languages andcultures coming to light from theinside of what had been a vastblank on the map, known almostsolely from outside historicalsources even when the idea ofthe Silk Road was first formulated.Within the last decade, researchhas once again begun to proceedapace, with numerous Chineseprojects and joint projects withforeign researchers back on theground in the field.1 Here as in

the otherregions ofCentral Asiadescribed inthis section,GIS will un-d o u b t e d l yplay an im-portant rolein the futureof estab-lishing, in-t e r p r e t i n g ,and synthe-sizing thearchaeologicalrecord.2 In

the scope of evolving new tech-niques for understanding thehistorical geography of Central

Asia, it is still only possible tosketch some directions fordeveloping a regional archae-ological GIS of this “poor sister”of the Central Asian cultureareas. But at the scale of a singleoasis, the Niya site, it alsoprovides an application where theinterpretive potential of GISoften alluded to has been of greatutility.

Old maps in new bottles

Much of the work of earlyexplorers of the Tarim basinremains substantive as archae-ological data, but since many ofthose explorers were alsoworking as the first scientificcartographers of the region,simply plotting the sites theydiscovered onto modern mapscan be a difficult task. Geo-graphical accuracy in their reportsis often far from perfect, withvast areas sti l l marked“unexplored,” even on thebeautiful set of American ArmyMaps published after a longlapse as the Sven Hedin CentralAsia Atlas [Hedin 1966]. This setof maps is particularly valuablefor collecting in one place thedated routes of early explorersacross the entire region (Fig. 2).These routes and the locationsof sites form a useful “base-map”for digitization, where in manycases specific areas can then bemapped in with greater accuracyfrom the original sources. Forexample, for Hedin’s own

Fig. 1. A “fly-through” view of theTarim basin, looking west (createdfrom a true-color MODIS satelliteimage of the Tarim Basin [NASA,Visible Earth, h t t p : / / v i s i b l ee a r t h . n a s a . g o v / c g i - b i n /viewrecord?23798], draped over adigital elevation model).

Fig. 2. A portion of a sheet from the Sven Hedin Central Asia Atlas in thearea of Charkhlik, showing routes of early explorers. [After Hedin 1996].

26

observations, the maps pub-lished in earlier reports are oftenof a very large scale, beingalmost sketches of the landscapevisible from his routes.

Once digitized, this materialcan be overlaid on moderncartographic data, some of thebest of which are the 1:200,000and 1:100,000 maps produced bythe Russian military.3 The qualityof these maps is better than thegeodata so far released by theirAmerican counterparts, theNational Imagery and MappingAgency (NIMA), but the latter arealready digitized, and can beeasily manipulated in a GIS withother geodata. By overlayingthese different data sources,information can be compared andverified, analyzed in relation toenvironmental data, and used formodeling. Overlaying archae-ological data on remote sensing(satellite) images, for example,offers the potential of discoveringpaleochannels where new sitesmight be discovered. Theground-penetrating radardesigned by NASA’s Jet Pro-pulsion Laboratory and flown on

space shuttle missions over Niya4

provides an excellent example ofthis potential, since it is par-ticularly suited to penetratingsand, and has proved itsarchaeological util ity in thediscovery of paleochannels withPaleolithic remains in the Sahara,and the ancient “incense route”city of Ubar in Oman. But in orderto make such data useful, itneeds to be given an exact geo-graphical reference in relation toarchaeological sites which havealready been documented on theground.

Many of these sites were firstdocumented by the “godfather”of the archaeology of the Tarim,Sir Aurel Stein, whose work[Stein 1907, 1921, and 1928]remains an essential source, withthe locations of thousands ofarchaeological features in quiteaccurate spatial contextualizationof surveyed and excavatedarchaeological material, given thepractices common in his time.What is particularly striking isthat in areas where Stein and hissurveyors were sometimesworking in true terra incognita,

the error in the localization ofsites (common especially inlongitude) are only in the rangeof only a few kilometers, whencompared with modern fieldobservations made with aGeographic Positioning System(GPS). Fig. 3 shows some ofthese geodata georeferencedwith a satellite image for the areabetween Khotan and Keriya.

As a basis for creating a GISdatabase of the sites recordedby Stein in the Tarim, highresolution digitizations of the setof maps published in InnermostAsia (which brings together datafrom all three of Stein’sexpeditions) have beengeoreferenced with currentgeodata.5 A point set generatedfrom these maps serves as areference for attaching theidentification, type of site, moredetailed site-plans, and mostimportantly, database tables ofthe inventories which include theprovenance of all the artifactsdiscovered by Stein. The par-ticular importance of attachingthese data tables to loci is theability to query and manipulate

Fig. 3. Sites of the Khotan and Keriya drainages (excluding the newly discovered sites in the ancient northernKeriya delta [Debaine-Francfort and Idriss 2001]).

27

data as in any other database,within a spatial reference. Whilemany of these databases needto be developed for specificregions, and from other sources,an enormous collection of theseinventories are already availablein the form of the InternationalDunhuang Project’s onlinedatabase (http://www.idp.bl.uk).

Beyond “dots on the map”

The utility of GIS as a tool forinterpreting archaeologicalmaterial is sometimes achievedin theory more than in practice,particularly at a regional scale,and in a region surveyed asinconsistently as much of CentralAsia. It will in many cases firsthave a role of simply providing aspatial “catalog,” while buildingmodels and explaining historicaland geographical patternsdepends on fine-grained analy-sis, and especially the ability tolink spatial databases with largetables of archaeological infor-mation.

One of the sites in the Tarimwhere this kind of fine-grainedanalysis can be achieved is theNiya oasis, first discovered,mapped, and excavated by Stein,and the object of Sino-Japanesefield project over the past decade[Sino-Japanese 1999]. This pro-ject used digital spatial tech-nologies extensively, making thedata available in a format readilyconverted into a GIS. The ancientoasis is spread over hundreds ofhectares at the internal delta ofa river ending in sand dunes,which are so conducive toarchaeological preservation thatthere are scores of remains ofdispersed hamlets of wattle anddaub structures and other wellpreserved landscape features(fields, orchards, vineyards,canals, pools, bridges, etc.).While there is little of the verticalstratigraphy typical of CentralAsia archaeological mounds,recent discoveries of remains oflate Bronze Age material far outin the ancient delta attest to the

important aspect of horizontalstratigraphy of the oasis, whichis particularly suited to spatialanalysis (Fig. 4).

Niya is exceptional not only fora degree of preservation of anancient landscape, but for thediscovery of hundreds of 3rd-4thc. CE wooden administrativetablets dispersed at settlementsas far as 20 kilometers apartacross the oasis. These texts(letters, legal documents,contracts, tax lists, etc.), writtenin the Gandhari language nativeto what is today Pakistan andAfghanistan, contain a great dealof information on the everydayeconomic and social organizationof the oasis.6 Many differenttypes of data in these documentsare suited to discrete “coding” ina textual database, and GISenables the attribute tables ofthese data to be linked directlyto their archaeological contexts.This allows for a wide range ofspatial querying, and the con-frontation of textual data withmodels derived from the spatialanalysis of archaeologicalmaterial alone.

As part of the author’sdissertation research, thisdatabase of textual informationfrom the documents is being usedwithin a GIS as a basis for thereconstruction of the organiza-tion and use of space in theancient oasis, and to studyaspects of daily life. This hasmade it possible to reconstructthe spatial structure of theancient landscape in detail. Forexample, by analyzing texts forcertain prosopographic criteria, itis possible to discover, settle-ment by settlement, a set oflocations in the space of theoasis that can be associated withindividuals in the documents.From these associations, it ispossible to map the location andextent of toponyms and adminis-trative units that cut across thetextual and archaeologicalrecord, providing clues for thespatial organization of territorial

kinship groups, the organizationand mechanisms of agriculturalproduction and redistribution,and so on.

In a wider geographical andarchaeological perspective, onegoal of this research is todevelop models of the organi-zation of daily life in the earlyInner Asian oasis, particularly atan economic level, which can beapplied to oases across the so-called Silk Road. One directionfor the application of GIS formodeling is to confront thereconstructions of the spatialorganization from Niya with the

Fig. 4. GIS of the Niya oasis,incorporating digital data from theSino-Japanese expedition, thematerial of Stein, and other spatialdata. The “buffers” around archae-ological features are used as part ofone method of reconstructing theorganization of space.

28

archaeological data of a similarnature from other oases of thesouthern Tarim, in order tounderstand their ecologicalevolution, inter-oasis relations,and similar themes. Anotherdirection is to incorporate othertextual and historical data whichcan be linked to the GIS — forexample, economic data fromlater Khotanese, Bactrian, andother corpora, or the detaileddemographic information pro-vided by the “census” of the TarimBasin oasis-states in the Han-shu(Hulsewé and Loewe 1979)across the last centuries BCE andfirst few centuries CE.

Geographically, the charac-terization of the region as a“pivot” throughout history hasbeen and undoubtedly willcontinue to be borne out by newdiscoveries and interpretations ofrelatively local phenomenahaving far-reaching conse-quences. At the same time,because parts of the Tarim basinexemplify, in an extreme form,many of the common features ofcentral Asian oases, it forms anexcellent laboratory for buildingmodels of the evolution ofsettlement history with a widerimportance. By uniting thesesources, one can hope that GISwill provide a new means forworking out some of the keygeographical characteristics ofthe evolution of the Inner Asianoasis across time.

References

Atwood 1991Christopher Atwood. “Life inThird-fourth Century Cadh’ota: Asurvey of information gatheredfrom the Prakrit documentsfound north of Minfeng (Niya).”Central Asiatic Journal, 35 (1991):161-199.

Hedin 1996Sven Anders Hedin. Central AsiaAtlas: Reports from the scientificexpedition to the north-western

provinces of China under theleadership of Dr. Sven Hedin. TheSino-Swedish Expedition. Publi-cation 47. I. Geography, 1. (20folding maps at a scale of1:1,000,000). Stockholm, Statensetnografiska museum, 1966.

Debaine-Francfort and Idriss2001Corinne Debaine-Francfort andAbdouressoui Idriss. Kériya,mémoire d’un fleuve: archéologieet civil isation des oasis duTaklamakan. Paris: EDF, Findakly,2001.

Debaine-Francfort 2001Corinne Debaine-Francfort.“Xinjiang and NorthwesternChina around 1000 BC. CulturalContacts and Transmissions.” In:Migration und Kulturtransfer. DerWandel vorder- und zentral-asiatischer Kulturen im Umbruchvom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichenJahrtausend. Akten desInternationalen KolloquiumsBerlin, 23. bis 26. November 1999(Kolloquien zur Vor- undFrühgeschichte, Vol. 6). R. Eich-mann and H. Parzinger, eds.Bonn: Dr. Rudolf Habelt, 2001, pp.57-70.

Hulsewé and Loewe 1979Anthony F.P. Hulsewé andMichael Loewe (1979). China inCentral Asia (Sinica Leidensia Vol.XIV). Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979.

Mei 2000Jianjun Mei. Copper and bronzemetallurgy in late prehistoricXinjiang: its cultural context andrelationship with neighboringregions. BAR international seriesno. 865. Oxford: Archaeopress,2000.

Sino-Japanese 1999Sino-Japanese Joint Research ofthe Niya Site (Zhong-Ri gongtongNiya yiji exueshu kaicha dui).Zhong-Ri gongtong Niya yijixueshu diaocha baogao shu (NiyaSite Archaeological StudiesNumber 2. Research Report into anAncient Town in Xinjiang, China),

2 vols. (text, plates). Urumqi;Kyoto, 1999.

Stein 1907Marc Aurel Stein. Ancient Khotan.Detailed Report of ArchaeologicalExplorations in Chinese Turkestancarried out and described under theOrders of H. M. Indian Govern-ment. 2 vols. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1907.

Stein 1921Marc Aurel Stein. Serindia.Detailed Report of Explorations inCentral Asia and WesternmostChina carried out and describedunder the Orders of H. M. IndianGovernment. 5 vols. Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1921.

Stein 1928Marc Aurel Stein. Innermost Asia.Detailed Report of Explorations inCentral Asia, Kansu and EasternIran. 4 vols. Oxford: ClarendonPress, 1928

Notes

1. See especially the well-illustrated volume of Debaine-Francfort and Idriss 2001, andMei 2000.

2. From another direction,projects such as the ChinaHistorical GIS (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~chgis/)could also become valuable inthis respect.

3. Some excellent modernChinese maps are also availablefor certain regions. Of particularinterest for archaeologists arethe examples included in thevolume containing Debaine-Francfort 2001.

4. http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/viewrecord?1337.

5. The digitized maps fromInnermost Asia were generouslyprovided by Susan Whitfield ofthe International DunhuangProject (http://www.idp.bl.uk).

6. For a general survey of theircontents, see Atwood 1991.

29

An Archaeological GIS of theSurkhan Darya Province(Southern Uzbekistan)Sebastian StrideBarcelona University

This article presents some of theresults of a long-term projectundertaken by the author withinthe framework of the MAFOuz deBactriane.1 It will be focused onthe use of GIS for dataorganisation2 and the potentialthat this offers for developingand testing new models andtheories.

The Surkhan Darya province(20,800 km2) is situated in thesouth of Uzbekistan and bordersAfghanistan, Turkmenistan andTajikistan; most specialistsconsider that it forms part of theancient region known as Bactria.In simplified terms, the provincecan be described as an alluvial

valley, limited by the Amu Daryariver to the South andsurrounded by mountains on allthree other sides. The mainmountain passes are the “IronGates,” on the roadto Samarkand, andthe low foothills,which separate itfrom the Kafirniganvalley and Dushan-be to the north-east. The climate iscontinental withmild winters, littlerainfall (just over100 mm./year in thesouth, but more in the north) anda long summer drought. Agri-culture therefore depends to a

large extent on artificial irrigationin the alluvial plain, although dryfarming is practiced in thefoothills. The mountains, es-pecially to the north and west,provide excellent summerpastures and pastoralism hastherefore probably always playedan important role in the humanecology of the region.

For nearly 70 years, archae-ological work was undertaken inthe Surkhan Darya provinceexclusively by Soviet teams. Theyproduced a wealth of quality data

including over 2500 publicationsdescribing the excavations ofsites such as Dzharkutan and

Sapalli Tepe (BronzeAge), Kuchuk Tepe andKyzyl Tepe (Iron Age),Dal’verzin Tepe, Khal-chaian and Termez(Kushan period), BalalykTepe and Kujov Kurgan(early Middle Ages) orBudrach and Termez(Pre-Mongol period).3

Foreign archaeologicalteams started working inthe province in the early1990’s and since thenseven foreign teamshave undertaken exca-vations in collaborationwith Uzbek teams (twoJapanese, two French,one German, one Rus-sian and one Czech)(Fig. 3). Archaeologicallyspeaking, the SurkhanDarya province is thusone of the mostthoroughly studiedareas in Central Asia. Itis therefore obviousthat a systematic

Fig. 2. The upper Surkhan Darya plain with theHissar Mountains in the background.

Fig. 1. A view of Bactria in GIS, with the archaeological sites of the SurkhanDarya province.

30

regional survey would bemeaningless had the vastamount of data from the Sovietperiod not been taken intoaccount.4

A large number of geo-graphical studies of the areahave also been undertaken,many of which are directlyrelevant to landscape archae-ologists. This is particularly trueof landscape studies, which, inthe former Soviet Union, wereconsidered to be importantenough to form an autonomousdiscipline (landshaftovedenie).The most useful publication forthe Surkhan Darya province is

that of Ergeshov1974, which dividesthe province intofifty-six different landunits, each of whichis analyzed in detailby taking intoaccount featuressuch as the types ofsoil, vegetation,water availabil ity,relief and climate inorder to definepotential humanuses (Fig. 4).

Finally, a number of ethno-graphic studies of the area exist

[e.g. Karmysheva1976]. They in-clude descrip-tions of the dif-ferent types ofexploitation ofthe landscapeand of the inter-action betweenethnic groups. Assuch they pro-vide useful ma-terial which canbe compared tothe geographicaland archaeo-logical data.

Any seriousstudy of the Sur-khan Darya re-quires this vastamount of datato be organized.I have alluded tothe problems as-sociated withdata manage-ment, but it isuseful to under-

line these problems with a fewexamples. Most archaeologicalsites documented during theSoviet period were not preciselylocalized (for example, the onlydata we have for Gurgak Tepe isthat it is situated “1 km. to thesouth of the beautiful plane treeof the kolkhoz Zhdanov,”according to Pugachenkova1966, p.29; cf. Fig. 5), and inmany cases, the samearchaeological site is published

with different names andlocalizations in different articles.No complete bibliography of theprovince existed and mostpublications did not include anindex. In addition to this, duringthe last five years, the results ofnew excavations have beenpublished in various differentjournals and languages.

In a situation such as this,there is no miracle solution. Eitheryou ignore the data, or youinclude only the most famoussites and a handful of majorpublications, or else, as in thiscase, you sort through the datasystematically. A site gazetteer(based on Arshavskaia et al.1982) was therefore developedin close collaboration with Uzbekscholars, and the 2500+ pub-lications that concerned the areawere systematically indexed.

The site database includes680 sites, nearly all of which werelocalized in the field either usinga GPS or by calculating thecoordinates on 1:10,000 scale

Fig.3. Archaeological work underway on the southeast angle of the citadel ofof Termez. The various fortifications visible in the photo are dated from theKushan period up to the beginning of the 13th c. (photo: MAFOuz de Bactriane).

Fig. 4. The land units of the Surkhan Darya provinceaccording to Ergeshov 1974.

Fig. 5. The remains of a typical archaeologicalsite in the Upper Surkhan Darya plain.

31

maps of the early 1950’s (theprecision of these maps is suchthat they include topographicalanomalies less than 30 cen-timeters high and 5 metersacross) [Fig. 6].5 Ironically,localizing previously known sitesproved much harder than findingnew sites, since it was necessaryto verify all the available data.Thus, in one case, the same sitewas visited three times with threedifferent archaeologists each ofwhom had published the siteunder a different name withoutanyone realizing that it was thesame site.

The bibliography includes allthe publications concerning thearchaeology of the SurkhanDarya province and a list of thearchives of archaeologicalexcavations. They are sys-tematically indexed by site, bytheme and by period, withcommentary. For example, thebibliography of the Kushanperiod site of Dal’verzin Tepeincludes over 350 references with

c o m m e n t a r y ,classified accordingto the area ofexcavation and/orthe theme.

Once all thesedata were organi-zed, the next logicalstep was to includethem in a GIS, whichcontains not only allarchaeological databut also:

— S c a n n e d ,g e o r e f e r e n c e dtopographical maps,some of the mostinteresting of whichare tsarist maps fromthe end of the 19thcentury (scale ofabout 1:50,000), German copiesof Soviet maps of the 1930’s(1:200,000) and Soviet topo-graphical maps of the early1950’s (1:10,000).

— So far, vectorized data includeVMap1 (basedprimarily on 1:250,000 scalemaps) and “headsup” digitization ofvarious features ofthe Upper SurkhanDarya plain basedon the 1:10,000scale maps.

— G e o l o g i c a l ,geomorphologicaland hydrologicalmaps have beenadded, along withvarious tables ofaverage temper-atures, propertiesof the main watercourses, etc. Finallyeach of the 56 landunits defined byErgeshov has beendigitized and theird e s c r i p t i o n ssystematized.

— The ethnic distri-bution maps pro-

duced by Karmysheva have alsobeen vectorized; however theassociated data are not yet in-cluded.

Apart from giving researchersdirect access to geographical,ethnographical, archaeologicaland historical data, the GIS thuscreated can be used as apowerful analytical tool in its ownright. For example, Fig. 7 showsthe most productive pasturesduring the months of July andAugust, along with information onthe main transhumant routes andthe localization of the mainarchaeological sites in the UpperSurkhan Darya plain. Thesuperposition of these differentlayers underlines the potentialimportance of transhumantpastoralism within the humanecology of the Upper SurkhanDarya plain and the bias of thearchaeological record towardssites associated with irrigatedagriculture.

Figs. 8a and 8b give a goodidea of how the GIS can be usedto combine data of variablequality. In Fig. 8a the underlyingraster geomorphological mapand the vectorized land unit typesare based on data of poorcartographic quality; howeverthe rest of the data is taken from

Fig. 6. Map of the archaeological sites aroundDenau, in the center of the Upper Surkhan Daryaplain. No. 222 is Khalchaian.

Fig. 7. Transhumant routes, pastures andarchaeological sites in the northern half of theSurkhan Darya province.

32

1:10,000 scale maps. Bycombining the precision of thesemaps with the detailed de-scriptions made by Sovietgeographers it is possible tocreate a new map, which can beused to define territories andcalculate their potential forhuman use. The archaeologicalsites can thus be repre-sented on a map thatcombines cartographicprecision with the detailedgeomorphological andlandscape studies under-taken during the Sovietperiod (Fig. 8b).

Fig. 9 highlights thedifferences in settlementpattern between the IronAge and the Kushan period.Whereas the Iron Age sitesare concentrated along thesmall valleys of the peri-pheral zone of the alluvialcones, the Kushan periodsites are centered on theSurkhan Darya alluvial plainaround the two towns ofDal’verzin Tepe and Khal-chaian.

In collaboration withscholars from the Instituteof Archaeology in Samar-kand, the GIS will now serveto integrate further data-bases. Three specific

projects are underway. One is tointegrate databases of all thecoins found during excavations inthe province, the second toinclude published and unpub-lished plans of all the sites andexcavations, and the third todigitalize data from the ongoingexcavations of the sites of

Termez, Khajtabad and PayonKurgan.

GIS is particularly interestingbecause it can evolve so easily,not only by adding new data butalso by correcting mistakes,omissions and lacunae. Thismakes the process of elaborating

hypothesis and testingthem much more fluid,especially because theresults can then beintegrated back into theGIS. A medium-term goalof this project, in relation tothe others described in thissection is to create a seriesof interrelated databases,to which all scholars cancontribute and haveaccess. By doing this, itshould then be possible towork towards a networkingof the different CentralAsian GIS projects.

The dream of a Central-Asia-wide archaeologicaldatabase, which variousscholars formulated longbefore GIS existed,6 is inmany respects nowtechnically possible. Thecontemporary politicaldivisions and the nature ofarchaeological research inthe area (data manage-

Fig. 8a. Part of the Khodzha Ipak alluvial cone showinga raster geomorphological map, land units vectorizedfrom Ergeshov 1974 and water courses and the limitsof terraces based on 1:10,000 scale maps.

Fig. 8b. The same area, this time with redrawn landunits, non-irrigable zones, floodplain, territories, watercourses and archaeological sites.

Fig. 9. Iron Age (square) and Kushan period(round) sites in the Upper Surkhan Darya plain.

33

ment problems, languages, etc.)make it especially necessary.Finally the fact that relatively fewscholars are currently working inCentral Asia may make it easierto reach a consensus on the formthat such a network should take.

Obviously, this can onlysucceed if all archaeologists feelthat their work is correctlyattributed and that it is in theirinterest to integrate their datainto a global system. This can beachieved by clearly indicating theauthor of the original work (andeach of the authors responsiblefor cataloguing and digitizing it)and by networking projects ineach of the institutions thatcollaborates, rather thancentralizing the data in one singlepoint.

It is planned to make the GISof the Surkhan Darya availableon the Internet in the nearfuture. In the meantime, and inline with the concept of creatingan open platform, specific dataconcerning a given site, period ortheme of the Surkhan Daryaprovince are available on requestfrom the author.

References

Arshavskaia et al. 1982Z. A. Arshavskaia, E. V. Rtveladze,Z. A. Khakimov. Srednevekovyepamiatniki Surkhandar’i. Tash-kent: Gos. izd-vo. literatury iiskusstva, 1982.

Ergeshov 1974Shovkat Ergeshov. LandshaftySurkhandar’inskoi oblasti. Tash-kent: Fan, 1974.

Gardin 1985Jean-Claude Gardin. “Pour unegéographie archéologique de laBactriane.” In : L’archéologie de laBactriane ancienne. Paris: CNRS,1985: 39-46.

Karmysheva 1976Balkyz Kh. Karmysheva. Ocherkietnicheskoi istorii iuzhnykh raionovTadzhikistana i Uzbekistana.

Moskva: Nauka, 1976.

Leriche et al. 2001La Bactriane au carrefour desroutes et des civilisations de l’Asiecentrale. Actes du colloque deTermez 1997. P. Leriche, C.Pidaev, M. Gelin, K. Abdoullaev,eds. Paris: Maisonneuve etLarose, 2001.

Litvinskii, B. A. (1959)Boris Anatol’evich Litvinskii. “Ometodike kartografirovaniiaarkheolo-gicheskogo materialadlia atlasa.” In: Materialy vtorogosoveshcha-niia arkheologov ietnografov Srednei Azii. Moskva-Leningrad: Izd-vo. AN SSSR,1959: 242-243.

Pugachenkova 1966Galina Anatol’evna Pugachen-kova. Khalchaian (K problemekhudozhestvennoi kul’tury Sever-noi Baktrii). Tashkent: Fan, 1966.

Pugachenkova and Rtveladze1990G. A. Pugachenkova and E. V.Rtveladze. Severnaia Baktriia-Tokharistan. Tashkent: Fan, 1990.

Trifonov and Dolukhanov 1992V. Trifonov and P. Dolukhanov.“Archaeological data in the USSR— collection, storage andexploitation: has IT a role?” In:Archaeology and the InformationAge. One World Archaeology, No.21. P. Reil ly, S. Rahtz, eds.London: Routledge, 1992: 64-65.

Notes

1. The MAFOuz de Bactriane(Franco-Uzbek ArchaeologicalMission in Bactria) is directed byPierre Leriche and Shakir Pidaev[see Leriche et al. 2001]. Theteam has been excavating thesite of Termez since 1993, andhas also worked on the sites ofPayon Kurgan, Khajtabad Tepeand Karabag Tepe. The regionalsurvey has been conducted incollaboration with Pierre Gentelleand with the help of LeonidSverchkov. The data described inthis article form the basis of a

Ph.D. dissertation to be defendedat the University of Paris I inJanuary 2005. A valuableoverview of the joint archae-ological projects involving Frenchteams in Central Asia may befound in Cahiers d’Asie centrale,No. 9 (2001): 236-302.

2. The problem of datamanagement in the former Sovietrepublics of Central Asia canhardly be overstated. Back in theearly 1990’s, two of the foremostRussian archaeologists, ViktorTrifonov and Paul Dolukhanov,published an article in which theywrote that the lack of datamanagement systems wasmaking research in the SovietUnion extremely difficult:

Data collection is a professionin itself and mere possessionof information is seen as amajor scientific achievement[…]. It is no surprise thatforeign researchers arediscouraged by the difficultiesthey encounter when trying tofind their bearings in the mazeof modern Soviet archaeology.The fact that some succeed isthe real surprise. [Trifonov, andDolukhanov 1992, p.65]

The end of the Soviet system, theemergence of the newlyindependent republics and theappearance of foreign archae-ological teams have increasedthe global awareness of CentralAsian archaeology. However thishas not made access to data anyeasier.

3. The best historical andarchaeological overview of theSurkhan Darya province isPugachenkova and Rtveladze1990.

4. A systematic survey wasnecessary, not only becausemost known sites were notprecisely localized, dated orassociated with their environ-ment but because much of theevidence, and in particular thatof the small sites, had not beenincluded.

34

5. The coordinates of some 50sites were calculated using bothmethods with almost identicalresults. The Geographic Posi-tioning System (GPS) ceasedworking in the Surkhan Daryaprovince on the 8th of October2001; it is now apparentlyworking once again.

6. In the 1950’s, a number ofleading Soviet specialistsplanned to publish a Historicaland Ethnographical Atlas ofCentral Asia, which would haveincluded maps and catalogues ofarchaeological sites, ethno-graphical groups, specificobjects, etc. [for exampleLitvinskii 1959]. Later Jean-Claude Gardin emphasized theneed for an archaeological atlas[Gardin 1985] and laid atheoretical basis for this work inhis many publications on infor-mation systems and the devel-opment of technical means ofsharing data through informationnetworks (envi-sioned in a timeof punch marked cards!).

Methods and Perspectives forAncient Settlement Studies inthe Middle Zeravshan ValleyBernardo RondelliSimone MantelliniBologna University, Italy

The “Archaeological Map of theMiddle Zeravshan Valley” Project,begun in 2001 [Shirinov and Tosi2003], is a cooperation betweenthe Institute of Archaeology ofSamarkand and the Departmentof Archaeology of the Universityof Bologna. It was created andevolves with two main aims: thestudy of the ancient populationand settlement dynamics of theMiddle Zeravshan Valley (Fig.1),and the recovery, preservationand enhancing of Samarkand andits territory. This brief descriptionwill be concerned with the first.

The area around Samarkandis characterized by the existenceof three “mesopotamias” (locallyknown as doab “two waters” inPersian or jazira “island” inArabic). These are formed by thesplitting of the Zeravshan Riverafter its exit from the TurkestanMountains into the Karadaryaand Akdarya branches, and thetwo main artificial canals, theBulungur Canal to the north andthe Dargom Canal to the south.Together these four parallel trunkcollectors merge their alluvialsediments and form a stretch of

Fig. 1. The Zeravshan Valley from LANDSAT 5. The main irrigated area,corresponding to the oasis of Samarkand and Bukhara, is clearly visible.

35

________

irrigated farmland 40 km. wideand 100 km. long (Fig.2). Thisarea, at the heart of the Eurasiancontinent, has formed the largestoasis in the whole of Central Asiaat least since the middle of thefirst millennium BCE, comparablein size to other alluvial heart-lands of civilization, like southernIraq or Sindh.

The Middle Zeravshan Valleywas subject to major, continuousand systematic developmentprojects during the Soviet period,chiefly between the Sixties andthe Eighties. The levelling of theplain, the creation of artificialterraces and the construction of

new canals have destroyed orseriously affected many archaeo-logical remains, permanentlymodifying the entire landscape[Zakirov 1955; Tulepbayev 1986;Dzhurakulov and Mamedov,1986].

Today, indiscriminate soilexploitation and extensive cottonand tobacco cultivation continueto cause the loss of innumerablearchaeological data. This situ-ation has led us to develop adiversified methodological ap-proach based on systematicsurveys, the study and analysisof historical cartography, thestudy and analysis of satellite

images and GISdata processing,analysis andmodelling (Fig.3).

S y s t e m a t i csurveys havebeen concen-trated on therecognition anddocumentation ofall visible struc-tural archaeo-logical features,in order to estab-lish a list of pre-served sites. Al-

luvial deposits (estimated to beseveral meters deep in places)and the agricultural trans-formations already mentionedmake it difficult to undertakeintensive field-walking and wehave therefore l imited thistechnique to transects orstandard-areas. Each individualsite was registered in digitalform, with a set of differentindicators that make it possibleto develop distributive andrelational analyses. In addition tosite description and location, wealso emphasized the collection ofdiagnostic material, and sitet o p o g r a p h i c a l - f u n c t i o n a linformation. All parameters werethen compared with site ex-plorabil ity and preservationvalues, in order to establishsurface datum reliability. This isa fundamental element in theattempt to compare and analyzedata of different origin, typologyand format. Finally, we used acentimeter-precise Total StationGeographic Positioning System(GPS) to create topographicalplans of the sites (Fig. 4).

The drastic environmentalchanges that have affected thisregion, have led us to focus ourresearch methodology on the useof historic cartography andremotely sensed satellite images.For this we were able to usematerial of exceptional reliabilityand precision, including 1:25,000scale (with 5 meter contour lines)and 1:10,000 scale (with 1 metercontour lines) Soviet topographicmaps made in 1954, where manysites are perfectly distin-guishable. A standard spatialcomparison between preservedsites and those obtained fromthe 1:10,000 cartography, froma time preceding the majoragricultural development pro-jects, shows that about 45 % ofthe total number of sites havebeen destroyed. Altimetryprofiles and detailed DigitalElevation Models (DEMs) wereelaborated by using 1:25,000and 1:10,000 maps and provide

Fig. 2. The area around Samarkand (1. Doab Kara Darya - Ak Darya, 2.Doab Zeravshan - Bulungur Canal, 3. Doab Zeravshan - Dargom Canal,4. Doab Kara Darya - Eski Angkor Canal).

Fig. 3. Data management system.

36

important insights about ancienthydrography and the relationshipbetween sites and topography.

We chiefly worked with twotypes of satellite imagery: multi-spectral Landsat TM7 and ASTERimages, and Corona images.Landsat TM7 imagery (20-25meter resolution) and the evenbetter ASTER imagery (15 meterresolution) are especially usefulin order to trace road systems,canals, ancient river beds,paleoconoids, main water flows,meanders and similar geographicinformation on a regional scale.It is then possible to obtain anoverall view of extended areasas well as important informationabout the water systems thatexisted prior to the 20th centuryirrigation canals [Mantell ini2003]. It has also been possibleto create vector data of thegeology and current soilexploitation by working withautomatic classification algor-ithms on ASTER and Landsatimages.

Corona panchromatic imageswere taken by United StatesDefense Department spy

satell ites between 1960 and1974, and have been madecommercially available by theUnited States Geological Survey(USGS) since 1995. The use ofthese images, which pre-datemany of the major agriculturalreclamation projects, proveditself equally precious for theirhigh spatial resolution (8, 5, 3meters) and for their historicvalue. By digitizing these imagesand using specific software fortheir analysis, it has beenpossible to identify sites whichare today destroyed and thusobtain important topographicaland spatial information. In theseareas, surveys were thenconducted in order to verify thepresence of sites or of con-centrations of archaeologicalmaterial [Mantellini and Rondelli2003].

All the data gathered hasbeen brought together in a GISarchive, which makes analyticalelaboration and modelingpossible. The capacity of GIS foroverlaying geographical andenvironmental maps with thoserepresenting the archaeological

record provides a baseline formaking synchronic and diachronicdistributive analysis. This alsoenables us to integrate theformer studies about the area, byincorporating the informationavailable in the literature intorelational databases [Isamid-dinov 2002], and by OpticalCharacter Recognition (OCR) textscanning [Shirinov and Tosi2003].

The GIS thus developed canthen be applied to the analyticalphase of our work. Indeed, GISis an excellent instrument for thedevelopment of geographical,mathematical, and quantitativesystems and models (from trade,traffic and management func-tions to dynamic-hydrodynamicsystems application in thereconstruction of territorialevolution), while the treatment ofstatistical data, processedaccording to relations andcombinations, makes it possibleto formulate predictive models ofsettlement.

To better understand thesesettlement modalities it isparticularly important to renderand simulate the ancientlandscape. This can be achievedby applying specific software andthrough mathematical interpo-lations based on net and fractalfragmentation theories [Buchanan2002; Gardenfors 2004]. Thisparticular approach will allow thecreation of a GeographicModeling System (GMS) wherespatial information will beconnected to the temporalvariable in order to createthematic representations of theevolution of the landscape andthe hydrographic networkthrough time (Fig. 5, next page).Present-day DEM, thematic GIS,and archaeological paleoecologicdata are used to create ascientific simulation, based on aprocess of spatial-chronologicalsubtraction using specifice c o l o g i c a l - e n v i r o n m e n t a lsimulation software. This leads to

Fig. 4. Topographical site reliefs created using Total Station GPS. Recoveryand digitization of former maps for a methodological comparison with thepresent situation.

37

the creation of knowledgemodels that can explain data, andallow them to be verified andreplicated in the next in-terpretative phase [Cattani et al.in press; Costanza and Voinov2004].

The development of thisproject, and the necessity ofincorporating the diverse dataalready existing, made thecooperation between our teamand local institutions indispen-sable (in particular the StateUniversity Geographical Institutein Samarkand and the NationalGeological Institute in Tashkent).We are now planning thecreation, in the SamarkandRegion, of a Territorial Informa-tion Systems (TIS) office in orderto insure the continuous andupdated management of all datarelated to Samarkand and itsterritory, of which a central basiswill be the creation of a MasterCity Plan and the ArchaeologicalGIS archive.

About the Authors

Bernardo Rondelli (bernardorondelli@yahoo.it) is currently adoctoral candidate at BolognaUniversity (Italy). He holds a MAin GIS and a BA in Conservationof Cultural Heritage and hasparticipated in excavations inItaly, Mexico, Oman, Uzbekistanand Kazakhstan.

Simone Mantellini (simonemantellini@libero.it) holds a BA inConservation of Cultural Heritagefrom Bologna University. He hasparticipated in excavations inOman, Uzbekistan and Italy andis currently working on the historyof irrigation.

References

Buchanan 2002Mark Buchanan. Nexus. SmallWorlds and the GroundbreakingScience of Networks. New York:Norton, 1992.

Cattani et al. in pressM. Cattani, A. Fiorini, B. Rondelli“Virtual Archaeology or TimeMachine: scientific paths for a

Fig. 5. The history of human settlement appears substantially connected tothe “history of rivers” as an element, readable on the landscape, of what forpopulations is the “network effect” of a careful planning of resources andexploitation.

reconstruction of archaeologicallandscape.” In: The Recon-struction of ArchaeologicalLandscapes Through DigitalTechnologies , Italy-United StatesWorkshop 2003, Roma, Novem-bre 3-5. (In press).

Costanza and Voinov 2004Robert Costanza and AlexeyVoinov. Landscape SimulationModeling. A Spatially Explicit,Dynamic Approach. New York:Springer Verlag, 2004.

Dzhurakulov and Mamedov 1986M. D. Dzhurakulov and E. E.Mamedov. Geologiia arkheolo-gicheskih pamiatnikov Zerafshana.Samarkand: Samarkandskii gos.universitet, 1986.

Gärdenfors 2004Peter Gärdenfors. ConceptualSpaces. The Geometry of Thought.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,2004.

Isamiddinov 2002Mukhammad KhasanovichIsamiddinov. Istoki gorodskoikul’tury Samarkandskogo Sogda.Tashkent: Izd-vo. narodnogonaslediia i A. Kadyri, 2002.

Mantellini 2003Simone Mantellini. “The DargomCanal and the Early Settlementof the Middle Zeravshan Valley.”In: Italo-Uzbek ScientificCooperation in Archaeology andIslamic Studies: An Overview.Rome, January 30, 2001. SamuelaPagani, ed. Roma: Institutoitaliano per l’Africa e l’Oriente,2003: 42-47.

Mantellini and Rondelli in pressSimone Mantellini and BernardoRondelli. “Strategie e metodi perla storia del popolamento nellaMedia Valle dello Zeravshan(Uzbekistan). La ricostruzione inambiente GIS attraverso survey,cartografia storica, telerileva-mento e modellazione tridimen-sionale.” In: Teoria e Praticanell’analisi e interpretazione della

38

cultura materiale antica, IConvegno degli Studenti diArcheologia, Napoli 26-28 maggio2003. (In press).

Shirinov and Tosi 2003T. Shirinov and M. Tosi. “Landbehind Samarkand.” In: Italo-Uzbek Scientific Cooperation inArchaeology and Islamic Studies:An Overview. Rome, January 30,2001. Samuela Pagani, ed. Roma:Instituto italiano per l’Africa el’Oriente, 2003: 13-41.

Tulepbayev 1986Baidabek Akhmedovich Tulep-bayev. Socialist Agrarian Reformsin Central Asia and Kazakhstan.Moskva: Nauka, 1986.

Zakirov 1955Kadyr Zakirovich Zakirov. Flora irastitel’nost’ basseina rekiZeravshan. Chast’ 1: Rastitel’-nost’. Tashkent: Izd-vo. ANUzbekskoi SSR, 1955.

________________

Reasoning with GIS : Tracingthe Silk Road and the DefensiveSystems of the Murghab Delta(Turkmenistan)Barbara CerasettiBologna University

Over the past fifteen years, amajor joint Italian-Russian-Turkmen project has enabled thecreation of an archaeological GISof the Murghab delta. This projecthas involved some fifty differentspecialists, resulting in numerousstudies and a preliminary projectpublication [Gubaev et al. 1998].The GIS is sti l l under con-struction. However, it alreadyincludes over 1000 sites withassociated archaeological dataand a great deal of cartographicand other geographical infor-mation. The project evolved at atime when GIS was only juststarting to be applied toarchaeology, and all informationwas classified in codifiedcategories developed ad hoc forthis purpose.

The Murghab delta is aterminal alluvial cone situated in

the Karakum desert of Turk-menistan (Fig. 1). The only supplyof water before the constructionof the massive Karakum Canalduring the Soviet period camefrom the Murghab River itself, asingle trunk-course deeplyencased near its source in thehilly piedmont of the northernParopamisus (Afghanistan),which spreads into a wide alluvialfan of rich farmlands in theterminal delta. This became oneof the largest irrigated areas inCentral Asia as early as theBronze Age. After Alexander’sconquest in 332 BCE, Margiana,and in particular the ancientcapital of Merv, developed as anodal point along one of the mostactive Silk Road sections, openingdirect trade relations with China[Cattani et al., p. 125; Bader etal. 1993-94, p. 51].

While developing the archae-ological map of the Murghabdelta from field surveys andarchival data of the Soviet period,we have assembled a vastcollection of maps and rare dataconcerning the climate, soil,vegetation and economy of theregion, including statisticalspreadsheets from governmentagencies from the late 19thcentury to World War II [Cerasetti2000-2001]. One of the mainaims of our research concernsthe definition of the chronologicalsequence and reconstruction ofthe main irrigation systems,elaborating the data on theriver’s morphological evolution bymeans of GIS applications.Surface and historical mapping[Abbott 1843; Stewart 1881;Fig. 1. The Upper Eastern Murghab Delta.

39

Lumsden 1885] and intensivewalking transects with aerialphotos from low altitudes andspace platforms (CORONA 1964,Landsat-7 2001, NASA LandsatMosaic 1999, IKONOS 001[Ziebart et al. 2002]), as well asreconnaissance flights for obliqueobservation along sub-fossilmeanders, allowed us better tounderstand the main changescharacterizing the life of theMurghab river [Cerasetti 2002;Cerasetti and Mauri 2002].

One of the first targets is afine-grained reconstruction ofthe delta configuration before thelarge scale development projectscarried out under Russian rule(Fig. 2). The combined support ofdigital archive data from GIS andthe analysis of satellite imageryof the alluvial fan allow us tounderstand the complex pro-

cesses based on settlementfluctuation, and to reconstructthe palaeo-c h a n n e lnetwork of theMurghab delta(Fig. 3).

A n o t h e raspect underinvestigation isthe evolution ofpatterns off o r t i f i c a -tion.The em-ployment ofremote sensingdata allowedus to study thedefensive fron-ter systems inMargiana fromthe Iron Age 2

(Yaz II/900-550BCE) until theParthian period(190 BCE-550 CE).Before the consoli-dation of Achae-menid centralpower, two impres-sive south-northfortress lines wereerected along thenortheastern side

of the Murghab delta [Genito1998, p. 125, Fig. 1], probably

defending the cultivated area andthe main waterworks (Fig. 4). Thelack of water must have been aproblem for the subsistence of anincreasing population and thewater source control of theMurghab River presumablycorresponded to a “territorialcontrol” of the Margiana region.Today much of the Murghab deltais covered by vegetation, makingit impossible to collect data bysurvey. However, the ob-servations made on CORONA

satellite imagery have madeit possible to localize thesouthernmost complex ofthe eastern frontier, knownas Garry Kishman [Cerasettiand Mauri 2002, p. 2],founded during the Iron Age3 (550-340 BCE) period (Fig.5, next page).

With the beginnings oflarge scale trade along theSilk Road, we can detect theappearance of another formof fortification. By usingmultispectral ETM Landsatimages from NASA LandsatMosaic (1999) (Fig. 6) wehave been able to locate aline of fortresses along anew Silk Road section to the

Fig. 2. Ancient dam of the Sultan Band.

Fig. 3. Reconstruction of the palaeochannel network ofthe Murghab delta.

Fig. 4. Fortress lines along the northeastern side of the Murghab delta.

40

north of the Samarkand-Hecatompylos trade route,crossing Merv in the Murghabdelta. We singled out sevenrectangular plan fortresses,measuring approximately 10 ha.each, and situated at a distanceof about 50 km (Fig. 7, next page)along the Kelif Uzboi riverbed, thesouthernmost dry canal of Uzboj[so-called in Russian scholarship:Bader and Usupov 1995, p. 29,Fig. 1]. The fortresses are welldefended by impressive walls,and their regular plan and theirsize suggest a date in theParthian period. Many exotic high-quality objects have been founddating to this period, a fact linked

to the increase of tradeexchanges between China andthe Parthian kingdom of theArsacids, in particular underMithradates II (123-87 BCE)[Boulnois 2001, p. 59; Frye 1984:360; Bader and Usupov 1995, p.27; Callieri in press, p. 541].

The fortresses probablydefended caravans and exoticgoods coming from Bukhara orKhiva and also constituted a restpoint for travelers and animals.Pack animals were mainlycamels, the most adaptedspecies to hot and dry climatesand, in particular, to longdistance travel across the Central

Fig. 5. CORONA detail of Garry Kishman.

Asian deserts [Wapnish 1981, pp.104, 108, 121]. Numerous anddifferent criteria characterizedcaravan travel of the time: camelnumber, loaded weight, strongtemperature range etc. “...theaverage rate was fifteen tosixteen miles [per eight-hour day]for a heavily laden caravan,seventeen to eighteen for amoderately laden, and twenty totwenty-two a day of ten hoursfor a l ightly laden caravan”[Zoghby, p. 1]. This means thata distance of 50 kms. (= 31 miles)from one station to the nextcorresponds to approximately atwo-day journey, and maybe aone-day journey for a lightlyladen caravan [Boulnois 2001, p.209-210]. From Hecatompylos toBukhara at the North of Merv, alightly laden caravan wouldtherefore employ three weeks tocover 1046 km. (= 649 miles),crossing the Amu-darya river inthe proximity of the moderncentre of Chorjuyu. We hope toconfirm the present workinghypothesis by the acquisition ofhigher resolution imagery.

Fig. 6. NASA Landsat Mosaic with Hecatompylos-Bukharasection of Silk Road

About the Author

Barbara Cerasetti (cerasett@alma.unibo.it) holds a PhD in ar-chaeology from the Oriental Uni-versity Institute, Naples. She isthe field director for GIS and re-mote sensing of the joint project“The Archaeological Map of theMurghab Delta” (Turkmenistan)and a research fellow at BolognaUniversity.

References

Abbott 1843James Abbott. Narrative of aJourney from Heraut to Khiva,Moscow, and St. Petersburgh,during the Late Russian Invasionof Khiva; with Some Account of theCourt of Khiva and the Kingdom ofKhaurism, I. London, 1843.

Bader et al. 1993-94Andrei Bader, Vassif Gaibov andGennadij Koshelenko. “TheNorthern Periphery of the Merv

41

Fig. 7. Detail of one of the Parthian fortresses.

Oasis from the AchaemenidPeriod to the Mongol Conquest.”Silk Road Art and Archaeology, 3(1993/94): 51-70.

Bader and Usupov 1995Andrei Bader, Khemra Usupov,“Gold Earrings from North-WestTurkmenistan.” In: In the Land ofthe Gryphons. Papers on CentralAsian Archaeology in Antiquity.Antonio Invernizzi, ed. Florence:Le Lettere, 1995: 23-38.

Boulnois 2001Luce Boulnois. La route de la soie.Dieux, guerriers et marchands.Genève: Olizane, 2001.

Callieri in pressPierfrancesco Callieri. “La pre-sunta via commerciale tra l’Indiae Roma attraverso l’Oxus e il MarCaspio. Nuovi dati di dis-cussione.” Topoi, 11 (in press):537-545.

Cattani et al. 2003Maurizio Cattani, BarbaraCerasetti, Sandro Salvatori,Maurizio Tosi. “The Murghab Deltain Central Asia 1990-2001: GISfrom a Research Resource to aReasoning Tool for the Study ofSettlement Change in Long-TermFluctuations.” In: ComputerApplications and QuantitativeMethods in Archaeology. Pro-ceedings of the 30th Conference,Heraklion, Crete, April 2002. M.Doerr, A. Sarris, eds. Crete:Hellenic Ministry of Culture, 2003:125-131.

Cerasetti 2000-2001Barbara Cerasetti. “A GeographicInformation System for AncientMargiana.” Annali IstitutoUniversitario Orientale di Napoli,60-61 (2000-2001): 197-214.

Cerasetti 2002Barbara Cerasetti. “A 5000-YearsHistory of Settlement andIrrigation in the Murghab Delta(Turkmenistan). An Attempt ofReconstruction of Ancient DeltaicSystem.” In: ArchaeologicalInformatics: Pushing the Enve-lope, CAA 2001. ComputerApplications and QuantitativeMethods in Archaeology. Pro-ceedings of the 29th Conference.Gotland, April 2001. (BritishArchaeological Reports. Interna-tional Series, 1016). G. Burenhult,J. Arvidsson, eds. Oxford:Archaeopress, 2002: 21-27.

Cerasetti and Mauri 2002Barbara Cerasetti and MassimoMauri Massimo, “The MurghabDelta Palaeochannel Recon-struction on the Basis of RemoteSensing from Space.” SpaceApplications for Heritage Con-servation, Strasbourg (France),November 2002, 2002.

Frye 1984Richard N. Frye. The History ofAncient Iran. München: C. H.Beck, 1984.

Genito 1998Bruno Genito. “Trial-trench at SiteNo. 215.” In: The Archaeological

Map of the Murghab Delta.Preliminary Reports 1990-95.(Reports and Memoirs. SeriesMinor, III). A. Gubaev, G.Koshelenko, M. Tosi, eds. Rome:IsIAO, 1998: 125-135.

Gubaev et al. 1998Annageldy Gubaev, GennadijKoshelenko, and Maurizio Tosi,eds. The Archaeological Map of theMurghab Delta. Preliminary Re-ports 1990-95. Rome: IsIAO,1998.

Lumsden 1895Paul Lumsden. Countries andTribes bordering on the Koh-i-BabaRange. (Proceedings of the RoyalGeographical Society andMonthly Record of Geography).London, 1885.

NASA. Applied SciencesDirectorate. [Access page forLandsat images.] http://zulu.ssc.nasa.gov/mrsid/.

Stewart 1881C. E. Stewart. The Country of theTekke Turkomans, and the Tejenand Murghab Rivers. (Proceedingsof the Royal Geographical Societyand Monthly Record of Geo-graphy). London, 1881.

Wapnish 1981Paula Wapnish. “Camel Caravansand Camel Pastoralists at TellJemmeh.” Journal of the AncientNear East Society, 13 (1981):101-121.

Ziebart et al. 2002Marek Ziebart, Peter Dare, TimWilliams, and Georgina Herr-mann. “Acquisition, registrationand application of IKONOS spaceimagery for the cultural WorldHeritage Site at Merv, Turk-menistan.” Space Applications forHeritage Conservation, Stras-bourg (France), November 2002,2002.

ZoghbySamir Zoghby, “Merchants andPotentates. Desert Caravans.”American Forum for GlobalEducation. http://www.globaled.o r g / n y w o r l d / m a t e r i a l s /african8.html.

42

43

The application of GIS to thearchaeological mapping ofAfghanistan offers an excellentmeans of evolving a new platformfor synthesizing and interpretingdata, for assessing andmonitoring the preservation ofsites, and for the eventualcollection of new data. Inconjunction with other CentralAsian GIS projects, it can alsoform a tool with which to studyhistorical human geographywithin and across the region, andthemes such as the evolution ofsettlement patterns and culturalinteractions across the Iranianplateau and Central Asia. TheGIS described in this section is afirst step in this direction,containing over 2000 sites andassociated data sets, derivedfrom the Archaeological Gazetteerof Afghanistan [Ball 1982], theFrench surveys in eastern Bactria[Gardin 1998; Lyonnet 1997;Gentelle 1989] and othersources.

From maps and catalogs to GIS

The two main sources ofarchaeological data digitizedwere the Gazetteer and data fromthe plains east of the Kunduzriver, which were the object of anextensive regional survey by aFrench team in the 1970s.Geographic and cartographic“base map” data sources includepublicly available vector data suchas National Imagery and MappingAgency (NIMA) Vmap1 andcurrent data from AfghanistanInformation Management System(AIMS), as well as raster datasuch as 3-arcsecond DigitalElevation Models (DEMs). Ofgreat potential are geo-referenced 1:100,000 and

1:50,000 Sovietmilitary topographicmap sets, which notonly allow for preciselocalization of knownsites, but the addi-tion of hundreds of undocu-mented sites, which are markedas mounds on these maps (Fig.1).

The Gazetteer data weredigitized by scanning the sitecatalog, performing text recog-nition, and creating a singledatabase record for the text ofeach catalog entry, including itsdetailed description, periodi-zation, bibliographic references,etc. The coordinates given foreach site were extractedautomatically into separatedatabase fields and convertedinto decimal degree format.Because seconds are notprovided in these coordinates,the resulting calculated decimaldegree coordinates significantlyexaggerate their geographicalprecision (since the geographicalrange of sites within one minutecould amount to a difference onthe ground of over a kilometer).Entries in theGazetteer spanningmore than oneg e o g r a p h i c a lminute were aver-aged into onedecimal degreec o o r d i n a t e .A v e r a g e dcoordinates aremainly the groupsof sites subsumedby Gardin into onecatalog entry in theGazetteer, but mostof these were indi-vidually localized

much more precisely in thedigitization of more data from theoriginal survey maps of theGardin team. Such preciselocalizations are necessary inareas crowded with sites, whichsometimes even bear the samenames.

The separate publications ofthe latter data formed the secondmain source for the GIS. In threeseasons (1974-5-6) of survey inthe Dasht-i-Qala plain, approxi-mately 200 square kilometerswere surveyed, recording 349sites, while one season (1977-8) of extensive survey acrosssome 1,500 km. recorded 474sites. The GIS in its present formcontains localizations only of thesites of the extensive survey(mapped in Fig. 2); however thedigitized site database includesrecords for the remaining 226sites in the Dasht-i-Qala plain.

Evolving the ArchaeologicalMapping of AfghanistanMariner PadwaHarvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

Fig. 1. Sites mapped in the GIS.

Fig. 2. Sites of eastern Bactria (excl. Dasht-i-Qala plain).

Data have so far beenentered in the database forthese fields: number (sometimeswith sub-number identifyingletter); Ball number and sub-number identifying letter (A, B, C,etc.); a ‘D number’ for sites in theDasht-i-Qala plain (to distinguishthese sites, which are numberedin a different sequence); namewhen given; the designatedgeographic area, sectors,subsectors, and sub-subsectors,and finally the presence-absencefields for the different ceramicgroups at each site. The complexset of fields used for coding theceramic finds at each site is afunction of the notation ofperiodization used by Gardin[1998], which generally refers todegrees of certainty of attribution(and which is not always thesame as the identifications inLyonnet 1997).1 Exclusive of asubset of sites in the Dasht-i-Qala plain, the present form ofthis subset of the digitized sitedatabase thus contains 695complete records.

Not yet included in thedatabase is the full narrativedescription for these sites, whichgenerally contains a measure-ment and descriptive localization(itinerary). No coordinate loca-tions are given in this site catalog,but in the localization in the GISthrough the use of the originalmaps used on survey, coor-

dinates were identified within aestimated precision of hundredsof meters for most sites (and thedescriptive data could be usedfor even greater accuracy inlocalizing sites with larger scalemaps). These original surveymaps were a set of 1:100,000scale Soviet topographic mapsand corresponding photocopiesmarked with the field data fromthe survey.2 Some of the mapswere themselves large-formatblack and white photocopies orcolor reproductions of varyingquality. The photocopies ofsections of these mapscorresponding to sectors orportions of sectors described inthe survey synthesis weremarked with all the sitesrecorded on the survey, labeledwith the survey number. In thecase of larger sites a sketch ofthe extent and shape of sites waswhere one ‘x’ or a small circleidentifies a series of sites, a pointwas entered at the center of theshape (Fig. 3).

Even in rare cases whereexact locations of individual siteswere not indicated, the error canbe estimated to be under akilometer, and in most cases theaccuracy of the coordinatesdigitized in this fashion areprobably better or even similar tothe total error range of astandard (non-survey) GPSreceiver. The maps published in

the survey synthesis wereconsulted during the digitizationprocess, but because of theirschematic nature, the sourcesdescribed above were givenpreference in making all geo-graphic determinations.

Desiderata for databasedevelopment

Data from sources not entirelyincluded in the Gazetteer, such theSoviet-Afghan mission [cf. map inSarianidi 1976], as well asunpublished ones, also need tobe incorporated. The de-velopment of the database alsorequires reorganization of thematerial which has already beendigitized. Database entries fromthe Gazetteer contain entire textsof catalog entries in one field,with the exception of coordinates.While this text field can bequeried (e.g. for the string“Bronze Age” or “Kushan”),including spatial queries, theability to carry out more complexqueries on the Gazetteer data islimited, and each of these entiresshould be converted intodatabase fields, for which theyare essentially already struc-tured.

Separate database fields areimportant for bringing the dataon a uniform level with other sitedatabases, as well as foranalysis. This is particularlyrelevant for periodization andsite size, but other fields containdata of significance forinterpretation — for example thefieldwork type (excavation,survey) could be compared withnew data on intensity of survey(scale of intensity, quantified interms of time, surface areacollection size, etc.). Theincorporation of a structured,site-by-site bibliographic data-base is likewise an importantaim. Finally, the inclusion of thesite plans, and the creation of aphotographic database, aregoals for developing thedatabase as a tool to track thestate of preservation of sites and

Fig. 3. Sites in the area of Imam Sahib, near the Amu-darya.

44

collections. A unified databaseform should ideally encompass aspectrum of formats from fieldswhich contain discrete quanti-fiable data which needs to beformalized for analytical purposes(spatial queries, etc.), to moredescriptive fields which cancontain miscellaneous descriptiveinformation, notes etc.

Finally, without ground-truthing, inaccurate or impreciselocalizations can only besomewhat ameliorated byconsulting original archaeologicalpublications and comparingcartographic sources. Thecorrection of geographic local-izations can also sometimes beachieved using higher qualitycartographic sources, and theSoviet topographic sets alsorecord many mounds which havenot been examined or identified,but which are in many casesarchaeological sites. An impor-tant task would be creating apoint feature set from all moundsmarked on these maps, iden-tifying those which aredocumented in the literature, andtaking the remaining mounds asa basis for future documentation(point sets can simply bedownloaded into a GPS and thennavigated to as waypoints).

Potential applications

Over twenty years ago, aftercollecting and reviewing most ofthe existing archaeological datafrom Afghanistan, Ball offered anassessment of the work to bedone in the Introduction to theGazetteer [1982, p. 20]: “Gen-erally ... the need for survey –and survey of a systematic andorganized sort – appears to beparamount. In many ways,surveys can answer morequestions than excavation.”While a GIS database includingunpublished material andmaterial published since theGazetteer offers new possibilitiesfor the interpretation of existingarchaeological data, and forremedying some of the many

imbalances in our knowledge ofAfghanistan’s past, the need forsurvey can only have grownduring the tragic events since thetime of Ball’s judgment.

Many factors may of courselimit the logistical feasibility ofcarrying out any kind of fieldworkin Afghanistan for years to come.Nevertheless, the return ofstability in certain regions of thecountry has made it possible forarchaeologists to renew field-work and even undertake somelimited excavations [Tarzi 2004;Franke-Vogt n.d.], and severalimportant discoveries havealready been made [Lee andSims-Williams 2003; Grenet, Lee,and Ory, n.d.]. This work,undertaken by scientistshazarding the dangers of travelin the countryside of Afghanistan,follows a series of spectaculardiscoveries over the past decadewhich were sadly made inundocumented and il l icitcircumstances, such as a groupof Bactrian socio-economicdocuments, which have unveiledwhat was essentially anunknown language [Sims-Williams 2001]; new inscriptions,which have settled questions ofchronology that kept generationsof scholars busy with speculation[Falk 2001]; large numbers ofKharoshthi birch-bark scrolls,which proved to be the earliestBuddhist manuscripts known[Salomon 1999]; the Mir Zakahhoard, “one of the largest coindeposits attested in the historyof mankind” consisting of “threeto four tons of gold, silver andbronze coins” [Bopearachchi1999, p. 109], as well as a hostof other material which hassurfaced on the antiquitiesmarket, such as Bronze agefunerary material from Bactria.

The appearance of such awealth of material in a such achaotic fashion only underscoresthe need to design a GISdatabase to accomodate newdata, and when and wherepossible, from new surveys,

which offer perhaps the bestpossibil ity for effectivelydocumenting a large amount ofdata before it is lost. Somepossibilities in this directioninclude designing the databaseto accommodate data fromdifferent survey techniques;adapting a ceramic databasetemplate for surface collection;establishing a baseline forevaluating (or indeed, if possible,quantifying) the current pre-servation of sites, against whichhistorical and future assess-ments can be measured;establishing a protocol forcollecting photographic docu-mentation (for example, followingrelatively simple methods whichwill make it possible for theimages to be post-processed forphotogrammetry); creating ageneral database templatewhich can be distributed toarchaeologists and othersworking in the field, and so on.Obviously, a GIS of Afghanarchaeology should be designedwith such potential applicationsin mind, and should be open tointernational collaboration of thebroadest scope.

References

Ball 1982Warwick Ball. ArchaeologicalGazetteer of Afghanistan /Catalogue des sites archéologiquesd’Afghanistan. Paris, 1982.

Borearachchi 1999Osmund Bopearachchi. “RecentCoin Hoard Evidence on Pre-Kushana Chronology.” In: Coins,Art, and Chronology: Essays on thePre-Islamic History of the Indo-Iranian Borderlands. M. Alram andD.E. Klimburg-Salter, eds.Vienna,1999.

Falk 2001Harry Falk. “The yuga of Sphu-jiddhvaja and the Era of theKushanas.” Silk Road Art andArchaeology (Kamakura), 7(2001).

45

Franke-Vogt n.d.U. Franke-Vogt. “Grabungs- undTrainingsprogramm Bagh-eBabur, Kabul.” (Brief projectdescription on the website of theDeutsches ArchäologischesInstitut, http://www.dainst.org/index_2888_de.html). n.d.

Gardin 1998Jean-Claude Gardin. Prospectionsarchéologique en Bactrianeorientale (1974-1978) vol. 3:Description des sites et notes desynthèses (Mémoirs de lamission archéologiques françaiseen Afghanistan, vol. VII). Paris:Editions Recherche sur lesCivilisations, 1998.

Gentelle 1989Pierre Gentelle. Prospectionsarchéologiques en Bactrianeorientale (1974-1978) vol. 1 :Données paléogéographiques etfondements de l’ irrigation(Mémoirs de la missionarchéologiques française enAfghanistan, vol. VII). Paris:Editions Recherche sur lesCivilisations, 1989.

Lee and Sims-Williams 2003Jonathan Lee and Nicholas Sims-Williams. “The antiquities andinscription of Tang-i-Safedak.” SilkRoad Art and Archaeology(Kamakura), 9 (2003).

Grenet et al., n.d.Frantz Grenet, Jonathan Lee andFrançois Ory. (Paper on the newlydiscovered rock relief at Pul-i-Khumri, presented at the BritishAcademy symposium AfterAlexander: Central Asia beforeIslam, June 2004.)

Lyonnet 1997Bertille Lyonnet. Prospectionsarchéologique en Bactrianeorientale (1974-1978) vol. 2:Céramique et peuplement duchalcolithique à la conquête arabe(Mémoirs de la missionarchéologiques française enAfghanistan, vol. VII). Paris:Editions Recherche sur lesCivilisations, 1997.

Salomon 1999Richard Salomon. AncientBuddhist Scrolls from Gandhara:The British Library KharosthiFragments. London and Seattle:The British Library and TheUniversity of Washington Press,1999.

Sarianidi 1976Viktor I. Sarianidi. “Issledovaniepamiatnikov dashlinskogooazisa.” In: Drevniaia Baktriia, 1.G.I. Kruglikova, ed. Moskva,1976: 21-86.

Sims-Williams 2001Nicholas Sims-Williams. BactrianDocuments from Northern

46

Afghanistan: Legal and EconomicDocuments (Studies in the KhaliliCollection of Islamic Art). OxfordUniversity Press, 2001.

Tarzi 2003Zemaryalai Tarzi. “Bamiyan:Professor Tarzi’s Survey andExcavation ArchaeologicalMission, 2003.” The Silk Road(Newsletter of the SilkroadFoundation), 1/2 (2003): 37-39.(http://www. silkroadfoundation.o r g /news l e t t e r / de cembe r /bamiyan.htm).

Notes

1. In collaboration with severalscholars, a database derived fromLyonnet 1997 is in the process ofdigitization, which is an especiallyimportant component, because itprovides a detailed ceramic typol-ogy with comparisons across theregion.

2. The original maps and photo-copies were generously providedby Jean-Claude Gardin to the au-thor and Sebastian Stride, whohas collaborated on many aspectsof this project.

Fig. 1. A modern excavation such as this generates vast quantities ofirreplaceable data. This excavation at Domuztepe (Turkey) generatedover 10,000 images of archaeological contexts, artifacts, and other finds.

Storing and Sharing CentralAsian GIS: The AlexandriaArchiveEric KansaSan Francisco, California

While GIS and relatedtechnologies are revolutionizingarchaeology and relateddisciplines, they present theirown challenges. Vast amounts ofdata are generated in digitizingregional data-sets, and incontemporary techniques of datacollection in “digital” archae-ology. Projects that use GIS, suchas those described in this section,are a case in point. A singlearchaeological excavation orsurvey can produce literallythousands of digital photos,maps, plans, drawings, analy-ses, databases and reports.Archaeologists produce all thisinformation because suchdetailed recording and obser-vation is fundamental tounderstanding the past.Excavation is also an inherentlydestructive enterprise. In someways, to dig a site is to destroyit. Therefore it is absolutely vitalthat archaeologists record,preserve, and share the resultsof their work. Without thoroughpublication and wide dissem-ination of research, we run therisk of losing the past and ourhistorical memory.

However, the sheer volume ofinformation generated by digitalarchaeology makes thoroughand complete publication almostimpossible with traditional means(Fig. 1, preceding page; Fig. 2).More and more, archaeologistsare looking toward the Internetto share the results of theirresearch.

The Internet poses specialopportunities and challenges forthe dissemination of scholarship.

Most researchers now dependon e-mail for casual correspon-dence and coordination ofprojects between colleagues.However, while e-mail has seengeneral acceptance in thescholarly community (despite thetwin curses of junk mail and thedaily deluge of messages thatrequire instant replies), theInternet has yet to become animportant avenue for thedissemination of research.

Given the obvious power of theInternet, why the resistance?One of its greatest advantagesis that it is ubiquitous andrelatively cheap in the contem-porary world. In contrast, paperjournals, books and otherpublications are all very costly,both to acquire and to store.However, the Internet is adynamic, decentralized, andlargely unregulatedfree-for-all of everchanging news,rumor, wild specula-tion, commercial-ism, and thebizarre. While thishas certain advan-tages for someapplications, itposes difficulties forscholarship. Howdo you find sourcesthat you can trust,cite, and rely upon?

The vast majoityof current web-content lacks therigor and longevityneeded to supportscholarship andinstruction. Though

many researchers make limiteduse of the Web for “publicrelations” efforts and limitedinstructional purposes, few relyon the Internet as a means ofauthoritative publication. Ingeneral, scholars are resistant tousing the Internet as a vehiclefor formal publication, becausethey are not yet rewarded fordoing so. Researchers advancetheir professional careersprimarily through successfulpublication in peer-reviewjournals (the more prestigiousand rigorous the better). Thereare now very few outlets foronline, peer-review publicationon the Internet, so there is littleincentive for researchers toproduce online content.

The Alexandria ArchiveI n s t i t u t e ( h t t p : / / w w w .alexandriaarchive.org) is meetingthis challenge by working withprofessional societies to developscholarly online disseminationchannels. We are currentlydeveloping “AnthroCommons” forthe American AnthropologicalAssociation (AAA). Anthro-Commons will enable re-searchers to share and commentupon conference papers pre-sented at the annual meetings

47

Fig. 2. A GIS plan and digital imagery of a massivebone deposit from Domuztepe, a Neolithic site inTurkey.

of the AAA. The same reviewprocess that selects abstractsand moderates sessions for theAAA meeting will work inAnthroCommons. We will providemultiple copyright license choicesfor AnthroCommons participants,including the option of using“open” Creative Commonslicenses [see Brown 2003; Kelty2004]. These licenses removecopyright restrictions and permitanyone to copy and share awork, so long as the author isproperly attributed. Thus,Creative Commons licensesrepresent an essential aspect todigital dissemination; they helpinsure scholars are recognizedfor their contributions whilefreeing content for widespreaddistribution, use, and incorpora-tion into new scholarly works.

In addition, online content stillfaces tough questions regardingpermanence. Information on theInternet is highly volatile.Scholars require some guaranteethat the sources they cite todaywill be available to be referencedand reevaluated tomorrow. Mostnow turn to a very limitedapplication of the Internet forscholarship by using onlineoffprints of printed journals. TheAndrew Mellon Foundation’sJSTOR project has been a leadingforce in using the Internet todeliver offprints of articlespublished in leading journalsacross several disciplines. Manypopular archaeological journals,including the Journal ofArchaeological Science, CurrentAnthropology, and the Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology aredisseminated online via JSTOR.Not only do users of JSTOR gaininstant access to the scholarshipcontained in these peer-reviewed publications, they arealso assured that the informationthey use and cite is backed bythe permanence of print.

Despite the impressivesuccess of JSTOR and similarservices, they cannot, inthemselves, meet the needs of

contemporary archaeology.JSTOR uses the Internetessentially to deliver facsimiles ofprinted journals. These facsimilessuffer from the same constraintsas paper. Since large data setsare too unwieldy to be publishedon paper, they are also toounwieldy to be useful as mereelectronic facsimiles.

Other strategies are neededto complement JSTOR and printedjournals. JSTOR and printedjournals deliver mainly summariesand interpretations of larger datasets. Without preservation anddissemination of all the data, ourknowledge of the past is limitedto such summaries and idio-syncratic interpretations. Science(and scholarship in general)requires theories and inter-pretations to be constantly re-evaluated and reformulated inorder to advance. By notpublishing the full picture of ourarchaeological excavations andsurveys, we limit the freedomfuture generations will have toreach their own understanding ofhistory.

The Alexandria Archive Institute(AAI) was formed in 2001 to meetthis pressing need to preserveand fully disseminate archaeo-logical information. Among theAAI’s first projects, is an onlineinformation resource for CentralAsian Archaeology. The results ofthis project on Bactrian archae-ology will be delivered tostudents and scholars every-where by the Alexandria ArchiveInstitute.

In order to meet this mission,the AAI is adopting a sophis-ticated information managementsystem developed by Prof. DavidSchloen at the University ofChicago. His “ArchaeologicalMarkup Language” has severalkey advantages that will givearchaeologists enhanced abilitiesto share and preserve their data.What is the “ArchaeologicalMarkup Language?” It is animplementation of XML (exten-

sible markup language) devel-oped for archaeology. While mostWeb pages are written in themore familiar HTML standard, XMLis a vastly more powerful de-velopment now used in businessto business communication andnumerous scientific applications.XML enables us to bring theanalytic power of databases tothe open communication andconnectivity of the Internet.

A key advantage of using anXML scheme like the “Archaeo-logical Markup Language” is thatwe are not dependent on pro-prietary standards. This hastremendous data preservationadvantages because proprietarydata formats often change andcan quickly lapse into a “cyber-death” of unreadability. More-over, any scholar or institutioncan implement the ArchaeologicalMarkup Language. This opensthe door for building tremen-dously powerful “distributedarchives” that chronicle theentirety of world history! Forarchaeologists who try todevelop meaningful under-standings of huge amounts ofcomplex data, these capabilitiesare very exciting. By implementingthe XML “Archaeological MarkupLanguage,” we will go beyond asimple repository of information,and create new research toolsand resources to share, explore,integrate and synthesize infor-mation about the past.

Because archaeologists havesuch great difficulty using (andeven finding) primary data, theyface enormous challenges insynthesizing an understandingof even one site, much less anentire region. Thus, our under-standing of social and culturalchange on the regional orinterregional level is limited toimpressionistic summaries ofalready second-hand summariesand interpretations. As researchaccumulates it is becoming evermore difficult adequately tocommand the primary literature.Given the glut of information and

48

the lack of good tools for regionalcomparison and synthesis,researchers are becoming evermore specialized and afraid oftackling the “big questions” ofthe past.

By using the ArchaeologicalMarkup Language, we will enableunprecedented capabilities fullyto use and reexamine primarydata. The Archaeological MarkupLanguage has a powerful flexibledata model that can provide acommon structure to diverse setsof archaeological and philologicaldata sets. This flexibility isessential to insuring that onlinedata repositories do more thanjust preserve information. Withthis tool, scholars can fullyintegrate different archaeologicaldata sets and develop analy-tically rigorous and com-prehensive new syntheses. It

enables scholars to put togethersmall pieces of knowledge toreveal the full picture of the past.When these technology solutionsare combined with innovativeintellectual property frameworks,as developed by CreativeCommons, the result is aninformation infrastructure thatenables research to be created,shared, used and reusedglobally. This collaborationbetween the AAI and CentralAsian specialists is just one stepin enabling this vision to becomea reality.

About the Author

Eric Kansa received his Ph.D.from Harvard University in 2001.He has participated inarchaeological excavations in

Egypt, Israel, Jordan, andcurrently is working at theNeolithic site of Domuz-tepe inTurkey. He is the founder andExecutive Director of theAlexandria Archive Institute andis a Visiting Scholar at StanfordUniversity.

References

Brown 2003Glenn Otis Brown. “AcademicDigital Rights: A Walk on theCreative Commons.” In Syllabus.Syllabus, Chatsworth, California,2003.

Kelty 2004Christopher Kelty. “Punt toCulture.” Anthropological Quarterly77 (2004): 547-558.

49

The Search for the Origins of theJew’s HarpMichael WrightOxford, England

As a player of the musicalinstrument known as the Jew’sor jaws harp, the two mostfrequent questions asked by myaudience are, “How did it get itsname?” and “Where does itcome from?” One of thechallenging and, at times, frus-trating aspects of researchingpopular instruments is the lack ofreference material we have towork with. Early writers simplydid not think the instrumentworthy of comment, or if they didit was often in derisory terms,not meriting serious study and,like many throw-away items,once the novelty had worn off orthe instrument had been broken,it was discarded. Nevertheless, wehave enough information to helpus understand an instrumentmanufactured and playedworldwide, constructed by

craftsmen or mass produced innumerous forms and shapesreflecting the material availableto the makers, and of ancientorigin.

This article explains what aJew’s harp is and its globalappeal; briefly explains what weknow about the English lang-uage name; looks at thearchaeological evidence; con-siders the relationship betweeninstruments in Asia and Europe;and, finally, their likely transfereast to west.

What is a Jew’s harp?

The first thing to recognise isthat Jew’s harps are subtlemusical instruments with anextraordinary variety of shapes,sizes and methods of playing.

They are international, beingmade extensively throughout theworld from Polynesia, Asia andEastern Russia to Europe andthe United States. They areknown in the Middle East andAfrica, though these wereexported from Europe orintroduced as barter by earlycolonists and do not appear tobe native to those countries.

A Jew’s harp is a single reedinstrument of two types: idioglot,where the vibrating reed ortongue of the instrument is cutfrom a single piece of wood,

bamboo, bone or thin flat metal,such as brass, and hetroglot,where there is a cast or bentmetal frame to which is fixed aseparate, flexible metal reed.1

To play the Jew’s harprequires three component parts– the instrument, the player’smouth and a means of activation.The mouth acts as a sound-boxand, though the Jew’s harp itselfhas no musical quality other thanthe fundamental note that thereed produces as it passesbetween the frame, other notescan be produced by a player byaltering the shape of his mouth,mainly by using his own tongue

to make the ‘sound-box’ larger orsmaller. To produce a low note theplayer’s tongue is placed at thebottom of the mouth, and toproduce a high note the player’stongue is placed at the top (Fig.1). It has been categorised as aplucked idiophone, or aninstrument that creates soundprimarily by way of the instru-ment itself vibrating, and anaerophone, or one that producessound primarily by causing a bodyof air to vibrate — an argumentthat is still going on.

The name

Worldwide more around 1000different names for theinstrument have been noted,and the list is expanding.European languages mainly usemouth and sometimes lips or teethlinked with trump and harp. Trumpin various forms and spellings areused today in Europe, such asMondtrom in Dutch and Tromp inFlemish. Harp is used in Scan-dinavian countries, such asNorway, Munnharpa, Denmark,Mundharpe and Finland, Huuli-harpu. Doromb can be found inHungary, with Drymba in Ukraineand Drombulja in Serbia. As wego further east we havevariations on Komys, Kupus, andKhomus in northern and easternAsia, while Morchang, Morsing,Dan Moi and Gengong, can befound in India, Vietnam andIndonesia. As a general point, in

Asia the instrument has a namerelating to the material fromwhich it is made, along withanimal or insect terms andsounds, whereas in Europe it hasmore human connections andnames of other musicalinstruments. There is, in addition,the use of more derogatoryterms such as lackey, bauble andsnore [Bakx 2004].

English is the only languagewhere there is an associationwith a particular race. We haveno idea why it became known asthe Jew’s harp, only that itremains the earliest name foundto date. The instrument hasnothing to do with the musicalculture of the Jewish race,though the name confuses theissue of where it comes from asthere is a natural, but erroneous,belief that the origins are MiddleEastern. The prefix Jew’s is onlyused in English and small part ofGermany and is first definitelyidentified as the instrument in adocument dated 1481 as Jueharpes and Jue trumpes. Thesignificance of this document, apetty customs account, cannotbe underestimated, as it not onlygives us the early name but aport of origin, Arnemuiden westof Antwerp, and the merchant forwhom the consignment wasintended, a certain Will iamCodde. It also clearly indicatesthat the names Jue harpes andJue trumpes were in commonusage in the late 15th centuryand known to both customsofficer and merchant [Wright2004]. The term Jaws harp is notseen before the mid-eighteenthcentury. There has been asuggestion that the instrumentmight originally have been calleda trump, from the French Trompe,but clear evidence is lacking. Thatname, however, is still used todayin parts of Ireland and Scotland.

European and UK finds

Tracing the history of theinstrument is largely reliant uponarchaeological finds and the

Fig. 1. Jew’s harp & mouth cross-section – “high note” position.

50

study of traditional types ofinstrument as used today or inrecent times, researched byethnomusicologists, and inmuseum collections such as theMusee de l’Homme in France, thePitt Rivers Museum and HornimanMuseum in the UK, along withstudies by Soviet scholars andtheir successors. Collectionshave more numerous examples,but they lack the historicalauthenticity of actual finds whenit comes to relating types to age.Archaeological idioglot finds areextremely rare, mainly due to thelocal climate and the material ofthe instruments, but when theydo exist they are extremely old,ranging between 2,000 and2,400 years. Hetroglot instru-ment finds are much morecommon, though almost exclu-sively they produce the frameonly. Sometimes you come acrossfragments of the reed where itwas fixed to the frame, butbecause the reed is the mostfragile part, constantly in motionwhen played, plucked with thefinger and allowed to run freelybetween the frame in order toobtain a note, it breaks quitefrequently. Without its reed theJew’s harp is completely useless,although one frame was foundused as a gate catch in Hawkshill,Surry, England [Elliston-Erwood1943].

The age of finds is often hotlydisputed and accurate dating hasbeen difficult, particularly up tothe immediate post-war era.Three Jew’s harps, for example,discovered in the 19th century inGallo-Roman sites at Rouen and

Parthenay, in France, havecaused some excitement in Jew’sharp circles, as have a fair numberof mid-20th-century instrumentsfound in the Southeast ofEngland and dated as Anglo-Saxon (Figs. 2 and 3). But wehave problems. Firstly, whilethere is no doubt that the findscame from Gallo-Roman andAnglo-Saxon sites, they couldhave been dropped there at alater date and are sometimesdescribed as top-soil f inds.Secondly, when we look at howthe instrument arrived in Europe,there is no evidence of indig-enous populations of the RomanEmpire using them and noreferences, to my knowledge, byRoman writers that such instru-ments were played. My concernregarding the Anglo-Saxon findsis that there is the similarity withJew’s harps recovered in an18th- century North American site.We either have to accept that theframe shape remains identicalfrom Anglo-Saxon to ColonialAmerican times or that the Anglo-Saxon instruments are in fact

from the 18th century [Kolltviet2000, p. 390].

One of the earliest acceptedfinds comes from Uppsala inSweden, and is dated 13thcentury (Fig. 4). It is verydistinctive, being hairpin shapedwithout the characteristic form ofthe bow shape now associatedwith modern instruments.Gjermund Kolltviet has recentlycompleted a PhD thesis on 850European finds, and his researchis due for publication late in2004. He has used a typologysystem to provide an explanationas to the relative ages of Jew’sharps throughout Europe, withhis basic theory being that theoldest instruments are like theUppsala find and, as theinstrument evolved, the bowsection became more pro-nounced, while the playingsection became shorter (Fig. 5)[Kolltviet 2000, p. 389].

We have visual references inEurope going back to the 14thcentury, the earliest of whichcomes from the seal of the

Trompii family of Grüningen, nearAarburg, Switzerland, dated1353, and there is no doubt thatthis is a Jew’s harp of, if weaccept Kolltviet’s system, a latetype (Fig. 6) [Crane 2003, p. 3].In England there is a fantasticseries of miniature enamels ofangels playing various musicalinstruments displayed on theCrosier of William of Wickham, tobe found in the chapel of NewCollege, Oxford, one of which not

Fig. 2. “Roman” Jew’s harp.

Fig. 3. “Anglo-Saxon” Jew’s harp.

Fig. 4 Uppsala Jew’s harp.

Fig. 5. Gjermund Kolltviet theory.

Fig 6. Seal of Trompii family.

51

only clearly shows a Jew’s harp,but the angel fl icking theinstrument’s tongue with hisfinger (Fig. 7). There are also anumber of watermarks from thelate 14th century from awidespread area of northernFrance and the Low Countries[Crane 2003, p. 4].

The only definite dates we canrely on for Europe are, therefore,the 13th-century find in Sweden,and the mid-to-late-14th-centuryimages from the seal and theNew College crosier.

Origins

Further to the east archae-ological finds give tantalising

glimpses of instruments from the4th century BCE on (Fig. 8), butfinds are few and far betweenand the time gaps are immense.A better idea of the huge varietyof instruments is provided by thestudy of local instrumentscollected by museums. Bringingtogether these two strands

provides a bigger, if risky, picture(Map 1).

The most likely and compellingtheory of the beginningsof the instrumentsuggests an Asianorigin, though there isno evidence to supportthe hypothesis. Bambooexamples are played throughoutAsia and Polynesia but, because

of the basic structure of thesingle reed concept, it is possiblethat the instruments evolved invarious ways independentlyrather than from one singlesource. The Polynesian types, forinstance, require the player tofind an optimum part of the reed,which is then tapped or bouncedupon a bony part of his wrist orknuckle allowing the reed tovibrate through the frame.Filipinos and North Vietnamese,on the other hand, haveinstruments that are plucked withthe thumb or finger. A commonmethod, however, that is foundfrom Bali to Siberia, Japan toNepal, is a string-pull (Fig. 9). Itis this type that was found inInner Mongolia dated circa 4 BCE(date unsubstantiated).

Curt Sachs, the esteemedmusicologist, suggested that thechange from bamboo to metal isl ikely to have occurred inNorthern India [Sachs 1921].Sibyl Marcuse points out that theinstruments of Taiwan andEngalio of the Philippine Islandsrepresent a transitional type, asthese are idioglot in form, buthetroglot in manufacture (Fig. 10)[Marcuse 1965, p. 264]. Theyare, however, on islands on theeastern periphery of knownJew’s harp use. A bamboo orwooden frame with a metaltongue produced in Vietnam doeshave the characteristics of ahetroglot instrument, but mightjust as well be a copy of themetal type using local materials.What is apparent is that ideoglot

Fig. 7. Crozier angel.

Map 1. World Jew’s harp types.

Fig. 8. 3 BCE Chinese drawing.

Fig. 9. String-pull bambooJew’s harp.

Fig. 10. Transitional Jew’s harp.

52

instruments centre around Asiaand hetroglot centre aroundEurope (Maps 2 and 3).

The move from East to West

Theoretically the instrument couldhave been developed in Europein its own right and not frombamboo single reed instrumentsat all. I think this is unlikely, allthe evidence pointing to aninstrument fully formed when inEurope. This means that at somepoint they moved from east towest, and the most likely sourceappear to be trade routes ormigration. David Christiansuggests that four cultural zones

can be identified that have aninfluence on the region coveredby the Silk Road. He notes that

the important gateways intoInner Eurasia were throughthe northern and northwestern borders of China;across the Central Asianborders with Iran andAfghanistan, and through thepasses of the Caucasus; andthrough the passagebetween the Black Sea andthe Capathians that leadsfrom the Balkans… channellingparticular Outer Eurasianinfluences to particular

regions of Inner Eurasia.[Christian 1998, p. 18]

The western regions areindicated as the Urals and theCaspian Sea, influenced by theMediterranean, Mesopotamiaand Europe; the southern asCentral Asia and Kazakstan,influenced by Iran, Afghanistanand India; eastern as Zungaria,Kansu (provinces in north-western China) and Mongolia,influenced by China, with alimited impact from the north thatstretched from Scandinavia to theBering Straits [Ibid.]. Linking

Map 3. Hetroglot Jew’s harp areas.

Map 2. Idioglot Jew’s harp areas.

Map 4. Cultural Zones.

53

these to Jew’s harps played inknown regions provides a way inwhich they might have spread,particularly from the south andeast (Map 4, previous page).

Going back to the Gallo-Roman finds in France, there wastrade between Rome and India;so it is possible for the instru-ment to have arrived in Europevia that route. There are,however, no instruments playedby the indigenous people on thewestern section of the Silk Road,which one might have expectedand which we find in other areasto the north. Again the Anglo-Saxon finds might have come viathe Hun invasions of the 4thcentury, particularly as moreinstruments are to be found inthe area north of the CaspianSea. Thus there is a more rationallink east to west. Given thetheory that the Huns originatedfrom the eastern end of theEurasian Steppe as the Xiiongnu(Hsiung-nu), and the woodenJew’s harp find from a Xiongnuburial site in Mongolia, this lookspossible. The Turkic movementsof the 6th and 7th centuries alsolook promising, and we have thetrade routes post-Marco Polo andthe Mongol invasions, both ofsignificance in the potential forcultural spread, but possibly alittle late.

Jew’s harps in Asia, thoughscarce, have been found inarchaeological sites in Bash-kortostan, Altai, Khanty-MansiOblast, Buryatia, Sakha (Yakutsk,Vilyuisk), China (Inner Mongolia)and Mongolia (Map. 4). I havedrawings of the Bashkortostan,and Inner Mongolia instruments,but not the others to date. So itis difficult to assess if there areany patterns of type or devel-opment, although with so few, itwould be highly conjecturalanyway. Finds from Finland makeinteresting comparisons withthose played in Afghanistan,though how much emphasis canbe put on the importance of

modern instruments as indicativerepresentations of a particularpeople’s ancient traditions is alsoopen to speculation.

Conclusion

The Jew’s harp is an internationalinstrument that is likely to haveoriginated in Asia and travelledto Europe, arriving sometimearound the 13th century.Archaeological evidence mightpush the date further back, anda substantiated Roman findwould be a fantastic discovery, aswould any instruments un-earthed along the westernsection of the Silk Road. TheJew’s harp appears in Europe fullyformed. Older types could behairpin in shape developing intothe later bow section commontoday, but there are no idioglotfinds. These could have beenwooden and have rotted away,but the lack of any otherdescription or indication of anevolving instrument seriouslyundermines an earlier existencebefore 1200.

That it is an ancient instru-ment, there is no doubt. Findsare gradually coming to light andthe picture is a little clearer, butwhat may well move the theoriesforward is the pulling together ofinformation from outside thespecific archaeological finds andethno-musicological collections.Trade looks to be a likely source.We await further revelations thatI am convinced will appear. Theimportant thing is that thismusical instrument clearly isworth investigating further andthat the evidence be collected,preferably in one place.

About the Author

Michael Wright (jews.harper@virgin.net) has been playing theJew's harp since the late 1960's,and has studied the social impactand use of the instrument,particularly in the United Kingdom

and Ireland, for the past sixyears. As a player he hasperformed at folk festivals inEngland and France and at theopening concert of the 2003Galpin Society and AmericanMusical Instrument Society — thefirst Jew's harpist to do so. As aresearcher, Michael has publisheda number of articles for journalson subjects as varied as thediscovery of the earliest English-language reference to the name,customs records from 1545 to1765, the Jew's harp and the lawand the various techniques ofplaying different versions of theinstrument found worldwide. Asa teacher he regularly leadsworkshops on playing the Jew'sharp and gives talks on hisresearch. Michael's main aim is tohelp raise the profile of thisinternational, historic andversatile musical instrument.

References

Bakx 1998Phons Bakx. The 1000 Names ofthe Jew’s Harp. FoundationAntropodium, 1998.

Christian 1998David Christian. A History ofRussia, Central Asia and Mongolia.Oxford: Blackwell, 1998

Crane 2003Frederick Crane. A History of theTrump in Pictures: Europe andAmerica. Mount Pleasant, Iowa:2003.

Dourdon-Taurelle and Wright1978Geneviève Dourdon-Taurelle andJohn Wright. Les Guimbardes duMusée de l’Homme. Paris: Institutd’ethnologie, 1978.

Elliston-Erwood 1943F.C. Elliston-Erwood. “Notes onBronze Objects from ShootersHill, Kent and Elsewhere and onthe Antiquity of ‘Jew’s Harps’.”

54

Archaeologia Cantiana beingTransactions of the KentArchaeological Society, 56 (1943):35-40.

Kolltviet 2000Gjermund Kolltviet. “Archaeo-logical Jew’s Harp Finds inEurope: Chaos or Coherence?”In: Studien zur Musikarchäologie.2vols., Vol. II: Musikarchäologiefrüher Metallzeiten. EllenHickmann et al., eds. Rahden:Verlag Marie Leidorf, 2000.

Marcuse 1965Sibyl Marcuse. Musical Instru-ments, A ComprehensiveDictionary. London: County LifeLtd, 1965.

SachsCurt Sachs. “Die Maultrommel.”Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 49 (),pp.184-202.

Wright 2004Michael Wright. “Jue Harpes, JueTrumpes, 1481.” Journal of theInternational Jew’s Harp Society,2004.

Note

1. Dourdon-Taurelle and Wright1978 use a categorization of theJew’s harp based upon thedirection of the tongue or lamellain relation to the hand — pointingtowards or away. This articleuses the more usual Sachssystem of hetroglot and idioglot.

________________

55

Excavation and Survey inArkhangai and Bulgan Aimaqs,Mongolia July 20-August 17, 2005

For the summer of 2005, theSilkroad Foundation, in con-junction with the Department ofArchaeology at the MongolianNational University, will besponsoring excavation andsurvey in Arkhangai and Bulganaimaqs, Mongolia. You are invitedto join in the first season of thiscollaborative project.

The field directors for thisproject are Dr. Mark Hall (Archae-ological Research Facil ity,University of California, Berkeley)and Dr. Zagd Batsaihan (Depart-ment of Archaeology, MongolianNational University). Dr. Hall hasexcavated in Bulgan aimaq in1996 and 1998, while Dr.Batsaihan has worked in theseaimaqs since the early 1990s.

The main focus of the researchwill be looking at Xiongnucemeteries and possible Xiong-nu settlements in these twoaimaqs. For the past severalyears, both Dr. Hall and Dr.Batsaihan have been working onXiongnu material in an attemptto look at: 1) trade and exchangerelationships within the Xiongnuconfederacy; 2) trade andexchange between the Xiongnuand Han; and 3) developing anabsolute chronology of the Xiong-nu. Excavations are being donein order to gather more data tolook at these issues.

This program is an excitingopportunity for participants witha wide range of interests. Theearly nomadic societies of Eurasiaplayed a critical role in thedevelopment of economic andcultural exchange along the “SilkRoads.” As the Han Dynastyhistories emphasize, of particularimportance was the Xiongnu

confederacy in the last centuriesBCE and beginning of theCommon Era (AD). Ourunderstanding of the nomadsthemselves and their relationswith sedentary centers has beentransformed by the archae-ological work of recent decades.A wealth of new material is beingunearthed, and new methods arebeing applied to its analysis. Inaddition to enhancing yourunderstanding of the origin of theSilk Roads and offering hands-onexperience in archaeological fieldwork, the program will be anexcellent introduction to thebroader cultural world of thesteppe nomads and to thehistory and culture of Mongolia.The Xiongnu were only one ofseveral important nomadicconfederacies which werecentered there, the best knownbeing that of the empire whichwould encompass much ofEurasia under Chingis Khan andhis successors in the 13thcentury. To spend significant timein the grasslands of Mongolia’sspectacular landscapes, wheremany aspects of traditionalherding culture are still alive(although by no meansuninfluenced by the modernworld), can greatly enhanceone’s understanding of thisregion’s importance in worldhistory. This is a program whichshould appeal to anyone eagerto learn about Eurasian historyand experience first-hand richcultural traditions which are verydifferent from one’s own.

Language

The official language of theseminar is English. Lectures bylocal Mongolian scholars will betranslated.

Dates/Sites

Part of the field season will bespent excavating at TamarynUlaan Khoshuu, a Xiongnucemetery containing over 300burials and a series of bankedand ditched enclosures believedto date to the Xiongnu era. Theother part of the field season willbe spent doing survey and testexcavations of Bronze Age andlater period sites and monu-ments.

Session 1 — July 20th-August 3rd, 2005

Session 2 — August 4th-August 18th, 2005

Program Fee

A tax deductible donation of$1000 for one session, or $1500for both sessions. This donationdoes not include airfare, visas norincidentals in Ulaan Bataar. Weare currently investigating thepossibility of a homestay with aMongolian family upon arrival inUlaan Bataar, but you should alsoconsidering budgeting for staying2-3 days in a hotel in UlaanBataar.

Schedule

Survey and excavation will run sixdays a week once we are out inthe field. The typical day willprobably be as follows:

8:30 AM — Everyone goesto his/her excavation orsurvey units.

12:30 PM — Return tocamp for lunch.

2:30 PM — Everyone goesback out for survey andexcavation.

6:30 PM — Return to campfor the evening meal.

In the evenings, we will havesome group discussions aboutthe finds from the excavationand/or we will be cleaningartifacts. Other evenings may

involve inviting the local herdersto the camp, or visiting them.Some evenings will be free withno organized activities.

List of Lectures

Several lectures will be givenduring the session. The tentativeschedule is as follows:

“Archaeology,” by Dr. MarkHall, Archaeological ResearchFacility, UC Berkeley.

“Archaeology in Mongolia,” byDr. Zagd Batsaihan, NationalUniversity of Mongolia.

“Nomadic Culture,” by Dr.Daniel Waugh, University ofWashington.

“The Xiongnu,” by Dr. AlbertDien, Stanford University.

“History of the MongolEmpire,” by Dr. Dien or Dr.Waugh.

“Mongolia Today,” by Oyun-gerel Tsedevdamba, Personalassistant to the PrimeMinister of Mongolia.

Prerequisite

Participants must bring their owncamping gear. If you want to buy(possible range from $300-500)a ger in Ulaan Bataar and live inthat while on expedition, we’llhelp you do that.

Volunteers need no specialtraining, but should be used tophysical activity and wildernesscamping for extended periods of

time. We are going out on theMongolian steppe and will beanywhere from 50 km. to 150 km.from any sizable towns. We willlive in tents and gers, withoutelectricity and plumbing. Hotwater will almost be a luxury. Thediet will be heavy on sheep andrice, and, hopefully, cheese andyogurt. Vegetarians will not dovery well with the diet.

Volunteers will be giventraining on how to doarchaeological survey andexcavation. If you have been onan excavation before, that isgreat; but if not, do not worryabout it. The most importantthings you need for this projectare: 1) a good sense of humor;2) the ability to cope with rapidlychanging conditions; 3) a senseof adventure; and 4) the abilityto live without electricity, a cell-phone, a television and acomputer.

Academic credit is notprovided for this project.

Application/Deadline

The online application (http://www.silkroadfoundation.org/ex-cavat ion/exc form005.html)should be submitted to theSilkroad Foundation by March 15,2005. We will notify those ac-cepted by early April. For moreinformation, please contact pro-gram director Dr. Mark Hall(mhall@berkeley.edu) or contactthe Silkroad Foundation via email(excavation@silkroadfoundation.org).

56

Detail of Xiongnu carpet, excavated at Noyon Ula, Batsumber Sum,Tov Aimag. Collection of the National Museum of Mongolian History,Ulaan Baatar. Photo: Daniel C. Waugh, 2004.