Content uploaded by Kai Kaniuth
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kai Kaniuth on Mar 29, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Deutsches Archa
¨ologisches Institut Eurasien-Abteilung
Außenstelle Teheran
Archa
¨ologische Mitteilungen
aus Iran und Turan
Band 42 *2010
DIETRICH REIMER VERLAG GmbH *BERLIN
I–X, 1–324 Seiten mit 252 Abbildungen, 21 Tabellen
Herausgeber: Svend Hansen und Mayke Wagner
Redaktion: Barbara Helwing und Nikolaus Boroffka
Wissenschaftlicher Beirat: Abbas Alizadeh (Chicago)
David Braund (Exeter)
Henri-Paul Francfort (Nanterre)
Ernie Haerinck (Ghent)
Stefan R. Hauser (Halle/Saale)
Lorenz Korn (Bamberg)
Stephan Kroll (Mu
¨nchen)
Michael Pfrommer (Trier)
Susan Pollock (Berlin)
Robert Rollinger (Innsbruck)
Miroslav Salvini (Roma)
Mitglieder des Deutschen Archa
¨ologischen Instituts und Studenten der Altertumswissenschaften ko
¨nnen die
Archa
¨ologischen Mitteilungen aus Iran und Turan zum Vorzugspreis von 53,20 azuzu
¨glich Versandkosten
abonnieren. Bestellungen sind an die Schriftleitung zu richten. Studenten werden um Vorlage einer
Studienbescheinigung gebeten. Die Beendigung des Studiums ist unverzu
¨glich mitzuteilen.
Redaktionsschluss ist der 31.Ma
¨rz fu
¨r den im folgenden Jahr erscheinenden Band. Bei der Abfassung der
Manuskripte sind die ,,Richtlinien fu
¨r Vero
¨ffentlichungen der Außenstelle Teheran der Eurasien-Abteilung
des Deutschen Archa
¨ologischen Instituts‘‘ zu beachten, die unter http://www.dainst.org/index.php?id¼7490
in ihrer jeweils aktuell gu
¨ltigen Form aufgerufen werden ko
¨nnen.
Die Redaktion beha
¨lt sich vor, Manuskripte zu ku
¨rzen.
°2011 by Deutsches Archa
¨ologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung
ISSN 1434-2758
Redaktion: Deutsches Archa
¨ologisches Institut, Eurasien-Abteilung, Im Dol 2–6,D-14195 Berlin
Satz, Druck und Bindung: Druckhaus ,,Thomas Mu
¨ntzer‘‘, Neusta
¨dter Straße 1–4,D-99947 Bad Langensalza
Kommissionsvertrieb: Dietrich Reimer Verlag GmbH, Berliner Straße 53,D-10713 Berlin
Inhalt
New directions in Silk Road archaeology. Proceedings of a Workshop held at ICAANE V, Madrid, 2006
edited by A. V. G. Betts, and F. Kidd
Contents
Betts, A. V. G. and Kidd,F., Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kaniuth, K., Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia. Recent finds and
their implications for chronology and trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G o o d, I., When East met West. Interpretative problems in assessing Eurasian contact and exchange
in Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Y a t s e n k o, S. A., Costume contacts of Ancient Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Y a go d in, V. N., Strangers at the Gates. Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region on the Great Silk Road . 53
A m i r o v, S., Archaeological aspects of the Early Islamic period in Khorezm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Stark, S., Eshankulov, U., Gu
¨t t e, M. and R a k h i m o v, N., Resource Exploitation and settle-
ment dynamics in high mountain areas. The case of medieval Ustrushana (Northern Tajikistan) . . . 67
Aufsa
¨tze
F a z e l i N a s h a l i, H., V i d a l e, M., B i a n c h e t t i, P., G u i d a, G. and C o n i n g h a m, R., The evolu-
tion of ceramic manufacturing technology during the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic
periods at Tepe Pardis, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
N i s h i a k i, Y., The development of architecture and pottery at the Neolithic settlement of Tall-i Jari B,
Marv Dasht, southwest Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Kaniuth, K., Tilla Bulak 2009 –Vorbericht zur dritten Kampagne. Unter Mitarbeit von M. Gruber
und A. Kurmangaliev, mit Beitra
¨gen von F. Sachs, A. S
˘ajdullaev, M. Makki und P. Biro
´....... 129
Corfu
`, N. A., Die sogenannten acha
¨menidischen Bogenschu
¨tzenmu
¨nzen –Die Herkunft von Darei-
koi und Sigloi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
A
´lvarez-Mo
´n, J., Elite garments and head-dresses of the Late neo-Elamite period (7th –6th Century BC) 207
Babaev, I. und Knauß, F. S., Die achaimenidische Residenz bei Karac
˘amirli. Ausgrabungen auf
dem Gurban Tepe und auf dem Rizvan Tepe. 4. Vorbericht. Mit Beitra
¨gen von J. Ba
¨r, G. Mehnert,
F. Klauser, E. Isga
¨nda
¨rov, A. Mehnert, J. Eminli und F. Gutschke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Alexandrescu, P., Acha
¨menidische Zaumzeugornamente in Istros. Perser, Skythen, Saken . . . . 267
F e d o r o v, M., Money circulation in the state of the Sa
¯ma
¯nids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
S c h m i t t, R., Adaptation der Xerxes-Inschrift ,,XPe‘‘ auf einem Teppich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Buchbesprechungen
A. Alizadeh, Chogha Mish, Volume 2: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland
Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972–1978.
Oriental Institute Publications 130 (Chicago 2008)(Ll.Weeks)................... 309
G. Reza Garosi. Die Kolossal-Statue S
˘a
¯pu
¯rs I. im Kontext der sasanidischen Plastik. Philipp von
Zabern (Mainz 2009)(R.Bernbeck)................................ 313
L’archive des Fortifications de Perse
´polis. E
´tat des questions et perspectives de recherches. Actes
du colloque organise
´au Colle
`ge de France par la ,,Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde ache
´-
me
´nide et de l’empire d’Alexandre‘‘ et le ,,Re
´seau international d’e
´tudes et de recherches ache
´me
´-
nides‘‘ (GDR 2538 CNRS), 3–4novembre 2006, sous la direction de P. Briant, W. F. M. Henkelman,
M. W. Stolper. Persika 12.E
´ditions de Boccard (Paris 2008)(R.Schmitt) ............. 315
Inhalt III
Ame
´lie Kuhrt: The Persian Empire –A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 2Ba
¨nde.
(Routledge. London, New York 2007), ISBN 978-0415-43628-1.1020 Seiten, 143 Abbildungen
(B.Jacobs) ............................................ 318
Contents
New directions in Silk Road archaeology. Proceedings of a Workshop held at ICAANE V, Madrid, 2006
edited by A. V. G. Betts, and F. Kidd
Contents
Betts, A. V. G. and Kidd, F. Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Kaniuth, K., Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia. Recent finds and
their implications for chronology and trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
G o o d, I., When East met West. Interpretative problems in assessing Eurasian contact and exchange
in Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Y a t s e n k o, S. A., Costume contacts of Ancient Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Y a go d in, V. N., Strangers at the Gates. Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region on the Great Silk Road 53
A m i r o v, S., Archaeological aspects of the Early Islamic period in Khorezm . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Stark, S., Eshankulov, U., Gu
¨t t e, M. and R a k h i m o v, N., Resource Exploitation and settle-
ment dynamics in high mountain areas. The case of medieval Ustrushana (Northern Tajikistan) . . . 67
Articles
F a z e l i N a s h a l i, H., V i d a l e, M., B i a n c h e t t i, P., G u i d a, G. and C o n i n g h a m, R., The evolu-
tion of ceramic manufacturing technology during the Late Neolithic and Transitional Chalcolithic
periods at Tepe Pardis, Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
N i s h i a k i, Y., The development of architecture and pottery at the Neolithic settlement of Tall-i Jari B,
Marv Dasht, southwest Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Kaniuth, K., Tilla Bulak 2009 –Preliminary report of the third campaign. In collaboration with
M. Gruber and A. Kurmangaliev, with contributions by F. Sachs, A. S
˘ajdullaev, M. Makki and P. Biro
´129
Corfu
`, N. A., The so-called Achaemenid Archer coins –The origin of Dareikoi and Sigloi . . . . . . 165
A
´lvarez-Mo
´n, J., Elite garments and head-dresses of the Late neo-Elamite period (7th–6th Century
BC)................................................. 207
Babaev, I. and Knauß, F. S., The Achaemenid residence near Karac
˘amirli. Excavations on the
Gurban Tepe and the Rizvan Tepe. 4th preliminary report. With contributions by J. Ba
¨r, G. Mehnert,
F. Klauser, E. Isga
¨nda
¨rov, A. Mehnert, J. Eminli and F. Gutschke . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
Alexandrescu, P., Achaemenid harness ornaments in Istros. Persians, Scythians, Saka . . . . . 267
F e d o r o v, M., Money circulation in the state of the Sa
¯ma
¯nids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
S c h m i t t, R., Adaptation of the Xerxes-Inscription ‘‘XPe’’ on a carpet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
Reviews
A. Alizadeh, Chogha Mish, Volume 2: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Lowland
Susiana, Southwestern Iran. Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972–1978.
Oriental Institute Publications 130 (Chicago 2008)(Ll.Weeks)................... 309
G. Reza Garosi. Die Kolossal-Statue S
˘a
¯pu
¯rs I. im Kontext der sasanidischen Plastik. Philipp von
Zabern (Mainz 2009)(R.Bernbeck)................................ 313
InhaltIV
L’archive des Fortifications de Perse
´polis. E
´tat des questions et perspectives de recherches. Actes
du colloque organise
´au Colle
`ge de France par la ,,Chaire d’histoire et civilisation du monde ache
´-
me
´nide et de l’empire d’Alexandre‘‘ et le ,,Re
´seau international d’e
´tudes et de recherches ache
´me
´-
nides‘‘ (GDR 2538 CNRS), 3–4novembre 2006, sous la direction de P. Briant, W. F. M. Henkelman,
M. W. Stolper. Persika 12.E
´ditions de Boccard (Paris 2008)(R.Schmitt) ............. 315
Ame
´lie Kuhrt: The Persian Empire –A Corpus of Sources from the Achaemenid Period. 2Ba
¨nde.
(Routledge. London, New York 2007), ISBN 978-0415-43628-1.1020 Seiten, 143 Abbildungen
(B.Jacobs)............................................. 318
Inhalt V
NEW DIRECTIONS IN SILK ROAD ARCHAEOLOGY
Edited by
A. V. G. Betts and F. Kidd
Proceedings of a Workshop held at ICAANE V, Madrid, 2006
University of Sydney Central Asian Programme
Contents
Preface
K a i K a n i u t h, Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia. Recent finds and
their implications for chronology and trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
I r e n e G o o d, When East met West. Interpretative problems in assessing Eurasian contact and
exchange in Antiquity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
S e r g e y A. Y a t s e n k o, Costume contacts of Ancient Central Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
V a d i m N. Y a g o d i n, Strangers at the Gates. Nomads of the Aralo-Caspian Region on the Great
Silk Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
S h a m i l Am i r o v, Archaeological aspects of the Early Islamic period in Khorezm . . . . . . . . . . 59
So
¨ren Stark, Usman Eshonkulov, Matthias Gu
¨t t e, N a b i d z h o n R a k h i m o v, Resource
Exploitation and settlement dynamics in high mountain areas. The case of medieval Ustrushana
(Northern Tajikistan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Contents IX
New Directions in Silk Road Archaeology
Silk Road archaeology has, in recent years, faced
two key challenges. For much of the 20th century,
research in many of the lands along the Silk Roads
was hampered by political constraints. In some areas,
while local archaeologists were active, the language
of publication restricted availability of information
to the wider scholarly community. In other countries
brief periods of stability permitted occasional inter-
national fieldwork, but these intervals were limited
and sporadic. As the political barriers began to fall
with the end of the Soviet Union, a second chal-
lenge still remained. The ancient lands of the Silk
Roads crossed vast regions controlled by two quite
separate major powers, Russia and China. National
archaeologists in each region worked in their own
languages, with few scholars able to read the schol-
arly literature of the other and even fewer wester-
ners able to read either, if they could manage to
access it. The lands of the Silk Roads were cleft in
two down the middle.
The University of Sydney Central Asian Pro-
gramme (USCAP) was established in 1992 to ad-
dress these challenges. The aim of the programme
has been to encourage international collaboration
and English language publication of Central Asian
scholars. With the start of the 21st century a new
era of research has begun. International collabora-
tive projects are now widespread across the whole
region. New methodological and analytical techni-
ques are being applied with spectacular results, but
it is not so often that scholars in these areas have
the opportunity to meet. It was with this in mind
that in 2006 USCAP proposed a workshop to run at
ICAANE V in Madrid entitled New Directions in Silk
Road Archaeology. The papers in this collection are
based on presentations given at that meeting. The
papers represent a cross-section of the vast scope
of scholarship in this region. The authors are ba-
lanced equally between ‘‘east and west’’. Yagodin
presents an important study based on a lifetime of
largely Soviet sponsored research in the Aralo-Cas-
pian region, now available to an English speaking
readership. Yatsenko’s work on costume is based
on a rich background of Russian scholarship, again
presented perhaps to a new audience. Amirov is of
the younger generation of Central Asian scholars
with an excellent understanding of western archae-
ological methodology and analysis which he has
used to break away from older school historical
constructs in Islamic studies. The other three pa-
pers represent new approaches by European and
American scholars. Kaniuth provides a detailed con-
sideration of Bronze Age long distance trade to ex-
amine what this might say about regional inter-rela-
tionships. Good has addressed a different aspect of
the same problem, difficulties in the interpretation
of evidence for contact and exchange, and, in her
final discussion, has addressed the theme of the
Meetings, ‘‘Future Directions for the Archaeology of
Central Asia’’, a series of important observations that
should be considered in regard to new research in
the region. By contrast, Stark has demonstrated
how such new approaches may be implemented by
his integrated approach to land use, environment
and historical documentation in his study of the
high mountain areas of northern Tadjikistan.
Central Asian studies are as yet in their in-
fancy. So much remains to be discovered and much
already discovered still remains to be more clearly
understood. The doors to China are only just open-
ing, promising a whole new treasure trove of knowl-
edge. These papers represent a few small steps for-
ward in this great endeavour.
Alison V. G. Betts
Director, University of Sydney
Central Asian Programme
Archaeology
SOPHI
Main Quad A14
University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
alison.betts@sydney.edu.au
New Directions in Silk Road Archaeology 1
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia:
Recent finds and their implications for chronology and trade
1
By Kai Kaniuth
Keywords: Central Asia, Bronze Age, Long distance trade
˚º8\),ß) æºA,.:6&)+C'' RGŁ',:@Aı. Æ&ACGß,$A&ªA,ß) ŒAC$.Œ$ß
Introduction
The interregional connections of Central Asia’s
Bronze Age cultures have been discussed ever
since the first remains of highly developed civiliza-
tions came to light there (Fig. 1).Over the years, a
large amount of evidence has surfaced demonstrat-
ing that the regions along the Amudarya river and
Kopet Dagh mountains were territories on the mar-
gin, but nevertheless part of the Ancient Near East,
not only with respect to their common architectural
traditions and common subsistence strategies but
also linked through economic ties and at times po-
pulation movements.
Adiscussion of the Bronze Age ‘exotics’ in
Southern Central Asia within the framework of a
conference paper necessarily imposes some restric-
tions on the part of the author, to avoid the temp-
tation of covering too much ground, much of which
has been trodden before, and of stating the ob-
vious in new terminological guise. Here, restrictions
will be twofold: chronologically, only the Middle to
early Late Bronze Age evidence (hereafter MBA/LBA;
in absolute dates c. 2300–1700 BC) will be dis-
cussed. The commonly used terms ‘BMAC’ or ‘Oxus
civilization’ will be avoided in favour of amore neu-
tral reference to sites and periods (such as Namazga
V/VI), since both terms are loaded with anumber of
preconceptions which cannot be clarified within the
following pages. Geographically, preference will be
given to the nature of connections with the civiliza-
tions of Mesopotamia and the Indus, even though
it is obvious that interaction with Iran, especially
with the eastern half of that country and the adjoin-
ing Indo-Iranian borderlands, has been of major re-
levance and indeed produced the most intensive
and persistent evidence.
2
The most notable exam-
ples are the spread of Quetta Ware to Baluchistan,
3
the ‘trans-elamite’ network of the later 3rd Millen-
nium BC described by Pierre Amiet,
4
and the intru-
sion of Late Bronze Age Bactrian material (and, one
assumes, people) into Seistan and Baluchistan dur-
ing the first quarter of the 2nd Millennium BC.
5
A
focus on long-distance relations should provide a
clearer picture of Southern Central Asia within its
wider setting, one not blurred through the back-
ground of local exchange mechanisms. Anotion
that will not play arole in what follows is the con-
cept of aprehistoric ‘Proto-Silk Route’ since it has
been laid to rest quite effectively by Henri-Paul
Francfort,
6
and there is no point in raising it again.
When comparing the aforementioned regions
during the end of the 3rd and the beginning of the
2nd Millennium BC the problem of absolute dating
arises. Just as is the case for the Indus civilization,
the chronology of Central Asia is now tied to asize-
able series of radiocarbon dates,
7
while historical
dates for Mesopotamia follow anumber of con-
ventional chronologies which differ by as much as
150 years.
8
Here, the Middle Chronology will be
used, but the reader should note that recently the
consensus among specialists tends towards ashort-
ening of this chronology by anything up to 100 years,
with obvious implications for the synchronization of
the Near Eastern material.
9
The importance of contact finds is beyond
dispute: they provide information for preliminary
cross-dating and were the most widely applicable
means of correlating the material remains of prehis-
toric cultures before the advent of radiocarbon dat-
ing. More importantly nowadays, they seem to tes-
tify to acertain advancement of the cultures under
investigation, because there is an implicit assump-
tion –in an age of connectedness –that aculture
not connected with others is somewhat backward
and does not have astake in ageneral trajectory
of cultural development. In other words aregional,
1Iwould like to thank C. Eder, M. Krebernik, A. Lo
¨hnert, M. Roaf,
K. Rohn, P. Steinkeller and M. Teufer for theircomments on the
text and for their help with specific questions.
2For arecent discussion of contacts between the late-3rd-millen-
nium Helmand Civilisation and the Indus region see,for exam-
ple, Cortesi et al. 2008.
3Lamberg-Karlovsky/Tosi 1973;Jarrige 1996.
4Amiet 1986.
5Lamberg-Karlovsky/Hiebert 1992;Kohl/Pottier 1992.
6Francfort 1990.But see Hiebert 1999,40 –41.
7For absolute dates see the compilations in Kohl 1992;Hiebert
1994;˚Ł&\A/ˇA@A, 1999;Jungner 2004;˚Ł&\A/ˇA@A, 2005;
Kaniuth 2006.
8For avery useful bibliography see Pruzsinszky 2006,for anew
summary of the textual evidence Pruszinsky 2009.
9E.g. Reade 2001.
localized phenomenon is considered less worth re-
searching than an international one. The advan-
tages of the resulting focus on contact finds in pub-
lications are manifold, not least because they open
up one archaeologist’s field to another, and raise
interest and stimulate scientific exchange, but there
are also dangers: contact finds are frequently con-
sidered outside their archaeological context and in-
terpretations are drawn from them as if akind of
external context was created which conveys mean-
ing by itself.
Foreign objects in Central Asia have been treat-
ed with anumber of questions in mind. Those in-
volving speculation about ethnogenesis are not dis-
cussed anymore with respect to the Middle Bronze
Age of Southern Central Asia,
10
since no further evi-
dence in the material culture exists to support inter-
regional population movements during this period.
11
Relatively straightforward inferences have at times
been drawn about questions of social organization,
by comparing two regions under the assumption
that the existence of similar objects would point to
asimilar level of social development. The Near East
usually serves as the benchmark here, and Bronze
Age Central Asia is at times compared to Mesopota-
mia in terms of the social forces and structures at
work. These points have been stressed by anum-
ber of researchers,
12
most notably Sarianidi, whose
excavations have produced the largest and most in-
teresting body of evidence to be considered in this
contribution,
13
and it will remain to be seen how
far these assumptions can be supported without re-
course to textual sources.
The evidence discussed in the following pages
involves burial data, seals and sealings (and, in the
wider sense, administrative practices), technology
and small finds, aselection essentially determined
by the preservation, data retrieval strategies and
cultural choice involved in the constitution of the
archaeological record. Even though we will be con-
cerned predominantly with single objects, there
probably was aconsiderable amount of local and
Fig. 1
Map showing the
major sites discussed
in the text
10 9.ææAC 1981,115–118;Masson 1988,118–122.
11 Ignoring for the time being the question of the initial settlement
of the Bactrian oases from either Margiana or the Kopet Dagh
region.
12 Hiebert 1999,40–41;˚#G;EŁC. 1994;9.ææAC 1981,109–118;
Masson 1988,111–122.
13 Sarianidi 1979;Sarianidi 1994;Sarianidi 1998a; Sarianidi 1998b;
Sarianidi 1999;Sarianidi 2002;Sarianidi 2007;Sarianidi 2009.
Kai Kaniuth4
long-distance traffic in perishable goods underlying
the interaction visible to us. Aconfirmation of this
assumption is of course difficult in the absence of
textual references.
Central Asia and the Indus sphere
Not long after 2500 BC an outlier of the Indus Civi-
lization was established at Shortughai in the Ba-
dakhshan Province of Northern Afghanistan.
14
In its
initial phases (I and II), Shortughai was an Indus
settlement with all aspects of the material culture
being of non-local derivation. The reasons for the
establishment of this colony in an alien cultural en-
vironment and adifferent ecological niche are not
entirely clear, but the natural resources of the re-
gion –especially the famed lapis-lazuli of the Sar-e
Sang mine –probably played arole, even though
we have to concede that lapis appears in large
quantity neither in Shortughai,
15
nor in the subcon-
tinent.
16
When comparing it to sites of the Indus
heartland, Shortughai would be contemporary at
least with Periods IIIA and BatAmri but may have
been abandoned during Amri IIIC, in other words
before the Mature Phase of the Indus Civilization
came to an end.
17
Settlement at the site continued –
possibly after ahiatus –in apurely local fashion.
The foreign presence thus lasted for no more than
three or four Centuries. Further to the west, in Bac-
tria and Margiana, Indus influence is restricted to a
few small find categories.
Seals
Two square stamp seals from Altyn Depe have, be-
cause of their form and design, been classified as
‘proto-Indian’:
18
the first seal (Fig. 2,1left) was
found in Excavation 9,Room 105.Itmeasures ca.
1.5cm square, bears two signs of the Indus script
on its face and asmall lug at the back.
19
The piece
is dated to the late Namazga Vperiod.
20
The second
seal (Fig. 2,1right) measures 1.2"1.25 cm. Its ma-
terial is given as ‘white ‘‘faience’’ (baked steatite?)’
21
and ‘white stone (baked steatite?)’.
22
This seal was
found in aburial complex from Excavation 7,Hori-
zon 3,Room 7,also referred to as the ‘sanctuary’.
The face bears aswastika motif, again with asmall
knob at the back for suspension.
23
The same burial
complex also contained jewellery (such as carnelian
beads) and ‘ivory’ sticks of possible Indus Culture
origin, as well as local MBA prestige goods (on
these see below). This burial has been dated to the
early Namazga Vperiod (Altyn 3).
24
Lastly, asimilar
piece has been published from Kelleli 6.
25
The form and design of both seals is alien to
Central Asia and the best parallels for them come
from Indus Civilization sites, where they correspond
to asizeable group of small, geometrically decorated
stamps.
26
Nonetheless, Possehl has suggested that
their ‘provincial style’ may indicate that they were
made elsewhere, possibly at Altyn Depe itself.
27
Athird, this time typical Indus, seal bearing a
characteristic animal design, has recently been pub-
lished from the Gonur ‘Temple of Water’, Area 9,
Room 19,
28
unfortunately without precise dimen-
sions. The image (Fig. 2,2)shows an elephant strid-
ing to the left, with anine-character inscription in
the Indus script above. The execution of the design
and the inscription are of the highest quality and
Fig. 2
1Indus seals from
Altyn Depe (after Mas-
son 1981b, fig. 1,2);
2Indus seal from
Gonur (after Sarianidi
2005,fig. 114)
14 Francfort 1989.
15 Francfort 1985 mentionssome workingoflapis-lazuli and car-
nelian.
16 Vidale 2000,44;Ratnagar 2004,185–193,especially 190;Ke-
noyer 2005,Tab. 2,where lapis, serpentine, garnet and amazo-
nite together make up less than 1%ofbeads and manufactu-
ring debris from the 1986–2001 seasons at Harappa.
17 Francfort 1989 assignsanoccupation of 2200 –1700 BC for the
site, but an earlier beginning has been argued for on the basis
of available 14Cdates and comparisons with otherIndus sites
(see Dittmann 2003).
18 Masson 1981.
19 9.ææAC 1981 and Masson 1988,pl. 22,1a.
20 Masson 1988,93–94;Kohl 1984,133.
21 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,99.
22 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,407.
23 Masson 1988,pl. 22,1b; 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,pl. 45.6.
24 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,pl. 42,6.For the entire burial and its
date see 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,98 and fig. 18,14 –46.
25 Masimov/Salvatori 2008,fig. 7.8.Nr. 8,with further parallels
from surface collections and the art market (103).
26 CompareMackay 1938,pl. 90,1–5;for the swastika motif see
Mackay 1938,pl. 91,1;pl. 94,383;Marshall 1931,pl. 114,500–
515.But note the metal stamp seal with aswastika-type motif
from Gonur (Sarianidi 2002,288)and the regular occurrence of
square stamps already in NMG IV contexts (˚Ł&\A 1990,fig. 2).
27 Possehl 2002a, 229–230.
28 Sarianidi 2005,258 fig. 114.For the find-spot see Sarianidi 2005,
183–185 fig. 53.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of SouthernCentral Asia 5
compare well with the best pieces from Mohenjo
Daro and Harappa.
29
No accompanying finds are
described in the publication, but judging from pre-
viously published material from Gonur, this extraor-
dinary object was presumably recovered from a
mid-Namazga Vtoearly Namazga VI context.
Objects of ivory
Asecond group of objects has been described as
‘Indian’ on the basis of their material, thought to be
elephant ivory. These are either rectangular, square
or round disks of c. 5"5cm with incised ornamen-
tation (lines and dot-in circle-motifs) or 10 –15 cm
long sticks, also with incised ornamentation (lines
and cross-hatching, sometimes dot-in-circle).
30
Their
function is as yet unknown, but they are habitually
referred to as ‘gaming pieces’, ‘fortune-telling sticks’
or ‘stick dice’, and very similar types appeared in
some number in Mohenjo Daro,
31
Harappa,
32
and
Chanhu-Daro.
33
At Altyn Depe, astick 12.4cm long with an
incised pattern filled with adark paste was discov-
ered above the head of Burial 252 in the ‘Vyshka’
(summit) area of the depe, dated to late Namazga V
(Altyn 0).
34
Five sticks with similar designs turned
up in Gonur.
35
Afragmentary stick is reported to
have come from the Gonur necropolis Grave 575
and yet another from Grave 1898.Acomb, also de-
scribed as made of ivory, was discovered in Grave
2228,
36
while Grave 2900 contained an ivory comb
and spoon.
37
The largest number of ivories surfaced in the
‘Ganyalin Hoard 1’atAltyn Depe (Fig. 3):thirteen
rectangular and round plaques (‘gaming pieces’) of
ca. 5cm square and several sticks 10–12 cm long
were discovered in ahoard buried in awall in the
‘Vyshka’, just below the modern surface.
38
The ex-
cavator’s proposed date of deposition is the end of
the MBA (late Namazga V) or the initial LBA (early
Namazga VI), but the possibility that the hoards are
actually intrusive and postdate the known occupa-
tion at the site was raised by Kohl.
39
From the re-
cent excavations at Gonur, similar caches were dis-
covered in burials 3220
40
and 3155,
41
while several
other small plaques were published without con-
text: around plaque with four incised dot-in-circle
motifs and asquare plaque with 13 dot-in-circle
motifs regularly spread over the 25 fields of an in-
cised ‘checkerboard’ design from Gonur North.
42
All
the published finds from these latter graves lead us
to the same dating within the time-span of middle
Namazga Vtoearly Namazga VI.
43
Fig. 3
Altyn Depe Hoard 1
(after Masson/
Sarianidi 1972,fig. 29)
29 See Marshall 1931,pl. 112,nos. 362–375;Mackay 1938,pl. 96,
no. 512;pl. 97,no. 590;Franke-Vogt 1991,pl. 29,nos. 187 –190
(all from Mohenjo Daro); Vats 1940,pl. 91,nos. 226–231 (Ha-
rappa).
30 L)$)CŒA 1970,59–60.Shchetenko’s further assumptions, espe-
cially concerning alink between Central Asian and Indus Civi-
lization pottery (61;reiterated in Masson/Sarianidi 1972,124)
are baseless.
31 Marshall 1931,pl. 134 no. 3(disk), pl. 132 nos. 22 –26 (sticks);
Mackay 1938,pl. 138,41 –61;pl. 143,19 –54 (sticks); the little
disk-like object on pl. 110,30 is pierced and thus probably of
formal resemblance only.
32 Vats 1940,pl. 95 no. 388 (disk), pl. 119 (sticks).
33 Mackay 1943,171 pl. 60,12.16 (two sticks).
34 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,101,417,fig. 21,57 pl. 56,5.
35 Sarianidi 2002,151;Sarianidi 2005,118,fig. 29.For the entire
group see now Sarianidi 2007,122.
36 6.&Ł.CŁ+Ł 2001,73;for the comb see pl. 5,13 and Sarianidi
2007,122 fig. 239.
37 Sarianidi 2007,152 fig. 34.35.
38 ˆ.C'ºŁC 1967,214–216;Masson/Sarianidi 1972,fig. 29.
39 Kohl 1984,133.The ‘kubok’ mentioned in ˆ.C'ºŁC 1967,214
would normallybeareference to an earlyNamazga VI pede-
stalled goblet.
40 Sarianidi 2009,195 fig. 107,consisting of probably 12 disks
and fragments of three stick dice; add here the round plaque
with floral ornament and ascorpion on its back (Sarianidi
2005,231 fig. 92 in combination with p. 251).
41 Sarianidi 2005,fig. 65.
42 Sarianidi 1998b, fig. 22,8.9;2002,153.
43 Sarianidi 2004,fig. 7–9;11.
Kai Kaniuth6
Lastly, two comparable disks made of ivory,
antler or bone were discovered in the Northern Bac-
trian site of Dzharkutan.
44
An octagonal piece meas-
uring 4.5"4.4cm, decorated with incised lines and
nine dots-in-circle (Fig. 4,1–2),was discovered in
1996 in arefuse pit dug into natural soil in Tepe IV
Trench 4.The accompanying pottery (lot 96.4.4.5)
dates the entire assemblage to the early LB Iperiod
(late 20th/19th Century BC). Asecondarily burnt rec-
tangular disk of 3.9"3.8cm (Fig. 4,3)turned up
two years later not far away in another pit in Trench
20 on the slope of the same tepe. In this case too,
the pottery (lot 98.4.20.12)dates to the initial LB I
occupation. Since the analysis of the Dzharkutan
ceramic assemblage has not yet been concluded,
these dates must be regarded as provisional and
may be refined in the future.
Nonetheless, it is beyond doubt that the small
disks continued into the Late Bronze Age (Namazga
VI). Given the uncertainties regarding the dating of
both the Ganyalin hoard and the Gonur finds, they
could theoretically even be exclusively of Late
Bronze Age date (there are no such disks from Al-
tyn Depe where the overwhelming majority of exca-
vated burials predate Namazga VI). For the sticks a
MBA (Namazga V) date is certain, with apossible
extension into the early second Millennium BC
(LBA/Namazga VI).
Thanks to the discovery of these new bone or
ivory items, the Central Asian pieces now outnum-
ber those from Pakistan and India, raising the ques-
tion whether we should indeed assume anon-local
production, or consider the possibility that we are
actually dealing with imports into South Asia from
the north. The case of the sticks looks ambiguous,
even though the larger variability of ornamentation
observable in the Indus region militates against a
Central Asian production.
45
Nonetheless, aSouth
Asian provenience can be proven only when scienti-
fic analyses show the pieces to be of elephant iv-
ory.
Carnelian beads
The recent publication of the Altyn Depe graves of-
fers an opportunity to assess the scale of carnelian
use in the Early and Middle Bronze Age of the
Kopet Dagh.
46
Carnelian beads appear –in small
numbers (three pieces) –for the first time in mid-
dle Namazga IV, but were mostly found in middle
to late Namazga Vburials (40 –50 pieces: the fig-
ures given in the original excavation records and in
the final publication differ occasionally). Only two
beads were of the etched variety,
47
and can thus
definitely be considered finished imports from the
subcontinent.
48
In Gonur, the presence of etched
carnelian beads is also attested:
49
of special impor-
tance are seven etched beads from the e
´lite burial
1999/2001,
50
which lay in asmall ‘basket pit’ also
containing aspouted vessel comparable to pieces
from Shahdad.
51
The burial was disturbed in anti-
Fig. 4
Ivory disks from
Dzharkutan
[author’s original]
44 These pieces were recovered during the GermanArchaeological
Institute’s excavationsinDzharkutan(1995–2003). Iwould like
to thank Dr. Dietrich Huff, head of excavations, for his kind per-
mission to publish the small finds. For the absolute dating of the
Dzharkutan settlement see Go
¨rsdorf/Huff 2001,Kaniuth 2006,
47–52.
45 One should keep in mind, here, that find registration and pu-
blication were much more selective in the earlydays of Indian
archaeology than they are today. It would require athorough
search of find registers to determine, whether the aboveesti-
mates for the occurrence of ivory ‘gamingpieces’ from the
enormous area opened at Mohenjo Daro, for example,are
anywhere close to the real figures.
46 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,390–400.
47 For etched carnelian beads in general see Reade 1979;Ratna-
gar 2004.
48 9.ææAC/`)&‚GŒŁC 2005,pl. 56,9a(burial 252)and pl. 74,2(bu-
rials 403-409).
49 Rossi-Osmida 2002,81 (grave 011); 118,fig. 3;Sarianidi 2007,
116 fig. 211 (grave 2710). Tubular and other carnelianbeads
are quite commonatGonur, see Sarianidi 2007 115–117 with
fig. 221.
50 Francfort/Rossi-Osmida 2002,129–130.
51 CompareFrancfort/Rossi-Osmida 2002,126 no. 10 and Hakemi
1997,630 nos. Gf. 1.2.4.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of SouthernCentral Asia 7
quity, and there appears to be no relationship be-
tween the deposit and the late radiocarbon date ta-
ken from another pit along the north wall. The best
date for the entire assemblage is supplied by two
silver conical bowls which find ready parallels in
Altyn 2–0(late Namazga V). Carnelian beads ap-
pear elsewhere and in later contexts as well, but
only one of them, from Rannij Tulkhar, may be an
etched one.
52
Their temporal distribution (last third
of the 3rd and first quarter of the 2nd Millennium BC)
roughly agrees with the ED III –Isin/Larsa date of
etched carnelian beads in Mesopotamia.
53
Other finds
From the Southern Bactrian site of Dashly 3comes
the remarkable find of an alabaster mosaic with in-
lays (Fig. 5):
54
the almost circular curvature of the
horns and the trefoil-shaped floral elements recall
Indus seal designs and particularly the robe of the
Mohenjo-Daro ‘priest-king’ (DK 1909).
55
The mosaic
is attributed to the oldest building phase of the
Dashly 3‘fortress’ and may therefore date back to
the MBA (late 3rd Millennium BC). The pottery of
the main building phase and the burials dug into
the abandoned buildings would certainly provide a
terminus ante quem within the first quarter of the
second Millennium BC. Similar work has now been
discovered from Gonur: Burial 3220 contained in its
Chamber 1agypsum wall decoration with heart-
shaped inlays, which may likewise be compared to
Indus motifs,
56
as can the inlays from grave 3225.
57
These burials probably date to late Namazga Vor
early Namazga VI. More strongly reminiscent of
South Asian pipal leaf decoration are anumber of
softstone bowls with aleaf ornament from Gonur.
58
Floral designs which should also be of Indus Civili-
zation or Indo-Iranian inspiration,
59
if not manufac-
ture, have also come to light on afaience vessel
from Dzharkutan, Tepe IV, Trench 9(Fig. 6).Asin
previous instances at this site, the fragments were
associated with early LB Ipottery (lots 97.4.9.7and
00.4.9.4).
The occurrence of other faience objects, among
them the famed Indus-type bangles,
60
more directly
raises the point of import vs. technology transfer.
For the time being, the typological similarities and
the small number of bracelets from Gonur vis-a
`-vis
the large number of South Asian ones
61
would leave
an import of the finished goods the more likely alter-
native.
Of potentially much greater importance is the
fragment of akneeling figure from Gonur North,
Royal Sanctuary Room 132,which Sarianidi likens
to the ‘priest king’ from Mohenjo Daro.
62
His con-
clusion that the comparatively numerous repre-
sentations of semi-crouching figures in the Indus
Civilization ‘reflect [the] presence of Bactrians in
Mohenjo-Daro’ is, however, not borne out by the
Fig. 5
The Dashly alabaster
vessel fragments.
(1after Sarianidi 1979,
fig. 5,17;2from
Ardeleanu-Jansen
1989,fig. 20)
Fig. 6
Faience vessel fragment
from Dzharkutan
[author’s original]
52 9.C+)º;ł$.E 1968,pl. 20,3bottom.
53 See the literature quoted in note 47,above.
54 6.&Ł.CŁ+Ł 1977,43 fig. 19;Sarianidi 1986,158 –159.
55 Ardeleanu-Jansen 1989,207;Sarianidi 1986,159 –160.
56 Sarianidi 2005,fig. 91;251;Sarianidi 2009,218 fig. 131.This
ornamentjoins agroup assembled already by Possehl 1996,
170 fig. 24,with parallels in Tell Asmar and Mohenjo Daro.
57 Sarianidi 2009,219;224 fig. 134;137.
58 Sarianidi 1998b, fig. 17,6.9;2005,274 fig. 128.
59 Most true pipal leaveshave an in-turning base,but there are
also examplesmore closely resembling the form of the Dzarkutan
leaves, for example Mackay 1943,pl. 32,1–1a(Chanhu Daro);
Mackay 1938,pl. 68,13 (Mohenjo Daro).Aseal from Mohenjo
Daro offers another close parallel (Marshall 1931,pl. 112,387);
see also Possehl 1996,181,fig. 31.
60 Sarianidi 2007,95 fig. 129 (grave 1799); 152 fig. 36 (grave 2900);
Vidale 2007,248 fig. 7(grave 2700).
61 Marshall 1931,529–531 pl. 134,1.7;157,22.48;Mackay 1938,
535 pl. 140,57–58;Vats 1940,448 –449 pl. 138,10–17.23;for
metal types see Yule 1985;for the production process Vidale
2000.
62 Sarianidi 2005,121–123 fig. 30.For the findspot see the plan
given in Sarianidi 2005,113.
Kai Kaniuth8
evidence, as the occurrence of persons in this pos-
ture is atypical feature of 3rd Millennium south-
eastern Iranian art.
63
Further examples of contact finds listed by
Possehl,
64
for example daggers without amidrib, are
not specific to the Indus region, but were spread
widely in Iran and Central Asia during the 3rd Millen-
nium BC.
Central Asian imports in the Indus Civilization
The presence of Central Asian metal objects (com-
partmented seals, weapons, pins) at Indus sites is
generally accepted,
65
and it need only be stressed
here that they predominantly derive from alate
phase within the Mature Indus period. The possibi-
lity exists, therefore, that they reached the subcon-
tinent not as aresult of direct contacts between
Bactria and the Indus region, but in the context of
more localized exchange, as aside-effect of the Na-
mazga expansion into Kerman and Baluchistan in
the early 2nd Millennium BC.
66
This author would suggest adding cylinder
seals found at Indus sites, especially those from
Mohenjo Daro, to the number of Central Asian im-
ports, since iconographically and typologically (some
of them are stamp-cylinders) the links with Central
Asia are much closer than those with Mesopota-
mia.
67
Also, with the exception of some toiletry arti-
cles,
68
no true Mesopotamian imports (as opposed
to Mesopotamian-related artefacts) are attested,
while Bactrian ones are relatively abundant.
The Gulf trade
When discussing the westerly trade of the Indus
Civilization, which is comparatively well-researched,
one is struck by astark imbalance between the two
regions: in Mesopotamia and the Gulf, Indus-related
artefacts appear in some number, but hardly any
Near Eastern objects found their way to South Asia,
even though the textual evidence is strongly sug-
gestive of major trade links between the two re-
gions.
69
We are surely dealing with an example of
perishable and therefore archaeologically invisible
trade goods. Considering the often-cited examples
of Central Asian objects in the Gulf, we have to con-
cede that there are fewer of them than usually
thought: the pedestalled cups normally referred to
in this context may equally well be inspired by Ira-
nian prototypes,
70
as the recent finds from Jiroft
have shown,
71
which would make them the result
of amore local interaction.
72
Asomewhat better
case was presented in the example of an (ivory or
bone) comb from Tell Abraq bearing an ornamenta-
tion that suggests aCentral Asian provenience.
73
Mesopotamia and Central Asia
74
The main 3rd Millennium BC import into Mesopota-
mia of clearly Central Asian derivation is lapis-lazuli,
which, on current knowledge, came exclusively from
Badakhshan. The Mesopotamian evidence is rela-
tively uneven, with some 74%(by numbers, not
weight) of all pre-Iron Age lapis found in the Near
East deriving from the excavation of the Royal Cem-
etery at Ur.
75
Even though the archaeological pic-
ture can hardly be called balanced, textual references
do suggest asubstantial and continuous influx of
this raw material from the east.
76
Tin is another commodity thought to have
been traded to Mesopotamia from either Central
Asia or Afghanistan in the later 3rd and early 2nd
Millennium BC. Although the Zerafshan deposits in
Central Asia were mined by the mid-2nd Millennium,
they are an unlikely source area of the Mesopota-
mian tin. Tin-bronze was not used in 3rd Millennium
63 Winkelmann 1994.
64 Possehl 2002a.
65 During-Caspers 1994a; Franke-Vogt 1995;Possehl 2002a; Rat-
nagar 2004.
66 Lamberg-Karlovsky/Hiebert 1992;Kohl/Pottier 1992.The recent
discovery of sealings from Gilund (Rajasthan) with compart-
mented seals of Central Asian or Iranian type, but acomplete
lack of Indus designs may prove avery instructive case for the
diffusion of seal types within the ‘localization era’ Indus sphere
(see Shindeetal. 2005).
67 Possehl 1996,176–177;Collon 1996,fig. 5–7;Mackay 1938,
pl. 96,488;pl. 89,376;see also During-Caspers 1994b. The seal
from Kalibangandoes not belong to this group. Connections
with Bactria become evenclearer when considering the pieces
from Akra andSibri (see the comparisons drawn in Collon 1996
and Maxwell-Hyslop/Mallowan 1994).
68 Possehl 2002a, 227–228 fig. 12,28.
69 Tosi 1987;Heimpel 1987;Michalowski 1988;Possehl 1996;
Vogt 1996;Me
´
ry 2000;Possehl 2002b; Ratnagar 2004;Weeks
2004.
70 During-Caspers 1994a; During-Caspers 1994c.
71 Majidzadeh 2003.
72 For furtherevidence of contacts acrossthe Gulf see Potts 2003.
73 Potts 1993.
74 Shortly before this paper was going into print, two articles ha-
ve appeared linking the MBA/LBA cultures of Central Asia with
territories mentioned in Mesopotamian texts, namely S
˘imas
˘ki
(Potts 2008)and Marhas
˘i(Francfort/Tremblay 2010). Especially
the latter contains avery detailed discussion of the archaeolo-
gical data which necessarily covers much of the same ground
as this paper. These identifications, if sustained, would have
important implications for our topic,but see Steinkeller (2006;
2007;inprint) for adifferent view of the Bronze Age geogra-
phy of Iran. My sincere thanks goestoP.Steinkeller for ma-
king the latter publication available to me in manuscript form.
75 Casanova 2000.
76 Herrmann 1968;Ro
¨
llig 1983;Casanova 1994;Moorey 1994;
Steible/Yildiz 2000;Michel 2001.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of SouthernCentral Asia 9
Central Asia, nor did sites along the possible trade
routes through northern Iran make use of the mate-
rial. Lastly, the highest dates for the Zerafshan
mines are still too late for connecting them with the
Old Assyrian karum trade. Instead, Eastern Iranian
and Afghan deposits should be considered.
77
Moving beyond raw materials, anumber of
chlorite objects discovered in Near Eastern sites
and asingle compartmented seal from Mari might
conceivably be of Central Asian provenience, but
neither class of objects must necessarily have come
from further than Eastern Iran.
78
Of probable Cen-
tral Asian provenience are small limestone birds of
prey with outstretched wings, originally worn as
central pieces of necklaces, which have been found
from Southern Uzbekistan (Tilla Bulak) through Turk-
menistan (Gonur), Iran (Susa) all the way to Wes-
tern Syria (Ebla) within avery narrow timeframe.
79
All these incidences are of acoincidental nat-
ure, much as the isolated Akkadian seal from Gonur
(see below). But it is the intriguing new finds from
Sarianidi’s excavations at Gonur that go quite some
way in changing our picture of Mesopotamian-Cen-
tral Asian relations, by linking the technological tra-
ditions of Margiana and Mesopotamia.
Metal segmented tyres
Several high-status burials have been excavated in
Gonur in the area called the ‘Royal Necropolis’, at
least three of which preserved remains of carts.
80
For the first time this links Southern Central Asia
with acustom of funerary display widely known
from the Levant to the Eurasian steppes, but extre-
mely rare in each of these regions, and points to
some ideological common ground with respect to
the post-mortem treatment of elites, ground not
shared, for example, by the Indus region popula-
tions.
81
But comparisons go much further than that,
because the Gonur carts display aparticular type of
wheel construction, where the U-shaped tyre-seg-
ments are folded around the wheel rim and secured
with three rivets through elongated clamps extend-
ing towards the centre of the wheel (Fig. 7).
82
In
Burial 3200 (the ‘House of the Dead’) four such
wooden wheels were discovered, reinforced on
their surface by tyres made up of six segments
each.
83
The diameter of the wheels was ca. 75 cm,
and the axle width approximately 110 cm.
84
Asso-
Fig. 7
Segmented tyres from
Gonur (after Sarianidi
2004,fig. 17,41–42)
77 Kaniuth 2007.
78 Beyer 1989 compares the Mari piece (found in the ‘palais pre
´-
sargonique’ in an Akkadian context) with compartmented seals
from Shahr-i Sokhta III, but similar examples are known from
Margiana (Baghestani 1997,257–262).
79 See the discussion in Kaniuth, Tilla Bulak 2009 –Vorbericht
zur dritten Kampagne (this volume).
80 Sarianidi 2004,139–140;Sarianidi 2005,204 –259.Another,
partial, chariot burial from Togolok 1may be alluded to in 6.-
&Ł.CŁ+Ł 1990,the report of arich, but robbed burial (Grave
20). The author describes the burial of two oxenand a‘driver’
next to the main interment (of awoman?). Aminiature column
and an animalfrieze were also foundinthis grave.
81 Kenoyer 2004.
82 These tyres were first assembled by Littauer/Crouwel 1989.
83 Sarianidi 2004,139;Sarianidi 2009,197 –200.
84 According to Sarianidi 2004,139;reconstruction drawing in
fig. 42;plan of the burial in Sarianidi 2009,151 fig. 63.
Kai Kaniuth10
ciated skeletons of ahorse and acamel may be
the remains of draft animals. Although the grave
was robbed, the recovered grave furnishings leave
no doubt about the original importance of the in-
humation. The second grave, no. 3225,shows four
wheels lying on their side. The structure of the
wheels, with six-segmented tyres, is clearly seen in
the published photograph, as is the position of a
skeleton lying partially above one of the wheels.
85
The diameter of the wheels was 90 cm, and the
wheels themselves were constructed of three woo-
den planks each, confirming the assumption that
this type of tyre reinforcement is only useful for
disk or cross-bar wheels and precludes the use of
spokes. Apart from the remains of ten individuals,
no finds were made in this grave. Of the cart from
Burial 3240,only the wooden parts remained, but a
green residue indicated where the (subsequently
plundered?) bronze tyres had once been. No other
finds were made in this burial.
As to the date of the Gonur cart burials, not
much information can yet be extracted from the
preliminary publications. All pottery and metal ves-
sels published belong to other graves (nos. 3210
and 3220 especially), and would indicate adate in
the late Namazga Vorthe very early Namazga VI
period.
86
The prestige goods are of little value in
assigning adate, since they are much more likely
to be heirlooms. Also, Sarianidi explicitly considers
the possibility of multiple interments, at least for
Grave 3200,which further complicates the dating
issue.
87
The Mesopotamian parallels for this type of
wheel construction are numerous (Fig. 8–10),and
the resemblance is so close, that they are undoubt-
edly part of one and the same technological tra-
dition. Several burials containing vehicles or parts
thereof are known from Susa.
88
From the area of
the ‘Palais Ache
´me
´nide’ come 6segments,
89
each
49–50 cm long, which have been reconstructed to
form asingle wheel with adiameter of 97 cm. The
pieces are, strictly speaking, without reliable ar-
chaeological context, but Mecquenem describes
them as found ‘close to astructure of Attahushu’.
90
Analyses showed contents of 1.35–1.85 %tin, and
0.6–1.1%arsenic.
91
In Burial A 89 of the Donjon
area, agrave with some metal vessels and weap-
ons, amongst which was an ‘Attahushu-axe’,
92
lay
12 or 13 such segments.
93
They are 46–50 cm long
Fig. 8
Segmented tyres
from Susa (after Tallon
1987,336–336
nos. 1304–1307)
85 Sarianidi 2005,252;Sarianidi 2009,320 fig. 180.
86 See Sarianidi 2005,figs. 89;94;98.This latter silver vessel
has very good analogies in Hissar IIIC (cf. Schmidt 1937,
H2773,fig. 126 pl. 60), indicating that it was produced someti-
me around 2000 BC.
87 Sarianidi 2004,138.
88 The ‘early 2nd-Millennium BC’ dates given by Tallon (1987,
301–306)supersede the ‘23rd Century’ ones giveninthe origi-
nal publications (Mecquenem 1922;Mecquenem 1943).
89 Louvre Sb 6829,published in Tallon 1987,301–306 no. 1304.
Original publicationinMecquenem 1922,137 fig. 14;alsoLit-
tauer/Crouwel 1989,111,nos. A1–6,pl. Ib.
90 For Attahushu,adate in the late 20th/early 19th Century BCE
is now widely accepted (Vallat 1996;Potts 1999).
91 Malfoy/Menu 1987,127.
92 For Attahushu-axes see Calmeyer 1969,46–48 (‘OldBabylonian’);
Amiet 1976;Tallon 1987,82 –88:SusaBVI–V(20th/19th Century
BCE) with apossible extension into AXV(18th Century BCE).
93 Four piecesinthe Muse-ye Iran Bastan, Teheran and Louvre
Sb 14672–14679 (published in Tallon 1987,302 –306 nos.
1305–1307,without depicting the fragmentary elements Sb
14672-6and another unnumbered piece in the Louvre, which
would bring the overall countto13); original publication by
Mecquenem 1943,89–90 fig. 74,2–3;see also Littauer/Crou-
wel 1989,111 nos. B1–12 pl. Ia.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of SouthernCentral Asia 11
and are reconstructed to form wheels with diam-
eters of 67 and 70 cm, each tyre being made up
of four segments.
94
One segment (Sb 14762)was
found to contain 5.14 %tin.
95
Although the dating
of the wheels depends entirely on the association
with the aforementioned axe (shown in Fig. 9), it
agrees well with our other evidence.
Below the oldest datable level of the Assur
temple cella in Assur, ahoard of copper objects
(the ‘Kupferfund Ass. 16317’) was discovered in a
ceramic vessel buried in an ashy layer in ‘prehis-
toric strata’. This assemblage, possibly acache of
disused temple inventory, included three fragmen-
tary tyre segments (Fig. 10,143–145).
96
According
to Assyrian tradition, the first temple for the god
Assur was built under Ushpia (late 21st Century BC),
but architectural remains of the temple were found
to date back only to Irishum I. (ca. 1974–1935 BC).
97
This would indicate amid-20th Century BC termi-
nus ante quem for the ‘prehistoric strata’, which are
furthermore separated from the Irishum Iconstruc-
tion by aputative ‘Schicht E’. Accordingly, adate
for the deposition towards the end of the 3rd Mil-
lennium BC has been widely accepted.
98
X-ray fluor-
escence analysis showed that the tyres were made
of pure copper with 0.35–0.75 %ofarsenic.
99
Afurther tyre segment from Mesopotamia, now
in the Iraq Museum, comes from the YW sounding
in Kish (Fig. 10,654).
100
The piece is fragmentary, but
its original length must have been close to 54 cm
(assuming that the middle clamp was placed sym-
metrically, as all others, with the exception of Sb
14678,are). It was made of pure (99 %) copper.
101
Since nothing is known about the context of the
Kish tyre, it can only be dated through analogy with
the other pieces.
In the Kabul bazaar, M.-H. Pottier noted 14
identical tyre segments measuring some 40 cm
length each, reconstructing wheels of 80–85 cm
diameter made up of seven segments (Fig. 11,
left).
102
No analyses have been run on these pieces.
Also without archaeological context are five seg-
ments that were acquired in the 1960’s in Teheran
(Fig. 11,centre and right),and which, it has been
suggested, come from de Morgan’s excavations in
Susa.
103
They apparently belong to at least two
sets, with lengths of 48–49 (2pieces), 51 and
55 cm. The fifth is fragmentary, but must belong to
the larger variant due to the length of its clamps.
The reconstructed wheel diameters are 92 and
102 cm respectively. Chemically, the two analyzed
tyres are tin-bronzes (Sn 6–8%).
104
In their discus-
sion of the entire group, Littauer and Crouwel were
inclined to doubt the purported Bactrian proveni-
ence of the Kabul segments, suggesting that these
might also ultimately have derived from Western
Iran, an unnecessarily cautious position now that
the new finds from Gonur put Bactria practically
within the archaeologically attested distribution
range of the segmented tyres. The conclusions
reached by Littauer and Crouwel with respect to the
developmental sequence of Near Eastern wheel
types are, however, valid and to acertain degree
supported by the information now available from
Central Asia.
Accordingly, the initial appearance of cart
burials in Mesopotamia in the later Early Dynastic
period is marked through the finds in the Royal
Cemetery of Ur
105
and the Susa and Kish ceme-
Fig. 9
Susa Grave A89 (after
Tallon 1987,fig. 45).
Note the Attahushu-
type axe in the
foreground centre
94 Tallon 1987,305,contrary to Mecquenem’s reconstruction.
95 Malfoy/Menu 1987,128.
96 Ass. 16317,e.f.s (now Vorderasiatisches Museum Berlin, VA
5020,5024,5027): Andrae/Haller 1955,11 –12,pl. 26,fand
pl. 27,e.s; Littauer/Crouwel 1989,D1–3,fig. 2,right; Mu
¨ller-
Karpe 2004,9,pl. 12,143–145.
97 Veenhof 2003.
98 ‘Ur III period’ in Mu
¨ller-Karpe 2004,9.Asupporting argument
for the date was put forward by Braun-Holzinger 1984,14 –15,
nos. 43–44,who showed that the bronze statues inside the
hoard were also of Neo-Sumerian (as opposed to Early Dynas-
tic –Andrae/Haller 1955,12)date, suggesting arelatively nar-
row (21st Century) timeframe for the entire deposit.
99 Lutz 2004,112.
100 Excavation number K.817 (Iraq Museum number IM 18814);
Mu
¨ller-Karpe 2004,29 no. 654.
101 Lutz 2004,119.
102 Pottier 1984,49 no. 326 fig. 44 pl. 44;Littauer/Crouwel 1989,
E1–14.
103 Littauer/Crouwel 1989,C1–5,fig. 1.
104 Littauer/Crouwel 1989,Appendix II. Abolt still inside the rivet-
hole was found to be of pure copper.
105 Woolley 1934;Moorey 1977;Pollock 1991;Zettler/Horne 1998.
Kai Kaniuth12
teries.
106
These mid 3rd Millennium carts are charac-
terized by adifferent construction of the wheel,
with nails driven through the thin (leather or me-
tal) tyres for additional strength. In Neo-Sumerian
times, segmented tyres appear: Assur and possibly
Susa are the earliest examples, with afragmentary
stela of Gudea showing atransition between both
types of tyre construction, the two bolted segments
being additionally nailed.
107
The Susa wheels may
theoretically be dated as late as the earlier part of
the Sukkalmah period (19th –18th Centuries BC),
while the Kabul pieces should fall into the time
bracket of Namazga VtoVI(early), or 2300 –
1700 BC.
108
Aprecise dating of the Gonur wheels –
either through the associated ceramic finds, radio-
carbon or dendrochronology –is therefore of prime
importance for adiscussion of the origin and sub-
sequent spread of this technological innovation.
No connections with the cart burials of the
steppe cultures (Sintashta/Petrovka, around 2000 BC)
are apparent at this time. In the Ural region, wheel
Fig. 10
Tyre fragments from
Assur and Kish (after
Mu
¨ller-Karpe 2004,
pl. 12,39)
Fig. 11
Segmented tyres from
the bazaars in Kabul
(left; after Pottier 1984,
pl. 44,326)and Tehran
(centre and right; after
Littauer/Crouwel 1989,
figs. 1–2and pls. I–II)
106 Three graves with chariot burials were identified by Watelin
1934,30–34.Moorey (1978,104 –110)cites four more possi-
ble ‘cart burials’; all date to ED II/IIIa. The best-preserved
‘chariot’ was found in grave Y-237.Ithas awheel diameter of
50 cm, and an axlewidth of 90 cm.
107 Littauer/Crouwel 1989,114 fig. 3;Bo
¨
rker-Kla
¨hn 1982,no. 45a.
108 This is the most reasonable timeframe for the decontextuali-
zed Bactrian bronzes. For Bactrian metalworksee Pottier 1984.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of SouthernCentral Asia 13
construction moved from disk to spoked types
without the intermediate step of segmented
tyres.
109
This next advance in vehicle technology,
the spoked wheel, which prohibits the use of seg-
mented tyres, reached the Near East along a differ-
ent route, possibly through the Caucasus, since the
first spokes turn up in 19th –18th Century Anatolia
(seals of Ku
¨ltepe Karum II-period,
110
and a model
from Acemho
¨yu
¨k III
111
). The seal from Tepe Hissar
showing a two-wheeled chariot is not dated well
enough to argue for a 3rd Millennium use of spoked
wheels in Northern Iran,
112
and in Syria and the
Mesopotamian lowlands they appear more regularly
on seals from the 18th Century BC onwards, becom-
ing widespread in the Levant only during MB III/IIC
(17th Century BC).
113
The Indus Civilization vehicle
technology does not take part in this particular de-
velopment.
114
Glyptic art
An Old Akkadian cylinder seal was discovered in
the Gonur necropolis in 2001 (Fig. 12, top).
115
The
inscription is quite worn, but the composition is
mostly intact: it consists of a contest scene with
two pairs, each confronting a human with a wild
animal. On the left, the hero fights a lion (with its
claws and upturned tail), on the right a bull (the
faint lines of the horns are just visible and the ani-
Fig. 12
The Old Akkadian seal
from Gonur (top row;
after Sarianidi 2002,
p. 326) and compa-
risons (centre and
bottom rows; Boehmer
1965, pls. 12;14–16)
109 ˆŁª et al. 1992; Anthony/Vinogradov 1995; Epimachov/Kor-
jakova 2004.
110 O
¨zgu
¨c1965,nos.9and 24. Both cases are doubtful owing to
their lack of detail, while Porada 1948,no.893e, pl. 134nis
dated to the ‘Provincial Babylonian’ group on stylistic grounds
only.
111 Littauer/Crouwel 1986,395–398.
112 Schmidt 1937,199 fig. 118; the seal, H.892, was discovered
‘‘...with a group of burials of presumably Hissar IIIB origin.
No alabaster vessels of Hissar IIIC were found’’, in other
words no definite dating criteria can be put forward.
113 For references and illustrations see Littauer/Crouwel 1979,
50–55; earlier Levantine seals with chariots are listed by Na-
gel/Eder 1992; see also Moorey 1986.
114 Kenoyer 2004.
115 ŁŁŁ 2001, pl. 10,7; Sarianidi 2002,326–334; Sarianidi
2004, fig. 1. This seal has been referred to repeatedly since
its initial publication, and most researchers correctly stress its
Old Akkadian provenience (pace Salvatori 2008c, 114, who,
for reasons unknown considers it to be in ‘‘Akkadian provincial
style, presumably Iranian’’, a label fully appropriate when
referring to the seal from ‘Site 1220’ published in ŁŁŁ
2001, fig. 8,2a–d; 8,3).
Kai Kaniuth14
mal lacks an upturned tail). The human figures ap-
pear to be naked save for a belt, but their heads
are difficult to make out. Since neither the hairdo
of the classical hero with his side-locks nor the
horns of the bull-man are clearly visible, we may be
dealing with a rarer figure, the hero with the flat
cap (Fig. 12,153).
The best comparisons for the composition fall
within the later part of the Akkadian empire (reigns
of Manishtushu, Naramsin and Sharkalisharri –
23rd/22nd Centuries BC).
116
Of the two-columned in-
scription, only the second (Fig. 12, top right) pre-
serves some traces. It gives the name of the seal
owner as [(x).L]U
´-inim-g[i.(x)] / sagi / ı
`r.z[u] –‘‘Lu(gal?)-
inim-gi(-na?),
117
cupbearer,
118
his servant’’. The per-
sonal names Lugal-inim-gi-na, Lu-inim-gi-na and Lu-
gal-inim-gi are attested in Old Akkadian and Neo-
Sumerian (Ur III) times.
119
There is a single refer-
ence to a cupbearer, Lugal-inim-gi-na, of early Ur III
date,
120
which would make a case for a recut in-
scription.
121
To be sure, there are no known impres-
sions made with our seal, enabling us to identify
‘our’ Lugal-inim-gi-na beyond any shadow of a
doubt.
122
Unfortunately, the first column of the in-
scription is practically erased, so we miss our best
dating criterion, the mention of a royal name.
Again, no associated finds are known, and we
cannot determine how much time elapsed before
the seal was deposited in a grave in Gonur. Its con-
dition suggests, however, that it had been used (or
worn) for some time before burial, be it in the Near
East or in Margiana. The likelihood that it reached
Central Asia via the Indus Civilization is minimal.
123
To assess the wider implications of this find,
it will be worthwhile to review the evidence for
sealing, i.e. for MBA/LBA administrative practices
in Central Asia. Among the predominant stamp
seals, the most distinctive is the compartmented
type, which has evolved there and in Eastern Iran
since the Early Bronze Age. Ultimately derived from
Mesopotamian prototypes are cylinder and stamp
cylinder designs, but again these were probably
introduced via Eastern Iran.
124
Since Sarianidi’s
monumental publication of Central Asian Seals,
125
we have a good idea about the range of forms
and styles. Out of 1802 entries in his catalogue,
254 are from sites in Margiana, mostly from his own
excavations at Gonur and Togolok. Of these, only
15 seals are of the (stamp-) cylinder type (com-
pared to 213 stamps), but a disproportionately high
number of them was used for sealing (5cylinders
as opposed to 15 stamps).
126
Among the (stamp-)
cylinder seals, six were discovered on the surface
of Taip 1(a Namazga VI site),
127
three at Togolok 1
and 21 (both Namazga VI), four at Gonur South
and two at Gonur North.
128
The majority of sealings
come from Gonur South, a fortified settlement of
the first quarter of the 2nd Millennium BC, and not
from Gonur North, where earlier strata exist.
129
An-
other sealing of Late Bronze date was found on
Tepe VI at Dzharkutan. The fragmentary impression
was made with a cylinder seal bearing rows of
snakes as surface decoration (Fig. 13,1).
130
Similar
designs, while rare, are known throughout the dis-
tribution range of Central Asian glyptic art, all the
way to South Asia (Fig. 13,3), while they appear to
have been most popular in Bactria (Fig. 13,2.4).
To sum up, seals from the Indus civilization,
Iran and Mesopotamia found their way in small
numbers into Southern Central Asia, where they
turn up in the same high-status contexts of Namaz-
ga V (late) to Namazga VI (early) date as other exo-
tic goods such as ivory objects and beads of semi-
precious stone. As far as we know, none of these
seals was used in administrative procedures. While
a very prolific stamp seal industry had developed
in Central Asia since the Early Bronze Age (Namaz-
ga IV),
131
local production of cylinder seals and in-
stances of actual sealing are extremely rare and
date late within the horizon dealt with here, pos-
sibly not before the beginning of the 2nd Millen-
116 Boehmer 1965. While similar designs were produced and reu-
sed into Ur III times (the so-called ‘post-Akkadian A’-group of
contest scenes, see Boehmer 1966, Collon 1982, Dittmann
1994), our piece would for its composition and proportions
be at home in an Old Akkadian environment.
117 There is not much space for a GAL in front of the LU
´, and the
same is true for the end of the line, so the final -na is purely
conjectural.
118 Sagi (SI
`LA.S
˘U.DU8)–cupbearer.
119 Limet 1968.
120 Levy/Artzi 1965,12 no. 72, obv. col. 1,3and 6.
121 P. Steinkeller kindly shared his impression, that the inscripti-
on was definitely Ur III.
122 Boehmer 1965; Edzard 1969.
123 The lack of Mesopotamian seals from Indus sites was noted
above.
124 Here, the group of seals from Yahya and Shahdad springs to
mind (compare Amiet 1986,165–168 with Sarianidi 1998a,
no. 1786 and Sarianidi 2005,280–281 fig. 137).
125 Sarianidi 1998a.
126 Sarianidi 1998a, nos. 1745 –1764.
127 æŁ 1981; Salvatori 2008b, 76 fig. 6,1.
128 At Gonur North, Sarianidi 1998a, no. 1778 is a surface find,
while no. 1786 is an Iranian import (see note 111) and thus
does not tell us much about local seal production and use.
Note that Salvatori 2008a, 59 considers Gonur North to be
exclusively Middle Bronze (Namazga V) in date.
129 Gonur South, Temenos (SW-quadrant): Rooms 207,597.The
sealings from Room 207 are on bullae and jar stoppers, secur-
ing mobile containers potentially brought from elsewhere.
130 غº et al. 2002, fig. 2. Comparisons for the distinct
snake motif come from nearby Sapallitepe and Akra, a site in
the Bannu basin, Pakistan.
131 ˚Ł 1990 charts this early development of stamp seals
throughout the Altyn Bronze Age levels.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia 15
nium BC.
132
There is practically no evidence for a
sealing practice contemporary with the Old Akka-
dian period and the small overall number of re-
covered sealings makes their use in public adminis-
tration unlikely, suggesting a relevance on the
household level instead.
133
While emulation may
be the motivation behind the acquisition and pro-
minent deposition of foreign seals, administrative
practices were not introduced on any scale.
Lastly, another case of emulation is present in
the form of a reclining stone duck with back-turned
head.
134
Whether this is a local imitation of a duck-
shaped weight
135
or an import from Mesopotamia
or Elam will particularly depend on the weight of
the piece. There certainly is no functional context
apparent which would suggest the operation of a
Near Eastern system of weights.
Concluding observations
During the second half of the 3rd Millennium BC,
trade relations connected the regions from the In-
dus all the way to the Mediterranean, but the place
of Central Asia within this network is difficult to as-
sess and we cannot really go beyond stressing its
proximity to the sources of a number of traded raw
materials. The traffic in finished goods appears to
have been negligible. All contact finds constitute
isolated occurrences within a local environment and
can therefore be understood most easily in the con-
text of an irregular elite exchange based on central
places, rather than as directional trade. The influx
comprised both the import of exotic and, judging
from their archaeological contexts, highly prized and
prestigious objects (seals, semi-precious stones,
possibly ivory) and an emulation of elite practices
(in this case cart burial), coupled with the adoption
of very specific manufacturing techniques (segment-
ed tyres, cylinder seals). The caveats of Lamberg-
Karlovsky,
136
who warned against over-interpreting
such contact finds, are thus still valid. While the
presence of imports is certainly not accidental, it is
in no case demonstrably connected with the intro-
duction of new ‘cultural subsystems’ (administrative
techniques, social structures), let alone full-scale
migrations. Nonetheless, the Gonur finds change
our perception of Middle to Late Bronze Age rela-
tions as they point to an active network on the Ira-
nian highlands capable of transmitting materials
and concepts between Mesopotamia (or Susiana)
and Southern Central Asia throughout the second
half of the 3rd and lasting into the early 2nd Millen-
nium BC. This qualifies Potts’ suggestion that Me-
sopotamia was entirely cut off from the Iranian
exchange system after ED III, and that contacts ba-
sically took the form of booty-taking forays into the
uplands, while strengthening his assertion that gift
exchange, tribute and other forms of relation con-
tinued to play a role.
137
In the early 2nd Millennium
BC regionalizing tendencies are visible, contempor-
Fig. 13
Sealing from Dzarkutan
(1after Shajdullaev
et al. 2002, fig. 2)
and comparisons from
‘Bactria’ (2after Bag-
hestani 1998, no. 327)
Akra (3after Maxwell-
Hyslop/Mallowan 1994,
pl. I) and Sapalli Tepe
(4after Kaniuth 2006,
78 no. 33)
132 Masimov/Salvatori (2008,107), on the other hand, consider
the impressions of both stamp and cylinder seals a relatively
widespread artifact category in Margiana, citing impressions
on pottery and the Gonur South evidence.
133 All impressions from Margiana are on single containers, but
none indicates bulk storage, as is the case, for example, in
Shahr-e Sokhta. In both regions, seals are restricted to wo-
men’s graves and their use for marking/sealing up household
provisions ties in well with ethnographic reports on seals of
the Oxus group (cited in Baghestani 1997,152; similarly
˚Ł 1990 who argues that sealings were used for securing
personal possessions and family property).
134 Sarianidi 2007,119 fig. 226.
135 Duck-shaped weights appear during the Old Akkadian period
and reach their height of distribution in Ur III and Old Babylo-
nian times. See Ascalone/Peyronel 2003 (weight systems in
Iran, the Indus Culture and the Persian Gulf) and 2006 (Eblai-
te weights with a useful summary of the Mesopotamian evi-
dence), both with further literature.
136 Lamberg-Karlovsky 1986.
137 Potts 1994,279–286.
Kai Kaniuth16
ary with the appearance of Eurasian steppe material
(surface pottery and burial finds) in Southern Cen-
tral Asia,
138
and of Namazga-related material in
Baluchistan (which, in turn, is probably the reason
behind the appearance of many Central Asian arte-
facts in the subcontinent). These may indeed be the
results of population displacements, but whether
they helped to sever the links that existed in the
MBA or were a consequence of their termination
must, for the time being, remain an open question.
Bibliography
Amiet 1976
P. Amiet, Collection David Weill. Les antiquite
´s du Luri-
stan (Paris 1976).
Amiet 1986
P. Amiet, L‘a
ˆge des e
´changes inter-iraniens 3500–1700
avant J.-C. Notes et documents des Muse
´es de France
11 (Paris 1986).
Andrae/Haller 1955
W. Andrae/A. Haller, Die Heiligtu
¨mer des Gottes Assur
und der Sin-Shamash-Tempel in Assur. Wissenschaftliche
Vero
¨ffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 67
(Berlin 1955).
Anthony/Vinogradov 1995
D. Anthony/N. Vinogradov, Birth of the chariot. Archaeol-
ogy 48.2,1995,36–41.
Ardeleanu-Jansen 1989
A. Ardeleanu-Jansen, A short note on a steatite sculpture
fragment from Mohenjo-Daro. In: K. Frifelt/P. Sørensen
(ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1985 (London 1989)
196–210.
Ascalone/Peyronel 2003
E. Ascalone/L. Peyronel, Meccanismo di scambio com-
merciale e metrologia pre-monetaria in Asia Media, Valle
dell’Indo e Golfo Persico durante l’eta
`del Bronzo. Spun-
ti per una refflessione sulle sfere di internationale cul-
turale. Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale 9,
2003,339–438.
Ascalone/Peyronel 2006
E. Ascalone/L. Peyronel, I pesi da bilancia del bronzo
antico e del bronzo medio. Materiali e Studi Archeologici
di Ebla 7(Rom 2006).
Baghestani 1997
S. Baghestani, Metallene Compartimentsiegel aus Ost-
Iran, Zentralasien und Nord-China. Archa
¨ologie in Iran
und Turan 1(Rahden 1997).
Beyer 1989
D. Beyer, Un nouveau te
´moin des relations entre Mari
et le monde iranien au IIIe
`me mille
´naire. Iranica Antiqua
24,1989,109–120.
Boehmer 1965
R. M. Boehmer, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik wa
¨hrend
der Akkad-Zeit. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatischen Archa
¨ologie 4(Berlin 1965).
Boehmer 1966
R. M. Boehmer, Die Datierung des Puzur-Ins
˘us
˘inak und
einige sich daraus ergebende Konsequenzen. Orientalia
35,1966,345–376.
Bo
¨rker-Kla
¨hn 1982
J. Bo
¨rker-Kla
¨hn, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und ver-
gleichbare Felsreliefs. Baghdader Forschungen 4(Mainz
1982).
Braun-Holzinger 1984
E. A. Braun-Holzinger, Figu
¨rliche Bronzen aus Mesopota-
mien. Pra
¨historische Bronzefunde I/4(Mu
¨nchen 1984).
Calmeyer 1969
P. Calmeyer,Datierbare Bronzen aus Luristan und Ker-
manshah. Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und Vorder-
asiatischen Archa
¨ologie 5(Berlin 1969).
Casanova 1994
M. Casanova, Lapis Lazuli beads in Susa and Central
Asia: a preliminary study. In: A. Parpola/P. Koskikallio
(ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1993. Annales Acade-
miae Scientiarum Fennicae, series B 271 (Helsinki 1994)
137–146.
Casanova 2000
M. Casanova, Le lapis-lazuli d’Asie Centrale a
´la Syrie
au Chalcolithique et a
`l’A
ˆge du Bronze. In: P. Matthiae/
A. Enea/L. Peyronel (ed.), Proceedings of the First Inter-
national Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient
Near East, Rome May 18th–23rd, 1998 (Rome 2000)
171–183.
Cattani 2008
M. Cattani, The Final phase of the Bronze Age and the
‘‘Andronovo question’’ in Margiana. In: S. Salvatori/
M. Tosi (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the
Margiana lowlands (Oxford 2008)133–151.
Collon 1982
D. Collon, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the
British Museum: Cylinder Seals II: Akkadian; Post Akka-
dian; Ur III periods (London 1982).
Collon 1996
D. Collon, Mesopotamia and the Indus: the evidence
from the seals. In. J. Reade (ed.), The Indian Ocean in
Antiquity (London 1996)209–225.
Cortesi et al. 2008
E. Cortesi/M. Tosi/A. Lazzari/M. Vidale, Cultural relation-
ships beyond the Iranian Plateau: The Helmand Civiliza-
tion, Baluchistan and the Indus Valley in the 3rd Millen-
nium BCE. Pale
´orient 34.2,2008,5–36.
Dittmann 1994
R. Dittmann, Glyptikgruppen am U
¨bergang von der Ak-
kad- zur Ur III-Zeit. Baghdader Mitteilungen 25,1995,
75–117.
Dittmann 2003
R. Dittmann, Anmerkungen zur Genese und Transforma-
tion des Reif-Harappa-Komplexes. In: R. Dittmann/C. Eder/
B. Jacobs (ed.), Altertumswissenschaften im Dialog. Fest-
schrift fu
¨r Wolfram Nagel zur Vollendung seines 80.
Lebensjahres (Mu
¨nster 2003)81–221.
During-Caspers 1994a
E. During-Caspers, Widening horizons: Contacts between
Central Asia (the Murghabo-Bactrian culture) and the
Indus Valley civilization. Annali dell’Istituto Orientale di
Napoli 54,1994,171–198.
During-Caspers 1994b
E. During-Caspers, Non-Indus glyptics in a Harappan
context. Iranica Antiqua 29,1994,83–106.
138 For recent reviews of steppe/agricultural interaction see
Shishlina/Hiebert 1998; Kohl 2002; Cattani 2008.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia 17
During-Caspers 1994c
E. During-Caspers, Further evidence for ‘Central Asian’
materials from the Arabian Gulf. Journal of the Economic
and Social History of the Orient 37,1994,33–53.
Edzard 1969
D. O. Edzard, Die Inschriften der altakkadischen Rollsie-
gel. Archiv fu
¨r Orientforschung 22,1968/1969,12–20.
Epimachov/Korjakova 2004
A. Epimachov/L. Korjakova, Steitwagen der eurasischen
Steppe in der Bronzezeit: Das Wolga-Uralgebiet und
Kasachstan. In: M. Fansa/S. Burmeister (ed.), Rad und
Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vor-
deren Orient und Europa. Archa
¨ologische Mitteilungen
aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft 40 (Mainz 2004)
221–236.
Francfort 1985
H.-P. Francfort, Tradition harappe
´enne et innovation
bactrienne a
`Shortugai. In: J. C. Gardin (ed.), L’Arche
´olo-
gie de la Bactriane ancienne. Actes du colloque franco-
sovie
´tique, Dushanbe, 27 oct.–3nov. 1982 (Paris 1985)
95–104.
Francfort 1989
H.-P. Francfort, Fouilles de Shortugai. Re
´cherches sur
l’Asie Centrale protohistorique. Me
´moires de la Mission
Arche
´ologique Franc¸aise en Asie Centrale 2(Paris
1989).
Francfort 1990
H.-P. Francfort, Une proto-Route de la Soie a t’elle existe
´
aux 2e-1er mille
´naires? In: H.-P. Francfort (ed.), Nomades
et se
´dentaires en Asie centrale. Rapports de l’arche
´ologie
et de l’ethnologie (Paris 1990)121–129.
Francfort/Rossi-Osmida 2002
H.-P. Francfort/G. Rossi-Osmida, ‘‘The dog mausoleum’’.
In: G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Margiana. Gonur-depe necro-
polis. 10 years of excavations by Ligabue Study and Re-
search Centre (Padua 2002)120–131.
Francfort/Tremblay 2010
H.-P. Francfort/X. Tremblay, Marhas
˘i et la Civilisation de
l’Oxus. Iranica Antiqua 45,2010,51–224.
Franke-Vogt 1991
U. Franke-Vogt, Die Glyptik aus Mohenjo-Daro. Unifor-
mita
¨t und Variabilita
¨t in der Induskultur: Untersuchung
zur Typologie, Ikonographie und ra
¨umlichen Verbreitung
(Mainz 1991).
Franke-Vogt 1995
U. Franke-Vogt, Vom Oxus zum Indus. In: U. Finkbeiner/
R. Dittmann/H. Hauptmann (ed.), Beitra
¨ge zur Kultur-
geschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift fu
¨r Rainer Michael
Boehmer (Mainz 1995)145–165.
Go
¨rsdorf/Huff 2001
J. Go
¨rsdorf/D. Huff, 14C-Datierungen von Materialien aus
der Grabung Dzarkutan, Uzbekistan. Archa
¨ologische Mit-
teilungen aus Iran und Turan 33,2001,75–87.
Hakemi 1997
A. Hakemi, Shahdad. Archaeological excavation of a
Bronze Age Centre in Iran (Rome 1997).
Heimpel 1987
W. Heimpel, Das Untere Meer. Zeitschrift fu
¨r Assyriologie
77,1987,22–92.
Herrmann 1968
G. Herrmann, Lapis Lazuli: the Early Phases of its Trade.
Iraq 30.1,1968,21–57.
Hiebert 1994
F. T. Hiebert, Origins of the Bronze Age Oasis Civilization
in Central Asia. American School of Prehistoric Research
Bulletin 42 (Cambridge/MA 1994).
Hiebert 1999
F. Hiebert, On the track of the ancient Silk Road. Expe-
dition 41,1999,37–41.
Jarrige 1996
J.-F. Jarrige, Les fouilles de Nausharo au Balochistan Pa-
kistanais et leur contribution a
`l’e
´tude de la civilisation
de l’Indus. Comptes Rendus de l’Acade
´mie des Inscrip-
tions et Belles-Lettres 1996,821–877.
Jungner 2004
H. Jungner, A collaboration for developing archaeological
research in Turkmenistan. In: ..˚æ/ˇ..˚Ł/
˝..˜Æ (ed.), ŁæŒ ŁŁºŁŁŁ.ÆŁŒ
æØ Œ 75-ºŁ ´ŁŒ ¨Ł ŁŁŁ
(æŒ 2004)209–293.
Kaniuth 2006
K. Kaniuth, Metallobjekte der Bronzezeit aus Nord-Bak-
trien. Archa
¨ologie in Iran und Turan 6(Mainz 2006).
Kaniuth 2007
K. Kaniuth, The metallurgy of the Late Bronze Age Sa-
palli Culture (Southern Uzbekistan) and its implications
for the ‘Tin Question’. Iranica Antiqua 42,2007,23–40.
Kenoyer 2004
J. M. Kenoyer, Die Karren der Induskultur Pakistans und
Indiens. In: M. Fansa/S. Burmeister (ed.), Rad und
Wagen. Der Ursprung einer Innovation. Wagen im Vor-
deren Orient und Europa. Archa
¨ologische Mitteilungen
aus Nordwestdeutschland, Beiheft 40 (Mainz 2004)87–
106.
Kenoyer 2005
J. M. Kenoyer, Bead technologies at Harappa, 3300–
1900 BC: a comparative summary. In: C. Jarrige/V. Le-
fe
`vre (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 2001 (Paris 2005)
157–170.
Kohl 1984
P. Kohl, Central Asia. Palaeolithic beginnings to the Iron
Age. Recherche sur les Civilisations, Synthe
`se 14 (Paris
1984).
Kohl 1992
P. Kohl, Central Asia (Western Turkestan): Neolithic to
the Early Iron Age. In: R. Ehrich (ed.), Chronologies in
Old World Archaeology, Third Edition (Chicago1992)
179–194.
Kohl 2002
P. Kohl, Archaeological Transformations: Crossing the
Pastoral/Agricultural Bridge. Iranica Antiqua 37,2002,
151–190.
Kohl/Pottier 1992
P. Kohl/M.-H. Pottier, ‘Central Asian’ materials from Ba-
luchistan and Southeastern Iran at the end of the third
millennium B.C. Persica 14,1990–1992,91 –102.
Lamberg-Karlovsky 1986
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Third millennium structure and
process: From the Euphrates to the Indus and the Oxus
to the Indian Ocean. Oriens Antiquus 25,1986,189–
219.
Lamberg-Karlovsky/Hiebert 1992
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky/F. Hiebert, Central Asia and the
Indo-Iranian borderlands. Iran 30,1992,1–15.
Kai Kaniuth18
Lamberg-Karlovsky/Tosi 1973
C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky/M. Tosi, Shahr-i-Sokhta and
Tepe Yahya: Tracks on the earliest history of the Iranian
Plateau. East and West 23,1973,21–57.
Levy/Artzi 1965
S. Levy/P. Artzi, Sumerian and Akkadian Documents
from Public and Private Collections in Israel. Atiqot 4,
1965,1–15.
Limet 1968
H. Limet, L’anthroponymie sumerienne dans les docu-
ments de la 3e dynastie d’Ur (Paris 1968).
Littauer/Crouwel 1979
M. A. Littauer/J. H. Crouwel, Wheeled vehicles and ridden
animals in the Ancient Near East. Handbuch der Orienta-
listik 7. Abteilung, 1. Band, 2. Abschnitt, B, 1. Lieferung
(Leiden 1979).
Littauer/Crouwel 1986
M. A. Littauer/J. H. Crouwel, The earliest known three-
dimensional evidence for spoked wheels. American Jour-
nal of Archaeology 90,1986,395–398.
Littauer/Crouwel 1989
M. A. Littauer/J. H. Crouwel, Metal wheel tyres from the
Ancient Near East. In: L. de Meyer/E. Haerinck (ed.), Ar-
chaeologia Iranica et Orientalis. Miscellanea in honorem
Louis Vanden Berghe (Ghent 1989)111–126.
Lutz 2004
J. Lutz, Ro
¨ntgenfluoreszenzanalysen. In: H. Hauptmann/
E. Pernicka (ed.), Die Metall-Industrie Mesopotamiens
von den Anfa
¨ngen bis zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Orient-
Archa
¨ologie 3(Rahden 2004)109–149.
Mackay 1938
E. J. Mackay, Further excavations at Mohenjo-Daro.
Being an official account of archaeological excavations
carried out by the government of India between the
years 1927 and 1931 (Delhi 1938).
Mackay 1943
E. J. Mackay, Chanhu-Daro excavations, 1935–1936.
American Oriental Series 20 (New Haven 1943).
Madjidzadeh 2003
Y. Madjidzadeh, Jiroft. The earliest oriental civilization
(Tehran 2003).
Malfoy/Menu 1987
J.-M. Malfoy/M. Menu, La me
´tallurgie du cuivre a
`Suse
aux IVe et IIIe mille
´naires: analyses en laboratoire. In:
F. Tallon (ed.), Me
´tallurgie susienne I: De la fondation de
Suse au XVIIIe sie
`cle avant J.-C. (Paris 1987)355–373.
Marshall 1931
J. Marshall, Mohenjo-Daro and the Indus civilization.
Being an official account of archaeological excavations
carried out by the government of India between the
years 1922 and 1927 (London 1931).
Masimov/Salvatori 2008
I. S. Masimov/S. Salvatori, Unpublished stamp-seals from
the North-Western Murgab delta. In: S. Salvatori/M. Tosi
(ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margiana
Lowlands (Oxford 2008)99–109.
Masson 1981
V. M. Masson, Seals of a Proto-Indian type from Altyn-
depe. In: P. Kohl (ed.), The Bronze Age civilization of
Central Asia. Recent Soviet discoveries (New York 1981)
149–162.
Masson 1988
V. M. Masson, Altyn-Depe (Philadelphia 1988).
Masson/Sarianidi 1972.
V. M. Masson/V. I. Sarianidi, Central Asia –Turkmenia
before the Achaemenids (London 1972).
Maxwell-Hyslop/Mallowan 1994
R. Maxwell-Hyslop/B. Mallowan, A stamp cylinder seal
from Central Asia in the British Museum. In: M. Dietrich/
O. Loretz (ed.), Beschreiben und Deuten in der Archa
¨o-
logie des Alten Orient. Festschrift fu
¨r Ruth Mayer-Opifi-
cius. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 4(Mu
¨nster
1994)177–190.
Mecquenem 1922
R. de Mecquenem, Fouilles de Suse. Campagnes des an-
ne
´es 1914–1921 –1922.Re
´vue d’Assyriologie et Arche
´o-
logie Orientale 19,1922,109–140.
Mecquenem 1943
R. de Mecquenem, Arche
´ologie Susienne. Me
´moires de
la Mission Arche
´ologique en Iran 29 (Paris 1943).
Me
´ry 2000
S. Me
´ry, Les ce
´ramiques d’Oman et l’Asie moyenne: une
arche
´ologie des e
´changes a
`l’A
ˆge du Bronze (Paris 2000).
Michalowski 1988
P. Michalowski, Magan and Meluhha once again. Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 40,1988,156–164.
Michel 2001
C. Michel, Le lapis-lazuli des assyriens au de
´but du IIe
mille
´naire av. J.-C. In: W. van Soldt/J. Deercksen/N. Kou-
wenberg/T. Krispijn (ed.), Veenhof Anniversary Volume.
Studies presented to Klaas R. Veenhof on the occasion
of his sixty-fifth birthday (Leiden 2001)341–359.
Moorey 1977
P. R. S. Moorey, What do we know about the people bur-
ied in the Royal Cemetery? Expedition 20,1977,24 –40.
Moorey 1978
P. R. S. Moorey, Kish excavations, 1923–1933 (Oxford
1978).
Moorey 1986
P. R. S. Moorey, The emergence of the light, horse-
drawn chariot in the Near East c. 2000–1500 B.C. World
Archaeology 18,1986,196–215.
Moorey 1994
P. R. S. Moorey, Ancient Mesopotamian materials and
industries. The archaeological evidence (Oxford 1994).
Mu
¨ller-Karpe 2004
H. Mu
¨ller-Karpe, Katalog I: Untersuchte Metallobjekte
aus Mesopotamien. In: H. Hauptmann/E. Pernicka (ed.),
Die Metall-Industrie Mesopotamiens von den Anfa
¨ngen
bis zum 2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. Orient-Archa
¨ologie 3
(Rahden 2004)1–89.
Nagel/Eder 1992
W. Nagel/C. Eder, Altsyrien und A
¨gypten. Damaszener
Mitteilungen 6,1992,1–108.
O
¨zgu
¨c1965
N. O
¨zgu
¨c, Ku
¨ltepe mu
¨hu
¨r baskılarında Anadolu grubu.
The Anatolian group of Cylinder seal impressions from
Ku
¨ltepe. Tu
¨rk Tarih Kurumu Yayinlarindan 5.22 (Ankara
1965).
Pollock 1985
S. Pollock, Chronology of the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Iraq
47,1985,129–158.
Pollock 1991
S. Pollock, Of priestesses, princes and poor relations:
The dead in the Royal Cemetery of Ur. Cambridge Ar-
chaeological Journal 1,1991,171–189.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia 19
Porada 1948
E. Porada, Corpus of Ancient Near Eastern seals in North
American Collections. The collection of the Pierpont
Morgan Library. The Bollingen Series 14 (Washington,
D.C. 1948).
Possehl 1996
G. L. Possehl, Meluhha. In: J. Reade (ed.), The Indian
Ocean in Antiquity (London 1996)133–208.
Possehl 2002a
G. L. Possehl, The Indus Civilization. A contemporary
perspective (Walnut Creek 2002).
Possehl 2002b
G. L. Possehl, Indus-Mesopotamian trade: the record in
the Indus. Iranica Antiqua 37,2002,325–342.
Pottier 1984
M.-H. Pottier, Mate
´riel fune
´raire de la Bactriane me
´ridio-
nale de l’A
ˆge du Bronze. Recherche sur les Civilisations,
Me
´moire 36 (Paris 1984).
Potts 1993
D. Potts, A new Bactrian find from Southeastern Arabia.
Antiquity 67,1993,591–596.
Potts 1994
T. F. Potts, Mesopotamia and the East. An archaeologi-
cal and historical study of foreign relations ca. 3400–
2000 BC (Cambridge 1994).
Potts 1999
D. Potts, The Archaeology of Elam (Cambridge 1999).
Potts 2003
D. Potts, Tepe Yahya, Tell Abraq and the chronology of
the Bampur sequence. Iranica Antiqua 38,2003,1–24.
Potts 2008
D. Potts, Puzur-Ins
˘us
˘inak and the Oxus Civilization
(BMAC): Reflections on S
˘imas
˘ki and the geo-political
landscape of Iran and Central Asia in the Ur III period.
Zeitschrift fu
¨r Assyriologie 98,165–194.
Pruzsinszky 2006
R. Pruzsinszky, Ein bibliographischer Wegweiser zur ab-
soluten mesopotamischen Chronologie des 2. Jts. v. Chr.
A
¨gypten und Levante 15,2006,181–201.
Pruzsinszky 2009
R. Pruzsinszky, Mesopotamian Chronology of the 2nd
Mill. BC. An Introduction to the Textual Evidence and
Related Chronological Issues. Contributions to the Chron-
ology of the Eastern Mediterranean 22. Denkschriften
der O
¨sterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 55
(Wien 2009).
Ratnagar 2004
S. Ratnagar, Trading encounters. From the Euphrates to
the Indus in the Bronze Age (Delhi 2004).
Reade 1979
J. Reade, Early etched beads and the Indus-Mesopota-
mian trade (London 1979).
Reade 2001
J. Reade, Assyrian king-lists, the Royal tombs of Ur, and
Indus origins. Journal of Near-Eastern Studies 60,2001,
1–30.
Ro
¨llig 1983
W. Ro
¨llig, Lapislazuli. A. Philologisch. Reallexikon der
Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archa
¨ologie 6,1980–
1983,488–489.
Rossi-Osmida 2002
G. Rossi-Osmida, Considerations on the necropolis at
Gonur Depe. In: G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Margiana. Gonur-
depe necropolis. 10 years of excavations by Ligabue
Study and Research Centre (Padova 2002)68–119.
Salvatori 2008a
S. Salvatori, The Margiana settlement pattern from the
Middle Bronze Age to the Parthian-Sasanian: a contribu-
tion to the study of complexity. In: S. Salvatori/M. Tosi
(ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margi-
ana Lowlands (Oxford 2008)57–74.
Salvatori 2008b
S. Salvatori, Cultural variability in the Bronze Age Oxus
Civilization and its relations with the surrounding re-
gions of Central Asia and Iran. In: S. Salvatori/M. Tosi
(ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age in the Margi-
ana Lowlands (Oxford 2008)75–98.
Salvatori 2008c
S. Salvatori, A new cylinder seal from ancient Margiana:
cultural exchange and syncretism in a ‘world wide trade
system’ at the end of the 3rd millennium BC. In: S. Sal-
vatori/M. Tosi (ed.), The Bronze Age and Early Iron Age
in the Margiana Lowlands (Oxford 2008)111–118.
Sarianidi 1979
V. I. Sarianidi, New finds in Bactria and Indo-Iranian
connections. In: M. Taddei (ed.) South Asian Archaeol-
ogy 1977 (Naples 1979)643–659.
Sarianidi 1986
V. I. Sarianidi, Die Kunst des alten Afghanistan (Leipzig
1986).
Sarianidi 1994
V. I. Sarianidi, Margiana and the Indo-Iranian world. In
A. Parpola/P. Koskikallio (ed.), South Asian Archaeology
1993 (Helsinki 1994)667–680.
Sarianidi 1998a
V. I. Sarianidi, Myths of Ancient Bactria and Margiana
on its seals and amulets (Moscow 1998).
Sarianidi 1998b
V. I. Sarianidi, Margiana and protozoroastrism (Athens
1998).
Sarianidi 1999
V. I. Sarianidi, Near Eastern Aryans in Central Asia. Jour-
nal of Indo-European Studies 27,1999,295–326.
Sarianidi 2002
W. Sarianidi, Margus¸. Murgap dery
´asynyn
´ay
´agyndaky
gadymy gu
¨ndogar s¸alygy/´.ŁŁŁ,ªł.˜-
æŒ æ æØ º ŒŁ ªÆ/
V. I. Sarianidi, Margush. Ancient Oriental Kingdom in
the Old Delta of the Murghab river (As¸gabat 2002).
Sarianidi 2004
V. I. Sarianidi, Temple of water in Gonur-Depe and new
samples of arts in the country of Margush. Miras 3,
2004,130–143.
Sarianidi 2005
V. I. Sarianidi, Gon
˘urdepe. City of Kings and Gods/
ˆ-˜.ˆ Ø Ł ƪ/Gon
˘urdepe. S¸alaryn
˘
we huday
´laryn
˘s¸a
¨heri (As¸gabat 2005).
Sarianidi 2007
V. I. Sarianidi, Necropolis of Gonur (Athens 2007).
Sarianidi 2009
W. Sarianidi, Margus¸. Tu
¨rkmenistan. Beyı
´k medeniy
´etin
˘
syrlar du
¨ny
´a
¨si we onun
˘hakyky kes¸bi/ Ø Ł
ºŁŒØ Œºß/Mystery and true of the great culture
(As¸gabat 2009).
Schmidt 1937
E. F. Schmidt, Excavations at Tepe Hissar Damghan.
Kai Kaniuth20
Publications of the Iranian section of the University Mu-
seum (Philadelphia 1937).
Shinde et al. 2005
M. Shinde/G. Possehl/M. Ameri, Excavations at Gilund
2001–2003: The seal impressions and other finds. In:
U. Franke-Vogt/H.-G. Weisshaar (ed.), South Asian Ar-
chaeology 2003. Forschungen zur Archa
¨ologie Außer-
europa
¨ischer Kulturen 1(Aachen 2005)159–169.
Shishlina/Hiebert 1998
N. I. Shishlina/F. Hiebert, The steppe and the sown: In-
teraction between Bronze Age Eurasian nomads and
agriculturalists. In: V. Mair (ed.), The Bronze Age and
Early Iron Age peoples of Eastern Central Asia. Journal
of Indo-European Studies, Monograph series 26 (Wa-
shington 1998)222–237.
Steible/Yildiz 2000
H. Steible/F. Yildiz, Lapislazuli-Zuteilungen an die ‘Pro-
minenz’ von S
˘uruppak. In: S. Graziani (ed.), Studi sul
vicino oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di L. Cagni
(Rome 2000)985–1031.
Steinkeller 2006
P. Steinkeller, New light on Marhas
˘i and its contacts
with Makkan and Babylonia. Journal of Magan Studies 1,
2006,1–17.
Steinkeller 2007
P. Steinkeller, New light on S
˘imas
˘ki and its rulers. Zeit-
schrift fu
¨r Assyriologie 97,2007,215–232.
Steinkeller in print
P. Steinkeller, On the dynasty of S
˘imas
˘ki: Twenty years
(or so) after. To appear in: C. Woods et al. (ed.), Fest-
schrift for Matthew Stolper (Chicago).
Tallon 1987
F. Tallon Me
´tallurgie susienne I: De la fondation de
Suse au XVIIIe sie
`cle avant J.-C. Notes et documents
des Muse
´es de France 15 (Paris 1987).
Tosi 1987
M. Tosi, Die Indus-Zivilisation jenseits des indischen
Subkontinents. In: M. Jansen/G. Urban (ed.), Vergessene
Sta
¨dte am Indus. Fru
¨he Kulturen in Pakistan vom 8. bis
2. Jahrtausend v. Chr. (Mainz 1987)119 –136.
Vallat 1996
F. Vallat, L’E
´lam a
`l’e
´poque Pale
´o-Babylonienne et ses
relations avec Me
´sopotamie. In: J.-M. Durand (ed.),
Amurru 1. Mari, E
´bla et les Hourrites. Dix ans de tra-
vaux. Premie
`re Partie. Actes du Colloque International,
Paris, mai 1993 (Paris 1996)297–319.
Vats 1940
M. S. Vats, Excavations at Harappa: being an account of
archaeological excavations at Harappa carried out be-
tween the years 1920–1921 and 1933 –34 (Delhi 1940).
Veenhof 2003
K. R. Veenhof, The Old Assyrian list of year eponyms
from Karum Kanish and its chronological implications
(Ankara 2003).
Vidale 2000
M. Vidale, The archaeology of Indus crafts. Indus crafts-
people and why we study them. IsIAO Reports and
Memoirs. Series Minor 4(Rome 2000).
Vidale 2007
M. Vidale, Il ruolo dei bracciali nella civilta
`della Valle
dell’Indo. In: G. Ligabue/G. Rossi-Osmida (ed.), Sulla via
delle oasi. Tesori dell’Oriente Antico (Turin 2007)242–
249.
Vogt 1996
B. Vogt, Bronze Age Maritime Trade in the Indian Ocean:
Harappan traits on the Oman Peninsula. In: J. Reade (ed.),
The Indian Ocean in Antiquity (London 1996)107–132.
Watelin 1934
L.-C. Watelin, Excavations at Kish. The Herbert Weld and
Field Museum of Natural History expedition to Mesopo-
tamia 4:1925–1930 (Paris 1934).
Weeks 2004
L. Weeks, Early metallurgy of the Persian Gulf. Technol-
ogy, trade, and the Bronze Age world (Boston 2004).
Winkelmann 1994
S. Winkelmann, Intercultural relations between Iran,
Central Asia and Northwestern India in the light of
squatting stone sculptures from Mohenjo-Daro. In: A. Par-
pola/P. Koskikallio (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1993
(Helsinki 1994)815–832.
Woolley 1934
L. Woolley, Ur Excavations vol. II. The Royal Cemetery
(London 1934).
Yule 1985
P. Yule, Figuren, Schmuckformen und Ta
¨felchen der Har-
appa-Kultur. Pra
¨historische Bronzefunde I/6(Mu
¨nchen
1985).
Zettler/Horne 1998
R. Zettler/L. Horne, Treasures from the Royal Tombs of
Ur (Philadelphia 1998).
ˆ'ºŁ 1967
..ˆ'ºŁ,—挌Ł 1959-1961 ªª. ºß-
.æŒ' ıºªŁ' 1967,„4,207–219.
ˆŁª et al. 1992
´..ˆŁª/ˆ.`.˙Ł/´.´.ˆŁª,Łł.
ıºªŁæŒŁ 'ŁŒŁ ŁØæŒŁı º º-
˚ıææŒŁı æØ ("º'ÆŁæŒ 1992).
˚Ł 1990
¸.`.˚Ł,˜ØłŁ Ł Ł Łı ŁæŒŁ Ł º-
ß-˜.æŒ' ıºªŁ' 1990,„3,176–183.
˚Ł/ˇ 1999.
¸.`.˚Ł/.ˆ.ˇ,˚ æ Łªº-
Ø ıºªŁŁ ØłŁı ŁŁºŁŁØ Ø
ŁŁ. Stratum plus 1999,„2,350–361.
˚Ł/ˇ 2005
¸.`.˚Ł/.ˆ.ˇ,˚ æ ŁªºØ
ıºªŁŁ ıºªŁæŒŁı 'ŁŒ Ø
ŁŁ V–II ßæ. .. In: ´..ææ/#.¯.`‚-
ŒŁ (ed.), $ºªŁ' ıŁ ª ºŁ –
æØ Æß Ø ŁŁ (ªÆŁ' ºß-
). —ææŁØæŒ' ŒŁ' ˝Œ,¨æŁ ¨æŁŁ
ŁºØ ˚ºß, ß 16 (Œ-ˇÆª
2005)528–539.
˚Ł 1994
¯.¯.˚Ł,˛Œ ŁłºŁ ŁŁŁ?-
Łº' Œº º æŒØ ÆøæŁ Ł
ŁæıŁ ŁŁ (æŒ 1994).
ºł 1968
..ºł,ˇ'ŁŒŁ ıŁ Æß #-
ŁŒŁæ.Łºß Ł ŁææºŁ'
ıºªŁŁ — 145 (¸Łª 1968).
æŁ 1981
¨..æŁ,˝ß ıŒŁ Ø ıŁ Æß
æ ŁŁØ ªÆ.æŒ' ıºªŁ' 1981,„2,
132–150.
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of Southern Central Asia 21
ææ 1981
´..ææ,ºß-˜. ß #- ŒŁæ-
æŒØ ıºªŁæŒØ ˚ºŒæØ &ŒæŁŁŁ
18 (¸Łª 1981).
ææ/`‚ŒŁ 2005
´..ææ/#.¯.`‚ŒŁ (ed.), $ºªŁ' ıŁ
ª ºŁ –æØ Æß Ø ŁŁ
(ªÆŁ' ºß-). —ææŁØæŒ' ŒŁ' ˝Œ,
¨æŁ ¨æŁŁ ŁºØ ˚ºß, ß 16
(Œ-ˇÆª 2005).
ŁŁŁ 1977
´.¨.ŁŁŁ,˜Ł ººß (ªŁæ.
Łºß æŒ-(ªæŒØ ŒæŁŁŁ 1969–
1974 ªª.(æŒ 1977).
ŁŁŁ 1990
´.¨.ŁŁŁ,ºæŒŁØ ı ªºŒ-1-
ªŁ.´æŁŒ ˜Ø ¨æŁŁ 1990,„2,161–
167.
ŁŁŁ 2001
´.ŁŁŁ,˝Œº ˆ Ł ŁæŒ 'ß-
æ (æŒ 2001).
غº et al. 2002
.غº/˜.$((/˚.—ıŁ,˘Œy
˘-2001.
ıºªŁæŒŁ Łæ溪Ł' ÆŒŁæ 2001
ª,ß.2,187–192.
Π1970
.*.Œ,˛ ªßı 'ı ıŁ Æß
Łº ŒŁæ-$æŒŁı ºººØ.
˚ŒŁ ÆøŁ' ˛ ª ˚æª
˙Ł ¨æŁ ıºªŁŁ 122,1970,59–63.
Kai Kaniuth
Institut fu
¨r Vorderasiatische Archa
¨ologie
Geschwister Scholl-Platz 1
80539 Munich
Germany
Tel. +49-89-2180 5496
E-mail: kaniuth@vaa.fak12.uni-muenchen.de
Long distance imports in the Bronze Age of
Southern Central Asia
The contribution reviews the external relations of Southern
Central Asia in the Middle- and Late Bronze Age (late third
and early second Millennium BC) through its contact finds
with the Mesopotamian and Indus Civilizations. It is con-
cluded, that interaction between these regions took the
form of a continuous, elite-oriented exchange of exotic ob-
jects, concepts and technologies.
˜ºŁØ Ł ª Ø ŁŁ
ı Æß
' æ'ø łŁ æ'' ª Ø ŁŁ
ı æØ Ł Ø Æß (Œ III –º II
ßæ. ..) Ł ıŒ æ挪 Ł ı-
挪 ŁæıŁ'. ŁıŁ Œ Œº-
Ł, ŁØæŁ ŒßŁ ªŁŁ
Æߺ æ'ß,ŁŁß ºŁ Æøæ
Æ ŒŁæŒŁŁ Ł,ŒŁ'Ł Ł
ıºªŁ'Ł.
Kai Kaniuth22
